Old 01-10-2017, 07:04 PM   #1
OldTascam
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 7
Default Best CPU?

Trying to figure out what would be the best CPU to build my system around.
By best, I mean fastest and most reliable. Does anyone know of any test data that compares performance of various CPUs with Reaper (or if not with Reaper, then with any DAW software)?

If there's no hard data, what CPU would you recommend, and why? TIA!
OldTascam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2017, 09:17 PM   #2
viscofisy
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Dalriada
Posts: 9,628
Default

I already mentioned Scan UK - and no, I'm not a salesman for them, or connected in any way

Here's a link - you can scroll down and click on "The right CPU for Audio Workstations" and there's a pretty good summary. There's also info on all the other parts for a build. Maybe that would be a good read to begin with, and twould at least give you a good starting point.

https://www.scan.co.uk/3xs/custom/da...tation-pcs#anc
viscofisy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2017, 02:45 AM   #3
ivansc
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Near Cambridge UK and Near Questembert, France
Posts: 14,888
Default

Visco is right - Peter at Scan knows his stuff. And he is a member on here IIR

In the USA if you look on Gearslutz there are a couple of well known and respected audio PC builders that regularly post on there & there is if I remember a current but long thread about building a music PC.
__________________
Today is the anniversary of the death of the famous Irish inventor, Professor Patrick Pending. Not a lot of people know that....
ivansc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2017, 09:45 AM   #4
Softsynth
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 2,731
Default

For a DAW PC get an Intel, don't even bother looking at the competition. Same goes for games machines actually. I hope AMD catch up or even surpass Intel again someday but for now......

Usually best to look one or two models down from the top model to get a sweet spot between VFM and top performance. The best available is always poor VFM with little extra performance for much higher cost.
Typically there is one i5 and one i7 that the mag's/sites are recommending owing to this sweet spot. The manufacturers will put out much more of these. No point paying 50% more for 5% extra performance.

Typically two options a "K" version and a non K version. K being overclockable. Sometimes the non K is better VFM as enthusiasts often like to risk overclocking, especially gamers.

Go i7 or possibly Xeon if you find a silly (used or package) deal on the latter, if it works out cheaper than going i7, otherwise just keep to an i7.
Softsynth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2017, 01:33 PM   #5
viscofisy
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Dalriada
Posts: 9,628
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ivansc View Post
Visco is right - Peter at Scan knows his stuff. And he is a member on here IIR
Is he? Maybe we'll get a few quid off?

The Scan article on CPUs for audio does indeed recommend Intel - and an i7 4790K for "best bang for buck".

There's a few things to be said about the idea of "the best" ... and how that relates to CPUs (and lots of other things ... digital cameras spring to mind).

You can keep adding extra cash and getting higher spec - but is the extra spec actually relevant to your end purpose?

afaik processor speed (GHz) is relevant, but not necessarily number of cores ... given that in an i7 you're getting at least 4 cores anyway. 6 or 8 might be nice to have, especially if you also do video which might be able to leverage those extra cores. But the gains per $ taper off rapidly above a certain point for the vast majority of audio users.

The requirements of audio are not necessarily CPU and GPU grunt (unlike video) - but more a balance between power and a system where all parts work well together.

That is, for most people's purposes, simply buying the top CPU will solve nothing, and may well be a step backwards. That's because real-time audio recording has very particular requirements ... the first of those being maintaining a constant absolutely unstoppable flow of relatively lightweight data. With zero hiccups.


This excellent video has become a bit of a classic (it's only a year old tho!) and it explains all of this :


Last edited by viscofisy; 01-11-2017 at 01:40 PM.
viscofisy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2017, 02:58 PM   #6
Softsynth
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 2,731
Default

It depends on what you require from your DAW PC. Ultra low latency with live recording isn't all about having the fastest CPU.

OTOH CPU grunt is pivotal to performance with top end soft synths. U-HE Diva and AAS Chromaphone 2 for instance demand very solid single core performance, though the former does utilize multi core, even within a single instance.
Softsynth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2017, 03:08 PM   #7
snooks
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 1,210
Default

That video is annoying because he's on the right track but comes to the wrong conclusion that faster CPUs are not always better for reducing pops and clicks that aren't caused by an interrupt that consumes an entire block worth of processing. Faster CPUs give more headroom and whilst the performance at ultra low latencies is dependent on the max amount of time other processes hog the processor, where there is wiggle room - which there should be - a faster CPU will improve things. On the same system.

So yes, a fast processor (or a slow one) will be restricted by other processes hogging CPU time at uber low latencies. But putting a processor that is twice as fast in there will allow twice as many operations to be done in the time left in that audio block. It also can reduce the time taken to process the other blocking processes. At higher latencies it kind of doesn't matter since the reduction in processing time available due to DPC latency etc is a much smaller percentage of the audio block.

Btw, AMD might be about to change the game with Ryzen - we'll see what the power management is like first though, but they are matching i7-6700K performance at the moment in engineering sample batches.
snooks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2017, 04:09 PM   #8
Indiscipline
Human being with feelings
 
Indiscipline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 51
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Softsynth View Post
For a DAW PC get an Intel, don't even bother looking at the competition. Same goes for games machines actually. I hope AMD catch up or even surpass Intel again someday but for now......
Do you have any measurements or real-world tests to support this statement? Don't get me wrong, I know the current AMD line-up is far older than Intel's and their architecture is inferior to the most up-to-date Intel CPUs. But I've been hearing this all these years, even when AMD just had released their most modern CPUs. And almost never you get any supporting evidence. Especially in a music-related field, where many people are subject to a cargo cult behavior.

What I'm really interested in, is how good and efficient is modern software (e.g. Reaper) in using all those available resources, especially multiple CPU cores. Specific use cases means that we should look at specific tests and not just general everyday usage anecdotes or results of possibly biased commercial benchmark applications.

From my personal experience: I've been running a 6-core AMD FX fore some time and I can't find anything wrong with it. When I selected that rig I came to the conclusion that I could get more than enough performance for much less bucks compared to Intel. And one should also remember to factor not only CPU price, but also the motherboard, and the pace of abandoning old sockets (which leads to full rig overhaul in case of an upgrade).
Indiscipline is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2017, 11:56 PM   #9
zeekat
Human being with feelings
 
zeekat's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Polandia
Posts: 1,576
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Indiscipline View Post
Do you have any measurements or real-world tests to support this statement? Don't get me wrong, I know the current AMD line-up is far older than Intel's and their architecture is inferior to the most up-to-date Intel CPUs. But I've been hearing this all these years, even when AMD just had released their most modern CPUs. And almost never you get any supporting evidence.
Except all the benchmark articles? I was buying the new CPU relatively recently and all the benchmarks I've read showed that AMD is no discussion outclassed in raw single core speed. They're making it up somehow by having a bunch of relatively cheap 8-core CPUs which looks decent in multi-threaded benchmarks (in relation to price), but they're still no match for i7s really. I hope new AMDs will change it, it's getting a bit boring.

BTW, how heavy project has to be to actually make recent i7 feel it's working at all? With my kind of projects with like 6 guitar tracks (amp-simmed), drums, some samples and a bunch VAs even a 2008 dual core wasn't overloaded. I suppose it must be some heavy Hans-Zimmer or Junkie XL soundtrack-grade monumental sounding stuff. Or I'm lucky enough to use only CPU-light plugs.
__________________
Lower mid tier soundcloud music
soundclouds|youtubes
zeekat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2017, 01:13 AM   #10
ivansc
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Near Cambridge UK and Near Questembert, France
Posts: 14,888
Default

I was 100% AMD fdor years until I finally gave up after my 6 core Athlon2 started struggling.
There just wasnt a viable AMD "step up" at the time so I went with an i7 4770k.
I have no idea what current AMD performance is like but I havent seen anyone saying they are as good as the Intel equivalent for DAW work, let alone better.
__________________
Today is the anniversary of the death of the famous Irish inventor, Professor Patrick Pending. Not a lot of people know that....
ivansc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2017, 06:12 AM   #11
easyrider
Human being with feelings
 
easyrider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: East Coast UK
Posts: 24
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OldTascam View Post
Trying to figure out what would be the best CPU to build my system around.
By best, I mean fastest and most reliable. Does anyone know of any test data that compares performance of various CPUs with Reaper (or if not with Reaper, then with any DAW software)?

If there's no hard data, what CPU would you recommend, and why? TIA!
Budget?

This will be the factor most influential to your decision.
__________________
Tech:Roland Octa Capture / Yamaha MT120S :D / Xeon 4 core /Win 10 Pro 64-bit /Reaper V5.311 / Shure DMK57-52 /Rode NT1/ Oktava MK-012
Mic Pre's Focusrite ISA One/ DAV Electronics BG1/ Joe Meek VC3
easyrider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2017, 11:43 AM   #12
Softsynth
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 2,731
Default

Indiscipline,
Ivan and Zeekat have pretty much said it all.

I haven't looked into the upcoming new for 2017 AMD "Ryzen" chips recently, but it is nice to see AMD battling on with new designs. I hope they can give Intel some real competition once again with good performance and efficiency.

I have had plenty of AMD CPUs in the past.
Softsynth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2017, 09:22 PM   #13
7string
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 25
Default

I did two builds over Christmas vacation. Agonized over the parts selection. One i7-6700K and one i5-6600K with Z170 motherboards. Both turned out excellent. The biggest mistake was not going microATX on both of them. My ATX case and motherbord is huge and clunky. My sons microATX i5 gamer is packaged perfectly. The Fractal cases are really nice.
An i5-6600K with a Gigabyte gamer motherboard is more than enough to get some work done in Reaper. Really low prices lately.
My old AMD X4-965 from 2009 still runs Reaper perfectly with amp sims and EZdrummer and a bunch of other VST with Win10 even.
7string is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-18-2017, 07:39 AM   #14
Germps112
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Finland
Posts: 176
Default

If one is not into eletronic music, even then i5 with reaper is enough . Een with electronic music with synths that crank up unison and have modeled filters, i found one cool feature its called FREEZE
Germps112 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-18-2017, 07:45 AM   #15
EvilDragon
Human being with feelings
 
EvilDragon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Croatia
Posts: 18,213
Default

I went for i7-6700K (mild OC to have it in constant "turbo" at 4.5 GHz) with AsRock Z140 Extreme 4 and a very nice Fractal Design Define R2 XL case. I don't believe in microATX
EvilDragon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-18-2017, 10:44 AM   #16
Softsynth
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 2,731
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EvilDragon View Post
I went for i7-6700K (mild OC to have it in constant "turbo" at 4.5 GHz) with AsRock Z140 Extreme 4 and a very nice Fractal Design Define R2 XL case. I don't believe in microATX
Micro ATX can be a fine choice IF it has all the features you need. Performance differential is not an issue.
Micro can of course be used in a full size case.

If you can get a better deal on a micro ATX board then do not rule them out, especially if your current motherboard dies in the future and options are reduced.

Often people make the mistake of wasting money to get an SLI board when they are not buying multiple high end graphics cards!!!
This ALONE substantially increases the price (with no other performance enhancements). Quad SLI worse still. A pointless feature unless you are going to be using the graphics muscle of thousands of pounds worth of GPUs.
Softsynth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-18-2017, 10:48 AM   #17
EvilDragon
Human being with feelings
 
EvilDragon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Croatia
Posts: 18,213
Default

The only reason I didn't want a mATX board is the number of SATA ports and PCIe ports (not for graphics cards, but for other stuff like firewire card, 8x SAS HBA for even more SATA connectivity, Thunderbolt riser card that AsRock has for Z170, etc.)... they always have a lower number of them compared to ATX offerings... Plus they'd look bloody ridiculous in a big tower, wouldn't it Sure they can be used in big towers, that doesn't mean it's always a good idea

Why I needed more SATA connectivity: if you want to use an M.2 for SSD, you lose 2 SATA ports, no matter how many the mobo has. Period. That's how the Z170 chipset works. So that shaped my choice.
EvilDragon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-18-2017, 10:56 AM   #18
Softsynth
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 2,731
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EvilDragon View Post
The only reason I didn't want a mATX board is the number of SATA ports and PCIe ports (not for graphics cards, but for other stuff like firewire card, 8x SAS HBA for even more SATA connectivity, Thunderbolt riser card that AsRock has for Z170, etc.)... they always have a lower number of them compared to ATX offerings... Plus they'd look bloody ridiculous in a big tower, wouldn't it Sure they can be used in big towers, that doesn't mean it's always a good idea

If you have a very large tower then yeah, a bit of a waste of space. Even so it depends of why you are buying a motherboard, which features you really need, and what's available at the time; Latest CPU will have many options, used bargain Intel CPU not so much (such as bargain 1155 CPUs).

If a well heeled hardcore gamer an SLI board is obviously the right choice, but full ATX boards without SLI but all the same features (other than snazzy style gamer heatsinks) can be had typically for half the price, or even less with all the same features and same performance other than the potential for top gaming cards.
Softsynth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2017, 03:13 AM   #19
easyrider
Human being with feelings
 
easyrider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: East Coast UK
Posts: 24
Default

My last three builds have been micro atx in silent cases...
__________________
Tech:Roland Octa Capture / Yamaha MT120S :D / Xeon 4 core /Win 10 Pro 64-bit /Reaper V5.311 / Shure DMK57-52 /Rode NT1/ Oktava MK-012
Mic Pre's Focusrite ISA One/ DAV Electronics BG1/ Joe Meek VC3
easyrider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2017, 03:40 AM   #20
reapercurious
Human being with feelings
 
reapercurious's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,567
Default

http://ark.intel.com/products/93790

https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3672/...093b6081_o.jpg
reapercurious is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2017, 02:01 PM   #21
ivansc
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Near Cambridge UK and Near Questembert, France
Posts: 14,888
Default

Early Smerk!!!!!

Wonder what the current draw is on that little puppy....
__________________
Today is the anniversary of the death of the famous Irish inventor, Professor Patrick Pending. Not a lot of people know that....
ivansc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2017, 04:05 AM   #22
Germps112
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Finland
Posts: 176
Default Ryzen

Watch out, i saw just the last videos about ryzen, amazing price and perfomance is even better compared the 8 core vs 8 core ryzen top of the line, with half price lol, intel is kidding right ?
Germps112 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2017, 04:58 AM   #23
Softsynth
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 2,731
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Germps112 View Post
Watch out, i saw just the last videos about ryzen, amazing price and perfomance is even better compared the 8 core vs 8 core ryzen top of the line, with half price lol, intel is kidding right ?
what video?
Softsynth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2017, 05:13 AM   #24
Softsynth
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 2,731
Default

Looks like AMD are finally in the game again!

http://wccftech.com/intel-amd-price-...en-processors/

http://tech.firstpost.com/news-analy...an-363823.html

http://www.pcadvisor.co.uk/new-produ...tures-3643552/
Softsynth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2017, 06:31 AM   #25
Germps112
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Finland
Posts: 176
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Softsynth View Post
what video?
Linustech from YouTube, if iam right he has the AMD ryzen videos, tests, prices
Germps112 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2017, 06:52 AM   #26
serr
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 5,778
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zeekat View Post
BTW, how heavy project has to be to actually make recent i7 feel it's working at all? With my kind of projects with like 6 guitar tracks (amp-simmed), drums, some samples and a bunch VAs even a 2008 dual core wasn't overloaded. I suppose it must be some heavy Hans-Zimmer or Junkie XL soundtrack-grade monumental sounding stuff. Or I'm lucky enough to use only CPU-light plugs.
My 8 core machine from 2009 has 2 Xeon X5570 i7 2.98 - 3.33GHz CPUs.
I've had mixes up with almost 300 tracks and at least as many plugins. (Not just ReaEQ either. Convolution reverbs, Waves linear phase stuff, and other big things.) Lots of automation too. I still haven't hit the back wall. Not sure what I'd have to do that wasn't just silly (open 100 convolution reverbs on top of that or use just wrong system settings).

My late 2008 laptop has a dual core 2.8 C2D.
I can run live sound with 36 inputs and about 60 plugins. (SSL channel strip on every input to begin with. - I like the simplicity for live sound use there.) Under 11ms RTL low latency live setup. Plus simultaneous recording of all the live inputs to multitrack. This DOES push the poor machine (> 90% CPU, fans on high) but it does this error free. With this same job, the Mac Pro above is just at idle the whole time.

I don't play with the MIDI instrument plugins so I can't comment on that. I do believe there are a few extremely silly ones that can use a lot of processing though FWIW.

Yeah, I'm not sure how to max out an i7 system either!

A buggy 3rd party plugin can be a show stopper with only 3 tracks up though.

I'll also say this again:
Put a SSD in your system before upgrading CPU! They are both variables of course but the SSD will have the biggest impact.

The era where you'd say "The mix isn't finished until the computer is maxed out." ended around 2008.
__________________
Mac Pro 8x3.33GHz i7, 16GB, 256GB SSD(OS, apps), 3x2TB 7200 HD(data); MacBook Pro 2.8GHz, 6GB, 128GB SSD HD(OS, apps), 750GB 7200 HD(data); 2xTrue Precision 8; Apogee AD-16; 2xMOTU 828mk3, Evolution UC-33e; Faderport; WiRanger, iPad & the analog mixer has retired

Last edited by serr; 02-26-2017 at 09:43 AM.
serr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2017, 08:32 AM   #27
SmajjL
Human being with feelings
 
SmajjL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Milky Way 999.999.999th floor :)
Posts: 1,471
Default

Would not in DAW-land - 'how many U-he Divas can your CPU run, only' - be more specific because saying only plug-ins/tracks won't due for me and if it is Rea-stuff, 10.000 tracks, pft, wow..
Some hungry VST synth to make it simple, no need to have 300 tracks is my wish of a review so we all can compare and get an ah-ha, faster, and the lovely SSDs is out of the test also.
Would loooOoove to see a DAW review and I for one will start gaming again also, because I miss teh whine'ers.
If you stumble on a DAW review, let me/us know will ya?
__________________
White belt penguin. :)

Last edited by SmajjL; 02-26-2017 at 08:37 AM. Reason: only feb 26th, meh.. :)
SmajjL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2017, 07:13 AM   #28
acintya
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 220
Default

just for fun...

I can run 10 DIVAs on ULTRA with a complicated game midi file.

you guys??



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ya4lEuCmxA
acintya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2017, 09:16 AM   #29
SmajjL
Human being with feelings
 
SmajjL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Milky Way 999.999.999th floor :)
Posts: 1,471
Default

Here is also a little un-pro'ish example quick curiosity fun thingie.
Diva with the patch BT flex butter seq (accuracy great) just copied across the tracks on a Airwolf .midi and looped where there was something playing.
Also, I noticed if a added a Diva and changed to devine, and then copied the Diva to next track etc, the copied ones ended up with (accuracy great) anyway for some reason.
So, great only and.... no clue why my computer say 4.22 GHz, not overclocked mine as far as I know.. but hey!
Can't wait to see Ryzen, starts with an R also, now how cool is that?

__________________
White belt penguin. :)

Last edited by SmajjL; 02-28-2017 at 09:58 AM. Reason: Forgot to say thank you, how rude, I shall now discipline myself, but not in public me thinks. ;)
SmajjL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2017, 10:30 AM   #30
Judders
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 3,440
Default

Shouldn't running temperatures be a big consideration? In terms of cooling, I mean.

I know I would never use my AMD system for audio, it makes way too much noise!
Judders is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2017, 11:01 AM   #31
Softsynth
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 2,731
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by acintya View Post
just for fun...

I can run 10 DIVAs on ULTRA with a complicated game midi file.

you guys??



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ya4lEuCmxA
Diva varies massively from patch to patch and render mode. A fairly modest PC will cope with 10 mono patches. However 3 or 4 high voice count poly patches in divine mode is another matter.
Check voice, stack and render/accuracy mode for those patches.
Softsynth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2017, 11:03 AM   #32
Softsynth
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 2,731
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Judders View Post
Shouldn't running temperatures be a big consideration? In terms of cooling, I mean.

I know I would never use my AMD system for audio, it makes way too much noise!
Methinks the new Ryzen CPUs would be another matter. Intel knows this too as they slash prices to compete. The virtual CPU monopoly is looking more like a duopoly now.
Softsynth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2017, 11:23 AM   #33
SmajjL
Human being with feelings
 
SmajjL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Milky Way 999.999.999th floor :)
Posts: 1,471
Default

Some go for bigger/better CPU coolers so they can overclock, but one can also chose to use the fancy cooler for silence instead of overclocking with user defined settings, I have a simple option in the BIOS and I bet there is software also called fanspeed or something if the thing supports it.
Not all to distant generation GPUs have almost blow my feet off but thankfully that have improved also and they can be user controlled also.
I thhhink GPUs are totally silent today below say 60c'sh or something. (3rd party GPU coolers atleast)
I am not bringing up the coilwhine thing on purpose as the subject itself, the word itself scare the crap out of me.
Very long cables and the computer in someone's else (your ex's) house works also.
__________________
White belt penguin. :)

Last edited by SmajjL; 02-28-2017 at 11:36 AM.
SmajjL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2017, 12:04 PM   #34
acintya
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 220
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SmajjL View Post
Here is also a little un-pro'ish example quick curiosity fun thingie.
Diva with the patch BT flex butter seq (accuracy great) just copied across the tracks on a Airwolf .midi and looped where there was something playing.
Also, I noticed if a added a Diva and changed to devine, and then copied the Diva to next track etc, the copied ones ended up with (accuracy great) anyway for some reason.
So, great only and.... no clue why my computer say 4.22 GHz, not overclocked mine as far as I know.. but hey!
Can't wait to see Ryzen, starts with an R also, now how cool is that?

if you send me the midi - I will let you know how much my computer can handle - I have dual xeon 12 core. but yeah - I could survive with one Xeon because its just too much for reaper.
acintya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2017, 12:18 PM   #35
SmajjL
Human being with feelings
 
SmajjL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Milky Way 999.999.999th floor :)
Posts: 1,471
Default

Good idea acintya-man.
But it was a quickie MIDI-pick I did and I kinda wish I picked a more busy one, but fear not! I shall make up for it. (tomorrow) yes sir.
__________________
White belt penguin. :)
SmajjL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2017, 12:30 PM   #36
acintya
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 220
Default

anyone have some tips for me? just tried almost everything but reaper really doesnt use half of my cores ------can be the sound card the problem? I have Saffire pro 14 through firewire through a PCI-E FW adapter . . because my mainboard does not support firewire.
acintya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 06:50 AM   #37
SmajjL
Human being with feelings
 
SmajjL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Milky Way 999.999.999th floor :)
Posts: 1,471
Default

http://stash.reaper.fm/30006/cpu.rpp
Could be done more complicated, but hey, we have a reference atleast to play with.

Ps, pref/general>advanced UI/system tweaks have stuff for the CPU to try at own risk.
__________________
White belt penguin. :)
SmajjL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 07:54 AM   #38
dug dog
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: With Elvis Watching The Deflectives
Posts: 380
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by acintya View Post
anyone have some tips for me?
I recently read on these forums that, if you have a lot of CPU intensive stuff on ONE track, then Reaper (or maybe your computer?) will not be able to spread the work out very well over multiple cores.

I have confirmed this to be the case on my own machine in projects that have a lot of processing on the master buss.
dug dog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 08:32 AM   #39
serr
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 5,778
Default

For audio work in general there will be one thread that handles the real time delivery of audio data to your connected interface. (Called the RT thread in Reaper and Reaper's performance meter.) If your system cannot keep up with that thread it doesn't matter if there are 1000 cores still available. You're done!

The rule of thumb for a DAW system is still CPU speed first, multiple cores 2nd.

And since we're dealing directly with streaming data with the I/O system, a SSD in the system can give more bang for the buck than a faster CPU with a standard HDD.

There are multiple variables and a threshold for everything of course but those are the bullet points.
__________________
Mac Pro 8x3.33GHz i7, 16GB, 256GB SSD(OS, apps), 3x2TB 7200 HD(data); MacBook Pro 2.8GHz, 6GB, 128GB SSD HD(OS, apps), 750GB 7200 HD(data); 2xTrue Precision 8; Apogee AD-16; 2xMOTU 828mk3, Evolution UC-33e; Faderport; WiRanger, iPad & the analog mixer has retired
serr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 08:41 AM   #40
Judders
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 3,440
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by serr View Post
And since we're dealing directly with streaming data with the I/O system, a SSD in the system can give more bang for the buck than a faster CPU with a standard HDD.
Not if the user in question uses software instruments more than they use multitrack audio. It will be different again depending on whether they mostly use sample-based or modelled software instruments.
Judders is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:04 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.