Processor recommendation

[NER]

Just for the record, the stability/degredation issues of Intel 13th/14th gen processors have been massively overblown: https://www.pugetsystems.com/blog/2024/ ... ty-issues/

This isn't an endorsement of them over other options, but it needed to be said.

[ghettosynth]

Just for the record, the stability/degredation issues of Intel 13th/14th gen processors have been massively overblown: https://www.pugetsystems.com/blog/2024/ ... ty-issues/

This isn't an endorsement of them over other options, but it needed to be said.

You can't draw that conclusion from that data. They state, point blank, that they adjust the Motherboard defaults themselves. Most people do not, and most people don't build their own machines.

The only thing that you can argue specifically from that data is that if you follow their guidance, failures follow a distribution not dissimilar from other CPUs. So, if you want a reliable 14th gen, either order from them, or, build your own with a new CPU and follow their guidance, or, validate that other manufacturers also follow their guidance.

What their own data shows is that by following their guidance, Intel CPUs in 13th/14th gen are still higher than 12th gen. What their data does not show is the relative comparison of 13th/14th gen to 12th gen, or AMD, from motherboard manufacturers, or, the vast majority of PC builders that people actually buy from.

Cynical me thinks that they want to remain competitive in the space and so have to "sell" the idea that selling 13th/14th gen if fine, without making it too obvious that they are doing so. I suspect that they know that they have plenty of customer's who insist in Intel over AMD and they want those customers to feel confident. I don't doubt their data, but I do doubt that their data is representative of the industry wide picture. I also don't think that we're going to get that data because it would largely have to come from Intel and I think that it would do more damage than good.

[NER]

You can't draw that conclusion from that data. They state, point blank, that they adjust the Motherboard defaults themselves. Most people do not, and most people don't build their own machines.

The only thing that you can argue specifically from that data is that if you follow their guidance, failures follow a distribution not dissimilar from other CPUs. So, if you want a reliable 14th gen, either order from them, or, build your own with a new CPU and follow their guidance, or, validate that other manufacturers also follow their guidance.

They are just using Intel's recommended settings. They are not undervolting or anything like that.

A retailer reports a similar level of return rate: https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-compone ... -prior-gen

If you can get past the sensationalist headline, they report:
"According to data from Les Numeriques, only 1% of AMD processors were returned in 2020, while Intel had a 1.75% return rate then. So, if AMD’s return rate remained stable since then, we can extrapolate that the Raptor Lake chips have a return rate of 4% to 7% while Raptor Lake Refresh processors would have 3% to 5.25%. We should also note that these numbers only reflect return rates that went through the retailer channels, not those that went straight to Intel."

And from one of the original reports from RAD game tools (owned by Epic Games) from their Oodle compression SDK notes "Only a small fraction of those processors will exhibit this behavior."

On the other hand, the evidence we've seen that purport to show failure rates of 50-100% are is far less reliable. One of the main sources, and the one that really set this whole story off is a blog post of a developer from relatively unknown game studio, Alderon Games: https://alderongames.com/intel-crashes. He (Matt) claims that they are experiencing a 100% failure rate and nearly the same rate for their laptops. Apart from those numbers being far too implausible to be taken as general failure rates, his post is also quite aggressive, and it's notable that he hasn't updated it at all despite more info and a specific microcode addressing the problem being released. I can think of reasons why he might be motivated to make such a post - as an excuse for bugs in the game he works on, and/or for financial reasons by investing in a competitor (note the subreddit)

The more believable reports of high failure rates (like 30%) for these chips came from servers (running the W680 chipset for 14900k) with specific workloads involving single threads on turbo running constantly, like Minecraft servers. Hardly reflective of the vast majority of users usecases.

What their own data shows is that by following their guidance, Intel CPUs in 13th/14th gen are still higher than 12th gen. What their data does not show is the relative comparison of 13th/14th gen to 12th gen, or AMD, from motherboard manufacturers, or, the vast majority of PC builders that people actually buy from.

Cynical me thinks that they want to remain competitive in the space and so have to "sell" the idea that selling 13th/14th gen if fine, without making it too obvious that they are doing so. I suspect that they know that they have plenty of customer's who insist in Intel over AMD and they want those customers to feel confident. I don't doubt their data, but I do doubt that their data is representative of the industry wide picture. I also don't think that we're going to get that data because it would largely have to come from Intel and I think that it would do more damage than good.

Yes the failure rates reported by Puget are higher than 12th gen. They are also lower than 11th gen. It's a real issue, one that Intel has acknowledged for a while now. But it certainly has been massively overblown.

Puget is a very reputable company that published lots of benchmarks and such, and they've even recommended AMD over Intel in the past.

[fedexnman]

Stay away from team blue for now . Get the AMD processor . I've had both processor brands over the years I am completely unbiased .

[Kaine]

I am not aware of a music person testing a recent threadripper. It is said that it had latency problems, but it is possible that these were just theoretical concerns with nothing measured.

Last Threadripper test I did: https://www.scan.co.uk/info/proaudio/pr ... 000-series

32 buffer was broken in terms or live/recording use. There's probably an argument for post production, but honestly the cost means that bang per buck isn't really there I.M.O.

[vignesh.vijay]

I am not aware of a music person testing a recent threadripper. It is said that it had latency problems, but it is possible that these were just theoretical concerns with nothing measured.

Last Threadripper test I did: https://www.scan.co.uk/info/proaudio/pr ... 000-series

32 buffer was broken in terms or live/recording use. There's probably an argument for post production, but honestly the cost means that bang per buck isn't really there I.M.O.

Awesome, I guess Oct 24 is the release date for the new Intel i9-15th gen processors. Do you know when we can expect audio benchmarks on those?

[lfm]

Not sure why the rush for more low speed E-cores.
- you get 8 P-cores, and 16 E-cores in i9 core series

From this article
https://www.digitaltrends.com/computing ... ow-so-far/

You only get 8 full speed cores with ht, probably, 16 logical cores.
And 16 E-cores running at about 70% speed, and less fifo, and you will get mixed speed threads everywhere.

I was lucky with i7-12700F and only 4 E-cores and switched those off, and get a nice 4.5 GHz system. Benchmarks reduced from 31000 to 29000 doing that at cpubenchmark.net.
- fully satisfied now with my system, but no way I would go for 13th, 14th or 15th gen.
- you can probably create benchmarks that do better, but real life situation?

I would not even think of doing newer Intel now with all the useless lowspeed E-cores that cannot do ht anyway. And latest will be seriously expensive.

Next machine if any will be AMD in my case.

[uOpt]

E-core are 50% performance of the P-cores for me.

[Jim Roseberry]

Just for the record, the stability/degredation issues of Intel 13th/14th gen processors have been massively overblown: https://www.pugetsystems.com/blog/2024/ ... ty-issues/

This isn't an endorsement of them over other options, but it needed to be said.

You are completely correct.
Massively overblown

If you don't know how to configure a machine that you're building yourself, that's on you.
No different than trying to fix plumbing in your house (with zero experience)... and wondering why the new pipe sprung a leak.

Said this many different times:
Out of many scores of machines I've built and support (not watching YouTube videos or reading articles about them), I've had to replace exactly two 13900k CPUs.
Have not had to replace any other 13th or 14th Gen Intel CPUs.
Granted, I'd like to see that number at zero, but it's far from the ultra hyperbolic (almost hysterical) claim of nearly 100%.

Yes, the new Ryzen 9950x is also a great performer.
Very slightly faster than the 14900k... but at lower TDP (heat).
The performance difference between the two (for most purposes) is negligible.
Both can run The Grandeur at sub 1ms playback latency.
Both can run IK's ToneX plugins at 1ms total round-trip latency.
With either CPU, I'd want top-tier 420mm AIO.
If you know what you're doing, either CPU is a fantastic DAW performer.

The only reason to avoid Intel 14th Gen CPUs is ignorance (lack of knowledge to configure).
That's on the individual.

Wonder why many off-the-shelf machines don't expose advanced BIOS parameters?
Because manufacturers don't want novice user's borking their machine... and creating a tech-support nightmare.
The end-result (dumbed-down product) isn't a good thing.
That lack of configuration flexibility causes many issues... trying to use those machines as DAWs.

[vignesh.vijay]

Is arrow lake released? Does arrow lake code named for i9 15th gen? Or is it something else. Little confused here.

[vignesh.vijay]

The ratings on 19-14900k is significantly better than AMD ones. Does it mean I need to go with 14900 or still choose AMD for durability purposes?
https://www.scanproaudio.info/2024/09/12/5075/

[vignesh.vijay]

Btw intel have dropped the 14900k price to $500 as well.
So now I'm between 14900k and 7950x.
Is 7950x the most popular opinion here?

[fedexnman]

AMD , I had an i7 920 that got long in the tooth . I'm on a Ryzen 7600x and man it's great . You have Ryzen master software , where you can put it into eco and I have all kinds of Gigabyte fan speed and RGB software for mobo and fans. It's been a great experience . I'm totally unbiased with AMD and Intel but right now I think AMD is the way to go . Eventually Intel will get better . Just NOT right now .

[Danno]

I just ordered parts for a 7950x build. I'm dreading the software setup but I'm really looking forward to the results.

Coming from a 8700k. I don't want to get too hyped, but I'm expecting a noticeable difference.

[vignesh.vijay]

Question-
By stability/performance being better on AMD, do you all mean crashes and dumps? Or life of the processor? Or both?