How much does quad-core really boost DAW (MBP 13 vs 15)

Audio Plugin Hosts and other audio software applications discussion
RELATED
PRODUCTS

Post

rod_zero wrote:
ntom wrote: It uses z97 architecture with an quad i5 Haswell at 3.4ghz, with 8gb RAM (probably the biggest short coming of the build), a 750w Platinum PSU, and a (irrelevant to music) EVGA GTX780 6GB edition.
Doing a Diva Stress Test:
ten 3-voiced instances of Diva on Divine hit 50%
Is mixcraft cpu efficient?

I work on Live and an i5 760 ( I think its two generations before the one you have) and I can only get 4 Diva instances on Divine.


I wanna try to overclock my current CPU to see if I gain some performance.
I would give Mixcraft a B+ on efficiency. While it's less resource intensive than some hosts, I wouldn't say it's the most efficient.
According to you, the i5 you have is probably the main bottleneck of your system as it seems to be an early generation of the i5 series of cores. It's hard to say specifically since I am not a CPU architect, but the difference mostly seems to been in the manufacturing technology, where Haswell uses 22nano meter dyes, the Lynnfield CPU you mentioned uses a 45nm dye. What this means to you is that it will naturally get hotter, and with more heat means higher power consumption.

It might be possible to overclock the chip a little - I personally am not an overclocker. But I can tell you is that Intel uses letters in the model number to denote the capabilities of the chip. For example;
I have an i5 4670k. The K means that this chip is very capable of over clocking and is unlocked from factory settings. if there is no letter, like you i5 760 - this means it's an OEM part, manufactured to factory specific settings. Overclocking may be possible, but in most cases you won't be able to squeeze much more juice out of it.
But, here's the bright side to that: due to the 45nm dye, unless you have exceptional cooling in your system, you wouldn't want to push it too high anyways, otherwise you're just going to melt your system :hihi:
There are plenty of tools out there to help you overclock. I believe there is an ASUS tool that you basically type in the clock speed you want to reach and it will automatically run as many cycles as it needs to try and achieve that speed (try to...doesn't always make it - especially if you type something unreasonable like 10ghz :lol: )
Additionally, if you are just curious about cooling in general in your system, there is Piriform's Speccy which will give you temperatures of your hard drive(s), CPU, GPU, and motherboard. I use it a lot for benchmarking systems, but I will mention I have seen this software bug out sometimes with OEM motherboards. On an old itb Lenovo system I had it would tell me the motherboard was at 120 * Celsius - which, as you might know, should mean melted motherboard :lol:

Anyways, the best way to test out your system is to just try the software. Acoustica has a generous 30 day demo (and if you ask nicely they'll give you an extension on your trial too). For stress testing, I just put a virtual instrument track down with diva, place 3 random notes, then duplicate that track over and over until the software crashes :lol: If you need me too, I can record how to do that since getting familiar with a new piece of software can take some time.

Post

golemus wrote:I have always taken it as granted that my next laptop is quad core but I just realized that even the power supply must be very heavy (..?) as it has to supply up to 120W of power
not necessarily true - the tiny 45w magsafe2 adaptor for the macbook air is 200g, the 'big' 85w for the 15" rmbp is 310g.

With the latest gen mobile i7s getting more power efficient the days of needing a huge 'brick' psu are gone (my wife still has a HP elitebook 8540w at work - it's 120w psu is massive and weighs 700g, and the laptop itself is nearly 3kg - and is about as fast as a macbook air)

Post

I dont think I wann switch daw's at all, too much money (packs and push) and time invested in to Live, and I like it a lot. I know its one of the worst DAW's when it comes to CPU use, but my workflow is quite "clean", I dont mix while composing, I bounce evertyhing before mixing.

6 divas, or 4 divas plus some other synths would be awesome for me. I already have an aftermarket cooler (sytem as running to hot with the stock one and since I was going to replace the thermal paste I went full ahead and got a zalman cooler) so I just have to OC the system, maybe up to 3.4 would be nice.
dedication to flying

Post

"I got a car battery and two jumper cables that argue different."
Rust Cohle

Post

AUTO-ADMIN: Non-MP3, WAV, OGG, SoundCloud, YouTube, Vimeo, Twitter and Facebook links in this post have been protected automatically. Once the member reaches 5 posts the links will function as normal.
Hello guys!

I'm planning on selling my current windows based notebook to get a Macbook Pro.
My current notebook is an HP ENVY 15-J059nr (http://support.hp.com/hk-en/document/c03823318 (http://support.hp.com/hk-en/document/c03823318))
I will be able to sell it for about $1,000 where I live, so that's my budget more or less.

I use Ableton Live 9 and third party plugins, mostly NI Massive, Xfer Serum, Waves 9, iZotope Ozone 5, and most FabFilter's.

I have the possibility to get a:
· *New* Macbook Pro 13" (Late 2012) + 256gb SSD (replacing the optical drive) + 16GB RAM.
http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/m ... specs.html (http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/macbook_pro/specs/macbook-pro-core-i5-2.5-13-mid-2012-unibody-usb3-specs.html)
· *Used* Macbook Pro Retina 13" (Late 2013) stock config, no upgrade available (256gb SSD and 8gb RAM).
http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/m ... specs.html (http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/macbook_pro/specs/macbook-pro-core-i5-2.6-13-late-2013-retina-display-specs.html)

So my question is, which Macbook Pro would you guys get, given those conditions, the new MBP(2012) upgraded or a used MBPr(2013) with no upgrade?

On the other hand, will I notice the difference when working with Ableton, given the fact that I'll be using a lower processor than the one I have right now (Mac i5 dual vs Windows i7 quad)? (I use NI Komplete Audio 6 for Audio processing)

Thanks! :D

Post

Either way that's a huge downgrade. Who would want to renew machine to run DAW that runs like 2008. Core 2 Quad Q9650 came out in 2008. 4288U runs like that. And "U" means the CPU is for ultra book. It's almost half the performance of your current CPU.

Get the one has a CPU 3615QM, 3720QM, 3820Q, 3630QM, 3740QM, 3840QM, 4750HQ, 4850HQ, 4960HQ, 4770HQ, 4870HQ or 4980HQ if you want to change your OS and upgrade your machine.

Post

"So if you have a quad core i7 with 2 threads per core, you effectively have the power of a standard 8 core CPU. Hyperthreading is an important technology that makes Intel stand out from AMD.
AMD works strictly on raw cores. They do not have Hyperthreading technology at all."

It's a little bit different. Extra threads do not equal extra cores. I've seen one solid test in which some guy estimated how much extra power Intel threads give to their CPU and the result was about 25% - so quad-core + hyperthreading = roughly 5 cores. This of course varies depending on which version of hyperthreading is implemented and even individual models from the same line sometimes perform slightly different.

As for AMD, most of their processors state number of cores which has to be divided by 2! For example, their FX octa-core line are really quad-cores, but each core has two threads. AMD's threads are about twice as powerful as Intel's hyperthreading so 8 AMD cores = 4 "normal" cores.

"However, the difference in electricity costs between Intel and AMD saved per year is fairly negligible, so I don't know if I would count that as a win on Intel's part"

It all adds up after few years :) Also, energy consumption = heat generation. AMD processors overheat quite easy, which can make system unstable in hotter days. It also makes cooling louder which makes it harder to listen to stuff coming out of monitors. Especially that many AMD stock coolers could very well replicate airport traffic while at full speed :)

When you have to choose between Intel and AMD (and also Geforce and ATI), always pay a little extra and get the former! It's worth it. Finally, like ntom says, don't get high on all the core hype, it's the architecture that's the most important thing. Not without a reason Intel's last line of dual-cores slaughters AMD octa-cores in games well developed to implement more than 2 cores. It's the quality of the core first, the amount second. And here AMD is devastatingly losing the race. Unfortunately, because with such terrible competition it's monopoly for Intel and monopoly is never good. Still, I prefer to choose superior product when the difference in quality is that huge so Intel is the way to go.

Post

I had to make the same decision just a couple of weeks ago.
I ordered a new 2014 13'' macbook (2,8 i5 dual core 8 GB ram) and a refurbed 2012 15,4 macbook (2,6 i7 quad core)
finally I took the 15,4 one. to answer your question: I tested them with different projects with up to 80 tracks containing Kontakt 5 etc. (interface: Motu ultralite mk3). both laptops handled them without problems with a buffer of 256, it didn't seem to make much of a difference, concerning the amount of vsti you can load, but the quad core just knocked me out when I saw that it could handle very large projects (cubase and live) with a buffer setting of 32. So the difference was very clear with very low buffer settings. But please note that this is quite subjective, my tests weren't in any way systematic.
I'm very glad i took the 15,4 Macbook, because I really enjoy the larger screen also.
I'm using it a lot and I didn't hear the fan once. It is always completely quiet so far.
I would really recommend you the 15,4 macbook.
my music:
soundcloud.com/septimon-band
blend.io/septimon

Post

I would go with the full i7 quad (15 inch) as well... You can get one of these refurb or used (probably a little cheaper used, if you can find one):

http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/s ... ook_pro/15
$1100

Crucial 16GB + 256GB SSD... http://www.crucial.com/usa/en/compatibl ... id-2012%29
$250

That's $1350 total, and you get a much more computing bandwidth with the i7 compared to the i5... The thing is maybe the i5 is "good enough" for what you want to do, but it'd be a shame to hit the ceiling a couple years down the road when your projects get more complicated, or you need more juice for VSTs.

You can probably find the crucial (or equivalent) parts for a bit cheaper on the 'net, but be sure to buy the exact right memory for the Macs... mobos are very sensitive to timings...

That particular 15" refurb only has 1440x900 screen, but a.) that's already larger than the 1280x800 on the 13", and b.) you can connect to hi-res monitor or cheap 1080p etc. at some point in the future (as you can with the 13", of course). My 2011 has the 1680x1050 display, which is just good enough compared to the retina machine I use at work the other 8 hours per day. :)

Secondary market (cowboom.com, etc.) might save you a few bucks... the advantage of Apple refurb is it gets a "factory refresh" and you get the warranty.
You need to limit that rez, bro.

Post

Mr. Tonberry, most of what you wrote is true, except the results, and you didn't mention price/performance ratio. I build DAWs and I have a chance to compare the performance of different setups first hand, Intel and AMD alike.

AMD FX-8350 [8 core] at 4 GHz gives me more than *double* the amount of plugin processing of AMD Phenom II 965 [4 core] at 4 GHz. About 110% more, in Reaper 4.7, not 25% as you would get with HT and Phenom II [if it existed]. Phenom II 965 is what I personally use for my desktop computer/DAW. It is still powerful enough for my needs.

Intel i7-4790K [4 core, 8 threads] at 4.GHz GHz is just marginally better than AMD FX-8350, around 20%, in my tests. That's also just a tad lower than you actually get from HT with this CPU. As you said, the gain from HT is about 25%. Disable HT on i7 and you get about the same performing CPUs with DAWs like Reaper which can efficiently utilise as many threads as there is, but nobody would do that, of course. ;)

Intel i7-4790K costs ~$300 while AMD FX-8350 costs ~$150. So you pay double for ~20% gain in performance. Only with overclocking the difference becomes bigger as i7-4790K can be overclocked more, but I stay away from overclocking, of course. I test OC capabilities only out of curiosity.

Just to set *some* facts straight. ;) I love both Intel and AMD processors, and my clients, too.

Cheers!

p.s. 2016 will be rather inteesting with Intel releasing Skylake CPUs and AMD releasing Zen CPUs... both 0.14nm. Can't wait to test those! I might even finally upgrade my main computer. :)
It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society. - Jiddu Krishnamurti

Post

I had the older model - FX-8120 and switched to dual-core i3-4160 few months ago. One slowdown that I noticed was with rar archiving and extracting - a lot slower - the FX line is among the top processors in this category. It looks like working with music production software falls somewhere close to this category as your results are so great with AMD processors!

I am generally skeptical because I made most tests in games where my dual-core i3 slaughters the 8-threaded FX-8120 - more fps (in some games up to 40% but usually 5-20%) and more stability - AMD has weird chokes, spikes and crashes that I didn't experience with i3 so far. Half power consumption and 20c lower temperature under full stress as well. Nice that FX work well with music production because they're cheap, even though the FX socket is a dead end there's always an option to sell it with motherboard one day so I don't think that argument makes sense.

As for the 2016, AMD unfortunately is increasingly lagging behind Intel for quite some time - they don't invest in tech that much (which isn't surprising, given the fact that Intel had 10x the revenue of AMD in 2014 despite the fact that AMD produces hardware for super-selling PS4 and also X0) and their technology is inferior - average AMD cores look like a deserted ghost town compared to what sits in average Intel cores (hence the price difference). They are bleeding money and losing market to Intel very fast. One area where they ruled was always low-to-mid price segment - Intel didn't care about it and didn't even try competing. Phenom II 965 that you mention is a great example of cheap affordable yet pretty powerful processor of the time it was released. But now Intel released the Haswell i3 line and g3258 which cost pennies and destroy AMD processors in the same price category. Nvidia did the same thing with graphic cards - in everything above $150 Nvidia dominates now, so more trouble for AMD (which owns ATI). So now AMD guys have to make something drastic happen. Let's hope they do, for the sake of our wallets!

Unfortunately, I barely got into the music production thing so I have missed DAW-processor angle :)

Post

Oh, absolutely agreed, Tonberry, about AMDs underperforming more for gaming, and everywhere where single-thread performance is important the difference between top Intel and top AMD processors is bigger. Also in memory intensive tasks. However, for quite some time now it is also well known that the GPU is the main bottleneck for gaming, so if you want to enjoy smooth gaming rather invest in a great GPU card than processor. I'd go with some cheaper Intel i5 4xxx and Nvidia GTX 750Ti [as it's only 60W part - quiet and efficient] or something better now. But newer games are increasingly utilising multi-threading better and better, so maybe 4 core would be good for gaming, too.

When it comes to multi-threading apps, like DAW audio and video processing, encoding, decoding and archiving as you mentioned, really the difference in speed is not that big at all, and it's hard to feel any difference. That's why I was tempted to actually build myself an FX-8350 rig, but the news of Zen coming stopped me from doing it, and really I'm satisfied with the performance of my current computer because all I do on it is audio and video, and archiving, no gaming. I occasionally play MAME emulator... :) and some really old games from early 2000s. If I was a gamer I would definitely invest into this aforementioned Intel based rig - 4 core i5 with GTX750ti.

Cheers!
It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society. - Jiddu Krishnamurti

Post

I'm not a gaming fanatic either, at the moment I have Radeon 7770 so some games run well only when downscaled to the level of those games on your MAME emulator :D Have a nice afternoon!

Post

For what it's worth I have a 2009 imac dual core i5, 3.0 ghz ,4 gb of ram with osx 10.6.8. I also have a 2011 mbp that had 10.7 (which I thought had to be the worst OS I ever worked on) 4gb ram and I7 2.2 ghz quad core.

Ableton was always rougher on the mbp CPU and my tracks feel limited whereas I have tons of tracks on the imac. (20-30 no problem barely break 25% cpu)

So I upgraded the mbp OS to Yosemite due to terrible performance of ableton 9 in 32 or 64. I went back to 8 on Yosemite and still had craptacular performance cpu spikes in the 140% range blah blah blah.

So I really took matters into my hands and here is what it comes down to; my MBP with a brand new SSD drive, 16 gbs ram, Yosemite, i7 quad core still can't beat my 4gb, 3.0 ghz dual core imac.

By all logic there is no way my imac should beat the mbp but it still does even after these upgrades. Since the upgrade performance is better but CPU hits 60% on tracks that barely make my imac hit 20%.

Take that for what it's worth. For performance at this point if I were buying a mac system I'd go with last years model of imac 27"

Post

Yeah logic and computers, not always hand-in-hand :)

Maybe check your system temperatures, people say some Macs have cooling problems. I don't use Macs so I don't know of any software that can do that but I'm sure you can find it quickly through Google.

Post Reply

Return to “Hosts & Applications (Sequencers, DAWs, Audio Editors, etc.)”