# Intel Xeon vs Intel core i7



## Jackles (Jun 17, 2016)

Hi everyone,

Last year I purchased a new workstation and decided to pick Xeon instead of the popular i7. My choice was driven by the fact that I use VEPro to stream a massive template (EW Hollywood Orchestra, pretty much all the articulations), and when linked with Cubase, it just contently pushes on the CPU even when nothing is triggered. And I understood that Xeon is made for handling that kind of situation.

The downside is that Xeon is very expensive for a lower clock speed than i7. I confess I didn't do my research well, and now, I find myself having regular clicks and pops when I really thought that would be gone for good.

Does anyone of you work with a massive template of very heavy VSTs (like Hollywood Strings) with a lot of reverbs (altiverb), and if so, what is your setup like, and do you manage to have clean and "popless" sessions ?

Cheers

Motherboard : Z9PE-D8 WS
CPU : 2xIntel Xeon E5-2603 v2 (1.8 GHz)
RAM : 128Go DDR3 1600 MHz
Audio Interface : M-AUDIO Fast Track C600 (USB)


----------



## benatural (Jun 17, 2016)

I have a recent Xeon, run a big template on one machine, and generally don't get a lot of clicks. The only downside is I have to set my latency to 1028.

There are a ton of variables that can cause pops and clicks. Some things to try

Disable as many unused on board devices as possible through the bios
Minimize the amount of USB peripherals you connect to your PC
Make sure multi-threading is disabled in Cubase and Kontakt
Make sure asio guard is disabled in Cubase
Disable Turbo boost and c states in your bios
Use VST racks and midi tracks in cubase, not VSTis for you VEP tracks
Disable cpu throttling in your windows power settings
Disable dynamic tick using the command line
Minimize the amount of startup applications through msconfig
Don't run samples off of USB drives in case you do
Use SSDs for samples, use hardware RAID 0 if you can (helps with loading if nothing else)
Disable Kontakts Database feature
Try to stick with one altiverb, two max
Schedule virus scans for times when you aren't working
Use LatencyMon to find troublesome drivers
Work in 44.1 kHz
The idea here is to eliminate as many potential bottlenecks that can exist between your sampler and the CPU.

The other thing to understand is that a single system solution like yours and mine, no matter how good the CPU, will always require some sort of comprise to ensure glitch free playback.

The last thing I'd add is that you might want to consider using a PCIE sound card instead of a USB one. USB has a lot of CPU overhead that will compete with real time audio processing. RME makes cards with some of the lowest latency drivers you can find. 

Also some morherboards have higher DPC latency than others which can interfere with real time digital signal processing. MSI and Asrock are known to have mobos with the lowest DPC latencies.

Hopefully something here helps you on your journey.


----------



## Gerhard Westphalen (Jun 17, 2016)

+1 to what benatural said.

If, however, you're getting the pops not seemingly randomly but because you're simply running too much, then I'd say it's because your processor is too slow. A 1.8GHz processor is likely below the requirements for many plugins. I believe most, if not all, can only run on a single core so it doesn't matter how many cores you have. You could easily max it out with only a couple of plugins. Even for samples 1.8 isn't much. Especially for Hollywood Strings. There isn't really much you can do aside from raising the buffer as benatural suggests. I'm running at 3.3GHz and there are some plugins that'll easily take up a quarter of my asio performance load.


----------



## Jackles (Jun 18, 2016)

Thanks a lot for your time, I'll try all this and will get back to you.


----------



## jamwerks (Jun 18, 2016)

I have HS (16 arts per instrument, close & main mics) + HB (12 instruments x 16 arts, mains only) running on my main machine (I7 4770k OC'd). Takes up about 20gb ram (in VEP), all on SSD's, and really doesn't use much cpu. I wouldn't go with chips with such a low clock speed...


----------



## Jackles (Jun 18, 2016)

jamwerks said:


> I have HS (16 arts per instrument, close & main mics) + HB (12 instruments x 16 arts, mains only) running on my main machine (I7 4770k OC'd). Takes up about 20gb ram (in VEP), all on SSD's, and really doesn't use much cpu. I wouldn't go with chips with such a low clock speed...


It hurts to read this . I know it so well NOW !
I actually never had enough RAM before, to load enough samples to make my CPU to show any sign of fatigue. So I dumbly when crazy about RAM, and basically, based my whole setup around it. I knew CPU was part of the job, but what I didn't know, is that VEPro would take up to 70% of my CPUs just to make the samples available to Cubase (not even to play anything, just having the VEPro instances connected to Cubase).
My template goes up to 32Go though, and it's all on SSD as well.


----------



## benatural (Jun 18, 2016)

Clock speed is probably the most important spec for real time audio processing. Cores only make a difference when you're talking about adding many more cores. Example an 8 core vs. 10 core chip will only give you a modest peformance boost. 

I don't want to make assumptions about your financial situation, but you could probably sell your xeons and put the money towards a single higher clocked i7 

http://goo.gl/2IA4D4


----------



## rgames (Jun 18, 2016)

benatural said:


> Clock speed is probably the most important spec for real time audio processing. Cores only make a difference when you're talking about adding many more cores. Example an 8 core vs. 10 core chip will only give you a modest peformance boost.


I agree that clock speed tends to be more important (there have been a number of discussions on that topic) but disagree that more cores always provide benefit.

The benefit from extra cores depends entirely on the application. In general, most current apps show peak performance somewhere around 4-6 cores (assuming equivalent clock speed). Many apps actually show a reduction in performance with more cores. The situation can get even worse for real-time dependent apps like DAWs when you have dual-processor setups (which it sounds like the OP has).

Here's why: think of cores like painters painting a wall. Is it better to have a few really fast painters or a bunch of somewhat slower painters? In general a few really fast painters will do better because with a bunch of painters you waste a lot of time figuring out who's doing what. Coordinating tasks across a bunch of CPU cores suffers from exactly the same problem: coordination takes time. And at some point the extra coordination time hurts more than the extra workers help. Where that break-even point occurs depends entirely on the software.

Fewer cores at higher clock speed are like the fewer but faster painters, especially for DAW use. They tend to provide better overall performance.

rgames


----------



## Tanuj Tiku (Jun 18, 2016)

This is an interesting question actually. Agreed, higher clock speeds benefit real-time audio performance. 

The new i7 10-cores are out now. Besides the outrageous price, it seems to be safer to get the 8-core. I will probably get one built in the next 2-3 months. 

However, that begs a question as to what exactly are more number of cores better for? 

Does this mean that more cores will never benefit audio or that currently the applications we widely use cannot make use of this tech properly because they are coded a certain way?

CPU coordination is a good point but at the end of the day they are communicating with each other at lightning speeds, far greater than RAM or any other component. 

So, why would that have such a detrimental effect? I know the logic behind it but I am not sure exactly why it is not possible to have better performance with CPU and RAM talking to each other and churning out processes at insane speeds. 

Curious!


----------



## rgames (Jun 18, 2016)

Tanuj Tiku said:


> However, that begs a question as to what exactly are more number of cores better for?


It depends on the number. For things like 3d rendering and computational physics and data centers 10 or more cores are almost always helpful even at lower clock speeds. That's the Xeon domain.

For things like video rendering the sweet spot seems to be under 10, maybe more like 6-8. That's the HEDT domain.

For DAW use I've not seen any meaningful benchmarks other than my own and I don't see much difference between 4 and 6 cores at 4.4 GHz. I do, however, see a huge drop in performance between, say, 4.4 GHz and 3.0 GHz. I really can't imagine that any number of cores at lower speed would make up that difference. But, again, I've not actually seen any meaningful data.

rgames


----------



## rgames (Jun 18, 2016)

As an example (and as discussed recently in another thread) my i7 6700k four-core machine produces 13x more Omnisphere voices at 4.6 GHz than at 3.0 GHz.

Given that the high-core-count CPUs max out around 3.0 GHz, how many more cores would you need to match the 13x multiplier in number of voices?

I seriously doubt you can get there.


----------



## benatural (Jun 18, 2016)

That's more or less what I was getting at, i.e. that faster clock is better than more cores. Example, you're in the market for a new cpu and are considering two at the same clock speed, but one has 2 more cores for $3-400 more, you won't see a big performance gain if you get the one with more cores.


----------



## EvilDragon (Jun 19, 2016)

Tanuj Tiku said:


> what exactly are more number of cores better for?



Highly parallel operations. 3D rendering, for example.


----------



## soundgeek (Jun 19, 2016)

There's no simple answer to this,
It all depends on what you do ...

Some music tasks run multithreaded, and some don't.

If your single core performance is too low, you may even not be able to use some high CPU demanding instruments or effects at all.

If your number of cores is too low, you may run into trouble handling multiple tracks.

Have to find the right compromise.

Also, Xeon processors usually get updated later in the timeline, so depending on where you are in the life cycle , things may differ.
And some Xeon processors are targeted at the server market, seems to be the case here.

For example your 1.8Ghz E5-2603 v2 processor does not have Turbo boost technologie, it cannot work at a higher clock speed for a short time.

If you have a real time, single threaded task to handle, and it needs just a tiny bit more than what a 1.8 core can give ... well it just can't handle all the processing in time. So you will have 1 saturated core, and the 7 other cores will not help.

With a computer with single Xeon quad 3.6Ghz (with turbo boost to 3.9Ghz) ...You will be be able to handle at least 4 tracks of that same instrument ... maybe even 8 or more...


----------



## Tanuj Tiku (Jun 19, 2016)

Thanks for your reply Richard. I can see that more voices has little to do with number of cores but on purely a CPU level, for things like loading more reverbs, other plug ins and processing intensive tasks, could more cores be more beneficial?


----------



## Tanuj Tiku (Jun 19, 2016)

EvilDragon said:


> Highly parallel operations. 3D rendering, for example.




Ok, makes sense. So then could it be possible that our audio apps be made to take more advantage of such parallel operations or is this simply not possible since we need it in real-time and that is highly dependent on core speed?


----------



## EvilDragon (Jun 19, 2016)

A *lot* of audio operations are serial in their execution (EQ goes into compressor then into reverb and so on) so they cannot be parallelized efficiently, or at all. That's why clock speed matters more. More cores are also valid, but only if DAW has a good implementation of multicore processing (like spreading out tracks to cores in a logical manner, processing stuff in advance like Reaper does for example, and so on).



soundgeek said:


> it cannot work at a higher clock speed for a short time.



And this is also not very beneficial for audio applications - since Turbo Boost needs to be activated then deactivated, some CPU time is also taken for this mechanism as well, so some performance is lost while switching the CPU clock up and back down - this can also contribute to DPC spiking and sometimes even audible dropouts. So it's best to disable Turbo Boost completely, and just overclock to a fixed CPU speed anyways - if you want constant and consistent improved CPU performance.


----------



## tack (Jun 19, 2016)

benatural said:


> Work in 44.1 kHz


Wouldn't this depend on your template? My template is mostly Spitfire whose samples are all 48kHz. If I worked in 44.1kHz then Kontakt would have to do a whole lot more work resampling.


----------



## soundgeek (Jun 19, 2016)

Tanuj Tiku said:


> Ok, makes sense. So then could it be possible that our audio apps be made to take more advantage of such parallel operations or is this simply not possible since we need it in real-time and that is highly dependent on core speed?



Some DAW's already split tracks, and layered instruments to multiple cores, and it does make a big difference.
3.5Ghz Hexacore will probably handle more tracks than 3.7Ghz Quad core.
(Unless you have this chunk of code to process that causes a spike and ...you get it !)


----------



## EvilDragon (Jun 19, 2016)

tack said:


> Wouldn't this depend on your template? My template is mostly Spitfire whose samples are all 48kHz. If I worked in 44.1kHz then Kontakt would have to do a whole lot more work resampling.



Correct!


----------



## eqcollector (Jun 19, 2016)

Just recently went from i7 4790k to dual xeon e5 2630v3 config with 128GB of RAM DDR4, so similar as Jackles.
From my own experience, uploading instruments is slower a bit, opening a project is slower, but working (in my situation) with heavily orchestral projects where more than 200 tracks are active with each EQs and whatever not + heavily loaded with east west diamond and multiple mic positions and all of that in 96kHz/24bit, in my situation, I'm more than satisfied.


----------



## Vin (Jun 19, 2016)

rgames said:


> It depends on the number. For things like 3d rendering and computational physics and data centers 10 or more cores are almost always helpful even at lower clock speeds. That's the Xeon domain.
> 
> For things like video rendering the sweet spot seems to be under 10, maybe more like 6-8. That's the HEDT domain.
> 
> ...



That's my experience as well. Everything on a single machine, no VE Pro and I have a i7-5820k running @4.4 GHz, while friend of mine has a dual Xeon machine - my i7 runs so much smoother. No clicks, no pops and I use a tons of CPU-heavy plugins often with 4X/8X oversampling turned on.

Here's an interesting insight - comparing Xeon E5 with an old Core2Quad for video editing.

Also, some actual benchmarks here involving Xeon vs. Skylake, Haswell-E and the new 6950X and 6900k.


----------



## rgames (Jun 19, 2016)

Tanuj Tiku said:


> for things like loading more reverbs, other plug ins and processing intensive tasks, could more cores be more beneficial?


It still depends but in my experience the benefit of more than 4 or 6 is lost to reductions in clock speed.

EvilDragon is correct that audio processes don't lend themselves very well to multi-core processing but in practice I've not seen that be the limiting factor. You can prove it to yourself: when you get pops and clicks are you maxing out any of your individual CPU cores? If not then that single-thread processing is not the limiting factor.

As of about 5-7 years ago, in almost every instance that I've seen it's the real-time performance of the system that dictates the DAW performance - number of voices, number of reverbs, number of tracks, etc. For whatever reason, real-time performance scales better with clock speed than number of cores, presumably because of the added overhead of coordinating processes among many cores/threads.

It's important to point out, too, that pretty much any CPU these days is "good enough" for DAW use. So it's fun to geek out about "better" but nobody is going to produce more music as a result of a "better" system these days. However, I certainly wouldn't spend a ton of money on a high-end CPU for DAW use.

rgames


----------



## benatural (Jun 19, 2016)

EvilDragon said:


> Correct!



Nice, didn't know that about SF libs. When I was researching what sample rate to use for my template I thought I read they were 44.1. Good to know they aren't, it might explain a lot for me since I load a ton of SF libs! I'll test it out.


----------



## Jackles (Jun 19, 2016)

My concerne about Xeon vs i7 is the amount of process that hammers the CPU for a very long period of time. Isn't your i7 gonna die sooner if you use it like I do, running a pretty huge template through VEPro, which uses a lot of CPU just to make the connection with Cubase. 
Around 70% of the CPU usage, for around 8 hours a day, seems to me like a lot for an "average" consumer processor.


----------



## benatural (Jun 19, 2016)

Asumming you have good cooling and airflow, a CPU has the potential to outlast most of the other components in a computer. You'd have to run it under very high load at abnornally high temperatures for a very long time for it to fail.


----------



## EvilDragon (Jun 19, 2016)

Nah, it's gonna work just fine. You'll sooner need a newer/faster computer/CPU than the CPU would die on you, most likely. Just because i7 is consumer-grade, doesn't mean it can't sustain full loads for longer periods of time. Good cooling and you're off to the races. Quite literally


----------



## Jackles (Jun 19, 2016)

That's good to know. 
What would be a "good cooling system" for that particular case ?
I'll confess that I'm a little scared of buying a 500$+ CPU that could EXPLODE if it heats up too much. :D


----------



## EvilDragon (Jun 19, 2016)

I'm a big fan (_sic_) of Noctua NH-D15 cooler. It's bloody HUGE, and you can mount TWO 14 cm (not 12!) fans on it for enhanced cooling. Another way would be using liquid cooling systems. I'd suggest www.frostytech.com for more detailed analysis of various cooling systems.


In general if you manage to get your system not over 50-60°C even under 100% load, that's plenty enough - CPUs are fine with temperatures up to 70-75°C even. But above that is the danger area.


----------



## tack (Jun 19, 2016)

Jackles said:


> I'll confess that I'm a little scared of buying a 500$+ CPU that could EXPLODE if it heats up too much. :D


Nowadays CPUs don't explode thanks to thermal throttling.


----------



## benatural (Jun 19, 2016)

+1 for the Noctua NH-D15. Fantastic cooler, and it's quiet too.


----------



## Vin (Jun 19, 2016)

benatural said:


> +1 for the Noctua NH-D15. Fantastic cooler, and it's quiet too.



+1

I have a NH-D14 though, but fantastic company.


----------



## Vin (Jun 19, 2016)

Jackles said:


> That's good to know.
> What would be a "good cooling system" for that particular case ?
> I'll confess that I'm a little scared of buying a 500$+ CPU that could EXPLODE if it heats up too much. :D



It won't, don't worry. Thermal throttling + if you have a good cooler, it'll never go near the throttling point. My 5820K runs @4.4 GHz all day and the temperature is never north of 55° (when CPU is at 100% which is rare).


----------



## Jackles (Jun 19, 2016)

Thanks a lot guys.


----------



## benatural (Jun 19, 2016)

benatural said:


> Nice, didn't know that about SF libs. When I was researching what sample rate to use for my template I thought I read they were 44.1. Good to know they aren't, it might explain a lot for me since I load a ton of SF libs! I'll test it out.



Slightly OT, but I ran some tests with 44.1 vs. 48k. My template has about 21 gb Spitfire samples and 16 non Spitfire. When my template was loaded and my DAW was connected to VEP my CPU sat idle at 60% at both sample rates and I got pops and clicks in predictable ways at both rates. The main difference was that @ 48k my DAW used more memory than usual and maybe sounded a little better than usual?

It's possible that if my template was mostly SF it _might_ have made a difference, can't say for sure. From a memory use standpoint, 44.1 is slightly more economical.


----------



## tack (Jun 20, 2016)

benatural said:


> Slightly OT, but I ran some tests with 44.1 vs. 48k. My template has about 21 gb Spitfire samples and 16 non Spitfire. When my template was loaded and my DAW was connected to VEP my CPU sat idle at 60% at both sample rates and I got pops and clicks in predictable ways at both rates. The main difference was that @ 48k my DAW used more memory than usual and maybe sounded a little better than usual?


Interesting. Now that you have me curious, I'll run a similar test tonight, only I'll enable ~40G of exclusively 48kHz sampled VIs. Although, on my system I can push 30-40G of samples and not remotely approach 60% CPU utilization while my DAW is otherwise idle. Usually it's more like 5-10%. But then I don't use VEP, and Reaper is pretty good at optimizing idle tracks.

Roughly how many patches and Kontakt instances would you say you had loaded? What CPU do you have? (Mine is an i7 6700k at 4.5GHz.)

I'd be surprised if it actually sounded better, I mean unless Kontakt's resampling algorithm is of dubious quality? (I would have expected it should be pretty good.)


----------



## rgames (Jun 20, 2016)

tack said:


> Interesting. Now that you have me curious, I'll run a similar test tonight, only I'll enable ~40G of exclusively 48kHz sampled VIs. Although, on my system I can push 30-40G of samples and not remotely approach 60% CPU utilization while my DAW is otherwise idle. Usually it's more like 5-10%. But then I don't use VEP, and Reaper is pretty good at optimizing idle tracks.


Please do post your results - I'm curious to know if it really makes a difference for anyone. So far we have one vote for "no". I'll see if I can check it out.

This is another good example of something that *might* have an effect but needs to measured in a meaningful way to say for certain.

Cheers,

rgames


----------



## EvilDragon (Jun 20, 2016)

Differences will largely depend on the number of concurrent voices being processed by Kontakt, and the interpolation mode used in the instruments (HQI - adjustable per group). The default standard interpolation is just a cheap linear interpolation algorithm, whereas "high" and "perfect" are sinc interpolation algos, I think - and those can munch some CPU indeed, the higher the resample factor, the worse - but they also sound much cleaner.


----------



## tack (Jun 20, 2016)

Surprised to learn that Kontakt's default resampling algorithm is a naive linear interpolation.


----------



## EvilDragon (Jun 20, 2016)

I'm not _entirely_ sure, but aliasing artifacts are pointing in that direction... It's the cheapest, and you need things to be cheap when doing lots of voices of polyphony (this is also why Kontakt has an offline resampling quality in Options - better have that set to "Perfect"!)... Thankfully, if there is _no_ _other_ modification of sample rate present in the instrument other than base resampling from a higher SR to 44.1k, that's not really a huge drop in quality (although of course there are better and cleaner algos out there, but they all cost so much CPU they're not viable for realtime usage, let alone _polyphonic_ realtime usage). By "no other" I mean: no zone tuning adjustments, no LFOs modulating pitch, no scripted change_tune() commands.


----------



## tack (Jun 20, 2016)

rgames said:


> Please do post your results - I'm curious to know if it really makes a difference for anyone. So far we have one vote for "no". I'll see if I can check it out.


The results surprised me. It does look like @benatural's initial advice was sound even with 48kHz-sampled libraries. It seems as though Kontakt's cheap (and evidently low quality) linear interpolating resampling is still less costly than processing 48 kHz throughout the whole playback chain.

I'll be interested to know if others can reproduce these results with other DAWs.

(Note the y axis is CPU _idle_, not CPU utilization. This is a better way of assessing CPU performance in my professional experience.)


----------



## rgames (Jun 20, 2016)

Good info! I'll file this one under "stuff not worth worrying about"


----------



## PeterKorcek (Jun 21, 2016)

Vin said:


> +1
> 
> I have a NH-D14 though, but fantastic company.



Noctua NF-P12 PWM here


----------



## tabulius (Jun 21, 2016)

If the higher clock speed benefits voice counts and real time performance then the i7 6700K with 4.2 GHz should be a good pick for a slave computer I guess. The new i7 6800K - 6950X also have pretty high clock speeds and usually consumer i7s are well equipped to overclock (what I don't usually personally do). The new 8-cores and 10-cores are very high priced tho and I'm not sure will I get the price to performance value that I would like.

Now I've been thinking of going for fanless passive cooling options. Hd-plex H5 can cool i7 6700K without fans and then there is the Airtop http://airtop-pc.com/ that can cool i7 5775C or Xeon E3-1285L v4. Airtop might be a good for slave DAW builds, but I don't have experience of 5775C or E3-1285L CPUs.


----------



## Jaredf920 (Jun 21, 2016)

I'm currently working on an i7-6800k build (6-core). (ordering parts this month) 
I recently build an i7-6700k (quad core) machine, primarily for gaming, but I will do some tests on it to to compare to the 6800. Maybe the 2 extra cores aren't worth the money... I am planning on overclocking the 6800k though, so we shall see.

I believe the i7 CPUs are far superior than the Xeon for slave machines, at least in my experience.


----------



## chimuelo (Jun 22, 2016)

I have used i7s only.
But Xeon users are basically all Mac users with Foxconn mobos.

6700k is really nice as an all in one GFX/CPU.
But my favorite i7 is the 4790k.
Using a discrete GFX card.
I use a GeForce 700.

@4.45Ghz it can do anything.

Xeons are long life higher binned products.
Give me one with 16MB cache and 4.4ghz and I'll drop the 4790k.


----------

