# POLL: which CPU should I go for ???



## Leandro Marcos (Nov 6, 2017)

We all love polls and leaving our personal vote to help out a fellow, right?

So let the poll begin! Please vote as if you were in my shoes (my system needs and my budget - which is not the best at the moment).

I need to decide between the following i7 models:

6800k
7700k
8700k
8700
7740x
7800x
7820x

I use Sonar Professional, and work 95% of the time with virtual instruments (kontakt, PLAY), and mostly orchestral stuff (lots of high end strings and brass libraries like the Hollywood series, which are very demanding). As for FX, I guess the most demanding are the new Neutron 2 and Ozone 8.
I currently have an OLD Core2 Quad 9400 (yeah, that's old dude) so even the weakest processor will be a HUGE improvement to my system. Having that in mind, these are my thoughts about the processors mentioned:

6800k - Advantages: Allows 128 gb RAM / 6 cores. Disadvantages: "old" processor as of 2017 / not very impressive clock speeds / requires 2011 socket motherboard

7700k - ADV: High clock speeds / good value for what you pay DIS: Only 64 gb RAM / requires 1151 socket which is dated as of 2017 and might get replaced soon ( no room for future updates to the system) / only 4 cores

8700k - ADV: 6 cores / impressive high clock speeds. DIS: Only 64 gb RAM / requires 1151 socket which is dated as of 2017 and might get replaced soon ( no room for future updates to the system / low base clock speed

8700 - ADV:VERY similar to the "k" version at a lower price. DIS: No overclocking / same disadvantages as the "k" version.

7740x - ADV: Impressive high clock speed / requires the 2066 socket which gives room for future updates. DIS: Only 64gb RAM / only 4 cores

7800x - ADV: up to 128 gb RAM / requires the 2066 socket which gives room for future updates / 6 cores. DIS: not very impressive clock speeds

7820x - ADV: Up to 128 gb RAM / has 8 cores / requires the 2066 socket which gives room for future updates / impressive clock speeds and overall performance (especially with turbo boost). DIS: VERY expensive for what you get.
I won't be using 128 gb anytime soon. But would be nice to already have that option to update in the future. I won't be using more than 64 gb RAM in the following 1 to 2 years.

I've read that higher clock speeds are better than higher cores (for DAWs at least). That's why it's difficult to decide whether to sacrifice the RAM ceiling for more clock speed.

So...given my not-so-big budget, my current needs and future expansion possibilities, what would be my "best value for money" investment ?
Thanks in advance to you all !!!


----------



## Jazzy_Joe (Nov 6, 2017)

Hi Leandro, I'm in the exact same boat actually, and have made a short list of processors, and have eyed up the 8700k, with z370 MOBO, and currently willing to take the hit in 64gb of ram capacity, rather than take a risk on a x299 board and i9 as there does not seem to be enough real world data running VI's etc... out there. 

Plus from what I've been reading here, you'll hit a bottle-neck before you use all that ram. But maybe I'm wrong? 

I've been running a i7 3770 with 32GB of ram for the last 4 years, and has served me well up to this point, but bottle-necking (i think) has been an issue with larger templates and track count... 

I look forward to reading everyone's opinions on your post also, as I expect to pull the trigger on a new rig this weekend! Best of luck on your search


----------



## Symfoniq (Nov 6, 2017)

I went with the 7820x. No regrets.


----------



## wpc982 (Nov 6, 2017)

I too bought a 7820x recently, mostly in order to get the 128 GB. Dunno about the processor still, but I'm easily using the extra memory. Around 80 Gb seems comfortable, where before I'd have to start compromising around 40-50 Gb used of 64 total.


----------



## wpc982 (Nov 6, 2017)

If you're going to go with anything with the 64Gb limit, the older i7-5820 is really a very reliable and satisfactory chip. Overclocking seems fine with it, though I never pushed the limits at all. Have run two of them for two years without any problems except the 64G limit. (edit) I can't vote for any of the choices, since I've only used the 7820 and don't have much background to evaluate whether it is as cost-effective as it should be or not.


----------



## Mihkel Zilmer (Nov 6, 2017)

Jazzy_Joe said:


> Plus from what I've been reading here, you'll hit a bottle-neck before you use all that ram. But maybe I'm wrong?



It depends on the exact situation of course.

If you load up 128GB of stuff, but only play a few instruments at a time, then you can utilize your RAM fully.

On the other hand, if you try to play 30-40 instruments simultaneously, each with 3-4 mic positions active then the number of voices is going to be insanely high and you'll probably hit the ASIO / CPU ceiling first. Those instruments might only be taking up half your RAM, or less.

So it's a matter of preference. You can of course load up a lot more stuff and have it ready to go if you have more RAM, but on the other hand you won't be able to actually play all of the stuff you've loaded up simultaneously anyway.



Leandro Marcos said:


> I've read that higher clock speeds are better than higher cores (for DAWs at least). That's why it's difficult to decide whether to sacrifice the RAM ceiling for more clock speed.



In general, this is accurate. It makes a bigger difference with FX plugins than it does with VSTs, as most VST hosts are pretty good at multithread workloads. Cubase ASIO Guard helps quite a bit too. Still, people who thought that getting dozens of (relatively slow) Xeon cores would be a good idea, are in general pretty unhappy with the performance.

Another thing to take into account is how well your chosen CPU overclocks (also make sure you have adequate cooling if you plan to OC!) This can really add a lot to overall performance.

http://www.scanproaudio.info/ has done a lot of benchmarks, including newer chips. For example, here is a graph with DawBench VI results (note that a bunch of these chips have been overclocked for these results)


----------



## Leandro Marcos (Nov 6, 2017)

I can get the 8700 at a special price in a store. Is it really a dealbreaker to go for the "k" version instead of the "non-k" ? I dont see much of speed difference between the two to justify the price difference. In addition, I would be saving not having to purchase a cooler since the 8700 comes with a cooler which, might not be the best cooler in the world, but I guess it matches the performance of the 8700.


----------



## tack (Nov 6, 2017)

Symfoniq said:


> I went with the 7820x. No regrets.


Did you go with liquid cooling?


----------



## khollister (Nov 6, 2017)

If you are OK with using the integrated GPU and aren't dying to drop 128GB of RAM in, the 8700K is hard to beat for the money (CPU cost, MB cost, no graphics card required). The 7820X only makes sense if you need the RAM capacity or 8 extra PCIe lanes. Of course you have to use a graphics card, so there goes 16 lanes right off the top.


----------



## Leandro Marcos (Nov 6, 2017)

khollister said:


> If you are OK with using the integrated GPU and aren't dying to drop 128GB of RAM in, the 8700K is hard to beat for the money (CPU cost, MB cost, no graphics card required). The 7820X only makes sense if you need the RAM capacity or 8 extra PCIe lanes. Of course you have to use a graphics card, so there goes 16 lanes right off the top.



ok, but how about the non-k version? There's no big difference between the 8700k and the 8700 like other processors use to have (ex: 7700k vs 7700). Will overclocking make a huge difference to make it worth pay the extra bucks?


----------



## khollister (Nov 6, 2017)

Leandro Marcos said:


> ok, but how about the non-k version? There's no big difference between the 8700k and the 8700 like other processors use to have (ex: 7700k vs 7700). Will overclocking make a huge difference to make it worth pay the extra bucks?



You can lock the K to the max turbo (or higher) all cores active. The non-K will not get to 4.6 with all 6 cores going full tilt. Also the 8700 is a 65W TDP part vs 95W. Now lower power is great, but I don't believe for a minute that a 100 MHz reduction in clock speed makes that big of a difference. My suspicion is the non-K may have different throttling limits.

I see no reason to give up the ability to OC to save $60.


----------



## Symfoniq (Nov 6, 2017)

tack said:


> Did you go with liquid cooling?



No, I'm using a Noctua NH-D15, which runs quiet and cools the CPU like a champ. Reports of these CPUs running excessively hot are exaggerated IMO. If you crank up the voltage (overclock), they get really hot, but stock, you shouldn't see any temperature issues with air cooling.


----------



## Leandro Marcos (Nov 6, 2017)

Poll currently tied between the 7820x and the 8700k


----------



## Living Fossil (Nov 6, 2017)

Mihkel Zilmer said:


> http://www.scanproaudio.info/ has done a lot of benchmarks, including newer chips. For example, here is a graph with DawBench VI results (note that a bunch of these chips have been overclocked for these results)



According to this table a i9 7900x has appr. 2x the power of a i7 7700k.
That would indicate that indeed it make sense to have 128 GB Ram.
However, if the z370 will be the new mobo for the actual i7 consumer chips, then the 64gb ram limit is fix.
That's somehow annoying.
(please correct me if i'm wrong...)


----------



## wpc982 (Nov 7, 2017)

Symfoniq said:


> No, I'm using a Noctua NH-D15, which runs quiet and cools the CPU like a champ. Reports of these CPUs running excessively hot are exaggerated IMO. If you crank up the voltage (overclock), they get really hot, but stock, you shouldn't see any temperature issues with air cooling.



I used a liquid cooling product, but regret it. It works fine, certainly keeps the cpu cool, but it took several hours to get its 'radiator' in place in the computer case, and the radiator has fans that are not as good and quiet as for instance the Noctua ones; previous builds used the Noctua. Mine was 'arctic cooling 360' which turned out to be 390 mm long, not 360 (my misreading, probably, in thinking the 360 was size) so it had to push into the optical drive space, preventing installation of a drive. So, it does its job and is reasonably quiet, but not silent and not easy to deal with. I probably would have bought the Noctua again, but I couldn't find out whether it supported the newer 2066 socket .. they should update their materials!


----------



## Leandro Marcos (Nov 7, 2017)

I've narrowed it down to the 7820x and the 8700k.
will the 2 additional cores of the 7820x make a real difference? Maybe in the amount of VI's I can load?
Speed performance seems to be very similar. So the difference in price would be just for the additional cores. What to do? This is so stressing...


----------



## khollister (Nov 7, 2017)

Leandro Marcos said:


> I've narrowed it down to the 7820x and the 8700k.
> will the 2 additional cores of the 7820x make a real difference? Maybe in the amount of VI's I can load?
> Speed performance seems to be very similar. So the difference in price would be just for the additional cores. What to do? This is so stressing...



2 cores + 128GB RAM + ability to upgrade CPU


----------



## Leandro Marcos (Nov 7, 2017)

i7820x taking the lead two votes ahead.

I wanna see those votes. Keep'em comin' !


----------



## GtrString (Nov 7, 2017)

Aren't DAWs, VI's and plug-ins limited in how many cores they can utilize? Are there any examples of DAWs, VIs or plug-ins that can make use of more than 4 cores?


----------



## Geocranium (Nov 7, 2017)

I just started the slow process of buying parts for a 7820x build (just got the x299 MB) for my VEP slave. It was between that and the 8700k. I ended up going with the 7820x because of some things that irked me about the 8700k. Namely that the 8700k + 64gb of RAM is the absolute best you can get for that chipset, so in the future I would have to get a totally different chipset if I wanted to do any upgrading. On top of that, the 7820x is only very slightly behind the 8700k in single core, but is much better in multicore. Also as of right now, it's much easier to get a 7820x, as 8700k is pretty much sold out everywhere, unless you don't mind paying $500 for one. If you look hard enough, you can get a 7820x for that price anyways.

Basically I went for it because of the reasons that khollister said above. When the time comes to upgrade, you still have the entire i9 series to choose from, which I doubt will be superseded by anything anytime soon.


----------



## Damarus (Nov 16, 2017)

Choose the fastest single-thread rated processor, which is the 8700k followed by the 7700k. DAWs benefit most from per-thread performance, not core count. 64GB of RAM is a high ceiling.. you would be much better off investing in a large SSD to keep your libraries. The benefits of a fast SSD are much higher than 128gb of RAM.


----------



## fraz (Jun 27, 2018)

Hi,

Good point about the 4 core like 7700 K being good for a host machine with sequencer on Cubase etc.....but what about the slave machines for VEP? - Surely more cores is better for slave machines? - Not a big difference between 8700 K and 7820 X.

7820 X isn't far behind the 6950 X and looking at some of the Scan Audio benchmarks the 8700 K is right up there and like others have mentioned is a fair bit cheaper.

Also for the 8700 K to get the really big numbers a big over clock of 1 Ghz (1000 Mhz) is needed and I'd speculate that the 8700 K wouldn't get the big numbers without it ?

The 7820 X seems to get the big numbers going from 3.6 Ghz > 4.3 Ghz which is 700 Mhz boost and has the AVX 512 but whether sample libraries will be able to use this I'm not sure.

Both processors must be excellent 

ps-A very good board on X299 is the MSI X299 Sli Plus - OK it won't do thunderbolt but did get good review for multi-media. Just thought it's worth a mention to check out and is cheaper than some of the other boards


----------



## Sami (Jun 27, 2018)

fraz said:


> Hi,
> 
> Good point about the 4 core like 7700 K being good for a host machine with sequencer on Cubase etc.....but what about the slave machines for VEP? - Surely more cores is better for slave machines? - Not a big difference between 8700 K and 7820 X.
> 
> ...




Several threads dealing with that question so I encourage you to look around a bit. Consensus seems that fast hyperthreaded 4/6 cores are the sweet spot for slaves with 64 gb of ram and more benefit is gained from adding slave systems than from adding cores or ram to a slave by going x299


----------



## Scrianinoff (Jun 27, 2018)

I have built a totally silent 8700k extra Daw for doodling at my midi-'upgraded'-Steinway baby grand. Total silence was my priority, even under heavy load. I do not have a CPU temperature fetish, and so neither should any of you. Here are the specs:

1: 8700k clocked at 4.7 GHz with all Turbo-boost features _on, _so it clocks lower when idle, no impact on asio performance here.

2: Bequiet Dark Power 550W PSU, dead silent power supply

3: Scythe Mugen 5 cooler PCGH edition, with dead silent fans, the Noctuas are a lot noisier, I know I have both the 14 and the 15 in two other PCs, they are in the "machine room" for a reason. To be clear, it's not only the fans but also the heatsink itself that makes noise by the air pumped through it. The Mugen is a lot more silent. Look it up or test it for yourself. The Noctuas are a few degrees Celsius cooler, but we don't have a temp fetish, now do we?

4: Asrock Z370 professional gaming motherboard (with both 10Gb and 1Gb ethernet ports), rock stable, 3 NVMe slots, great fan control for plenty of (silent!) fans.

5: Only SSDs of course, no spinners.

6: A silent case of choice (I can't remember), it does not really matter, even with the case open, I cannot hear the fans spinning at their low RPMs configured with the fan control features of the motherboard.

7: Replace the case fans, if needed, with silent fans.

8: Configured fan control to _never_ hear any of the fans, two cpu fans, two case fans, max rpms around 1800, if I remember correctly, experiment to your liking. The psu fan you cannot control, so see point 2 above.

Result: Highest 8700k temp on day 1 in a two hour full load under artificial cpu load tests: 97 Celsius, without thermal throttling. Highest temp under heavy daw load, for the past two logged months: 93 Celsius (also without thermal throttling). These temps are within specs, and will not end the _useful _life of the cpu prematurely, it may now last 10 years instead of 20, to me that is _no meaningful difference. _

The meaningful difference is of course that I don't hear the computer, even under heavy load, and it has not choked yet on anything I throw at it. For doodling it has more than enough memory, but as already said a few times before by others, that depends on the way you work.

My initial plan was to build a 7980xe machine, but from other silent PC initiatives published here and there, I knew I would not be able to make that one dead silent, not even running at its default clock speeds, let alone overclocked. Don't think water cooling would make a huge difference in silent cooling. The water pump alone makes enough noise to annoy me.


----------



## Steve Steele (Jun 27, 2018)

I don't mean to disrespect anyone's opinion or experience here but I'm seeing some misinformed opinions here. Most modern DAWs that are made for film or orchestral music are fully multiprocessor aware. For example Digital Performer and Cubase take advantage of all cores (especially when setup correctly), and when combined with Vienna Ensemble Pro, even more so. VE Pro is excellent at multiprocessor use. Kontakt itself is very good at multiprocessor support. However, when it comes to Hyperthreading most audio apps only use up to 30% of His capability compared to video rendering which can use 100% of HT. There is a difference between "cores" and "threads" but some companies mistakenly interchange the terms.

When you start turning on all of the mic positions that come with modern Spitfire and Orchestral Tools libs (and many others), you'll find Kontakt (or other sample engines), peak single core usage _very quickly_ if not set up properly (I cover this in Part 2 of my Kontakt Optimization video). I've shown optimum setups in several of my videos. Personally I would go for Xeons, but if you're trying to save money then the fastest high core count i7 or i9 will have to do.

*And concerning RAM, 64GBs is NOT overkill.* "64GB of RAM is a high ceiling." Untrue. My template takes over 100GBs when fully loaded. I have four m.2 SSDs in a 16 lane card on the PCIe bus in a RAID 0 and it reads at 5.7GB/s (5700MB/s), which is great for template loads, but won't keep up with DFD usage on a single core. *I also have 128GBs of RAM in both of my Mac Pros.* Sorry Damarus, no offense but what you said was wrong.
_
"DAWs benefit most from per-thread performance, not core count."_ It completely depends on the template. Small templates won't be affected so much. _Larger templates must spread themselves out across cores or the DAW will peak quickly and you'll wonder why._ When using DFD, the default for most sample engines (Kontakt, Play, UVI and VSL's VI Pro), use DFD and some samples stay stored on a drive or SSD until it needs to be loaded, or some parts of the sample group remain sitting on the SSD). _Guess what is then responsible for getting the samples from the SSD to RAM?_ *The CPU.* The best scenario is when *EVERY SINGLE* sample is moved to RAM when loaded, and DFD is disabled. When DFD is enabled and the CPU has to read the drive to load then into RAM you loose CPU cycles to that unnecessary process. When in RAM, samples are much closer to the CPU and they don't have to travel along the SATA bus or the PCIe bus (although storing samples on the PCIe bus with m.2 SSDs is the best place to store them as the PCIe lanes lead directly to the CPU). Still not as fast or efficient as all samples in RAM though. It looks as though you're using a Window's PC, which is fine. Both macOS and Windows support complete multithreading. Any DAW that is limited to 4-cores as someone suggested is a handicapped DAW which I would not use, (personally never heard of that - but ask the Sonar folks anyway, or someone on their forum if Sonar is _completely multiprocessor capable). 
_
Good luck,
Steve


----------



## Scrianinoff (Jun 27, 2018)

I completely subscribe to the points raised by Steve nightwatch. I have been arguing the same years back. Especially the points about 30% hyper-threading efficiency is difficult to comprehend for some people in the cpu load vs asio load debate, I am happy you do.

However, at present, a few years later, my total sample library storage requirements have risen to 7TB. I have tried to make a selection to load on the assortment of slave machines I have running in my machine room, but can no longer fit it in memory, even with low Kontakt buffers, or purged samples. I started counting the memory load of all samples loaded and lost count, and interest, at 700GB of DRAM needed. Furthermore, I don't want to leave too much out, I already culled the bits I don't need.

For my mobile setup I was already using the frozen track template approach, for years. See here and further: https://vi-control.net/community/threads/purchasing-a-cpu-for-laptop.53352/#post-3957061

I am now also using this for my non-mobile DAWs, such as the Steinway side DAW (8700k with 64GB as specified in my post above), and the composition room DAW (7960 with 128GB).

It depends how busy and full your arrangements are whether you will (often) deplete the 64GB, I do sometimes. No problem to me, I simply freeze a couple of tracks that do not need further changes then (takes 3 to 5 seconds) and the memory is back to use on some new tracks.

For the flexibility, to have everything ready (after the initial 1 to 2 seconds of unfreezing a track), and not having to fiddle around with 5 slave machines all the time and the extra latency(!) introduced that way, is _my_ preferred way of working.


----------



## chimuelo (Jun 28, 2018)

Ladies & Gentlemen...Scrianoff.


----------



## Scrianinoff (Jun 28, 2018)

chimuelo said:


> Ladies & Gentlemen...Scrianoff.


You can call me Rachmabin


----------



## Scrianinoff (Jun 28, 2018)

Here comparing the 8700k, 7820x, 7980xe and others with Dawbench VI results: https://vi-control.net/community/threads/cpus.68150/#post-4249569


----------

