AM4 vs. AM5; advice on custom PC builds for DAWS (2026)

Hello all!

I recently decided it was time for a new computer and I wanted one specifically for music production. I looked around at prebuilds and found it difficult to find a prebuild company that makes PCs, specifically for audio. I looked at scan.co.uk for example and found the prices… upsetting.

Hoping to save cash and add style to my computer, I struck off into the world of custom PC building at the suggestion of a family member. After reading a nauseating amount of reddit and 4 or 5 rounds of PC part picker, I have settled (not indisputably) on the following build.

Before we dive into the actual parts I would like to share some context.

Goals:

  • Good looking (just cause it’s for audio doesn’t mean I don’t care about how it looks) Because of this I will be attempting to find all my parts in white…
  • Enough juice to run my absurd amount of tracks (up to 100) and eventually a full orchestral template (that’s the direction I see myself going within the next few years).
  • 32 Gb of RAM but with room to upgrade to 64.
  • under $1300

I decided after trying several times to make a mini ITX build to go with micro ATX to have more options and save cash.

Parts:

CPU + Cooler: Arguably the most important piece as far as it affects performance, I chose the beefy AMD Ryzen 9 5900XT (mostly because of the core count). With sixteen cores I’m hoping that this CPU can hold up under my aforementioned ludicrous track counts. For cooling I chose a 20 dollar thermalright assassin cooler.

2 questions about the parts above.

First, am I really hurting performance by going with AM4? Second, is getting a cheap cooler going to come at the cost of a quiet pc? Because I record things occasionally I would love to know your thoughts on how to get a silent pc, or if having a silent pc is even necessary.

Motherboard: I really don’t have any idea about motherboards, all I know is that I want it to a) have 4 RAM slots and b) be cheap. As a result I picked the Gigabyte A520M DS3H V2. Is this a good option? I really don’t know what to look for here.

RAM: Here’s where I’m starting to get really out of my depth… I chose the Timetec Pinnacle Konduit, 2 sets of 16 gb DDR4-3200 CL-16 (so that I can upgrade in the future)

OK, lots of questions on this. Is DDR4 RAM going to nerf my PC? If I have 64 GB of DDR4 RAM will that be better than having 32GB of DDR5? (I’m asking this mainly because I want to outperform the previous PC I was working with which had 32 gb of DDR5) Also, what should I look at in terms of clock speed for a DAW centric build?

Storage: I’m not actually sure about this one. I know NVMe is supposedly a must have. I found a terabyte drive with insane read speeds called the LEXAR NM 1090 PRO M.2-2280 PCIe 5.0 X4 NVMe ssd (what an awful name). However I know there are cheaper options. What kind of effects do ssd read/write speeds have on composing workflows and what should I shoot for?

GPU: Am I right in thinking that I can cheap out on this one? I haven’t fully decided yet but I’m looking at a used ASUS GeForce GTX 1060 6GB Dual-Fan OC Edition that should let me do the little graphics rendering and gaming that I might fancy on this PC.

PSU: I’ve heard that going overboard on the PSU means a quieter and more reliable computer. that being said I went for the CORSAIR RM750e (2025) Fully Modular Low-Noise ATX Power Supply (750 W). Is this TOO overboard? or is it actually not enough?? Let me know what you think here.

Some final thoughts:

Just to look over all options (please don’t start a war over this…) How do we feel about Mac? I saw a video by Dom Sigalas that was pretty convincing. Then I went to the Apple website and saw the prices. The Mac mini (m4 I think) at a similar price point doesn’t come close to what you can get with a custom build. However I have heard that Mac handles production related tasks better and integrates with external devices better. Does this make it worth it?

One more thing: I am a complete noob as far as PC building goes. What are some resources and/or advice you wish you had when building your first PC?

Any input is greatly appreciated! Even answering one or two questions would make my day! Sorry about the verbosity, I hope it didn’t scare anyone off :sweat_smile:. Feel free to rip the build to pieces; any feedback is helpful.

Hi, and welcome.
There’s a lot to unpack here, so I’m just going to mention a few things.
My advice is to always get the very best and most powerful computer you can afford. Mine cost £2000 four years ago and I’ve just finished paying back the loan that paid for it. Over those four years I’ve replaced all the HDDs and bought a more powerful GPU. I expect it to last another 4 or 5 years. I also cannibalised my older PC for HDDs for the newer one.

RAM - I don’t think clock speed makes a blind bit of difference. Get 64 gigs.

Micro ATX will restrict your upgrade options. How long are going to keep this computer?
I usually look for number of USB ports and PCI slots for peripherals such as my RME card, etc,
I look for M2 sockets as well, and their placement.

PSU - mine’s 850 watts.

And I bought mine from Scan, the second one I bought from them.

HTH!

I think you’ll be much better off buying AM5 instead. Room to grow into a better CPU as they release the next generation. Also, if you’re just worried about audio track count then a lot of CPUs will do just fine. The bigger issue is if you’re doing heavy processing and need low latency. For that I again think AM5 CPUs are a better investment, probably.

I don’t really know that cooler. I know there have been tests before where they list the loudness of coolers so maybe search for that. And yeah, you probably want it relatively quiet if you’re going to record in the same room.

You unfortunately have to think through what you want to connect and how. There’s no way around this. I did a quick search and looked at the specs and it looks like that motherboard has only one m.2 slot, but it is PCIe 3.0. Now, that’s not bad and is going to be plenty for a lot of people, but you were looking at getting an NVME drive that’s PCIe 5.0, two generations later. Assuming you can run that drive in that board (I have no idea, I know that older drives in newer slots work) you’re at the very least not even close to taking advantage of the bandwidth of v5.0 the drive has.

Don’t have much time to look at the rest, but I would probably recommend you get a better and/or bigger motherboard and a bigger case. Think of it this way too: if you get a limited motherboard and a small case then what do you do when you want to hook up new stuff? You’ll need connectors. So now you have to look at what connectivity that motherboard has. And it’s pretty limited. If you run out of decent ports, say the USB3.1 ports, then there is no way of extending that. Computers that have Thunderbolt for example, or USB4, can easily add a dock with a bunch of additional i/o. With that motherboard I don’t think that’s doable.

And then there’s the fine-print which can really suck. For example, there are motherboards that only offers full bandwidth to certain connectors (SATA, NVME, USB etc.) with certain configurations. So in those cases attaching a drive in one slot might hurt performance in another. That’s the stuff to also look into.

I’d advise you go for a better motherboard and RAM and maybe go for a 6 or 8 core Ryzen SKU instead. It makes no sense to fork for a 5900XT while going for the A520 chipset, which is the oppposite in the spectrum of 5000 series as far as AM4 chipsets go. You’re not gonna be able to use all the PCIe lanes offered by the 5900XT or they’ll be limited by the chipset in some respect. Since the AM4 socket has reached the end of its lifetime, it makes more sense to go for a X570 board if you can afford it or something slightly below like a B550.

A few pointers:

  • If you want to go for that PCIe 5.0 NVMe, be aware none of the AM4 chipsets or SKUs support it. Not that it won’t work, but it will run at PCIe 4.0 speeds even on the X570 chipset. If you still want to use it, you have to go AM5 and at least the B650E chipset. The B650 may or may not have 4 PCIe 5.0 lanes as its optional.
  • You don’t need a 750W power supply for that configuration, at least not with a 1060. Even if you go for the 5900XT, a 500W power supply will do just fine.
  • If you’re going for a Ryzen 5000 series, there’s little point in skimping on the RAM. They support 128 GB. If you can afford it, go for it. That can be accomplished either with 4 32GB sticks or 2 64GB ECC UDIMM ones.

Thank you this helps a lot!

I’ve never heard of an RME card :sweat_smile:. What is it and should I consider getting one?

I plan on upgrading in the future with prices being what they are…

Since I’m hoping to focus on orchestral music I would probably have large amounts of instrument tracks.

I have heard on other threads that CP cores = amount of tracks you can run, while CPU speed = the amount of processing you can run per track. Is that accurate?

This is the kind of thing I was worried about missing!! Thank you, it looks like compatible SSDs are cheaper anyways..

Is this where Mac takes the lead? It looks like they have 3 thunderbolts on the back of the new mini.

Thank you for the advice! I’ll definitely be checking up on these.

The B550 looks like a good option, thank you!

but my bank account…

would this hurt Cubase’s performance if I have a bunch (say, 40 or more) VSTs running?

RME is just the brand name for a line of higher-end audio interfaces.

https://www.sweetwater.com/c682--Audio_Interfaces?all&params=eyJmYWNldCI6eyJCcmFuZCI6WyJSTUUiXX19

Yes, if you need low latency for recording.
Mine is an internal PCIe card, the AIO (All In One), now discontinued and replaced with the AIO Pro.

Keep in mind Cubase has issues with CPUs with large core counts as reported by several users and we still don’t have a fix for it. Not to deter your wish to have a large core count CPU, but that’s something to be aware of.

The PCI Express standard is backwards compatible. If you plug a PCIe 5.0 drive on a PCIe 3 or 4 bus, it will run at that speed. Going for the A320 chipset, it only offers PCIe 3.0 speeds, so your NVME drive will run at that speed. Same for graphic cards and other devices.

Yes, but you can add Thunderbolt ports to a PC using add-in cards. Only a few motherboards, like the ASRock B550 PG Riptide, have a Thunderbolt header and you still need an add in card for it. You’re not gonna find many (if any) AM4 boards with USB4.

Going back to the high core count issue, it’s hard to say. I have 6 core CPU (Ryzen 1600AF) but I don’t have a version of Cubase which can load that amount of instruments.

Are you planning to work in something like Dorico or Sibelius, or primarily in a tracking DAW?

If you’ll be spending a good bit of time in something like Dorico, skip AM4 and go with the latest generation of AMD or Intel, or perhaps even a Mac. Get as much CPU and memory as you can afford if serious scoring is in your game plan. In this case it’s not as much about the instruments as enjoying a speedy interface. While you can most certainly run Dorico on AM4 (I do it every day), I think you’ll appreciate a snappier system with some headroom.

With something like Dorico, even on the AM4 build, today you’d have little problem running a full orchestra template (100+ virtual players) using the instruments that come with Dorico Pro, or something like Note Performer 5. Don’t expect an uber high quality, realistic, surround sound mock up that’s ready for the cinema though. You can get quality sufficient to sit there and compose all day, and share a sketch that’s more than capable of expressing your ‘composition and arranging’ chops. It can still be musical and pleasing to the ear, but at the same time you’ll know right away it’s a machine and not a real orchestra.

Where going with the newest generation of mother board and CPU is of value there, is processing all the graphics and stuff in a score…give yourself room to grow. If you’re doing a large score that’s also ‘lengthy’…say a full Opera…one simple change in the score might require the software do countless recalculations to rebuild the entire thing, so you’ll quickly appreciate a snappy PC that has room to grow, be expanded and upgraded, etc.

Currently, unless you’re planning to get into stuff like spectral editing, stem separation, or AI tools, there’s not much to gain investing in a fancy GPU, or APU, but this could change between now and the next time you’re ready to upgrade or buy something new. If you go with latest generation AMD, Intel, or Mac, you’ll be better equipped to add the ability to use AI software that can use a GPU and/or APU.

If you’ll mostly be working in a tracking DAW, any of the builds you’ve suggested should cover you for a few years. I say this because if you’re on a tight budget for the hardware, you’re not likely to be laying out thousands of dollars on high end instrument libraries anytime soon. You’ll have plenty to explore and learn with the base rompler libraries that come with most DAWs, free stuff you can find online, etc.

Unless you are ALSO trying to track a lot of real instruments/singers with mics while using your instrument plugins…you should be able to run a 100 track template for orchestra, as you can set higher buffers and such to get more plugins going. There are tricks to render instrument tracks in situations where you might require small buffers and tight latency for things like tracking from microphones.

How many plugins you can run? It varies depending on the plugin. Some require a lot of dsp, and some don’t require much at all. Most orchestral libraries use very little dsp if you run them dry (disable internal effects, share fewer external effects), since they’re mostly just triggering samples. With those kinds of plugins think of in terms of ‘voices needed’ rather than ‘plugin instances’. Having more memory might help if some of your instruments have lots of layers of samples and articulations, and samples from multiple mic positions doubling up. Something like a sampled piano from two simultaneous mic positions might require several voices per key-strike (dampers, releases, misc pedal noises, and more), and access gigabytes of samples from hard drive or memory in the process. In contrast, something like a flute might never require more than one voice at a time, and may not need to access but a small handful of samples. Where a convincing concert piano might require several gig of samples and 30 or more voices of polyphony, you can also get a very fine flute or clarinet that fits in a few megabyte of memory and only needs 1 voice of polyphony at any given moment. So…it tends to average out over a project.

Instruments that do more synthesis may require more dsp, but very little memory. I.E. a ‘modeled’ piano might only need a sample set of a few gig, but will use synthesis to add overtones, resonance, different noise effects, and more that require more cpu cycles. VS. A fully sampled piano that could be several gig of samples that just need to be triggered and played on demand. The former needs more CPU, the latter needs more storage to host the library, and either more memory, or more bandwidth across the bus to ‘stream’ samples in real time from the storage media.

Since it’ll be pretty rare that you will ever have all 100 tracks of a 100 track project making sound, all that same time, you’ll probably be fine with any of the builds you’ve mentioned so far. Particularly if you go with more modest rompler style composer libraries (affordable, small, efficient). Just because a project has 400 tracks, it doesn’t mean they are ALL demanding resources at the same time. Most DAWs and plugins these days are pretty smart about putting things to sleep that are idle or not being used at the moment and freeing up resources until they’re needed.

If your primary goal is to simply be able to arrange and get instant feed-back on your composing, you should be fine. If you’re wanting to make cinema quality mockups that sound convincingly like a real orchestra from beginning to end, it’ll probably be years before you’ve learned enough to make that happen, so take your time. You can always invest in high end gear down the road if you get that accomplished at doing mock ups.

If learning to mock up is your goal. Keep it simple at first. Learn to do small groups. I.E. A Violin solo with a piano accompanist. A string quartet. A brass quintet.

Ease into it. Your computer can handle that kind of template no problem. You’ll have much to master learning to mix and get expressive performances at the micro levels of working with fewer, more exposed instruments. You’ll find yourself evaluating instrument choices, weighing if you want to sink money into something fancy that might save you time, or brute force your way through things with instruments of ‘your own design’.

I.E. It’s possible to get a really fine mockup using free stuff, modding the things that come with your DAW, bringing in real players for some tracking sessions, etc. The cost there is your ‘time’ and ‘effort’ in learning how to cobble all the pieces together yourself. In contrast you might invest in an expensive library that ‘does more for you’ with less manual intervention, and saves a bunch of ‘time’, but unless you’re made of cash, or making a steady income from this work to finance it out, is substantially out of reach.

By the time you’re ready to do much larger arrangements and mixes, and spend money on fancy libraries, you’ll know better what you need, and if more/better hardware is required.

With a low end or midrange build, do run some tests, get demos and such before investing thousands in some ginormous high end cutting edge instrument library.

Getting top quality orchestral libraries can get expensive fast, so take your time. Learn to get tolerable results with instruments that come with your DAW, free stuff, and take your time evaluating if it’s really worth it to you to sink big money in high end instrument libraries.

Also, choosing a solid audio interface is just as important as sweating over things like CPU and Memory. You don’t need to spend a fortune to get something to learn with, and be well served for years; but be sure to get something. You won’t be happy trying to get by with whatever comes on most motherboards! The stuff on most mother boards will be noisy, fiddly to get ‘stable’ as you increase dsp loads, and probably won’t come with native ASIO drivers.

When it comes to interfaces, you can find really high quality, but older used stuff all over the internet that’ll work with Windows for a song and a dance. I.E. Stuff some pro studio is dumping so they can have ‘the latest and greatest’. You might find something a little older with way more in/out capability than you’ll ever need, high quality preamps, and quality digital converters for what something ‘brand new’ with a fraction of the features and quality will cost.

The catch there is if you ever decide to go with a new Mac, might never find drivers for a lot of the older stuff. If you’re thinking of trying a Mac, you’ll have little choice but to go for newer audio interfaces (a few of the best of the best like RME might offer drivers for Apple silicon on older interfaces, but then again, people don’t part with those so easily).

Sort of, yes. It’s worth pointing out though that there’s a tradeoff. Thunderbolt has high bandwidth and a lot of flexibility but it comes at a price. There’s the price for the technology itself, and then there’s the “Apple tax”, or ‘branding’ tax. USB4 is cheaper as far as I know, yet can offer exactly the same.

The thing I think you should take away from what I’m saying is that there’s possibly going to be a tradeoff between saving on the motherboard and case and flexibility in connecting more devices later. It’s hard to find stuff that covers all bases in an inexpensive way. Even getting a computer that has USB4 or TB3/4/5 means that getting another drive connected would likely still be more expensive because those connectors on the drives make the drives more expensive.

In other words you’ll pay a bit more sooner or later no matter what, if you need more than what that motherboard can provide. You’ll just have to figure out if you need portability or if your computer can be stationary… again if you need more connected stuff.

I think there’s some truth to that, but in reality it’s more complicated. I really think AM5 is better for longevity of your build. I wish there was a good comparison between the 5900XT and 7xxx or 9xxx-series CPUs. It’s really hard to know what the improvement is for CPUs alone across generations. What I’m basically saying is that the 5900XT, a 16 core CPU, for you, might equal for example a 9xxx-series 8- or 12-core CPU. If the price is about equal it might put you in a much better position to upgrade later by just swapping the CPU.

On that note:

When both Intel and AMD CPUs made the switch to DDR5 there was an increase in performance, iirc especially when it comes to virtual instruments. I’d have to dig it up, but I think there was a comparison when that happened on the Intel side while they had both DDR4 and 5 available at the same time. Was it the speed or bandwidth or latency? Not sure, but DDR5 > DDR4 for us it seems.

Just in case you want to see at least some data about it here is a link to a recent comparison of CPUs running three standard benchmark tests: Intel’s Ultra “Plus” Range Refresh

I’ll show you the three graphs that are relevant - the DSP graph shows how much plugin processing the CPUs can do before you get clicks and dropouts during playback / the “VI” graph shows how many voices of virtual instruments you can play before dropouts, and the mixed ‘BUS’ test shows a slightly more complex routing structure and plugin processing:

For DSP (plugin processing) it indeed seems that more cores = more better

On the Virtual Instruments test, the left, vertical axis shows the buffer size in the DAW. Lower buffer, less latency, tougher on the CPU. As you can see in the VI test above there’s a pretty “obvious” scaling at lower buffer sizes. You have fewer voices in general and the AMD CPUs have really fast 3D cache directly on the CPU die which they benefit from. But once you increase the buffer size that fast cache matters less it seems and the Intel CPUs do better.

Generally, from what I can tell, musicians playing virtual instruments prefer the lowest possible latency, and I’ve only really seen people be ok with a bout 128 samples at most.

And here’s the more complicated routing “BUS” test graph;

I built my current PC 4 years ago with this motherboard https://www.asus.com/us/motherboards-components/motherboards/proart/proart-z690-creator-wifi/?gad_source=1&gad_campaignid=24193461526

super helpful, thank you! Someone mentioned that Cubase is currently having issues with high core count CPUs, is there any way i could get a link to that forum?

I’m working with a tracking daw, specifically Cubase artist 14 though eventually i would like to upgrade to pro.

yes unfortunately, though i could see it being easy to make the orchestral mockup and export stems to a separate session to record live

excellent advice, thank you!

This has been one of my main issues, and so far I’ve avoided orchestras altogether because the free ones are so finnicky to work with. So mainly I want a computer that I could run big libraries on in the future once i can afford them :sweat_smile:

I have a usb interface, a gen 3 focusrite solo i think. Should i consider a PCIe interface, or will a usb interface work fine for now?

Because I just had my coffee…

I looked at the performance numbers, core count and pricing, and I think that if you’re looking at the CPUs alone you’ll ultimately be better off buying a 12-core 9900X on AM5 than a 16-core 5900XT. When you eventually need more performance you will have the 9950x3D to upgrade to and whatever the next generation is (that is yet to come, on AM5).

The way I see it the main “issue” isn’t that Cubase won’t work, it’s that it doesn’t take advantage of the large amount of cores available in an optimal way. I think there was a thread about it that was bumped just a few weeks ago.

I don’t think that this means that you’re wasting money getting more cores, more cores is still generally offering higher maximum performance, it’s just that if you were running a different DAW it might be more efficient and offer more on that CPU than Cubase does.

So once you get Cubase, you buy the best CPU you can, and the efficiency is what it is.

I put together an AM5 build with the r9 7900x, but I couldn’t find it on the charts unfortunately. I think it should work though because the previous PC i was working on had an intel i9 with 12 cores and horrible base clock (2.5 ghz I’m pretty sure) and it was still a beast. My goal is to build a PC to beat the last one, but still on a budget :sweat_smile:

Right. That chart is by Scan and they’re focusing on the latest generations of CPUs when the do the testing, probably because those are the CPUs they’re selling at that time.

But the latest 9900X is almost exactly the same price as the 7900X on Amazon (US, not sure where you’re located), so you might as well buy that.

Should be quite good to get you going. If and when you need more, you’ll now :slight_smile:

That interface will get you ASIO drivers, and should be stable enough for a lot of exploring/praticing/learning.