Cubase 9.0.20 AND Ryzen 7 1700/1700x/1800x

Has anyone used Cubase 9.x with these CPUs? Just curious, I have i7 7700 (non k) running @ 4Ghz on all cores …
AMD has done bunch of micro code updates and lots of bios updates have happened.
how is the real-time performance?

Has Steinberg tested any of these CPUs on cubase 9? Lot has updated in AMD world…

So far I found this on youtube…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iq7u-agaxlM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xama-Np0yKo

does this apply to cubase 9 as well? can someone from steinberg shed some light on the topic?

Thanks…

I notice in the second test he shied away from max instances test with small buffer settings, this is where the AMDs really suffer against the Intels. Still, they look like a huge step up over the old FX series.

Yeah I guess that could be because , single core performance is not quite at intel’s level.
My work pc is an ryzen 1700 8 core 16 threads pc, ram running at 3200 MHz… that is fast … I wonder if fast ram helps with VSTi processing ? And latency …

Curious to hear from Steinberg ??? If they have done any testing with the new processors from AMD.

https://www.steinberg.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=209&t=114000#p623042

Yeah I saw that thread but it’s not very clear how it performs with the VSTi s …

I wonder if steinberg has done any testing? with the new ryzen 7? to see, how many fx(s) or vsti(s) it can run, at a reasonable buffer size… that would be interesting… I went with i7 because it is the industry standard but ryzen 7 is very promising.

I’d be surprised if there aren’t a few motherboard/driver bugs to iron out before latency will compete with the more mature Intel chipsets. But Ryzen does look to be very good value, it might be worth waiting for i9, this will put even more pressure on AMD pricing and the chipsets will be better debugged by then. My gut feeling is top end i7 and i9 will still comfortably best Ryzen for outright DAW performance, but Ryzen will provide 85% of the performance for under 50% of the cost.

when I ran intel burn test V2.54 on my work computer (used for software development work) Ryzen 7 1700 all 8 cores (16 threads) running at 3.7 Ghz Speed, it showed 80 GFlops (processing power) yet my 4 core (8 threads) i7 7700 showed over 100 GFlops. and faster completion cycle. but when it comes to running a big projects with lots of VSTis and FXs I am sure 8cores (16 threads) might be better… I wish steinberg would test it with fast 3200Mhz RAM…

Not on windows 10 it won’t - you’ll run into the MMCSS thread limit with 16 cores.

From what I understand not everyone will run into that issue and not all the time.

The test was created by Intel? If so I’d expect Intel CPUs to do better.

Is it? I am not sure…

Multimedia Class Scheduler Service limits number of parallel worker processes / DSPs ? That is odd.

I was asking.

I just looked it up it’s a privately written software by AgentGOD

http://www.majorgeeks.com/files/details/intelburntest.html

You will run at least four threads on non mmcss threads - whether that manifests itself as pops and clicks depends entirely on how fast and/or busy the computer is. Some people might get away with it because their non mmcss threads may perform well given the workload. But it IS a hard and fast limit. Cubase will attempt to start two mmcss threads for each core, in your case that’s four more mmcss threads than windows 10 will allow. So yes you have a potental for audio dropouts which otherwise would not exist.

Is this limit windows 10 specific ? or did the older versions of windows had the same limitation?

Windows 10 only.