If you search for "dawbench ryzen" you'll find some results from scanproaudio, but the forum won't let me post the link.

I'm happy to report that I have this problem fixed now.  Details HERE.

From Scan Pro Audio:
 
"So the big problem here appears to be inefficiency at lower buffer rates. The ASIO buffer is throwing data at the CPU in quicker bursts the lower you go with the setting, so with the audio crackling and breaking up it seems that the CPU just isn’t clearing the buffer quickly enough once it gets to around 70% CPU load at those lower 64 & 128 buffer settings
 
Intel at this buffer setting looks to be hitting 85% or higher, so whilst the AMD chip may have more RAW performance to hand, the responsiveness of the rest of the architecture appears to be letting it down. It’s no big secret looking over the early reviews that whilst AMD has made some amazing gains with the IPC rates this generation they still appear to be lagging slightly behind Intel in this performance metric.
 
So the results start to outline this as one of the key weaknesses in the Ryzen configuration, with it becoming quite apparent that the are bottle necks elsewhere in the architecture that are coming into play beyond the new CPU’s. At the lower buffer settings the test tends to benefit single core performance, with the Intel chips taking a solid lead. As you slacken off the buffer itself, more cores become the better option as the system is able to spread the load but even then it isn’t until we hit a 192 buffer setting on the ASIO drivers that the performance catches up to the intel 4 Core CPU."

abacab
From Scan Pro Audio:
 
"So the big problem here appears to be inefficiency at lower buffer rates.

It's interesting that the same behavior was seen when comparing Intel chips last year.
https://www.gearslutz.com/board/music-computers/1089305-latest-i7-benchmarks-including-6950x-10-core.html
 

Also interesting ...
 
"it seems that the CPU just isn’t clearing the buffer quickly enough once it gets to around 70% CPU load at those lower 64 & 128 buffer settings
 
Intel at this buffer setting looks to be hitting 85% or higher"

Spent some quality time with the Ryzen 1800x this weekend.
 
The 1800x is particularly good at heavy multi-threaded applications (video rendering).
The 1800x is not particularly good at heavy multi-threaded applications at ultra low audio latency settings.
 
Loaded a dense audio stress-test (RME Fireface UFX at a 48-sample ASIO buffer size) and started the transport.  
The 1800x initially seemed to be doing well.  
Upon solo'ing the kick drum, there was subtly garbled audio.
This stress-test was intentionally loaded with heavy processing/effects, so I removed a bunch of plugins (thinking the load was simply too much).
Restarted the transport... and the garbled audio was still present.
Closed and reopened Sonar.  The garbled audio was still preset.
When running an Intel 6850k (same exact stress-test and conditions), the audio was completely glitch-free.
 
Another thing to consider, the 1800x is "bleeding edge".
Motherboard choice is limited... and they're first generation with few BIOS revisions.
CPU cooler choice (currently) is limited.
Applications haven't been compiled/optimized with Ryzen architecture in mind.
 
While testing, I changed some settings in the X370 motherboard's BIOS
Go back into Windows and SMT (Hyper-threading in AMD speak) was gone.
Check in the BIOS... and SMT is specifically enabled.
Chalk that up to running the latest beta BIOS version.
Had to flash to the latest release version to resolve that issue.
 
While running Sonar Platinum:
Using Ctrl+ drag/drop PhoenixVerb caused Sonar to crash.
This is not the case when running the 6850k.
Basic use of Sonar often resulted in "General Error" messages popping up.
Again, this is not the case when running the 6850k.
 
While these types of issues aren't AMD's fault (and can be worked around), it makes hour-to-hour use of Sonar a pain.  Ultimately, these types of "early release" issues will be resolved.
What won't change is the underlying architecture of Ryzen.
 
Our findings would be in complete agreement with Scan in the UK.
If you're rendering video, the 1800x smokes the 6850k.
If working at ultra low latency (audio) settings, stick with Intel.
 
Aside from performance, yet another consideration is advanced features.
X99 motherboards offer advanced options that just aren't available on X370 boards.

• Quad-channel RAM
• Thunderbolt-3
• U.2
• Etc

Jim Roseberry
 
If working at ultra low latency (audio) settings, stick with Intel.
 

Thanks for the informative post, Jim. Assuming I wanted to stick with the 1800x, would running with with a more reasonable buffer size avoid some of the issues you discussed? For example, on my current system I generally can't go below a 512k buffer anyway. So running at 256K would actually be an improvement and the UK article seemed to indicate performance was improved at higher buffers.

 

Thanks for the feedback Jim. I think the bleeding edge comments have a lot of merit, since MB and BIOS take several months to align. ASUS has a habit of releasing MBs early, which can be both good and bad (I have "USB 3.0" ports that are truly not because of this).

Have you tried buffers of 128? Ultra low latency after initial tracking is not "necessary," but 128 tends to be the "hard stop" before disabling/freezing things becomes necessary. It would be interesting to get your perspective on 128 if you have a chance (since that also removes some strain on the choice of audio interface).

Yes, at higher ASIO buffer sizes, the 1800x makes up ground.
The other issues are due to the 1800x being such a recent release.
Those types of things will ultimately be resolved...
 
FWIW, The 6850k (also $500) is a very good performer with 12 processing threads (6 cores) running at 4GHz.
No problems working at small ASIO buffer sizes.
 
 
 

My other interest is how well Ryzen will handle synths, like a couple of granular Omnisphere patches or u-he Diva. Anyone seen or experienced anything in this area?