AMD Ryzen 3rd gen. ZEN 2 processors for audio PC

[Pictus]

Which of these do you have?


You know, if I did things that caused a constant max load on my CPU, I would disable the turbo boost thingy completely because that is not what it is meant for. It is meant for sporadic load peaks, not constant max plateaus. If a CPU runs constantly at the non-boosted speed on all cores, the stock cooler is enough.

The CPU lower the speed to economize power and generate less heat.
IF the cooler is good enough, the CPU can keep the higher speed without
any problem, you should ask AMD support...

All Ryzen 3600 have the same cooler and it is inferior to the 3600X.
https://www.techspot.com/article/1880-r ... x-vs-3600/

[Pictus]

For new 3900x builds is it recommended to lock all cores to the same frequency for smooth ASIO and consistent performance or is it better to let it float and manage the frequency boosting on its own? The one I built for my pal I set up as all cores locked. I am wondering if you get better single threaded speeds which could be helpful in some scenarios as long as asio doesn't glitch as the load changes. Any thoughts?

For audio workflow it is usually better to have all cores locked to the same speed.
With all cores locked, it is easier to test the voltage to discover what is the
minimum voltage required, newer revision CPUs are better binned and you may have a surprise.

[e-crooner]

The X versions always seem to get better stock coolers.
I have a first-generation 1500X, it came with the LED Spire cooler.

The first time I turned my new computer on, it was louder because the cooler was set to max speed in the BIOS

[Scotty]

For new 3900x builds is it recommended to lock all cores to the same frequency for smooth ASIO and consistent performance or is it better to let it float and manage the frequency boosting on its own? The one I built for my pal I set up as all cores locked. I am wondering if you get better single threaded speeds which could be helpful in some scenarios as long as asio doesn't glitch as the load changes. Any thoughts?

For audio workflow it is usually better to have all cores locked to the same speed.
With all cores locked, it is easier to test the voltage to discover what is the
minimum voltage required, newer revision CPUs are better binned and you may have a surprise.

Ok this is how I set up my pal's 3950x. Thanks Pictus... I follow your comments closely here and on GearSlutz. Much appreciated.

[Passing Bye]

Thanks Pictus for everything!

[VitaminD]

Which of these do you have?


You know, if I did things that caused a constant max load on my CPU, I would disable the turbo boost thingy completely because that is not what it is meant for. It is meant for sporadic load peaks, not constant max plateaus. If a CPU runs constantly at the non-boosted speed on all cores, the stock cooler is enough.

The CPU lower the speed to economize power and generate less heat.
IF the cooler is good enough, the CPU can keep the higher speed without
any problem, you should ask AMD support...

All Ryzen 3600 have the same cooler and it is inferior to the 3600X.
https://www.techspot.com/article/1880-r ... x-vs-3600/

3600 non-X is a 65W TDP processor while the 3600 X is 95W TDP. That's explains the difference in the heatsink.

The stock non-X cooler is fine for it's intended application as the CPU bundled with it generates less heat. If you're having issue with the non-X 3600 fan ramping up constantly, check your AGESA firmware version or your case cooling to ensure both are properly sorted.

[Pictus]

The stock non-X cooler is fine for it's intended application as the CPU bundled with it generates less heat.

Looks like you did not read my previous posts...

viewtopic.php?p=7816081#p7816081

viewtopic.php?p=7816185#p7816185

The stock cooler is not silent as a BIG cooler can be and it is not as
efficient as a BIG cooler can be.

[e-crooner]

4.2 is the maximum boost clock of that processor, it is not supposed to run at that speed for an hour or whatever. If you know you will run your CPU at the limit for hours, it makes sense to disable the boost clock altogether. If the performance is not enough in that case, you might need a better processor to begin with.

AMD Wraith coolers are actually designed and made by a big company, Cooler Master if I remember correctly.

[VitaminD]

The stock non-X cooler is fine for it's intended application as the CPU bundled with it generates less heat.

Looks like you did not read my previous posts...

viewtopic.php?p=7816081#p7816081

viewtopic.php?p=7816185#p7816185

The stock cooler is not silent as a BIG cooler can be and it is not as
efficient as a BIG cooler can be.

I don't have to read your previous posts because your premise is founded on an incorrect understanding.

But I went ahead anyway. What you failed in include is the paragraph above your posted graphic from the article that states, "With the Wraith Stealth installed the R5 3600 maintained a 4 GHz clock speed out of the box during our 1 hour long Blender stress test. This is an extreme stress test, so having it peaking at just 80 degrees is pretty good, especially given it was virtually silent."

AMD have engineers that know what they're doing. They offered a cooling system out of the box that functions for the overwhelming majority of end users, including all DAW applications. Because the CPU isn't at max clock rate for hours on end in a DAW environment.

[Pictus]

4.2 is the maximum boost clock of that processor, it is not supposed to run at that speed for an hour or whatever.

The CPU is made to operate in a range of values including voltage/current, temperature and clock.
As long the ranges are respected all is fine, the BOOST CLOCK is mainly limited by the temperature that is why in the test below by using a better cooler the CPU can stay at higher clock.
https://www.techspot.com/review/1871-amd-ryzen-3600/


If you are worried about stability or CPU degradation, the heat is the number one enemy!
Over voltage is too, that is why is a good idea to check with something like HWiNFO64, because sometimes the BIOS AUTO may be putting too much...

[Pictus]

I don't have to read your previous posts because your premise is founded on an incorrect understanding.

But I went ahead anyway. What you failed in include is the paragraph above your posted graphic from the article that states, "With the Wraith Stealth installed the R5 3600 maintained a 4 GHz clock speed out of the box during our 1 hour long Blender stress test. This is an extreme stress test, so having it peaking at just 80 degrees is pretty good, especially given it was virtually silent."

AMD have engineers that know what they're doing. They offered a cooling system out of the box that functions for the overwhelming majority of end users, including all DAW applications. Because the CPU isn't at max clock rate for hours on end in a DAW environment.

The AMD engineers know what they are doing, but sadly who has the final
word may change things...
Also, the stock cooler is designated into an "ideal" condition that may not
be always be met in the "wild", into a hot climate you do not need 1 hour
blender...

What I also wrote...
"By adding a decent cooler is a guarantee that the CPU will achieve and *stay*
at maximum speeds, not only that as a big cooler can also be a LOT more silent..."

BTW, the new RYZEN 3600 XT, 3800 XT and 3900 XT does not comes with the "FREE" cooler.

If you do more research, will discover that 80ºC is not that good...
I do not want my Ryzen 3600 with temperatures above 75ºC.

[VitaminD]

I don't have to read your previous posts because your premise is founded on an incorrect understanding.

But I went ahead anyway. What you failed in include is the paragraph above your posted graphic from the article that states, "With the Wraith Stealth installed the R5 3600 maintained a 4 GHz clock speed out of the box during our 1 hour long Blender stress test. This is an extreme stress test, so having it peaking at just 80 degrees is pretty good, especially given it was virtually silent."

AMD have engineers that know what they're doing. They offered a cooling system out of the box that functions for the overwhelming majority of end users, including all DAW applications. Because the CPU isn't at max clock rate for hours on end in a DAW environment.

The AMD engineers know what they are doing, but sadly who has the final
word may change things...
Also, the stock cooler is designated into an "ideal" condition that may not
be always be met in the "wild", into a hot climate you do not need 1 hour
blender...

What I also wrote...
"By adding a decent cooler is a guarantee that the CPU will achieve and *stay*
at maximum speeds, not only that as a big cooler can also be a LOT more silent..."

BTW, the new RYZEN 3600 XT, 3800 XT and 3900 XT does not comes with the "FREE" cooler.

If you do more research, will discover that 80ºC is not that good...
I do not want my Ryzen 3600 with temperatures above 75ºC.

As I've shown, even the article you referenced disagrees with you. 80 degrees was hit in a 1 hour extreme stress test in a 3d renderer purposely designed to hit critical maximum potential temperature. You'll never reach those criteria in a DAW environment for that length of time. And besides they even claim given the extreme test the temp is "pretty good."

Please drop this.

The 3600 XT comes with a Wraith cooler, the higher core count models do not. They aren't removing them due to their effectiveness though, but it is a business decision to cut costs.

Why did AMD take away the cooler?

While the official word is “you should buy aftermarket anyway,” the most obvious reason AMD is changing its mind is that the coolers aren’t really free—they’re bundled with the CPU, but AMD paid a price for them. By losing the stock cooler, the company can increase revenue. The savings isn’t passed on to the customer, unfortunately, as the launch prices for the Ryzen 3000XT parts are essentially the same as they were for the Ryzen 3000X chips which included the cooler.

[anttimaatteri]

Thanks for the advice and continuing the discussion.

For me, the 3600 is desireable but probably a bit overkill for my daw only needs, and I'd certainly have no need to over clock it as the standard clock speed and performance would be more than enough.

I'm still torn about just getting the 3600 with an msi tomahawk max b450. I won't need anything off the newer chipsets, so that's in my thinking for an even more value for money build considering my needs and my i7 2600 still chugs on without too many hiccups. My last ands least option is to go for a 3400g build with on board graphics and be happy with doubling performance for not much outlay at all.

do it. i got an 3400g and it works fine under win10. if you dont plan to play games that much or goin berserk with 5million track productions, dont worry. the g-unit is astonishingly capable.
yet i got one prob so far: playing games -> black screen
sometimes 10mins in game sometimes after an hour. but only INGAME. and not every game. i still dont know whats exactly the prob, but i guess its the apu tech or some driver shit.
i got thru all sorts of ram tweaks, i have the gskill 3200b-dies.
so my recommendation is getting better ram modules or not giving a shit about gaming^^. 3200worked fine so far with all win10 apps incl. all music software.

and temperature was no problem at all. my pc hardly scratches the 50celsius mark no matter what i do.

btw i came from a dual intel cpu comp 12 years old^^. i bought a 570 board for the new setup, so i could go the second route with a gfx card, then a better cpu later on.

[Aliens]

Thanks for the report but I think I'm set on a 3600 system.
Will find out for sure what I go with at the end of September

[LFO]

Hi

Does anyone have experience with using the 3600 or 3700 with Cubase? Mainly checking on midi timings (does it suffer the early midi note problem in cubase). Going to build a new PC which is multi purpose (DAW/Sim Racing etc.) but cannot have a separate one for music unfortunately.