KVR Audio

Steinberg · Post by **Steinberg** » Sun Nov 09, 2014 8:47 pm

Hello, I change my CPU - i7 replaced with Xeon 5650

i7: 4 cores, 4MB cache, 3,06GHz

XEON: 6 cores, 12MB cache, 2.66GHz
--------------------------------------------

All tests/benchmark show that machine is now faster about 80-100%...
I use Cubase5 & I think problem is quite old software.
I use Win7 64bit.

Cubase proceses is little bit slower with Xeon than i7.
Is it possible that Cuase5 daoesn't use all 6 cores?
When I look over system performance - all 6 cores (12 threads) works, but only for 8-10% each.
As I remember - with i7 all 4 cores (8 threads) when Cubase5 processed - indicate 90-100% of duty.

What's the problem?

THX, chris

trusampler · Post by **trusampler** » Sun Nov 09, 2014 8:51 pm

I tried going to a 8 core AMD and noticed the same thing, back went in my Intel. I don't care what the competition claims, my i7 just handles the processes and threads better in real life vs. tests. Put your 950 back in test it again

BBFG# · Post by **BBFG#** » Sun Nov 09, 2014 10:00 pm

Just had a similar comparison between an i7-4790 and Xeon E5-2690.
I also notice the DAW doesn't distribute the use evenly along the cores in the Xeon.
But the i7 was terrible for music processing in my overall comparisons.
I returned the i7.

mkdr · Post by **mkdr** » Mon Nov 10, 2014 2:36 pm

You need C7 to take full advantage of multiple cores. Even though your i7 is telling you it's crunching numbers at fullspeed, it's actually wasting most of it to handling the multiple cores in realtime. Whereas more modern DAW's process live input on one core and unload all the things that don't need to be done in realtime(all the vsti's for example) to be processed earlier on all the remaining cores. This yields much better multi-core utilization. (modern DAW's that do that are for example Reaper, Logic, Cubase7)

mkdr · Post by **mkdr** » Mon Nov 10, 2014 2:42 pm

trusampler wrote:I tried going to a 8 core AMD and noticed the same thing, back went in my Intel. I don't care what the competition claims, my i7 just handles the processes and threads better in real life vs. tests. Put your 950 back in test it again

An 8-core AMD is on par with most i7's when used correctly. Most common errors people do with them is to run 32bit code or bridging and of course this multi-core processing without a proper multi-core host. Same applies to 16 core Intels. They are not going to triumph over processors that have similar single core performance if used with single-core programs.

krraqk · Post by **krraqk** » Mon Nov 10, 2014 2:53 pm

I have done recently the exact same change and (with an overclok to 4 ghz) in my experience the increase of performance is about the 100% and equally important now I can run my fireface at lower latency, even the lowest at 48 samples very confortably (comparable to 128 samples with the i7 950).

So im very happy with the change because doubling the processing power espending only 80 €, is absolutely incredible in the present times.

Jim Roseberry · Post by **Jim Roseberry** » Mon Nov 10, 2014 3:27 pm

Xeon CPUs offer no benefit for running DAW applications.
Essentially, you've got a similar CPU running at significantly slower clock speed.

If you're after maximum performance, a Haswell Extreme hex-core, quad-channel RAM, running at high clock-speed is the way to go. Side benefit: It's less expensive than a Xeon based machine.

krraqk · Post by **krraqk** » Mon Nov 10, 2014 3:53 pm

Jim Roseberry wrote:Xeon CPUs offer no benefit for running DAW applications.
Essentially, you've got a similar CPU running at significantly slower clock speed.

If you're after maximum performance, a Haswell Extreme hex-core, quad-channel RAM, running at high clock-speed is the way to go. Side benefit: It's less expensive than a Xeon based machine.

Sure Xeon are similar to desktop i7, BUT this 5650 is a very special case, because it can be purchased at very low prices today and can be installed in old socket 1366 and its an 6 core cpu while the i7-950 is only 4 cores and are even more overclockables. So its not that bad idea especially if we consider the small investment to double the power.

Steinberg · Post by **Steinberg** » Mon Nov 10, 2014 4:31 pm

2014-11-09T22_38_17_1.jpg

"Xeon are similar to desktop i7..." vs "double the power"

So: SIMILAR or DOUBLE THE POWER ???

Guys, simple question. I've got Cubase 5 & latest Adobe Audition CC.
Both software are much slower than before.
i7 was working smoothly & faster.
I think software is bit old. Understand Cubase5, but Adobe CC should whisk all the job.

Picture above looks the same with Premiere & Audition.
6 cores "works" but it's not full speed I think.
Machine do something, but I don't know what.
With my i7 it take much less time to do the job.
With Xeon, much more time with full occupancy of cpu (cores, no threads!!!)
What's the deal?

I think that's the problem with 'Adobe Engine'.
It can't use more than 4 cores.
It was projected for i7 & we just flip adobe's/DAW world upside down

For example: AVID doesn't have problems like this.
You have 6 cores, You use it, You have 8 cores, You use it...

OK, worth to stay with Xeon & wait for better software?
Ableton Live will see all 6 cores?

BBFG# · Post by **BBFG#** » Mon Nov 10, 2014 5:37 pm

It may in fact be a problem of the software like was mentioned above.
Sonar utilizes all available cores, however, it seems dependent on which plugins are being used at the time on how it spreads out. First core is always higher because of the OS& Background services plus the DAW. Certain synths are spread out pretty evenly while others are not. And in general, effects plugins seem to usually hit the first core harder.

I seem to remember a program called Lasso that was suppose to give you more control on Core use.
Anybody know about this or something similar?

Jim Roseberry · Post by **Jim Roseberry** » Mon Nov 10, 2014 6:03 pm

krraqk wrote:
Sure Xeon are similar to desktop i7, BUT this 5650 is a very special case, because it can be purchased at very low prices today and can be installed in old socket 1366 and its an 6 core cpu while the i7-950 is only 4 cores and are even more overclockables. So its not that bad idea especially if we consider the small investment to double the power.

Good point!

The new 5820k is a really good performer for the $$$
Six physical cores (12 processing threads), quad-channel RAM, and it's relatively easy to OC at 4.4GHz

Jim Roseberry · Post by **Jim Roseberry** » Mon Nov 10, 2014 6:08 pm

Steinberg wrote:
2014-11-09T22_38_17_1.jpg
Guys, simple question. I've got Cubase 5 & latest Adobe Audition CC.
Both software are much slower than before.
i7 was working smoothly & faster.
I think software is bit old. Understand Cubase5, but Adobe CC should whisk all the job.

Picture above looks the same with Premiere & Audition.
6 cores "works" but it's not full speed I think.
Machine do something, but I don't know what.
With my i7 it take much less time to do the job.
With Xeon, much more time with full occupancy of cpu (cores, no threads!!!)
What's the deal?

I think that's the problem with 'Adobe Engine'.
It can't use more than 4 cores.
It was projected for i7 & we just flip adobe's/DAW world upside down
For example: AVID doesn't have problems like this.
You have 6 cores, You use it, You have 8 cores, You use it...

OK, worth to stay with Xeon & wait for better software?
Ableton Live will see all 6 cores?

The Xeon itself isn't the source of the issue.
As mentioned above, older versions of Cubase weren't fully optimized for multi-core CPUs.
I've got Adobe Audition CC... but we don't use it for heavy multi-track work. It's used for Radio spots... which is pretty light on the CPU).
If I have some spare time, I'll create a stress-test... and let you know what I find.

Steinberg · Post by **Steinberg** » Tue Nov 11, 2014 12:12 am

ok, wait for Your opinion...

krraqk · Post by **krraqk** » Tue Nov 11, 2014 12:34 am

I've already commented my experience, but I forgot to say I use cubase 6.

I have done nothing in the cpu or the SO, but replace the cpu, so I think your problem must be the soft you are using...

Have you tried to overclock the Xeon, these are very good in this area. Most likely you can get a 50% increase.

Steinberg · Post by **Steinberg** » Tue Nov 11, 2014 11:50 am

In benchmarks/tests changing i7-950 on Xeon 5650 gave me 100% more power.

In real life - little bit less

So, I don't need to overclock, but if I change software, I will se

Intel i7-950 vs XEON 5650