asked Mar 30 '17 at 17:31 by Guten-Tag (81)

Hello i want upgrate my PC. In some forums I read that there are big differences in DAW's in the use of multiple cores. Now I am interested in the new Ryzens from AMD because they are so nice. Bitwig is the latest, if not the most advanced DAW.

The DAW will lend it self morn to multi core, so a 1700 -1800X would be great where this would fall a bit short is with VST's because it depends on how they are coded. So I would look into your VST's but overall in terms of the future more cores is always better. if you do go AMD they all favor fast ram so if it can over clock you should be good!. I'm building a 1800x system now (not for music) waiting on better to come out ram.

link

answered Apr 02 '17 at 18:29 by Black-Star (35)

Hey EWKrulgert, did you ever happen to take a look at what's going on? Interested to know. I'm tossing up between a quad core 2.8GHz processor or a more expensive duel core 3.2GHz. I can't decide if the extra money is worth the extra speed at the cost of half the cores :/

Cheers

link

answered Apr 18 at 18:25 by Ouxh (13)

Hey Ouxh,

yeah i did fire up some of my old mixes, with Resmon open, and it was rocking on all 16 cores..

the question is, what kind of stuff do you do? and on a laptop?or not?...if your just doing sample based step entered sequencing and just using bitwig native processing, you might be ok on either processor....i performance trigger soft synths and play audio tracks, and by the time i am getting toward the end of a piece i have to strip down the track several times and bounce some of it to audio in a "SaveAs" record the next track, because the tacking latency was making me insane...

and that's on a liquid cooled 16 cores, ( 32 thread ) AMD Threadripper 1950X

piping audio into a PC without Thunderbolt is like hell too....if i was to do it all over i would bite the bullet and get a mac pro. so if you work like i do, i would actually recommend one of these. https://www.apple.com/mac-pro/

link

answered Apr 19 at 03:10 by EWKrulgert (21)

ok...the Mac Pro is a little pricey...but you can get away with A Lot less processing power if you step sequence everything... but i personally can't live like that...and i am a soft synth junkie who also does vocal work and plays baritone guitar..

the AMDs are getting faster also, and are way less expensive if you have the knack to build your own system.

sTRX4 is the new socket there...start with looking for an sTRX4 Main Board with Thunderbolt...that's what i am going to do now...ttly

rulg

link

answered Apr 19 at 03:56 by EWKrulgert (21)

The normal AMD AM4 socket also accepts thunderbolt will need a PCI Express adapter but that is the same no matter what platform you are on. So if you don't want to spend a lot of money get like a Ryzen 7/9 the 8 or 12 core an be fine. You can also step up to the 16 core if you want to spend that much as well. but you won't see any real performance hits with AMD over Intel in my current experience with a 3950x an. 9900k. Once my project gets to a certain size I will see a little bit of lag with reverbs.

link

answered Apr 19 at 04:02 by Black-Star (35)

There Are None with Thunderbolt....crips....if Thunderbiolt is never going to show up PC main Boards, they sould at least make DAW specialty boards, ( like they make Gaming specialty boards ), where the on board sound card has at least 2 x balanced inputs with decent headroom..

audio is as fast as the speed of light until it hits the ADC converter... and PC ADC converters go strait into the PCI bus.... i mean how freaking difficult would it be to make main boards tailored to audio pros?...yah know?

link

answered Apr 19 at 04:12 by EWKrulgert (21)

I am Not Jokeing, this is really bothering me... why would i pay for a 2.0 usb audio interface to run my audio in through that ADC, to convert it to the USB 2.0 standard at the molasses slow rate that USB 2.0 "demands" , to then need to have my chip-set intemperate the USB 2.0 data for my PCI bus, when the the main board audio goes strait to the PCI bus?

because onboard PC soundboards are CRAP, that's why, and that is the only reason... well, it just so happens that USB 2.0 Interfaces are just another kind of CRAP.

link

answered Apr 19 at 04:39 by EWKrulgert (21)

and again i say " audio is as fast as the speed of light until it hits the ADC converter... and PC ADC converters go strait into the PCI bus.... i mean how freaking difficult would it be to make main boards tailored to audio pros?...yah know? "

so anyway, i get the one available "USB 3.0" interface only to find the USB 3.0 connection is only a gimmick, and the ADC doesn't convert my audio any faster than USB 2.0....so it's a USB 2.0 interface with a USB 3.0 connection, but it isn't any faster than USB 2.0..

so i am looking at RME PCI sound-cards, and the low ball in means i have to also get an 8 channel ADAT Pre, and the one i don't need an 8 -CH ADAT Pre for is more expensive that getting the less expensive one and also getting the 8-CH ADAT Pre..

and again i say " audio is as fast as the speed of light until it hits the ADC converter... and PC ADC converters go strait into the PCI bus.... i mean how freaking difficult would it be to make main boards tailored to audio pros?...yah know? "

link

answered Apr 19 at 04:50 by EWKrulgert (21)

BITWIG....IF YOU CAN HEAR ME.....PLEASE TALK TO PC MAIN BOARD MANUFACTURES ABOUT SWAPPING THE GENERIC ONBOARD 8 CHANNEL MULTI MEDIA SOUND FOR A 2 CHANNEL PRO ADC / DAC ...

HEADS UP, THE NEW MAC PRO HAS A LOGIC PRO X PRE-LOAD OPTION !!! ...HELP THE PC USERS.

link

answered Apr 19 at 05:00 by EWKrulgert (21)

yeah...all those Thunderbolt interfaces are SWEET, ( provided you have something to plug them into. )

link

answered Apr 19 at 05:02 by EWKrulgert (21)

Follow this question

By Email:

Once you sign in you will be able to subscribe for any updates here

Markdown Basics

  • *italic* or __italic__
  • **bold** or __bold__
  • link:[text](http://url.com/ "title")
  • image?![alt text](/path/img.jpg "title")
  • numbered list: 1. Foo 2. Bar
  • to add a line break simply add two spaces to where you would like the new line to be.
  • basic HTML tags are also supported

Tags:

×27
×3
×2
×1
×1

Asked: Mar 30 '17 at 17:31

Seen: 2,742 times

Last updated: Apr 19 at 05:02