Need help deciding on a CPU for music production PC.

[aarav]

Hi.
I'm new to this thing so please bear with me If I am unclear.
• I am building a PC for music production.
• I currently don't know what genres, DAWs, Plugins, and workflow/workload I will be working with. So I want something that will be flexible enough to fulfil most production scenarios.
• I want it to be powerful enough for the next 5-6 years at least.
• Keeping the rest of the system at the same price, the only deciding factor here is the CPU.
(I won't be overclocking, for then I'd have to spend more on the motherboard and cooling)

I have three options :
1. i5 10600k @ 300 USD (6c/12t)
Pro : • Cheapest option
• Single core performace = to i7's
Con : 2 Less cores

2. Ryzen 5 5600x @ 390 USD (6c/12t)
Pro : 12% faster single core than both others
Con : 2 Less cores

3. i7 10700(non-k) @ 395 USD (8c/12t)
(I will remove the power limits, meaning it will perform equal to a stock 10700k)
Pro : • 12% faster in multi-core work than both others
• 2 extra cores than others
Con : 12% slower in single core than the Ryzen for the same price.

So my questions basically are :
1. Since i5 single core = i7 single core,

Should I pay extra for 2 more cores,?
Should I even consider opt. 2&3, or i5 will be plenty?

2. Since Ryzen 5 single core is 12% > i7 single core and
i7 multi-core is 12% > Ryzen multi-core
at the same price,

Shall i go with the 12% faster single core or the 12% faster multi core with 2 extra cores?

Any help would be appreciated.
Thanks.

[merlyn]

If you consider the 5600x vs the 10700 they're different in more ways than simply clock speed and number of cores. The Intel chip has built in graphics; the AMD doesn't. The AMD has PCIe 4.0; the Intel doesn't.

If it was me I'd go for the Ryzen, just because I'd like to try one.

2. Ryzen 5 5600x @ 390 USD (6c/12t)
Pro : 12% faster single core than both others

Where are you getting this? There's more to single core performance than just clock speed. It also depends on the number of instructions per clock cycle, and newer chips tend to have better IPC. Also chips are rarely tested with an audio load -- the benchmarks can give an idea but there aren't usually widely available audio specific benchmarks.

Pete Kaine from Scan Computers has tested chips with an audio load and he found that the memory speed was important to get the most out of a Ryzen 3000 series chip.

http://www.scanproaudio.info/2019/07/30 ... an-impact/

I don't know if that's still true for the 5000 series, but it's worth looking into.

[uselessoldman]

CPU speed for music production is no more/less important than the memory and storage (hard drive) speed. If I were to buy a new computer today I would opt for

CPU Ryzen 5600x cos its a DAMN good all round chip
how can you consider Intel there trash now

Motherboard - probably Asus with 2x NVMe (dual M2) cos they save a hell of a lot of space in your case compared to hard drives (even SSD) cos they are on board

Hard Drive - depends on software but I use a LOT of storage space

Memory - 32Gb ABSOLUTE minimum even for moderate mixes 16Gb is just NOT enough

Then the question is where and what software goes where, M2/SSD/Hard Drives.

I am using a FX 8350, M2 2xSSD 4xHDDS 32Gb and its fine for 18/24 tracks instruments/effects etc and its now 7 years old and I recon it will still last me another 4/5. I actually have 2 identical machines, one is for testing software and spare should the other crash/go faulty/backup etc

[resistorman]

I’m using a Ryzen 2700x and a 3700x in my machines... work real well. Unless you’re running a LOT of virtual synths and plugins the CPU for an audio machine is almost irrelevant if it’s current gen. I also do video production so # of cores matter.