# Building a new Dual XEON machine



## Tanuj Tiku (Jan 19, 2014)

I am in the process of building a new computer for my new studio. 

I have three options but the costs are very high once I go for a very high-end configuration. 

This computer will be required to run a heavy template but all in 5.0 configuration with quite a bit of reverbs. 

My question is that does the performance increase that much with more cores and a dual Xeon processor?

I have the following options:

1. 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680v2 (10X2 = 20 Cores) at 3.6 Ghz with 32GB RAM and ASUS Z9PE-D8 WS

2. Same as above but with 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2650v2 (8X2 = 16 Cores) at 3.4 Ghz

3. Same but with 2 X Intel Xeon E5-2630v2 (2X6 = 12 Cores) at 3.1 Ghz

I currently have a 6-Core i7 running at 4.2 Ghz with 32 GB RAM - 3930K

How much of a performance jump can I expect from the above systems? And what is a better choice with price for performance?

It will be very helpful to hear from fellow virtual composers about this because benchmarks are not always relative to audio performance.


Thanks.

Tanuj.


----------



## Tanuj Tiku (Jan 21, 2014)

*Re: New Computer for work in 5.0*

thoughts anyone?  


Tanuj.


----------



## Jdiggity1 (Jan 21, 2014)

Which one would you brag about most?


----------



## Tanuj Tiku (Jan 21, 2014)

*Re: New Computer for work in 5.0*

The one that works the best of course


----------



## Tanuj Tiku (Jan 22, 2014)

*Re: New Computer for work in 5.0*

BUMP


----------



## Daryl (Jan 23, 2014)

Tanuj, you are sailing in uncharted waters here. Cubase will only use 32 threads, and your proposed set-up seems to have 40, so I am assuming that you are intending to use VE Pro or something similar to make use of the"wasted" threads. I think the point is that your proposed machine is so much more powerful than anything currently in use by any sample based composer, that none of us can have an opinion.

If you can wait a week or so, I will be able to give you some comparison figures for a 12 core (32 threads) machine with a new 10 core (20 threads) machine. Obviously this is theoretically half the power of what you're getting, but it could give you some insight.

D


----------



## Tanuj Tiku (Jan 23, 2014)

Daryl, 


Thank you for posting! I will wait for your reply. 

I am going to be using VE PRO, IRCAM SPAT and MIR PRO on the same machine. The reason I want to get a powerful machine is so that I can run everything in a multi-channel environment.

I am investigating this because I have to decide whether to then get two machines to do the job or have a single machine.

I am personally in favour of getting just one computer to avoid complications in routing etc but if it calls for it, I will have to take that route.


Tanuj.


----------



## khollister (Jan 23, 2014)

I know this is not what you want to hear, but don't do it!

Let's start from a price/performance standpoint. All of these proposed solutions are trading cores for clock speed, a less than perfect tradeoff with almost any software. If we look at multi-core CPU benchmarks (which are likely to be somewhat optimistic for the high core/low speed stuff), the 2630v2 is slower than your 3930k at stock speeds and barely faster than a 4770K (4 core) at 1/2 the CPU price.

The 2650v2 is about 10% slower than a 4930K 6 core but over 2X the cost of the CPU. Adding a 2nd 4930 computer to your overclocked 3930 would be faster and far cheaper than a dual 2650 system.

The dual 2680's would be a significant step up, but the cost is really steep - still much more expensive per CPU unit of performance than 2 or 3 i7's. And this doesn't factor in the added cost of the motherboard and case (to hold the Extended ATX MB).

You then factor in Daryl's point about working without a support net of others with previous experience, and I can't see how this makes any business sense unless you just want to geek out and build the world's baddest music computer.

While I understand the convenience of maintaining a single computer instead of 2 or 3, VEP and MIR work so well in multi-computer environments that I can't see taking all the risk and added expense to avoid it. I just finished a 4930 slave with 64GB RAM to go with my 2010 MacPro 6 core master (running Logic and MIR Pro). I am moving all of my instruments to the slave - the master will be the DAW, MIR and other effects only. I'm not done setting up everything into a template, but casual testing so far indicates the slave will have no problem doing a few hundred voices of polyphony, and the master (which is about 35% slower than the newer 4930 machine) seems to have no issues with just MIR and Logic.

I think the far cheaper and far more trouble-free solution for you is to get a 4930 slave for your template, try running the DAW, MIR and SPAT on your 3930 and see how it goes. If you still need more horsepower, a budget i7-4770K 4 core rig should handle the overflow. Total expenditure will be a fraction of the cost of the 2680 monster, probably will handle a larger template and you will be inside the support envelope of both the vendors and folks on forums such as here, Gearslutz, Steinberg, etc.


----------



## jamwerks (Jan 23, 2014)

Don't forget that with VEP, you could have 1 machine as an external FX processor if needed. Personally I wouldn't try to do to much on one machine (daw, fx, & sample processing)


----------



## marclawsonmusic (Jan 23, 2014)

khollister has some really good points.

Here is a useful resource for comparing relative CPU performance...

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu ... Hz&id=1907

My learning from this is that sometimes the most expensive processor is not necessarily the best performer.

I will also add that scaling your rig horizontally (by adding slave computers) results in a lot more "net power" than trying to build a single all-powerful box. This is the same principle that cloud computing is based on - everything from server farms to BitTorrent - you just get that much more gain by distributing the CPU load over more machines.

Best,
Marc


----------



## jamwerks (Jan 23, 2014)

Also, not sure that you'd need a 4930 for pushing around 64gb of samples. A 4820 might do. FWIW I have a 3820 64gb slave (no OC) and haven't run out of power yet. YMMV


----------



## chimuelo (Jan 23, 2014)

The ASUS Server boards using the C602 Chipset are mature, but the C226 Chipset of the ASUS P9D WS are what Supermicros' best Workstation boards use.

Designed for MAX RAM loads, and higher biined Xeon CPUs.


----------



## Tanuj Tiku (Jan 26, 2014)

Thank you for your replies guys.

Seems like two systems is the way to go. Might go with the 4920K at 4.4 Ghz and a second machine with an i7 QUAD-CORE for just a slave. 

The cost difference of getting this or a 20 core single machine is not really great and is possibly more for me because I then need an additional sound card and higher input AD/DA.


I am not finalising anything yet as I still have some time to research. 


Daryl - I will wait to hear from you as well.


Thank you all!


Tanuj.


----------



## khollister (Jan 27, 2014)

Why do you need audio interfaces in both computers? VEP routes the audio from the slave via ethernet back to your DAW. There is no audio interface required for any of the slaves.

There is no 4920K - there is a 4930K (6 core) and 4820K (4 core). You will likely need liquid cooling to get to 4.4 GHz without really high temps. 

Why are you appearing to abandon your 3930K machine? Or are you looking at these as only slaves?


----------



## Gusfmm (Jan 27, 2014)

Daryl @ Thu Jan 23 said:


> Cubase will only use 32 threads,
> 
> D



I'm very curious Daryl where you got this from. It's my first time hearing such assertment, and I'm not even sure what it means.


----------



## Daryl (Jan 27, 2014)

Gusfmm @ Mon Jan 27 said:


> Daryl @ Thu Jan 23 said:
> 
> 
> > Cubase will only use 32 threads,
> ...


Steinberg said it on their forum awhile back, and it means that even if your machine has more threads, Cubase won't use them.

D


----------



## Gusfmm (Jan 27, 2014)

Not that i doubt what you're saying, would just love to have such reference if you could provide the link to it. I recently posted a question on the C7.5 forum about my findings that Cubase was performing fairly poorly and oddly on a heavy VSTi test template, on multithreading. I'n my research, I was unable to find any official reference to technical discussion on multithreading, so it'd be great if you could find it for my education. Much appreciate it.


----------



## Daryl (Jan 27, 2014)

Gusfmm @ Mon Jan 27 said:


> Not that i doubt what you're saying, would just love to have such reference if you could provide the link to it. I recently posted a question on the C7.5 forum about my findings that Cubase was performing fairly poorly and oddly on a heavy VSTi test template, on multithreading. I'n my research, I was unable to find any official reference to technical discussion on multithreading, so it'd be great if you could find it for my education. Much appreciate it.


Well you should doubt what I'm saying, because it turns out that Steinberg has unlocked the number of cores that can be used in the latest couple of versions, and the latest information (from a week ago) is that Cubase can use as many cores as you have. Sorry for the confusion. :oops: 

D


----------



## Gusfmm (Jan 27, 2014)

Not a problem at all Daryl.

Just a quick reference to my recent tests, based on a fairly simple audio & VSTi test template, heavy on FX plugs on both audio and instrument channels, on C7.5 stand-alone (so not VEP or any other third-party host), I did not see Cubase going over using 2 cores even though its processing and ASIO load was maxing out. Have checked the dawbench.com DSP template, and that does show C7.5 using my 6/12 available cores/threads. Have yet to try the VSTi template to see if it shows the same as my tests.

All that simply to say that regarless of however many threads Steinberg may indicate, I'm not so sure yet I can completely trust (the very little) they seem to say on the subject of multi-threading.

p.s. using C7.5 + VEP, with all VSTi hosted on VEP, I managed to substantially increase the processing capacity and number of plugs used. So my curiosity now is centered around Cubase's performance.


----------



## Tanuj Tiku (Jan 28, 2014)

khollister,


Sorry for messing up the model numbers, you are of course correct.

I am anot abandoning my existing system - that will be my mobile rig. Part of what I do is that I write lots of additional music and produce scores for other composers. 

This requires me to move to other studios from time to time. I also produce songs so then again, I have to move the rig. 

But for my studio the new machines will be in a machine cupboard of sorts which is air cooled and hot air is taken out from there.

My system will be built by professionals. This guy is a world ranker in overclocking and his BIOS is custom unlocked from ASUS.

So, I am in good hands.

But after your suggestions, I am looking at two set-ups instead of one monster machine.

The second sound card is to avoid any latency or audio glitches in case the ethernet if not able to really cut it.

If I carry a MADI or AES signal straight into my other computer, it all then goes out to my AD/DA - out to monitor controller for the 5.0 multi-channel loudspeaker system. It is only an additional $800 or so but at least, I don't have to worry about latency or any glitches.

But, I will still investigate this further.


Tanuj.


----------



## Daryl (Jan 28, 2014)

vibrato @ Sun Jan 26 said:


> Daryl - I will wait to hear from you as well.


New computers have arrived. Just installing software. Unfortunately I have a rush orchestration job to do, so there may not be too much in the way of testing until next week.

D


----------



## Tanuj Tiku (Jan 28, 2014)

No worries Daryl. I will wait to hear from you in any case. I am not building my machine without giving due thought to it. 


Tanuj.


----------



## rgames (Jan 28, 2014)

I stopped seeing any processor advantage about 5 years ago. I imagine processor might help for some things but my setup is pretty standard and it doesn't seem to matter for me - my template has 300 MIDI tracks, 100 audio tracks, synths, VE Pro, bunch of EQ's, reverbs, etc. I run it at about 6 ms latency.

I just moved from an i7-920 (3.8 GHz, 4 cores) to an i7-4930k (4.4 GHz, 6 cores) and projects that ran at 3 ms latency on the old machine run at 3 ms latency on the new machine. Projects that ran at 6 ms latency on the old machine run at 6 ms latency on the new machine. Etc.

The 4930k performs much better than the i7-920 for encoding video. Other than that use, though, I'd say there's no real difference except that the 4930k can handle more RAM.

I'd check with folks who run what you want to run and see if there's any advantage. If your setup is simliar to mine, I don't think you'll see much advantage. In fact, I have a suspicion the Haswell chips are actually better for DAW use - the chipset is newer and I seem to recall better latency numbers from it. They're limited to 32 GB RAM, of course, but a couple Haswells are likely to perform much better than a single Ivy-E or Xeon.

rgames


----------



## rgames (Jan 28, 2014)

Also - using audio hardware doesn't get rid of latency. You still have to fill the buffer on sound card.

Do you really get lower latency with audio hardware? I checked it several years ago and got lower latency with Ethernet. Maybe things have changed.

However, I quit worrying about it because, frankly, Ethernet is plenty fast and *much* more flexible than dedicated audio hardware.

rgames


----------



## Ben J (Jan 28, 2014)

Hey, rgames. What motherboard are/were you using with the 920? I've got an Asus P6T. I tried OC'ing a little (nothing more than 3.2ghz), and I was running into stability issues.

Not to derail the thread, but I'm really considering an upgrade, and it's interesting that you don't really see a major difference between the 920 and 4930k. Maybe picking up a 980 would be a safer bet than having to completely change motherboard/cpu/etc?


----------



## chimuelo (Jan 29, 2014)

http://www.eurocom.com/products/showroom/specselectnew.cfm?model_id=234 (http://www.eurocom.com/products/showroo ... del_id=234)

Here's the laptop/server I am looking at that has lots of processing power, etc.
But the Express 34 slot is perfect for my mobile 1U XITE-1 DSP Rack.

http://www.thessdreview.com/daily-news/ ... 0-evo-1tb/

I am waiting for the 1TB PCI-e SSD M2 for the OS + Apps, then will jump into the Spring refresh replacing all SSDs w/ PCI-e M2s.

You only live once right, and mobile warriors need the best.


----------

