# Processor and DAW recommendation for orchestral composition system



## NameOfBand (Jul 30, 2016)

Hello guys!

Finally I make my first post here! I'm that kind of guy who usually don't even is a member of the site and just lurks around in the background, but I finally created an account and I want to recruit your vast knowledge to my aid! I wonder what processor you would recommend to get for a computer thats going to be the heart of an orchestral composition system. I guess you never can have to many cores, but how much clockspeed is worth sacrificing for core count? Is cache size relevant (and what is cache actaully anyway)? Things that may matter is that I like to multitask a lot (many tabs in the web browser, music streaming software running etc.) and that I might want to add a slave later on.

Also, I wonder which DAW utilizes multicore CPUs best. I've heard that Cubase has problem with that. Has this been fixed or is there a workaround? I've also heard that Logic X is good at spreading CPU load over many cores, is this true? And, why do many composers prefer Cubase over other DAWs? What are the benefits from using Cubase versus other DAWs for ochestral composition?

Sorry if all of these questions have been asked many times before in the forums!

Cheers peeps!


----------



## tack (Jul 30, 2016)

NameOfBand said:


> I guess you never can have to many cores, but how much clockspeed is worth sacrificing for core count?


IMO, cores beyond 4 are worth sacrificing for clock speed.

This is indeed a commonly discussed subject. Take a look at this thread for example.


----------



## AllanH (Jul 31, 2016)

I would suggest, that you should get as many cores and as much memory as you can afford, and SSDs for everything. One important factor is to determine the memory capacity of your chipset and motherboard. Typically, the i67xx series will take 64 GB, so if you need more you'll need to look at a xeon system.


----------



## tack (Jul 31, 2016)

AllanH said:


> I would suggest, that you should get as many cores and as much memory as you can afford, and SSDs for everything.


The problem is that buying more cores is almost always trading off clock speed. Consider that RT performance is chiefly a function of single core performance because even if your plugins are distributed across many cores, usually there is a single thread that exchanges data with the ASIO driver. So if RT performance is important to you, clock speed should be a key consideration.

Then consider that rgames, in the thread I linked to, downclocked his 6700k to 3.0GHz matching a typical high-core Xeon and his voice count dropped in half. That means, assuming everything is neatly linear, you'd need 8 cores to achieve the same voice count as a 4 core 6700k, and your RT performance wouldn't be nearly as good. Of course, things are rarely linear in multiprocessing, so reality is probably even worse than that. (That difference might be offset by Xeon's larger cache, so a benchmark of the actual processors would be nicer.)

I think the 6700k makes a fine DAW CPU. (It's what I run.) The main disadvantage is indeed the 64GB limit. Xeon doesn't necessarily need to be the next stop though: the i7 6800k might be a very reasonable compromise if you can clock it up to about 4.2 or 4.3GHz (which looks doable from reports), since it can address up to 128GB.


----------



## CACKLAND (Jul 31, 2016)

I would recommend the X99 Intel Chip Platform. This platform allows the user to go with either Xeon or i7 processors, so if you decide to upgrade later you can. Additionally it has DDR4 RAM Speeds of in excess of 3200 Mhz. 

My current config: Intel Core i7 6 Core 5930K @ OC 4.6Ghz, 64GB Dominator Platinum DDR4 2800 Mhz


----------



## NameOfBand (Aug 3, 2016)

Thanks for all the replys guys! Sorry for my absence from this thread the past few days...


CACKLAND said:


> I would recommend the X99 Intel Chip Platform. This platform allows the user to go with either Xeon or i7 processors, so if you decide to upgrade later you can. Additionally it has DDR4 RAM Speeds of in excess of 3200 Mhz.
> 
> My current config: Intel Core i7 6 Core 5930K @ OC 4.6Ghz, 64GB Dominator Platinum DDR4 2800 Mhz


Does overclocking shorten the lifespan of a CPU? Otherwise it seems great with such high clock speeds!

Hmmmm. People suggest different things here... Some say go for cores some say go for clock speed... If I put it like this: I want to be able to run many tracks, many plugins, have many groups and multitask with other apps at the same time. Is there a CPU that fits that criteria? It just feels like a high clock speed with only 4 cores won't be able to pull that off... am I wrong? Actually what I'm thinking is that I might wan't to buy a Mac Pro, and the clock speed of the available CPUs there doesn't go very high. And you can't overclock a Mac, right? Will a Mac Pro be able to handle the stress that I mentioned above, and if so, which CPU should be chosen?

Cheers!


----------



## tack (Aug 3, 2016)

NameOfBand said:


> Does overclocking shorten the lifespan of a CPU? Otherwise it seems great with such high clock speeds!


Overclocking isn't going to materially affect the life of the CPU as long as you don't let temperatures get out of hand.

As to cores vs clock speed, the problem is RT performance which ultimately boils down to single threaded performance. A tiny thought experiment: which is better for a DAW, 128 cores at 1GHz, or 1 core at 4.6GHz? Unfortunately the answer is: it depends.

It primarily depends if you're doing anything in realtime. Are you live performing a part? Do you care about latency? Are you ok with a second or two of latency and just want to run large numbers of tracks with no realtime requirements? In this case, 128 slow cores would be superior. Meanwhile, if you want to be able to live-perform a line with a Sable legato patch, your 128 slow cores are going to suck. A single thread is just not going to deliver sufficient performance, and it only gets worse as you insert FX on those tracks. It is very easy to max out RT performance. If you even flirt momentarily with the 100% line you will hear the dreaded clicks and pops.

So if single threaded performance is important to you -- and it is to most of us here -- then to the extent we trade that away for more cores, we should do it quite judiciously.

The difference between 4 and 6 cores isn't massive, and for an extra two cores, I don't think I'd want to pay more than about 200MHz. I think you could get there with a 6850k or 5930k, or perhaps even a 6800k. But it's always a bit of a gamble. "Individual results may vary."

I don't know what you mean when you say "many plugins" so I couldn't tell you if a 6700k could handle that. What I can say is that on the stuff I do, maybe 20-30 tracks enabled at a given time, mostly Spitfire, a typical FX chain (lots of EQ instances strewn about, some compression, reverbs, limiter, etc.) the only performance issues I've run into with my 6700k are with RT performance, and 2 extra cores aren't going to help me there.

If you're _really_ concerned about it, and your budget is flexible, then sure, you could spend more on a 6850k or 5930k and hopefully you can get it running at 4.3 or 4.4GHz or better. (The 6850k has a small advantage over the 5930k in that it can address up to 128GB.)


----------



## JohnG (Aug 3, 2016)

Hi there,

Regarding DAW software choice, most people favour the software they use, so I'm not sure if preferences there are always either very objective or even informed; it is rare for a composer to be equally conversant with more than one, or certainly with more than two, DAWs. Besides, frequently, different DAW software producers ape each others' innovations with the result that nearly everything can be done, musically, in any of the major ones.

Digital Performer has just released a new version that promises significantly improved CPU performance and lower latency, among other tantalising improvements. Since it came out literally today (Wednesday), I can't confirm it but as a long-time user I'm keen to give it a go as soon as I hand in my current project.

So you could consider DP as another alternative, with Cubase and Logic and whatever else you're looking at.

Good luck!

John


----------



## NameOfBand (Aug 3, 2016)

Thanks for all the replys guys! So, clock speed seems to be important for RT. What do multiple cores actually do then? They must be good for something, right? I'm also curious what people here think about the Mac Pro, since the clock speeds of the xeons in that machine isn't that remarkable, and the CPU in a Mac can't be overclocked (or can it?). Am I actually better off getting an iMac instead (higher clock speed)?


----------



## Andrew Aversa (Aug 3, 2016)

A well-coded DAW will make great use of multiple cores, intelligently distributing plugins on each one. The performance gain is never quite going to be perfect.. for example if you can run 60 reverbs on one core, I would not expect to run 120 on two. But you can get close w/ a good DAW. Here's an example of performance metrics:

http://www.dawbench.com/dawbenchdsp-x-scaling.htm

As you can see, there is clear scaling from dual to quad core to dual-quad.

Now the impact on sample streaming is not necessarily going to translate as well, but depending on the type of music you write and your workflow, you may very well benefit almost 100% from multiple cores. i.e. More synths, effects plugins, and other CPU intensive processes. (Although do note, Logic is notoriously bad w/ multicore.)


----------



## JohnG (Aug 3, 2016)

zircon, that article is from 2007. So by now I would guess it's so out of date I am not sure how relevant it is. Not trying to give you a hard time but really in software years that's prehistoric.

I have heard the same as zircon about Logic but I also heard that you can address Logic's shortcomings in addressing multiple cores by using VE Pro within Logic -- don't know if that's accurate.

I can say that the previous incarnations of Digital Performer were ace on a Mac Pro at taking advantage of multiple cores, though I also use VE Pro so I haven't tested it in some time without that. This new version of DP looks very interesting.


----------



## tack (Aug 3, 2016)

NameOfBand said:


> So, clock speed seems to be important for RT. What do multiple cores actually do then?


As you're no doubt starting to realize, this is all terribly software specific. 

In the case of Reaper, which is the DAW I use and am familiar with, multiple cores are very effectively used for FX not in the realtime path. That is to say, if no tracks are record-armed, and you have no FX on the master track, then all FX will be quite evenly distributed across available cores and your RT utilization will be fairly low (from what I understand, essentially only the playback thread that talks ASIO is considered RT). This would be a typical mixing context, for example, where you're not in the process of recording anything.

In Reaper, as soon as something is armed for recording (or if you slap FX on the master track), this moves into realtime territory. FX on the armed track can't be parallelized as efficiently (or, I think, at all) and even if those FX happen to be spread across several cores, they are _synchronized_ (in the comp sci sense) which means that in practice the performance of a single core dictates headroom for the realtime chain. This is necessary in order to keep latency low during the recording. Meanwhile, non-armed tracks continue to be spread across other cores.

So core count will factor into non-realtime performance, and in Reaper at least this includes your ability to load up unarmed tracks with FX. But once it comes time to start recording, single core performance is the key decider there (in combination with ASIO buffer size, which when increased will give you more RT headroom at the cost of higher latency).


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 3, 2016)

tack, you and rjames are talking about PCs. With Macs the rules are different, because they've had both cores and MHz for years - especially the top-end ones. And you don't overclock them, you just start them up and work.

(I'm just talking about sacrificing speed if you go for multiple cores, not saying the hardware is necessarily better.)

Logic really does use the cores well - especially the last two versions - and Vienna Ensemble Pro has always done that.

So I'd say definitely get a quad-core Mac at least if you're running a sampled orchestra.


----------



## tack (Aug 3, 2016)

I think the principles still apply to the Mac, just the available options are different. 

For exampIe, for PC, if overclocking wasn't an option, IMO the 6700k (4 cores at 4GHz) would be the clear winner.


----------



## chimuelo (Aug 3, 2016)

I am investigating Supermicros 128 AMI BIOS.
I have been told but have no proof that Cores can be disabled in the BIOS and stored with a profile.
In the same profile the voltages and RAM Settings can also be tweaked and saved.

The Xeons use a really advanced cache design that can adapt to various settings too.
I first encountered it in the i7 5775C and Supermicro AMI BIOS called Ring Bus.
It allows the cache to be under volted during a high overclock, and over volted (faster ) during regular 3.3GHz stock speeds.
That DAW @ 3.3GHz is as fast as a stock i7 6700k or i7 4790k.

My dream is Logic and DP using a Hackintosh Xeon/Supermicro DAW.
The CPU is 1800 USD but has 25MB cache.

Meanwhile back at the ranch................

I think the Quad is perfect, but a Hexa Core can out perform the Octo Cores if you use Window$.

Be careful with motherboards bragging about Z170 SLI or multi GPU style gaming.
The PCI bus has a problem with external audio cards. 
It was an Asus board which is no slouch. Just sent it back.

Tried RME and Scope DSP PCI-e 1x cards, error messages galore.

Just put together an MSI B150 Night Elf.
Had a spare i7 6700k laying around and low latency CAS DDR4.
Works really well, but it's not a cheap B150.
High end build using a less featured chipset.

Before you use a fancy Z170 SLI board check around DAW forums and see which ones are working.
Proof like a BIOS screenshot.

I've been learning the hard way for the last 10 months.
I do love it though...


----------



## tack (Aug 3, 2016)

chimuelo said:


> That DAW @ 3.3GHz is as fast as a stock i7 6700k or i7 4790k.


Citation needed. 

For DAW benchmarking I like rgames' approach by determining max voice counts.


----------



## chimuelo (Aug 4, 2016)

A great test if youre doing heavy Orchestral.
My best test is Zebra2 HZ with 2 x DIVA Filters.
If it stays at 75% or lower that's basically an i7 3770k/i7 4790k/i7 6700k at 4GHz.
My i7 4790S is low watt 3.6GHz.
It hits 80-90%.
So when I get an i7 5775C pegging @ 75% it's safe to assume the massive 128MB L4 cache picks up the slack.

Much in the same way MacPro Xeons can load and play lots more than an i7 running at similar clocks.

But it's that 3.6 to 4GHz zone that really helps.
Anything from 4 to 4.4Ghz is extra gravy for streaming/ASIO apps.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 4, 2016)

> I think the principles still apply to the Mac, just the available options are different.



Of course, but the question here is what Mac to get, so you'd want the theory you bring up to apply to the available options. 

This is why I say cores are important too on Macs (those meters show Logic using cores). It's an 8 x 2.8GHz Mac Pro - an 8-year-old one.


----------



## tack (Aug 4, 2016)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> so you'd want the theory you bring up to apply to the available options.


But doesn't it? I think you're intimating it doesn't somehow, but I don't understand in what way. I mean, overclocking is kind of an unimportant detail, ultimately we all just need to wrestle with core count vs clock speed for our particular workflows.



Nick Batzdorf said:


> This is why I say cores are important too on Macs (those meters show Logic using cores). It's an 8 x 2.8GHz Mac Pro - an 8-year-old one.


I suspect most modern DAWs nowadays would look pretty similar? FX do tend to get spread nicely across cores, I think.

But RT behaviour is still a terribly important factor that you can't solve by throwing cores at. Unless the point you're making here is that this thinking doesn't apply to the Mac, in which case I'd be interested in why.


----------



## chimuelo (Aug 4, 2016)

Cache.

It operates at high MHz.
MacPro Xeons large Cache glue the cores together so even if a Hog like Zebra2 HZ is used it can have lots of headroom.

Urs from u-he explained why Zebra2 HZ is locked to a single core.
With 2 x DIVA Filters it is a beast.
Killed my low watt i7 @ 3.6GHz.
That's because other multi threaded synths would share with Z2HZ.
GHz of 4.0 solved that.
Then 3.3GHz with the i7 5775C at 65 watts was acting like a 4GHz CPU.

An expensive lesson.
Can't wait to see AMD Zen.
40% increase in IPS yet they are slower than i7 6700k.
AMD CEO says thier large cache is the reason.

Zen Master says we'll see..


----------



## tack (Aug 4, 2016)

chimuelo said:


> 40% increase in IPS yet they are slower than i7 6700k.


I thought that was 40% increase in IPC (not IPS), and the increase was relative to an older AMD architecture, not Intel's. If it's 40% improvement in IPC and the clock is slower, than it really remains to be seen how this will compare with Skylake. I'm personally skeptical: AMD hasn't rocked our performance world in recent history, or even distant history. I would love to see it, though. Intel needs real competition again.


----------



## Andrew Aversa (Aug 4, 2016)

JohnG said:


> zircon, that article is from 2007. So by now I would guess it's so out of date I am not sure how relevant it is. Not trying to give you a hard time but really in software years that's prehistoric.
> 
> I have heard the same as zircon about Logic but I also heard that you can address Logic's shortcomings in addressing multiple cores by using VE Pro within Logic -- don't know if that's accurate.
> 
> I can say that the previous incarnations of Digital Performer were ace on a Mac Pro at taking advantage of multiple cores, though I also use VE Pro so I haven't tested it in some time without that. This new version of DP looks very interesting.



I was originally making the point that audio software uses multiple cores pretty well, and that's what the article is about. While the exact metrics per DAW are outdated, the idea that multiple cores are very useful for running plugins still applies 100%. You can easily test this by using a DAW that has optional multicore processing and turning it off, then comparing results to multicore on.


----------



## chimuelo (Aug 4, 2016)

Definitely skeptical myself brotha' man Tack..
But I have built 5 new rigs this year, just finishing up a B150 as we speak.
It has DDR4 2133 low latency RAM, an i7 6700k, M.2 and SSD.
Fits in a 1U like the i7 5775C.
These 2 DAWs will be 2 x 1U Slaves.
Since the i7 3770k I have seen ZERO difference in i7 performance.

The only thing I noticed was cache on the i7 5775C giving it performance equal to 6700k's.
I believe we have hit the brick wall.

Options:
Big ass 1800-3400 USD Xeon with 25-45MB's of cache, or wait for AMD.
Think I'll wait.

Don't do heavy Orchestral yet but it seems I have to prepare for it this year.
Pray AMD at least makes Intel lengthen it's cycles of obsolescence.
With no competition they dance around the edges with low power options and better GFX.
We need a competition GHz race again.

Rumor has it Apple is holding off on Intel CPUs for now.
Maybe they something we don't..


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 4, 2016)

Tack, if I have any FX in that session it's only a reverb or two (I forget). What you're seeing is almost entirely Kontakt and Play instances distributing their loads across the eight available cores.

Point being, cores and MHz are both important on Macs. I suspect they are on PCs too, but my Windows machines are all Pentiums 4s so I can't test that theory. 

And I asked why you don't generally see PC builds here with more than four cores in that thread I think you linked above. rgames said they're not as important as MHz, but he was talking about Windows, not Mac. I don't remember the details, but I remember not being entirely satisfied with the answers I got.


----------



## tack (Aug 4, 2016)

chimuelo said:


> Since the i7 3770k I have seen ZERO difference in i7 performance.


I switched from a 3770k to the 6700k and saw a pretty sizeable improvement in RT performance. I wish I had taken proper measurements -- isn't that always the way? -- but from memory, the RT CPU meter in Reaper while noodling around with Sable legato went from something like 25-30% to 10-15% utilization.

It could well be we're doing different enough things that our experiences could differ wildly.

I really think this field is ripe for proper benchmarking. rgames has started down that path and it'd be interesting if we could formalize a proper test harness and get some field testing.

Ideas, ideas ....


----------



## tack (Aug 4, 2016)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> What you're seeing is almost entirely Kontakt and Play instances distributing their loads across the eight available cores.


Sorry, I meant those too. Could be a terminology miscommunication. In Reaper, those are all considered FX.


----------



## JohnG (Aug 4, 2016)

zircon_st said:


> the idea that multiple cores are very useful for running plugins still applies 100%. You can easily test this by using a DAW that has optional multicore processing and turning it off, then comparing results to multicore on.



Thanks for clarifying. I'm afraid I didn't take in your point very well the first time. 

Cheers,

John


----------



## NameOfBand (Aug 8, 2016)

Thanks for all the replys guys! I'm still kinda confused though... Maybe I should have rephrased my question. I think i simply wonder if a Mac Pro with pretty high core-count (above four) will be able to run many plugs and still have good RT-performance. And if it won't, what should I get instead? Maybe someone who has real experience have something to say?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 8, 2016)

If you're running a big load, I'd suggest staying away from anything below about 2.4GHz in addition to the cores.

And as I think someone else posted here, SSDs really do make a big difference to everything.


----------



## NameOfBand (Aug 8, 2016)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> If you're running a big load, I'd suggest staying away from anything below about 2.4GHz in addition to the cores.
> 
> And as I think someone else posted here, SSDs really do make a big difference to everything.


I was thinking of getting SSDs so that's a good thing!


----------

