KVR Audio

pppppppppp · Post by **pppppppppp** » Sat Oct 21, 2017 9:33 am

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

kmonkey · Post by **kmonkey** » Sat Oct 21, 2017 9:40 am

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).

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.

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?

pppppppppp · Post by **pppppppppp** » Sat Oct 21, 2017 11:01 am

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

EnochLight · Post by **EnochLight** » Sat Oct 21, 2017 6:53 pm

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

Core i9 is incredible. Scanproaudio has a great review of the new Intel chips, compares to Threadripper, and is a great read:

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.

incubus · Post by **incubus** » Sat Oct 21, 2017 8:39 pm

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)

EnochLight · Post by **EnochLight** » Sun Oct 22, 2017 12:30 am

Pretty sure virtually all DAW use Hyperthreading in some capacity these days. Anyway, most VST do.

incubus · Post by **incubus** » Sun Oct 22, 2017 3:37 am

Not reason, not really. Forget the technical details. You should know that.

shidostrife · Post by **shidostrife** » Sun Oct 22, 2017 3:43 am

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.

Kinh · Post by **Kinh** » Sun Oct 22, 2017 6:03 am

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.

Kinh · Post by **Kinh** » Sun Oct 22, 2017 6:14 am

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 ).

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 · Post by **incubus** » Sun Oct 22, 2017 6:22 am

More trolling?

I mean, FFS. It's a major upgrade regardless, jesus christ!

ghettosynth · Post by **ghettosynth** » Sun Oct 22, 2017 6:58 am

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)

It's a mistake to equate hyperthreading with core doubling though. This is especially true with CPU intensive processes.

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.

Woodgardens · Post by **Woodgardens** » Sun Oct 22, 2017 7:40 am

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

Kinh · Post by **Kinh** » Sun Oct 22, 2017 7:47 am

incubus wrote:More trolling?

I mean, FFS. It's a major upgrade regardless, jesus christ!

lay off the caffeine

EnochLight · Post by **EnochLight** » Sun Oct 22, 2017 12:26 pm

incubus wrote:Not reason, not really. Forget the technical details. You should know that.

What? It's "officially" supported Hyperthreading since 9.5.x. Before that, it used it for everything except audio rendering. Don't be obtuse.

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

Core i5 2500K vs Core i9 10 core