Old 02-09-2018, 06:10 AM   #1
Tubeguy
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 657
Default Multicore CPU for DAW?

Is there any point of getting PC with say 4 core CPU for DAW? Over the years I always opted for single core because they are the fastest when running single application (lower latency). I hardly use any VST instruments, just basic plugins. What do you guys think, faster single core or slower multitcore, any pros/cons?
If anyone wonders, I have 3.8ghz single core. It's all the power I need but would like to know my options.
Tubeguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2018, 06:14 AM   #2
EvilDragon
Human being with feelings
 
EvilDragon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Croatia
Posts: 24,790
Default

Yes, of course there is! Most DAWs utilize multicores nowadays. The more cores and the faster they are, the better.
EvilDragon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2018, 08:07 AM   #3
richie43
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 9,090
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EvilDragon View Post
Yes, of course there is! Most DAWs utilize multicores nowadays. The more cores and the faster they are, the better.
Plus, is there even such a thing as a modern high-powered single CPU in existence?
__________________
The Sounds of the Hear and Now.
richie43 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2018, 08:10 AM   #4
EvilDragon
Human being with feelings
 
EvilDragon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Croatia
Posts: 24,790
Default

Nope.
EvilDragon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2018, 08:17 AM   #5
Dr Bob
Human being with feelings
 
Dr Bob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Yorkshire, UK
Posts: 2,063
Default

Reaper just loves my i7 8700K processor!!!

dB
Dr Bob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2018, 08:22 AM   #6
karbomusic
Human being with feelings
 
karbomusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 29,260
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tubeguy View Post
single core because they are the fastest when running single application (lower latency).
I'm not sure how that's even possible unless it is a very simple, single-threaded application. In every other scenario, multi-core will be faster.
__________________
Music is what feelings sound like.
karbomusic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2018, 08:25 AM   #7
Xenakios
Human being with feelings
 
Xenakios's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oulu, Finland
Posts: 8,062
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tubeguy View Post
when running single application
Only the most simple applications these days use only a single thread (CPU core). Even older DAW apps that didn't explicitly support multiple CPUs for plugin processing etc would use multiple threads, at least for the GUI and the audio.
__________________
I am no longer part of the REAPER community. Please don't contact me with any REAPER-related issues.
Xenakios is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2018, 10:54 AM   #8
Softsynth
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 8,696
Default

Tubeguy,
Single core today?
Even a new top end desktop i3 will outperform a P4 3.8ghz significantly, even in single core tasks. An i5 or i7 desktop of similar clock speed made in the last 6yrs will be a giant leap, provided you need the power.
Softsynth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2018, 06:33 PM   #9
Cableaddict
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,910
Default

If the question were,

"Faster 4-6 core, or slower 8-16 core?" then it gets more interesting.

Last edited by Cableaddict; 02-11-2018 at 02:08 PM.
Cableaddict is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2018, 01:42 AM   #10
Tubeguy
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 657
Default

Didn't know DAW would utilize multicore. I do have a 3.6ghz 4 core in my office. Never had DAW on it but I can safely say that games I share on my single core 3.8ghz DAW computer run much smoother. Both PCs just use onboard graphics and the 4 core one is only 4 months old. Both are just bottom price PCs. So that's why I was asking because one day I might want to upgrade so don't wanna be worse off.
Tubeguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2018, 02:04 AM   #11
EvilDragon
Human being with feelings
 
EvilDragon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Croatia
Posts: 24,790
Default

Majority of games aren't employing multicores that much or at all, so for them a faster base clock is better.
EvilDragon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2018, 02:53 AM   #12
machinesworking
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 121
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cableaddict View Post
If the question were,

"Faster 4-6core, or slower 8-16 core?" then it gets more interesting.
True. I do not know about Reaper, but other DAWs generally assign cores on a per track basis, so if you have a fast CPU 4 core VS a slower CPU 12 core you will get great performance off of multi tracking with the 12, and better performance off of say heavy CPU hogging mastering plug ins on the Master track with the faster single CPU 4 core.

What's interesting to me is how Urs and co. prove this isn't cut and dried with their clever multi core using plug ins. Now if only NI could figure this out for Kontakt and it's processor heavy scripting.
machinesworking is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2018, 02:57 AM   #13
EvilDragon
Human being with feelings
 
EvilDragon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Croatia
Posts: 24,790
Default

Kontakt already supports multicore processing (and it's per voice, rather than per loaded instrument). Its scripting isn't processor heavy, but it depends on what you do with it. If a library has a lot of heavy graphics (say, 8dio or Sample Logic, for example), that CAN interfere with things, because KSP graphics are ran in the realtime audio thread (but I've been told NI is working on separating graphics from audio thread so things are executed faster).
EvilDragon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2018, 04:51 AM   #14
Jason Lyon
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 720
Default

Multi-core usage is, in the simplest and most general terms, all about the extent to which a task can be easily parallelised. It's really just about what you can give a bunch of guys to be getting on with.

DAWs are naturally suitable for parallelisation, since there are lots of tasks going on that can be usefully processed independently of each other. DAWs are ultimately nothing more than ways of lining up loads of different audio clips and playing them together. Just summing them would be trivial for a computer, but nowadays we also apply live processing hoopla on a per-track basis.

One core can be working on compressing your kick track, while another is fuzzing your guitar, another is EQing your vocal, another is running your MIDI string section, etc. Yet another will be updating the display, and another might be decoding and playing back the video clip you're working to, and so on.

So only four or six cores for dozens of tasks? Task management at the CPU level is relatively easy to automate - a scheduler finds the least active core and throws the next task chunk at it. The cores don't care whether they're fuzzing, EQing or crunching video data at any given time - they can turn their hand to anything.

(Incidentally, threading doesn't mean doubling the number of cores - it just means feeding them faster. But 4 will display as 8 - good for marketing.)

By contrast, a game tends to be more linear - it more often and more unpredictably requires tasks to wait for results from another completed task before proceeding. Silicon Fred sits around drinking coffee until silicon Bill has finished.

The one element of modern games that can be reliably parallelised is graphics rendering.

The CPU will say "these objects are in these states and are there, there and there - oh and the sun is there, but it's cloudy", then hands things on to the GPU, which contains hundreds or thousands of tiny specialist parallel cores. It's essentially a trigonometry sweatshop where each worker takes a piece of an assigned object (for which the data model is in the GPU's own memory), works on it to determine the geometrical representation to the viewer and then announces a colour for one pixel. Over and over again, millions of times a second, to produce a full screen refresh maybe up to 120 times a second.

This leaves the CPU free to work on all other aspects of the program.

So that's why a slower multi-core will perform better in a DAW and a faster single core will perform better in a game (generally - there are some nowadays that are cleverly optimised to use more).
Jason Lyon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2018, 05:10 AM   #15
EvilDragon
Human being with feelings
 
EvilDragon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Croatia
Posts: 24,790
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Lyon View Post
So that's why a slower multi-core will perform better in a DAW
Well, not really. The slower the multi-core is, the less you can put strain on the main audio RT thread. Once that one falls over (and on slow CPUs, it will happen fast), you're shit out of luck.

This is why the faster the better, the more cores the better.
EvilDragon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2018, 05:29 AM   #16
drumphil
Human being with feelings
 
drumphil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 3,738
Default

Well, depending on exactly what you are doing, faster cores may be more useful than more cores. If you are recording a bunch of tracks simultaneously then a CPU with higher single core performance may be more useful than a CPU with more cores, and less performance per core.

What I don't understand fully is whether or not there is a better way of doing things that doesn't need everything being recorded to be run on one core.
drumphil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2018, 05:30 AM   #17
Dr Bob
Human being with feelings
 
Dr Bob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Yorkshire, UK
Posts: 2,063
Default

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^..... YES, what EV says ....

Fastest core means the Real Time process to push out your audio on time will give the best performance DAW-wise.

Many cores means e.g. Reaper can farm out FX on your tracks to many cpus and not compete with the Real Time (RT) process! Also, many VSTi vendors are programming in multi-core use, so the advantages of multiple cores will grow.

My i7 8700K rarely sees the Real Time (RT) cpu go about a couple of %! The Track FX can go up into the 10% or so, depending on the VSTi used and the cpu claim of the FX in the fx-chain for that track.

Mind you, you are talking pricey very high end at present. In a few years/months time, it will be superceded, and then will be the processor of choice for budget systems!

So, bottom line for DAW work - fastest cpu + many cores, unless your work is very much recording many tracks at the same time. But then, even today's newest cpus are very very fast.

HTH

dB
Dr Bob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2018, 06:04 AM   #18
Jason Lyon
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 720
Default

Well obviously faster and more is going to be better. And it depends on usage.

Depends what you want. For simple data spurting, I've hitched a not very good laptop up to a 24-channel desk for live tracking with no problems. (And only two of the desk channels were knackered... not bad odds - at least I identified them beforehand.)
Jason Lyon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2018, 07:45 AM   #19
karbomusic
Human being with feelings
 
karbomusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 29,260
Default

A single core is a bottleneck for the entire computer including the OS and every driver on it. That means when a context switch occurs every single thread on the box comes to a complete stop, move the registers/state to memory for the existing thread, populate all the registers for the waiting thread, run for one quanta, rinse, repeat. Are there scenarios where something like 36 cores is no better for audio the 24, yes, are their scenarios where only one CPU is faster than more than one, highly unlikely in any real-world practical usage.
__________________
Music is what feelings sound like.

Last edited by karbomusic; 02-10-2018 at 10:58 AM.
karbomusic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2018, 10:51 AM   #20
machinesworking
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 121
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EvilDragon View Post
Kontakt already supports multicore processing (and it's per voice, rather than per loaded instrument). Its scripting isn't processor heavy, but it depends on what you do with it. If a library has a lot of heavy graphics (say, 8dio or Sample Logic, for example), that CAN interfere with things, because KSP graphics are ran in the realtime audio thread (but I've been told NI is working on separating graphics from audio thread so things are executed faster).
What comes to mind is Cinesamples Cinestrings, pretty much the only libraries that bog down my CPU, two six core 3.34ghz. Xeons in a modded Mac Pro. I thought I would stack a couple into a single tack and it wasn't too pleasant, on separate tracks it seems to work just fine. Now compare that to Diva or Repro 5 etc. and hitting multi core immediately solves any problems dropping the CPU down to nothing. If NI are doing multicore in Kontakt IMO they simply aren't doing it that well. Oh, and to be clear Cinesmples libraries are sitting on a SM951 M.2 running at 1500mbs in and out. It could be an issue with Digital Performer, haven't tried it in Reaper or Logic, but I just got into reaper and recently got a copy of Logic after not having it for years.
machinesworking is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2018, 11:49 AM   #21
EvilDragon
Human being with feelings
 
EvilDragon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Croatia
Posts: 24,790
Default

I would say that's unoptimized scripting and/or unnecessarily heavy graphics then. I've seen it happen before.

NI does multiprocessing just fine, but scripting cannot be multiprocessed as it runs in the audio thread (which is only on one core). Use separate tracks then.

Last edited by EvilDragon; 02-10-2018 at 11:55 AM.
EvilDragon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2018, 02:46 AM   #22
Tubeguy
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 657
Default

Ok, but how about for stuff like Internet. Some sites have heavy scripting that can after a while bog down the PC to a near stop and one needs to reload the page to clear it all up. How is that for multicores? My office multicore and my single core studio PC both get bogged down about the same from scripts etc. Not that it happens often but it does.
Tubeguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2018, 03:45 AM   #23
drumphil
Human being with feelings
 
drumphil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 3,738
Default

The most powerful per core CPU will also be one with many cores these days. The trade off between how many cores you get, and the performance of each core is the real issue to consider.

It's not like you can go out and buy a 8ghz single core CPU. But you might get better value out of a higher clocked quad core compared to a lower clocked 6 or 8 core CPU depending on your workload.
drumphil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2018, 12:11 PM   #24
machinesworking
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 121
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EvilDragon View Post
I would say that's unoptimized scripting and/or unnecessarily heavy graphics then. I've seen it happen before.

NI does multiprocessing just fine, but scripting cannot be multiprocessed as it runs in the audio thread (which is only on one core). Use separate tracks then.
Cinesamples has both I would guess, so yeah that makes sense. The real killer is it's legato strings, sound great, but the scripting is obviously taxing the system big time. Literally the only plug ins that have been brutal on the 12x 3.34ghz mac pro here have been Cinesamples when I load two instances into kontakt of the more heavy scripted patches, and Diva/Repro 5 not in multicore mode, I still don't get why Urs and co. decided to leave it off by default? are there really that many people with single core machines left?
machinesworking is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2018, 12:23 PM   #25
EvilDragon
Human being with feelings
 
EvilDragon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Croatia
Posts: 24,790
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by machinesworking View Post
I still don't get why Urs and co. decided to leave it off by default? are there really that many people with single core machines left?
Because u-he wants this to be a conscious decision by the user, because depending on the size of the project, multicore button can actually do more harm than good, depending on DAW used and how it balances work across cores...
EvilDragon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2018, 01:19 PM   #26
machinesworking
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 121
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EvilDragon View Post
Because u-he wants this to be a conscious decision by the user, because depending on the size of the project, multicore button can actually do more harm than good, depending on DAW used and how it balances work across cores...
OK that makes sense, both as to why Urs has it off by default and why most DAWs don't assign more than one core to a single track.
machinesworking is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2018, 01:29 PM   #27
EvilDragon
Human being with feelings
 
EvilDragon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Croatia
Posts: 24,790
Default

It's not possible to assign more than one core to a single track because processing on a single track is serial, which cannot be parallelized at all.
EvilDragon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2018, 01:54 PM   #28
tack
Human being with feelings
 
tack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,618
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EvilDragon View Post
It's not possible to assign more than one core to a single track because processing on a single track is serial, which cannot be parallelized at all.
I think it's theoretically possible. Recall the design in this thread I started about how I thought anticipative FX worked. Turns out I was wrong about how it works in practice, but I think the idea is sound.
tack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2018, 03:02 PM   #29
EvilDragon
Human being with feelings
 
EvilDragon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Croatia
Posts: 24,790
Default

Yeah, theory and practice don't always go hand in hand
EvilDragon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2018, 01:08 PM   #30
X. O. Apodo
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 122
Default

Let me present a real case scenario?

Current music PC: Intel W3690 3.5 GHz 6 core.
I prefer not to overclock.
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php....47GHz&id=1275

Thinking of upgrading my current setup or getting an AMD or even an Intel CPU.

Ryzen 1950x 3.4GHz 16 cores $700 Average - CPU Mark 22154
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php...+1950X&id=3058

Ryzen 1920x 3.5 GHz 12 cores $550 - Average CPU Mark 18380
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php...+1920X&id=3062

Ryzen 2700 3.7 GHz 8 core $300 - Average CPU Mark 16948
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php...+2700X&id=3238

Will there be any significant advantage to upgrade?

I can devote $1500 for CPU, cooler, 24 or 32 GB RAM and Motherboard. I can use my current ATX case, 850 watt PSU, GTX 970 GPU PCIe.

My main DAW will either be Reaper 6 or Studio One 4. May also consider Cubase 10, FL Studio 20 or the next Samplitude. I use only VST instruments and effects.

Edit: Perhaps this thread was more appropriate: CPU audio performance : Processors with faster cores v.s. a higher core count? https://www.gearslutz.com/board/musi...ore-count.html but posted here so I will live with posting here.
__________________
Multi-touch Monitor, XotoPad 2 and iPad Air as Midi Controllers, iConnectMIDI2+,
Windows 10 64 bit, Reaper 6, Waves Horizon, Komplete 12, Iris 2, Some Melda, PSP, SonoKinetic, Eventide, Blue Cat Audio, Homegrown.

Last edited by X. O. Apodo; 10-07-2018 at 03:26 PM. Reason: added Average CPU Mark
X. O. Apodo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2018, 06:00 PM   #31
JSMastering
Human being with feelings
 
JSMastering's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Posts: 212
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by X. O. Apodo View Post
Let me present a real case scenario?
It should be an upgrade. That Xeon is from 2011, and modern processors are better. Whether it'll make a noticeable improvement for you depends on how hard you push your computer.

It certainly seems like Reaper makes great use of multiple cores/threads. So, if you can't maximize both, I'd go for a higher clock. But within each price bracket, there doesn't seem to be all that much variation.

As for AMD vs. Intel, that's more technical but actually a bit simpler.

Intel performs better for real-time audio work; Ryzen can show an advantage for offline rendering.

The short version of it is that on Intels, all of the CPU Cores are on the same die and share the connection to system memory. On the AMDs, different dies are connected to different memory channels, and it can (and does) happen that a thread running on one die needs data in memory that's attached to another die's DMA lanes, which involves a slower transfer to the appropriate cache.

It's the same as how, back in the day, single-processor systems beat multi-processor systems for tasks that needed real time processing.

Intel consistently beats AMD at DAWBench. But, the difference isn't huge. Either would be an upgrade. But, the prices are so close...a top end Ryzen 7 and i7 are within $100 for each other, and motherboard costs are comparable.

I may be wrong...it's been years since I paid attention to PC hardware, but it looks like the priorities shake out like this...
  1. NVMe SSD, with 4 PCIe lanes you can dedicate to it, preferably from the processor, but from the motherboard chipset is fine as long as you don't overload it with stuff (you cannot use all the features of a modern motherboard without saturating the PCIe lanes).
  2. DDR4 PC2666+ ram with the lowest CAS latency you can afford, or faster if you're going to use XMP or overclock and can do so without sacrificing timing (CAS).
  3. Fast CPU clock, at least 4 cores.
  4. 6 or 8 cores.

With that in mind, I'd use something like this as a starting point:

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel - Core i7-8700 3.2GHz 6-Core Processor ($309.99 @ Amazon)
CPU Cooler: Noctua - NH-U12S 55.0 CFM CPU Cooler ($57.99 @ Amazon)
Motherboard: Gigabyte - Z370 HD3 (rev. 1.0) ATX LGA1151 Motherboard ($119.14 @ Newegg)
Memory: G.Skill - Ripjaws V Series 32GB (2 x 16GB) DDR4-3000 Memory ($356.99 @ Newegg)
Storage: Samsung - 970 Evo 2.0TB M.2-2280 Solid State Drive ($577.99 @ Amazon)
Other: Lycom DT-120 M.2 PCIe to PCIe 3.0 x4 Adapter (Support M.2 PCIe 2280, 2260, 2242) ($21.90 @ Amazon)
Total: $1444.00
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2018-10-06 20:48 EDT-0400

Do NOT consider it a canonical source. I'm not sure if there are specific issues...do some research before blindly taking the advice of some guy off the internet.

If I needed it, I'd add a graphics card (probably an RX 560 unless I also wanted to game; had better luck with them than nvidia in terms of DPC latency). Obviously case, case fans, PSU, more AHCI/SATA SSDs if you need more storage, etc..

The PCIe card for the NVMe SSD is just because you've got the PCIe lanes to spare off the processor (any graphics card I'd use would work fine at x8; I'm not aware of any that actually need x16), and the motherboard M.2 slots go off the chipset, so there could be a minute difference in performance. If you don't need the graphics card, that'll leave you with plenty of lanes for a PCIe Dante/AES/MADI/whatever interface and DSP chips (HDX, UAD-2, whatever). If you do need the graphics card and that other stuff, it seems like it would be better to use the motherboard slots for the SSD.

The Noctua cooler is just because I'm enamored with mine...the stock coolers are all loud. That one is damn near silent.
JSMastering is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2018, 03:39 PM   #32
X. O. Apodo
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 122
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JSMastering View Post
It should be an upgrade. That Xeon is from 2011, and modern processors are better. Whether it'll make a noticeable improvement for you depends on how hard you push your computer.

It certainly seems like Reaper makes great use of multiple cores/threads. So, if you can't maximize both, I'd go for a higher clock. But within each price bracket, there doesn't seem to be all that much variation.

As for AMD vs. Intel, that's more technical but actually a bit simpler.

Intel performs better for real-time audio work; Ryzen can show an advantage for offline rendering.

The short version of it is that on Intels, all of the CPU Cores are on the same die and share the connection to system memory. On the AMDs, different dies are connected to different memory channels, and it can (and does) happen that a thread running on one die needs data in memory that's attached to another die's DMA lanes, which involves a slower transfer to the appropriate cache.

It's the same as how, back in the day, single-processor systems beat multi-processor systems for tasks that needed real time processing.

Intel consistently beats AMD at DAWBench. But, the difference isn't huge. Either would be an upgrade. But, the prices are so close...a top end Ryzen 7 and i7 are within $100 for each other, and motherboard costs are comparable.

I may be wrong...it's been years since I paid attention to PC hardware, but it looks like the priorities shake out like this...
  1. NVMe SSD, with 4 PCIe lanes you can dedicate to it, preferably from the processor, but from the motherboard chipset is fine as long as you don't overload it with stuff (you cannot use all the features of a modern motherboard without saturating the PCIe lanes).
  2. DDR4 PC2666+ ram with the lowest CAS latency you can afford, or faster if you're going to use XMP or overclock and can do so without sacrificing timing (CAS).
  3. Fast CPU clock, at least 4 cores.
  4. 6 or 8 cores.

With that in mind, I'd use something like this as a starting point:

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel - Core i7-8700 3.2GHz 6-Core Processor ($309.99 @ Amazon)
CPU Cooler: Noctua - NH-U12S 55.0 CFM CPU Cooler ($57.99 @ Amazon)
Motherboard: Gigabyte - Z370 HD3 (rev. 1.0) ATX LGA1151 Motherboard ($119.14 @ Newegg)
Memory: G.Skill - Ripjaws V Series 32GB (2 x 16GB) DDR4-3000 Memory ($356.99 @ Newegg)
Storage: Samsung - 970 Evo 2.0TB M.2-2280 Solid State Drive ($577.99 @ Amazon)
Other: Lycom DT-120 M.2 PCIe to PCIe 3.0 x4 Adapter (Support M.2 PCIe 2280, 2260, 2242) ($21.90 @ Amazon)
Total: $1444.00
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2018-10-06 20:48 EDT-0400

Do NOT consider it a canonical source. I'm not sure if there are specific issues...do some research before blindly taking the advice of some guy off the internet.

If I needed it, I'd add a graphics card (probably an RX 560 unless I also wanted to game; had better luck with them than nvidia in terms of DPC latency). Obviously case, case fans, PSU, more AHCI/SATA SSDs if you need more storage, etc..

The PCIe card for the NVMe SSD is just because you've got the PCIe lanes to spare off the processor (any graphics card I'd use would work fine at x8; I'm not aware of any that actually need x16), and the motherboard M.2 slots go off the chipset, so there could be a minute difference in performance. If you don't need the graphics card, that'll leave you with plenty of lanes for a PCIe Dante/AES/MADI/whatever interface and DSP chips (HDX, UAD-2, whatever). If you do need the graphics card and that other stuff, it seems like it would be better to use the motherboard slots for the SSD.

The Noctua cooler is just because I'm enamored with mine...the stock coolers are all loud. That one is damn near silent.
JSMastering, thanks you for your lengthy and detailed reply.

Is the “Average CPU Mark” a reliable number when it comes to music creation?
I am hoping to double the performance of current W3690 CPU on my GA-X58A-UD3R (V2) with 12 GB RAM. My C is 850 EVO 500GB. Data drives are spinners.

Currently Intel W3690 3.5 GHz 6 core - Average CPU Mark 9182 https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php....47GHz&id=1275

Intel Core i7-8700K 3.7GHz 6 cores - $310 - Average CPU Mark 15970
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php....70GHz&id=3098

Your total is $1444 -$578 = $866 without the SSD. I already have all the drives.
__________________
Multi-touch Monitor, XotoPad 2 and iPad Air as Midi Controllers, iConnectMIDI2+,
Windows 10 64 bit, Reaper 6, Waves Horizon, Komplete 12, Iris 2, Some Melda, PSP, SonoKinetic, Eventide, Blue Cat Audio, Homegrown.
X. O. Apodo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2018, 11:57 PM   #33
...For Victory
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: The American Desert
Posts: 3
Default

Hey all. I have some questions some of you might be able to chime in on regarding this topic as I am about to build a new computer from the ground up for the first time in almost 8.5, yes 8.5 years....

It is finally time to put my trusty AMD 1090t 6 core out to pasture that has served me so well for all these years now that Intel is about to drop their new 9th gen processors. I am still open to the 2700x and possibly the 2950x as well but know there are issues with the Threadrippers.

I am actually interested in finding out if someone has run the 2950x with dedicating half of the CPU to Reaper live recording only, leaving the other half of the computer to run Windows and everything else and assigning the reaper workload to the cores/ram to improve the latency issue that plagues them for our specific purpose. Anyone try that with the 1950/2050x? 8c/16th is more than enough for me, especially if the rest of the computer was running on its own with minimal interference.

I had actually locked Reaper to 4 out of 6 cores of my computer and got along pretty well with it like that. I'd have around 16 tracks (1 of which was Superior Drummer on a midi track where I would play live to tape so to speak) and about 40 plugs running (waves, fab filter, ik multimedia mostly) while recording before I ran into issues with cracking and popping at 24bit 48k 2.8 ms reported latency through my Antelope Zen Tour module through USB.

I have already picked up everything but the actual CPU and Mainboard and this is what I have so far.....

Samsung pro 970 512mb (os/programs)
Crucial MX500 1tb (drum samples)
Patriot 32gb single rank 3600 c16 ram
EVGA liquid cooler
EVGA 750watt power supply
Sapphire RX580 Video card
Fractal Design R4 case
Gigabyte Thunderbolt 3 AIO card (if I go intel)
WD 4tb Black for recording files

All really good stuff.....

I was holding out for the i9 9900k until I started hearing rumors of the price being in the $550-600 range simply because I want to use thunderbolt with the Zen Tour and the boards being $275.00-$350.00....Yikes. That's Threadripper territory if the latency can be tweaked in the aforementioned configuration, Hence my question about that earlier. Hopefully, the rumors aren't true when Intel does the official announcement tomorrow.

If not, 2700x it is as I can live without TB functionality since the Zen gets really low as it is and should get even lower on a new system running at 4ghz vs. 3.2. Besides, I can swap it out next year when they probably double the core count on the 3000 series Ryzens since the boards will accept them.

Anyways, any input from anyone would be cool. I am finally going to re-record pretty much everything I've ever written since I am dealing with a major injury and between jobs right now because of it, so I am eager to put this time to good use because who knows if I will ever get this kind of opportunity time wise again. It would be nice to start this crazy project on a brand spankin new computer AND REAPER 6 HINT HINT HINT

Actually, someone mentioned prepaying for 6 now to avoid the whole losing the upgrade to the next numbered version. I really think the powers that be should consider it, if they are pretty close (a month or 2) from releasing it. Take my money now please

Thanks in advance.....
...For Victory is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2018, 12:20 AM   #34
CDS
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 516
Default

Just get an I-9, you will be ready for what ever you need.
CDS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2018, 01:53 AM   #35
EvilDragon
Human being with feelings
 
EvilDragon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Croatia
Posts: 24,790
Default

Don't get an i9 because they're overpriced and their thermals aren't exactly spectacular.

i7-8700K is a great CPU that can overclock really high, giving you 6 cores easily at continuous 4.7 GHz. DAWs will LOVE that.

And get a Z370 motherboard, because then you can easily upgrade to the upcoming i7-9900K (8-core, 16-thread, should be able to reach 5 GHz with good cooling).


Forget about Xeons. First things first: DAWs need single-core performance more than they need a bajillion of cores. So, the rule of thumb should be having the fastest cores you can get, and then have as many of those as possible. So 9900K OCd to 5 GHz should run like a dream. I'd go with that if I were getting a new computer today.
EvilDragon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2018, 05:48 AM   #36
JSMastering
Human being with feelings
 
JSMastering's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Posts: 212
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by X. O. Apodo View Post
JSMastering, thanks you for your lengthy and detailed reply.

Is the “Average CPU Mark” a reliable number when it comes to music creation?
I am hoping to double the performance of current W3690 CPU on my GA-X58A-UD3R (V2) with 12 GB RAM. My C is 850 EVO 500GB. Data drives are spinners.

Currently Intel W3690 3.5 GHz 6 core - Average CPU Mark 9182 https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php....47GHz&id=1275

Intel Core i7-8700K 3.7GHz 6 cores - $310 - Average CPU Mark 15970
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php....70GHz&id=3098

Your total is $1444 -$578 = $866 without the SSD. I already have all the drives.
I honestly don't know.

There are a couple factors at play.

First, DAWBench is probably the most reliable source of how hard you can hammer your processor with DAW-specific tasks. It basically measure the number of intense plugins you can run together at a specific buffer setting before you get problems. IIRC, the current version uses FF Pro-Q2 on LinearPhease-High or one of NI's more resource intensive synths. Unfortunately, finding published results can be a challenge.

Second, low-latency performance (apart from DPC latency issues on windows) seems to depend mostly on the interface used. Something that uses PCIe x4 will give the best results, and in the few huge tests I've seen, the RME HDSPe AES seems to top the pack. But, it's only 16 channels. I'm interested to see how the Dante PCIeR compares mostly because I think that technology is cool (and not so much because I need it...I use very few channels and don't personally need super-low latency).

Those things together lead to a situation where the Intel chips (despite performing better at the actual processing) hit their limits with regard to PCIe lanes. You need 4 for the audio interface and 4 for an NVMe drive (if you're going to use one). That leaves 8 for the graphics card (if you can't get away with integrated graphics for what you do), and it's full. So, if you're using something like HDX cards or UAD-2 accelerators, either they'll have to run through PCH channels if your motherboard even supports the x1 slots going through PCH. IT shouldn't be a problem, but I can't find block diagrams that show which boards do this and which ones don't. It's probably more likely that they'll take lanes from the more important stuff, and I have no idea if modern graphics cards even work at x4 or which motherboards allow you to configure them to do so.

AMD kind of makes this even more complicated, since each CPU die has it's own PCIe lanes. So, there's more available. But just like the thing I mentioned above about caches, if you audio interface or drive is on one die's lanes, there will be a little latency if processing is running on the other one. It shouldn't matter nearly as much as the cache issue, but it just seems weird to me. And people are getting absolutely insane results building a RAID 0 of NVMe drives split between the dies' PCIe lanes (like...over 12 GB/s writes, which is waaaaaay more than you could use for audio).

The Graphics question is the biggest one for me. I really like my 4k display (despite usually running it at 2k or 3k) because there's just so much usable space. My old 2012ish i5 laptop will run a 4k display on integrated graphics (at 30Hz), so a modern one should too (at 60Hz over displayport no less). But, all of the reviews I've read said the experience sucks, and I can't figure out what basis for comparison they're using. Whenever I build my next computer (and whether I stay with windows or try to squeeze in one more hackintosh before they drop support for non-T2 computers), it'd be a lot simpler if I could use integrated graphics.

But, for a recording setup, I'm not sure you can get better than a PCIeX4 sound card writing to a PCIeX4 NVMe drive...you should be able to record and mix (for example) all of the channels Dante supports (128x128 with 96k, 64x65 with 128k) with zero issues and leaving most of your RAM for plugins.

That setup should be an absolute beast of a computer for recording and mixing, though it's also overkill for almost everyone. And I might be missing something.

When I looked it up last to try to compare modern i7s to Ryzen 7s and TR2s, the general trend was that the i7s beat everything from AMD and Reaper beat all of the other DAWs.

That also ignores incompatibility/instability issues which apparently still come up, though my understanding is that it's more common for people using video. Perhaps that's just because video editing/rendering people show up earlier/more in my searches for comparisons for some reason. There seem to be a few people who are sacrificing render times for fewer crashes in Adobe Suite by switching to Intel. I have no idea how that translates to audio...every time I've gone to buy or build a computer since 1999, whatever the top-end non-server/workstation intel chip was has won, so I've never owned an AMD.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EvilDragon View Post
Don't get an i9 because they're overpriced and their thermals aren't exactly spectacular.

i7-8700K is a great CPU that can overclock really high, giving you 6 cores easily at continuous 4.7 GHz. DAWs will LOVE that.

And get a Z370 motherboard, because then you can easily upgrade to the upcoming i7-9900K (8-core, 16-thread, should be able to reach 5 GHz with good cooling).


Forget about Xeons. First things first: DAWs need single-core performance more than they need a bajillion of cores. So, the rule of thumb should be having the fastest cores you can get, and then have as many of those as possible. So 9900K OCd to 5 GHz should run like a dream. I'd go with that if I were getting a new computer today.
I have literally no experience with overclocking except watching my friends' computers crash a lot circa 2002 before we all just gave up on gaming and got laptops. I do remember reading some article years ago (I think from Microsoft) that the #1 factor in predicting overall system stability/reliability was overclocking and that even slightly under-clocking a processor made notable improvements.

Has this changed? What's your experience been like?

I'm oddly still satisfied with my i7-3770 for what I do. But, some of the gamer-review guys on YT mention "trivially overclocking" 8700K and the like to 5GHz with simple cooling. It might be an interesting experiment. But, at least my experience over the last decade or so is that overall, modern processors work, drive speed is #1, and RAM amount/speed is #2 (to prevent paging/swapping).
JSMastering is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2018, 05:51 AM   #37
EvilDragon
Human being with feelings
 
EvilDragon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Croatia
Posts: 24,790
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JSMastering View Post
Has this changed? What's your experience been like?
I have i7-6700K which runs at 4 GHz natively, has 4.2 GHz boost, and I'm running it at 4.5 GHz over all cores all the time, without any issues whatsoever. Cooler is Noctua NH-D15, both 12 cm fans mounted on it. It's quiet and cool.
EvilDragon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2018, 06:37 AM   #38
karbomusic
Human being with feelings
 
karbomusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 29,260
Default

My i7-2600k has been OC'd to 4.5 Ghz since I got it 2012 FWIW, no cooler though.
__________________
Music is what feelings sound like.
karbomusic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2018, 06:47 AM   #39
EvilDragon
Human being with feelings
 
EvilDragon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Croatia
Posts: 24,790
Default

Liquid cooling, then?
EvilDragon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2018, 06:49 AM   #40
karbomusic
Human being with feelings
 
karbomusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 29,260
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EvilDragon View Post
Liquid cooling, then?
Sorry I thought you guys were talking liquid. I meant it has a fan but no special cooling. It was the first time in years I didn't build my own machine, I got it from Jim Rosebury.
__________________
Music is what feelings sound like.
karbomusic 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 01:04 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.