Diva on Ryzen

[diaper@ky]

There's others out there that collaborate those findings too.
Jim Rosenberry, using DAWBench tests IIRC.

If you use a host like Bidule and route in hardware, or DSP FX like UAD and Scope those tests aren't much of a consideration.
Single Core performance with generic Native FX disabled is preferable for my needs.
I see Ryzen as a 6/8 Core i7 4790k.
Not better not worse, just more Cores.

That translates to CAT, Diva and Zebra2 HZ.
Then sampling/streaming apps using multicore since they won't use Native FX either.

Embrace the future, it looks good for Ryzen, unless HEDT CPUs drop about 70% to be competitive...

[david.beholder]

Can you get real world examples?

Be careful you're surrounded by intel lovers and theorists.
Some people simple can't be unbiased even against data.

[diaper@ky]

Cant blame them.
AMDs were kicking my ass for cheaper back in the Gigastudio days.
Then came the i7 X58 Bloomdales....life was worth living once again.
But they have laid down on us since the i7 3770k.
Or they're holding out.

I need more Cores.
May the best man win.

Also worth considering.
Dell, HP and several DAW builders have lots of i7s laying around.
They'll love i7s until they have lots of Ryzens laying around....

[david.beholder]

I'm 6-core i7 owner and totally for biying best bang for the buck, but there are too much propaganda and counter propaganda going on.

Interesting to see real world tests on say Ableton/Diva on competitive i7 and Ryzen with 128, 64, 32 samples latency from somebody trustworthy (like Urs) with no visible affiliation with any company and without blogger-level of money greed.

[EvilDragon]

Are you saying Scan are untrustworthy? They only make DAW computers for living, of course the most important thing to them is squeezing every ounce of performance for low latency audio out of every config they make.

[diaper@ky]

Meanwhile back at the Ranch.....

Seems a Ryzen 5 Quad Core CPU will get the 16MBs of cache that the Top End 8 Core uses.
That is a very interesting CPU.

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2017/03 ... -from-169/

[david.beholder]

Are you saying Scan are untrustworthy? They only make DAW computers for living, of course the most important thing to them is squeezing every ounce of performance for low latency audio out of every config they make.

I don't know them and I want table and clear values of what is going on on setup that makes sense for me rather than what they've provided.

[cerealbox760]

Diva needs a benchmark standard so that we can geek-out and make better purchasing decisions. Wouldn't that be great?

I upgraded from an i5 2500k to an i7 7700k for Diva and wow. Worth every penny. Now im curious how a 6900k stacks against Ryzen and an i7 7700k because im in the mood to upgrade again.

How does the i5 2500k compare to an i7 7700k when using Diva, you ask?

Ok. Here is what I used:

-Ableton 9.7 64 bit.
-Scarlett 2i2. Asio driver. Buffer @ 128
-8 bar loop with 1/16 notes spread across 8 bars at pitch-C3.
-Clean DAW with no other plugins running
-Default Diva init. preset
-Default Diva init. preset with cascade filter
-No multi-core enabled on Diva
-Filter set to Great Mode.
-i5 2500k @4.2GHZ _16gb DDR3 _ 256gb SSD
-i7 7700k @4.2GHZ _16gb DDR4 _ 256gb SSD

i5 2500k @4.2 GHZ overclocked :
Diva Instances: 9 separate Diva plugins using default init. preset
Ableton CPU meter: 99% before it cracks.

i7 7700k @4.2 GHZ. Turbo boost off. No overclocking.
Diva Instances: 16 separate Diva plugins using default init. preset with ladder filter
Diva Instances: 24 separate Diva plugins using default init. preset with cascade filter
Diva Instances: 24 separate Diva plugins using default init. preset with bite filter
Ableton CPU meter: 79%-80% before it cracks.


Its not the best test and I cannot do further tests with an i5 because I got rid of it. However I figured its better than nothing. Upgrading from an i5 to an i7 is worth it imo. Its hard to say if its worth upgrading to Ryzen or a 6900k,

[david.beholder]

Diva needs a benchmark standard so that we can geek-out and make better purchasing decisions. Wouldn't that be great?

Good thing to ask Urs about.

And thanks for stats.

[diaper@ky]

Confirms my suspicions about pre fetch, cache coherency versus speed.
I've seen little gains from i7 3700/4700/6700k.
But i7 2600 to 3700 was a considerable jump.
Difference was cache size and chipset logic.

Ryzen will be a great CPU just because it's initial release was fantastic.
It's really nice having options too.

The sweet spot for home studio guys is a Ryzen 5 Quad.
It's a cheap steal and the only Quad Core CPU anywhere with 16MBs of cache.
Cache is really important and this CPU could be overclocked on air up to 4GHz.
Add that giant cache and pre fetch and this looks like a fantastic synth CPU.

[EvilDragon]

Cache is not really THAT important in DSP as you picture it to be, where you really need the CPU muscle like 90% of the time. SSE and AVX matters more.

[MFXxx]

Cache is not really THAT important in DSP as you picture it to be, where you really need the CPU muscle like 90% of the time. SSE and AVX matters more.

Would you say that a 7700k would still be better than a Ryzen 1800x for DAW work with using alot of itb plugins and synths?
The Ryzens have a good price point but my concern is performance on multicore in Cubase when using multiple plugins. I perceive the 7700k to be more proficient in handling this load than the Ryzen. Is that correct?

[EvilDragon]

For sure, and it's also quite a bit faster in pure GHz - single core performance is still king for most stuff.

[D-Fusion]

Confirms my suspicions about pre fetch, cache coherency versus speed.
I've seen little gains from i7 3700/4700/6700k.
But i7 2600 to 3700 was a considerable jump.
Difference was cache size and chipset logic.

Ryzen will be a great CPU just because it's initial release was fantastic.
It's really nice having options too.

The sweet spot for home studio guys is a Ryzen 5 Quad.
It's a cheap steal and the only Quad Core CPU anywhere with 16MBs of cache.
Cache is really important and this CPU could be overclocked on air up to 4GHz.
Add that giant cache and pre fetch and this looks like a fantastic synth CPU.

Weird.
I noticed a big jump in performance from my I7 3770 to I7 6700.
Now i run everything at 128smpl Asio and with the I7 3770 i could use minimum 512smpl to get a stable playback.

My vst's also uses less cpu than the I7 3770 did with 512smpl Asio.

[diaper@ky]

Well I use a DSP Powered audio interface so my latency has been 64 samples/@96k/1.2 msec. Duplexed since E8600 Wolfdale CPUs.
I also use a lean host instead of a DAW.
Recently used Giga Performer and must say that sure added some extra headroom making my project use less CPU according to Task Manager, so there's lots of variables.

All of my various DAWs are great, no complaints.
Once you hit 4GHz there's just no real world differences I can tell.
But I also have an i7 5775C CPU than runs stock @ 3.3ghz and shows identical performance to my i7 CPUs.
The difference there is I disable on die GFX, which gives the 128mb L4 cache to audio chores.
You need a fast CPU no doubt about it.
But why do Xeons which are from the same wafer i7s come from perform as well as CPUs 800mhz faster? Only difference is cache and chipsets.

Better optimization always helps, but raw speed with a large cache have always shown me great results.

I bet that cheap 3.2ghz Quad Core Ryzen 5 CPU with 16MBs cache kicks booty.
Prolly have to OC it to 3.6 but that's a few watts and a point or so of extra voltage.

Zen Master says we'll see.