# If i7/9 are so good why high end DAW builders only use Dual Xeon



## Mishabou

I'm looking for a new Cubase PC and to my surprise all top DAW builders i contacted suggest Dual Xeon (Dual E5-2690 v4, 128 GB ram, SSD....). They do sell i7/9 machines but their top of the line offering revolve around dual Xeon and not i7/9 processors.


----------



## Sami

If you were a salesman, would you want to sell a machine worth 1000 or 3000€?
If someone came to you and asked and it was obvious he hadn’t done his research to understand that dual cpu systems have enormous latency, lower clock speeds and are thus inherently unsuitable for many music production tasks at low buffers and that Cubase cannot -out of the box mind you- utilize more than 14 threads, would you not try to sell them the most expensive product you have and make a nice profit?

Please, build yourself a i9-9900k with 128gb of ram (apparently support is coming in december), an nvme boot drive, some sata ssds and a proper audio interface and forget about that dual xeon business


----------



## Gerhard Westphalen

As a slave, you could potentially benefit from a Xeon computer that has a zillion slow cores. As a main DAW computer, then no. I'd say it's a combination of what Sami said plus trying to get the best (most expensive) possible computer which in this case may lend itself better for certain applications rather than others.


----------



## Sami

I agree with Gerhard on that, although I have to say that for the price of a current Xeon workstation you can buy 4 fast quad core machines which are probably going to outperform it and you have more redundancy. I have completely stopped using slaves and run everything on a single 14-core Mac with 128GB of RAM in Logic without VEPro and never looked back to the slave setup since then.


----------



## Pictus

To complement what has already been mentioned:

The i9-9900K official max RAM is 64GB
https://ark.intel.com/products/186605/Intel-Core-i9-9900K-Processor-16M-Cache-up-to-5-00-GHz-

But with the new RAM
https://www.anandtech.com/show/1347...gb-of-ddr4-on-core-9th-gen-desktop-processors
(...)Normally mainstream processors only support 64GB, by virtue of two memory channels, two DIMMs per memory
channel (2DPC), and the maximum size of a standard consumer UDIMM being 16GB of DDR4, meaning 4x16GB = 64GB.
However the launch of two different technologies, both double height double capacity 32GB DDR4 modules
from Zadak and G.Skill, as well as new 16Gb DDR4 chips coming from Samsung, means that technically in a
consumer system with four memory slots, up to 128GB might be possible.(...)


Anyway, wait a bit for the new CPUS
https://wccftech.com/intel-9th-gen-...re-i9-9980xe-x299-cpus-full-family-announced/


BTW, have you seen this
https://vi-control.net/community/th...960x-and-128-gb-or-ram-versus-i9-7940x.75879/

http://www.scanproaudio.info/2017/1...00k-as-the-i7-range-gets-a-caffine-injection/
http://www.scanproaudio.info/2017/10/30/intel-i9-7940x-7960x-dawbench-testing/


----------



## Damarus

Valuable information already listed and on the most recent threads in this subgroup.

Any website links to these DAW builders? They specifically mention its user for DAW's? or for 'workstation' use


----------



## Mishabou

Sami said:


> If you were a salesman, would you want to sell a machine worth 1000 or 3000€?
> If someone came to you and asked and it was obvious he hadn’t done his research to understand that dual cpu systems have enormous latency, lower clock speeds and are thus inherently unsuitable for many music production tasks at low buffers and that Cubase cannot -out of the box mind you- utilize more than 14 threads, would you not try to sell them the most expensive product you have and make a nice profit?
> 
> Please, build yourself a i9-9900k with 128gb of ram (apparently support is coming in december), an nvme boot drive, some sata ssds and a proper audio interface and forget about that dual xeon business



Actually profit margin is better on "consumer" grade i7/i9 chips than server class Xeon so they don't necessarily make more money by selling you a 10K machine vs 3K.

I'm using Pro Tools on a nMP (dual Xeon) and my buffer lives on 64, lots of VIs, mix (5.1)/record as I compose, all in the box, works fine. Before that I was using an HP Z800 workstation (dual Xeon), low latency recording, mixing in surround and lots of VI...again solid.

For an upcoming project, i'm putting together a new Cubase rig as my collaborators are on that platform. Read lots of reviews/tests and i7/i9 seems to be the golden choice for Vis. My PC pimp is letting me test drive a top i9 machine vs Dual Xeon and choose whichever one fits my needs. Will report back soon!


----------



## Damarus

Anhtu said:


> My PC pimp is letting me test drive a top i9 machine vs Dual Xeon and choose whichever one fits my needs. Will report back soon!



Would be interested in these results! What interface are you using?


----------



## Mishabou

Pictus said:


> BTW, have you seen this
> https://vi-control.net/community/th...960x-and-128-gb-or-ram-versus-i9-7940x.75879/
> /



Not sure what's the big deal or I'm I missing something ? If I understand correctly, he's playing back 100 voices using different VIs at 128 buffer. I tried it on my 6 year old nMP with PT ultimate 2018.7 and it works fine. Usually I use around 60 to 70 VIs, around 70 - 90 voices total at 64 buffer.


----------



## Mishabou

Damarus said:


> Would be interested in these results! What interface are you using?



My studio is on Dante, love the flexibility...

I'm using Avid MTRX, Focusrite RedNet and PCIe.


----------



## Flexi83

Hi Damarus,
any updates regarding the i9 machine vs Dual Xeon comparisson?
Regards
Feliks


----------



## bill5

Just a note to others who might be reading this and thinking they have to have these REALLY high-end machines...if you can afford it more power to you (and I'm jealous), but these are not required. 128GB RAM good Lord, can I get a job where you are


----------



## Damarus

Flexi83 said:


> Hi Damarus,
> any updates regarding the i9 machine vs Dual Xeon comparisson?
> Regards
> Feliks



I was always under the assumption that top tier desktop CPUs are the best for DAW performance. They are designed to run as fast as possible. Xeon processors are meant to run 24-7, be reliable, and have great multi-tasking abilities.

Highest single thread performance is the best for DAW performance from what I've seen, but people are using Mac Pros, and iMac Pros with Xeon processors in them.

We need some kind of benchmark between the two.



Anhtu said:


> My PC pimp is letting me test drive a top i9 machine vs Dual Xeon and choose whichever one fits my needs. Will report back soon!



Any update on this?


----------



## rgames

Pretty much any i7 or better processor is good enough for music production these days. Yes, in my experience the desktop processors with higher clock speed offer more voices at lower latency than the Xeons. And I've seen that dual Xeons perform even worse if you care about # voices at a given latency (which is most relevant for people who work with VIs).

I think dual Xeons might, in fact, provide lower latency if you're using A LOT of processing. For example, 300 compressors. But who uses 300 compressors in a project? Definitely not me, so I consider that a useless metric. I care about # voices at a given latency. So it's a simple question to the DAW suppliers: how many voices does your machine provide at a given latency? Of course you need to specify the library and sampler because those factors have an impact as well. For Kontakt libraries like LASS the answer is 4000+ if you use SSDs in an older i7. Here's a link to some of my tests on an i7 6700k, two years old now:

https://vi-control.net/community/threads/i7-6700k-slave-machine-sample-streaming-benchmarks.54126/

How much better are those dual-Xeons on those metrics?

I've never seen anyone answer that question. Based on my experience, the answer is that the desktop machines perform better than the Xeons. And the dual Xeons perform the worst (unless you need to run 300 compressors...). Also based on my experience (and testing) clock speed has a larger impact than number of cores so long as you're using more than four cores. I think the sweet spot these days is 6-8 cores that top out around 4.5 GHz.

But, again, the truth is that pretty much any machine is "good enough" these days, so worryig about performance is not a good use of time. You're not going to suddenly write and produce twice as much music by getting the absolute best-performing machine. You're not even going to write and produce 10% more music. Those days are gone. Thank goodness.

So don't worry about it. Get a machine with enough SSDs to hold your data and at least 64 GB RAM. Run at 10 ms latency (better than acoustic instruments, by the way). The rest is in the noise these days - adjust your spending accordingly.

rgames


----------



## Damarus

rgames said:


> Pretty much any i7 or better processor is good enough for music production these days. Yes, in my experience the desktop processors with higher clock speed offer more voices at lower latency than the Xeons. And I've seen that dual Xeons perform even worse if you care about # voices at a given latency (which is most relevant for people who work with VIs).
> 
> I think dual Xeons might, in fact, provide lower latency if you're using A LOT of processing. For example, 300 compressors. But who uses 300 compressors in a project? Definitely not me, so I consider that a useless metric. I care about # voices at a given latency. So it's a simple question to the DAW suppliers: how many voices does your machine provide at a given latency? Of course you need to specify the library and sampler because those factors have an impact as well. For Kontakt libraries like LASS the answer is 4000+ if you use SSDs in an older i7. Here's a link to some of my tests on an i7 6700k, two years old now:
> 
> https://vi-control.net/community/threads/i7-6700k-slave-machine-sample-streaming-benchmarks.54126/
> 
> How much better are those dual-Xeons on those metrics?
> 
> I've never seen anyone answer that question. Based on my experience, the answer is that the desktop machines perform better than the Xeons. And the dual Xeons perform the worst (unless you need to run 300 compressors...). Also based on my experience (and testing) clock speed has a larger impact than number of cores so long as you're using more than four cores. I think the sweet spot these days is 6-8 cores that top out around 4.5 GHz.
> 
> But, again, the truth is that pretty much any machine is "good enough" these days, so worryig about performance is not a good use of time. You're not going to suddenly write and produce twice as much music by getting the absolute best-performing machine. You're not even going to write and produce 10% more music. Those days are gone. Thank goodness.
> 
> So don't worry about it. Get a machine with enough SSDs to hold your data and at least 64 GB RAM. Run at 10 ms latency (better than acoustic instruments, by the way). The rest is in the noise these days - adjust your spending accordingly.
> 
> rgames



This is so good. Very well said. Needs to be sticky around here!


----------



## jononotbono

rgames said:


> at least 64 GB RAM


... in each slave.


----------



## chimuelo

I was led to believe that our apps have a high miss rate with data so large cache and ECC DRAM w/ Xeons would be quicker because data is not sent back to the CPU Cache or CPU as much.
ECC is slower, but after watching a friend using ECC w/ a 3.8GHz Xeon there was no advantage at all.
I tried to explain to a few guys here why I wanted to try it and they were correct.
I was duped by an IT Guy who runs a server farm full of AMD and Xeons.

Turns out everything you read here about the fastest CPU is correctamundo.

I think we’ll never see any large gains with our DAWs until somebody makes a better OS designed for audio.
Until then just get the cheapest RAM and fastest CPU and get a little boost every 2 years.

Unless you buy an AMD.
There seems to be an advantage using the fastest DRAM settings.
That’s with 8 Cores though, not their quads and only the recent 2000 series.

Go fast.


----------



## Mishabou

Hi all,

Sorry for the MIA, been swamped with gigs...

I wrote a few cues using a top of the line i9 (X-series) and dual Xeon (E5-2690 V4 @ 2.6 Ghz), both has 128 GB, 128 GB SSD for OS (Win 10) and 4 x 2 TB SSD for samples.

Personally, I don't care much about ''Benchmark test'' because I don't see the point of loading gazillions EQ, Comp, Reverbs, VIs and watch the meter. What's important is a rock solid/reliable rig that can cater to my workflow with plenty of room to spare.

After receiving the computers, I installed Windows 10, Pro tools ultimate 2018.7, Cubase 9.5, Live 10/Push 2 and all my libraries on each machine and wrote two similar cues.

The cues contain roughly 92 voices from VI instruments (Kontakt, Play, Omnisphere and Sylenth1), 70 audio tracks. I usually mix as I go and always work in 5.1 with 1080p24 video in prores 422 (output via AJA Kona card). By default, all my tracks have EQ/Comp and I'm using 6 reverbs for these cues.
I seldom record VO, live drums, horns etc as I compose so the rig has be able to handle it without bouncing tracks. The buffer was set at 128 on both machines. The cues was done on CB and PT.

The Xeon rig wins big time. It was much snappier, did not crash once, no buffer errors etc...real solid all around.

The i9 rig crashed a couple of times, buffer errors every 3 - 4 hrs, clicks and pops in audio once in a while, nowhere near as snappy.

Was hoping for a better outcome from the i9, I got basically the same result when I tested a top i7 vs dual Xeon a few years ago before buying my nMP.


----------



## Kony

Anhtu said:


> Actually profit margin is better on "consumer" grade i7/i9 chips than server class Xeon so they don't necessarily make more money by selling you a 10K machine vs 3K.


Taking into account that commission revolves around total sales for a salesman, not the profit-margin of units sold - ie 10% commission on total monthly sales for example. It also helps the company in terms of total turnover.


----------



## chimuelo

Anhtu said:


> Hi all,
> 
> Sorry for the MIA, been swamped with gigs...
> 
> I wrote a few cues using a top of the line i9 (X-series) and dual Xeon (E5-2690 V4 @ 2.6 Ghz), both has 128 GB, 128 GB SSD for OS (Win 10) and 4 x 2 TB SSD for samples.
> 
> Personally, I don't care much about ''Benchmark test'' because I don't see the point of loading gazillions EQ, Comp, Reverbs, VIs and watch the meter. What's important is a rock solid/reliable rig that can cater to my workflow with plenty of room to spare.
> 
> After receiving the computers, I installed Windows 10, Pro tools ultimate 2018.7, Cubase 9.5, Live 10/Push 2 and all my libraries on each machine and wrote two similar cues.
> 
> The cues contain roughly 92 voices from VI instruments (Kontakt, Play, Omnisphere and Sylenth1), 70 audio tracks. I usually mix as I go and always work in 5.1 with 1080p24 video in prores 422 (output via AJA Kona card). By default, all my tracks have EQ/Comp and I'm using 6 reverbs for these cues.
> I seldom record VO, live drums, horns etc as I compose so the rig has be able to handle it without bouncing tracks. The buffer was set at 128 on both machines. The cues was done on CB and PT.
> 
> The Xeon rig wins big time. It was much snappier, did not crash once, no buffer errors etc...real solid all around.
> 
> The i9 rig crashed a couple of times, buffer errors every 3 - 4 hrs, clicks and pops in audio once in a while, nowhere near as snappy.
> 
> Was hoping for a better outcome from the i9, I got basically the same result when I tested a top i7 vs dual Xeon a few years ago before buying my nMP.




Interesting results.
Are you using ECC and the 6000 Series Chipsets?
Xeons themselves are just higher binned parts, but the Chipsets have a more focused feature set and always allow Double the RAM.


----------



## Mishabou

Kony said:


> Taking into account that commission revolves around total sales for a salesman, not the profit-margin of units sold - ie 10% commission on total monthly sales for example. It also helps the company in terms of total turnover.



We are lucky enough to get some IT and audio equipment at cost. We've bought a fair amount of Dell and HP over the years and profit margin is better on consumer products (i3/5/7/9) vs server class (Xeon).

The real money comes from continued annual support for the server class products.


----------



## Damarus

Anhtu said:


> Hi all,
> 
> Sorry for the MIA, been swamped with gigs...
> 
> I wrote a few cues using a top of the line i9 (X-series) and dual Xeon (E5-2690 V4 @ 2.6 Ghz), both has 128 GB, 128 GB SSD for OS (Win 10) and 4 x 2 TB SSD for samples.
> 
> Personally, I don't care much about ''Benchmark test'' because I don't see the point of loading gazillions EQ, Comp, Reverbs, VIs and watch the meter. What's important is a rock solid/reliable rig that can cater to my workflow with plenty of room to spare.
> 
> After receiving the computers, I installed Windows 10, Pro tools ultimate 2018.7, Cubase 9.5, Live 10/Push 2 and all my libraries on each machine and wrote two similar cues.
> 
> The cues contain roughly 92 voices from VI instruments (Kontakt, Play, Omnisphere and Sylenth1), 70 audio tracks. I usually mix as I go and always work in 5.1 with 1080p24 video in prores 422 (output via AJA Kona card). By default, all my tracks have EQ/Comp and I'm using 6 reverbs for these cues.
> I seldom record VO, live drums, horns etc as I compose so the rig has be able to handle it without bouncing tracks. The buffer was set at 128 on both machines. The cues was done on CB and PT.
> 
> The Xeon rig wins big time. It was much snappier, did not crash once, no buffer errors etc...real solid all around.
> 
> The i9 rig crashed a couple of times, buffer errors every 3 - 4 hrs, clicks and pops in audio once in a while, nowhere near as snappy.
> 
> Was hoping for a better outcome from the i9, I got basically the same result when I tested a top i7 vs dual Xeon a few years ago before buying my nMP.



This is so interesting.. I assume the i9 is properly cooled and clock speed was set pretty high (rather than just letting it turbo boost)

I wonder if a single Xeon chip would still win


----------



## Mishabou

Damarus said:


> This is so interesting.. I assume the i9 is properly cooled and clock speed was set pretty high (rather than just letting it turbo boost)
> 
> I wonder if a single Xeon chip would still win



I will ask my tech when I get a chance...

I've been using the same tech for years, since the TDM days. He does custom computers for SSL, Neve and render farms for special FX so DAW and/or VEP pro slave rigs are really a walk in the park for him 

Anyways, I can count on one hand the number of crashes I've had in the past 6 years with my current set up.


----------



## Flexi83

Hi Anthu 
any updates from your IT guy regarding the xeon single Chip? Really appreciate that.
Regards


----------



## Dunshield

Anhtu said:


> Hi all,
> 
> Sorry for the MIA, been swamped with gigs...
> 
> I wrote a few cues using a top of the line i9 (X-series) and dual Xeon (E5-2690 V4 @ 2.6 Ghz), both has 128 GB, 128 GB SSD for OS (Win 10) and 4 x 2 TB SSD for samples.
> 
> Personally, I don't care much about ''Benchmark test'' because I don't see the point of loading gazillions EQ, Comp, Reverbs, VIs and watch the meter. What's important is a rock solid/reliable rig that can cater to my workflow with plenty of room to spare.
> 
> After receiving the computers, I installed Windows 10, Pro tools ultimate 2018.7, Cubase 9.5, Live 10/Push 2 and all my libraries on each machine and wrote two similar cues.
> 
> The cues contain roughly 92 voices from VI instruments (Kontakt, Play, Omnisphere and Sylenth1), 70 audio tracks. I usually mix as I go and always work in 5.1 with 1080p24 video in prores 422 (output via AJA Kona card). By default, all my tracks have EQ/Comp and I'm using 6 reverbs for these cues.
> I seldom record VO, live drums, horns etc as I compose so the rig has be able to handle it without bouncing tracks. The buffer was set at 128 on both machines. The cues was done on CB and PT.
> 
> The Xeon rig wins big time. It was much snappier, did not crash once, no buffer errors etc...real solid all around.
> 
> The i9 rig crashed a couple of times, buffer errors every 3 - 4 hrs, clicks and pops in audio once in a while, nowhere near as snappy.
> 
> Was hoping for a better outcome from the i9, I got basically the same result when I tested a top i7 vs dual Xeon a few years ago before buying my nMP.



Hi Anhtu, many thanks for taking the time to share your experience!! Can you give us an idea of what the pricing is of each system?


----------



## Mishabou

Sorry for the delay... I will ask my tech about the specs of the i9 machines, as for the Xeon, they were dual E5-2690 v4 (28 cores/56 threads).

The i9 machine was roughly $3200 and $6700 for the Xeon. When we lowered the buffer to 64, the i9 could not keep up with the session, zero problem with the Xeon.

My current 12 core nMP actually performs better than the current i9 at lower buffer and it's almost 6 years old!!! Anyways unless Apple comes out with a new Mac Pro in the next few months, i will go with the Xeon as the tests were pretty conclusive to me.

Unlike some of the complaints I see around here, CB has always perform well under Mac OS for me. Too bad Apple is ignoring their Mac Pro users.


----------



## Flexi83

Hi Anthu
thanks for sharing this. Then we wait.


----------



## Gerhard Westphalen

Anhtu said:


> Hi all,
> 
> Sorry for the MIA, been swamped with gigs...
> 
> I wrote a few cues using a top of the line i9 (X-series) and dual Xeon (E5-2690 V4 @ 2.6 Ghz), both has 128 GB, 128 GB SSD for OS (Win 10) and 4 x 2 TB SSD for samples.
> 
> Personally, I don't care much about ''Benchmark test'' because I don't see the point of loading gazillions EQ, Comp, Reverbs, VIs and watch the meter. What's important is a rock solid/reliable rig that can cater to my workflow with plenty of room to spare.
> 
> After receiving the computers, I installed Windows 10, Pro tools ultimate 2018.7, Cubase 9.5, Live 10/Push 2 and all my libraries on each machine and wrote two similar cues.
> 
> The cues contain roughly 92 voices from VI instruments (Kontakt, Play, Omnisphere and Sylenth1), 70 audio tracks. I usually mix as I go and always work in 5.1 with 1080p24 video in prores 422 (output via AJA Kona card). By default, all my tracks have EQ/Comp and I'm using 6 reverbs for these cues.
> I seldom record VO, live drums, horns etc as I compose so the rig has be able to handle it without bouncing tracks. The buffer was set at 128 on both machines. The cues was done on CB and PT.
> 
> The Xeon rig wins big time. It was much snappier, did not crash once, no buffer errors etc...real solid all around.
> 
> The i9 rig crashed a couple of times, buffer errors every 3 - 4 hrs, clicks and pops in audio once in a while, nowhere near as snappy.
> 
> Was hoping for a better outcome from the i9, I got basically the same result when I tested a top i7 vs dual Xeon a few years ago before buying my nMP.



In my experience, the MOBO also has a huge impact on the performance so that could be what's causing issues on the i9 system. Dual Xeon mobos probably have more features stripped and are probably made to be more rock solid.

In my system, due to issues with which parts were in stock and needing to have parts replaced in store after several mobo fails, I ended up with an MSI board which has been nothing but trouble. I originally wanted Asus or Gigabyte but this is what they decided to put in it and I had no say in the matter (unless I buy a completely new board). I was never able to get VEP to run without spikes even after months of dealing with VSL and Steinberg support. Blank Cubase with just empty VEP's connected (running on the same computer). Large mix sessions without VEP, no problems whatsoever. Nothing could solve it so I just had to live with it. I spent months looking through the endless data produced by the Windows Performance Analyzed trying to find anything that correlated. The only evidence of any issues I found was the CPU activity jumping down whenever there was a spike. Seemed to be something relating to a power setting but nothing ever fixed it. The more VEP instances, the more often the spikes happened so I had to condense my template into as few instances as possible in order to not have a spike every minute (with empty projects!). No DPC spikes or anything. Essentially an untraceable problem.

Now that I've switched to a different RME interface, I'm having other issues where the interface seemingly disconnects for a split second. Sounds cuts out but no spike anywhere and even the RME settings panel doesn't pick up any errors. Eventually it started to cut out long enough for Cubase to lose the connection and then I have to restart it and chose the audo device. Been going back and forth with RME on this and it seems to be something to do with how the USB ports work on this mobo. Changing ports changes how it behaves but at the same time, I can make it happen more by doing certain takes like using Finale which isn't even using this interface.

At the same time, I've used a cheap Dell computer with this same interface and VEP and had none of these problems (and it didn't even have any sort of optimization or troubleshooting for audio). I've also built a +$7000 i9 machine which didn't have any of these issues as well.

My old Xeon system from Rain Computers, on the other hand, had issues with VEP. After a year or so of trouble shooting, I was finally able to fix it by making changes in the registry relating to the MMCSS settings based on following driver calls in the Windows Performance Analyzer. None of the DAW computer specialists I talked to had ever heard of these settings or issue being solved by changing these settings. Shortly after that I switched to this computer only to have unsolvable issues... It's a shame Rain went out of business. I don't think Molten Music Technology (new company by the same owner) will last much longer.

The only real difference between these computers was the mobo and nothing I do on this computer fixes these issues which just further leads me to believe that it's related to the mobo and can never be fixed. Having said that, the issues I've normally had are related to VEP in one way or another so if you're not using VEP then I don't suspect you'd have any issues with mobos.


----------



## Mishabou

Not sure of the exact model but the MOBO used for the i9 was an ASUS. As mentioned, the i9 machine works fine, just nowhere close to the dual Xeon at low buffer...

Out of curiosity, any one here with an i7/9 running 100+ voices from VI with lots of automation in 5.1 with Eucon controller (S3 or S6), 1080p24 video...at 64 or 128 buffer ?


----------



## chimuelo

Sort of OT but my Xeon v5 1275 has been getting burned in for 9 weeks now.
Only difference Ive seen is it can run @ .07 msec/ 64 Samples /96k with no hiccups.
I don’t see why this would be a big deal with recording or editing in a DAW but it sure is nice for live performance.

I’m using regular DDR and the C236 Chipset with the Asus P10S-WS Micro ATX.
I bought just cause I liked the M.2 slots placement and the lower watts of the overall system.
Don’t like excessive heat.


----------



## Damarus

Love the discussion here. I would love to have a Xeon workstation as the next build. It would make sense as they are the highest quality chips Intel makes. Just seems odd that they would work better given the Xeon vs Consumer chip Singled-threaded performance numbers.

I was running an i7-4970x that I ended up replacing with an i7-7700k system that I definitely feel runs worse. I haven't had any major issues, and I'm not running lots of instruments but overall just doesn't feel as fast.

I wonder how older dual Xeon overclocked chips would compare..


----------



## Damarus

So actually, it would make sense that the dual Xeon would win. The consumer chips win in single threaded performance, but you have 2x the processors doing the work.

The real test here is to put a similarly performing single Xeon against a Desktop CPU.


----------



## tabulius

Here is an interesting i9 vs Xeon W (The same as in iMac Pro) benchmarks. No DAW tests tho, but the performance was really similar. I'm not sure why the Xeons would be better in audio work. Scan Pro Audio should do some tests.

I'm happy that the new Cubase 10 supports 14-cores and above.


----------



## Flexi83

Hi tabulius,
thanks for sharing the link. As you said before, no DAW tests so not really meaningful.



Sami said:


> If you were a salesman, would you want to sell a machine worth 1000 or 3000€?


Interesting point for me because but if a xeon is more stable without audio dropouts then decission is made easy.


----------



## Sami

Flexi83 said:


> Hi tabulius,
> thanks for sharing the link. As you said before, no DAW tests so not really meaningful.
> 
> 
> Interesting point for me because but if a xeon is more stable without audio dropouts then decission is made easy.


Running a 24/7 stable 7940x overclocked to 4.5 all cores with 128gb of non-ecc ram (which was mixed up of two kits by different manufacturers, both rock stable at 3600 and one kit outside its native timing) and it‘s a hackintosh on top. 128 samples of latency on a babyface pro with around 600 tracks on logic without vepro. Never hear a single crackle, pop, had any significant issue with latency or any issue whatsoever. I moonlight as a computer systems engineer (yeah, music is my dayjob) and I am and will forever be convinced: Dual anything, especially Xeons for real time sample based composition is BULLSHIT.

Rant over, thank you for joining.


----------



## fuzzface

Sami said:


> Running a 24/7 stable 7940x overclocked to 4.5 all cores with 128gb of non-ecc ram (which was mixed up of two kits by different manufacturers, both rock stable at 3600 and one kit outside its native timing) and it‘s a hackintosh on top. 128 samples of latency on a babyface pro with around 600 tracks on logic without vepro. Never hear a single crackle, pop, had any significant issue with latency or any issue whatsoever. I moonlight as a computer systems engineer (yeah, music is my dayjob) and I am and will forever be convinced: Dual anything, especially Xeons for real time sample based composition is BULLSHIT.
> 
> Rant over, thank you for joining.


Hello sami

Do you mean you use 500 kontack instance on your 7940x hackintosh ?
Without vep?
How many memory you can use before crackle?

Thanks


----------



## Sami

fuzzface said:


> Hello sami
> 
> Do you mean you use 500 kontack instance on your 7940x hackintosh ?
> Without vep?
> How many memory you can use before crackle?
> 
> Thanks


500 instances of kontakt mainly (some UVI in there) as multis in Logic as well as MIR Pro and FabFilter plugins running. 128 buffers of latency. RAM usage when fully loaded (I usually only use partial templates) is about 111 GB. I have never heard a crackle at all with the RME audio interface and I fully believe the computer would run out of RAM before running out of processing power. Even with 256 buffers the round trip latency is still an (unnoticeable to me) 11 ms.


----------



## Mishabou

Sami said:


> 500 instances of kontakt mainly (some UVI in there) as multis in Logic as well as MIR Pro and FabFilter plugins running. 128 buffers of latency. RAM usage when fully loaded (I usually only use partial templates) is about 111 GB. I have never heard a crackle at all with the RME audio interface and I fully believe the computer would run out of RAM before running out of processing power. Even with 256 buffers the round trip latency is still an (unnoticeable to me) 11 ms.



The important factor is how many voices can you actually play reliably.

When i was testing different rigs (i7/9, Xeon). I find even a cheap office PC with an i5 can run hundreds of Kontakt instances at 128 buffer without a sweat.


----------



## Sami

Anhtu said:


> The important factor is how many voices can you actually play reliably.
> 
> When i was testing different rigs (i7/9, Xeon). I find even a cheap office PC with an i5 can run hundreds of Kontakt instances at 128 buffer without a sweat.


About 1500 voices of polyphony without a hitch


----------



## Flexi83

HI Sami,
ok, this convinced me to buy an i9 7960x based system. If two forum members have good experience with these systems then I will buy these. Sami, what graphic card do you use?
Regards
Feliks


----------



## Pictus

Flexi83 said:


> HI Sami,
> ok, this convinced me to buy an i9 7960x based system. If two forum members have good experience with these systems then I will buy these. Sami, what graphic card do you use?
> Regards
> Feliks


Or the new i9-9960X
https://www.anandtech.com/print/13539/the-intel-core-i9-9980xe-review




https://techreport.com/review/34253/intel-core-i9-9980xe-cpu-reviewed/8

And make sure to get a motherboard with decent VRM implementation like ASRock Taichi *XE*
https://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/8480/asrock-x299-taichi-xe-intel-motherboard-review/index11.html
If need Thunderbolt the GIGABYTE X299 Designare EX have built-in TB ports
https://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/8...nare-ex-intel-motherboard-review/index11.html
Or the *new* Asus PRIME X299-DELUXE *II*
https://techreport.com/news/34173/asus-prime-x299-deluxe-ii-gets-ready-to-make-the-most-of-core-x

VRM on X299 motherboards
https://www.hardwareluxx.de/community/f12/lga-2066-mainboard-vrm-liste-1167715.html
https://www.overclock.net/forum/6-intel-motherboards/1632665-intel-x299-socket-2066-vrm-thread.html

For GPU get AMD, see why at
https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=7060297
The Gigabyte Radeon RX 550 D5(GV-RX550D5-2GD) is https://www.amazon.com/Gigabyte-Radeon-Graphic-Cards-GV-RX550D5-2GD/dp/B06Y43NJ3D (+- $110)
Its fans only turns when hot, they got hot only when doing 3D stuff or games, not audio.


----------



## Flexi83

Hi Pictus,
thanks for sharing this huge information packet.



Pictus said:


> For GPU get AMD, see why at


 Is the RX550D capable to support 3 monitors? If not I consider to use a RX 570D instead. I guess they both will have equal low DPC latency values, right?


----------



## Pictus

Flexi83 said:


> Hi Pictus,
> thanks for sharing this huge information packet.
> 
> 
> Is the RX550D capable to support 3 monitors? If not I consider to use a RX 570D instead. I guess they both will have equal low DPC latency values, right?



You are welcome, the RX550D supports 3 monitors, but it got very limited ports options...
The RX 570D is wayyyy better with *3 DisplayPorts* + 1 HDMI 2.0 + Dual-link DVI-D.
The Radeons will not mess with your latency.


----------



## tabulius

Sami said:


> Running a 24/7 stable 7940x overclocked to 4.5 all cores with 128gb of non-ecc ram (which was mixed up of two kits by different manufacturers, both rock stable at 3600 and one kit outside its native timing) and it‘s a hackintosh on top.



Hackintosh, that's brave! I considered building a i9 hackintosh for a second, but after browsing few forums and there I saw a 500 page document of all the tweaks, hacks and considerations - I thought Windows 10 it is


----------



## Sami

tabulius said:


> Hackintosh, that's brave! I considered building a i9 hackintosh for a second, but after browsing few forums and there I saw a 500 page document of all the tweaks, hacks and considerations - I thought Windows 10 it is


Thing is, that's what I used to think until I built the thing and it's been running stable, cool and fast ever since. Trick is to choose a "golden build", the rest happens on its own.


----------



## tabulius

Yes, but there are no "golden builds" for Skylake-x. Or I haven't saw any: https://www.tonymacx86.com/buyersgu...ac-hackintosh-the-ultimate-buyers-guide/#CPUs


----------



## controtempo

resurrecting this, from what i have understood I let you notice that as per Cubase (Steinberg says prior to v.10 ),to have more then 14 threads (so 7 phisical cores) on Win 10 is not only useless, but it even introduces audio dropouts, so actually it becomes an issue to correct by Downgrading to Windows 8.1 ,or Limiting the amount of logical cores used by Cubase/Nuendo to 14 (link)

So from what i have got, to synthetize: audio+multi cores (x99 ,x299)=not the best









Windows 10: audio dropouts on multi-core CPU setups


This article refers to Cubase versions prior to Cubase 10 only.Cubase 10 is automatically adapting the amount of real-time threads to the system. As of Windows 10, the amount of real-time process...




helpcenter.steinberg.de





Is not just a Cubase/win 10 issue, here there are other tests 14 vs 8 cores,(even different users) same daw ,both *Pro Tools and Logic* , on Hackintosh and results talk clear, 8 cores wins by far vs 14 cores.
There are detailed tech reasons for why x99 x299 architecture isnt the best for audio, u can research it, try to read it in the following last post i link here, among the comments (translate it)
I am just reporting what i have got so "in x299 is the core topology, the functioning of the latencies between the various caches and the double ringbus system of the HCC and XCC cores, are the same problems that make the old ryzen unsuitable for audio and high refresh gaming..."

For some tech specs datas about x299








Skylake-X review: Intel Core i9-7900X and the X299 platform | Page 2 | igor'sLAB


Introduction Intel's new X-Series consists of i5, i7, and reissued i9 processors, all of which require the same X299 chipset that comes with the LGA2066 socket. The S-series processors will continue…




www.igorslab.de





So finally a logical answer to this topic question, is that reason belong to the fact that % of money to gain from a 4000$ daw is way different then from a 1500$ one !,hi end daw customers usually doesnt really care for tech analyz/comparisons, while they just have very high budgets to spend without "so much care about how" (in a corporate perspective, that budget it often come from "tax deduction quote" so it means the more u spend the more u deduct from tax quote that however u must pay every year..) + they will never really face those monsters machine out limits to see the reality , so results is "happy customer that spent his high budget makes 90% of them feeling "proud of their long dikk"+ business rages on"


----------



## Publius

Nothing magic with xeon—I had one and only difference was I had two mobos for it fail. Different packaging and target market. Maybe different on-chip cache amount. Xeon likely has no built in graphics, locked clock, ecc ram. I have never seen anything indicating that retail chips cannot run 24x7. One thing—how about the cost of 128 gig ecc ram? Given equivalent specs, I imagine performance is identical. I have spent a non-trivial amount of time looking into it, and have never seen any documentation that indicated one mobo is faster than another given same general specced chip. If anyone has such, I would love to see it. As I think about it, I think some xeon mobos will run with non-ecc ram.


----------



## controtempo

@Alexandre "*risus abundat in ore stultorum"*


----------



## Alexandre

controtempo said:


> @Alexandre "*risus abundat in ore stultorum"*


I wasn't making fun I actually thought your post both funny and quite informative!! Thank you for it...


----------



## Salvawave

Mishabou said:


> Sorry for the delay... I will ask my tech about the specs of the i9 machines, as for the Xeon, they were dual E5-2690 v4 (28 cores/56 threads).
> 
> The i9 machine was roughly $3200 and $6700 for the Xeon. When we lowered the buffer to 64, the i9 could not keep up with the session, zero problem with the Xeon.
> 
> My current 12 core nMP actually performs better than the current i9 at lower buffer and it's almost 6 years old!!! Anyways unless Apple comes out with a new Mac Pro in the next few months, i will go with the Xeon as the tests were pretty conclusive to me.
> 
> Unlike some of the complaints I see around here, CB has always perform well under Mac OS for me. Too bad Apple is ignoring their Mac Pro users.


HI Mishabou, I`m actually building a dual xeon E5 2687W V4 Pc, with 24 cores , 48 threads , at 3ghz. I would like to know wich motherboard have you got in your sistem. Im looking for Asus z10pe d8 ws. Thank's in advance!


----------

