6 core vs 4 core CPU

[PresetNoob]

Hello...

I've been wanting to build a gaming rig, but I also want to use it for music production. Everything I read says quad core is plenty for gaming, but if you want to use it for production, go for 6 core...

Is it really worth it to get a 6 core?

It would be nice for processing lots of plugins but then again there is always freezing or bouncing.

What do you guys think? Is it worth it?

[DJ Warmonger]

Theoretically DAWs can utilize many cores easily. In practice, we need brave tester to try it out.

The future starts with you!

[Googly Smythe]

You don't choose a computer for today's software but for tomorrow's.
Go 6 core. If finances permit.

[Lejurai]

Basically IMO it's more important to have enough power in one core. For example I'd rather take 4ghz 4 core than 2.8ghz 6 core. Mostly because there are also plugins that only use one core so..

Aaaaaand rather than 6 core, I'd buy 8 core

[DJbrimLo]

I agree that Core and the clock speed of your cores is very important BUT do not forget to look at things such as FSB and your Cache. Those two small things can make a HUGE difference. And they are often overlooked when discussing/debating Custom Build Components.

[PresetNoob]

Okay, so I did two builds two find out the difference in price...

The difference between these two builds is $171.21 USD.. So it's not a tremendous difference, but like Lejurai said, it might be better to go for more clock speed. The 4 core is 4.0 ghz and the 6 core is 3.4 ghz.

z170 (4 core):
http://pcpartpicker.com/list/DH8nnn

x99 (6 core):
http://pcpartpicker.com/list/Zp36XH

Any comments on the builds are welcome..

I agree that Core and the clock speed of your cores is very important BUT do not forget to look at things such as FSB and your Cache. Those two small things can make a HUGE difference. And they are often overlooked when discussing/debating Custom Build Components.

I'm not entirely sure what to look for when you say Front side bus and Cache. I googled and read a little but still not sure what to look for. Would you be able to tell by looking at those builds?

Aaaaaand rather than 6 core, I'd buy 8 core

Why not 10? (I would get the 8 too, but the price really seems to jump between 6 and 8 )

http://ark.intel.com/products/94456/Int ... o-3_50-GHz

[chk071]

I don't think you can go wrong with the 4-core option. Seems to be quite a high end CPU, and will run audio applications and games satisfactory. Tbh, rather than deciding based on the number of cores, i'd rather check out some benchmarks, and see which gives you more power, as those are real life tests against just going by specs. But, as i wrote, i don't think the 4 core is a bad decision in any case.

[glokraw]

Also check the threading capability of your cpu, goto plugins, and daws.
Diva, and maybe some other plugins, respond to threads.
Most daws should, but with varying results.
A quadcore may have 8 or more threads, some perhaps underutilized depending
on the software, or even getting in the way, in some sad cases.
Some general cpu/core/threading info in this article, 8 years old, as it may be.

http://www.soundonsound.com/sound-advic ... usicians#3

a more recent discussion from Studio 1 ville:

https://forums.presonus.com/viewtopic.p ... 28231b4059

with a bonus dust-up when someone comparison tests a session
with reaper and S1, and the winner was...

[rod_zero]

10 core or nothing.

[planetearth]

For audio, a faster processor speed will help more with latency (generally speaking, and all other things being the same). That said, it also depends upon what you plan to record--individual audio tracks or multi-sample VST libraries?

Keep in mind that, for serious gaming, you'll need a serious video card. Audio doesn't need this, and some of these apps and services may cause problems with your audio setup.

Steve

[DJ Warmonger]

Basically IMO it's more important to have enough power in one core. For example I'd rather take 4ghz 4 core than 2.8ghz 6 core. Mostly because there are also plugins that only use one core so..

Are you using ONE plugin instance for your entire project?

Also core clock doesn't indicate CPU power since 8 years or so. People, wake up

do not forget to look at things such as FSB and your Cache

Absolutely. Cache size is a bottleneck since plugins get bigger and consume more memory.

Could somebody please tell how Serum works on a CPU with more than 8 MB of Cache?

[Michael L]

6-core: The price diff between 6700K and 6900K is much less than the performance boost.
To compare CPUs: cpuboss.com

[Kaine]

This chart covers both of those chips. I'd take the 6 core personally.

http://www.scanproaudio.info/2016/06/28 ... of-choice/

Also check the threading capability of your cpu, goto plugins, and daws.
Diva, and maybe some other plugins, respond to threads.
Most daws should, but with varying results.
A quadcore may have 8 or more threads, some perhaps underutilized depending
on the software, or even getting in the way, in some sad cases.
Some general cpu/core/threading info in this article, 8 years old, as it may be.

http://www.soundonsound.com/sound-advic ... usicians#3

We've come a long way since that article was written however. A good sequencer should be allocating plugins smoothly across those cores. You can't split a plug in (well you could, but the overhead it would eat would be huge), but it should be stacking them per core, so that its used as efficiently as possible. If you have a single plug in that is hard coded to always use the same core... well it's time to pick up a plug in with better coding to replace it. If you have a sequencer that can't load balance itself properly, well... that's pretty inexcusable these days.

a more recent discussion from Studio 1 ville:

https://forums.presonus.com/viewtopic.p ... 28231b4059

with a bonus dust-up when someone comparison tests a session
with reaper and S1, and the winner was...

Given Reaper has one of the best performing engines out there, I don't have to even open the thread to be able to work out how that one went down!

[fluffy_little_something]

AMD is working on a 32-core processor

I agree with those that say fewer yet faster cores are better than more yet slower cores. A number of programs and plugins still seem to use only one core, others use more but multithreading might not work as planned. So it makes sense to have really fast cores, even if it's just 4 of them.

[legendCNCD]

http://www.techspot.com/review/1155-aff ... l-xeon-pc/

there's one route

But I'd take 6 core over 4 anyday, and in a fact, I did 3 years ago. Never regretted. Never hit over 60% in our projects (except in mastering).