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.