Ryzen vs Intel

If I go Ryzen, will I regret it?

"If you don't mind being in constant "mechanic mode" it's OK."
"Also keep in mind that many apps/plugins aren't fully optimized for Ryzen."
 
That is what I was looking for.  Case closed.

I happened to go AMD RYZEN 1950X, running 128 GB RAM 2400, no OC - I have no issues.  I go back and forth between Intel and AMD on CPU's, partly depending on the motherboards and chip sets and such.  For this latest desktop, I settled on the AMD, because at the time, I wasn't too happy with whatever the Intel chip set was doing or not doing at the time of build.
 
I went with Intel for my current laptop - and it is SMOKING fast, with 16 GB RAM and it happens to have 3 hard drives - boot drive is an M.2 NVME 512 GB, another M.2 NVME data drive at 2 TB, and a 2 TB SSD also for data.  The laptop boots in about 5 seconds, and has a Thunderbolt 3 port as well (transfers at 40 Gbps).
 
In any case, I DO believe Intel tends to have faster CPU's, however the AMD CPU's give decent performance for less money for roughly equivalent chips.
 
I have found AMD-based desktops to be stable for me, likely because I choose not to really push things with any overclocking.  My RYZEN desktop gives me zero issues, nor does the laptop.
 
Bob Bone

Definitely research, but it seems a lot of the differentiation comes at heavy loads with small buffer size. In reality, most of the CPU's life is spent well below 50% and buffer size is mostly related to tracking. Workflow adjustments would accommodate these as long as it does not suffer inherent stability issues. For a desktop I would be more concerned for the MB upgrade ability, since you will more likely want to expand on that than regret CPU choice in the future.

It is akin to most new cars need to be on a track to top end (legally), but that is really only going to affect you if you race it. The average user won't be affected by it other than to think others care.

I have a monster system with the AMD RYZEN 1950X and a pile of memory.  It runs like a champ - quite stable, I am running run of the mill memory - just lots of it (128 GB), and with that it seems fine.
 
By the way - WHATEVER advice Jim Roseberry offers is spot on, with this and many other build subjects.
 
I am considering switching over to an Intel CPU and motherboard - mostly to be able to take advantage of Thunderbolt 3 - that is one SMOKING fast transfer speed - up to 40 Gigabits/sec (of course it doesn't actually get there, however it is still crazy blazing fast).  I have it on the laptop I use for live performance, and it is just beyond any data transfer I have ever experienced before.  It's intoxicating.
 
But that would be the reason I might switch - I have gone back and forth between AMD and Intel builds for what feels like a kabillion years - both can work - it often depended on speed balanced against cost.  My current AMD RYZEN works quite happily with whatever I have asked of it.
 
Bob Bone
 

The Dell "workstations" (their commercial business workstation line) are just about all Intel.  A couple of the Inspiron gaming desktops are Ryzen and a couple low end (entry) systems are AMD, the rest Intel.
 

My posts discussing Ryzen are coming from a DAW user's perspective.
A corporate server is a much different scenario.
Corporate servers are bombarded for many small files.
With a DAW, we're addressing many fewer... but much larger/contiguous files.
With a corporate server, since you're dealing with many small files, cache can make a significant difference.
This is why Xeon CPUs (even with lower clock-speed) are a good choice.
For a DAW, dealing with much fewer large/contiguous files, cache makes much less of a difference. 
 
When choosing a CPU for DAW purposes, it's important to understand some basics:
Not all tasks in a DAW can be multi-threaded (spread across multiple cores).
This is why high clock-speed is paramount.
In a perfect scenario, you want highest clock-speed, the most cores you can afford, and Hyper-threading/SMT (simultaneous multi-threading).
 
If you go AMD, there's no option for Thunderbolt-3 (completely off the table).
 
When Ryzen was first released, supporting hardware (motherboards) were clearly "rushed out the door".
I've discussed this in numerous threads.  
With AMD's Infinity-Fabric architecture, running faster RAM (DDR4/3200) is a significant speed boost.
Finding a motherboard that can run DDR4/3200 rock-solid stable is an epic quest.
Out of all the top-tier motherboards, only one came close. 
After several days, it simply refused to post.  Had to clear the CMOS and reset the BIOS settings.
Note that no over-clocking was implemented.  This is all at stock-speed... trying to run DDR4/3200.
 
If you spend the majority of your time rendering video (which is a heavily multi-threaded task), don't expect to ever need Thunderbolt-3, and aren't concerned with the speed benefit from faster RAM, Ryzen is a good choice.
 
For DAW purposes, the new Intel i9-9900k (socket 1151) is hard to beat (~$540).

• 8 cores
• 16 processing threads
• 5GHz clock-speed (all cores can be locked at 5GHz)
• With quality air-cooler, it runs near dead-silent
• Thunderbolt-3 is an option

 
The (socket 2066) i9-9980xe is one monster of a CPU... best overall performance currently available

• 18 cores
• 36 processing threads
• 4.5GHz clock-speed
• Thunderbolt-3 is an option

Cost is also monstrous ($2000 just for the CPU)
Requires high-end power-supply
Requires high-end cooling (air cooling can't keep temps under control when under heavy loads like rendering video)
 
If going to the expense of ThreadRipper (also requires high-end cooling/power), I'd just go all the way and get the 9980xe.  
 
 
Note that if going ThreadRipper or socket 2066 i9 CPU, the machine isn't going to run as quiet at the 9900k.