Ryzen 1800X or I7 7700K

[mikefearn83]

Hey,

as the title states, I am looking for the best options for my Audio (DAW) Build. I am torn between the I7 7700K or the Zen 1800X. I will be hammering the CPU in traditional DAW ways, with loads of VST plugins and synths being used.
Histrionically DAWs like fast cores instead of multi, but they are slowly making the most of the multi cpus. That being said, some of the DAWs are not there yet and seem a way off.

I want this build to last a few years so want to make sure its right. I have read and read discussions, but nothing seems to be concrete in the audio world to if Zen is going to be a benefit.

The I7 build it approx £150 cheaper also, but that wouldn't stop me going with AMD. No gaming will be done on this.

Does anyone have any input of this.

Thanks.

Mike

[scaryjim]

Have a read of http://forums.hexus.net/pc-hardware-...tions-sff.html - it's a thread another Hexite started recently on the same topic.

Basically it come down to number of tracks, types of plugins, the software you're using, the way the wind is blowing, and whether geese are flying south (note: those factors are not all equally important ).

In my experience fast consistent IO is important too - I'd spend a good proportion of the budget on an enterprise grade SSD. Whilst I don't have a typical DAW workflow I've yet to find a situation where any audio processing I've been doing has been bottlenecked by the CPU before the IO...

From my research for that other thread, it looks like most DAWs nowadays will use multiple threads, but they generally can't use more than 1 thread for an individual track. The more effects/virtual instruments/synth/plugins that get applied to a track the more processing it takes, which is where the faster cores comes in handy. If you're topping out at 8 tracks, throwing more than 8 threads are the workload won't actually improve the performance (although it will mean your CPU isn't completely maxed out, which might make the computer more responsive generally), and you're probably better off with the i7. The more tracks you use, the more the extra threads will help (otherwise multiple tracks will have to share threads, which will slow down processing), and if you generally get up into the teens of tracks then I'd definitely look at Ryzen. It might be worth thinking about the 1700X or 1700 rather than the 1800X though - you'll save a lot of money for a fairly minimal reduction in performance.

The other thing it might be worth doing is testing out the software you plan to use on your existing PC (assuming you have one - if not, borrow a friends?!) and record some performance metrics, which will tell you whether your workflow is hammering the CPU, memory, or disks. That would point you in the direction of which part of the build you need to pay most attention to...

[mikefearn83]

Hey.
Thanks for the reply. Yes u are correct in saying about the channel per core allocation on DAWs. I will definatly be running into the teens regarding channel count. To be fair some of my projects are running at 50 plus channels. Alot of these are audio based with FX plugs instead of cpu hungry synths, but there will also be a large number of synth channels running.

I've pretty much purchased the build running a M.2 OS drive, 500 SSD samples drive and 2tb storage drive.
I'll be getting a AIO cpu cooler and 32gb of 3000 ram. Just the CPU and MB is holding the build at this stage. All the usual bits are purchased also like fans, thermal paste, case etc.

This build won't be changing much after running so I just want to make sure it's good for a few years. The extra money for the 1800x etc doesn't concern me so I'm wondering if the zen would be the best bet for a 3 year rig.
Dont mind adding bits over those years, but the CPU and MB are there to stay.

Decisions decisions. Bloody AMD, Why didn't u just wait 6 months and I would have gone I7 not even thinking about the two choices.

Im coming from a 2010 imac with a 2.93 I7. To be fair it's been pretty solid but struggles with today's demands. Either build will be a big improvement I supoose so I've got to remember that life will be much better whatever I go for.

Honestly, what would u throw the money at. And also, do u have any recommendations on which MB to go for either way.

Thanks again. Great help. Mike.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Another option is a Core i7 6800K too.

[mikefearn83]

Surely the Ryzen would be the go to over the 6000k.

[Devaraja]

There are still a lot improvement to be done to Ryzen and the extra cores could do the different later on. if the extra is not a problem i would get the 1800X.

[i7Baby]

Lots of cores/threads and fast. Either Ryzen or i7 would be fine. Also need say 16+GB ram.

[4960x]

7700K for gaming, 1800x for productivity.

[sp3n]

7700K for gaming, 1800x for productivity.

7700k for gaming, 1800x for productivity AND gaming

[norman044]

how does the ryzen compare to the insane levels of overclock of the k?

[kalniel]

how does the ryzen compare to the insane levels of overclock of the k?

The 7700K overclocking doesn't change the picture - it's still a few cores, high speed chip, verses the many cores, lower IPC performance, of Ryzen and Intels HEDT chips.

[ik9000]

The 7700K overclocking doesn't change the picture - it's still a few cores, high speed chip, verses the many cores, lower IPC performance, of Ryzen and Intels HEDT chips.

From my limited reading on this a few months back Ryzen can be overclocked, but YMMV and the reviews I've read suggested to use at least watercooling if you want anything meaningful, and even then go carefully. Others will be more up to speed, but don't expect miles of additional headroom by overclocking Ryzen.

I have a similar use to yourself and would go Ryzen in this choice, for the more simultaneous track recording ability (assuming you need that?). The threads will be fast enough. Ideal would be the very expensive intel X chipset processors xeons with ECC RAM for many cores and fast single threads, and memory stability but that would be at hugely more cost than I could ever dream of on my budget.

I run cubase with 24 tracks on a dual core i3-540 and it works, even at stock 3GHz thread speed. Recording no more than 4 tracks at once, and with light processing it's fine even at 32bit 196kHz. It can play back all tracks in real time while over-recording 4 new ones. Occasionally I used to get a weird interference stutter until I realised AV was running scans in the background. Now I've killed that off I haven't had any disruption. I've just got an i7-870 to see if that makes things smoother having the extra threads. I will report back in the coming weeks once I've finished my overclocking project on the i3.