What is DAW Bench and how to choose the best PC for your DAW

If you work with music on your computer, sooner or later you'll have the same question: What kind of computer do I need for my DAW to run smoothly and not be full of clicks, pops, and crashes?Anyone who uses Ableton, Cubase, Pro Tools, Reaper, FL Studio or any other sequencer knows that the "generic" specifications of a PC are not always a real reference for audio.

In this context, DAWBench appears, a suite of tests created specifically to measure the performance of computers in musical production. It's not a generic benchmark like Geekbench or Passmark, but a battery of tests designed for mixing, mastering, and intensive plugin use.Understanding what DAW Bench, how to use it, and how to interpret its results is key if you want to make the right choice between an Intel Core, an AMD Ryzen, more cores, higher frequency per core, or even whether overclocking or tinkering with the processor is worthwhile. BIOS.

What is DAWBench and why is it different from other benchmarks?

DAWBench is, in essence, a set of projects and testing methodologies for different DAWs that They simulate real-life audio mixing and processing situationsUnlike general benchmarks (Geekbench, AnTuTu, Passmark, etc.), it is not limited to compressing audio or converting files: it attempts to reproduce the type of load that a studio experiences when working with many tracks, plugins, and different buffer configurations.

Many generic benchmarks measure things like data compression, video encoding, or mixed CPU and GPU tasksThat's all well and good for getting a general idea, but it doesn't tell you much about whether you'll be able to run 100 tracks with heavy plugins at 64 samples without your Ableton crashing. DAWBench, on the other hand, focuses on the typical studio scenario: real-time processing, low latency, parallel loads, and system behavior under sustained stress.

The goal of its creator and the community that has adopted it is to propose a common and reproducible reference for comparing platforms hardware in the field of audioIn other words, you shouldn't rely solely on isolated forum opinions, but rather see concrete numbers showing how many instances of a plugin can be run before clicks and dropouts occur.

Historically, different versions of DAWBench have been published, including DAWBench 2017, which is still widely used, although there are more recent variants. Despite the years, the logic of the tests (counting plugin instances under different latencies and loads) remains perfectly valid to get a good idea of ​​the relative performance of each CPU.

How are DAWBench tests set up in a real DAW?

Creating a truly useful benchmark for audio isn't as trivial as it seems. The idea is simple: create a test project that's easy to download and run, and that users can... measure how many plugins your system can handle without artifactsBut in practice, many details come into play that can skew the result if they are not properly controlled.

For the test to be even remotely serious, it is necessary to decide, among other things, which DAW to use, what sample rate and bit depth, which plugins, how to count the times, or how many times the project should be played before accepting a figure. Not everyone is willing to install a DAW demo, prepare a complex project, and review the audio settings in detail.Therefore, DAWBench's design attempts to balance precision and ease of use.

One of the usual suggestions is to resort to a free or trial DAW that:

• Efficient multiprocess support.
• Have a competent time-stretching engine.
• Allow downloading specific versions to ensure everyone tests with the same build.

Options such as Studio One Prime have been considered, but they present problems: limitations of the free versions, downloads which require prior registration and lack of parity between macOS and WindowsIn that context, Reaper is usually the top candidate: you can download virtually any version that has been released, it's lightweight, and the evaluation period is fully functional.

A typical example is using a dedicated Reaper project with several audio tracks and some built-in instruments. In one of the tests described, a project was prepared with 15 audio tracks and 5 Reaper instruments, compressed in OGG for easy distributionThe test consists of measuring. There render at different sampling rates (e.g., 44,1 kHz and 192 kHz) and compare results between teams.

On an older processor like a Core2Duo, rendering at 44,1 kHz yielded a time close to 2 minutes and 50 seconds, while at 192 kHz the time increased dramaticallyThis illustrates quite well how the load increases as the sampling rate increases and provides a useful comparison pattern between CPU generations.

DAWBench BUS, DAWBench DSP and plugin-centric testing

Within the DAWBench ecosystem there are different types of tests, but the basic idea is similar: Loading many instances of the same plugin until the system stops playing smoothly to a certain buffer size. One of the best-known variants is DAW Bench BUS, very popular when comparing powerful desktop CPUs such as AMD's Ryzen 9 or Intel's high-end Core series.

DAWBench BUS typically uses plugin chains that simulate heavily processed mixing buses, designed to show how the system behaves under load. complex mixing scenarios with many simultaneous routesIn these tests, AMD Ryzen 9 processors usually perform very well, even topping performance rankings, although sometimes they fall behind in other DAW Benchmark tests focused on a different type of load.

Another common method is to test the serial performance of a very demanding plugin (for example, a saturator or preamp like the SGA 1566) on a single track. In that case, parallelization is not as important as the power of a single CPU core., since the entire chain relies on a single processing thread.

In specific tests on an i9-10900K, we measured how many instances of the SGA 1566 plugin could be stacked on a track before artifacts appeared, at different buffer sizes (48, 256, and 2048 samples). The results show figures around 20-26 serial instances depending on buffer size and overclocking configurationand are useful for seeing how much the clock frequency per core influences performance when not many threads are being used.

It is interesting to observe how clearly these tests distinguish. CPU behavior in highly parallel scenarios versus scenarios dominated by one or a few coresThis is key to understanding why a processor can perform better when mixing than mastering, or vice versa.

Real example: DAWBench on an Intel i9-10900K

A very illustrative practical example is that of a user who tested DAW Bench 2017 with a PC based on a Intel i9-10900K, 64 GB DDR4 3200 MHz RAM and Reaper 6.53, accompanied by an RME Babyface Pro interface. Its objective was to test the impact of three factors: overclocking, default UEFI configuration, and the use or non-use of Hyper-Threading.

The hardware configuration included an ASUS ROG STRIX Z490-F motherboard, storage NVMe for system and projects, SSD SATA for libraries and mechanical disks for archiving and backups. A fairly typical modern advanced studio system, with high-end air cooling and a quality power supply, without extravagant components.

First, he tested the CPU with Overclocked to 4,8 GHz on all cores, memory at 3200 MHz (XMP profile), virtualization disabled and Hyper-Threading enabledThe results from DAWBench, measuring how many plugin instances it could load before the project started to crash, were approximately:

• 48 buffer samples: 183 instances.
• 256 buffer samples: 274 instances.
• 2048 buffer samples: 329 instances.

Then he repeated the test with the CPU in BIOS “Optimized Defaults” valuesMaintaining the same amount of RAM, with virtualization disabled and Hyper-Threading enabled. In this mode, the CPU dynamically scales frequencies: higher with fewer cores, lower with more cores. The results were:

• 48 samples: 176 instances.
• 256 samples: 236 instances.
• 2048 samples: 295 instances.

Finally, he configured the processor with overclock to 4,8 GHz but disabling Hyper-Threadingkeeping everything else the same. The instance count dropped significantly:

• 48 samples: 123 instances.
• 256 samples: 200 instances.
• 2048 samples: 231 instances.

When focusing solely on serial plugin testing (one track with SGA 1566 stacked), the results remained virtually the same across all configurations: around 20-26 instances depending on the buffer, with no significant differences depending on whether Hyper-Threading is enabled or not.This makes it clear that HT helps most in multi-core loads, but contributes almost nothing in single-threaded scenarios.

A key takeaway from this case is that, for this type of DAWBench load, Global overclocking improves performance when the CPU is heavily loaded and all cores are working simultaneously.With the BIOS at default values, the processor can reach a slightly higher frequency with few active cores (up to 100 MHz extra compared to the OC) but drops to around 4,4 GHz when all cores are in use, which penalizes performance in heavily parallel tests.

It is also clear that Disabling Hyper-Threading significantly reduces multithreaded performanceWhile it neither significantly improves nor negatively impacts single-threaded performance, in this particular system, there was no real benefit to disabling Hyper-Threading for audio, contrary to what is sometimes discussed in forums.

CPU selection for Ableton and other DAWs: Intel vs AMD, P-cores, E-cores and AM5

One of the most common questions among music producers is which processor to buy for working with Ableton Live or other DAWs. Many users are torn between 13th/14th generation Intel Core, AMD Ryzen 7000/9000 and even the new 15th generation Intel series, valuing not only current performance but also the possibility of future expansion.

On a practical level, there are those who come from portable professionals with low-power CPUs, such as a Dell Precision with a Intel i5-1250P and 32 GB of RAMAnd the idea is to build a desktop computer dedicated exclusively to Ableton production. In such cases, the usual alternatives include an i7 13700/14700, a Ryzen 7 9700X, or even a "K" model from Intel's upcoming 15th generation, which is more expensive but offers greater performance potential.

One of the points that generates the most noise is the behavior of High-performance cores (P-cores) versus high-efficiency cores (E-cores) in Intel's hybrid processors. Some users are convinced that Ableton only takes good advantage of P-cores and ignores E-cores, leading them to question whether it really makes sense to pay for a CPU with many efficient cores that the DAW supposedly won't use.

The reality is somewhat more nuanced: Ableton, like other modern DAWs, Yes, it does take advantage of multiple cores, but the way it distributes tasks and how the operating system intervenes is different. (Windows, macOS) can affect which threads end up as P-cores or E-cores, especially if power and affinity settings aren't properly adjusted. However, DAWBench allows you to see in a practical way which BIOS, power, and CPU configurations offer the best results.

When comparing the results of DAWBench BUS and other similar tests, it is observed that AMD's Ryzen 9 processors deliver excellent performance in highly parallel mixed workloads.They often top the charts, although in specific tests they aren't always the absolute winners. Furthermore, AMD usually has an advantage in energy consumption: Ryzen processors tend to offer high power while maintaining a lower TDP and real-world power consumption than high-end Intel processors with aggressive overclocking.

Another factor that weighs heavily is the platform longevityMany users appreciate that AMD's AM5 socket will receive at least one more generation (for example, future Zen 6 processors), allowing them to buy a Ryzen 9 7900 or 9700X today and consider upgrading to a higher-end model in a few years without changing their motherboard or RAM. In the case of Intel, those using 13th/14th generation processors know that it is likely that There is no room for upgrades within the same socketAnd that to move to the 15th generation with a 265K (for example) it will be necessary to renew the entire platform.

A real-world example of a decision based on these considerations is that of a user who, after comparing options based on DAW Bench tests and energy consumption, ended up assembling a system with Ryzen 9 7900 and 64 GB of RAM for music productionTheir hope is that AMD will release Zen 6 for AM5, thus providing a future upgrade path without having to redo the entire system.

Relationship between the DAW, the CPU, and the rest of the computer components

Beyond the processor, it's important to understand how the workload is distributed in an audio system. A digital audio workstation is not just the CPU: Motherboard, RAM, storage, GPU, power supply, and case all influence overall performance to a greater or lesser extent.Having a powerful processor isn't very useful if the rest of the system bottlenecks it.

The motherboard determines the socket, the type and amount of RAM, the number of M.2 slots, the disk connections, and the number of ports. USB available for interfaces, MIDI controllers, and routing solutions such as Voicemeter Banana. The power supply is responsible for providing stable voltages; a poor-quality power supply can cause instability and unwanted electrical noise.The case, for its part, influences the cooling and acoustic noise of the studio.

However, in terms of direct impact on DAW performance, the key components are:

• Processorwho does most of the work, especially in mixing and mastering.
• The memory RAM, whose quantity is more decisive than speed in many cases.
• The units of storagewhose speed helps with loading and audio streaming, but are rarely the main bottleneck if you already use SSDs.

Many comparative tests have simulated mixing and mastering projects in popular DAWs (Pro Tools 12.5 HD, Cubase Pro 12, Ableton Live 11, Reaper 6.81 and FL Studio 20) to see how they respond under equal conditions. The results show that each DAW manages the CPU, RAM, and disk slightly differently.This explains why the same machine can work perfectly with one sequencer and be less effective with another.

In a low-demand mix with 100 audio tracks at 44,1 kHz/24 bits and one plugin inserted on each track (100 plugins in total), it was observed that Cubase consumed the least CPUMeanwhile, FL Studio's RAM usage skyrocketed, hovering around 8 GB, almost tripling that of the other DAWs. In other words, FL Studio tended to use more memory to minimize disk access, even under moderate loads.

When the requirements were increased by adding up to 4 inserts per track (400 plugins in total), several interesting patterns were observed:

• All DAWs took advantage of the CPU's 16 cores and 32 threadswhich confirms that these applications do scale with many threads in large mixing projects.
• Pro Tools became the least RAM-intensive, but at the cost of increased storage usage during playback, joining Ableton as those most dependent on disk performance.
• FL Studio remained the DAW that consumes the most RAM, although in this test the rest came somewhat closer to its figures.
• FL Studio also demanded the most CPU, practically doubling the CPU usage of Ableton and Cubase, which appeared to be the lightest in that respect, with Pro Tools and Reaper somewhere in between.
• FL Studio was the only one that did not touch the storage drives during playback in any of the tests, which This partly explains that high RAM consumption to keep everything loaded and minimize streams from disk.

In extreme mastering scenarios, with a 192 kHz, 32-bit floating-point stereo file accompanied by 10 very heavy plugins with oversampling, linear phase filters and other CPU-intensive "goodies"The results changed: CPU usage was fairly similar across all DAWs, but only Cubase and Reaper offered smooth playback without artifacts.

In Pro Tools, there were occasional stops with CPU overload warnings, in FL Studio clicks and small artifacts were heard sporadically, and in Ableton the clicks and distortions were so constant that it made it impossible to work on mastering under those conditions. RAM and disk usage remained virtually unchanged across all programs.This makes it very clear that, in this type of task, the entire burden falls on the microprocessor and, moreover, on very few specific cores.

What DAW Bench and other tests teach us about building an audio PC

If we put all of the above together, some fairly clear practical conclusions emerge. The first is that, for music production, The most critical component is the processorIn mixing environments, where many tasks are parallelized, having many cores helps, and there CPUs with 12, 16 or more cores make a difference in DAW Bench BUS and similar tests.

However, in mastering or in very heavy chains with few tracks, The priority is per-core power.In other words, high frequencies and an efficient architecture, even if the total number of cores isn't that large. This explains why sometimes a processor with fewer but faster cores can handle certain mastering sessions better than one with more but slower cores.

Secondly, RAM quantity matters more than speed. 16 GB is sufficient for many common mixing scenarios according to our tests, although nowadays 32 GB is a very reasonable amount for working with samplers, libraries, and large projects.Increasing the RAM frequency helps somewhat, but it doesn't transform performance in the same way as a CPU upgrade.

Third, storage units (especially SSDs) are critical for Project loading times, library opening and playback when the DAW uses a lot of disk spaceEven so, once you're working with decent SSDs, they're usually the least limiting factor for achieving smooth playback, except in specific cases of DAWs that rely more on streams, like Ableton or Pro Tools.

All of this fits very well with what DAWBench reveals: The biggest performance variations between systems almost always come from the combination of CPU + BIOS configuration + thread managementAnd only after that do RAM and disk come into play. Fine-tune the operating system (disable aggressive power saving, use solid ASIO drivers(keeping the BIOS properly configured) also has its importance, but the "skeleton" of the machine lies in the choice of microprocessor.

For those about to upgrade their PC to produce music with Ableton, Cubase, Reaper, or similar software, DAWBench is a very useful tool for Translating technical specifications into something tangible: how many plugins, at what latencies, and under what real-world conditionsChoosing between an Intel with P-cores and E-cores, a multi-core Ryzen, or a slightly more modest model with better IPC is no longer a lottery when you can rely on results from specific audio tests like this.