Here's an updated PARTS LIST with amazon links for the best computer for music production in 2022 based on the Intel i9-12900k: Check out my new and updated video here: th-cam.com/video/ayt8-s77cQs/w-d-xo.html ☑Performance option: CASE: geni.us/define-r6usbc Main Board: geni.us/z690-f CPU: geni.us/i9-12900k CPU Cooler (Water): geni.us/pl360-flux CPU Cooler (Air): geni.us/NH-D15S RAM: geni.us/KFB-DDR5 POWER SUPPLY: geni.us/RM750x SSD (M.2): geni.us/SN570 VIDEO CARD: geni.us/RTX3050 Total cost: 2500 USD (approximately) ☑Budget Option: CASE: geni.us/corsair-110q Main Board: geni.us/A520M CPU (With cooler): geni.us/AMD5600x RAM: geni.us/kingston-ddr4 POWER SUPPLY: geni.us/NWE-Bronze SSD (M.2): geni.us/Kingston-NV1 VIDEO CARD: geni.us/RX6500 Total cost: 880 USD (approximately) ☑Accessories: Keyboard: geni.us/g213 Mouse: geni.us/logitech-g402fury Audio interface: geni.us/scarlettsolo-3rd-gen Headphones: geni.us/akg-k612pro Studio monitors: geni.us/Yamaha-HS8 Ultrawide monitor: geni.us/Samsung-49 Standard monitor: geni.us/spectre27 ☑prebuilt performance computers: Statationary (Intel): geni.us/Prism-12900k Stationary (AMD): geni.us/MEK-5950x Laptop (Intel): geni.us/G533ZW laptop (AMD): geni.us/ASUS-G15 ☑Prebuilt budget computers: Stationary (Intel): geni.us/cyberp-i5 Stationary (AMD): geni.us/ibuy5600 Laptop (Intel): geni.us/HPcorei5 Laptop (AMD): geni.us/HP-ryzen550 Here's the ORIGINAL list of components used for this video: ☑️ Case: geni.us/define-r6usbc ☑️ Power Supply: geni.us/corsair-rm750x ☑️ Main board: geni.us/asus-rog-maximus ☑️ CPU: geni.us/intel-i9-9900k ☑️ CPU Cooler: geni.us/noctua-nh-d15 ☑️ RAM: geni.us/corsair-lpx32gb ☑️ SSD: geni.us/mx500 ☑️ Video Card (Optional): geni.us/asusgtx1070 ☑️ Case fan: geni.us/fractaldesign-xpgp14 ☑️ Mouse: geni.us/logitech-g402fury ☑️ Keyboard: geni.us/g213 ☑️ Screen: geni.us/lg29wk600-w ☑️ Studio monitors: geni.us/Yamaha-HS8 ☑️ XLR Cables: geni.us/monoprice104761 ☑️ Headphones: geni.us/akg-k612pro ☑️ Audio interface: geni.us/scarlettsolo-3rd-gen Here's the AMD equivalent with the new Ryzen CPU's (Just replace motherboard and CPU): ☑️ Main board: geni.us/asus-rogstrixx570 ☑️ Ryzen 3900X: geni.us/ryzen9-3900x As an Amazon Affiliate, we earn from qualifying purchases. Support This Channel on Patreon: www.patreon.com/firewalkmusic Support us with a one-time Paypal donation: www.paypal.me/firewalkmusic Need feedback on music, mixing, mastering? www.fiverr.com/firewalk
@@paulluna8099 If you buy everything from scratch, like monitors, audio interface etc then it will be quite expensive indeed. I think I spent around $2200 for just the computer. If you already have an older stationary computer then you can usually just upgrade it. In that case you can probably get away with just a new main board, CPU, RAM and possibly a new cooler for the CPU as well, unless you buy one with the cooler included. You don't really need to spend money on video card for music production. If you go for a CPU with integrated graphics then that will usually be more than good enough. :)
Keep in mind that while single core performance is very important for the master output, all the "per track/instrument/plugin/group/..." processing can still be distributed among multiple CPU's. For example, the processing of the bass VST (and any effects applied to it) and the one of the drum VST can still be handled by two different cores (before reaching the master bus).
Indeed. All VST's can usually be processed separately. Additionally, every mixer track is generally an opportunity for the CPU to process in parallel. The problem is mainly all the waiting that needs to take place further down in the chain. Unlike with video editing and such, this becomes a problem because the sound needs to be played back in real-time. This is why fast processing is generally more important than having a large number of cores. The 9900k is great because it's located in the sweet spot where you have a good amount of cores, and at the same time very good single core speed. As you keep adding cores, single core performance tends to go down. If you look at the 9900x for example, which is a workstation platform, you get more cores, but about 12% slower single-core speed. The 9900k can also be overclocked to run at 5 ghz on all cores with no problem. Large overclocks will typically not be possible on CPU's with huge amount of cores since more heat is generated. To quote the developers (This is from the manual): The logic of audio processing - There is a long list of tasks that must be processed in sequence, and this means logically can't be processed in parallel (multithreaded). For example: Plugins must wait for instructions from the Piano roll and Playlist before they make sound. Effects must wait for the audio from upstream instruments and FX before they can process it. Further, it's not possible to parallel-process (multithread) instruments and FX that are on the same Mixer channel (their audio is mixed together), or even in the same Mixer routing pipe-line (when one Mixer track is linked to another and another, even FX processing has an order from top to bottom in the FX stack). Then, the Master Mixer track must wait for every instrument > mixer track > effect to be processed before it can process the audio through the Master effects. So logically, there is a lot of waiting that is a natural and unavoidable fact of DAW music processing. Think of a production line. This means the CPU may not be particularly busy, using all its cores and processing slots, yet it runs out of time to fill that tiny 5 ms audio-buffer because there was a lot of waiting for things that needed to be processed in sequence. It should be clear that fast processing is very important and this is not the same thing as multi-core processing. The best CPU is one that has enough cores to spread the work around AND can do the most work on a single core during each buffer time-slice. Which leads to our TIP: When comparing CPUs, look for the fastest single-core performance scores in a package with at least 4 physical cores.
@@FireWalkMusic "As you keep adding cores, single core performance tends to go down" - This is more of a intel problem. AMD bins in a way that more cores generally means higher single core, because the best binned chips go to top skus. And as for single core, there is very little seperating the 3900x/3950x and the 9900k. And scanproaudio did a proper dawbench review back in july, where the 3900x at times manhandles the 9900k: www.scanproaudio.info/2019/07/12/amd-ryzen-3600-3700x-3900x-dawbench-tested-3-is-it-the-magic-number/
After endless searching through TH-cam videos to help me understand audio cpu processing I stumbled on your accidentally, and it's pure magic! Thank you for helping me with understanding this nuisance. Great video!
Just wanted to come back and thank you for this video and all other videos you’ve been posting since the beginning. Been a supporter since day one and I have recently bought and built my first good PC. This video especially helped me in choosing the right and most suitable parts : )
Glad you found it useful. :) You might also want to check out my video about how to get better CPU performance in FL Studio, as well as how to make CPU friendly projects: th-cam.com/video/OWYmqwb7b4k/w-d-xo.html
Yeah, but then he went for a 9900k when an I5 has about the same single core performance. Still a helpful video, though. If I were to build a computer today, thunderbolt 3 would be a big point. Near 0 latency monitoring even with effects.
Very informative nice!!! I have an i7 9700KF, Msi Meg Z390 Ace, Noctua nh-d15, be quiet silent base 801, 16gb ram, M.2+ ssd+ 8 x140mm fans. Everything is working so smoothly, I get low temperatures, very low noise and I’m so happy with my build ;)
I went with the i9(8 core), aorus Xtreme motherboard, I have the same cpu cooler as you, and 64gb of RAM. 8TB of storage (2TB M.2, 2TB SSD, 4HDD). I have similar specs as you on the rest of my build. I did months of research. I use loads of composer sound libraries for big projects. I didn't want to sacrifice anything when it came to processing and rendering. I think I'm in good shape. Nice to see this video give me some confirmation on my build. I didn't want to 'settle' for buying a gaming computer, so i just built mine to suit. There aren't as many videos that cover cpu builds for music production as well as you have in this one. Great information.
Hi Keith, I compose film score. Im looking for help keeping up with demand. Would you be so kind as to shoot me your email address or contact me at hitzoneproductions@gmail.com please?
@Keith Harris II How do you feel about it several months later? I have a 12 Core Mac Pro with 96 gigs of Ram and 16TB of storage. There are so many strong options available today. If you're an orchestral guy, you are probably are aware of VEP Pro (Vienna Ensemble Pro). Everyone uses it, Junkie XL, Hans Zimmer. I have a license but usually get by with the one Mac.
@@xoxo-pp7ru Oh so the average guy making beats is somehow paid?! For the most part, no one is making (MONEY). Actors, Dancers, Musicians all waiting tables in this town. Only a hand full get a break. But yes, just like the rest, some orchestral guys make money, most don't!
Fantastic explanation and buyers guide! I went to Fractal Design cases a few years ago, similar to the one in this vid, but USB-C wasn't available then, but upgraded it a while back to an I9 as well to help with latency. Works like a dream! This is def the most comprehensive video I've seen on music station PCs. One thing I would add, if your a hardware nut like me. The motherboard may be something to add consideration to as well. PCIe slots are very important to my setup as I use a ton of external USB for synths and MIDI to USB dongles and interfaces. I would suggest if you have a ton of external gear, get a mobo with as many PCIe slots as possible so you are able to add additional USB ports. Even if you dont use all of them, later on when you need them they will be available for expansion and you won't have to daisy chain off a single bus with a multiport USB dongle which can cause huge a bottleneck and cause addition latency. But if your all VSTs then basically forget everything I said 😁
Wow! As a newbie, this is the best NO BULL video on building a DAW computer. Even if you don't go with his recommendations on CPU and motherboard, you can't go wrong using this information and the provided links to gather the info needed to make an educated decision on what you equipment choose! Thank you so much for the explanations on why a DAW is different than a gaming PC. So many videos I have watched just say any gaming set up will handle the needs of a DAW. Now I know different.
Thanks. When playing games, the GPU is often more important than the CPU. You then need a CPU with good single core performance to keep up with the GPU, but it doesn't actually have to do the same amount of work as with music production. When you buy a gaming computer you're paying a lot for the video card. It's better to spend those money on a better CPU and get a cheaper video card if you're just using the computer for music produciton. In music production you also want fast single core speed, but also a good amount of cores, so a gaming computer isn't always the best option. :)
@@drfleka Yes, a few games do, but most rely quite heavily on the gpu. why is it that the i5 has been so popular among gamers for so long then? It's not nearly as capable as the i7 or i9.. it's for the same reason a 5820k workstation would be a bad choice for a gamer. It would hold back the gpu, but it would also be much better than the i5 when it comes to realtime audio production.
@@FireWalkMusic I agree, but still for good gaming you don't want to bottleneck your GPU. For music production, since DAWs support multi core I'm not so sure that Intel is better than AMD. And these year i am certain that AMD will be more powerful.
@@drfleka Yes, daws do support multiple cores, but the problem is that they are not very effective at spreading the work out over those available cores, which will inevitably cause issues when one core is overworked. Because the audio is processed in realtime, if only one core is overworked and starts lagging behind, then it doesn't matter if there's 10 other cores availale. You'll still have overruns and crackling sound. Here's what the developers say about this issue, and I'll quote from the manual: "The logic of audio processing - There is a long list of tasks that must be processed in sequence, and this means logically can't be processed in parallel (multithreaded). For example: Plugins must wait for instructions from the Piano roll and Playlist before they make sound. Effects must wait for the audio from upstream instruments and FX before they can process it. Further, it's not possible to parallel-process (multithread) instruments and FX that are on the same Mixer channel (their audio is mixed together), or even in the same Mixer routing pipe-line (when one Mixer track is linked to another and another, even FX processing has an order from top to bottom in the FX stack). Then, the Master Mixer track must wait for every instrument > mixer track > effect to be processed before it can process the audio through the Master effects. So logically, there is a lot of waiting that is a natural and unavoidable fact of DAW music processing. Think of a production line. This means the CPU may not be particularly busy, using all its cores and processing slots, yet it runs out of time to fill that tiny 5 ms audio-buffer because there was a lot of waiting for things that needed to be processed in sequence. It should be clear that fast processing is very important and this is not the same thing as multi-core processing. The best CPU is one that has enough cores to spread the work around AND can do the most work on a single core during each buffer time-slice. Which leads to our TIP: When comparing CPUs, look for the fastest single-core performance scores in a package with at least 4 physical cores. " This will be the case with every daw. The audio is traveling from A to B to C. That's why the order of your mixer inserts matter, because it always goes from the first to the last. It can't process the last effect before those befor it has been processed, because it can't process something that hasn't happened yet, which means it has to wait. In other words, serial processing, and there's a lot of that in a daw. This is why single core speed is more important than a large number of cores. The 9900k can run at 5 ghz on all cores, while the AMD flagship can only run at 4 ghz on all cores. AMD has more cores, but even so, keep in mind that this doesn't help if the daw can't effectively spread the work over those cores.
I was thinking of getting the i9-9900K but i got the R7 3800X since has higher clockspeed and was the same price incl new motherboard. I used to have a i5-8400 and where it maxed out to 100% it's now on 30% usage
Best video on building a PC for music production on TH-cam! Also every time I hear you playing music on your channel I'm like "wait...what?!?!", very good trance music. Do you have anything on streaming services?
neat, i want to upgrade my PC for a few months now but didnt have the information what to look for in building the best build for production! Thank you :)
I had the exact same argument with a tech guy, he insisted it was all the same . Parallel or serial , nope big difference. Core speed is key to audio DAWs. My main DAW i7 core 4.2ghz murdered his 8 core 2.8ghz like it was nothing. Everyone who wants to build a music PC should watch this video, it’s excellent.
Indeed. Unlike video editing and such, which benefit massively from having many cores, audio in a daw has to be played back in real time. If there's too much lag it just won't work. If you look at the 9900k vs the 9900x for example, you should think that the far more expensive 9900x which is a workstation platform with 10 cores vastly outperforms the 8 core 9900k. However, the 9900x has about 12% slower single core speed, and it can't be clocked as high as the 9900k. More cores equals more heat, which means slower cores and less overclocking potential. Clock speed is also important, when you factor in operations per clock. Having a 8 core CPU with faster cores, running at 5,2 ghz will usually be far better than a 16 core CPU running at 4,4 ghz for example. I totally understand that this can be hard to believe for a lot of people. It's just not very intuitive. I'm not saying that a daw can't use multiple cores, because it surely can. I'm just saying that unlike video editors for example, it's just not very good at it. To quote the developers (this is from the manual): The logic of audio processing - There is a long list of tasks that must be processed in sequence, and this means logically can't be processed in parallel (multithreaded). For example: Plugins must wait for instructions from the Piano roll and Playlist before they make sound. Effects must wait for the audio from upstream instruments and FX before they can process it. Further, it's not possible to parallel-process (multithread) instruments and FX that are on the same Mixer channel (their audio is mixed together), or even in the same Mixer routing pipe-line (when one Mixer track is linked to another and another, even FX processing has an order from top to bottom in the FX stack). Then, the Master Mixer track must wait for every instrument > mixer track > effect to be processed before it can process the audio through the Master effects. So logically, there is a lot of waiting that is a natural and unavoidable fact of DAW music processing. Think of a production line. This means the CPU may not be particularly busy, using all its cores and processing slots, yet it runs out of time to fill that tiny 5 ms audio-buffer because there was a lot of waiting for things that needed to be processed in sequence. It should be clear that fast processing is very important and this is not the same thing as multi-core processing. The best CPU is one that has enough cores to spread the work around AND can do the most work on a single core during each buffer time-slice. Which leads to our TIP: When comparing CPUs, look for the fastest single-core performance scores in a package with at least 4 physical cores.
@@FireWalkMusic Hey, I'm looking to start a fresh music production computer build but on on a under $800 budget in full. I'd like to go desktop this time rather than laptop. Can you or anyone here guide me to either a build sheet or a already made computer with the specs I would need to make this all happen? I'm going to be running studio one 4.5 for a Daw. I have a 3rd gen scarlett 8i6 interface. Lots of plugins:) My main music choice is Rock music in the vein of Alice in chains, Soundgarden, Mad Season and Some pop and R&B. -wont use alot of tracks at once for that style of music..but will be using quite a few computer CPU hogs tho like nexus and kontakt and those kinds of stuff. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks for any and all feedback. -ps- I'm not a pro by any means on the home recording depot..lol but its my sanity..lol I need to write and record:)
@@danielwaynejr.2317 get yourself something with AMD 3600x cpu and as much ram as you can afford running at 3600mhz. the rest is kind of up to you. i have a 2nd gen ryzen cpu running at 3.4ghz and nexus doesnt even touch it. any modern 6 core cpu running near 4ghz will generally be fine . th-cam.com/video/zUcY5Yfij30/w-d-xo.html check that vid its 960$ gaming build but you can drop the gpu spec to suit and spend the money on hard drives and memory or keep it to have a nice gaming pc if youre into that as well. you could save some money on the case and spend that on the x version cpu and 3600mhz memory or use the money u save on the gpu as any cheap gpu will be fine if youre not gaming. you can probably save some more money on the motherboard as well if you wanted. just use pc part picker to check compatibility for anything you change if youre unsure.
You probably meant single core performance, not single core cpu? Generally you want as many cores as possible, since every daw can spread work out over several cores. But you also want the fastest single core performance possible. As you keep adding more cores to a CPU, there's usually a point where there will be a trade off, so that you get reduced single core performance in favor of more cores. That's generally the sweet spot as I call it, and you'd want to get a CPU with the most cores, and the highest single core performance possible.
Thanks for the info. I just replaced all the links with genious links to properly redirect to the correct amazon store. I'll have it corrected right away. :)
Pretty good video, but I have to make a correction to something the author said. DO NOT use the IGP(integrated graphics) on the processor. Especially if you are using a high resolution monitor or multiple monitors. Opt for a lower end graphics card. Two reasons, additional heat and eating into system ram. The additional heat can affect your boost clock on your cpu and using it, especially with 4k monitors, will use a significant amount of system ram........(found this out from experience)
Good point! I don't recommend using it either, which is why I listed a graphics card in the parts list. Having more than one monitor can be really helpful too. :)
if your using Ableton multiple cores can benefit mattering how you use it, go for more cores if your using lots of chancels and lots of small vsts on each go for higher single core speed if you have only a few channels but lots of vsts on each
Every daw can use multiple cores, including FL Studio. I'm sorry if I was unclear about this. The reason why single core speed is generally more important than having a lot of cores is because there's a lot of waiting involved, due to dependencies created within the project, which can't be logically processed in parallel. This is the reason why windows task manager will usually report a very different result than the meter in your daw. Task manager will report on the overall CPU consumption, while the meter in your daw is measuring your CPU's ability to fill the audio buffer within the allowed time. In essense, it's ability to play back the audio in real time. VST's can usually be processed by different cores. Individual mixer tracks are also an opportunity for the CPU to use multithreading, so having many cores is definitely an advantage. The problem is that there's always a trade-off between number of cores and single core performance. As you keep adding more cores, single core performance will tend to go down. For example: The 9900k has about 12% faster single core speeds than it's more expensive workstation counterpart, the 9900x, which has more cores. The 9900k, as well as the earlier 9700k etc are all located in this sweet spot. The new 3000 series from AMD also have very good single-core performance. Here's what the developers say: "There is a long list of tasks that must be processed in sequence, and this means logically can't be processed in parallel (multithreaded). For example: Plugins must wait for instructions from the Piano roll and Playlist before they make sound. Effects must wait for the audio from upstream instruments and FX before they can process it. Further, it's not possible to parallel-process (multithread) instruments and FX that are on the same Mixer channel (their audio is mixed together), or even in the same Mixer routing pipe-line (when one Mixer track is linked to another and another, even FX processing has an order from top to bottom in the FX stack). Then, the Master Mixer track must wait for every instrument > mixer track > effect to be processed before it can process the audio through the Master effects. So logically, there is a lot of waiting that is a natural and unavoidable fact of DAW music processing. Think of a production line. This means the CPU may not be particularly busy, using all its cores and processing slots, yet it runs out of time to fill that tiny 5 ms audio-buffer because there was a lot of waiting for things that needed to be processed in sequence. It should be clear that fast processing is very important and this is not the same thing as multi-core processing. The best CPU is one that has enough cores to spread the work around AND can do the most work on a single core during each buffer time-slice. Which leads to our TIP: When comparing CPUs, look for the fastest single-core performance scores in a package with at least 4 physical cores."
@@FireWalkMusic different DAWs and different workflows apply to what choice people make with buy a CPU, rather than a blanket statement that one is better than another. both these factors should be considered when choosing a cpu, i use Ableton the most but receive a lot of my work from partners using Logic Pro and Studio One. i notice a great differences in how each persons workflow and DAW effects my computer that is using a cpu with a higher single core speed that theirs but less cores. i also find workflow to be the most depending factor in this. here's a quote from Ableton to show how a different workflow can benefit from a different cpu. "More cores, slower clock speed Pros Live supports multi-threading, therefore the more cores are available, the more efficient it will be when working with larger sets with higher track counts, or when working with large instrument or effect racks. You'll be able to run more apps in conjunction with Live without seeing performance drops. Cons Lower single-threaded performance than a higher clock speed processor. Fewer cores, higher clock speed Pros Better single threaded performance. Cons Fewer cores to split between applications. Not as strong multi-threading performance."
Shot for a $1000 budget. Ended up buying a Ryzen 5 3600. It was $195 vs $470 spent here on the i9 9900k. You get 6 cores instead of 8 but an almost identical single core performance. I see a lot of people going this route as the intermediate music producer with a decent gaming pc as a side benefit. Just wanted to take what I learned apply it and share it. Thanks!
That will most likely work very well. The trick is to figure out how demanding your projects are and how much you really need, and then get something that's a little bit faster than that, so that you have a bit to go on. No need to buy a $2000 setup if you can make due with a $800 setup :)
Except UA drivers for Windows 10 sucks from what I heard. Presonus Quantum series is the only way to go if you want that ridiculously low RTL on a Windows 10 PC.
@@FireWalkMusic when I will go to the pc store, I will tell them that fast single core performance is important to me, since I make music hopefully they will understand. Bro I graduated as a PC network mechanic and I had no idea it is that important. I have FX 8320 which is 8 cores and 3.5 GHz but my CPU is freaking out when I play more complex stuff in Phaseplant
It's hard to say, it depends on just how large your projects are. The 2700x is still a quite capable CPU and should be able to handle fairly large projects though, so you'll probably be fine.
David Jenkins I’m currently doing that with my pc because it’s not strong enough. I hate this method because you can’t go back and change something. I have to delete the vst to free up cpu.
Thanks, I considered it but the video would have been much longer, and this channel is all about short and straight to the point videos. I might make a separate video about this at some time though. :)
Hi, yes it was. It's a bootleg remix of Ørjan Nilsen & virtual vault - Too late, so since it's unofficial it's not on Spottily, unfortunately, but you can listen to the full track here on TH-cam: th-cam.com/video/9xsVnwsk4U0/w-d-xo.html It's also available on my soundcloud: soundcloud.com/djfirewalk
I would like to add 3 points: Smart Disable (FL Studio), ASIO drivers and priority tracks (Atari Cubase). FL Studio users can use the Smart Disable setting to save CPU time. You set this up in the Audio settings first and then in the drop down menu of every plugin (synths, processors, ...) you enable Smart Disable for that instance. This saves a lot of CPU time on CPU heavy plugins when they are idle. Sometimes it doesn't work 100%, like with the Raum VST (reverb tails are cut to early), but you can turn the option off when you are going to render the project. :-) Good ASIO drivers for your dedicated external audio device are a must too. Wrong drivers and internal onboard units will use CPU time to compute, where good external devices with good drivers can make their hardware do the maths for your DAW. I know there are still quite a lot of Atari Cubase lovers around, so yeah, this still can be useful to someone... ;-) Atari Cubase users should not forget that the first two MIDI tracks are "priority" tracks. You should place time critical MIDI tracks like drum parts in here.
Ableton Live 10 by default can run 64 threads for audio calculation. Each thread is dedicated to a single chain of audio. Both core count and clock speed improve performance.
I ended up going from an intel 6600k to a Ryzen 3700x and it is night and day. The 3700x is super fast and handles everything well. I also do a lot of video editing so the 3700x was better for me. Right now Intel is a tiny bit faster on single core speed, but Ryzen smashes in basically everything else. If anyone is building a new computer, I would def go with AMD.
For video editing and other multithreaded application AMD is king these days. No doubt about that, and unless someone really need the best of the best for music production purposes, AMD will generally provide a better all-round computer. In terms of raw performance, the 9900k will still outperform even the AMD flagship right now, especially when overclocked. The AMD chips are basically pushed to the very limit right out of the box, and a 3900x for example won't be able to run any higher than 4,2 - 4,3 GHZ Tops, on all cores at once. The 9900k on the other hand will be able to run at 5 GHZ on all cores with no problem, and in some cases even 5,2 - 5,3, which is 1 GHz faster than the AMD. Considering the fact that single core performance is more important than many cores when it comes to music production, I will tend to still recommend the 9900k for anyone who need the very best for music production purposes. That said, for anyone else who don't need to push their projects to the very limit, and who also do other tasks such as video editing, the AMD will be the best choice by far. I'm so glad they finally stepped up and gave Intel a run for their money. I used to be a real AMD fanboy back in the days. I remember when AMD beat Intel to the 1 GHZ barrier. Back then AMD was always one step ahead, but for a long time now they haven't been able to compete with AMD in the performance segment at all, until now! They have made some great CPU's this time, and combined with Intel's ongoing manufacturing problems they are rushing past Intel, and that's ultimately great for us, the consumers, as it will result in more competition and lower prices. :D Sorry for the long post.. I got a bit carried away :)
Excellent. will re-view for reference. Ran into all the downfalls with gaming computer. And reverb or convolution really bogs down speed.(BTW also have a noisy annoying fan.)
I thought about the 9900k, but it`s too expensive for me, so I chose the 9700k, 32G RAM, 512G SSD 970 Pro on M.2. I think its not bad for the music production at home =) Thanks for the video.
The rather low increase was quite surprising, as the CPU is supposed to have a substantially improved single core performance, and even more cores. I suspect this is is because of the quad channel memory support of the 5820K vs the dual channel on both the 8700k and the 9900k. I talked to Image-Line about this and they was as surprised as I was. In theory, you should not be able to max out the bandwidth even with a dual channel system. However, in a real life scenario it seems to be a different matter. In order to test this I downgraded my quad channel 5820k to dual channel DDR4 memory instead, and the result was quite shocking. A project that was using about 70% of the buffer in FL Studio ended up reaching 100%, and became unplayable. Once I set it to quad channel again it was fine again. Surely the dual vs quad channel memory has some huge impact here, even though technically it shouldn't. More tests would need to be done to verify this hypothesis though, but it's the only thing I can really think of that separate the 5820k from the 9900k that could account for such a tiny difference. The thing is, if I had tested the 5820k vs the 9900k and they were both running in dual channel mode then the difference would probably be around 30-40%, like the charts seems to indicate, relating to single core performance increase in the 9900k vs the 5820k. I'm quite sure that the memory bandwidth is what's holding the 9000 back here, because thy should not be that close! But I can't say for sure.. If I had tested a dual channel 8700k vs a dual channel 9900k then the results would likely have been very different. If I had unlimited amounts of money I would go ahead and buy another dual channel system and test just to be sure, and also a Ryzen 3900x based system so that I could really see how they measure up. :)
@@FireWalkMusic Sorry man, you just need to RECORD the synths and all that and split up your creation, arrangement, mixing, and mastering phases of production in order to avoid that high CPU utilization. It could also be as simple as switching your buffer size as well. you don't need a low buffer if your mixing/arranging the track. You really dont need a low buffer unless you're recording guitars w/ realtime effects etc.... The i9 can flex more CPU power if you increase the buffer size.
@@AJDOLDCHANNELARCHIVE I contacted various daw developers and they have confirmed that all daws work basically the same way when it comes to the way it processes. Serial processing is heavily utilized in all daws. They all also utilize multiple cores of course, but they all work basically the same way. So if you replicate a project perfectly in two different daws you wouldn't see a huge difference. Perhaps +-10% tops, and much of that will be due to the buffer handling and such.
@@dotMPEGmusic Hey, I'm aware of the freezing option, but I really don't like doing that due to my workflow. In my opinion freezing Is still a bit tedious in fl studio, particularly the unfreezing.. The way I work means going back and changing things quite a lot, and with most of the tracks rendered to audio it would just be too messy and time consuming, so I opted to go for more performance instead. The buffer size is already maxed out usually. I always record during the start of a project, with a low buffer size, and then I increase it as the project grows. 😊 This works well for me. I also do video editing and it's a pain to wait while video is rendering while editing, so having a fast CPU saves me quite some time in the long run. 😊
My computer handles music production just fine. It's literally a i5 8gb computer. However I cant leave my DAW open or any virtual instruments running and use my video editing software at the same time. I have to close everything down and hold to the next thing entirely. Kind of irritating
This build is way over the top for most people. I just wanted to show the "best" and explain why that is etc. Most people will get by with much cheaper systems. It all depends on how you work, what kind of projects you make, what kind of plugins you use and so on. I'm kind of in the same boat as you with regard to video editing. I also do a lot of video editing, so I often find myself working in my video editor, photoshop, FL studio, various animation softwares, screen capturing etc all at the same time. The 9900k was the only solution for me. Add to that I also have a mixing and mastering service etc, so it's essential to be able to get stuff done as quickly as possible, since my time is limited. The i5 is still a good CPU. However, If you want to upgrade then the older I7 CPU's will offer a very good performance increase. With multithreading you should be able to get a huge increase in performance during video editing too.
I noticed something, when you put a lot of effects on one mixer track, you start to notice a single thread bottleneck in the computer and there is a bigger gap between the CPU meter in FL Studio compared to Windows 10. It seems that the best way to optimize the CPU usage is avoiding a lot of effects on a single channel. Sidechaining can reduce the singlethread bottleneck, i made a very synth heavy musical piece but i did sidechaining and reduced the gap between FL Studio's CPU meter and Windows 10.
@@FireWalkMusic In my i7-4700MQ the gap between FL Studio's CPU meter and Windows's task manager is more or less 10%. Like 80% in Windows's Task manager and 90 in FL Studio, running with a buffer of 256 and can also handle 128. I could go even further but i get thermal throttling at almost 85°C. Base clock is 2.4GHz but with an undervolt, it's like running overclocked to 3GHz or a 30% improvement in perfomance. I guess that the best CPUs are the ones that have a small gap here and specially desktop ones, they have better controlled thermals therefore more stable perfomance close to 100% use. Maybe a Ryzen 9 3900X (it has the best singlethread perfomance from AMD and 12 cores) will have better boost clock behavior or thermals than an i9-10900K? I saw in some benchmarks that the Ryzen 9 3900X can beat the i9-10900K in rendering but it seems that it happened due to the better boost behavior, i don't think that with an i9-10900K can handle an extremely synth heavy project and still clock at 5 GHz due to the heat.
For Windows 10 with multiple CPU cores, a CPU affinity of the audio application must be defined on a group of cores with higher process priority and only the physical core may be used. This core group must be freed from its processes. This achieves better cache utilization of the CPU and thus increases the "single" core performance of the audio application. The devices should all be set from Line Mode to MSI(-X) regarding interrupt in the driver. The two Windows audio services should run with priority "realtime" on the second physical core. I would only use the last physical 6 cores for the audio application in this scenario.
I improved singlethread perfomance with an undervolt in my 8 year old i7-4700MQ laptop. Like 300 Mhz more for the same voltage, I have a bottleneck with core count (4 cores are the absolute minimum and not ideal) but singlethread is ridiculously strong for the age that it has, 3.4GHz in Ableton Live all cores thanks to Throttlestop magic and sillicon lottery, equivalent to one core of the Ryzen 7 1700. Changing CPU affinity in windows makes no difference, the OS already is very well optimized. I basically get 1% or 0% CPU use with the computer at iddle.
Also depends on the DAW, Ableton Live is more efficient than FL Studio with clock cycles for sound processing (maybe because it's programmed in C which is very low level and C++). The difference can be kinda big.
@@saricubra2867 My statement applies to modern multi-core CPUs from 6 cores upwards. Windows is not optimized for real-time DAW requirements. Windows does not optimize the cache usage of the cores for an application. For CPU utilization in real-time signal processing, the idle CPU time has no relevance.
@@HSCHSC211 Isn't about windows optimization, is about the CPUs themselves. By the way, it's impossible to fully use the cache for audio in a CPU due hyperthreading that can create a bottleneck.
@@saricubra2867 ". it's impossible to fully use the cache for audio in a CPU due hyperthreading.." Does not make sense to my statement because I wrote "only the physical core may be used". For example, if you use Process Lasso to run the audio application only on the 6 cores without logical CPU and the rest of your applications including OS services (with xml affinity template) on 2 cores with logical CPU, then the audio application can use the CPU cache of the physical 6 cores at maximum. The logical CPUs of the 6 cores remain unused, so the 6 cores effectively work without HT/SMT. Only the remaining kernel and its interrupt routines "disturb" the cache of the 6 cores. These can also be moved to CPU 0 or 1 (by interrupt policy).
Or get an old multi-CPU server for a tenth of the cost. I spent $450 in 2018 spec'ing an old Dell T5600 to 2x E5-2690 (16 core), 64 GB Ram, and a 1TB SSD (very important if you are reading many tracks from the hard drive, as in recorded instruments, not virtual.) The computer scores a 11,500 on Geekbench, and I rarely peak over 50% total CPU usage even with projects with 200+ tracks, multiple reverbs, and modeled instruments.
@@TheTattoedVRpilot Two years ago. If you want the best price to performance today, go to PassMark, compare CPUs, and then check on eBay. Your best best for price is probably going to be a deal CPU server motherboard with or without CPUs installed.
I just looked into these parts but it still gonna be at least 2x what you spent, you got good deals. However I have no idea what kind of ram or ssd's to get from brands ETC, I know nothing of building computers
Good info. Personally I haven’t found anything easier, more useful and reliable for both live and recording than an i7 MacBook Pro, SSD, 16gb ram and a Behringer XR18 mixer. I use xAir on the Mac and iPads for live mixes and monitor tweaking for the band members, and Reaper for recording up to 18 tracks at once. The fan hardly turns on while doing all of that. Plus very mobile.
FireWalk may I ask how many channels you had or VST’s open at the time of your this video. I usually have around 100+ tracks as well as process heavy plug ins. I use a Mac but have been hesitant on making a switch but Pc seems like the only affordable option. My damn iPad has more cores then my old 2012 Mac I need a work horse.
The sound card has no impact on the performance. It just plays back the music, and records input. All the processing is done by the computer itself, mainly the CPU. Some plugins get some assist by the GPU when it comes to rendering graphics, but it's mostly 99,9% CPU.
Here's an updated PARTS LIST with amazon links for the best computer for music production in 2022 based on the Intel i9-12900k:
Check out my new and updated video here: th-cam.com/video/ayt8-s77cQs/w-d-xo.html
☑Performance option:
CASE: geni.us/define-r6usbc
Main Board: geni.us/z690-f
CPU: geni.us/i9-12900k
CPU Cooler (Water): geni.us/pl360-flux
CPU Cooler (Air): geni.us/NH-D15S
RAM: geni.us/KFB-DDR5
POWER SUPPLY: geni.us/RM750x
SSD (M.2): geni.us/SN570
VIDEO CARD: geni.us/RTX3050
Total cost: 2500 USD (approximately)
☑Budget Option:
CASE: geni.us/corsair-110q
Main Board: geni.us/A520M
CPU (With cooler): geni.us/AMD5600x
RAM: geni.us/kingston-ddr4
POWER SUPPLY: geni.us/NWE-Bronze
SSD (M.2): geni.us/Kingston-NV1
VIDEO CARD: geni.us/RX6500
Total cost: 880 USD (approximately)
☑Accessories:
Keyboard: geni.us/g213
Mouse: geni.us/logitech-g402fury
Audio interface: geni.us/scarlettsolo-3rd-gen
Headphones: geni.us/akg-k612pro
Studio monitors: geni.us/Yamaha-HS8
Ultrawide monitor: geni.us/Samsung-49
Standard monitor: geni.us/spectre27
☑prebuilt performance computers:
Statationary (Intel): geni.us/Prism-12900k
Stationary (AMD): geni.us/MEK-5950x
Laptop (Intel): geni.us/G533ZW
laptop (AMD): geni.us/ASUS-G15
☑Prebuilt budget computers:
Stationary (Intel): geni.us/cyberp-i5
Stationary (AMD): geni.us/ibuy5600
Laptop (Intel): geni.us/HPcorei5
Laptop (AMD): geni.us/HP-ryzen550
Here's the ORIGINAL list of components used for this video:
☑️ Case: geni.us/define-r6usbc
☑️ Power Supply: geni.us/corsair-rm750x
☑️ Main board: geni.us/asus-rog-maximus
☑️ CPU: geni.us/intel-i9-9900k
☑️ CPU Cooler: geni.us/noctua-nh-d15
☑️ RAM: geni.us/corsair-lpx32gb
☑️ SSD: geni.us/mx500
☑️ Video Card (Optional): geni.us/asusgtx1070
☑️ Case fan: geni.us/fractaldesign-xpgp14
☑️ Mouse: geni.us/logitech-g402fury
☑️ Keyboard: geni.us/g213
☑️ Screen: geni.us/lg29wk600-w
☑️ Studio monitors: geni.us/Yamaha-HS8
☑️ XLR Cables: geni.us/monoprice104761
☑️ Headphones: geni.us/akg-k612pro
☑️ Audio interface: geni.us/scarlettsolo-3rd-gen
Here's the AMD equivalent with the new Ryzen CPU's (Just replace motherboard and CPU):
☑️ Main board: geni.us/asus-rogstrixx570
☑️ Ryzen 3900X: geni.us/ryzen9-3900x
As an Amazon Affiliate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
Support This Channel on Patreon: www.patreon.com/firewalkmusic
Support us with a one-time Paypal donation: www.paypal.me/firewalkmusic
Need feedback on music, mixing, mastering? www.fiverr.com/firewalk
Nice!
So basically $3,000 setup.
Hi, looking at this for a friend. Is it right that your soundcard and audio interface link to the same item? Is the interface also the sound card?
@@RuneKatashima Hi, must be a double posting. I'll correct it. Yes it's the same thing. The audio interface is basically just an external sound card.
@@paulluna8099 If you buy everything from scratch, like monitors, audio interface etc then it will be quite expensive indeed. I think I spent around $2200 for just the computer. If you already have an older stationary computer then you can usually just upgrade it. In that case you can probably get away with just a new main board, CPU, RAM and possibly a new cooler for the CPU as well, unless you buy one with the cooler included. You don't really need to spend money on video card for music production. If you go for a CPU with integrated graphics then that will usually be more than good enough. :)
I love how you sound like the guy from how its made.
😎
Today on How its Made we will be looking at DAW personal computers....
he sound a bit like bright side
I literally did a double take at the title to see if I had accidentally clicked on a "How It's Made" video.
Mr Brooks Moore
Keep in mind that while single core performance is very important for the master output, all the "per track/instrument/plugin/group/..." processing can still be distributed among multiple CPU's. For example, the processing of the bass VST (and any effects applied to it) and the one of the drum VST can still be handled by two different cores (before reaching the master bus).
Indeed. All VST's can usually be processed separately. Additionally, every mixer track is generally an opportunity for the CPU to process in parallel. The problem is mainly all the waiting that needs to take place further down in the chain. Unlike with video editing and such, this becomes a problem because the sound needs to be played back in real-time.
This is why fast processing is generally more important than having a large number of cores. The 9900k is great because it's located in the sweet spot where you have a good amount of cores, and at the same time very good single core speed. As you keep adding cores, single core performance tends to go down. If you look at the 9900x for example, which is a workstation platform, you get more cores, but about 12% slower single-core speed. The 9900k can also be overclocked to run at 5 ghz on all cores with no problem. Large overclocks will typically not be possible on CPU's with huge amount of cores since more heat is generated.
To quote the developers (This is from the manual):
The logic of audio processing - There is a long list of tasks that must be processed in sequence, and this means logically can't be processed in parallel (multithreaded). For example: Plugins must wait for instructions from the Piano roll and Playlist before they make sound. Effects must wait for the audio from upstream instruments and FX before they can process it. Further, it's not possible to parallel-process (multithread) instruments and FX that are on the same Mixer channel (their audio is mixed together), or even in the same Mixer routing pipe-line (when one Mixer track is linked to another and another, even FX processing has an order from top to bottom in the FX stack). Then, the Master Mixer track must wait for every instrument > mixer track > effect to be processed before it can process the audio through the Master effects. So logically, there is a lot of waiting that is a natural and unavoidable fact of DAW music processing. Think of a production line. This means the CPU may not be particularly busy, using all its cores and processing slots, yet it runs out of time to fill that tiny 5 ms audio-buffer because there was a lot of waiting for things that needed to be processed in sequence. It should be clear that fast processing is very important and this is not the same thing as multi-core processing. The best CPU is one that has enough cores to spread the work around AND can do the most work on a single core during each buffer time-slice. Which leads to our TIP: When comparing CPUs, look for the fastest single-core performance scores in a package with at least 4 physical cores.
@@FireWalkMusic "As you keep adding cores, single core performance tends to go down" - This is more of a intel problem. AMD bins in a way that more cores generally means higher single core, because the best binned chips go to top skus. And as for single core, there is very little seperating the 3900x/3950x and the 9900k. And scanproaudio did a proper dawbench review back in july, where the 3900x at times manhandles the 9900k: www.scanproaudio.info/2019/07/12/amd-ryzen-3600-3700x-3900x-dawbench-tested-3-is-it-the-magic-number/
@@FireWalkMusic Would getting DSP card from UAD help with DSP in a DAW?
the ZEN 2 core has higher IPC than the current intel cpu...that means AMD has the fastest core
we are on the RYZEN 3000 series and that i9 18 core cpu gets tossed by 16 core Ryzen
Came for the info, stayed and subscribed for that banging project you have going on as a real world performance test!
Thanks! Much appreciated :) Glad you liked it.
After endless searching through TH-cam videos to help me understand audio cpu processing I stumbled on your accidentally, and it's pure magic! Thank you for helping me with understanding this nuisance. Great video!
Glad you found it helpful :)
I just built this computer, and it is absolutely amazing. Thanks for posting this video. You rock.
Thanks :) Glad you're happy with the build. It should be able to take on almost anything you can throw at it :)
Can we just talk about how that lady is holding that cpu in the thumbnail?
🌳👀🌳
Lol 😂👍👍
Lol
xD
And the type of music he makes with his awesome set up 😢
You cleared all my doubts about number of cores and powerful cores. Great information about choosing my first PC. Thanks a lot
You're welcome. Glad you found it helpful :)
For me this is the best video that I watch for build a pc home studio out there, thanks man!!!
Listen to that music makes my brain 100% loaded
😃
Just wanted to come back and thank you for this video and all other videos you’ve been posting since the beginning. Been a supporter since day one and I have recently bought and built my first good PC. This video especially helped me in choosing the right and most suitable parts : )
Thanks! Much appreciated! Glad to see there's people who has been sticking with the channel from the start 😃
Your video was exactly what I needed! So nicely explained.
Thanks! Glad you liked it :)
that was simply amazing..the information, lesson, building every thing!!!
Thanks, glad you liked the video 😀
the part about single core processing importance was very helpful :)
Glad you found it useful. :) You might also want to check out my video about how to get better CPU performance in FL Studio, as well as how to make CPU friendly projects: th-cam.com/video/OWYmqwb7b4k/w-d-xo.html
True
@Bonez lol ur dumb
Except its not true. Most vst plugs utilize all your cores. The ones that dont are considered buggy and a result of bad programming.
Yeah, but then he went for a 9900k when an I5 has about the same single core performance. Still a helpful video, though. If I were to build a computer today, thunderbolt 3 would be a big point. Near 0 latency monitoring even with effects.
Very useful man. U managed to make a tech video that is relevant regardless of time
Thanks! That was exactly what I was trying to do 😀
The best video I have seen, very clear! The total of everything is about $1700.
Thanks :)
Wow I just bought a gaming laptop with an intel i7 9k for $2,400 I should have just got a tower
This has been an incredibly helpful video. Thank you
Glad you liked it :)
Very informative nice!!!
I have an i7 9700KF, Msi Meg Z390 Ace, Noctua nh-d15, be quiet silent base 801, 16gb ram, M.2+ ssd+ 8 x140mm fans. Everything is working so smoothly, I get low temperatures, very low noise and I’m so happy with my build ;)
That's a great system for Audio production, and should also work well for most other applications as well :)
Best guide out here my man, thank you!
Glad you found it useful.
Thank you! Was looking for this information everywhere! This is so well explained.
You're welcome :)
This video has help me to understand more about choosing the best for music production
Glad you found it useful. :)
I went with the i9(8 core), aorus Xtreme motherboard, I have the same cpu cooler as you, and 64gb of RAM. 8TB of storage (2TB M.2, 2TB SSD, 4HDD). I have similar specs as you on the rest of my build.
I did months of research. I use loads of composer sound libraries for big projects. I didn't want to sacrifice anything when it came to processing and rendering. I think I'm in good shape. Nice to see this video give me some confirmation on my build. I didn't want to 'settle' for buying a gaming computer, so i just built mine to suit.
There aren't as many videos that cover cpu builds for music production as well as you have in this one. Great information.
Hi Keith, I compose film score. Im looking for help keeping up with demand. Would you be so kind as to shoot me your email address or contact me at hitzoneproductions@gmail.com please?
How much u pay
@Keith Harris II How do you feel about it several months later? I have a 12 Core Mac Pro with 96 gigs of Ram and 16TB of storage.
There are so many strong options available today. If you're an orchestral guy, you are probably are aware of VEP Pro (Vienna Ensemble Pro). Everyone uses it, Junkie XL, Hans Zimmer. I have a license but usually get by with the one Mac.
@@HollywoodVirtualAudio do orchestral guys even make money tho 😳🤔
@@xoxo-pp7ru Oh so the average guy making beats is somehow paid?! For the most part, no one is making (MONEY). Actors, Dancers, Musicians all waiting tables in this town. Only a hand full get a break. But yes, just like the rest, some orchestral guys make money, most don't!
Great video! Best I have ever seen on building a PC for music.
Thanks. Glad you found it useful :)
Very detailed and well-done video with all the lists of parts. Excellent. Thanks!
Thanks. You're welcome :)
Fantastic explanation and buyers guide! I went to Fractal Design cases a few years ago, similar to the one in this vid, but USB-C wasn't available then, but upgraded it a while back to an I9 as well to help with latency. Works like a dream! This is def the most comprehensive video I've seen on music station PCs.
One thing I would add, if your a hardware nut like me. The motherboard may be something to add consideration to as well. PCIe slots are very important to my setup as I use a ton of external USB for synths and MIDI to USB dongles and interfaces. I would suggest if you have a ton of external gear, get a mobo with as many PCIe slots as possible so you are able to add additional USB ports. Even if you dont use all of them, later on when you need them they will be available for expansion and you won't have to daisy chain off a single bus with a multiport USB dongle which can cause huge a bottleneck and cause addition latency. But if your all VSTs then basically forget everything I said 😁
Thanks, very good points here! :)
Love your tutorials and videos! They are very proffesional! This video was very helpful! :)
Thanks, much appreciated! :)
Wow! As a newbie, this is the best NO BULL video on building a DAW computer. Even if you don't go with his recommendations on CPU and motherboard, you can't go wrong using this information and the provided links to gather the info needed to make an educated decision on what you equipment choose! Thank you so much for the explanations on why a DAW is different than a gaming PC. So many videos I have watched just say any gaming set up will handle the needs of a DAW. Now I know different.
Thanks. When playing games, the GPU is often more important than the CPU. You then need a CPU with good single core performance to keep up with the GPU, but it doesn't actually have to do the same amount of work as with music production. When you buy a gaming computer you're paying a lot for the video card. It's better to spend those money on a better CPU and get a cheaper video card if you're just using the computer for music produciton. In music production you also want fast single core speed, but also a good amount of cores, so a gaming computer isn't always the best option. :)
@@FireWalkMusic Some games depends a lot from cpu. That mean you are wrong.
@@drfleka Yes, a few games do, but most rely quite heavily on the gpu. why is it that the i5 has been so popular among gamers for so long then? It's not nearly as capable as the i7 or i9.. it's for the same reason a 5820k workstation would be a bad choice for a gamer. It would hold back the gpu, but it would also be much better than the i5 when it comes to realtime audio production.
@@FireWalkMusic I agree, but still for good gaming you don't want to bottleneck your GPU. For music production, since DAWs support multi core I'm not so sure that Intel is better than AMD. And these year i am certain that AMD will be more powerful.
@@drfleka Yes, daws do support multiple cores, but the problem is that they are not very effective at spreading the work out over those available cores, which will inevitably cause issues when one core is overworked. Because the audio is processed in realtime, if only one core is overworked and starts lagging behind, then it doesn't matter if there's 10 other cores availale. You'll still have overruns and crackling sound.
Here's what the developers say about this issue, and I'll quote from the manual:
"The logic of audio processing - There is a long list of tasks that must be processed in sequence, and this means logically can't be processed in parallel (multithreaded). For example: Plugins must wait for instructions from the Piano roll and Playlist before they make sound. Effects must wait for the audio from upstream instruments and FX before they can process it. Further, it's not possible to parallel-process (multithread) instruments and FX that are on the same Mixer channel (their audio is mixed together), or even in the same Mixer routing pipe-line (when one Mixer track is linked to another and another, even FX processing has an order from top to bottom in the FX stack). Then, the Master Mixer track must wait for every instrument > mixer track > effect to be processed before it can process the audio through the Master effects. So logically, there is a lot of waiting that is a natural and unavoidable fact of DAW music processing. Think of a production line. This means the CPU may not be particularly busy, using all its cores and processing slots, yet it runs out of time to fill that tiny 5 ms audio-buffer because there was a lot of waiting for things that needed to be processed in sequence. It should be clear that fast processing is very important and this is not the same thing as multi-core processing. The best CPU is one that has enough cores to spread the work around AND can do the most work on a single core during each buffer time-slice. Which leads to our TIP: When comparing CPUs, look for the fastest single-core performance scores in a package with at least 4 physical cores. "
This will be the case with every daw. The audio is traveling from A to B to C. That's why the order of your mixer inserts matter, because it always goes from the first to the last. It can't process the last effect before those befor it has been processed, because it can't process something that hasn't happened yet, which means it has to wait. In other words, serial processing, and there's a lot of that in a daw. This is why single core speed is more important than a large number of cores.
The 9900k can run at 5 ghz on all cores, while the AMD flagship can only run at 4 ghz on all cores. AMD has more cores, but even so, keep in mind that this doesn't help if the daw can't effectively spread the work over those cores.
The best video till now on music pc
Thanks, much appreciated! :)
I was thinking of getting the i9-9900K but i got the R7 3800X since has higher clockspeed and was the same price incl new motherboard. I used to have a i5-8400 and where it maxed out to 100% it's now on 30% usage
This guy deserves more support!
Thanks! :)
absolute Briliant VID from you . Thanks for your time .
Best video on building a PC for music production on TH-cam! Also every time I hear you playing music on your channel I'm like "wait...what?!?!", very good trance music. Do you have anything on streaming services?
Thanks, glad you liked the video. You can find the full track from the project used in this video here: th-cam.com/video/9xsVnwsk4U0/w-d-xo.html
Really a great video 👍
Thanks! Glad you liked it :)
the best review i have ever seen on youtube....thank you...you help me...
Thanks, glad you liked it :)
wow this video is great! an also the description is complete! :)
Thanks! Glad you liked it :)
bruh thank u for blessing my soul. god bless yours.
Thanks! :)
wow I love how you explain all of this. I am very bad at PC technical stuff, but your explination made it very clear and understandable.
neat, i want to upgrade my PC for a few months now but didnt have the information what to look for in building the best build for production! Thank you :)
You're welcome! :)
Thanks so much! I was ecstatic when I saw you make trance. Awesome!!
You're welcome :)
I had the exact same argument with a tech guy, he insisted it was all the same . Parallel or serial , nope big difference. Core speed is key to audio DAWs. My main DAW i7 core 4.2ghz murdered his 8 core 2.8ghz like it was nothing.
Everyone who wants to build a music PC should watch this video, it’s excellent.
Indeed. Unlike video editing and such, which benefit massively from having many cores, audio in a daw has to be played back in real time. If there's too much lag it just won't work.
If you look at the 9900k vs the 9900x for example, you should think that the far more expensive 9900x which is a workstation platform with 10 cores vastly outperforms the 8 core 9900k. However, the 9900x has about 12% slower single core speed, and it can't be clocked as high as the 9900k. More cores equals more heat, which means slower cores and less overclocking potential. Clock speed is also important, when you factor in operations per clock. Having a 8 core CPU with faster cores, running at 5,2 ghz will usually be far better than a 16 core CPU running at 4,4 ghz for example.
I totally understand that this can be hard to believe for a lot of people. It's just not very intuitive. I'm not saying that a daw can't use multiple cores, because it surely can. I'm just saying that unlike video editors for example, it's just not very good at it.
To quote the developers (this is from the manual):
The logic of audio processing - There is a long list of tasks that must be processed in sequence, and this means logically can't be processed in parallel (multithreaded). For example: Plugins must wait for instructions from the Piano roll and Playlist before they make sound. Effects must wait for the audio from upstream instruments and FX before they can process it. Further, it's not possible to parallel-process (multithread) instruments and FX that are on the same Mixer channel (their audio is mixed together), or even in the same Mixer routing pipe-line (when one Mixer track is linked to another and another, even FX processing has an order from top to bottom in the FX stack). Then, the Master Mixer track must wait for every instrument > mixer track > effect to be processed before it can process the audio through the Master effects. So logically, there is a lot of waiting that is a natural and unavoidable fact of DAW music processing. Think of a production line. This means the CPU may not be particularly busy, using all its cores and processing slots, yet it runs out of time to fill that tiny 5 ms audio-buffer because there was a lot of waiting for things that needed to be processed in sequence. It should be clear that fast processing is very important and this is not the same thing as multi-core processing. The best CPU is one that has enough cores to spread the work around AND can do the most work on a single core during each buffer time-slice. Which leads to our TIP: When comparing CPUs, look for the fastest single-core performance scores in a package with at least 4 physical cores.
@@FireWalkMusic
Hey, I'm looking to start a fresh music production computer build but on on a under $800 budget in full.
I'd like to go desktop this time rather than laptop.
Can you or anyone here guide me to either a build sheet or a already made computer with the specs I would need to make this all happen?
I'm going to be running studio one 4.5 for a Daw.
I have a 3rd gen scarlett 8i6 interface. Lots of plugins:)
My main music choice is Rock music in the vein of Alice in chains, Soundgarden, Mad Season and Some pop and R&B.
-wont use alot of tracks at once for that style of music..but will be using quite a few computer CPU hogs tho like nexus and kontakt and those kinds of stuff.
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks for any and all feedback.
-ps- I'm not a pro by any means on the home recording depot..lol but its my sanity..lol I need to write and record:)
@@danielwaynejr.2317 get yourself something with AMD 3600x cpu and as much ram as you can afford running at 3600mhz. the rest is kind of up to you. i have a 2nd gen ryzen cpu running at 3.4ghz and nexus doesnt even touch it. any modern 6 core cpu running near 4ghz will generally be fine . th-cam.com/video/zUcY5Yfij30/w-d-xo.html check that vid its 960$ gaming build but you can drop the gpu spec to suit and spend the money on hard drives and memory or keep it to have a nice gaming pc if youre into that as well. you could save some money on the case and spend that on the x version cpu and 3600mhz memory or use the money u save on the gpu as any cheap gpu will be fine if youre not gaming. you can probably save some more money on the motherboard as well if you wanted. just use pc part picker to check compatibility for anything you change if youre unsure.
Ryzen 5 1600 with 6/12 3.2-3.6 or r5 3400g with 4/8 3.7-4.2 and intgr. gpu?
Finally someone that explain everyting in detail for music production and why to chose a powerful single core performance cpu
You probably meant single core performance, not single core cpu? Generally you want as many cores as possible, since every daw can spread work out over several cores. But you also want the fastest single core performance possible. As you keep adding more cores to a CPU, there's usually a point where there will be a trade off, so that you get reduced single core performance in favor of more cores. That's generally the sweet spot as I call it, and you'd want to get a CPU with the most cores, and the highest single core performance possible.
@@FireWalkMusic yes lol
@@FireWalkMusic wich means AMD cpu is garbage to do something in music processing
Thank You so much!!! Crystal clear guidance.
You're welcome :)
Thanks for sharing this information :)
You're welcome :)
I needed this! Thank you!!
You're welcome :)
Me too! Thanks
How It's Made vibes with Tom Bodette from Motel 6 commercials. Great info here
Hands raised! Bowed down! Thank you!
You're welcome :)
Great video which backed up what I had assumed but more importantly, great track!
Thanks, much appreciated :)
Very good video! Much needed!🔥
Thanks! Glad you liked it :)
I'm sure you're aware but you installed an I9 CPU but listed I7 in your build list. Great video and very helpful, thanks!
Thanks for the info. I just replaced all the links with genious links to properly redirect to the correct amazon store. I'll have it corrected right away. :)
fixed. :)
The demonstration song is so good
Thanks 😀 you can listen to the full track here: th-cam.com/video/9xsVnwsk4U0/w-d-xo.html
@@FireWalkMusic Thanks
I love the melody of the song
Glad you liked it. You can listen to the full track here: th-cam.com/video/9xsVnwsk4U0/w-d-xo.html
Great brother i built my pc myself too so good
Great video
Thanks :)
Thanks a lot bro!!!
You're welcome
I came for the knowledge, stayed for the relaxing dialogue.
Much appreciated :)
Great explanation
Thanks :)
Pretty good video, but I have to make a correction to something the author said. DO NOT use the IGP(integrated graphics) on the processor. Especially if you are using a high resolution monitor or multiple monitors. Opt for a lower end graphics card. Two reasons, additional heat and eating into system ram. The additional heat can affect your boost clock on your cpu and using it, especially with 4k monitors, will use a significant amount of system ram........(found this out from experience)
Good point! I don't recommend using it either, which is why I listed a graphics card in the parts list. Having more than one monitor can be really helpful too. :)
I've been waiting for a video like this! Thanks :)
You're welcome :)
if your using Ableton multiple cores can benefit mattering how you use it,
go for more cores if your using lots of chancels and lots of small vsts on each
go for higher single core speed if you have only a few channels but lots of vsts on each
and for people buying CPUs price the motherboard with it because some cpus need $120 motherboards where others need $450 motherboards
Every daw can use multiple cores, including FL Studio. I'm sorry if I was unclear about this. The reason why single core speed is generally more important than having a lot of cores is because there's a lot of waiting involved, due to dependencies created within the project, which can't be logically processed in parallel. This is the reason why windows task manager will usually report a very different result than the meter in your daw. Task manager will report on the overall CPU consumption, while the meter in your daw is measuring your CPU's ability to fill the audio buffer within the allowed time. In essense, it's ability to play back the audio in real time.
VST's can usually be processed by different cores. Individual mixer tracks are also an opportunity for the CPU to use multithreading, so having many cores is definitely an advantage. The problem is that there's always a trade-off between number of cores and single core performance. As you keep adding more cores, single core performance will tend to go down. For example: The 9900k has about 12% faster single core speeds than it's more expensive workstation counterpart, the 9900x, which has more cores.
The 9900k, as well as the earlier 9700k etc are all located in this sweet spot. The new 3000 series from AMD also have very good single-core performance.
Here's what the developers say:
"There is a long list of tasks that must be processed in sequence, and this means logically can't be processed in parallel (multithreaded). For example: Plugins must wait for instructions from the Piano roll and Playlist before they make sound. Effects must wait for the audio from upstream instruments and FX before they can process it. Further, it's not possible to parallel-process (multithread) instruments and FX that are on the same Mixer channel (their audio is mixed together), or even in the same Mixer routing pipe-line (when one Mixer track is linked to another and another, even FX processing has an order from top to bottom in the FX stack). Then, the Master Mixer track must wait for every instrument > mixer track > effect to be processed before it can process the audio through the Master effects. So logically, there is a lot of waiting that is a natural and unavoidable fact of DAW music processing. Think of a production line. This means the CPU may not be particularly busy, using all its cores and processing slots, yet it runs out of time to fill that tiny 5 ms audio-buffer because there was a lot of waiting for things that needed to be processed in sequence. It should be clear that fast processing is very important and this is not the same thing as multi-core processing. The best CPU is one that has enough cores to spread the work around AND can do the most work on a single core during each buffer time-slice. Which leads to our TIP: When comparing CPUs, look for the fastest single-core performance scores in a package with at least 4 physical cores."
@@FireWalkMusic different DAWs and different workflows apply to what choice people make with buy a CPU, rather than a blanket statement that one is better than another.
both these factors should be considered when choosing a cpu,
i use Ableton the most but receive a lot of my work from partners using Logic Pro and Studio One. i notice a great differences in how each persons workflow and DAW effects my computer that is using a cpu with a higher single core speed that theirs but less cores. i also find workflow to be the most depending factor in this.
here's a quote from Ableton to show how a different workflow can benefit from a different cpu.
"More cores, slower clock speed
Pros
Live supports multi-threading, therefore the more cores are available, the more efficient it will be when working with larger sets with higher track counts, or when working with large instrument or effect racks.
You'll be able to run more apps in conjunction with Live without seeing performance drops.
Cons
Lower single-threaded performance than a higher clock speed processor.
Fewer cores, higher clock speed
Pros
Better single threaded performance.
Cons
Fewer cores to split between applications.
Not as strong multi-threading performance."
Shot for a $1000 budget.
Ended up buying a Ryzen 5 3600. It was $195 vs $470 spent here on the i9 9900k. You get 6 cores instead of 8 but an almost identical single core performance. I see a lot of people going this route as the intermediate music producer with a decent gaming pc as a side benefit. Just wanted to take what I learned apply it and share it. Thanks!
That will most likely work very well. The trick is to figure out how demanding your projects are and how much you really need, and then get something that's a little bit faster than that, so that you have a bit to go on. No need to buy a $2000 setup if you can make due with a $800 setup :)
Make sure your mother board has a thunderbolt port so that you can utilize Universal Audio.
Except UA drivers for Windows 10 sucks from what I heard. Presonus Quantum series is the only way to go if you want that ridiculously low RTL on a Windows 10 PC.
@@thatchinaboi no problem with UAD and Windows 10 64bit here.
@@keyboyrecords What is the lowest RTL you can go without getting any crackles? Fine for you is not fine for me. 😂
You can get usb FireWire or usb 3 The latency is all fine
What exactly is universal audio and is it something I should consider getting?
Just what the doctor ordered! Thanks!
You're welcome :)
This video is a life saver
Glad you found it useful :)
OH MY THIS VIDEO IS SO HELPFUL
Glad you liked it 🙂
@@FireWalkMusic when I will go to the pc store, I will tell them that fast single core performance is important to me, since I make music hopefully they will understand. Bro I graduated as a PC network mechanic and I had no idea it is that important. I have FX 8320 which is 8 cores and 3.5 GHz but my CPU is freaking out when I play more complex stuff in Phaseplant
I'm planning to buy the AMD Ryzen 7 2700X 3.7 GHz 8-Core Processor. Is it enough for big EDM projects?
It's hard to say, it depends on just how large your projects are. The 2700x is still a quite capable CPU and should be able to handle fairly large projects though, so you'll probably be fine.
@@FireWalkMusic Awesome! Thanks for the reply!
you can always bounce your midi to audio and just mute the midi tracks
David Jenkins I’m currently doing that with my pc because it’s not strong enough. I hate this method because you can’t go back and change something. I have to delete the vst to free up cpu.
R5 3600 vs R7 2700x ?
Wish you had shown how to build the PC and tools needed for the job. The video and comments are great learning tools. Thanks
Thanks, I considered it but the video would have been much longer, and this channel is all about short and straight to the point videos. I might make a separate video about this at some time though. :)
@@FireWalkMusic Please do for us non-computer music lovers!
Its called Linus tech tips Jayz Two Cents etc there a ton of videos on how to build a pc
So what was that trance track you were showcasing? I'd love to add it to my playlist on Spotify
Hi, yes it was. It's a bootleg remix of Ørjan Nilsen & virtual vault - Too late, so since it's unofficial it's not on Spottily, unfortunately, but you can listen to the full track here on TH-cam: th-cam.com/video/9xsVnwsk4U0/w-d-xo.html
It's also available on my soundcloud: soundcloud.com/djfirewalk
@@FireWalkMusic ah too bad but glad to listen to it in TH-cam!
very good info and presentation ! thanks...
Thanks :)
I would like to add 3 points: Smart Disable (FL Studio), ASIO drivers and priority tracks (Atari Cubase).
FL Studio users can use the Smart Disable setting to save CPU time. You set this up in the Audio settings first and then in the drop down menu of every plugin (synths, processors, ...) you enable Smart Disable for that instance.
This saves a lot of CPU time on CPU heavy plugins when they are idle. Sometimes it doesn't work 100%, like with the Raum VST (reverb tails are cut to early), but you can turn the option off when you are going to render the project. :-)
Good ASIO drivers for your dedicated external audio device are a must
too. Wrong drivers and internal onboard units will use CPU time to
compute, where good external devices with good drivers can make their
hardware do the maths for your DAW.
I know there are still quite a lot of Atari Cubase lovers around, so
yeah, this still can be useful to someone... ;-) Atari Cubase users
should not forget that the first two MIDI tracks are "priority" tracks.
You should place time critical MIDI tracks like drum parts in here.
Good tips :)
Excellent video mate.
Thanks :)
Great video, thank you 👍
Thanks, you're welcome :)
Great video man!!
Thanks, glad you liked it :)
Ableton Live 10 by default can run 64 threads for audio calculation. Each thread is dedicated to a single chain of audio. Both core count and clock speed improve performance.
Are u saying Ableton Live 10 has the ability to process faster because it can make use of the extra cores?
@@brandanleiter If it can use extra cores, it would definitely be faster and more convenient than FL studio.
Very thorough and well explained video. Thank you for creating this and sharing your knowledge!
Thanks, glad you liked it! 👍😊
cable management dude....
besides - cool build
Thanks! :)
Thanks for taking the time , I greatly appreciate it
Thanks, you're welcome :)
I ended up going from an intel 6600k to a Ryzen 3700x and it is night and day. The 3700x is super fast and handles everything well. I also do a lot of video editing so the 3700x was better for me. Right now Intel is a tiny bit faster on single core speed, but Ryzen smashes in basically everything else. If anyone is building a new computer, I would def go with AMD.
For video editing and other multithreaded application AMD is king these days. No doubt about that, and unless someone really need the best of the best for music production purposes, AMD will generally provide a better all-round computer.
In terms of raw performance, the 9900k will still outperform even the AMD flagship right now, especially when overclocked. The AMD chips are basically pushed to the very limit right out of the box, and a 3900x for example won't be able to run any higher than 4,2 - 4,3 GHZ Tops, on all cores at once. The 9900k on the other hand will be able to run at 5 GHZ on all cores with no problem, and in some cases even 5,2 - 5,3, which is 1 GHz faster than the AMD. Considering the fact that single core performance is more important than many cores when it comes to music production, I will tend to still recommend the 9900k for anyone who need the very best for music production purposes.
That said, for anyone else who don't need to push their projects to the very limit, and who also do other tasks such as video editing, the AMD will be the best choice by far.
I'm so glad they finally stepped up and gave Intel a run for their money. I used to be a real AMD fanboy back in the days. I remember when AMD beat Intel to the 1 GHZ barrier. Back then AMD was always one step ahead, but for a long time now they haven't been able to compete with AMD in the performance segment at all, until now!
They have made some great CPU's this time, and combined with Intel's ongoing manufacturing problems they are rushing past Intel, and that's ultimately great for us, the consumers, as it will result in more competition and lower prices. :D
Sorry for the long post.. I got a bit carried away :)
@@FireWalkMusic don't apologise; nerding out about CPUs is fun! I
Love this video thanks!!!
Glad you found it useful! :)
Subscribed!
Thank you! :)
Excellent. will re-view for reference. Ran into all the downfalls with gaming computer. And reverb or convolution really bogs down speed.(BTW also have a noisy annoying fan.)
Glad you found it useful :)
Demo track super !!))👍
Thanks! Glad you liked it :) You can find the full track here: th-cam.com/video/9xsVnwsk4U0/w-d-xo.html
FireWalk WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!! Mega thanks!!!!!🤝👍
From Russia 🇷🇺 with love !!!🎼
I thought about the 9900k, but it`s too expensive for me, so I chose the 9700k, 32G RAM, 512G SSD 970 Pro on M.2. I think its not bad for the music production at home =)
Thanks for the video.
The 9700k will also work very well! :)
Excellent vid couldn’t do it any better
Thanks! Very much appreciated. It sounds insane, but It actually took me 3 whole days to make this 13 minute video.. 😀
FireWalk I can imagine, 3 days well spent though !
Thanks :)
no wonder my computer be glitching and fighting to play the beat smooth
Very very well explained, just what I needed :)
Glad you found it helpful :)
5-7% increase seems a bit low. I've got a 8700k and max it out in current projects but I think I'll hold off upgrading for now
The rather low increase was quite surprising, as the CPU is supposed to have a substantially improved single core performance, and even more cores. I suspect this is is because of the quad channel memory support of the 5820K vs the dual channel on both the 8700k and the 9900k. I talked to Image-Line about this and they was as surprised as I was. In theory, you should not be able to max out the bandwidth even with a dual channel system. However, in a real life scenario it seems to be a different matter.
In order to test this I downgraded my quad channel 5820k to dual channel DDR4 memory instead, and the result was quite shocking. A project that was using about 70% of the buffer in FL Studio ended up reaching 100%, and became unplayable.
Once I set it to quad channel again it was fine again. Surely the dual vs quad channel memory has some huge impact here, even though technically it shouldn't. More tests would need to be done to verify this hypothesis though, but it's the only thing I can really think of that separate the 5820k from the 9900k that could account for such a tiny difference.
The thing is, if I had tested the 5820k vs the 9900k and they were both running in dual channel mode then the difference would probably be around 30-40%, like the charts seems to indicate, relating to single core performance increase in the 9900k vs the 5820k. I'm quite sure that the memory bandwidth is what's holding the 9000 back here, because thy should not be that close! But I can't say for sure..
If I had tested a dual channel 8700k vs a dual channel 9900k then the results would likely have been very different. If I had unlimited amounts of money I would go ahead and buy another dual channel system and test just to be sure, and also a Ryzen 3900x based system so that I could really see how they measure up. :)
@@FireWalkMusic Have you tried another DAW (like Studio One) that might be able use utilise more threads?
@@FireWalkMusic Sorry man, you just need to RECORD the synths and all that and split up your creation, arrangement, mixing, and mastering phases of production in order to avoid that high CPU utilization. It could also be as simple as switching your buffer size as well. you don't need a low buffer if your mixing/arranging the track. You really dont need a low buffer unless you're recording guitars w/ realtime effects etc.... The i9 can flex more CPU power if you increase the buffer size.
@@AJDOLDCHANNELARCHIVE I contacted various daw developers and they have confirmed that all daws work basically the same way when it comes to the way it processes. Serial processing is heavily utilized in all daws. They all also utilize multiple cores of course, but they all work basically the same way. So if you replicate a project perfectly in two different daws you wouldn't see a huge difference. Perhaps +-10% tops, and much of that will be due to the buffer handling and such.
@@dotMPEGmusic Hey, I'm aware of the freezing option, but I really don't like doing that due to my workflow. In my opinion freezing Is still a bit tedious in fl studio, particularly the unfreezing.. The way I work means going back and changing things quite a lot, and with most of the tracks rendered to audio it would just be too messy and time consuming, so I opted to go for more performance instead. The buffer size is already maxed out usually. I always record during the start of a project, with a low buffer size, and then I increase it as the project grows. 😊
This works well for me. I also do video editing and it's a pain to wait while video is rendering while editing, so having a fast CPU saves me quite some time in the long run. 😊
I need more RAM since i'm making orchestral music. I have 8, need at the very least 32 gb.
Love your videos btw, you explain things so well!
Thanks! Glad you found it helpful. 8 GB is not a whole lot for huge libraries and such.
My computer handles music production just fine. It's literally a i5 8gb computer. However I cant leave my DAW open or any virtual instruments running and use my video editing software at the same time. I have to close everything down and hold to the next thing entirely. Kind of irritating
This build is way over the top for most people. I just wanted to show the "best" and explain why that is etc. Most people will get by with much cheaper systems. It all depends on how you work, what kind of projects you make, what kind of plugins you use and so on.
I'm kind of in the same boat as you with regard to video editing. I also do a lot of video editing, so I often find myself working in my video editor, photoshop, FL studio, various animation softwares, screen capturing etc all at the same time. The 9900k was the only solution for me. Add to that I also have a mixing and mastering service etc, so it's essential to be able to get stuff done as quickly as possible, since my time is limited.
The i5 is still a good CPU. However, If you want to upgrade then the older I7 CPU's will offer a very good performance increase. With multithreading you should be able to get a huge increase in performance during video editing too.
Thank u for sharing,love all ur videos 🙏🙏
You're welcome :)
Legit best vid I've found on this topic. Thanks so much!
Thanks, you're welcome. :)
I noticed something, when you put a lot of effects on one mixer track, you start to notice a single thread bottleneck in the computer and there is a bigger gap between the CPU meter in FL Studio compared to Windows 10.
It seems that the best way to optimize the CPU usage is avoiding a lot of effects on a single channel. Sidechaining can reduce the singlethread bottleneck, i made a very synth heavy musical piece but i did sidechaining and reduced the gap between FL Studio's CPU meter and Windows 10.
Hi, I actually have a video about this, you might find it interesting: th-cam.com/video/hX10k8Hb77g/w-d-xo.html
@@FireWalkMusic In my i7-4700MQ the gap between FL Studio's CPU meter and Windows's task manager is more or less 10%. Like 80% in Windows's Task manager and 90 in FL Studio, running with a buffer of 256 and can also handle 128. I could go even further but i get thermal throttling at almost 85°C. Base clock is 2.4GHz but with an undervolt, it's like running overclocked to 3GHz or a 30% improvement in perfomance.
I guess that the best CPUs are the ones that have a small gap here and specially desktop ones, they have better controlled thermals therefore more stable perfomance close to 100% use. Maybe a Ryzen 9 3900X (it has the best singlethread perfomance from AMD and 12 cores) will have better boost clock behavior or thermals than an i9-10900K?
I saw in some benchmarks that the Ryzen 9 3900X can beat the i9-10900K in rendering but it seems that it happened due to the better boost behavior, i don't think that with an i9-10900K can handle an extremely synth heavy project and still clock at 5 GHz due to the heat.
9:50 that track sounds amazing! So much energy in that melody! Is it released yet? Can’t seem to find it anywhere
Here you go: th-cam.com/video/9xsVnwsk4U0/w-d-xo.html
Agreed, awesome track!
I'm back to using tascam 4 track cassette recorder. 40 years old. no problems.
D thomzom and you’ll spend more time on your music instead of all this BS !
For Windows 10 with multiple CPU cores, a CPU affinity of the audio application must be defined on a group of cores with higher process priority and only the physical core may be used. This core group must be freed from its processes. This achieves better cache utilization of the CPU and thus increases the "single" core performance of the audio application. The devices should all be set from Line Mode to MSI(-X) regarding interrupt in the driver. The two Windows audio services should run with priority "realtime" on the second physical core. I would only use the last physical 6 cores for the audio application in this scenario.
I improved singlethread perfomance with an undervolt in my 8 year old i7-4700MQ laptop. Like 300 Mhz more for the same voltage, I have a bottleneck with core count (4 cores are the absolute minimum and not ideal) but singlethread is ridiculously strong for the age that it has, 3.4GHz in Ableton Live all cores thanks to Throttlestop magic and sillicon lottery, equivalent to one core of the Ryzen 7 1700.
Changing CPU affinity in windows makes no difference, the OS already is very well optimized. I basically get 1% or 0% CPU use with the computer at iddle.
Also depends on the DAW, Ableton Live is more efficient than FL Studio with clock cycles for sound processing (maybe because it's programmed in C which is very low level and C++). The difference can be kinda big.
@@saricubra2867 My statement applies to modern multi-core CPUs from 6 cores upwards.
Windows is not optimized for real-time DAW requirements. Windows does not optimize the cache usage of the cores for an application.
For CPU utilization in real-time signal processing, the idle CPU time has no relevance.
@@HSCHSC211 Isn't about windows optimization, is about the CPUs themselves. By the way, it's impossible to fully use the cache for audio in a CPU due hyperthreading that can create a bottleneck.
@@saricubra2867 ". it's impossible to fully use the cache for audio in a CPU due hyperthreading.." Does not make sense to my statement because I wrote "only the physical core may be used". For example, if you use Process Lasso to run the audio application only on the 6 cores without logical CPU and the rest of your applications including OS services (with xml affinity template) on 2 cores with logical CPU, then the audio application can use the CPU cache of the physical 6 cores at maximum. The logical CPUs of the 6 cores remain unused, so the 6 cores effectively work without HT/SMT. Only the remaining kernel and its interrupt routines "disturb" the cache of the 6 cores. These can also be moved to CPU 0 or 1 (by interrupt policy).
you answered very clearly my questions thanks u
You're welcome :)
Or get an old multi-CPU server for a tenth of the cost. I spent $450 in 2018 spec'ing an old Dell T5600 to 2x E5-2690 (16 core), 64 GB Ram, and a 1TB SSD (very important if you are reading many tracks from the hard drive, as in recorded instruments, not virtual.) The computer scores a 11,500 on Geekbench, and I rarely peak over 50% total CPU usage even with projects with 200+ tracks, multiple reverbs, and modeled instruments.
What was total cost of entire build? You think you could help me out on a build?
@@TheTattoedVRpilot eBay is your friend. So is PassMark test data. I spent $450 total.
delphia.online so u got a dell t5600 and added ram, new cpu and hard drive?
@@TheTattoedVRpilot Two years ago. If you want the best price to performance today, go to PassMark, compare CPUs, and then check on eBay. Your best best for price is probably going to be a deal CPU server motherboard with or without CPUs installed.
I just looked into these parts but it still gonna be at least 2x what you spent, you got good deals. However I have no idea what kind of ram or ssd's to get from brands ETC, I know nothing of building computers
Good info. Personally I haven’t found anything easier, more useful and reliable for both live and recording than an i7 MacBook Pro, SSD, 16gb ram and a Behringer XR18 mixer. I use xAir on the Mac and iPads for live mixes and monitor tweaking for the band members, and Reaper for recording up to 18 tracks at once. The fan hardly turns on while doing all of that. Plus very mobile.
The i7 is still a beast of a processor and should be more than enough for most people. :)
So ussseeeeffffuuullll. Thank you so much sir¡¡¡¡¡¡¡
You're welcome :)
Best explanation out there.
Thanks, much appreciated :)
FireWalk may I ask how many channels you had or VST’s open at the time of your this video. I usually have around 100+ tracks as well as process heavy plug ins. I use a Mac but have been hesitant on making a switch but Pc seems like the only affordable option. My damn iPad has more cores then my old 2012 Mac I need a work horse.
@@bryceheffinger8895 probably around 110 tracks if memory serves. Lots of vst's
FireWalk Thanks a lot man appreciate it
Big up for this video !
Thanks :)
what about a soundcard like soundblaster ae-7? people say that it has a specific quad-core processor for audio signals, would that be useful?
The sound card has no impact on the performance. It just plays back the music, and records input. All the processing is done by the computer itself, mainly the CPU. Some plugins get some assist by the GPU when it comes to rendering graphics, but it's mostly 99,9% CPU.
@@FireWalkMusic thanks man you saved me 200€😂