Best possible CPU for Ableton live at the moment

[sapralex]

Hello everyone! Right now I have a desire to get the best possible PC for music production in Ableton live.
I’m working with large projects with +-200 tracks and we usually have heavy plugin chains on at least ~20-30tracks. Sometimes we use 192kHz sample rate.
So I want to have everything as smooth as possible and have all renders as fast as possible.
I’ve been using Apple for many years and a month ago I was almost sure that I’ll buy a new Mac Pro for that purpose.
However, the current AMD to Intel situation made me doubt the Mac Pro as the best machine.
It’s okay for me to overpay for the Mac Pro(I was going to buy almost the base model and then add RAM and change CPU to non M version of intel Xeon W-3275) but with the launch of the new 64 cores threadripper from AMD, overpaying tremendous amount of money for the Mac Pro while getting twice as weaker performance seems too bad.
However, intel still has an advantage of AVX512, that may be essential for Ableton, but I’m not sure how significant it is compare to the new threadripper.
I also know that sometimes we prefer the base clock speed over cores, so threadripper 3970x seems quite good as well.

So I have 3 options after all. I would be happy to hear every opinion, especially those who are really into tech. I’m not a tech specialist to know every aspect of the CPU, so I’m still scared to make this decision.
So, without thinking about the cost, what would you recommend for big, heavy projects(sometimes at 192kHz) in Ableton live?
1. Mac Pro with Intel Xeon W-3275 , 192GB of RAM.
2. Custom build PC with AMD Threadripper 3990x , 256GB of RAM.
3. Custom build PC with AMD Threadripper 3970x , 256GB of RAM

Thanks in advance for thorough answers!

[jonljacobi]

No clue which is best, though I suspect all three would be fine, but does anything outside of server operating systems and select software actually use AVX-512?

Also, just curious. What do you use 200 tracks for? And why 192kHz? Serious question. Not trolling.

[sapralex]

No clue which is best, though I suspect all three would be fine, but does anything outside of server operating systems and select software actually use AVX-512?

Also, just curious. What do you use 200 tracks for? And why 192kHz? Serious question. Not trolling.

I've heard that audio programs use AVX512, some people even say that this doubles the performance.

For many things actually. I create custom choir phrases for each part of the tracks using plugins like 8DIO Lacrimosa. I prefer to use a new channel for each 2-3 words because it's just more convenient. I create sound dimensions using many effects each on a separate channel. And yes, I like to layer everything. I just got used to it and its always better for me to make a different sound with a new channel, that's just how I like to work. I never care about the number though)
About the 192kHz, well, I believe that you can get a slightly cleaner super-high end in some sounds when you convert from 192kHz(usually from 96kHz)(I've noticed it a couple of times, but there's no confirmation so let's just say its my strange options) sometimes I just like to use it for weird testing, and also some companies want to get super high res audio=)
Honestly I just want to have the possibility to do that, but of course that isn't so important.

[jonljacobi]

I suppose the biggest issue is that the new AMD chips simply haven't been around long enough for anyone to have really tried them. I have a 3700 I've tried and it's pretty darn smooth, but with nothing like the number or tracks or FX that you're talking about.

I can't debate the merits of AVX-256 (which I think AMD supports) versus AVX-512, but there are arguments both for and against it. I've heard nothing about audio software using this and I would suspect that with AMD gaining traction as they are, no one will be in a rush to employ it. I could be wrong, but I think it shouldn't be a factor in your decision.

Where do you hear about AVX-512 being used?

[sapralex]

I suppose the biggest issue is that the new AMD chips simply haven't been around long enough for anyone to have really tried them. I have a 3700 I've tried and it's pretty darn smooth, but with nothing like the number or tracks or FX that you're talking about.

I can't debate the merits of AVX-256 (which I think AMD supports) versus AVX-512, but there are arguments both for and against it. I've heard nothing about audio software using this and I would suspect that with AMD gaining traction as they are, no one will be in a rush to employ it. I could be wrong, but I think it shouldn't be a factor in your decision.

Where do you hear about AVX-512 being used?

It's not a reliable source or something. Just mostly tech forums and a couple reviews. Some people write this:
"AVX512 is a special instruction set that lets the CPU process large chunks of data at once. Works well for doing the same thing repeatedly across a set of data. Things like processing a lot of pixels at once, or processing a lot of audio frames at once. Color correction, audio effects, etc. While image has been moving to the GPU, audio is still on CPU. So you see AVX a lot on audio. Apple seems pretty into AVX512, so my guess is Logic has a lot of AVX512 optimization.

If you wanted to do a gain boost on audio or something, that's a pretty basic acceleration case for AVX. A lot of audio filters are probably AVX accelerated. Especially on Mac where the Accelerate framework is built on AVX. AVX512 is the latest version, and Apple has been doing a lot of work with it.

The one place I've seen the Xeon easily beat Threadripper in benchmarks is on AVX workloads."

They're still arguing about this so I can't find any confirmation for any info about AVX512) If it's not that essential then its clear to me that I want to get a Threadripper. Looking for the options to use thunderbolt on a TRX40 motherboard with a UAD Apollo interface. Another problem)

[jonljacobi]

I have been perusing things a bit more. One of the downsides is that AVX-512 uses a huge amount of transistors and die space, and apparently is a complete power hog. It's single instruction multiple data deal (SIMD) so it could of course be very useful but it seems multiple cores and AVX units can accomplish much the same thing. Access does however have to be implemented via software and I have no idea which compilers and development kits outside of Microsoft support it.

You should probably ask Ableton and other music companies if they compile for or support AVX-512 or not. If they're reading, maybe they'll answer.

[sapralex]

So, without thinking about the cost, what would you recommend for big, heavy projects(sometimes at 192kHz) in Ableton live?
1. Mac Pro with Intel Xeon W-3275 , 192GB of RAM.

Why not a pre-build PC with a customized option of having extra RAM and/or better storage?

It's not really clear from your post but I get the impression you're planning on building this stuff for yourself and well... I think you're looking way too deep into something relatively trivial such as the CPU and totally gloss over parts which will definitely become important such as the access speed of your memory as well as that of the storage hardware.

Higher sampling rates don't necessarily result in higher CPU loads, but they will result in a higher demand in both memory and storage access.

As such... I would stop focusing on CPU's and start paying attention to storage and memory.

Well in both options I would use SSD anyway, and both options have plenty of RAM. I don’t think that it’s even useful to have more than 256GB. I’ve maximized SSD and storage options for me. There are not many choices with RAM and SSD, you just can use a maximized 3200mhz ram and fast SSD, but processor is a tricky thing, that’s why I’m focusing on it)

[sapralex]

There are not many choices with RAM and SSD, you just can use a maximized 3200mhz ram and fast SSD

And that's where you're wrong. Different bus speeds, different busses, crc (or not), caching. Sure, you can simply "buy the fastest" but it remains to be seen if you'll also actually get the most optimal performance. Because that will depend on your mother board and the available connections / busses.

Well I thought that even if you buy the fastest memory, you can control the memory speed that cpu uses via AMD utility, so you can test and choose for yourself. Isn’t it right?
I’ve read some info that the sweet spot for threadripper is 2933mhz, so I was going to just set this speed in the AMD utility and buy 3200mhz Corsair RAM.