PC Rig Builds - Show Us Your Builds

Side Room
41

It’s worth pointing out that it was a head-to-head match up - both are 8C/16T. It was also very, very close, with Ryzen coming out ahead by like 20 points in the benchmark. The question is whether Zen 2 is actually beating Intel on single core performance or if AMD’s microcode benefits the number crunching that Cinebench requires (256-bit float, larger FMA, etc).

If I was a betting fellow, I’d guess that it’s a bit of both. Ryzen is likely better suited to large scale parallel number crunching tasks like Cinebench (which does sort of sell it for content creation), and AMD is probably edging up on Intel for single core, which they’ll again lose ground to when Icelake drops. There’s just not enough details about Zen 2 to really know, and like you said, I’m not putting money into something without longer and better testing by third parties.

lol “you’re really good at being nerdy!” Combination of doing it since the early 80s and having careers that have kept me close to it. As I mentioned before, I’ve been out of the loop with consumer parts, so this is all recent research and I just happen to have the background to grok it. And I’ll be perfectly honest, a lot of it is just straight up geekery - there’s no reason even enthusiasts should be concerned with most of this.

My current setup was totally awesome five years ago, which means I could get almost anything and it be a noticeable improvement. I’m only hand-wringing because I can (and I have a totally irrational fear of commitment when it comes to buying parts).

42

I think they’ll be pretty cool but not something that if I were to build a system, i would wait for. Especially them fittingbinto the board I currently have, with some bios updating. That means I can literally future path up to whatever Zen comes along, assuming that doesn’t change in a few iterations.

Of course, Intel may come along and drive their specs into the dirt but at a higher cost(assumed by previous pricings). I’d say that even if you’re an Intel dude, if AMD can effectively make your next CPU cheaper simply by doing well in the market, that’s a plus too.

I think this weekend I’ll do some checking on my system. I’ve had Ryzen Master running on my second monitor. Boosting up to 3.9 MHz all on its own. I know performance is lower with it in the background but I more or less want to see what the software does.

I’ve been trying to check my temps while I game, etc. It idles at 30c, if not below at points. And it hasn’t really gone over 50c. Of course the ambient temperature is pretty low right now and partly due to the case being seemingly very good at moving air in and out. But it’s on the stock cooler, which I’ve seen people saying isn’t great compared to the one that shipped with the 1600(thinner heat sink/non-copper).

I think I said it previously, my case feels cold to the touch. But yeah, I think this weekend I’ll pull it back apart and try a few more astetically pleasing things and snap some photos while I’m at it.

Again thanks for the back and forth in here guys. Been some fun reads.

@Manton are parts somewhat more expensive in AU? I can get the CPU price but no idea cost. But damn, that board alone. $500+…

43

I think with a 200 mm fan in front, you don’t have to worry too much. I used to have a case with one on the side pushing cool air straight onto the motherboard from on top, and only ever overheated once doing some very hard number crunching on an overclocked processor that drew 150 watts stock when it was over 100 degrees F in my room. I still use that case for another pc, but I wanted something quieter.

44

I remember reading a while ago when building a rig for a friend, that DAW’s typically only can utilize 1-2 cores anyway (so it’s software dependent), but the clock speed is vital to processing a large number of “tracks” (or channel strips) or as you say, very long WAV files. If your using heaps of VSTs, a larger amount of RAM is necessary. Does that make sense?

1 Like
45

Every modern DAW I’ve looked at will utilize as many cores/threads as you can throw at it, up to it’s programming limit (which is currently 32 or 64 for most of them). The question is how it utilizes them.

Very generally each signal path will use one thread until they’re all used up, and then it starts queuing them. So if you have a 4 core/8 thread cpu, your DAW will assign tracks 1-8 to each of the threads, then track 9 goes to the next available thread. Thus for lots of tracks, more cores/threads are helpful.

Each track is processed at the speed of a single thread. If you have a cpu heavy synth (omg Diva) followed by real-time Melodyne and a a stack of convolution reverbs, that’s a ton of processing on a single thread. In that case single core performance is beneficial, as those extra cores can sit idle while the one tries to complete. Also, if you have more tracks than cores, the quicker it clears that queue. It’s a bit of a balancing act.

Some DAWs also split off VST processing to available threads, further murkying the waters. I’d argue that the difference in single core performance and thread counts are so small these days that you’d almost have to make up scenarios to see a noticeable difference on a real project outside full on orchestral sessions or 150 track pop tunes.

It’s hard to argue with more ram, especially since most DAWs and software samplers have the option to pre-load samples into memory to prevent drop outs and stuttering. I’d almost always put money into ram before I got a slightly more powerful cpu.

It’s not the same for every DAW, but this is what Ableton says about it.

1 Like
46

There’s a difference between “very long WAV files” and “large number of ‘tracks’”. WAV files are just files loaded into memory, or run off disk if they’re really big. Tracks tho, can contain MIDI, snippets of audio, VST instruments, etc. A WAV file is specifically a recorded audio file that is loaded into memory. A track, is something into which you CAN put a WAV file, but can also put really anything else as well. Basically, a track is one continuous audio feed, regardless of the source.

For having a project with lots of samples and files (WAV) loaded into the project, RAM is something that will benefit you very much in that case, but only if you have a lot of tracks will CPU speed will matter as much (i.e. a two track DJ mix containing many individual song files). But if it’s a bunch of outboard effects/instruments coming in on individual mixer channels, then the CPU speed will come more into play.

As far as multicore support, I use REAPER and I know it allows for use of multicore systems, but mostly I’ve just heard that applications that utilize multiple cores are still kinda being worked out as far as what does what in a program, and it really depends on the software and how they’ve developed it to take advantage of the additional cores. It’s more of something that “best practices” I guess are still kinda in development.

Definitely tho, RAM is where it’s at for a music production station. Processor should be ok, but doesn’t need anything terribly powerful. You probably don’t need an i9, for instance lol. I run my system with my i5 7600k (which, to be fair is practically a low end i7), and it’s been more than enough.

I’d be interested tho in looking into what kinda of processing power different audio functions require, certainly encoding/decoding, different DSP’s, certainly reverb is definitely a cpu intensive effect. So, if you had a track that needed a LOT of reverb (like 10000 instances of a high end reverb plugin), then you might need a powerful computer lol.

2 Likes
47

Excellent response. Very clear, thank you.

Yeah man. Totally understand. When I say “large number of tracks” I meant channels with WAV files in them. As if you are in a real time recording session. Obviously if you just had 200 “new” tracks applied to a session with nothing loaded into them, it would not require any process.

48

Well yeah, but you can still have VST’s loaded, have a project vst/vsti heavy, you don’t need to have empty channels. It’s not WAV or nothing. Encoded files too make a difference, if you’re using mp3’s or something for some reason. You don’t need to have empty tracks.

49

Just started buying parts for this build :slight_smile:

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

Type Item Price
CPU AMD - Ryzen 7 2700 3.2 GHz 8-Core Processor $224.89 @ OutletPC
CPU Cooler Cooler Master - Hyper 212 RGB Black Edition 57.3 CFM CPU Cooler $36.89 @ OutletPC
Motherboard Asus - ROG STRIX B450-F GAMING ATX AM4 Motherboard $133.88 @ OutletPC
Memory Corsair - Vengeance LPX 16 GB (1 x 16 GB) DDR4-3000 Memory $84.99 @ Corsair
Memory Corsair - Vengeance LPX 16 GB (1 x 16 GB) DDR4-3000 Memory $84.99 @ Corsair
Memory Corsair - Vengeance LPX 16 GB (1 x 16 GB) DDR4-3000 Memory $84.99 @ Corsair
Memory Corsair - Vengeance LPX 16 GB (1 x 16 GB) DDR4-3000 Memory $84.99 @ Corsair
Storage Samsung - PM961 256 GB M.2-2280 Solid State Drive $59.95 @ Amazon
Storage Samsung - 860 QVO 1 TB 2.5" Solid State Drive $117.99 @ Amazon
Storage Hitachi - Ultrastar 7K3000 2 TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive $53.49 @ Amazon
Video Card Gigabyte - GeForce RTX 2070 8 GB WINDFORCE Video Card $479.99 @ Newegg
Case Cooler Master - MasterCase MC500 ATX Mid Tower Case $92.20 @ Amazon
Power Supply SeaSonic - G 550 W 80+ Gold Certified Semi-Modular ATX Power Supply
Operating System Microsoft - Windows 10 Home OEM 64-bit $99.39 @ OutletPC
Wireless Network Adapter Asus - PCE-AC51 PCI-Express x1 802.11a/b/g/n/ac Wi-Fi Adapter $28.99 @ SuperBiiz
Prices include shipping, taxes, rebates, and discounts
Total (before mail-in rebates) $1707.62
Mail-in rebates -$40.00
Total $1667.62
Generated by PCPartPicker 2019-04-12 18:14 EDT-0400
1 Like
50

Do you think your PSU is going to manage without being under load most of the time? Would be my only concern. Otherwise, nice rig. I also love that site. Way easier to figure out directions.

51

Very nice. Is the 64 GB of RAM for running sample libraries in memory?

Very rough rule of thumb on the PSU is to take the TDP of your CPU/GPU, add them, then add 100. Not a be all, end all number by any means, but it will tell you if you’re in the right neighborhood.

So, 175 W for the 2070 plus 65 W for the R7 2700 (assuming no OC) plus another hundred lands at around 340 Watts (which sounds right for a system specced like this). PSUs are at optimal efficiency at about half load, so this is at the upper end of what you’d want to put on that PSU, but the 80+ gold certification guarantees pretty good efficiency across a wide range of loads so it will be fine, even with overclocking or added peripherals in the future.

2 Likes
52

He did mention wanting to upgrade to the 2080ti at some point though. Would definitely adjust the total a bit.

53

oh I just changed the graphics card on this and didn’t realize the PSU might be effected. I might look into another PSU if needed, I haven’t bought all of this quite yet but should be able to in the next few days. And absolutely haha, much easier for someone who is still a bit of a hardware noob to figure stuff out with.

54

The RAM is for rendering 3D animation and helping with live visuals.
And yeah I’m planning on getting an RTX 2080ti soon, they’re dropping in price recently.
Good to know though, very informative, thanks!

55

Ah nice. I think you’ll find that the Ryzen is great at allowing you to do multiple things, like render and still mess about. I’ve even found some games that would normally have issue alt-tabbing have little to no issue with even my Ryzen 5

1 Like
56

Looks like total power draw from a 2080 under load is ~300W. Even with everything going full bore, you’re not likely to max out a well-built 550W if you’re not overclocking or adding a ton of spinning drives.

1 Like
57

How are you guys splitting your stuff over multiple drives?

Currently, I have an SSD for OS, 10K HD for samples (that’s like 15 years old at this point and I’m amazed it’s still chugging along), and 2 7.5K drives for projects and data. The SSD I bought a while ago, when they were still very expensive, hence only 1. With mechanical drives, it made sense to split things as much as possible to minimize the amount of movement the read arm had to do. But I guess this is a moot point now with SSD. Still, there are other considerations, like data loss and back-ups. It feels like keeping data files separate from OS simplifies both, since I can take images periodically of my OS, which will be much smaller. Plus, it’s the OS drive that seems to get corrupted/dies faster, so it’s a bonus to have your non-OS files intact when that happens.

Thinking of picking up a smaller Samsung Evo 960/970 and several Samsung 800 series SSDs. But I’m not entirely clear where the M.2 drive is going to provide the most benefit - being the OS drive or being the drive for my Cubase projects. I tend to record a lot of guitars and synths, so it’s the project drive that needs to be faster, rather than samples (I don’t really use a whole lot of sample libraries. Superior Drummer being the most used and biggest).

Still in the early days of researching this build, but leaning towards Intel i9-9900K with one of Gigabyte’s Aorus MOBOs (still deciding between master/ultra/pro).

Any thoughts on the subject are welcome.

58

M.2 is a form factor, not a transfer standard. M.2 is convenient because they’re small and you can use them for things besides storage, but an AHCI M.2 SSD performs the same as an AHCI SATA SSD. There’s no tangible benefit to running M.2 as it’s literally just a different plug. However moving from SATA2 to SATA3 would be a boost, and anything modern enough to take an M.2 is going to be SATA3.

The confusion may come from the fact that M.2 supports some forms of NVMe, which can provide benefits depending on use case. While NVMe really shines at data depth/database applications, more casual users can see benefits mostly in OS and app startup. There’s not going to be a huge boost in performance from NVMe for linear applications like gaming or recording or the things that most people do day-to-day.

nerdy math stuff: The lack of speed increase is not immediately intuitive because you see a big difference in MB/s between NVMe and SATA. But you don’t perceive performance as MB/s, but rather the opposite - you care about seconds, how long you wait for a thing to happen. When you talk about s/MB, that big number on top of the NVMe becomes a big denominator, which means your final number (the seconds you’re waiting for data to move around) is relatively tiny. What you’re mostly getting with NVMe is bandwidth, not speed, unless you’re doing a bunch of things at once like in a database application. Audio’s not going to get a benefit.

That said, put your OS and apps on the most reliable drive. That probably means the newest. Regardless of what you’re doing, it’ll get the most use. I personally like recording to and running samples from an SSD, and then having a big spinning drive as long term storage that I can move projects and samples and whatnot on and off of as needed. An old, crappy SSD will absolutely smoke a 15k HDD; there’s just no comparison. Moving everything you can to SSD is going to be both more performant and more reliable.

Storage reliability is a rabbit hole, but suffice it to say that SSDs are considerably more stable and robust than HDDs. They tend to fail on the bathtub curve, so if they make it to the ~3 month mark, they’ll likely be fine for years. Probably the best thing to do is use some of those old drives as backups.

tl;dr put all your shit on whatever SSDs you can find and get on with your life

1 Like
59

Right, the question is really about NVMe vs SATA. Definitely going to get SSDs only, so mechanical drives are not even being considered. In theory, NVMEs are supposed to be significantly faster, but in practice, it seems like most user wouldn’t notice a difference. Except there are plenty of fuckers on the internet who make things confusing by claiming they do notice a big difference with NVMe vs SATA.

I’m also kind of confused with the way different Samsung models are priced (Evo vs Pro). Let’s say I’m looking at 500 gig ones:

860:
Evo - ~$80, Pro - ~$150

970 (NVMe):
Evo - $150, Pro -~$160, Evo Plus -~$120

Supposedly, the Pro versions should be more durable and Samsung provides longer warranty. Otherwise, they are roughly the same. So I’m not sure why the price is the same for 970, but there’s a 100% difference for 860. So it seems like it all boils down to either 860 Evo or 970 Pro, since it’s the same price as 860 Pro.

As far as my other question about using multiple drives, upon further research, it seems like there’s really no performance benefit with SSDs to split OS/projects/samples between different drives. However, it still makes sense to me for back up and reliability reasons to have multiple drives. So I decided to go for 2 512 gig drives for OS and projects/samples and another 1TB drive (can be crappier/slower, but still SSD) for data (mostly MP3s and photos).

60

Memory prices have been swinging wildly the past few years, and the tariffs in the US have just added to the confusion.