Deleted member 66701
D
Deleted member 66701
It's always easy to pick out one specific usage scenario to justify bias.
I can't go Intel due to AES encoding performance.
See, it's easy.
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
Intel’s X-Series Processors Explained - by Mike Jennings
- Thread starter Connor@Overclockers
- Start date
It's always easy to pick out one specific usage scenario to justify bias.
I can't go Intel due to AES encoding performance.
See, it's easy.
No Its fact...Sorry... You conjecture is manifest in contrived drivel.
It amazes me why people are so wound up about brand loyalty and I just couldn't care less. I want the best performance for my money.
ITS THAT SIMPLE
Deleted member 66701
D
Deleted member 66701
I agree really, just playing devils advocate. I'm no brand loyalist myself. It's a shame Intel were late showing up wit the 8700k else I would have probably bought that if it had been available during the start of the summer - their fault for stalling I guess.
Last edited by a moderator:
So you were trolling then? (ninja EDIT)
I didn't go for gen 1 Ryzen purely due to slower latency in Audio work. Ryzen 2 is an improvement but still no cigar. So I'll wait for 8/16 thread intel and see what that offers. My 6700K is doing fine for now but my studio projects are only going to get bigger and I need all the power for DSP I can muster.
Associate
I bet these aren’t gamers chips though, am I right?
Deleted member 66701
D
Deleted member 66701
2700x has also improved the situation. There are still cases where the 8700k is better, but Ryzen is now more competitive than ever and it's unlikely most users will ever notice the difference between them now. It's like 200fps and 180fps in games. Yeah, sure, one is better, but no one could really tell the difference.
But yeah, if DAW was my primary use of a PC, I'd choose an 8700k as well.
Its not their primary function with plenty more cost effective options around. But that is not to say you can't game on them, I run games more then fine with my 7980XE with the GPU's often being the limiting factor, more so when you give the CPU's an overclock. See no difference between my 8700k and 7980XE rig as a result as the GPU is the limit mostly.
That just VST and doesn't reflect real time latency. Something which the INTEL higher IPC for live recording and tracking say a Live band with 16 tracks at once excels at over Ryzen.
You can see here why I didn't upgrade to Ryzen 1 from my 6700K. The extra cores slower latency and the way Ryzen handles Memory speeds cannot beat 7700k which has 2 less cores.
No reason for me to upgrade.
NEXT
And reviewed against Ryzen 2 the 8700k beats it again.
Can you now see why I am waiting for 8/16 core Intel?
"All told, the best thing about today's CPU market is that builders can choose just the chip they need at the right price. Those after the very best single-threaded performance, overclocking potential, high-refresh-rate gaming experiences, and all-round digital audio workstation performance can still get it in the Core i7-8700K,"
https://techreport.com/review/33531/amd-ryzen-7-2700x-and-ryzen-5-2600x-cpus-reviewed/9
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 30,789
Yup, if you use DAW a lot. For me the new Ryzen CPU's offer great value for all-round performance
edit - 7700k performance looks damn low though...
Yup, if you use DAW a lot. For me the new Ryzen CPU's offer great value for all-round performance
edit - 7700k performance looks damn low though...
And this - there is something extremely specific about this particular application, it just behaves weird.
Yup, if you use DAW a lot. For me the new Ryzen CPU's offer great value for all-round performance
edit - 7700k performance looks damn low though...
Your just looking at the VST instances. Nothing to do with real time latency. Audio latency when tracking the most important thing in audio recording especially when recording live performances.
using Virtual instruments for example....Intel Blows Ryzen at the window.
Cause I'm tech savvy and want bang for buck.
Last edited by a moderator:
Use another application that doesn't favour Intel's processors so much. Must be a code in the software which detects that you are running IntelGenuine processors and then intentionally cripples the performance on non-Intel processors
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 30,789
Use another application that doesn't favour Intel's processors so much. Must be a code in the software which detects that you are running IntelGenuine processors and then intentionally cripples the performance on non-Intel processors
No, You don't really understand do you?
You need to get sound into your DAW from a mic
Analogue sound needs to be converted to Digital to record into your Daw this data then needs to be converted to Analogue again so you can here it through your speakers.
Same with latency using virtual Pianos, keyboards, midi instruments etc...
Things get even more CPU hungry when you want to track with audio plugins on the signal going in.
Thats why many audio software companies offer DSP processing boxes along with the audio interfaces.
https://www.uaudio.com/uad-accelerators/uad2-satellite-usb.html is one example.
Deleted member 66701
D
Deleted member 66701
Do you have a link to any of your work?
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Dec 2015
- Posts
- 18,512
Use another application that doesn't favour Intel's processors so much. Must be a code in the software which detects that you are running IntelGenuine processors and then intentionally cripples the performance on non-Intel processors
some programs are coded to hit mass market appeal and make program easier to shift - seen it with xeon 22 core/ thread ripper 16 core getting beaten by a 12 core i9 ...
same program also works better for geforce cards then quadro haha