Which is the hungriest Synth CPU wise nowadays?

[BONES]

Well, if people didn't feel the need to sprout unsupportable nonsense about the M1, it wouldn't happen.

Damn that's alot of strange comments about the i3. Why wouldn't anyone use that for production? Just grandma and people playing solitaire uses that? What?
New i3 wipes floor with mid tier i5s from just a few years ago. (25% faster in this case)

OK, so you'd use an i3 for music production, would you?

[Hans45]

You'ld try Xils-Lab Syn'X...

[astralprojection]

OK, so you'd use an i3 for music production, would you?

Of course, why not? You realise "I3" doesnt give away the speed of the cpu right? i5 and i7 doesnt mean "faster". I could list you many cpus, (i5s and i7s) that are slower than the I3 i linked above. You'll have to do better than that..
Maybe the lack of cores would force you to run a high buffer size (1024) on an intense project, but honestly many plugins dont take advantage of 8+ cores anyhow.

I have the i5 10600k myself, almost already outdated by the i3 from above. Not quite but almost...

As far as M1 goes, its really fast, and probably wipes the floor with Many a i3, i5, and i7 aswell.

[chk071]

I don't see why you couldn't use an i3 for music production either. It all depends on your budget.

I once had all of my audio software installed on my low tier i3 laptop. Sure, it wasn't fast, but, you could run a few instance of even more demanding plugins.

What I noticed now, with my more potent new desktop PC is that the real time performance is much better than on my old desktop (measured with LatencyMon). It also has about split the CPU use of most plugins in half.

You know, people made music in the box on Core2Duo's, which were much less performant than i3's.

[BONES]

Yeah but they didn't have Repro 5 or ARP Odyssey, or any of the dozens of other CPU hogs we can run today. A while ago Urs said that the oversampling in RepPro picks up where Diva left off. i.e. the lowest oversampling mode in RePro 5 is the same as the highest in Diva. Which is a good example of how quickly everything moves on and how eager devs are to take advantage of every little drop of performance.

Of course, why not? You realise "I3" doesnt give away the speed of the cpu right? i5 and i7 doesnt mean "faster".

Of course it f**king does, that's the whole point of the naming convention. And the "why not?" is the same one you'd use to justify buying a new computer and not putting up with a 3 or 4 year old processor. It's because new software assumes new hardware and therefore expects and requires faster processors. And let's ignore the fact that an i7 has twice as many threads as an i3 or i5 and, in later generations, can even have more cores. They have bigger L1 and L2 caches, etc., etc.

I could list you many cpus, (i5s and i7s) that are slower than the I3 i linked above.

As long as they're from the current gen, be my guest. Otherwise you are just proving my point for me.

Maybe the lack of cores would force you to run a high buffer size (1024) on an intense project, but honestly many plugins dont take advantage of 8+ cores anyhow.

Which is irrelevant, unless you are only using a single instrument with no effects. Because whilst individual plugins may not be able to use multiple cores, DAWs can assign different plugins to different cores, so the more threads you have, the more plugins you can run.

As far as M1 goes, its really fast, and probably wipes the floor with Many a i3, i5, and i7 aswell.

Not according to any test results I've seen.

[astralprojection]

Not to mention all the macbook pros people use as their 'main studio laptop'. it sure works for them, and that i3 just rains all over that macbook pro.

[BONES]

Precisely. Their new amazing processor is beaten by an Intel processor that sits at the very bottom of Intel's range, that nobody would even think to use for serious audio work. That was my point.

[astralprojection]

Yeah but they didn't have Repro 5 or ARP Odyssey, or any of the dozens of other CPU hogs we can run today. A while ago Urs said that the oversampling in RepPro picks up where Diva left off. i.e. the lowest oversampling mode in RePro 5 is the same as the highest in Diva. Which is a good example of how quickly everything moves on and how eager devs are to take advantage of every little drop of performance.

Of course, why not? You realise "I3" doesnt give away the speed of the cpu right? i5 and i7 doesnt mean "faster".

Of course it f**king does, that's the whole point of the naming convention. And the "why not?" is the same one you'd use to justify buying a new computer and not putting up with a 3 or 4 year old processor. It's because new software assumes new hardware and therefore expects and requires faster processors. And let's ignore the fact that an i7 has twice as many threads as an i3 or i5 and, in later generations, can even have more cores. They have bigger L1 and L2 caches, etc., etc.

I could list you many cpus, (i5s and i7s) that are slower than the I3 i linked above.

As long as they're from the current gen, be my guest. Otherwise you are just proving my point for me.

Maybe the lack of cores would force you to run a high buffer size (1024) on an intense project, but honestly many plugins dont take advantage of 8+ cores anyhow.

Which is irrelevant, unless you are only using a single instrument with no effects. Because whilst individual plugins may not be able to use multiple cores, DAWs can assign different plugins to different cores, so the more threads you have, the more plugins you can run.

As far as M1 goes, its really fast, and probably wipes the floor with Many a i3, i5, and i7 aswell.

Not according to any test results I've seen.

You are implying people change out their studio PC/Mac every year. Cause otherwise, why would you be so adamant that i3 always means slower? Just give it a few years, and its not, anymore. So yeah, if people swap out their CPU every damn year, sure the i3 is the slowest of the bunch.
Either way, its gonna be a great budget alternative, and gonna run things just fine, and thats an understatement. Any normal person with a budget (meaning like half the world) would not swap out their cpu every year. You have to be able to compare CPUS within time aswell, you cant argue that only the current lineups should be comparable. And the i3 is a great CPU for 100 bucks, performing almost the same as a mid tier i5 did a few years ago. So that means youre just a bit slow in the progress; doesnt make you a Grandma who only plays solitaire.

[mcnoone]

Synapse Audio Dune3.
It can use very little, but also use an extreme amount depending on how many voices are used and how long the release time.

[BONES]

You are implying people change out their studio PC/Mac every year. Cause otherwise, why would you be so adamant that i3 always means slower?

If you'd bothered to read the thing you responded to, you'd find the answer - cores, threads and caches. I stopped looking at clock speeds a decade ago and there is no time in the last 10 years I would have known the clock speed of any of my computers. Previously, however, I'd have known them as well as I know my phone number because back then they were the main determinant of processing speed/power.

Just give it a few years, and its not, anymore. So yeah, if people swap out their CPU every damn year, sure the i3 is the slowest of the bunch.

I don't "swap out my CPU" every year, I buy a whole new system. In fact lately it's probably more like every 9 or 10 months. Again, the CPU is just one of many factors that determines the performance of a computer. You also want the fastest (which means latest) RAM and bus technology and all the rest of it. If you just upgrade your CPU, you're not necessarily getting the best from it on an old mobo.

If you're wondering why I buy a new laptop every years, it's because it works out cheaper than holding onto it for 3 or 4. I always try and sell my old one while it is still a current model, which means I rarely lose more than a few hundred dollars on the purchase price. That means having the next-to-latest technology costs me about $1 a day. It's excellent value.

Any normal person with a budget (meaning like half the world) would not swap out their cpu every year.

That's because normal people lack my intellect and the insight that goes with it. They also smell funny.

You have to be able to compare CPUS within time aswell, you cant argue that only the current lineups should be comparable. And the i3 is a great CPU for 100 bucks, performing almost the same as a mid tier i5 did a few years ago.

Yeah but that same i5 from a few years ago would only be $50 so you'd probably be better off with that. The i3 is cheap for a reason.

So that means youre just a bit slow in the progress; doesnt make you a Grandma who only plays solitaire.

No, it definitely makes you a grandma playing Solitaire. A couple of years ago I tried doing music on a 6th gen i7, when I got a ridiculously good deal on an ex-lease Surface Pro 4, and it was just too limiting, even for my modest needs. Still, I sold it for a $100 more than I paid for it so it wasn't a problem.

[astralprojection]

Not sure if youre an elaborate troll. You swap out your system every 9 months? That makes you make better music? Faster? How the F did they make hits using pro tools in the early 2000s
The cache and cores doesnt just magically increase every year either, you just buy the "current" i5 that was the latest i7 a year ago. I mean that is what it boils down to.

"That's because normal people lack my intellect and the insight that goes with it. They also smell funny."

Yeah, most definitely some sort of troll. No way these are serious thoughts from a serious person. Youve been here so long though, 13k comments, so angry, so sad.

[BONES]

How the F did they make hits using pro tools in the early 2000s

Well, let me see... In the early 2000s ProTools came with a huge f**king hardware card to make it work and it cost more than a decent used car. That's how they did it back then. It wasn't until 2010 that Pro Tools was available without the need for proprietary hardware to make it work, although if you wanted high-res processing, you still needed an HDX card with 18 DSP processors to do the heavy lifting.

The cache and cores doesnt just magically increase every year either, you just buy the "current" i5 that was the latest i7 a year ago. I mean that is what it boils down to.

You're not using your brain. The i5 has more throughput than the i3 and the i7 has more threads and more throughput than either. As you say, that doesn't increase every year, which is why an old i5 will still have advantages over a new i3. 'tis the nature of the beast.

so angry, so sad.

No need to be angry or sad, just because you're wrong. See it as an opportunity to learn and grow.

[electro]

A Softube modular patch can destroy a CPU

[chk071]

I better not load that one up on my new computer then.

[flampton]

Bla bla apple, bla bla PC, bla bla another thread ruined by insecurity