Core i5 2500K vs Core i9 10 core
-
- KVRist
- Topic Starter
- 162 posts since 25 Oct, 2013
Hi all,
looking for some advice or experience from your end:
currently I am using an i5 quad core overclocked to 4.2GHz (2500K).
Using Cubase and constantly maxing it out (mostly by having larger number of busses and send channels for e.g. sidechaining).
Since I am aware that only newer processor generations do not really provide some increase in performance here, I am looking towards more cores, the i9 10-core respectively.
What is your experience, is it worth to upgrade from my i5 to some recent 10 core Intel ?
Not sure if an update will really help here, would be glad if you can share your experience if you did some comparable update (from i5 to 6/8/10 core).
Thank you, cheers Pete
looking for some advice or experience from your end:
currently I am using an i5 quad core overclocked to 4.2GHz (2500K).
Using Cubase and constantly maxing it out (mostly by having larger number of busses and send channels for e.g. sidechaining).
Since I am aware that only newer processor generations do not really provide some increase in performance here, I am looking towards more cores, the i9 10-core respectively.
What is your experience, is it worth to upgrade from my i5 to some recent 10 core Intel ?
Not sure if an update will really help here, would be glad if you can share your experience if you did some comparable update (from i5 to 6/8/10 core).
Thank you, cheers Pete
-
- KVRAF
- 4815 posts since 17 Aug, 2004
IMO you are doing something wrong. I remember that CPU i used it extensively (now using threadripper - i create 3d stills). With that CPU i could do pretty much anything like anything i throw at it. Orchestral tracks and libraries, 20-30 tracks mixed easily with plenty of room for everything elses. Diva, Bazille, FX, even mixing with Nebula was possible.pppppppppp wrote:Hi all,
I am using an i5 quad core overclocked to 4.2GHz (2500K).
Using Cubase and constantly maxing it out (mostly by having larger number of busses and send channels for e.g. sidechaining).
having buses does not increase CPU usage or something like that. But why do you complicate with buses - what is many buses? aren't like 4 more then enough for you?). wWhich is why i am under impression you are doing something wrong or there is some setup error. Which os you are using? Is your power scheme set up as High Performace or balanced?
-
- KVRist
- Topic Starter
- 162 posts since 25 Oct, 2013
Hi, thanks
but I should have been more clear:
It is not like my system is extraordinarily slow or something. It is the opposite, the 2500k/my system is quite capable of handling larger projects (and I know I get all the computing power it offers, correct configuration etc).
However, if projects really grow it gets maxed out neveretheless (e.g. lot of demanding FX and synth plugins).
And to mention I already work with large buffer size of 1024 samples (RME soundcard)
An example where more power is useful is a workflow where I could have two or more similar tracks running with Diva and the same patch but different FX configuration, and switching between those in the arrangement.
However, my question is more like, will an i9 10 core be able to handle "much" more in comparison to an i5 2500k.
Best,
edit: wrt your question of busses:
No, 4 is not enough at least for me, an example:
12 drum tracks (kick, percussion, hats etc), 4 synth tracks, 3 bass tracks, 10 FX tracks
Busses i use (would be at least 10 here):
Percussion, Hats, Clap/Snare, Kick, Drumbus, Bass, Synth1, Synth2, FX1, FX2
but I should have been more clear:
It is not like my system is extraordinarily slow or something. It is the opposite, the 2500k/my system is quite capable of handling larger projects (and I know I get all the computing power it offers, correct configuration etc).
However, if projects really grow it gets maxed out neveretheless (e.g. lot of demanding FX and synth plugins).
And to mention I already work with large buffer size of 1024 samples (RME soundcard)
An example where more power is useful is a workflow where I could have two or more similar tracks running with Diva and the same patch but different FX configuration, and switching between those in the arrangement.
However, my question is more like, will an i9 10 core be able to handle "much" more in comparison to an i5 2500k.
Best,
edit: wrt your question of busses:
No, 4 is not enough at least for me, an example:
12 drum tracks (kick, percussion, hats etc), 4 synth tracks, 3 bass tracks, 10 FX tracks
Busses i use (would be at least 10 here):
Percussion, Hats, Clap/Snare, Kick, Drumbus, Bass, Synth1, Synth2, FX1, FX2
- KVRAF
- 2288 posts since 21 Mar, 2012 from Nom..nom.. YOUR MOM
Core i9 is incredible. Scanproaudio has a great review of the new Intel chips, compares to Threadripper, and is a great read:pppppppppp wrote:Hi all,
looking for some advice or experience from your end:
currently I am using an i5 quad core overclocked to 4.2GHz (2500K).
Using Cubase and constantly maxing it out (mostly by having larger number of busses and send channels for e.g. sidechaining).
Since I am aware that only newer processor generations do not really provide some increase in performance here, I am looking towards more cores, the i9 10-core respectively.
What is your experience, is it worth to upgrade from my i5 to some recent 10 core Intel ?
Not sure if an update will really help here, would be glad if you can share your experience if you did some comparable update (from i5 to 6/8/10 core).
Thank you, cheers Pete
http://www.scanproaudio.info/2017/06/28 ... irst-look/
http://www.scanproaudio.info/2017/08/14 ... 20x-1950x/
Short version: Intel is a better bet than Threadripper. Sorry, AMD.
Win 10 | Ableton Live 11 Suite | Reason 12 | i7 3770 @ 3.5 Ghz | 16 GB RAM | RME Babyface Pro| Akai MPC Live II & Akai Force | Roland System 8 | Roland TR-8 with 7x7 Expansion | Roland TB-3 | Roland MX-1 | Dreadbox Typhon | Korg Minilogue XD
-
- Banned
- 5357 posts since 7 May, 2015
This might end up being moved to computers, but an i9 10 core is going to be like having a Ferrari after using a pinto for the last 10 years (and price wise it's relative as well ). We're talking a more qualified architecture, (it's not just clock speed/cores that matter) and oh, about 16 cores difference (cubase uses hyperthreading to the best of my knowledge)
- KVRAF
- 2288 posts since 21 Mar, 2012 from Nom..nom.. YOUR MOM
Pretty sure virtually all DAW use Hyperthreading in some capacity these days. Anyway, most VST do.
Win 10 | Ableton Live 11 Suite | Reason 12 | i7 3770 @ 3.5 Ghz | 16 GB RAM | RME Babyface Pro| Akai MPC Live II & Akai Force | Roland System 8 | Roland TR-8 with 7x7 Expansion | Roland TB-3 | Roland MX-1 | Dreadbox Typhon | Korg Minilogue XD
- KVRian
- 715 posts since 22 Nov, 2016 from Tokyo, Japan
Newer generation is always better, at least 5-10% increase in the same class.
You're jumping 6 generations away, and you're also jumping from i5 to i9. Of course it would perform much better.
You're jumping 6 generations away, and you're also jumping from i5 to i9. Of course it would perform much better.
-
- Banned
- 1780 posts since 26 Aug, 2012
Upgrade to i7. i9 would be ideal for video gammers and editors of film. If you have a relatively high end sound card, lots of ram, and six cores why do you need an extra 4 if you max at around 60%? You're rarely gonna exceed that on an i7. You may have 70 tracks in your session but how many are playing in unison during the verse? How many during the chorus? I have a 6 core and rarely go beyond 50%.
Yes, there are vsts out there that tax like Diva and Serum but that's the fault of the the vst, not the cpu so if you were to upgrade you'll probably find little difference there.
I was considering upgrading from i7 to 9 just for the hell of it but $1000, for what? ..I dont do computer animation or fx for Warner Bros. If you got the spare change then invest in SSD to speed up loading time for libraries.
Yes, there are vsts out there that tax like Diva and Serum but that's the fault of the the vst, not the cpu so if you were to upgrade you'll probably find little difference there.
I was considering upgrading from i7 to 9 just for the hell of it but $1000, for what? ..I dont do computer animation or fx for Warner Bros. If you got the spare change then invest in SSD to speed up loading time for libraries.
Last edited by Kinh on Sun Oct 22, 2017 6:21 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Banned
- 1780 posts since 26 Aug, 2012
Wrong analogy. People who buy Ferraris rarely get a chance to put em to the test on domestic roads. They buy them because of how they look and for status.incubus wrote:This might end up being moved to computers, but an i9 10 core is going to be like having a Ferrari after using a pinto for the last 10 years (and price wise it's relative as well ).
-
- KVRAF
- 15516 posts since 13 Oct, 2009
It's a mistake to equate hyperthreading with core doubling though. This is especially true with CPU intensive processes.incubus wrote:This might end up being moved to computers, but an i9 10 core is going to be like having a Ferrari after using a pinto for the last 10 years (and price wise it's relative as well ). We're talking a more qualified architecture, (it's not just clock speed/cores that matter) and oh, about 16 cores difference (cubase uses hyperthreading to the best of my knowledge)
Don't get me wrong, I'm eyeing the 10 core i9 myself as the next step. I'll probably give it another year or so as my 6 core i7 is still chugging along. I expect a solid upgrade, but hypthereading does not twice as many cores equal.
-
- KVRist
- 168 posts since 18 Oct, 2017
I'd say this is the moment when things get interesting IMHO
Shall be worrying about every nickel and dime for the next 6 months, but I'll go for a i9-7940x 64GB desktop
Shall be worrying about every nickel and dime for the next 6 months, but I'll go for a i9-7940x 64GB desktop
-
- Banned
- 1780 posts since 26 Aug, 2012
lay off the caffeineincubus wrote:More trolling?
I mean, FFS. It's a major upgrade regardless, jesus christ!
- KVRAF
- 2288 posts since 21 Mar, 2012 from Nom..nom.. YOUR MOM
What? It's "officially" supported Hyperthreading since 9.5.x. Before that, it used it for everything except audio rendering. Don't be obtuse.incubus wrote:Not reason, not really. Forget the technical details. You should know that.
Anyway, @OP: the i9 series performs fantastic for DAW according to scanproaudio's results. Tech Report confirms it as well:
http://techreport.com/review/32607/inte ... eviewed/12
Win 10 | Ableton Live 11 Suite | Reason 12 | i7 3770 @ 3.5 Ghz | 16 GB RAM | RME Babyface Pro| Akai MPC Live II & Akai Force | Roland System 8 | Roland TR-8 with 7x7 Expansion | Roland TB-3 | Roland MX-1 | Dreadbox Typhon | Korg Minilogue XD