Is there any host sequencer on Windows that can effectively use 32 cores/64 logical cores?

[Amelia70]

when all i asked was whether there was a windows DAW that was programmed to actually use 64 threads. It's either yes or no.

Yes. Reaper. 128 cores. From Reaper 6.0 changelog:

Multiprocessing: auto-detect up to 128 threads
Multiprocessing: increase anticipative FX hard limit to 128 threads, live FX hard limit to 64 threads


Other DAWs - I don't know, but Cubase obviously not as you've already found out. Live was never a particularly CPU efficient DAW. S1 is still not as good as Reaper overall, and I'm not sure Presonus ever divulged up to how many cores they support...

Yes, but the very first post said, "other than reaper". so doesn't mentioning reaper repeatedly feel kind of redundant since I will never use it as I don't like it? I feel it would take me more time to learn it than it would take to learn Cubase, Ableton, Bitwig, Mixcraft, Studio One, DP10 and Tracktion Waveform combined. And no skin can change those ugly, text filled menus. Hmm.. I just thought of something.. I'll check out that free one when my friend's mac pro arrives.. darn it, I always forget the name.. It used to be expensive but the company closed down and some new outfit is offering it for free.... It'll come to me. I would have loved if she ordered the 28 core LOL, but she is happy with the 24 core for video editing and decided to get the Vega II video card instead as well as something called an afterburner.. She has agreed to give me a day in there with windows, so I guess I'll get my answers. If i find something that works great with the 24 cores (that isn't Reaper), I'll feel comfortable with either the 24 core AMD or 32. I'll also investigate the 18 core Intel incase thunderbolt becomes one of our priorities. I'll even investigate buying one 24 or 28 core Xeon CPU and building a workstation based around that. It will be more money, but the comment about thunderbolt and low latency has got me thinking that Intel might be in the running after all.

[EvilDragon]

I feel it would take me more time to learn it than it would take to learn Cubase, Ableton, Bitwig, Mixcraft, Studio One, DP10 and Tracktion Waveform combined.

Nope, it wouldn't, I'm very sure. Once you grasp a few important concepts about it it falls into place quite easily. It's a linear DAW like any other at core. But I understand you - most of us have baggage from previous DAWs we used, so naturally you expect everything you had in your old DAW in whatever new you're trying (myself I came to Reaper from FL Studio and Sonar 7). It's mostly a pipe dream and you can never get 100% there, and you have to adapt in some way.

And no skin can change those ugly, text filled menus.

You can tweak the menus yourself, actually (and yes, I acknowledge you don't want to do it - most people wouldn't - but I'm just responding to the comment that nothing can change those ugly menus - which isn't true ). There's also a project to completely revamp Reaper's menus with something that is a lot more compact and compartmentalized, it's called ReaMenus. I've kept it fairly up to date for my own usage. It's much better than default menus!

This just goes to say that in Reaper, you decide the workflow, for the most part. That's why all the options are there.

Hmm.. I just thought of something.. I'll check out that free one when my friend's mac pro arrives.. darn it, I always forget the name..[/uqo It used to be expensive but the company closed down and some new outfit is offering it for free.... It'll come to me.

That's Cakewalk by Bandlab (used to be called Cakewalk Sonar). Was never particulary CPU efficient for me in the past...


In any case, good luck. You'll be hard-pressed to find a DAW that is more CPU efficient than Reaper, but maybe you'll find the next best compromise.

[Jim Roseberry]

I'll even investigate buying one 24 or 28 core Xeon CPU and building a workstation based around that. It will be more money, but the comment about thunderbolt and low latency has got me thinking that Intel might be in the running after all.

FWIW, I figured I'd chime in on this subject... as I've been building DAWs professionally for well over 25 years.

No matter what you choose, what you don't want to do is choose more cores at the expense of significant clock-speed.

The perfect scenario is to have highest clock-speed... and the most cores you can get.

If that Xeon has significantly slower clock-speed, it'll be a significant performance hit compared to a "standard" i9 CPU.

[Jim Roseberry]

In any case, good luck. You'll be hard-pressed to find a DAW that is more CPU efficient than Reaper, but maybe you'll find the next best compromise.

By default, it's not "pretty"... and it's configurable almost to a fault... but (under Windows) there's no DAW application that's as CPU efficient as Reaper.

ProTools and Studio One are a notch below (CPU efficiency wise).
A notch below those is CbB, Live, and DP10 (unless this has changed with 10.1).

Almost all of our professional composer clients are using Cubase.
Most are using VE Pro to host virtual-instruments.
Many of are using the Antelope Orion (via Thunderbolt).

If you're doing video rendering (heavily multi-threaded - where ultra low latency isn't an issue), that's where Ryzen shines.

I have no idea how Amelia prefers to work (sample-rate, audio interface, buffer size, etc), but the smaller the ASIO buffer size (lower the latency), the more critical it is to have high clock-speed.
Again, in a perfect scenario, high clock-speed AND many cores.

[EvilDragon]

She said she works at 48k, 64 spls buffer.

[jonljacobi]

It’s not common, but there is at least one Ryzen motherboard with Thunderbolt 3. It’s no longer proprietary. I have no idea whether that’s a trend.

[tooneba]

PS I found some of those DAW bench scores, and even the 3950X is annihilating the 9900K

Actually that was 3900X that Scan Pro Audio tested, so that's 12 cores, not 16. 3950X DAW benchmarks are still not available.

And I don't see it annihilating 9900K in DAWbench VI test, where 3900X pulls 100 voices less than 9900K at 64 samples buffer. At the same buffer, 3900X only has 3 plugin instances more than 9900K. So 3900X is not really annihilating 9900K, in fact

Am I seeing different chart?? I can see 3900X pulls 20 more voices than 9900K and 26 instances of plugins than 9900K at both 64 samples buffer.

[Freaqpeak]

Getting my new 3950x this week (its in the mail). Personally I only care about DSP not Kontakt/sample playback polyphony. Ryzen 3 excels WAY ahead of Intel in the area of DSP, right? Just look at the 9900 vs 3900x results over at Scan Pro Audios benchmarks.

Either way, I will do the same tests as Scan does and try to publish results since no one has published any DAW 3950x results yet. Im using Cubase (and Bitwig). I can try Reaper as well if the demo allows it.

[Freaqpeak]

If/when AMD can get clock-speed up around 5GHz (across all cores), that's when "Ryzen" becomes a whole lot more exciting.

Another thing to keep in mind about going AMD; there's effectively no Thunderbolt-3.
A lot of our professional composer clients (TV and Film) are moving to the Antelope Orion (via Thunderbolt-3).
Lack of Thunderbolt may not be a show-stopper, but it's taking a significant number of (low-latency) options off the table.

There are several AMD boards with Thunderbolt3.
Actually all x570 motherboards from Asrock have Thunderbolt 3. Even at the sub 200 dollar range.

[EvilDragon]

I can try Reaper as well if the demo allows it.

It does, it's the most permissive demo out there.

[Jim Roseberry]

It’s not common, but there is at least one Ryzen motherboard with Thunderbolt 3. It’s no longer proprietary. I have no idea whether that’s a trend.

Limited edition run... at $1000+ USD for the motherboard (ASRock X570 Aqua).
No distributors we deal with have an AMD motherboard with Thunderbolt-3.
Look at all the large vendors. None have an AMD motherboard with Thunderbolt-3 (actually in stock).
Not even on the $850 Gigabyte TRX40 AORUS XTR

**********************************************************************
Have to correct myself. NewEgg has the ASRock X570 Aqua ($1000) and the X570 Creator ($500) and both are in stock.

[EvilDragon]

Nor with TB2?

[Jim Roseberry]

There are several AMD boards with Thunderbolt3.
Actually all x570 motherboards from Asrock have Thunderbolt 3. Even at the sub 200 dollar range.

The low end ASRock X570 motherboards don't have a Thunderbolt-3 controller, they have a Thunderbolt-3 header (for their Thunderbolt-3 add-in-controller).

I don't know if you've tried to find their Thunderbolt-3 AIC Card... but it's rarely in stock.
On the Intel side, the Asus Thunderbolt EX3 (AIC) works with ASRock motherboards.

ASRock X570 AQUA has Thunderbolt-3 (as I mentioned earlier).
Limited edition board and costs $1000

ASRock X570 CREATOR has Thunderbolt-3... and it's somewhat reasonable at $500.


I've got a 3970x and will pickup an ASRock X570 motherboard today.
I'll do a build with Thunderbolt-3 and will provide figures.

[Jim Roseberry]

Nor with TB2?

Thunderbolt-2 controllers (under Windows)... are all but useless.
Microsoft never added "PCIe via Thunderbolt" support for them.

If an audio interface is connected to a Windows machine via Thunderbolt-2, it's running Firewire protocol... which (obviously) is no real advantage.

[antic604]

...are all but useless.

Did you mean they're useless or useful? The whole post suggests they're useless, but this phrase - logically speaking - sounds like it means they're actually useful (all things other than "useless"). Sorry to ask but I'm not native speaker and just trying to learn the language better