If I go Ryzen, will I regret it?

Depends.
 
But from posts by DAW builder, Jim Roseberry, "its not ready for prime time" for DAW use.
 
 Read Jim's comments about Ryzen on this thread.
http://forum.cakewalk.com...-m3793486.aspx#3794730

"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.

With AMD's Infinity Fabric architecture, there's a significant performance boost running faster RAM.
I went thru all the top Ryzen motherboards... and none would run DDR4/3200 100% reliably.
All kinds of flaky issues.  Worst hardware roll-out I've seen in 30 years of using PCs.
 
When you've got these (affordable) high-performance options available, I just don't see the point in going AMD.

• i7 8700k (six cores, 12 processing threads at 4.7GHz)
• i7 8086k (six cores, 12 processing threads at 5GHz)
• i9 9900k (eight cores, 16 processing threads at 5GHz)

 
In a perfect (DAW) world, we want high clock-speed *and* more CPU cores.
Not every process can be multi-threaded, thus... you don't want to sacrifice significant clock-speed for more cores.
With the latest socket 1151 CPUs, you've got both.
 
Note:
If the option of Thunderbolt-3 is important to you, it's not available with AMD.
 
 
All this said, I'll use whatever CPU I feel is best at a given time.
We used many Athlon CPUs in the (now) distant past.
Right now, (IMO) there's just not a compelling reason to go AMD.
 
 
 
 

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

No over-clocking involved in the instability I was talking about...
It was simply trying to run faster RAM (DDR4/3200) - which is much more of a benefit with AMD's Infinity Fabric architecture than with Intel.  The level of flaky behavior was startling (especially upon first release).
Turn off the onboard audio... and SMT (Simultaneous Multi-Threading - Hyperthreading in AMD speak) was gone.
This was across all the top motherboards/brands (not limited to one model).
Gigabyte's AX370-Gaming 5 was the most stable with DDR4/3200.
Even so, after a few days testing, the motherboard would no longer post. 
Had to reset the CMOS and lower the RAM speed to achieve 100% stability.
 
Ironically, you can pop almost any decent DDR4/3200 in almost any Z370/Z390/X299 motherboard... and it'll run rock-solid.
 
With the following two CPUs being recently released (and affordable), you've got an ideal DAW processor.

• i7-8086k (six cores, 12 processing threads at 5GHz)
• i9-9900k (eight cores, 16 processing threads at 5GHz)

Super high clock-speed and up to 16 processing threads... in a mid-tier CPU
Z370/Z390 Motherboards are rock-solid... and were from first release
No annoying compatibility issues (like the one I mentioned with Boost 11)
 
For those that don't know...
Not all processes in a DAW can be multi-threaded.
This is why high-clock speed is so important (never want to sacrifice significant clock-speed for more CPU cores).
In an ideal circumstance, you want high clock-speed and more CPU cores.
This is exactly what the 8086k and 9900k deliver... without having to go the expense of socket 2066 (typically considered more of a high-end workstation).
 
Lack of Thunderbolt-3 is also a factor for many folks.
Even if they don't want/need it now, it's nice knowing it's an option.
 
I have zero against AMD.
If the balance shifts, I'd be just as happy to use their CPUs.
 
 

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.

The difference, as I see it, is a commercial DAW builder has to deliver systems that they can guarantee will do the job the customer wants.  If not they are soon out of business.  A user that builds their own can afford to "tinker" with a build if they desire or accept some lower performance.  
 
A friend with a studio in a Nashville suburb recently (within the last month) bought a new Dell XPS 8930 to run ProTools.  I tried to talk him out of it and to buy one from Jim but he went with the Dell anyway.  As soon as he got it he installed an SSD to replace the stock mechanical hard drive.  It is using the Intel HD video and he is having a problem that if he starts from power on an external HDMI connected monitor works OK, but if he does a restart it does not connect.  That wouldn't happen with a commercial DAW builder system (or it did it would be made right).  Dell is telling him basically "not my problem".
 
 

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
 

One concern I have regarding Intel vs AMD is workstation vs Gaming.  Every laptop I look at is geared for gaming as Intel, as I have read, is geared more for gaming performance and it just so happens the AMD is better suited for workstations.  Unless I put out the bucks for a Xeon, AMD seems to be the better choice but at the cost of TB(3), not to mention that Xeon laptops are heavy and bulky.  Ugh!
 
Kind regards,
 
tecknot