Ryzen 3900X, latency and audio interface?

[Soundflower]

I'm planning to get get a new computer and a DAW, probably Reaper. Also planning to use Photoshop with this computer so I have more factors to consider.

I plan on getting an Intel Core i9-9900K or an AMD Ryzen 9 3900X. I've done some googling and have a few questions.

1. For DAWs, does it matter if I use Intel or AMD? Some say AMD have problems with Thunderbolt, latency and some audio interfaces.

2. What is latency buffering people talk about in the forums? 128 or 256 latency buffer and problems with that. Is it something you choose in Preferences or similair? If one has enough RAM this should't be a problem? Aiming for 32 Gb RAM.

3. Does Focusrite Scarlett (2i2, 4i4 or similair) work well with AMD 3900X? Intel i9-900K?

4. What is ASIO and what do I need to know about it?

Any other problems to consider...?

[WasteLand]

I'm planning to get get a new computer and a DAW, probably Reaper. Also planning to use Photoshop with this computer so I have more factors to consider.

I plan on getting an Intel Core i9-9900K or an AMD Ryzen 9 3900X. I've done some googling and have a few questions.

1. For DAWs, does it matter if I use Intel or AMD? Some say AMD have problems with Thunderbolt, latency and some audio interfaces.

2. What is latency buffering people talk about in the forums? 128 or 256 latency buffer and problems with that. Is it something you choose in Preferences or similair? If one has enough RAM this should't be a problem? Aiming for 32 Gb RAM.

3. Does Focusrite Scarlett (2i2, 4i4 or similair) work well with AMD 3900X? Intel i9-900K?

4. What is ASIO and what do I need to know about it?

Any other problems to consider...?

1. can't comment on that, people who use the new AMD proc's, seem to be happy.

2. there is always latency, i.e. the time to process a sound. many factor influence this. RAM doesn't solve anything. when you choose for an AMD proc choose the highest speed that you can get, i.e. 3200 mhz or higher, AMD proc's depend on higher clocked RAM.

EDIT on 2. : more RAM influences in a way latency, because when all is loaded in memory, it is faster, when you work with big soundlibraries. i say in a way, it will not reduce the latency, but the time that a sample will be played etc. more ram meens more gets loaded into the memory, and memory is simply faster. it gives you feeling that it is faster, because it's faster, but it doesn't affect latency. yes for AMD proc's the memory speed is a critical factor.

a 128 or 256 latency doesn't say that much, it depends how fast the buffer, the samples are processed, by the computer, and the soundcard. in milliseconds, a buffer of 256 samples, can be quite different on which kind of soundcard you have, and other factors.

3. me thinks so

4. asio is a low latency driver, use the driver specifically designed for your soundcard, it is installed automatically, with almost every soundcard, specially made for a studio.
choose it within the DAW. setup the in and outs.
the inner workings aren't usefull for normal operation, but use the asio driver, or else the communication between computer en soundcard isn't optimal.

others can give better comments, me thinks.

[whyterabbyt]

2. What is latency buffering people talk about in the forums? 128 or 256 latency buffer and problems with that. Is it something you choose in Preferences or similair? If one has enough RAM this should't be a problem? Aiming for 32 Gb RAM.

latency is the amount of delay introduced when audio data is sent to, and then out of, the soundcard (it doesnt 'immediately' for various reasons).
it is measured in samples, and since the soundcard outputs audio at a given sample rate, the latency time is derived from that (higher sample rate = shorter time).
generally, lower latencies are better, especially when playing anything 'live' (eg recording audio or playing a softsynth from a midi keyboard).
If you're only using the DAW sequencer and no 'real world' audio, its not as important.

RAM isnt a factor in it. The main factors are the audio interface, its drivers, and also your CPU's power. Basically, some interfaces can handle lower latencies better because of their design, and also the better-written the interface's drivers are, the less processor power they need at low latencies. However if you set the latency too low, it takes more CPU power to keep up, and if the CPU cant keep up, then you get unpleasant audio artefacts.

[Soundflower]

I plan to use keyboard and guitar with the audio interface so latency is a factor. What would you say is a good maximum latency?

When I set the buffer, will it affect the latency?

[whyterabbyt]

I plan to use keyboard and guitar with the audio interface so latency is a factor. What would you say is a good maximum latency?

The lower the better. 256 is as high as you want to be, generally, 128 or 64 is better. If you can run at 32, congrats.

When I set the buffer, will it affect the latency?

Yeah, that's basically the control you have over the latency. There's usually a small overhead you cant do anything about as well.

[Soundflower]

Ah, ok. And that's when the dropouts can start? If the buffer is too low?

[whyterabbyt]

Ah, ok. And that's when the dropouts can start? If the buffer is too low?

Yeah, basically. As you decrease the buffer size, there's usually a point beyond which the CPU usage starts to climb; often its quite drastic.
Its not unheard of to drop the latency when recording (as long as there's not a lot of CPU usage going on for other things) and raise it for mixing or when things need more power.

[dakkra]

Also keep in mind CPU percentage in DAW's is not measured by the "true amount" of CPU being used on the system. It's a representation of the DAW's ability to calculate everything within the deadline (determined by the buffer size). Thus, if the buffer size is too low, the computer will not have enough time to do all it's functions. On the flip side, too high a buffer time and you'll feel the latency as you perform.

I'm on a Ryzen 2700x with a Focusrite 2i2v2 with a buffer size of 128 at 48khz and I haven't had any issues yet.

[Pictus]

I'm planning to get get a new computer and a DAW, probably Reaper. Also planning to use Photoshop with this computer so I have more factors to consider.

1 - Check http://www.scanproaudio.info/2019/07/12 ... ic-number/

2 - Before buying an audio interface, check the latency
https://www.gearslutz.com/board/showpos ... count=3210

Thunderbolt in Ryzen has less options, nowadays it is the ASRock X570 Creator
or ASRock X570 Taichi +
https://www.asrock.com/mb/spec/product. ... AIC%20R2.0

This may help your future AMD build
viewtopic.php?p=7540592#p7540592

[Soundflower]

Thanks for those links, they're great.

[magmagwa]

Support list for ASRock TB3 AIC only lists intel cpus, I wonder when this changed:
https://www.asrock.com/mb/spec/product. ... upportList

[Scotty]

I recently built a 3950x system for an audio friend... it can certainly handle low latency audio. I tested on USB and PCIe based audio cards. The "issue" with Ryzen at very low latencies is comparative. It may not handle as many tracks as as a high spec'd intel machine at low latencies. That doesn't mean it can't handle low latency audio at all. For reference purposes I compared the low latency performance that I have on my personal overclocked i7 3930k system at 64 and 32 sample buffers and the Ryzen 3950 could manage more tracks at low latencies than that machine which is a good performer... once I kicked the buffers up to 256 the Ryzen is a monster.

Unfortunately I think some people have interpreted the latency differences between a high end Intel and Ryzen processor as binary... can and can't... It most definitely can do low latency audio perhaps not as efficiently as a high end Intel CPU. Once you get into 256 and beyond buffer settings it is race horse. Below that threshold 256 buffers my guess is for most of us it is good enough. A lot of us who track at low latencies as we monitor through effects bump up the buffers when we are in a mixing situation. At that point the Ryzen really delivers.

You need some good ram to get that kind of performance so don't cheap out on that aspect of the build. Read those references that Pictus has pointed out to you for sure.

[Pictus]

Support list for ASRock TB3 AIC only lists intel cpus, I wonder when this changed:
https://www.asrock.com/mb/spec/product. ... upportList

The right card for the ASRock is the Thunderbolt 3 AIC R2.0
https://www.asrock.com/mb/spec/product. ... AIC%20R2.0

[AdvancedFollower]

I recently built a 3950x system for an audio friend... it can certainly handle low latency audio. I tested on USB and PCIe based audio cards. The "issue" with Ryzen at very low latencies is comparative. It may not handle as many tracks as as a high spec'd intel machine at low latencies. That doesn't mean it can't handle low latency audio at all. For reference purposes I compared the low latency performance that I have on my personal overclocked i7 3930k system at 64 and 32 sample buffers and the Ryzen 3950 could manage more tracks at low latencies than that machine which is a good performer... once I kicked the buffers up to 256 the Ryzen is a monster.

Unfortunately I think some people have interpreted the latency differences between a high end Intel and Ryzen processor as binary... can and can't... It most definitely can do low latency audio perhaps not as efficiently as a high end Intel CPU. Once you get into 256 and beyond buffer settings it is race horse. Below that threshold 256 buffers my guess is for most of us it is good enough. A lot of us who track at low latencies as we monitor through effects bump up the buffers when we are in a mixing situation. At that point the Ryzen really delivers.

You need some good ram to get that kind of performance so don't cheap out on that aspect of the build. Read those references that Pictus has pointed out to you for sure.

I think there are a lot of misconceptions about the "latency issues" with AMD CPUs. It's not like the CPU itself introduces noticeable delay (latencies within CPUs and memory are measured in nanoseconds or less anyway). Latency is a function of the buffer size in samples (and the sample rate), and any latency-inducing plugins in your chain (many plugins can introduce latencies of tens or hundreds of samples due to their own buffers and look-ahead functions).

It's just that AMD CPUs are slightly less efficient at lower buffer sizes (=lower latency) and more efficient at higher buffer sizes. So at lower buffer sizes, Intel CPUs can typically use more instances of VST's, more tracks etc. than an equivalent AMD CPU, while AMD catches up as you increase the buffer size beyond 128.

The inter-core latencies and other issues have also been improved with each new generation of Ryzen CPUs to where it's barely an issue any more. That said, I still use a first-gen Ryzen 1800X with 3200 MHz CL14 RAM and have no performance or latency issues at all, either.