ReasonTalk.com

Intel i5 3570K 4Ghz (overclocked)
8 Gb RAM
M-Audio Audiophile 2496 PCI
44100 Hz @ 1024 samples
CPU Usage Limit 95%

COMPLEX RE ----> 0.00.00.697
COMPLEX RE 4096 samples ----> 0.00.02.694

Simple FX Chain ----> 0.01.29.234

Intel Core i7 7700K 4.2GHz overclocked to 4.6GHz
32GB DDR4 Vengeance RAM
Behringer X32 (set to 24 In / 8 Out, driver set to buffer size 4096, Extra Safe)

0:00:16:254 (Complex)
0:02:21:363 (Simple)

On an interesting note, it takes quite long to load the song files if I set the X-32 buffer to max and extra safe. It took several minutes to load each.

Intel i5 3470 3.2Ghz (stock)
8 Gb RAM
44100 Hz @ 1024 samples
CPU Usage Limit 95%

Complex RE ----> 0.00.00.792
Simple FX Chain ----> 0.01.12.233

I got a new computer! I can now play up to .5 seconds of these songs! Woo hoo!!!!

AMD Ryzen 1600x 3.6Ghz (stock)
16Gb RAM 2400mhz
CPU Usage Limit 95%
Roland Quad Capture @ 44100 Hz @ 1024 samples

Complex RE ----> 0.00.03.854
Simple FX Chain ----> 0.01.59.406

AMD Ryzen 1600x 3.95Ghz overclock
Complex RE ----> 0.00.04.365
Simple FX Chain ----> 0.02.09.438

iMac 27-inch (late 2013)
3.5 GHz Intel Core i7 (with Turbo boost to 3.9 GHz)
32 GB 1600 MHz DDR3 RAM memory
Propellerhead Balance audio interface
44100 Hz and Max Buffer: 4,096 samples
CPU Usage Limit: 95%

Simple FX Chain ---> 0:02:00:744
Complex RE ---> 0:00:03:715

9.5
Simple FX Chain ----> @ 2048 buffer 0:01:32:741 @4096 buffer 0:01:36:131

9.5.1
Simple FX Chain ----> @4096 buffer 0:01:01:115

CPU usage limit set in Reason = 95%
Sample rate = 44,100 Hz
Buffer length = 1024 samples (max )

Hardware:
CPU i7 6800K @ 3.98 Ghz
RAM 16 GB Quad Kit 2400 Mhz, CL14
SSD Samsung 250 GB (Windows 10 Creators edition 64 bit + Reason installed on SSD)
RME ASIO Fireface 400 audio interface

Reason 9.5
Complex RE = 24 seconds
Simple FX Chain = 1 min 10 seconds


Reason 9.5.1 hyper-threading=OFF
Complex RE = 24 seconds
Simple FX Chain = 1 min 10 seconds

Reason 9.5.1 hyper-threading=ON
Complex RE = 32 seconds
Simple FX Chain = 1 min 2 seconds


I'm in the middle of acoustically treating my bedroom studio and just tested the benchmarks and so far I like the new update
Thank you Propellerhead for your great work

iMac 27" (late 2013) i7 3.5 ghz. Reason 9.5.1
Complex RE:
with HT: 0:00:05:015
without HT: 0:00:01:765

SimpleFX:
with HT: 0:01:54:799
without HT: 0:01:29:722

Some very interesting results here with R9.5.1:


Ryzen 1700 @3,6 Mhz
2x8 Gb RAM @ 2x1463 Mhz
Asus Prime B350M-A
Tascam US 2x2
Win 7 pro

Settings: 95% CPU-usage, 1024 samples, 44100 samplerate.


R8 Benchmark:
HT off - 1:17:369
HT on - the whole song

R9 Benchmark complex:
HT off - 13:862
HT on - 16:509

R9 Benchmark simple:
HT off - 1:54:793
HT on - 57:446

All testet with the Tascam Driver and ASIO4ALL.
The time ist allways nearly the same but
the poor Tascam Driver gives me always some crackling noise
when it comes to the end of the playing time.

Tom

Reason 9.5.1
Macbook Pro (2016)
2.9 GHz Core i7 6920HQ (Turbo Boost 3.8 GHz)
16 GB 2133 MHz LPDDR3
Radeon Pro 460 4096 MB <---- Yes, it makes a difference!
44100 Hz and Max Buffer: 4096 samples
CPU Usage Limit: 95%
Hyperthreading ON

Complex RE ---> 4 seconds
Simple FX Chain ---> 89 seconds
Reason 8 Benchmark File --> 60 seconds

CPU Ryzen 7 1800X @ 3.6 Ghz
RAM 32 GB DDR4 2400 Mhz @ CL16
SSD Samsung 960 Evo 1TB
Focusrite 6i6 Gen2

CPU usage limit set in Reason 9.5.1 = 95%
Sample rate = 44,100 Hz
Buffer length = 1,024 samples (max)

SMT/Hyperthreading OFF

R8 Benchmark ----> 1'15
COMPLEX RE ----> 0'10
Simple FX Chain ----> 2'00

SMT/Hyperthreading ON

R8 Benchmark ----> Completes
COMPLEX RE ----> 0'13.5
Simple FX Chain ----> 0'57


Complex RE type setups favours SMT on, Simple FX setups favour SMT being off, which is the expected behaviour.

I'm finding my overall performance has improved replacing the E-mu 1616m, with its long since abandoned driver support, which is very flakey under at least the AM4 chipset, with the new 6i6.

(Thanks kategra for providing these benchmarks Now I'd better check the other results above to see how much better off I would have been getting an i7 )

EnochLight wrote: ↑

30 May 2017

Lol! Man, Ryzen just seems to get hammered. We've got a few people who have known Ryzen builds here - hopefully they'll chime in to this thread (Lizard and JP are two that I know of).

See above

Having now read a random selection of other's benchmarks, the 1800X results are pretty respectable: my setup, with a spanking new 6i6, seems to fall slap bang in the middle of many of the i7 setups, which seem to be in the range of 0'08 to 0'16.

If money's no object, it's hard to argue against the latest i7's being the better bet, but it seems to me the Ryzen is perhaps a good improvement on the previous generation i7; although the Xeon results above pulls down the pants on both Ryzen and i7 if one opts for a dedicated mega-cored music workstation rather than a general "needs to do a bit of everything" work+play machine.

adrian-singleton wrote: ↑

09 Jul 2017

Some very interesting results here with R9.5.1:


Ryzen 1700 @3,6 Mhz
2x8 Gb RAM @ 2x1463 Mhz

HT on - 16:509

But... how... when... why... Now that's not fair!

Just for the lols

AMD Phenom II X4 965, 3.4GHz
8 GB of RAM
AMD High Definition Audio Device

Simple Chain - 38 secs
Complicated - 0sec

But... how... when... why... Now that's not fair!

I think it is the RAM-speed.
When I clock down to 2400Mhz I get
nearly the same results as you.

12:283 with HT on.

As a long time Intel user I am very pleased with the AMD system, it runs flawless even with Windows 7. (For some good reasons I do not like Win10, I've testet it with my older Intel-DAW)

For 800 Euros without the monitors and the SSDs/HDD it's a bang for the buck. At that time around March I had to spend 1000 Euros just for the 8-core Intel CPU.
The system is used for mixing and mastering with Reason, Reaper, Melodyne and Wavelab. No bluescreens or other bugging behaviour and very low dpc latency (turn off C-States Control in bios!).
For recording I use an older Intel-PC in the studio.

And the new Intel systems Kabylake-X and Skylake-X are getting some poor reviews here in Germany.

Thank you AMD for being back and thank you Props for the SMT/HT support!

Tom

JiggeryPokery wrote:

EnochLight wrote: ↑

30 May 2017

Lol! Man, Ryzen just seems to get hammered. We've got a few people who have known Ryzen builds here - hopefully they'll chime in to this thread (Lizard and JP are two that I know of).

See above

Having now read a random selection of other's benchmarks, the 1800X results are pretty respectable: my setup, with a spanking new 6i6, seems to fall slap bang in the middle of many of the i7 setups, which seem to be in the range of 0'08 to 0'16.

If money's no object, it's hard to argue against the latest i7's being the better bet, but it seems to me the Ryzen is perhaps a good improvement on the previous generation i7; although the Xeon results above pulls down the pants on both Ryzen and i7 if one opts for a dedicated mega-cored music workstation rather than a general "needs to do a bit of everything" work+play machine.

adrian-singleton wrote: ↑

09 Jul 2017

Some very interesting results here with R9.5.1:


Ryzen 1700 @3,6 Mhz
2x8 Gb RAM @ 2x1463 Mhz

HT on - 16:509

But... how... when... why... Now that's not fair!

Due to different formatting I'm wondering if he was saying he got 16.5 seconds (not 16 minutes) to your 13.5 seconds on the complex test?


Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk

Anyone have the mid-2017 iMac with the 4.2ghz i7 upgrade? Curious to see how that performs, as well as the upcoming 18-core iMac Pro!

selig wrote: ↑

11 Jul 2017

JiggeryPokery wrote:
See above

Having now read a random selection of other's benchmarks, the 1800X results are pretty respectable: my setup, with a spanking new 6i6, seems to fall slap bang in the middle of many of the i7 setups, which seem to be in the range of 0'08 to 0'16.

If money's no object, it's hard to argue against the latest i7's being the better bet, but it seems to me the Ryzen is perhaps a good improvement on the previous generation i7; although the Xeon results above pulls down the pants on both Ryzen and i7 if one opts for a dedicated mega-cored music workstation rather than a general "needs to do a bit of everything" work+play machine.



But... how... when... why... Now that's not fair!

Due to different formatting I'm wondering if he was saying he got 16.5 seconds (not 16 minutes) to your 13.5 seconds on the complex test?


Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk

Yes, 16.5 seconds, that's a whole 3 seconds more! It was pretty safe to assume it wasn't 16 minutes. Though that would have wiped the large grin off the Xeon owners!

R9.5 Benchmark44.100HzV2.reason result with HyperTreading ON:
stops at 3.4..2.122 (before 4th bar)

R9.5 Benchmark44.100HzV2.reason result with HyperTreading OFF:
stops at 1.1.3.188 (before 2nd bar)

R9.5+2017 SimpleFXChainBenchkmark0.reason result with HyperTreading ON:
stops at 33.1.3.185 (before 34th bar)


R9.5+2017 SimpleFXChainBenchkmark0.reason result with HyperTreading OFF:
stops at 50.4.3.76 (before 51th bar) / starts to glitch like crazy around 33 bars


As you can see I am getting totally different results! R9.5 Benchmark44.100HzV2.reason with HyperTreading ON performs better while on R9.5+2017 SimpleFXChainBenchkmark0.reason with HyperTreading OFF it performs better!

Can someone explain?

Using 1024 samples latency Scarlett 2i4
MacBook Pro (Retina, 15-inch, Late 2013)
Processor 2,3 GHz Intel Core i7
Memory 16 GB 1600 MHz DDR3
Graphics NVIDIA GeForce GT 750M 2048 MB

Marco Raaphorst wrote: ↑

12 Jul 2017

R9.5 Benchmark44.100HzV2.reason result with HyperTreading ON:
stops at 3.4..2.122 (before 4th bar)

R9.5 Benchmark44.100HzV2.reason result with HyperTreading OFF:
stops at 1.1.3.188 (before 2nd bar)

R9.5+2017 SimpleFXChainBenchkmark0.reason result with HyperTreading ON:
stops at 33.1.3.185 (before 34th bar)


R9.5+2017 SimpleFXChainBenchkmark0.reason result with HyperTreading OFF:
stops at 50.4.3.76 (before 51th bar) / starts to glitch like crazy around 33 bars


As you can see I am getting totally different results! R9.5 Benchmark44.100HzV2.reason with HyperTreading ON performs better while on R9.5+2017 SimpleFXChainBenchkmark0.reason with HyperTreading OFF it performs better!

Can someone explain?

Using 1024 samples latency Scarlett 2i4
MacBook Pro (Retina, 15-inch, Late 2013)
Processor 2,3 GHz Intel Core i7
Memory 16 GB 1600 MHz DDR3
Graphics NVIDIA GeForce GT 750M 2048 MB

Serial/Parallel. See here viewtopic.php?f=4&t=7502207

MacBook Pro 2017
2.8G Intel core i7
16G 2133MHz ram
Radon Pro 555 graphics
1024 samples

simple:
1:04:273 HP off
57:330. HP on

complex:
no way!

I wonder how do the new Intel i5-8400, i5-8600K and i7 8700Kand the new Intel i9 manage in R9, or R10. Anyone that has these care to test and share the results?

Ryzen 1700 [OC 3800 Mhz 1,185v Core Voltage]
Crucial Ballistix Sport LT 2666 [changed from CL17 to CL16]
Arock AB350m pro4
Some SSD
Audient ID14
Win7 64

Reason 10
44100 Hz
1024 Samples
CPU 95%

3800Mhz
Complex FX HT on 20,3 sec
Simple FX Ht off 2 min

finally at 3600Mhz
Compley FX HT on 18,6 sec
Simple Fx HT off 2 min

Today i updated my Bios with the newest Agesa drivers and i´ve got 20,3 seconds in the Complex Benchmark, before i only got 14 seconds.
I also tried the benchmark with a OC of 3,9Ghz and 2933mhz ram frequency but with that adjustment i got a blue screen, several minutes after the benchmark of 21.5 seconds, but it works finally with 1,2 core voltage from the motherboard also still at 3,9Ghz.

All benchmarks where made with internet and virus detection turned on, but be carefull with CPU OC,
my audiocard driver was out of function after i tried to tweak the cpu to 4Ghz,
at that point í had to install the usb card new at a usb 2.0 port, the usb 3 port was not able to show the card correctly



So it seems, that the 65 watt Ryzen7 is allmost comparable to the intel 6800k, and with some Hyperthreading improvement in the next months it might gets close to the I7.
So it will be exciting how it will compare against the 8700k.

Addendum

On my system the playtime is the same, but without audio lacks at beginnig of playing if i change the driver dialog "set latency" from low to extra safe
in the Audient Driver. So you see at the end it´s mostly also the big thing, how your system works.

I spend this morning several hours to optimize my system, but its a venture, otherwise the thing with cas latency of the ram modules
shows some seconds of difference and also errors, if i change from 16 18 18 18 to 15 17 17 17 cas latency.

Now i cannot say, what´s the best adjustment for my system,
but with the fastest ram and a little bit higher cpu voltage (wich defines the overall power consumption)
it gives you 25% more Power and till 75% more power consumption at full load, 120 watt versus 205 watt.

3600Mhz max cpu boost , with 2800Mhz ram speed at original cas latency seems to be the best choice.
Now it plays 20 Seconds of the song, that´s nice