KVR Audio

Jim Roseberry · Post by **Jim Roseberry** » Sun Oct 22, 2017 3:51 pm

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.

ghettosynth · Post by **ghettosynth** » Sun Oct 22, 2017 3:57 pm

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.

Jafo · Post by **Jafo** » Sun Oct 22, 2017 4:16 pm

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?

ghettosynth · Post by **ghettosynth** » Sun Oct 22, 2017 4:55 pm

Jafo wrote:Yeesh, rich people problems.

It's all about priorities. Ramen + i9, steak + i5, or children, choose one.

incubus · Post by **incubus** » Sun Oct 22, 2017 6:39 pm

Hey, that's me

I have cheaper meals, a 15 y/o car and shit clothes so I can afford the important stuff

EnochLight · Post by **EnochLight** » Sun Oct 22, 2017 8:22 pm

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?

Short answer: yes.

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.

zerocrossing · Post by **zerocrossing** » Sun Oct 22, 2017 11:12 pm

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?

EnochLight · Post by **EnochLight** » Sun Oct 22, 2017 11:29 pm

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?

We haven’t hit a limit as far as core count is concerned. Clock speed is a physical limit.

Jafo · Post by **Jafo** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 12:00 am

ghettosynth wrote:
Jafo wrote:Yeesh, rich people problems.
It's all about priorities. Ramen + i9, steak + i5, or children, choose one.

Indeed.

Jafo · Post by **Jafo** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 12:18 am

EnochLight wrote:
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?
Short answer: yes.

8< ------ >8

Have you read the scanproaudio articles posted earlier in this thread? The Intel i9 series is killer.

Just a quick peek; it's simply too depressing to see things so far outside my budget. But wow, things have changed...very cool!

Kinh · Post by **Kinh** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 3:50 am

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.

EnochLight · Post by **EnochLight** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 11:44 am

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.

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.

Scotty · Post by **Scotty** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 1:33 pm

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
.

EnochLight wrote:
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.
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.

chroma · Post by **chroma** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 2:01 pm

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?

Power - the faster you run it, the more heat it generates (exponentially). Interesting curve here (near the bottom) with some sample power consumption curves:
https://physics.stackexchange.com/quest ... cal-comput

Jim Roseberry · Post by **Jim Roseberry** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 3:16 pm

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.

Core i5 2500K vs Core i9 10 core