Which CPU properties are best for using GP

I am thinking about to build me a new Desktop computer for at home (not the rehearsal room).
I would build it according to the “best” performant CPU for the usage of GP.
As I understoud from other threads each GP instance is just and only running on ONE core, so to have a CPU with many cores etc. doesnt help for a performant desktop for
GP, right?
If my assumtion above is correct, which CPU is currently recomandable? The AMD Ryzen 7 5800X seems as it has an excellent price / performance ratio (if I am right).

The next component should be a DDR4 RAM (32GB),
a fitting motherboard and a M.2 SSD.
The “rest” of the hardware I would build arround this above mentioned components.

Any suggestion?

No, that’s not necessarily right because some plugins can use multiple cores.


There is a huge push on now for plugins to use multiple cores and multiple threads, especially those that are very resource intensive/using multiple voices. Several of my Melda plugins have subpages to tailor multiple core/thread usage as just one example. We are also at the dawn of plugins using gpu resources if they are available with a number of manufacturers already handing off their graphics processing to gpus. You are right that DSP processing is/has been generally a brute single core, single thread process which benefits the most from clock speed of the cpu, but if you are trying to future proof your new rig you can’t ignore the other parameters of your potential hardware. If you have read the other threads in the community on this topic you can discern there is no one “right” answer for the best rig although some core components are considered a must: decent/high clockspeed of a new(er) generation cpu; a fast SSD; fast RAM and as much as possible (depending on your plugin audio sample requirements). Fortunately, there is a wide latitude of possible choices that will work well.


@dhj ; @CruiseCycle
Thanks for the answers.

Yes I have read the most threads about it, I have start one thread some time ago for a laptop,
this works with a i7 10.700 and 32GB DDR4 Ram. Its working well, but if I load “to much” or to “CPU intensive” pluginns it is coming to its limits. I am not 100% sure which limit, its not the Ram…
I just want to consider the “best possible” hardware in case of usinig GP, without “wasting” to much money for a CPU which dosnt help.

If the new desktop will be significantly better as the current laptop for the live performance I would may exchange it… (even if it would be a bit heavier for traveling…


is it possible to say which of the following CPU is better for the use of GP with related pluginns?

In the compareson the Intel is “faster”, but the AMD has an higher GHz in avarage,
the Intel 12 Cores, 20 Threads; the AMD 6 Cores, 12 Threads.
Which is “better” for an Audio PC running GP on live sessions?

It seems as the hardware questions will not realy served, not even from the hard core users and specialists…
Currently I am “gambling arround” (thinking about to buy) with a intel i5-10600K, this seems to be very good for the use of GP,
it’s not easy to find the fitting hardware around… (Motherboard etc.)

Hi. Welcome to this forum. Most of the time people here are very responsive, but sometimes a post slips through the mazes of the net.

I can understand that after 3 days you think someone could have reacted. The problem is with this kind of issues that it is hard to come with a finite answer. A lot depends on the way you are going to use GP. Are you going to use plugins that uses much RAM for storing samples? Then make sure to have a lot of RAM available. Are you going to use many effects? Then go for the fastest CPU you can afford. For me, to compare AMD and Intel is not easy because they are different animals. The type of comparisons you posted are somewhat usable, but no one can make guarantees. This I know: all audio processing (by instruments and effects) are done on one core (except when the plugin itself is capable of using multiple cores). That limits the headroom to max. the capacity of one core, so using a cpu with 24 cores doesn’t help you. When the cooling is good then the cpu can run prolonged close to the turbo speed. If not, then it probably goes to the base-frequency.

That’s all for now that I can come up with.

I think the most you can do it read everything you can. Then you are mostly just hoping for the best.

Part of this is because CPUs have not just been stagnant. So, if they were, we might know from experience which ones work best. Newer ones keep coming out. And they are generally not really developed for music production (more for video, gaming, maybe business use with a lot of apps open?)

I guess another thing to worry about is DPC latency (in case you did not have enough to worry about, hah!)


Well, one problem with these threads is that people don’t have experience with specific CPUs that are being compared. For example, I’ve never owned an AMD processor. Therefore, if I don’t have something to contribute (this vs that), I don’t reply – but I watch closely what others might respond.


I have a Ryzen CPU in my “Main PC” (which is for Photo-Editing but nor for Audio) and i cannot say that i had any issues so far. My audio-PC has an i7 in it (you can search the forum for my “suitcase PC” the thread will tell you the detailed specs… i don’t remember them anymore).
I don’t know how much money you intend to spend, but if you can do it: Take the fastest/latest model (so i won’t buy an i5 if there are i7s or even i9s)!
I dare to say that the diffrences between AMD and Intel in real life usage will most probably be marginal.
Both CPUs from your later post are models of the high “power range” (the AMD with the “X” as well as the Intel with the"K"), while the Intel “K” models already have a graphics chip built in, so you won’t need a separate graphics card if you ned it only for audio stuff.
If you then go with 32GB of RAM and one or two fast M2 SSD-drives, you will be prepared for most of what will come… in case you will use pluggins with huge sample libraries, increase the RAM to 64GB.
That’d be my 2ct.
Good luck with this!
(And as soon as you had bought your machine: Never ever again check prices after that! :wink: )

I just read a some reviews about the AMD Ryzen 5 7600X and it seems that this CPU, although if it runs very fast (also as single core), seems to be quite problematic regarding to heat production! This thing gets freaking hot, even with watercooling.
So maybe better go with the i7-12700K or something like that.
This article in German language tells the details (there is also a nice chart which compares the max. temperatures of diffrent CPUs):


We did this thread a couple weeks ago. Pretty lengthy discussion of all the core elements of a PC build.

For CPU i’ll just reiterate that the latest gen CPUs are much better than going back a couple generations.

With intel CPUs the first two digits of the CPU number are the generation. So i5-13600k is better than i5-12600k and so on. Looking at anything before gen 12 would be pretty silly in my opinion.

The Ryzen vs Intel debate is more personal preference than performance with current gen cpus. Similar price points you’re not going to see much difference.


You’ll find quite a bit of discussion on this thread from a few weeks ago: How does this small form factor proposed build look? - Hardware - Gig Performer Community

Small form factor was a primary objective in that build, but the thread covered pretty much all the major components in a Windows build.


As @Vindes says, you haven’t even addressed what generation any of these CPUs are.

If you have read many of the threads on system build choices, at the end of the day it depends on your particular usage and budget. The only person who can determine that is you. My general advise is to get the latest generation, most powerful cpu you can, with as much of the fastest ram, and as large a SSD as possible. GP and a lot of audio programs can and will run on older and much less capable hardware, what you are really looking for is to future proof your investment as much as possible, not just what you can get by with. It’s also not very fair to ask someone sign off on your proposal, and when you consider the number of requests in this category that people make all the time in this community, it is just plain impossible to do.

Having said the above, the community here is the best I have seen anywhere and tries to be as helpful as they can. The specs for hardware you have been providing seem to be in the older and less capable column, not that they won’t work. I am including three links below that should help understand processor names, the first link is a general FYI and the second is direct from Intel. Intel is on the 13th generation now (2023), so your i5 10600 is 10th gen, released 2019-2020. The third link is also from Intel and the definitive matrix for generations and models (by models I mean i3, i5, i7, i9 and X). Due to the speed options in any given model range there is usually some crossover between models. The deciding factor in my experience is the price differential between them. For example, if the next model up is only $40 difference, that’s affordable where $400 or more wouldn’t. When you go shopping, compare the pricing for the different model steps and pick the best for your budget. Maybe it will be that i5 10600, but the only one who can make that decision is you.

Understanding Processor Names: CPU Naming Schema Guide - Newegg Insider

Differences between Intel® Core™ i9, i7, i5, and i3 in…

Intel® Core™ Processors - View Latest Generation Core Processors

Hey friends,

first of all, thanks for your responses!
I am not new in this community…
Next to the almost perfect Software of GP I appreciate this fantastic community!
Due to that I was surprised that I got “no response”
in the frequency I am used to it… It was not my intention to blame…

I would call myself as a “power user” of GP; because
I am running the whole band through it, and it works…
Coming to the topic:
I ordered a i5-12600K CPU with an Asus Prime Z690 mainboard, 32GB Ram with low CL, and good coolers.
I do not receive the components yet, as soon I have and tested it I will give a feedback.
I chooses this hardware because it can be easily overclocked (which should give a big boost on single core performance) and can handle “side work” as well.
As soon I have tested it I will let the community know in detail about the complete hardware setup.
Take care!



I’m running two systems on Asus Z690 boards (the Rog Strix Z690-A Gaming Wifi D4 version). One with a i5-12600k, one with an i7-12700k.

I’m running both at 4.9Ghz on the primary cores. I haven’t tried to tweak or optimize past that. I have Asus AOI coolers on both. The stock Asus fans aren’t as quiet as I’d like (I prefer nearly silent) but they’re quiet enough that I haven’t bothered to replace them.

I found a good explanation on youtube to overclock the 12600K with the Asus Z690
(I have the Prime Wifi D4 P) to 5.2 Ghz with ambient temperatures.
As I have personaly no idea of the overclocking I will follow this instruction.

According the DPC Latency; it is a MUST to strip down the systm as much as possible, I did with my other machines as well.

The various YouTube videos can be helpful, but bear in mind that most of the guys making those view maximum overclocking as a “sport”. Their only goal is to push as far as they can push. To get there you need to get into tweaking voltages and many other parameters that aren’t at all intuitive, and every processor is different.

I don’t try to push that far. I just want a system that will perform well for what I do with it, so I picked 4.9Ghz and didn’t try to optimize past that.

Regarding latency, “strip down the system as much as possible” means different things to different people. I get rid of the basic junk I don’t use (e.g., Skype, news feeds, games) but I don’t really touch the couple hundred services always running in the background. I know I could kill off Windows Defender, the print spooler, biometrics, etc. but I don’t bother. If it gets to a point where I need to squeeze the last 5% of performance out I might. I hope I don’t have to.

I did all that several years ago on a prior computer just because I felt like it. I was pushing an old i5-7600K at 5gHz on a system I was using more for image processing than audio. It was kind of “for the sport” being an electrical engineer geeky type. Worked out ok, took a lot of hours, would get occasional crashes out of the blue, and one day the processor just died. (The light that burns twice as bright burns half as long. Or so says Bladerunner, paraphrasing some dead Chinese guy.)

If you run Windows 11 one thing you’ll discover is that some of the tools normally used for overclocking ( Intel XTU, Asus AI Suite 3) won’t work if you have “Core Isolation / Memory integrity” enabled in Windows 11. You may need to turn that off in Windows before starting down the overclocking path. Once you have an overclocking setup configured in the bios then you can turn Core Isolation back on if you want (I have mine on) but then you can’t tweak with those tools.

Also, make sure you do the bios update (if you’re going to update) before you start all the tweaking. Updating the bios will usually reset all your overclocking back to factory defaults.


7 posts were split to a new topic: Multi-client driver nanokontrol2

i don´t know where the intel and AMD CPU tech has its standing today.

2.5 years ago *, some studio guys made some thourough testing with many AMD + Intel CPUs versus different Buffer/Latency sizes.

Back then, the instruction sets and optimisations were different on both brands, (i´d guess thats still the case) , and the AMD Machines would begin to lose the race vs. less powerfull Intel machines, while running Buffer sizes => below 256 samples. (not shure if “this” is still the case).

Thats an aspect most often completely kept out of the equation:
the required minimal latency / buffer sizes.

So, in the past, Intel won this race on the windows platform vs. minimal latency setups.

  • to be more precise: i found these infos some 2.5 years ago.
    I “think” the tests were from same year.

if i had to go windows today, i´d still pick a Intel CPU ( while my sympathy points would go towards AMD )

vs. mac is to notes, that the M2 has a slighlty higher cPU Speed than the M1( 3.5 ghz vs. 3.2 ghz). The M2pro has double the databus bandwith compared to the M2 (non pro).
and the M2 max has 3.6ghz CPU clock speed, and iirc, again a doubled databus speed vs. the M2pro. M2max is for now only available as a Macbook pro. No desktop unit so far.