Cool, thanks very much!
Thank you all!
This is all very interesting!
Not that it really matters, but given youāre using language like ānever experienced anything like thisā and āharnessing the raw power of this setupā I think other people here should be aware that the Ultra 9 285K only has 8 performance cores. I wonāt say itās a āpoorā choice for a DAW system, but where performance matters is in real-time processing - so performance cores matter here. And not to cloud-up and rain on the āPURE GOLDā parade of Process Lasso, but if you didnāt have 16 efficiency cores getting in the way of performance-core processes, you may not need to worry about it in the first place. But sure, with an 8:16 p:e ratio, I can see that affinity features could be necessary, even if self-inflicted.
Great system, of course, but I was thinking that maybe a tad less hyperbole would let people focus on the details more. They may find other options (like AMD Ryzen) may end up being better solutions in the long run. Again, not taking away from the system, but just expanding the scope a bit.
Hi there Thor.
I am not a technical expert, meaning I do not actually know just how much better the P cores are vs the E cores in in percentage.
But in my findings this far even the E cores are more than able to pull serious weight in Cubase. I can see this via the monitoring in task manager. Cubase is really able to distribute the projects well across the 22 remaining cores.
I think maybe another reason I am finding this system so fluid, stable, responsive and downright awesomely powerful 
is the fact that all the cores are real here, in other words; no hyperthreading.
Yet another reason might be that I in my setup via Process Lasso have ābannedā Cubase from using P cores one and two to let windows have these alone while using/assigning 6 P cores and 16 E cores for Cubase exclusively.
To restrict Cubase and Windows from using the same cores seems to work really well here.
I am positive that the ability to set CPU, I/O and memory priority according to what a program like Cubase actually needs (in stead of letting windows 11 guess at this) in Process Lasso really helps too.
I TELL windows how to behave with Cubase, I do not let windows guess at this
Another thing that I KNOW has helped a lot from my previous computers is that I now use a Thunderbolt 3 audio interface instead of an USB 2.2 interface
I am also sure that the drivers presonus has writtten for the Quantum 2626 are very well programmed.
Iāve been using Cubase since 1998 and started building my own computers from the bottom in 2002 or so. What I have seen EVERY time Iāve started using a new computer has been a relatively modest increase in power when it comes to Cubase use. Pleasant enough and sorely needed but not groundbreaking.
The computer I used for about five years before this new rig was based around an AMD Ryzen 7 3700x with 32 gigs of ram, ssd drives and a Slate Digital VRS8 audio interface connected via the optional pci express adapter.
A powerful machine for sure but this new rig based around the Intel core ultra 9 285k cpu literally obliterates it in Cubase.
I am not talking a modest and pleasant upgrade here, but a massive one.
I know this is not because of the CPU alone but rather the synergy between all these newer components but surely the CPU plays a major part here.
In short, Iāve never been more happy with a new music workstation than I have with this.
All the best, Kim
Awesome! I couldnāt be happier for you! 
Yeah, I donāt know what āpull serious weightā means. And thatās really what my point was in adding to the thread. The previous posts sounded like you were indeed a technical expert and were not only making recommendations to others, but actually āguaranteeingā performance with Process Lasso, etc. But āpull serious weightā is just a subjective term, which insofar as DAW performance and choice of hardware, is rather meaningless. I donāt mean that in a critical way, just an empirical way. Unfortunately, ālooking at task managerā tells you (in my opinion) next to nothing about optimizing real-time audio processing.
Yeah, thatās the problem, actually. In general, each track runs one thread while processing audio. Itās really āeach serialized instance of real-time effects processing uses a single thread.ā Each trackās latency compensation contributes to overall project compensation of course, and thus your slower, less efficient āefficiency coresā are slowing everything down. Itās kind of the opposite of what you (well, āthe DAW communityā) wants. Those other 16 e-cores have HALF the L1 cache of the p-cores. And the L2 cache is also half, but itās even shared among 4-core clusters. So even if you had the worldās fastest p-cores, it wouldnāt matter at all as the project latency will wait for the slower e-cores to catch up.
It would be interesting to see if just the 8 p-cores with all the e-cores blocked worked even better than having the 16 e-cores, but that would take actual empirical testing. Interesting thought-experiment though.
But right on, and glad you like the new rig!
If the 285 performs better in DAW Project testing (Vince ā¦'s site) than other chips (Core Ultra 7 265k CPU, e.g.), would that imply that thereās more that needs to be considered than simply comparing the number of performance cores between chips?
Well I am running much heavier/bigger projects at lower latencies now than I could with my old AMD rig so I guess I must have done something right putting this new rig together 
I would say that is rather āempical testingā
Oh, it doesnāt just āimplyā it - any meaningful determination demands it. I donāt know āVinceās site,ā or what operational metrics they use to generate benchmarks. But if your takeaway from me saying āperformance cores matter hereā was āthereās nothing more one need to than compare p-cores to e-cores,ā then I think you should re-read what I said in context. The entire over use-case needs to be considered, empirical data reviewed, and results communicated in a meaningful way. Saying āSystem1 obliterated System2ā is functionally worthless data.
The reason I chimed in was that data was being thrown out and classifications determined with ubiquitous, subjective terms, even in the face of pretty clear deficiencies in a solution purporting to have been built with a particular goal. Actual detailed information serves to help people verify data on their own, and use that data as part of an overall determination they make on their own.
And you would be wrong, sir/maāam Itās nearly 100% subjective. But look, itās OK. Youāre happy with it, so rock on.
Well I still have my old rig up and running too.
When I see that the same project makes the older AMD rig almost groan to a halt, while the new Intel rig just chews through it at 32 samples latency with no hiccups that actually is an objective observation.
Itās not something I āfeelā
Yep, youāre halfway there - youāve observed, now you have to measure. THEN it will be empirical.
Please donāt feel like you need to āproveā something to me. I was just giving my opinion for the benefit of others who may take your strongly presented data as postulate. If you want to compare system performance using metrics of āgroaningā vs āchewing,ā thatās absolutely your prerogative. The fact that I wouldnāt have purchased that system to use a DAW has nothing to do with why you did. I DO think that the data is a bit āafter-the-factā and has a hint of ājustificationā to it, but thatās a reasonable reaction in the absence of actual, empirical data.
Iāve contributed in a manner I hope was valuable to others, even if what I said isnāt what you wanted to hear. Itās all good, and Iām authentically happy for you and your new system.
Yeah, sorry, I was lazy and didnāt post the actual sites in my original post.
Thanks for the reference - indeed, theyāre using the DAWBench test for simultaneous instances of the SGA plugin. And thus is the double-edged sword of DAW āperformanceā testing. Arriving at a benchmark metric (like instance count before drops) presumes a stipulated, standardized control method. Instance count is probably as good as any for a benchmark, but along with the control is the implicit understanding that itās not real-world. Itās a benchmark. Does the 285kās 607 instances vs 9950ās 539 instances result mean anything for production DAW projects? Not really, but potentially.
I think the more relevant real-world consideration is that Kim already indicated that in order for him to get his 285k to āobliterationā mode was to use a 3rd party product to manually accommodate deficiencies in the CPU model. So I donāt think we need to look much further beyond that to see that while benchmarks can serve to provide generalized performance data for specifically structured tests, it is in fact the details that really matter.
I mean, the fact that the benchmarks you cited donāt even discuss the differences in p-core and e-core architectures just within the 285K (or any of them) kind of shows how generalized it is. They talk about how p-cores actually make the difference, but donāt even bother talking about why.
Anyway, my input into the discussion seems to have reached it limit - I just wanted to thank you for the follow-up citation and address your question
Here are my results in general
Tests are still ongoing, though.
Sorry for the late detailed test results.
Thankās! That helped me to decide what to order without too much panic.
Receiving nearly same configuration in a few days.
Is your XMP enabled and if So, does it behaves flowlessly? Not activated mine yet.
Hi, What version/release of windows are you using?
Disagree. Iām probably not better than you when it comes to choose components : being simply logic and knowing just a little about whatās important for a DAW usage helps, though. Case in hand :
I am still using my prehistoric AMD Ryzen 7 3700X (with a Noctua cooler)/Asus Prime X470 based computer with only 32 Gb of RAM and two antiquated SSDs (WD Black Caviar 512 Gb as system drive / Corsair Force MP300 1 Tb for data including Cubase projects and sound libraries). This, without forgetting the outdated Windows 10 that I installed myself more than six years ago and the countless years of my RME Fireface UCX/Behringer ADA-8200 combo usage.
I just asked the components vendor (LDLC) to also assemble the whole thing : it cost me just 70 ā¬ more. Never had to reinstall anything and the whole thing works as day one : a recent LatencyMon test ended still as good as it was in late 2019, just after the purchase and its setup, despite countless updates and added software installations.
This to say that, for one who knows what he/she is doing, the use of specialized company isnāt mandatory, thankfully, as the added cost isnāt just a ālittle extraā, far from it. On my end, Iāll probably have to buy a more recent Windows 11 based system in a near future, thanks to Microsoft which decided that Windows 10 users no longer deserve security updates, but letās say that Iām not in a rush and I love my VST 2.4 plug-insā¦
That is the key phrase 