Intel Ultra Core 9 285K Cubase behavior

[Tweswend]

Are there performance issues with Nuendo and Apple's M4 Max CPU?

We observed many interesting result. To briefly conclude what I and my friends have got these days: I have not come across any compatibility issue on M4Max (4e+12p) yet. Cubendo project scaling tests. M4Max is as slightly more than 2× powerful as M4 base(6e+4p) on my Uplifting Trance projects with tones of synths and plugins. Similar to Cinebench R23 scores. For x86 chips: We have no economy to test Threaddripper or any newer Xeon. So only ‘consumer brand chips’. For most of those p…

additional:

1. we observed significant performance boosts if you raise manually your RAM frequency and lower RAM timings with Core Ultra 200s (eg 265k, 285k). Overall they are not as good as 9000series Ryzen in our test. However they might have higher performance to price ratio now considering those real stock prices.

2. Considering

@Tweswend

• Intel big.LITTLE cpus suffers for most DAWs or plugins. Problematic thread scheduling.

and Core Ultra 200s have really fast E cores and there are a lot of E cores, you may get high performance in one project, but unexpected low performance in another projects.

3. Though Ryzens get lower RAM latency due to the design, they reach the limit of RAM IO bandwidth way earlier than intel Core Ultra 200s IN THE SAME DDR FREQUENCY also due to the design. So if your projects go large with plugins that are bandwidth hungry, these Ryzen 9000s may sub-perform. This matches our observation.

=============================================================================

The most important things are:

@Tweswend

Different plugins with QUITE DIFFERENT working conditions. Some plugins eats cache/RAM IO so AMD x3d(large L3 cache) and apple chips(large L2 and SLC cache) and lower RAM latencies and higher RAM bandwidth machines get benefits. Some might be sensitive to core to core latencies (for example SpecCraft when you use a lot of them. In fact 7950x3d handles less paralleled SpecCraft than 7800x3d (same on 9950x3d and 9800x3d)…what?). Some are only bottlenecked by float point calculation speed.

@Tweswend

Different buffer size also QUITE DIFFERENT results. In general when using low buffer size x3d and M-chips are more efficient. Importance for realtime work: Larger cache, Low RAM Latency > Higher single core performance > Higher RAM bandwidth >> others eg. higher core count. However higher core count benefits way more when you’re dealing with Large projects and you don’t require super low RTL.
[7. & 8.] ==> If someone really wants the absolute ‘best value’ then he have to go and test by himself with his own workflow.

Real workflows are way more complex than any simple bench.