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

[EvilDragon]

Yes it's very heavy.. since the 5ghz is not DOUBLE per core of my computer, it means it won't be able to stack two instances of the flacon patch I just played.. which means it will only get one per core anyway.

CPU processing does NOT work like that (that doubling CPU clock would allow double the instances)! It also depends what are the IPC (instructions per clock) gains between the twice-as-fast CPU and the twice-as-slow CPU!

You are missing some fundamental understanding about how CPUs work here.

[stamp]

CPU processing does NOT work like that (that doubling CPU clock would allow double the instances)! It also depends what are the IPC (instructions per clock) gains between the twice-as-fast CPU and the twice-as-slow CPU!

You are missing some fundamental understanding about how CPUs work here.

That was what I thought, too.
But... I switched from an I7 920 4 cores 8 threads 2.4ghz turbo 2.7
where I could run 4 instances (Bitwig) of Repro5 playing 8 notes each with multicore on inside the plugin to a Ryzen 7 2700x 3.7ghz turbo 4.3ghz.
Now I can run 20 (yes 20) instances.
I can't wait for the Ryzen 9 3950x to drop in price (I hope I can get one next christmas for 400euro) and freezing tracks will be a thing of the past.

[EvilDragon]

and freezing tracks will be a thing of the past.

No, it won't, and you know it. (You'll always want to add "just one plugin more" )

[stamp]

No, it won't, and you know it. (You'll always want to add "just one plugin more" )

Hehe... probably.

[Devastator]

People put far too much stock in DAWbench, the performance of two plugins is not even close to enough data to generalize across the possible performance of most plugins.

[EvilDragon]

Perhaps, but it's the only common yardstick we have currently. And it DOES help to gauge what you can expect from a particular CPU.

[Jim Roseberry]

Got the 3970x build up and running.

As I expected, you're not going to get all 32 cores running (rock-solid) at 4.5GHz.
With Vcore @ 1.225v (don't want to push it any further), it will barely reach 4.2GHz across all cores.
It's not consistently stable running Passmark (CPU benchmarks) at these settings... let alone heavy sustained stress-tests.

More to follow...

[Jim Roseberry]

With Vcore @ 1.225v, the 3970x won't run 28 cores at 4GHz and 4 cores at 4.2GHz.

With Vcore @ 1.225v, the 3970x will run 28 cores at 3.7GHz and 4 cores at 4.2GHz
Passmark (CPU benchmarks) are lower than when running at stock speed (w/Turbo enabled).

With Vcore @ 1.15vv, the 3970x will run all 32 cores at 4GHz.
Passmark (CPU benchmarks) are lower than when running at stock speed (w/Turbo enabled).

In short (to be expected with a CPU that has 32 cores), there's essentially zero OC headroom.

If you plan to get a 3970x, plan on running it a stock settings.

[buzz1]

This is a very interesting thread. Going through it and stripping away the preferences different people have for how they work it seems that as long as you don't have a track or buss that will overload a core then the more cores the better. If you just use kontact and softsynths as I do with little or no extra processing then the DAW will always be able to distribute the load between cores. SURELY then under those circumstances Amelia's assertion that 16 cores at 4k would always beat 8 at 5k holds true.

[Jim Roseberry]

This is a very interesting thread. Going through it and stripping away the preferences different people have for how they work it seems that as long as you don't have a track or buss that will overload a core then the more cores the better. If you just use kontact and softsynths as I do with little or no extra processing then the DAW will always be able to distribute the load between cores. SURELY then under those circumstances Amelia's assertion that 16 cores at 4k would always beat 8 at 5k holds true.

FWIW, The more cores the better... but not at the expense of significant clock-speed.
I've listed reasons as to why...

[buzz1]

This is a very interesting thread. Going through it and stripping away the preferences different people have for how they work it seems that as long as you don't have a track or buss that will overload a core then the more cores the better. If you just use kontact and softsynths as I do with little or no extra processing then the DAW will always be able to distribute the load between cores. SURELY then under those circumstances Amelia's assertion that 16 cores at 4k would always beat 8 at 5k holds true.

FWIW, The more cores the better... but not at the expense of significant clock-speed.
I've listed reasons as to why...

You have Jim, and eloquently so. Having followed many of you posts I am aware that, as Evil says, you know your stuff, so as someone less experienced than you I will phrase this as a genuine question.
This pertains to the way I work only and it will help in choosing my next upgrade.

If I am only using Kontact and medium CPU softsynths on Reaper with no acoustic recording and little or no plugins (just a global reverb) with a 256 buffer, given that no one instance of anything will overload a single core, am I better off using a 3670 given it will work at around 4gig anyway; or in this particular case could there be there a bottleneck that would be resolved by going for a (say) 5k processor with half the cores?
Apologies if this rakes up stuff to some extent already covered but I would like to make the best upgrade for my specific way of working, and need to be sure I am going down the best route.

And please anyone else feel free to chime in.
Thanks

[Jim Roseberry]

You have Jim, and eloquently so. Having followed many of you posts I am aware that, as Evil says, you know your stuff, so as someone less experienced than you I will phrase this as a genuine question.
This pertains to the way I work only and it will help in choosing my next upgrade.

If I am only using Kontact and medium CPU softsynths on Reaper with no acoustic recording and little or no plugins (just a global reverb) with a 256 buffer, given that no one instance of anything will overload a single core, am I better off using a 3670 given it will work at around 4gig anyway; or in this particular case could there be there a bottleneck that would be resolved by going for a (say) 5k processor with half the cores?
Apologies if this rakes up stuff to some extent already covered but I would like to make the best upgrade for my specific way of working, and need to be sure I am going down the best route.

And please anyone else feel free to chime in.
Thanks

The "best" choice is a balance of many facets.
Performance/cost/noise/etc.

There are so many variables (even with just "Kontakt libraries")... that it's hard to give a meaningful response.

For less dense projects (like the Adam Nitti demo project for Studio One), you won't see much difference between the 9900k and the 3970x.

Higher latency plays to the strength of the 3970x.
Lower latency plays to the strength of the 9900k

If you're working with dense projects... and not at particularly low latency, that should favor the 3970x.

If you're pushing the limits at ultra low latency, that'll favor the 9900k.

[buzz1]

That helps a lot.
Thanks

[Freaqpeak]

Here's my 3950x results (I will try to do more tests later on):
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=536839

First impression of the DSP tests showed that it didn't really matter if I went with 32 samples or 128 samples, at least not with standard DAWbench tests.

I could run 404 instances of SGA (at 128 samples) without crackling, which seems too high to me. I just realized that ScanProAudio did not use the same settings as DAWbench in their tests, so I have to go back and re-do it with SGA set to High Performance-mode otherwise I can't compare the numbers...

[dermage]

This is an interesting thread. Thanks for keeping it clean and discussing based on facts.
Anyway i think here are two use cases discussed.

Maximum multi threaded execution using independent tracks (which is what I think Amelia tries to accomplish)
- versus -
modern music which heavily depends on sidechaining and track dependency.

Thats why Amelia may be right to go for the high core count as she won't be bussing and sidechain routing too much. I think beginning with more than 20 cores the advantage for the thread ripper may be felt with high track counts. Kontakt will surely benefit fron many cores when playing multiple voices at the same time.

Ultimately the 9900k vs ryzen 3950 wont be too much difference. The fun begins with the thread ripper core counts. But i'd wait for benchmarks. Otherwise I can confirm Intel has a good overclocking performance. Im still on an i7 2600k on 4,5ghz which is not that far from my 7700k on stock speed in the studio.

Personally I'm waiting for AMD to match single core performance of Intel in 2020 to upgrade my 2600k.