Questions & Answers

Intel i9 vs. AMD Threadripper for new desktop build?

0 votes
asked Aug 22, 2019 in Studio One 4 by brandonguergo (1,120 points)


Building a new PC since my current build is a relatively old one where I went so high-end it to last has lasted a decade and doesn't need to be upgraded, still works fine with most things but can get bogged down with too many instantiations of a plugin like reverbs/analog saturation or CPU eaters like u-he and Serum.

I tried to find multi-core (not thread) info about Studio One 4 Pro but I couldn't find anything definitive.

Anyone have experience with both CPUs or have knowledge about multi-core use, Intel at a higher speed vs. an AMD with double the cores? I've almost always stuck with Intel and I've yet to have a single piece of hardware fault during builds for over 15 years but AMD has stepped up their tech game lately so I'm highly considering them. I do run at 4k currently but I don't particularly plan to play video games much anymore on this build, saying this because Intel is usually more suitable at higher speeds as games don't milk multi-cores to their potential yet.

Main uses : Studio One 4 Pro with heavy CPU usage, rendering, basic graphic design


2 Answers

0 votes
answered Aug 24, 2019 by vasilykorytov (10,900 points)
generally for real-time audio you want faster cores, not more cores (as long as it's not a 1-core CPU).

I have no experience with both CPUs, but out of those would take 9900K, 8 cores is enough and the cores are 30% faster, according to tests.
0 votes
answered Jun 25, 2020 by troyblackford (140 points)
I have a 32-core, 64-thread threadripper and Studio One Pro 4, and it works great. No matter what I do, the CPU meter never bumps past about 1/20th filled up. Each VST starts running on an empty core. People telling you 'Intel is better, because it's 30% faster per core' don't really seem to get that if you have 32 cores, each running a couple VSTs separately, for a competitive price to an 8 core CPU with slightly faster per-core performance, you are still getting the benefit of 24 additional cores, which kind of adds up to more power than faster processing per core. It would be different if the system didn't slot each VST into an empty core, or a core running less things, but it's just a laughable, gut response from people who don't know. I am sure a good Intel processor would work great, but I don't see why you would want to pay more for less just because 'Yes, it has a fourth of the cores, but those 25% of cores work 30% better per core!' That's great, but having so many more cores means your computer will never have a problem running all the VSTs you can throw at it.

Threadripper isn't technically the 'optimal' way to handle music, but it basically brute-forces its way into working great. It also is indisputably better at video and photo editing. A 32-core Intel CPU, if it even exists, would be like the down payment on a house. If you want extreme power, flexibility beyond music, and to never worry about CPU allocation again, a Threadripper is a fine choice.