Can you share were you find your benchmarks ? The ones I found have all a big "not verified" sign...Jim Roseberry wrote: ↑Thu Jun 08, 2023 6:29 amI use Cinebench as an example... because it's a quick/easy way to gauge both single-core and multi-core performance... and it's available for both platforms.PAK wrote: ↑Tue Jun 06, 2023 9:52 amHmm.. Cinebench is Video / 3D, which tends to have an easier time buffering so all cores are fully utilized. Real-time audio is a different proposition, and the more you lower the latency the less buffer available. So Cinebench isn't an ideal reference point, and shouldn't be used as a basis for DAW decisions.. IMO
Further, additional core types add more complexity to a hosts load balancing. Performance can (and does) vary greatly between hosts, and Cubase (what I use) is well known for various issues regarding core usage on Windows. I don't know how much they've "fixed" things, with the newest Intel CPU's, after its problems. But I'd still tend towards processors, with single core types, for Cubase under Windows. It's an example of a variable which mean certain choices might not be the best, regardless of what benchmarks like Cinebench say.
It depends what you mean by "workstation". Many of Intel's Xeon's are silly money because they're not aimed at consumers. For DAW usage the M1 Ultra was competitive with the 12900k on launch. That's not just my opinion - DAWBench did limited cross-platform benchmarks which showed it beating the 12900k. M2 is only an incremental update to M1. It should gain a bit versus the latest Intel, but the real performance gains will come with the M3, which I'd expect (the Ultra) will beat the 13900k for DAW performance. Though, even if that's the case, the relative value for money is less - Apple would have to price the Ultra more like the Max to compete better there.That'll tell you where the M2 Ultra stands vs a "workstation" type CPU.
ie: If you look at multi-core scores for 12900ks (28k) vs 13900k (40k), you have a fairly accurate idea of DAW performance expectation. Certainly more relevant than synthetic benchmarks (Passmark/etc).
If you want to talk about less than ideal multi-core scenarios (especially at super low latency), that's where single-core high clock-speed will be a major factor.
You can gauge this by having a look at Cinebench R23 single-core results.
When I say "workstation" type CPU, I'm referring to a high-performance CPU... designed specifically for that purpose... knowing that it requires substantial cooling/space/etc.
I'm well-aware that Xeon CPUs are terrible for DAW purposes. That's due to low clock-speed.
The M3 may well best the 13900k... but I doubt AMD and Intel will be standing still.
AMD's next offering will likely leap-frog the 13900k (as did the 7950x vs the 12900k).
Rinse and Repeat.
The laws of thermodynamics are at play.
High clock-speed equates to high heat.
High IPC can mitigate that... to a point.
Right now, 7950x has slightly higher IPC vs 13900k.
13900k is slightly faster (overall) because it can achieve higher clock-speed... across more cores.
Both the 7950x and 13900k require substantial cooling.
Folks running them are choosing maximum performance over small-form-factor or convenience.
If Apple decides to push the performance curve, it won't be in a 10"x10"x6" form-factor.
Every week, I talk to Mac users who are essentially forced away (from Apple) because they can't get the performance/configuration they need to work (often composers for TV/Film).
Granted, this isn't a general-purpose computer user.
It's someone who needs ultimate high-performance... and maximum configuration flexibility.
I don't think Apple will get back into the highest-performance market... for the reason I said previously. They know small/sleek machines will sell far more to the general public.
DAW users are a tiny niche group. General-purpose computer users are a massively larger market.
Normally for music producers it is also good to have silent computers no? What cooling technology are you using?