Core i5 2500K vs Core i9 10 core
-
- KVRian
- 702 posts since 9 May, 2005
The i9 7900x has 10 physical cores (20 processing threads) running at 4.5GHz.
That's slightly faster clock-speed than your 2500k, numerous generations more recent (meaning slightly faster at a given clock-speed), plus it has 20 processing threads vs. 4 for the 2500k.
It will be a major upgrade.
Keep in mind that all i9 CPUs below the 7900x have 28 PCIe lanes.
The 7900x has 44 PCIe lanes.
If your build is relatively simple, it's a moot point.
If your build is more complex (want to run several PCIe x4 SSDs, etc), 28 PCIe lanes can be limiting.
That's slightly faster clock-speed than your 2500k, numerous generations more recent (meaning slightly faster at a given clock-speed), plus it has 20 processing threads vs. 4 for the 2500k.
It will be a major upgrade.
Keep in mind that all i9 CPUs below the 7900x have 28 PCIe lanes.
The 7900x has 44 PCIe lanes.
If your build is relatively simple, it's a moot point.
If your build is more complex (want to run several PCIe x4 SSDs, etc), 28 PCIe lanes can be limiting.
-
- KVRAF
- 15517 posts since 13 Oct, 2009
Woodgardens wrote: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
Yes, if you're talking about progress in CPUS, I'd agree. We seem to have spent the better part of the last decade learning how to make fast CPUs run on less power, but 10+ cores in consumer machines is a solid jump.
-
- KVRAF
- 2279 posts since 20 Dec, 2002 from The Benighted States of Trumpistan
Yeesh, rich people problems.
OK, back to serious responses. Are there any DAWs or plugins (or even OSes) which can make enough of a use of multiple cores that that many cores/threads will make a major difference? Clock speed, I get. But does having an obscene number of cores actually enough of a performance difference to justify the extra cost?
OK, back to serious responses. Are there any DAWs or plugins (or even OSes) which can make enough of a use of multiple cores that that many cores/threads will make a major difference? Clock speed, I get. But does having an obscene number of cores actually enough of a performance difference to justify the extra cost?
Wait... loot _then_ burn? D'oh!
-
- KVRAF
- 15517 posts since 13 Oct, 2009
It's all about priorities. Ramen + i9, steak + i5, or children, choose one.Jafo wrote:Yeesh, rich people problems.
- KVRAF
- 2288 posts since 21 Mar, 2012 from Nom..nom.. YOUR MOM
Short answer: yes.Jafo wrote:Yeesh, rich people problems.
OK, back to serious responses. Are there any DAWs or plugins (or even OSes) which can make enough of a use of multiple cores that that many cores/threads will make a major difference? Clock speed, I get. But does having an obscene number of cores actually enough of a performance difference to justify the extra cost?
Long answer: some plugins will benefit more than others. Best to check with the dev of the ones you're concerned about to make an informed decision. All OS's scale to manage multiple cores, but the apps you run is what you're really concerned about. Virtually all DAW that I know of not only utilize Hyperthreading as discussed earlier, but also utilize multiple cores. The more the merrier, though clock speed and CPU platform matters a lot. An 8-core AMD FX-8300 doesn't perform close to a 4-core Intel i7 3770k.
Have you read the scanproaudio articles posted earlier in this thread? The Intel i9 series is killer.
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
- KVRAF
- 14988 posts since 26 Jun, 2006 from San Francisco Bay Area
So, I know speed isn’t everything, but why does it seem like we’ve hit a limit? Will we just see increases in thread count and number of cores?
Zerocrossing Media
4th Law of Robotics: When turning evil, display a red indicator light. ~[ ●_● ]~
4th Law of Robotics: When turning evil, display a red indicator light. ~[ ●_● ]~
- KVRAF
- 2288 posts since 21 Mar, 2012 from Nom..nom.. YOUR MOM
We haven’t hit a limit as far as core count is concerned. Clock speed is a physical limit.zerocrossing wrote:So, I know speed isn’t everything, but why does it seem like we’ve hit a limit? Will we just see increases in thread count and number of cores?
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
-
- KVRAF
- 2279 posts since 20 Dec, 2002 from The Benighted States of Trumpistan
Indeed.ghettosynth wrote:It's all about priorities. Ramen + i9, steak + i5, or children, choose one.Jafo wrote:Yeesh, rich people problems.
Wait... loot _then_ burn? D'oh!
-
- KVRAF
- 2279 posts since 20 Dec, 2002 from The Benighted States of Trumpistan
Just a quick peek; it's simply too depressing to see things so far outside my budget. But wow, things have changed...very cool!EnochLight wrote:Short answer: yes.Jafo wrote:Are there any DAWs or plugins (or even OSes) which can make enough of a use of multiple cores that that many cores/threads will make a major difference?
8< ------ >8
Have you read the scanproaudio articles posted earlier in this thread? The Intel i9 series is killer.
Wait... loot _then_ burn? D'oh!
-
- Banned
- 1780 posts since 26 Aug, 2012
I'm reading these replies, everyone saying yes, yes, yes but how many of you actually have i9 in your rig? Can you make a comparison from i5s and 7s? Or are you still on i5 and 7? If it's b then why are you still using i5 or i7? My guess is because they're more than powerful enough for what you need em for, right? and updating would be a waste of money? Well OK then, there's your answer.
- KVRAF
- 2288 posts since 21 Mar, 2012 from Nom..nom.. YOUR MOM
I’m still on i7 (an old 3770k), but have every intention to build an i9 when I have the cash. It’s still a decent performing chip, but I most certainly feel it’s age. Some of my projects can bring it to its knees, and my machine pulls double-duty as a Plex server. When 2 or more movies need transcoding at the same time, it’s done.Kinh wrote:I'm reading these replies, everyone saying yes, yes, yes but how many of you actually have i9 in your rig? Can you make a comparison from i5s and 7s? Or are you still on i5 and 7? If it's b then why are you still using i5 or i7? My guess is because they're more than powerful enough for what you need em for, right? and updating would be a waste of money? Well OK then, there's your answer.
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
-
- KVRAF
- 2945 posts since 23 Dec, 2002
The same here 3930K overclocked on water... it has been a great machine but I am now at the stage where I have render and freeze and increase latency to as high as 4096 to get enough juice to finish my most complex mixes (or some simple ones that use some hungry processors).
So far the I9 looks like the ideal replacment but I'll wait it out for another 6 months before making a move. The Ryzen Threadrippers were looking great for my application but the I9 has a clear edge now and may be worth extra cost when all things are considered
.
So far the I9 looks like the ideal replacment but I'll wait it out for another 6 months before making a move. The Ryzen Threadrippers were looking great for my application but the I9 has a clear edge now and may be worth extra cost when all things are considered
.
EnochLight wrote:I’m still on i7 (an old 3770k), but have every intention to build an i9 when I have the cash. It’s still a decent performing chip, but I most certainly feel it’s age. Some of my projects can bring it to its knees, and my machine pulls double-duty as a Plex server. When 2 or more movies need transcoding at the same time, it’s done.Kinh wrote:I'm reading these replies, everyone saying yes, yes, yes but how many of you actually have i9 in your rig? Can you make a comparison from i5s and 7s? Or are you still on i5 and 7? If it's b then why are you still using i5 or i7? My guess is because they're more than powerful enough for what you need em for, right? and updating would be a waste of money? Well OK then, there's your answer.
-
- KVRian
- 908 posts since 10 Jan, 2010
Power - the faster you run it, the more heat it generates (exponentially). Interesting curve here (near the bottom) with some sample power consumption curves:zerocrossing wrote:So, I know speed isn’t everything, but why does it seem like we’ve hit a limit? Will we just see increases in thread count and number of cores?
https://physics.stackexchange.com/quest ... cal-comput
-
- KVRian
- 702 posts since 9 May, 2005
We have clients running i9 CPUs.
They tend to be more "hardcore" (most professional) composers.
Typically running large orchestral templates... pulling heavy disk-streaming polyphony from multiple SSDs.
Unless you fit this type of scenario, the i9 is overkill.
For most DAW users, the i7-7700k (8 processing threads at 4.5GHz) is more than sufficient.
If you're making heavier use of virtual instruments... and need up to 128GB RAM, the i7-6850k (12 processing threads at 4GHz) is still a good choice (and reasonably affordable). The 6850k provides 40 PCIe lanes... so it works well with more complex builds.
They tend to be more "hardcore" (most professional) composers.
Typically running large orchestral templates... pulling heavy disk-streaming polyphony from multiple SSDs.
Unless you fit this type of scenario, the i9 is overkill.
For most DAW users, the i7-7700k (8 processing threads at 4.5GHz) is more than sufficient.
If you're making heavier use of virtual instruments... and need up to 128GB RAM, the i7-6850k (12 processing threads at 4GHz) is still a good choice (and reasonably affordable). The 6850k provides 40 PCIe lanes... so it works well with more complex builds.