Incredible test! Thanks so much for this. I can imagine now, 3 years later, with a 14th gen i9, this test would be wildly different, allowing for insane low latency, despite modern sample libraries increasing in cpu usage.
I think the correlation between sample size and dropouts is because of single thread performance. No matter how many cores it has if it is slow for example 10900 vs 12400. The IPC (instructions per cycle) get better with newer gens. So for example a i7 14900 can achieve much lower buffer samples than a 10900 that would be like being able to go from 256 samples to 64 samples. Also the audio card plays a role. RME I think has the best latency in the industry from what I read because of their drivers. I am no expert, just my 2 cents. Regards
@@segundacuenta726 Totally makes sense. And I can personally vouch for RME, I've been using their UFX+ since it was their new released flagship model. Besides the pristinely clean pres, it's stability is leaps beyond any other products on the market. I've been through all the name brands, and I'll never use anything other than RME in the future.
Perfect timing! I've been wondering about the benefits of all those extra cores for quite a while. (Very useful info-thanks for posting this.) And don't fret about the haircut. You should see mine.
greatings trying to figure out if I should go cheap on the Ryzen 5 or go 7 or 9 lol. One thing I would say is that I've found that many other people talking about audio builds mention single core and single thread performance is important. Particularly for all the simultaneous actions that we do under certian DAWs and Virtual instruments between effects and live editing. And ALL of the Ryzen 5000 surpass even the highest quality of Intel's i9 on cpubenchmark.net/singlethread.html. Even gaming people are saying that Ryzen surpassed Intel with the 4th gen, they do say Intel is talking about something that might catch up now that Ryzen is showing how behind they're getting but that could be until next holiday season. Not to mention likely more expensive for a very slight edge.
5900X 128GB FTW, building this asap. Still waiting, they are not available now in Germany. My Old 1700X Ryzen will then be the Vepro Slave with 64GB. u meet me at official Cubase Hangouts by Greg Ondo Tuesday and Fridays, 19:00-23:00 CET I have a Discord for all Cubase Hangout Nerds, where we share this.
Why hi there! Yes, that Ryzen 5600X is looking mighty tempting after watching this video. I was a little afraid that "only" 6 cores would be just too few, but this video shows that core count really isn't going to be the make-or-break in your DAW productivity.
@@Muuuzzzi Right now, the best CPU for DAW use would likely be a Ryzen 5000 series. Probably the 5800x is the best overall, but the 5600x is 1/3 cheaper and nearly as good. A B550-based motherboard is fine, no real need to get X570.
Keep in mind that you used the same CPU turning off cores; that is not exactly the same as running a CPU with just 4, 6 or 8 cores; because the core die are interconnected on the same bus and share lanes; so you end up getting differences between CPU due to different usage of the cores. Useful data but would be more useful to run those tests on computers with the same RAM and specs, but different CPU
@@HammyHavoc That is up to you; the whole idea of making music is to find which plugin work well together and use less resources as possible, giving you the best audio quality. You can do orchestration composition or 4 on the floor pop or what else; you learn your tool, know its limits and work around it. If buying a car was like some people that get the most powerful thing available just because, and do not check for their needs and master their hardware, it would end up with everyone driving a 600 HP Ferrari :) Only you know what you need; because nobody else is there to check how do you set up your DAW and plugins
I'm not sure this test means that the cores don't help. What we might be seeing in these results is the limitations of your other components. In other words, the limiting factor in speed is always your weakest link... your processor can't work faster than the RAM it has in it and vice versa. Adding more cores will help delegate tasks better if you have the RAM and storage capacity to match your higher core number, but it won't matter at a certain point if other components are maxed out. So if your RAM or SSD are slower, it won't matter how many cores you add, you'll hit a wall, and that might explain some of the limited results we're seeing in these tests. Another factor that we might want to consider are the _threads,_ not just the cores. both cores and threads contribute to performance, albeit in different ways. If your CPU has a high number of cores but a low number of threads, that could also be limiting your performance increases. I wouldn't ascribe too much meaning to this test without more information. It doesn't seem to account for the rest of the system.
Really informative and solid.... Thank You...! And as for me personally, being a 40+ years of Pro IT Supporter and recording engineer, it's good to be confirmed in what I have stated in so many techings and advices over the years... :-)
Great and very informative video, I just bought a new Ryzen 4800HS laptop which has 8 cores and started wondering if that's going to be enough to run extensive projects. My track count rarely goes above 100 so it's nice to see you showing how does different core count perform with 400 tracks and beyond. There really isn't enough music production benchmarks in laptop reviews so thank you for making this video. It makes even more happy about my recent purchase :)
Very good video with lots of helpful information. No fluff: Just facts and straight to the point. I've watch it multiple times. This helped me in building my first Windows PC. Even your desk layout looks like mine. I subscribed!
Thank you for this contribution to this topic. I am in the planning stage of a new PC build with an emphasis on music production and you just helped me to nail my CPU choice. Thanks again and keep up the great work.
Awesome video man, very informative and easy to follow. I just discovered your channel and I've been watching your work for a few hours now and I've learned a lot. Thank you 🤘
Very interesting video, I think this is the kind of practical information that helps the garden variety DAW user make some kind of assessment of just how much of a behemoth they need to make their music. I'm a hobbyist musician and my projects tend to lean towards a couple dozen tracks of mostly audio (typically a multitrack recording from a live band rehearsal). I've been noticing some limitations on my now seven year old Surface book laptop when I start to add some resource-intensive plugins like certain reverbs etc and that (and Gear Acquisition Syndrome) has me thinking about upgrading my machine. I would like, some day in the not too distant future, to try my hand at composing in a more traditional orchestral format with a view to maybe doing some television or film scoring and I have found myself wondering how much machine I'd realistically need to do that. Videos like this are a great help, I think. Thanks!
Amazing. I have been producing since the late 80s and rarely got below a 1024 buffer. Getting to a finished project at 512 was an absolute treat. But I never learned to 'lag play' either, so after each take a manual fix of those first (midi - soft synth) notes after the count off were required, an issue that irritates the hell out of me still to this day.
If I need to watch the whole video let me know. But doesn't the number of cores affect the number of tracks? For instance you can really load up one particular signal path, putting a bunch of inserts on one track and it can, say, take up 80% of your ASIO performance capability, but if you literally duplicate that track, the ASIO performance meter won't go up much because another core will be involved. That's at least the info I got directly from a Cubase employee technician on the forum. More cores and threads equals more simultaneous tracks... That is, as long as the software is written well. Note: in this scenario, you cannot have even ONE track that pushes the ASIO performance meter to 100%. But if every track is pushing it to 80%, that is fine.... until you run out of cores and threads.
indeed, this is the true answer, the test in the vid, tests something completely different. one plugin, or track can overload the buffer, and all those cores you have are useless, but if they don't, the cores are very very usefull... it is the balance between high single core performance, and high core count. i found the right balance for me, high single core performance (not the CPU Benchmark one, that tests only one core, but i mean when ALL cores are used....), and core count. not the highest core count, not necessary. and also a lot of depend how a plugin acts, if it is written well, multiple instance, for instance, there could be problems with some plugins. some even mention it... and solve it.. or not... so there is a lot more to it. buy what you need, but high single core performance (when all cores are actively used) is very important, next to core count. especially of course for plugins that use one core.... or one core for the audio 'thread' (the name 'thread', well several threads can processed on one core, a process can only be processed on one core... processing, process, threads, o well hyperthreading, was a nice word....)
I come from an audio production background "non-composing" and core count is not as important espically at lower buffer sizes as having faster cores or a simpler CPU architecture (This is why Apples M1/2 ARM chips are so good). Also hyperthreading can cause issues when recording and monitoring at lower buffer sizes below 128. It is okay on anything Haswell or newer, but before that gen it must be turned off. It is nice to have if you do background stuff on the PC though, Windows is a pig. For me I set REAPER to use 8 of my P-Cores and 8 threads not 16. Then I allow the 4 E-cores to process my system with a 12700K. Its a little funky with the newer cores because of this design and my audio interface doesn't like lower buffer sizes without this setup.
Nice test. Would be interesting to see what impact CPU speed has. At 4.39 Ghz, you are running 20% faster than most other machines out there running at 3.6 Ghz. That may make a difference where additional cores aren't needed as much. Plus, the big question is how much optimization will be done on higher core count machines in the future.
@Apparently You’reTheAsshole Well when it comes down to sheer amount of virtual instruments you can run simultaneously and smoothly, yeah, it's always going to be a matter of how many you can load into memory. Most any modern processor will never be your bottleneck.
Best work of it's kind I've seen, as I'm looking at a new CPU or not. Thanks. (Windows Pro 10 is stable w/ Cubase Pro 11. Using Waves WSG Server One Ethernet) X299 ASUS-D i77800XCore, 32 GB ram, .
this man explains the importance of 1 single core use for audio processing (serial), since it is not parallel and multi cores isnt affecting all else... When looking for less dropouts for vst or other audio functions in your daw, he stresses how audio performance depends on that single core chip performance. ruclips.net/video/HFL3wOfPx9s/видео.html
I'm not an expert on the subject but i think you might want to consider this. i've been trying to answer this question myself and I've learned from other videos on CPUs that in order to actually get any real performance gain out of the extra cores (above maybe 4/6 or so) you would also need other parts to match it, like a motherboard with a high enough quality VRM(which regulates and provides power to the CPU) as well as high enough quality RAM cards that would be capable of keeping up with the CPU. With these components of a lower quality or lower specs than the CPU they won't be able to send data to the CPU and its extra cores fast enough for it to process as fast as it actually can. So in that case it may be that the CPU may be able to go way faster than its currently going and may have potential for improved results, but the issue is that maybe its not getting the best voltage regulation and/or its not receiving data fast enough from the other parts in a way that would let it reach as high as it wants to go. Also a PCIe 4.0 motherboard would really help too. But for the average pc build or for people who don't want to buy a whole new setup its good to know where that drop-off is
Would love to see your Ableton Live workflow!!! I am currently using Ableton only for writing and cubase to mix. I am unable to make the transition as I am so used to that way ableton does it as I've been using it for 4 years now. This would be great if you could do a video on that!
3:02 Windows 10 is not a static thing. It changes constantly and without notice. One version can work brilliantly and the next can ruin your day. This is true for any domain but I'm referring specifically to real-time audio production. Therefore, saying that you're running Windows 10 "completely stock" isn't really meaningful. DAW builders often find a specific version that works and then lock it down to make sure it doesn't automatically update.
I find freezing tracks down takes next to no time (either freeze or unfreeze) and with purging Kontakt samples I can run 400+ easily on my old 2012 I5 with 16gig RAM. I also off load main instruments like piano, ensemble strings/brass and other daily use sounds to my Montage. Once Im ready to mix I'll swap them out for better samples if I need to.
Bingo, in Studio One it's called "transform to Audio". You never lose the MIDI tracks, it completely offloads the insane CPU grab all those plugins use and like you said when ready to mix you can start deciding on instruments for your final. This makes CPU load pretty moot.
Depends on the synth, if its super hungry like Diva or Repro5, then yes multithreaded mode on makes a huge difference to the sheer number of simultaneous notes you can play in HQ mode.
...have been working for 5 years with an 11 year old HP Z800 workstation (about 8000 $ then, 600 now) with 2 6-core 3.3 Ghz XEON processors. Now for the first time I have a problem that the new NI Massive synth needs a newer chip generation. I got a 5 year old laptop for this. Folks, buy old workstations for 1/10th the original price and be happy. I recommend anything from the HP Z620.
@Richard Ames Music This is solid stuff. Enjoying the content! Subscribed and notification on. I'm about to purchase a new machine and based on your video I don't need more than 10 cores. Now I have to decide how much RAM and if to exclusively use NVME drives only. I just want to get a machine from Dell that will just work. My last one has lasted 8 years without problems. I would also be curious about a graphics card. Any advice?
At least you still HAVE hair!!! lol I'll revisit when I get closer to the new build. It's gonna be trying to fit "one size fits all" scenario, as I game... render... and create musically, and I was trying to amalgamate all the data (as i'm an "enthusiast" with regards to all) to see what's best for all in the prioritypyramid (TM pending... lol). I appreciate your insight.
Also... it's just me... i CAN render & bounce etc... and act accordingly for my limited vocal (and any IRL audio input thangythings) abilities. And I appreciate your viewpoint considering the "slave" aspects in regards to latency. (cuz we all have the ones that we didn't leave behind, but repurposed. But you WOULD think that multicore performance would be much better using vstis/etc i.e. separate... i.e. for every instance wouldn't you think they could take advantage of core use.
I would love to learn how to turn my surplus machines into a slave server across ethernet, for vsti's... I've got some digging to do. Any advice on where to begin my search?
Thanks for the really helpful video. A tip between 2 configurations: 1) I9-10900 (not K) + MB Gigabyte H470 + RME 9632 (Internal PCI) + RME AO4S / 192 AIO Expansion Board (same BurrBrown PCM4104 DAC present in the RME UFX) 2) i9-9940X + Asus X299 (Thunderbolt) + SoundCard UNIVERSAL AUDIO Apollo Solo TB3 Your valuable advice would be very welcome. Thanks @RichardAmesMusic Best wishes, from Italy Carlo
Hi Carlo - not sure on the sound cards but either of the CPUs will be perfectly fine for DAW use. Really it comes down to what else you want to do. If you don't already have a bunch of NVMe drives then I'd go with the cheaper CPU and put the money there. Cheers!
411 / 5000 Hi Richard, thanks for your reply (and congratulations on your compositions :). You've hit another important point completely, NVMe drives! I already have some that I could use but they are 3X and not the new PCIe 4x. As far as I know the 980 Pro installed on a Z490 (PCIe 3X) transfers on average at 3500mbs (gaining something on native 3x drives). What sound cards do you use? Motu? Greetings from Italy
That's a Samsung Galaxy View tablet running lemur. Both have been kind-of abandoned but it's the core of my DAW setup. So I'm going to be in a pinch when it dies!
TRI-UNE Trl as Richard shows us in the video either manufacturer will be fine. What matters most is processor clock speed and core count. For me it also depends on budget and I go for AMD because of the price for performance gain.
uHe Repro works much better with "multi core" button pushed in, the real time VST CPU meter in cubase goes way down with that one. I am not sure how other plugins are assigned to CPU cores. But thanks for the nice video. I am chugging along with 4 old cores here.
Hi ,please i need one advice from you. I am using Cubase 12 and want to upgrade my ryzen 7 2700x cpu on msi b450 tomahawk max2. I am looking for - Ryzen 5 5600x -Ryzen 7 5800x - Ryzen 9 5900x What do you think will be the best choice.Thx
Great video! I remember how helpful your original videos covering this topic were, so I'm glad you updated it to include newer CPUs, Cubase 10, etc. Question: do you think these results would've changed much if: 1) you increase the pre-load buffer size for both Kontakt and East West? (Maybe max them out) 2) you increase ram from 64gb to 128gb? This is my current situation: 1) 2010 Mac Pro tower 2.4 ghz 8 core w/ 32gb ram, running Cubase 10 Pro 2) Visiondaw slave pc 4930k i7 6 core w/ 64gb ram. I believe hyperthreading is off(?) because there are only 6 cores showing in task manager I'm thinking of getting another slave, but do you think it would be better to get a more powerful slave with more cores and 128gb ram so I can replace the other slave? Or is it better to get another machine similar to mine and have 2 slaves? I'm trying to simplify things, but if going to 1 more powerful slave would be worse than 2 medium power slaves that's where I'm confused. Plus, I run a 512 buffer, I've always done this, I'm not hyper critical or sensitive about a tiny buffer and I can play just fine with that 512 setting. I'm on a Fireface 400 audio interface so would like to get your opinion please thanks
Increasing the preload buffer sizes might help a bit but I'm not sure. However, I'd be surprised if it made much difference. I don't think RAM will affect these results much other than limiting the number of samples you can load. In general more machines are still better as you can see from the results in this video - the same project runs at lower latency with multiple machines. I'd try running the slave with hyperthreading on. I've always found much better performance with it turned on.
@@RichardAmesMusic thank you so much for the reply! I will try the hyperthreading on and see what happens, and I'm leaning towards the 2nd slave, but I thought I might be able to run just 1 more powerful unit for less hassle, wiring, not needing a 3rd battery backup, etc. Keep up the great work!
Whats crazy is i have a late 2013 imac 27" with 32gb ddr3, 1tb hybrid hdd/sdd, i5 3.2, and i swear its running on magic, i can run logic or ableton 11 , and have 30 tracks with 15 open different vsts, effects, etc. abd have absolutely no latency with midi and with guitar playback (just use the builtnin speakers) i have a 2 year old hp laptop and it cant come close. But i cant afford a new mac so its mininoc for me
Interesting, but would you spend sometime more to test the CPU FREQUENCY 's impact of the performance ? I think the take away from this one is that compared with buffer size, the core counts doesn't matter. It's on different levels of significance. But how about the frequency? If you can disable cores in the bios, I bet you know how to manually set CPU frequency. If you have one of those "unlocked" cpus (K series, didn't follow up the latest ones), you can set it into 2Ghz, 3Ghz, 4Ghz, 5Ghz... then you can see if this is the most significant influencer of the performance.
Thank you for these videos, i just subscribed to your channel and browsed through your videos. I am currently working with a intel duo (yuck). But I'll be building a super powerful desktop next month for jazz composition and recording. Also will be using vienna symphonic software. (along with kontakt and keyscape). Do you think its necessary to get hyperthreading, specifically the i5-10600k? I've been deciding between that and the i7-9700k.
i think having the extra cores gives you piece of mind. if it costs $500 more for a better processor, and you keep the processor for five years, i think it's worth $100 a year to have the additional confidence that you system can easily handle things with room to spare.
I was using Logic Pro on a pretty underpowered 2015 MacBook Pro and it was pretty much useless for realtime plugins and virtual instruments. I now have a 5600x with 48Gb of 3200 CL16 ram. Running Ableton Live 11. It is much much much more powerful. I keep my latency at 256 samples most of the time. I'm thinking of upgrading to a 5900x cpu. I really don't tend to make huge projects but sometimes do and my old i7 7700k with 16 Gb of ram used to struggle when I got to 50 tracks or so. But my new system handles larger projects fine but I'm also using newer plugins that can use up a lot of cpu.
No issues with REAPER but Pro Tools is a pig and I hear Studio One is pretty heavy as well. REAPER I got like a thousand tracks with only 4 cores activated going at either 128 or 256 buffer size. I've had to reduce it a bit because it is unweildly just like a junior programer looking over a million lines of code and passing out.
Thank you so much! I am running Studio One 5.1and I have to buy a new computer. The Ryzen 5000 series looks nice and shiny, but I don't want to have the experience you are talking about in terms of not really seeing any advantage. Do you think I should be good with a 3900 or 3950 chip considering the plugins that I use from acustica audio and other cpu hungry plugins. I've also been told that once I have 3600 optimized RAM that will help as well 32-64GB. What's your recommendation. I really don't want to purchase a machine and I really am not getting the most out of it. I currently own a Dell XPS 8500 which is 8-9 years old so I know I will see a massive increase. I just don't want to spend and get diminishing returns
My gut is saying that the 5600X is a better choice than the 3700X for DAW use. The extra two cores (3700X) won't help much, while the better single-core performance (5600X) definitely will. The 3900/3950 probably won't be significantly better in terms of how far you can push things without dropouts. As for RAM, go with 16GB unless you use a lot of big sample libraries, then push to 32GB or 64GB. The differences you'll see with different RAM speeds (3200, 3600, timings, all that) are truly microscopic compared to any other changes, so don't worry about that - with the Ryzen 5000 just get DDR4-3600 since that's basically the same price. One interesting note: apparently the Ryzen 5000 series processors work *substantially* better (up to 10%) with four RAM chips vs. two. (Technically it's four "ranks" of RAM vs two "ranks", but it's a bit hard to know whether a given RAM chip is one rank or two, so best to get four individual chips.) So there may be perf benefits going with 4x4GB instead of 2x8GB, for example.
@@x7zauman910 I've been running the 5600x happily for over a year. Working great. I haven't used the previous generation Ryzens so I can't directly compare, but I think it's safe to say the 5xxx series is much better. You should look at the newer 5700g if you can - it's a bit better CPU than the 5600x, but it also includes a reasonably capable graphics engine so you wouldn't need a separate graphics card for DAW work. That could be a savings overall.
Thank you for taking the time. There are many parameters at play. I would have loved a test on Presonus Studio One, since it was recently optimized for multiinstruments. The question with samples size is, how much is too much, eg hearable latency. I'll hazard 512 and even 1024 is fine for most tasks, and that it's generally posible to optimize the projet for phases such as recording voices to be worked at lower sample sizes. Would be interested in your perspective on this.
I used to Studio One for 7 years and recently changed to Cubase, primarily because I'm able to run twice as many plugins. I didn't do a super scientific test but I would say the performance is actually 2.5 times as good.
Great video; could kindly show how us your BIOS settings and your Windows 10? For example; are you using power management settings at 100%...etc Thank you for this video, helped a bunch.
i m building a new pc on budget, is there much difference between i7 9700k and ryzen 5 3600 . I will be using cubase 10 with kontakt, omnisphere etc. About 15-25 tracks on average. waiting for ur answer
Thank you for shating this information but it makes a differns at the verry leats in the playback from the computer to the speaker you really need as low latency as possible to get the best sound quailty! That is if the rest of your hardware is resolving enouthg to show it. So even a lowlatency OS is important f.ex ubuntu studio is probably best for production and audiophile linux is the best for playback from a pc.
You are needed in the DAW sphère, you will be the only Channel doing such benchmarks
This was amazingly informative, really interesting and will help with the pc build! Thank you so much!
Incredible test! Thanks so much for this. I can imagine now, 3 years later, with a 14th gen i9, this test would be wildly different, allowing for insane low latency, despite modern sample libraries increasing in cpu usage.
DDR5 is massive for VIs, memory bandwidth has more than doubled between stock DDR4 kits and XMP/EXPO DDR5 kits and this helps a ton.
I think the correlation between sample size and dropouts is because of single thread performance. No matter how many cores it has if it is slow for example 10900 vs 12400. The IPC (instructions per cycle) get better with newer gens. So for example a i7 14900 can achieve much lower buffer samples than a 10900 that would be like being able to go from 256 samples to 64 samples. Also the audio card plays a role. RME I think has the best latency in the industry from what I read because of their drivers. I am no expert, just my 2 cents. Regards
@@segundacuenta726 Totally makes sense. And I can personally vouch for RME, I've been using their UFX+ since it was their new released flagship model. Besides the pristinely clean pres, it's stability is leaps beyond any other products on the market. I've been through all the name brands, and I'll never use anything other than RME in the future.
Great video, thanks for sharing this! Exactly what I needed :D
Awesome video and tests. Thank you for all the effort put into this.
Perfect timing! I've been wondering about the benefits of all those extra cores for quite a while. (Very useful info-thanks for posting this.)
And don't fret about the haircut. You should see mine.
Totally awesome. Thanks for this. I know now exactly what I need for my next build.
Hey, you are making great things! Your tests and results is very heplfull. Keep going!
Hello fellow potential Ryzen 5000 shopper fancy meeting you here
greatings trying to figure out if I should go cheap on the Ryzen 5 or go 7 or 9 lol. One thing I would say is that I've found that many other people talking about audio builds mention single core and single thread performance is important. Particularly for all the simultaneous actions that we do under certian DAWs and Virtual instruments between effects and live editing. And ALL of the Ryzen 5000 surpass even the highest quality of Intel's i9 on cpubenchmark.net/singlethread.html. Even gaming people are saying that Ryzen surpassed Intel with the 4th gen, they do say Intel is talking about something that might catch up now that Ryzen is showing how behind they're getting but that could be until next holiday season. Not to mention likely more expensive for a very slight edge.
5900X 128GB FTW, building this asap. Still waiting, they are not available now in Germany.
My Old 1700X Ryzen will then be the Vepro Slave with 64GB.
u meet me at official Cubase Hangouts by Greg Ondo Tuesday and Fridays, 19:00-23:00 CET
I have a Discord for all Cubase Hangout Nerds, where we share this.
Why hi there! Yes, that Ryzen 5600X is looking mighty tempting after watching this video. I was a little afraid that "only" 6 cores would be just too few, but this video shows that core count really isn't going to be the make-or-break in your DAW productivity.
Is intel still the best solution for DAW like Cubase? Like i9 10850k? With z490?
@@Muuuzzzi Right now, the best CPU for DAW use would likely be a Ryzen 5000 series. Probably the 5800x is the best overall, but the 5600x is 1/3 cheaper and nearly as good. A B550-based motherboard is fine, no real need to get X570.
Keep in mind that you used the same CPU turning off cores; that is not exactly the same as running a CPU with just 4, 6 or 8 cores; because the core die are interconnected on the same bus and share lanes; so you end up getting differences between CPU due to different usage of the cores. Useful data but would be more useful to run those tests on computers with the same RAM and specs, but different CPU
Do you think AMD thread ripper 64core 128 thread is overkill?
@@Thediegmyster yes; you can get a ryzen 7 or 9 and that is more than enough to be honest.
@@fcf8269 More than enough for *what*? Film scores? Relatively light hip-hop?
@@HammyHavoc That is up to you; the whole idea of making music is to find which plugin work well together and use less resources as possible, giving you the best audio quality.
You can do orchestration composition or 4 on the floor pop or what else; you learn your tool, know its limits and work around it.
If buying a car was like some people that get the most powerful thing available just because, and do not check for their needs and master their hardware, it would end up with everyone driving a 600 HP Ferrari :)
Only you know what you need; because nobody else is there to check how do you set up your DAW and plugins
@@fcf8269 What do *you* use it for? The whole idea of making music is making music, not mucking around with the workflow.
WOW, thxs so much for the test, this is a massive information.
I'm not sure this test means that the cores don't help. What we might be seeing in these results is the limitations of your other components. In other words, the limiting factor in speed is always your weakest link... your processor can't work faster than the RAM it has in it and vice versa. Adding more cores will help delegate tasks better if you have the RAM and storage capacity to match your higher core number, but it won't matter at a certain point if other components are maxed out. So if your RAM or SSD are slower, it won't matter how many cores you add, you'll hit a wall, and that might explain some of the limited results we're seeing in these tests.
Another factor that we might want to consider are the _threads,_ not just the cores. both cores and threads contribute to performance, albeit in different ways. If your CPU has a high number of cores but a low number of threads, that could also be limiting your performance increases.
I wouldn't ascribe too much meaning to this test without more information. It doesn't seem to account for the rest of the system.
I've been looking for this information for some time. Thanks!
Really informative and solid.... Thank You...!
And as for me personally, being a 40+ years of Pro IT Supporter and recording engineer, it's good to be confirmed in what I have stated in so many techings and advices over the years... :-)
Thanks for the video - really informative
This is EXTREMELY insightful. Thank you!
Great and very informative video, I just bought a new Ryzen 4800HS laptop which has 8 cores and started wondering if that's going to be enough to run extensive projects. My track count rarely goes above 100 so it's nice to see you showing how does different core count perform with 400 tracks and beyond. There really isn't enough music production benchmarks in laptop reviews so thank you for making this video. It makes even more happy about my recent purchase :)
Sir which one i should buy?.amd ryzen 5 4600h or Intel i5 10 gen? Please reply
@@KhatiBass what did you buy ??
@@KhatiBass I hope you got the Ryzen... it's far superior
Very informative videos for DAW optimizations. Thanks!
Very good video with lots of helpful information. No fluff: Just facts and straight to the point. I've watch it multiple times. This helped me in building my first Windows PC. Even your desk layout looks like mine. I subscribed!
Thank you for this contribution to this topic. I am in the planning stage of a new PC build with an emphasis on music production and you just helped me to nail my CPU choice. Thanks again and keep up the great work.
same here, which cpu have you decided for?
@@luca1emanuel I plan to build an AMD system, so I've decided on the Ryzen 7 3700X.
Wow, thank you for this! I would love to see an objective test as to the effects of ASIO Guard on the 'single-machine' setup!
Awesome video man, very informative and easy to follow. I just discovered your channel and I've been watching your work for a few hours now and I've learned a lot. Thank you 🤘
That was so so good literally
Cleared all of my doubts
Thanks for being here on earth sir 💞💞🎉 🔥
what were your doubts?
"14 Cores" is the biggest flex of 2020 so far🤣🤣 Great video btw
Very interesting video, I think this is the kind of practical information that helps the garden variety DAW user make some kind of assessment of just how much of a behemoth they need to make their music. I'm a hobbyist musician and my projects tend to lean towards a couple dozen tracks of mostly audio (typically a multitrack recording from a live band rehearsal). I've been noticing some limitations on my now seven year old Surface book laptop when I start to add some resource-intensive plugins like certain reverbs etc and that (and Gear Acquisition Syndrome) has me thinking about upgrading my machine. I would like, some day in the not too distant future, to try my hand at composing in a more traditional orchestral format with a view to maybe doing some television or film scoring and I have found myself wondering how much machine I'd realistically need to do that. Videos like this are a great help, I think. Thanks!
Thank you for explaining what I''ve been looking for
Very informative, thank you!
thanks so much for this video - and your other about DPC etc
Your videos are very informative!
Amazing. I have been producing since the late 80s and rarely got below a 1024 buffer. Getting to a finished project at 512 was an absolute treat. But I never learned to 'lag play' either, so after each take a manual fix of those first (midi - soft synth) notes after the count off were required, an issue that irritates the hell out of me still to this day.
thank you for this ! Amazing infos!
Keep up the great work sir!
Thank you so much this was exactly what I needed!
Great information in there! Thank you!
Thanks for the lovely RnD.....
It will be very useful to all Musicians who wants to upgrade their PC 🖥
Thanks for this! I've been thinking about upgrading my PC, but it seems like I may not need to go so crazy with the cores!
this is gold
tremendous information, thank you
Thank you!! needed this info!
👏👏👏 Great work! Ty
If I need to watch the whole video let me know. But doesn't the number of cores affect the number of tracks? For instance you can really load up one particular signal path, putting a bunch of inserts on one track and it can, say, take up 80% of your ASIO performance capability, but if you literally duplicate that track, the ASIO performance meter won't go up much because another core will be involved. That's at least the info I got directly from a Cubase employee technician on the forum. More cores and threads equals more simultaneous tracks... That is, as long as the software is written well. Note: in this scenario, you cannot have even ONE track that pushes the ASIO performance meter to 100%. But if every track is pushing it to 80%, that is fine.... until you run out of cores and threads.
Yes thats what i have heard so i shall leave this comment here to bump up the cores in hopes somebody can confirm.
indeed, this is the true answer, the test in the vid, tests something completely different. one plugin, or track can overload the buffer, and all those cores you have are useless, but if they don't, the cores are very very usefull... it is the balance between high single core performance, and high core count. i found the right balance for me, high single core performance (not the CPU Benchmark one, that tests only one core, but i mean when ALL cores are used....), and core count. not the highest core count, not necessary.
and also a lot of depend how a plugin acts, if it is written well, multiple instance, for instance, there could be problems with some plugins. some even mention it... and solve it.. or not...
so there is a lot more to it.
buy what you need, but high single core performance (when all cores are actively used) is very important, next to core count. especially of course for plugins that use one core.... or one core for the audio 'thread' (the name 'thread', well several threads can processed on one core, a process can only be processed on one core... processing, process, threads, o well hyperthreading, was a nice word....)
I come from an audio production background "non-composing" and core count is not as important espically at lower buffer sizes as having faster cores or a simpler CPU architecture (This is why Apples M1/2 ARM chips are so good). Also hyperthreading can cause issues when recording and monitoring at lower buffer sizes below 128. It is okay on anything Haswell or newer, but before that gen it must be turned off. It is nice to have if you do background stuff on the PC though, Windows is a pig. For me I set REAPER to use 8 of my P-Cores and 8 threads not 16. Then I allow the 4 E-cores to process my system with a 12700K. Its a little funky with the newer cores because of this design and my audio interface doesn't like lower buffer sizes without this setup.
Thanks so much. I’m just about to get a new computer.
Amazing video content! :)
Nice test. Would be interesting to see what impact CPU speed has. At 4.39 Ghz, you are running 20% faster than most other machines out there running at 3.6 Ghz. That may make a difference where additional cores aren't needed as much. Plus, the big question is how much optimization will be done on higher core count machines in the future.
It's all about the RAM man.... :)
Great video.
@Apparently You’reTheAsshole Well when it comes down to sheer amount of virtual instruments you can run simultaneously and smoothly, yeah, it's always going to be a matter of how many you can load into memory. Most any modern processor will never be your bottleneck.
Subscribed! Very helpful! Thanks!
very useful video.
But what about threadripper ?
Best work of it's kind I've seen, as I'm looking at a new CPU or not. Thanks. (Windows Pro 10 is stable w/ Cubase Pro 11. Using Waves WSG Server One Ethernet) X299 ASUS-D i77800XCore, 32 GB ram, .
this man explains the importance of 1 single core use for audio processing (serial), since it is not parallel and multi cores isnt affecting all else... When looking for less dropouts for vst or other audio functions in your daw, he stresses how audio performance depends on that single core chip performance. ruclips.net/video/HFL3wOfPx9s/видео.html
Thanks! great link!
I have dual core pentium cpu 🤞😞 maximum 20 pluggins it runs 😣🔊
I'm not an expert on the subject but i think you might want to consider this. i've been trying to answer this question myself and I've learned from other videos on CPUs that in order to actually get any real performance gain out of the extra cores (above maybe 4/6 or so) you would also need other parts to match it, like a motherboard with a high enough quality VRM(which regulates and provides power to the CPU) as well as high enough quality RAM cards that would be capable of keeping up with the CPU. With these components of a lower quality or lower specs than the CPU they won't be able to send data to the CPU and its extra cores fast enough for it to process as fast as it actually can. So in that case it may be that the CPU may be able to go way faster than its currently going and may have potential for improved results, but the issue is that maybe its not getting the best voltage regulation and/or its not receiving data fast enough from the other parts in a way that would let it reach as high as it wants to go. Also a PCIe 4.0 motherboard would really help too. But for the average pc build or for people who don't want to buy a whole new setup its good to know where that drop-off is
Would love to see your Ableton Live workflow!!! I am currently using Ableton only for writing and cubase to mix. I am unable to make the transition as I am so used to that way ableton does it as I've been using it for 4 years now. This would be great if you could do a video on that!
3:02 Windows 10 is not a static thing. It changes constantly and without notice. One version can work brilliantly and the next can ruin your day. This is true for any domain but I'm referring specifically to real-time audio production. Therefore, saying that you're running Windows 10 "completely stock" isn't really meaningful. DAW builders often find a specific version that works and then lock it down to make sure it doesn't automatically update.
Great video! I'm really happy with my 3700X and good to see that it's the sweet spot for audio production. Thanks!
what mobo are u using with 3700x?
@@animeshsrivastav660 @Animesh Srivastav MSI B450 Tomahawk Max
Awesome
I find freezing tracks down takes next to no time (either freeze or unfreeze) and with purging Kontakt samples I can run 400+ easily on my old 2012 I5 with 16gig RAM. I also off load main instruments like piano, ensemble strings/brass and other daily use sounds to my Montage. Once Im ready to mix I'll swap them out for better samples if I need to.
Which gen i5 do you use? I'm planning on for a 10400f
I'm wondering if 10400f would be good for some serious audio production task
Bingo, in Studio One it's called "transform to Audio". You never lose the MIDI tracks, it completely offloads the insane CPU grab all those plugins use and like you said when ready to mix you can start deciding on instruments for your final. This makes CPU load pretty moot.
Genius info i appreciate that 👈🏼
Thanks for this information
I would be curious to see, if multithreading enable or disable makes a significant difference?
Depends on the synth, if its super hungry like Diva or Repro5, then yes multithreaded mode on makes a huge difference to the sheer number of simultaneous notes you can play in HQ mode.
You should you use multitap delay insert on your tracks, I wish to see how this plugin destroys your cpu power...
...have been working for 5 years with an 11 year old HP Z800 workstation (about 8000 $ then, 600 now) with 2 6-core 3.3 Ghz XEON processors.
Now for the first time I have a problem that the new NI Massive synth needs a newer chip generation.
I got a 5 year old laptop for this.
Folks, buy old workstations for 1/10th the original price and be happy.
I recommend anything from the HP Z620.
You need to link up with hardware channels to make a Benchmark each year with new processors
Very informative video. Thanks for the info. But just to clarify, if the person who cut your hair doesn’t do haircuts, how did they cut your hair?
@Richard Ames Music This is solid stuff. Enjoying the content! Subscribed and notification on. I'm about to purchase a new machine and based on your video I don't need more than 10 cores. Now I have to decide how much RAM and if to exclusively use NVME drives only. I just want to get a machine from Dell that will just work. My last one has lasted 8 years without problems. I would also be curious about a graphics card. Any advice?
At least you still HAVE hair!!!
lol I'll revisit when I get closer to the new build. It's gonna be trying to fit "one size fits all" scenario, as I game... render... and create musically, and I was trying to amalgamate all the data (as i'm an "enthusiast" with regards to all) to see what's best for all in the prioritypyramid (TM pending... lol). I appreciate your insight.
Also... it's just me... i CAN render & bounce etc... and act accordingly for my limited vocal (and any IRL audio input thangythings) abilities. And I appreciate your viewpoint considering the "slave" aspects in regards to latency. (cuz we all have the ones that we didn't leave behind, but repurposed. But you WOULD think that multicore performance would be much better using vstis/etc i.e. separate... i.e. for every instance wouldn't you think they could take advantage of core use.
I would love to learn how to turn my surplus machines into a slave server across ethernet, for vsti's... I've got some digging to do. Any advice on where to begin my search?
Thanks for the really helpful video. A tip between 2 configurations:
1) I9-10900 (not K) + MB Gigabyte H470 + RME 9632 (Internal PCI) + RME AO4S / 192 AIO Expansion Board
(same BurrBrown PCM4104 DAC present in the RME UFX)
2) i9-9940X + Asus X299 (Thunderbolt) + SoundCard UNIVERSAL AUDIO Apollo Solo TB3
Your valuable advice would be very welcome. Thanks
@RichardAmesMusic
Best wishes, from Italy
Carlo
Hi Carlo - not sure on the sound cards but either of the CPUs will be perfectly fine for DAW use. Really it comes down to what else you want to do. If you don't already have a bunch of NVMe drives then I'd go with the cheaper CPU and put the money there. Cheers!
411 / 5000
Hi Richard, thanks for your reply (and congratulations on your compositions :). You've hit another important point completely, NVMe drives! I already have some that I could use but they are 3X and not the new PCIe 4x. As far as I know the 980 Pro installed on a Z490 (PCIe 3X) transfers on average at 3500mbs (gaining something on native 3x drives). What sound cards do you use? Motu?
Greetings from Italy
Thank you!!
In detail 👌
I used an i7 4790k (4 Cores) at 4.0 GHz with 32 Gb Ram and I can run Studio One Pro perfectly.
It's more than enough... 4.0 GHZ is awesome.
Obviously. Beyond overkill.
@@Leebabins It's not that bad for 2015 processor!
@@carlosserrano3985 My point is that it’s way more than you need. Music production doesn’t require much.
amazing video!! learned a lot!...one question,,,,what is the table you are using on your desk? Thanks
That's a Samsung Galaxy View tablet running lemur. Both have been kind-of abandoned but it's the core of my DAW setup. So I'm going to be in a pinch when it dies!
Amazing video quality! What camera did you use?
Thanks for making this. Very useful information.
Awesome thanks a daw vs ram could be a cool vid idea
GOOD ONE
So... what processor is better for music production? Intel or AMD???
TRI-UNE Trl as Richard shows us in the video either manufacturer will be fine. What matters most is processor clock speed and core count. For me it also depends on budget and I go for AMD because of the price for performance gain.
@@MrEduardoVelez
Is AMD support all plugins?
@@KhatiBass Yes. All the same as Intel.
uHe Repro works much better with "multi core" button pushed in, the real time VST CPU meter in cubase goes way down with that one. I am not sure how other plugins are assigned to CPU cores. But thanks for the nice video. I am chugging along with 4 old cores here.
Very informative, thank you! Would you say that Clock Speed is more important than Core Number (knowing that 6-8 are enough)?
thank you
make more vids on this topic please
All of them
Hi ,please i need one advice from you. I am using Cubase 12 and want to upgrade my ryzen 7 2700x cpu on msi b450 tomahawk max2.
I am looking for
- Ryzen 5 5600x
-Ryzen 7 5800x
- Ryzen 9 5900x
What do you think will be the best choice.Thx
5600x e upgrade za 10-15% od ryzen 2700x, ryzen 7 5800x ke ti e upgrade za 35% od 2700x
Great video! I remember how helpful your original videos covering this topic were, so I'm glad you updated it to include newer CPUs, Cubase 10, etc.
Question: do you think these results would've changed much if:
1) you increase the pre-load buffer size for both Kontakt and East West? (Maybe max them out)
2) you increase ram from 64gb to 128gb?
This is my current situation:
1) 2010 Mac Pro tower 2.4 ghz 8 core w/ 32gb ram, running Cubase 10 Pro
2) Visiondaw slave pc 4930k i7 6 core w/ 64gb ram. I believe hyperthreading is off(?) because there are only 6 cores showing in task manager
I'm thinking of getting another slave, but do you think it would be better to get a more powerful slave with more cores and 128gb ram so I can replace the other slave? Or is it better to get another machine similar to mine and have 2 slaves? I'm trying to simplify things, but if going to 1 more powerful slave would be worse than 2 medium power slaves that's where I'm confused.
Plus, I run a 512 buffer, I've always done this, I'm not hyper critical or sensitive about a tiny buffer and I can play just fine with that 512 setting. I'm on a Fireface 400 audio interface so would like to get your opinion please thanks
Increasing the preload buffer sizes might help a bit but I'm not sure. However, I'd be surprised if it made much difference. I don't think RAM will affect these results much other than limiting the number of samples you can load. In general more machines are still better as you can see from the results in this video - the same project runs at lower latency with multiple machines. I'd try running the slave with hyperthreading on. I've always found much better performance with it turned on.
@@RichardAmesMusic thank you so much for the reply! I will try the hyperthreading on and see what happens, and I'm leaning towards the 2nd slave, but I thought I might be able to run just 1 more powerful unit for less hassle, wiring, not needing a 3rd battery backup, etc. Keep up the great work!
Whats crazy is i have a late 2013 imac 27" with 32gb ddr3, 1tb hybrid hdd/sdd, i5 3.2, and i swear its running on magic, i can run logic or ableton 11 , and have 30 tracks with 15 open different vsts, effects, etc. abd have absolutely no latency with midi and with guitar playback (just use the builtnin speakers) i have a 2 year old hp laptop and it cant come close. But i cant afford a new mac so its mininoc for me
Great video. please let us know your current pc setup... 10940x, which motherboard and ram part number etc... thanks Richard :)
Interesting, but would you spend sometime more to test the CPU FREQUENCY 's impact of the performance ? I think the take away from this one is that compared with buffer size, the core counts doesn't matter. It's on different levels of significance. But how about the frequency? If you can disable cores in the bios, I bet you know how to manually set CPU frequency. If you have one of those "unlocked" cpus (K series, didn't follow up the latest ones), you can set it into 2Ghz, 3Ghz, 4Ghz, 5Ghz... then you can see if this is the most significant influencer of the performance.
Thank you for these videos, i just subscribed to your channel and browsed through your videos. I am currently working with a intel duo (yuck). But I'll be building a super powerful desktop next month for jazz composition and recording. Also will be using vienna symphonic software. (along with kontakt and keyscape). Do you think its necessary to get hyperthreading, specifically the i5-10600k? I've been deciding between that and the i7-9700k.
What did you get in the end?
i think having the extra cores gives you piece of mind. if it costs $500 more for a better processor, and you keep the processor for five years, i think it's worth $100 a year to have the additional confidence that you system can easily handle things with room to spare.
Your videos have MASSIVE PROBLEMS!!! NO OTHER CHANNEL HAS THE AUDIO DROPOUTS & FREEZES LIKE YOURS. SAD, I WANTED TO HEAR WHAT YOUR POINT IS.....
Oh man, I saw this a while back and didn't save the link. I badly need the info today. phew!
Thank you so much for this video! What do you think about a gaming Notebook for music production? I have to decide: portability vs. power.
Maybe a video about Ram Speeds?
I was using Logic Pro on a pretty underpowered 2015 MacBook Pro and it was pretty much useless for realtime plugins and virtual instruments. I now have a 5600x with 48Gb of 3200 CL16 ram. Running Ableton Live 11. It is much much much more powerful. I keep my latency at 256 samples most of the time. I'm thinking of upgrading to a 5900x cpu. I really don't tend to make huge projects but sometimes do and my old i7 7700k with 16 Gb of ram used to struggle when I got to 50 tracks or so. But my new system handles larger projects fine but I'm also using newer plugins that can use up a lot of cpu.
No issues with REAPER but Pro Tools is a pig and I hear Studio One is pretty heavy as well. REAPER I got like a thousand tracks with only 4 cores activated going at either 128 or 256 buffer size. I've had to reduce it a bit because it is unweildly just like a junior programer looking over a million lines of code and passing out.
Thank you so much! I am running Studio One 5.1and I have to buy a new computer. The Ryzen 5000 series looks nice and shiny, but I don't want to have the experience you are talking about in terms of not really seeing any advantage. Do you think I should be good with a 3900 or 3950 chip considering the plugins that I use from acustica audio and other cpu hungry plugins. I've also been told that once I have 3600 optimized RAM that will help as well 32-64GB. What's your recommendation. I really don't want to purchase a machine and I really am not getting the most out of it. I currently own a Dell XPS 8500 which is 8-9 years old so I know I will see a massive increase. I just don't want to spend and get diminishing returns
I'm confused too... Although the new ryzen processors has the fastest single core performance
My gut is saying that the 5600X is a better choice than the 3700X for DAW use. The extra two cores (3700X) won't help much, while the better single-core performance (5600X) definitely will. The 3900/3950 probably won't be significantly better in terms of how far you can push things without dropouts.
As for RAM, go with 16GB unless you use a lot of big sample libraries, then push to 32GB or 64GB. The differences you'll see with different RAM speeds (3200, 3600, timings, all that) are truly microscopic compared to any other changes, so don't worry about that - with the Ryzen 5000 just get DDR4-3600 since that's basically the same price.
One interesting note: apparently the Ryzen 5000 series processors work *substantially* better (up to 10%) with four RAM chips vs. two. (Technically it's four "ranks" of RAM vs two "ranks", but it's a bit hard to know whether a given RAM chip is one rank or two, so best to get four individual chips.) So there may be perf benefits going with 4x4GB instead of 2x8GB, for example.
@@chrishillery Deciding between 5600x/g or 2700x/3700x, just curios what did u end up getting, can you recommend one over the other?
@@x7zauman910 I've been running the 5600x happily for over a year. Working great. I haven't used the previous generation Ryzens so I can't directly compare, but I think it's safe to say the 5xxx series is much better.
You should look at the newer 5700g if you can - it's a bit better CPU than the 5600x, but it also includes a reasonably capable graphics engine so you wouldn't need a separate graphics card for DAW work. That could be a savings overall.
@@chrishillery That's really nice, I thank you for the reply!
Thank you for taking the time.
There are many parameters at play. I would have loved a test on Presonus Studio One, since it was recently optimized for multiinstruments.
The question with samples size is, how much is too much, eg hearable latency. I'll hazard 512 and even 1024 is fine for most tasks, and that it's generally posible to optimize the projet for phases such as recording voices to be worked at lower sample sizes. Would be interested in your perspective on this.
I used to Studio One for 7 years and recently changed to Cubase, primarily because I'm able to run twice as many plugins. I didn't do a super scientific test but I would say the performance is actually 2.5 times as good.
thanks dear.
thank u very much for this test and for your time . it is the best tutorial about latency
Great video; could kindly show how us your BIOS settings and your Windows 10? For example; are you using power management settings at 100%...etc Thank you for this video, helped a bunch.
i m building a new pc on budget, is there much difference between i7 9700k and ryzen 5 3600 . I will be using cubase 10 with kontakt, omnisphere etc. About 15-25 tracks on average. waiting for ur answer
9700 should be better exp in older daws but the same price AMD would be 3700x wich is much better
Thank you for shating this information but it makes a differns at the verry leats in the playback from the computer to the speaker you really need as low latency as possible to get the best sound quailty! That is if the rest of your hardware is resolving enouthg to show it.
So even a lowlatency OS is important f.ex ubuntu studio is probably best for production and audiophile linux is the best for playback from a pc.