# Do you guys overclock your PC?



## kfirpr (Jan 6, 2014)

Just wanted to know..there aren't many posts on V.I about overclocking.
I recently overclocked my haswell 4770k from 3.5Ghz to 4Ghz with 1.125 Cpu Voltage on manual mode to avoid jumps. 
performance seems allot better from before..specially with large templates.
I'm posting this because I'm a little worried because I invested allot in this machine and just wanted to hear about your exprience..
BTW my temps are low they are about 34° on rest and 60°-70° on stress tests.


----------



## maestro2be (Jan 6, 2014)

Yes I overclocked my machine. I have a 2.8GHZ overclocked to 4GHZ using a liquid cooler. I have been using it for well over a year now. I will let you know later what temps I am running at but I know they are well within healthy levels.

60-70 Degress is starting to get very risky though if you are talking Celcius. That's pretty hot. Is that in Fahrenheit or Celcius? If it's Fahrenheit that's freezing and you're safe. If it's Celcius, you might want to seriously upgrade your cooler to a liquid cooling system. It's virtually dead silent and much more effective in reducing heat.

Maestro2be


----------



## Gusfmm (Jan 6, 2014)

Yes, moderately OC'ed.

60-70C is fairly safe, as the Intel Performance Monitor application would tell you. 90C would be dangerous. But that range is perfectly fine if that is your average in real high-stress conditions.


----------



## Tanuj Tiku (Jan 6, 2014)

My PC is overclocked to 4.2 GHZ with all the cooling stuff. 

Its a beast of a machine and runs quite well. 

However, this was overclocked by a professional. I would advise to always get it done from a professional because not all CPU's are designed to be overclocked and there is a lot to consider.

My idle temps are anything between 28 and 32 degrees while during even 95% loads, it is running at a cool 48 degrees with minor peaks at 50 occasionally. 

On average its only running at around 40 or 42 degrees mostly. 

Tanuj.


----------



## Markastellor (Jan 6, 2014)

I used to overclock my systems.

There is a thrill for the Geek in me to get ultra performance through my own ingenuity. I have indeed in the past gotten high performance for about a $1,000 less than I'd have when buying a system done for me. For me there is also a power rush similar to what guys used to get in the 50's by hotrodding a car.

I've stopped doing that now, however. I'm not saying it's a bad idea for someone who has the time to devote. But I don't have the time. When you stay on the bleeding edge of technology you bleed a lot. When I used to overclock, there would often be unexpected bugs I had to track down. Not saying that there still aren't bugs, but there are less. I remember years ago overclocking and unexpectedly changing the frequency of my PCI ports slightly which caused clicks and pops in my sound card for weeks until I finally tracked down the problem.

My new philosophy is not to adopt any new technology too quickly. Let it come into the market. Let the geeks work the bugs out for a few months and then I'll install it after it's had a few revisions. Once I get a system that works and is stable, I am extremely cautious about making changes. I'll stick with it until the latest technology offers enough to justify the hassles of upgrading.

This is especially true with changing operating systems. I'm still using Windows 7. If you update too quickly, you will lose compatibility with much of your software.

Also, overclocking can put a strain on some of your hardware, which is why, as you noted, cooling is so important. Of course, you can justify that by saying that you will probably upgrade and replace your gear before it wears out anyway...which is true.

As I said, there is a thrill in overclocking, but to me, there's a greater thrill in making music so I'd rather spend more time in that and less time in tweaking my system. But that's just me. With someone else it might be different.


----------



## Jdiggity1 (Jan 6, 2014)

2600k 3.4GHz overclocked to 4.4GHz, thanks to my ASUS MoBo. Reaches just over 70 degrees celcius when rendering 3D scenes and VFX. 2 years on and I've never had an issue.
4770k is capable of some crazy overclocking, but I personally would leave it at around 4Ghz for reliability's sake.


----------



## rgames (Jan 6, 2014)

Overclocking is an absolute no-brainer. You can overclock most PC's in about 30 seconds (so long as the BIOS supports it). I've overclocked every one of my PC's for the last 20 years.

The part that takes time and expertise is extreme overclocking but the truth is you can get 90% - 95% of the meaningful performance by just increasing the clock multiplier in your BIOS. As long as you don't mess with voltages there's no threat of harm to your system.

Here's what you do:

1. Search the web for what overclock people are getting for your processor.
2. Go into your system BIOS, find the clock multiplier and increase it to match the value you found on the web.
3. Reboot and use your PC as you normally would.
4. If you get crashes, drop the clock multiplier a bit until you no longer do. If not, increase it a bit until you start getting crashes, then back off a bit
5. Repeat 4. as necessary until your system is stable.

Again, there's no harm to your system if you're not messing with voltages, so just keep tweaking over the course of a couple weeks of use and you'll wind up at a stable overclock.

It takes no skill, expertise, or significant time to do basic overclocking and it can significantly improve performance for a number of applications, so go do it!

rgames


----------



## kfirpr (Jan 7, 2014)

Thanks guy for the feedback, I spoke with some expert on Tom's Hardware forum and they said that all that matter really is low temperatures and that can be achieved by setting manual lowest CPU voltage with the clock speed you're aiming at.
In my case it is 1.124
I also done some testing in the bios and found several things that improved my performance if you guys are interested, like:

multicore enhancement-enabled
speed-step-disabled
C-state - disabled
hyper threading-enable (also in daw but not in kontakt)
disable onboard sound card

Also update your latest bios drivers because it can improve your performance with High ram memory machine.


----------



## Rob Elliott (Jan 7, 2014)

Great thread - never done this (just replaced puters) - must give it a go on my 2600K - 3.4 ghz.


----------



## kfirpr (Jan 7, 2014)

rgames @ Mon Jan 06 said:


> Again, there's no harm to your system if you're not messing with voltages, so just keep tweaking over the course of a couple weeks of use and you'll wind up at a stable overclock.
> 
> 
> 
> rgames


Actually you should mess with the voltage and that's what the guys from Asus recommend, just make sure that you won't go more then 1.3 for CPU voltage.
The auto mode icrease your voltage more then it actually should and it can cause your machine to heat up. But do what you think because I'm not that of an expert o-[][]-o


----------



## germancomponist (Jan 7, 2014)

What I don't get: Why do they not sell it out of the box working at the best settings? 

What is the reason for this?


----------



## Gusfmm (Jan 7, 2014)

Because: 1) there is no such thing as universal best settings Gunther; 2) technology changes every second.

How could ASUS sell you a MB that is pre-set if you can buy either an AMD or Intel CPU, each with different operational standards, they don't know if you want to use a cheap cooler or the latest water cooling solution, or put in Corsair, Crucial/Micron, Geil, Patriot, Kingston, ... memory, each with different ops standards, or you buy the cheaper slower one, or you have the dough to buy the demon-Xtreme-bloody fastest one. And then, tomorrow they improve it to add more blood to it and the ops parameters change again. All this can probably be handled by the MB, and that's the reason they are more and more flexible now to allow for such customizations, but there is no way to define a single universal standard. Just the way there is no single universal orchestral sample library. Wait... isn't that what Mike Green was working on as of lately???


----------



## germancomponist (Jan 7, 2014)

Gusfmm @ Tue Jan 07 said:


> Because: 1) there is no such thing as universal best settings Gunther; 2) technology changes every second.
> 
> How could ASUS sell you a MB that is pre-set if you can buy either an AMD or Intel CPU, each with different operational standards, they don't know if you want to use a cheap cooler or the latest water cooling solution, or put in Corsair, Crucial/Micron, Geil, Patriot, Kingston, ... memory, each with different ops standards, or you buy the cheaper slower one, or you have the dough to buy the demon-Xtreme-bloody fastest one. And then, tomorrow they improve it to add more blood to it and the ops parameters change again. All this can probably be handled by the MB, and that's the reason they are more and more flexible now to allow for such customizations, but there is no way to define a single universal standard. Just the way there is no single universal orchestral sample library. Wait... isn't that what Mike Green was working on as of lately???



So better buy a Mac? 

Without joking, I see you! 

Interesting: On my newest PC there isn't a "k" processor used because they told me that this is not the best solution for a DAW. Because I am not a pro when it comes to this I accepted it.... .  

But my system works great without any problems...


----------



## rgames (Jan 7, 2014)

kfirpr @ Tue Jan 07 said:


> rgames @ Mon Jan 06 said:
> 
> 
> > Again, there's no harm to your system if you're not messing with voltages, so just keep tweaking over the course of a couple weeks of use and you'll wind up at a stable overclock.
> ...


You can use the auto-overclock features but they do, as you say, increase the voltages. That's why I recommend just manually increasing the clock multiplier and leave the voltages at stock. You can still get decent overclocks with stock voltages - my i5 2500k and i7 4930k overclocked to 4.4 GHz on stock voltage. That's pretty standard.

Increasing the voltages can get you (slightly) higher overclocks but at a (small) risk of reduced processor lifespan and the certainty of increased heat (which leads to increased noise because the fan will run louder). Plus, the added benefit of a bit more clock speed from higher voltage is not nearly as much as the bump you get from increasing the multiplier at stock voltage. That's more for folks who like to watch their processor run benchmarks (yippee...). The practical advantage of those added increases is almost nothing for DAW use. ASUS recommends increasing the voltage because their core customer base are the folks who like to watch their processors run benchmarks and don't really care about noise and power consumption.

So, yes, increasing voltage to 1.3 V or so is probably fine (for the current generation of processors - if someone reads this in 5 years, the value is likely to be different). However, if you want to be really safe and get 90% of the benefit without the added heat and noise, then just leave the voltages at stock and manually increase the clock multiplier as described in my post above.

Also, disabling speed step and C states helped (a little bit) years ago but I'm skeptical if doing so has any practical benefit with the current generation of processors. It makes no difference on my 4930k and 2500k so I leave them enabled to take advantage of the reductions in power, heat, and noise. Again, unless your goal is to run benchmarks, you need to see how those options affect practical use. My experience with recent processors is that SpeedStep/EIST/C- States have no effect on any practical metric, so you might as well leave them enabled.

rgames


----------



## rgames (Jan 7, 2014)

germancomponist @ Tue Jan 07 said:


> Interesting: On my newest PC there isn't a "k" processor used because they told me that this is not the best solution for a DAW. Because I am not a pro when it comes to this I accepted it.... .
> 
> But my system works great without any problems...


That's because even extreme overclocks don't really do much for DAW use. Overclocking helps for things like video encoding or computational physics. The only difference between a "k" and standard processor is that the "k" is unlocked for overclocking and costs a bit more. So the only reason *not* to buy a k processor is added cost without much benefit for some applications (like DAW use).

The reason they don't run them overclocked out of the box is that there's no way for Intel to know what any individual processor can achieve in terms of overclocking performance - it varies from processor to processor and they don't test every processor (they can't - it would cost a fortune). So they come up with statistical models that say what a batch of processors can achieve in terms of maximum clock speed and they guarantee that speed. Most can achieve higher speed, some can achieve a *lot* higher speed.

The end-user can, however, easily overclock his CPU to see what it can achieve. And most often, he can achieve a much-higher clock speed than what the guaranteed speed is because Intel's statistical models are conservative so they don't have to deal with a bunch of returned processors. That's the game - you get your processor and see what it can do. Intel can't test them all, so it guarantees only some minimum level of clock speed.

rgames


----------



## guydoingmusic (Jan 7, 2014)

I've got my 3930k overclocked to 4.7 Ghz. The CPU, with a big project I have opened at the moment, is sitting at 45.0 C


----------



## Daryl (Jan 7, 2014)

rgames @ Tue Jan 07 said:


> Increasing the voltages can get you (slightly) higher overclocks but at a (small) risk of reduced processor lifespan.....


Richard, in your experience how often have you seen problems with reduced lifespan of a CPU caused by overclocking? I, like you, have heard this said, but in my experience the CPU is the one part of a computer that seems to work for ever, whereas other components can fail after time. Do you think that this is more theoretical than probable?

D


----------



## Gusfmm (Jan 7, 2014)

Can I clarify what you mean Richard. Are you implying that a faster CPU, data bus and memory have no impact on the performance of a DAW? If so, I quite disagree with you and would like to understand if this is your perception or a factual test done by a third-party.


----------



## rgames (Jan 7, 2014)

Daryl @ Tue Jan 07 said:


> Richard, in your experience how often have you seen problems with reduced lifespan of a CPU caused by overclocking


I haven't experienced it. But I've never increased voltages to overclock, either, and it makes sense that doing so could cause lifespan issues (though, as I said above, I think it's unlikely).

The main reason I avoid messing with voltages is the increased power use, heat and noise generation are associated with only a tiny performance gain. For me, it's not worth it for reasons other than possible lifespan issues.

rgames


----------



## rgames (Jan 7, 2014)

Gusfmm @ Tue Jan 07 said:


> Can I clarify what you mean Richard. Are you implying that a faster CPU, data bus and memory have no impact on the performance of a DAW? If so, I quite disagree with you and would like to understand if this is your perception or a factual test done by a third-party.


There are two pieces to the answer:

The first is overclocking at stock voltage. As I said in my first post, that's a no-brainer. Do it. It can help, it takes no time, and there's no potential harm.

The second is taking time trying to go beyond what you can get with stock voltage. That takes time, the additional performance gains are small compared to what you already got on stock voltage, and it carries some risk of damage to your hardware. Doing that is a bit harder to justify.

However, I will also say that even the first scenario doesn't necessarily help that much in a lot of situations. But since there's no harm and the possibility of help, especially for applications other than DAW use, you might as well do it.

I am open to the idea that some DAWs are CPU-limited but I haven't seen it demonstrated in the last five-six years. I've tried down-clocking my CPU and RAM on marginal but do-able projects and it made no difference - they ran exactly the same. Yes, the CPU usage changed, but the projects still ran just fine. So, from a practical standpoint, it made no difference.

I agree 100% that CPU can make a difference in benchmarks but I'm not sure how it matters for productivity. For example, I just retired my i7-920 at 3.8 GHz and replaced it with a 4930k at 4.4 GHz. The new machine runs my template slightly worse than the old one, even though the CPU is much more powerful. Neither is a hindrance to my productivity, though, so the much-more-powerful new processor made no difference to my DAW work.

Again, I'm open to the idea that CPU does matter. However, in my experience, when CPU does matter it's only because some other part of the system is problematic. It's kind of like adding horsepower to account for bad aerodynamics in a racecar. A much better solution is to improve the aerodynamics. Sure, the horsepower will help a bit, but not as much as improving the aerodynamics if the aero is really bad. Likewise, when CPU does help, I've found it's usually because of bad audio or video drivers or some other driver problem. That's why my i7-920 and 4930k have the same performance - the other elements of the system are optimized for DAW use, so the CPU doesn't matter.

EDIT: I should add that my comments are based on experience with PC's - Mac's might be a different story.

rgames


----------



## chimuelo (Jan 7, 2014)

I can concur that VSTi's and DAWs seem to top out at 3.6GHz, meaning after that speed I cannot see any difference as I too also overclock the multiplier. 
Learned that trick from an ancient Celeron 200 and Gigasampler.

I would use more cores if I were a 100% Native user. I have a total of 22 cores I use, 4 of them are from a stock 3770S, the other 18 are DSP chips, and one thing I learned from DSP programmers is that the chips are designed to operate at their maximum speed, which is why the more the merrier.

Also FWIW the 3770S does not have a locked multiplier, if it does, it doesn't work as I never believe anything marketing exec's say, so I jumped mine to 4GHz first try. Just to confrim my suspiscions.

But I prefer the low case temps of 39 C since I use a 1U.

From my endeavors I found that 3.4-3.6GHz is the sweet spot, and 1.35v RAM with tight timings @ 1333MHz is as good as it gets for Kontakt with my Ivy Bridge.

I still believe that we are held back by the operating systems. I have seen the Muse Receptors running Linux using slower CPUs and less RAM and getting much better load times, and amount of instruments loaded.

I would love to see a developer bring us our own operating system for audio.
We could probably use i3 CPUs @ 1.8GHz and get the very same results, maybe even better as my super slow DSP chips smoke any CPU I ever owned.

2 cents


----------



## renegade (Jan 8, 2014)

rgames @ Wed 08 Jan said:


> For example, I just retired my i7-920 at 3.8 GHz and replaced it with a 4930k at 4.4 GHz. The new machine runs my template slightly worse than the old one, even though the CPU is much more powerful.
> 
> ...when CPU does help, I've found it's usually because of bad audio or video drivers or some other driver problem. That's why my i7-920 and 4930k have the same performance - the other elements of the system are optimized for DAW use, so the CPU doesn't matter.
> rgames



Ok...that's interesting. I am (or was...) just about to upgrade from a 920 to 4930k. I'm working a lot with electronic music, virtual synths and effects, especially synth like Diva and Lush-101 are very demanding (to demanding for my current system). So I'm not only after quick HD load times, but also power to run these synth and FX.

When you say the performance difference is none existent for DAW use, is this orchestral template? That makes ok sense to me, because it would depend more on HD loading speed.

Maybe I should try to overclock my system before buying new...that would certainly be a lot cheaper also!


----------



## germancomponist (Jan 8, 2014)

chimuelo @ Wed Jan 08 said:


> I would love to see a developer bring us our own operating system for audio.
> We could probably use i3 CPUs @ 1.8GHz and get the very same results, maybe even better as my super slow DSP chips smoke any CPU I ever owned.



Right!

Some years ago people told me that Yamaha was working on it, but...... . o/~


----------



## Guy Rowland (Jan 8, 2014)

renegade @ Wed Jan 08 said:


> When you say the performance difference is none existent for DAW use, is this orchestral template? That makes ok sense to me, because it would depend more on HD loading speed.



Yes, I have the same question and make the same assumptions. I wouldn't expect sample streaming to be affected by CPU, but certainly would for CPU-hungry plugins (somewhat obviously I'd have thought...) And as a bonus question - why overclock at all if the CPU isn't making ANY difference :?


----------



## Rob Elliott (Jan 8, 2014)

In our Daw's - wouldn't CPU OC VERY much help when using DEMANDING plugins (i.e B2, etc.)? I can see no real benefit for streaming but at the mixing stage it would have to help, right?


----------



## kfirpr (Jan 8, 2014)

Rob Elliott @ Wed Jan 08 said:


> In our Daw's - wouldn't CPU OC VERY much help when using DEMANDING plugins (i.e B2, etc.)? I can see no real benefit for streaming but at the mixing stage it would have to help, right?



Of course it can help :D


----------



## rgames (Jan 8, 2014)

Rob Elliott @ Wed Jan 08 said:


> In our Daw's - wouldn't CPU OC VERY much help when using DEMANDING plugins (i.e B2, etc.)? I can see no real benefit for streaming but at the mixing stage it would have to help, right?


Yes, it will help if you're currently CPU-limited. But are you really CPU-limited? That's the part I haven't seen - it makes sense that it's possible, I just haven't seen it and I use pretty much all the same stuff everyone else uses.

People confuse VST/ASIO/audio performance with CPU performance. They're not necessarily related. You can spike your VST performance meter while having plenty of CPU power left over (you can search this forum for lots of questions describing this exact situation).

The audio performance meter in your DAW is not a CPU performance meter. Just because you're spiking audio system performance doesn't necessarily mean you're running out of CPU. They can be related, but often they are not. For example, with my full template loaded, the Ozone5 output limiter spikes my VST meter at 128 buffer but my CPU usage never gets above 15% - 20%. It's ASIO limited, not CPU limited, so I have to increase the buffer size when I run that plug-in. This behavior is basically the same on both my i7-920 and the 4930k that replaced it. Obviously the 4930k is a *much* more powerful CPU, but the CPU usage on both is about the same and I have to change the buffer to run the Ozone5 limiter on both systems. That clearly indicates that it's not a CPU limitation, it's an ASIO limitation.

VST performance is related to the real-time capability of your system and has more to do with audio, video, and network hardware and drivers and how the OS/motherboard deals with them. CPU performance is related to, well, the CPU!

Again, CPU power can overcome inefficiencies elsewhere in the system. But a better way to deal with them is to fix them, not just throw more CPU power at them.

And the reason to overclock it even if it doesn't help DAW use is as I said above: it helps other things, it's easy to do, and there's no harm, so you might as well do it.

rgames


----------



## rgames (Jan 8, 2014)

chimuelo @ Tue Jan 07 said:


> I still believe that we are held back by the operating systems. I have seen the Muse Receptors running Linux using slower CPUs and less RAM and getting much better load times, and amount of instruments loaded.


Yes - unfortunately we are stuck dealing with OS's that cater to apps other than what we care about for DAW use. For that reason, we never really get to take full advantage of the hardware we have available to us. It's also why we're not CPU-limited - the inefficiencies lie elsewhere and are the primary bottlenecks. So the CPU spends a lot of time just twiddling its thumbs for most applications...!

Just open your CPU monitor while you're working on music and see how high it gets. I rarely go over 20% when working on music, so that means 80% of the time the CPU is just sitting there doing nothing.

Video encoding is another story - I can easily approach 100% CPU usage when encoding video because that's a CPU-limited task (and benefits from overclocking). DAW use, in my experience over the last five or so years, is not. It used to be, but it hasn't been an issue for me in many years.

rgames


----------



## Rob Elliott (Jan 8, 2014)

rgames @ Wed Jan 08 said:


> Rob Elliott @ Wed Jan 08 said:
> 
> 
> > In our Daw's - wouldn't CPU OC VERY much help when using DEMANDING plugins (i.e B2, etc.)? I can see no real benefit for streaming but at the mixing stage it would have to help, right?
> ...




Yea, totally makes sense Richard (about ASIO performance). One thing I noticed is that my BIOS version is 2 years old. I have all my settings (to replace defaulted NEW BIOS), wondering if I should start there with updating that - then perhaps try the 'auto turbo mode' in the ASUS utility?


----------



## rgames (Jan 8, 2014)

kfirpr @ Wed Jan 08 said:


> Rob Elliott @ Wed Jan 08 said:
> 
> 
> > In our Daw's - wouldn't CPU OC VERY much help when using DEMANDING plugins (i.e B2, etc.)? I can see no real benefit for streaming but at the mixing stage it would have to help, right?
> ...


For example...???


----------



## Guy Rowland (Jan 8, 2014)

Hmm, this is interesting Richard but I'm not 100% convinced its quite this straighforward. Would the same audio hardware and same drivers produce the same real world performance in a Q6600 as a 4930k?

I've always assumed (perhaps wrongly) that a lot of the reasons why you get VST spikes without an overall CPU spike is to do with cores. If your plugin only uses one core and you hit 100%, that will (presumably?) register at only 25% of overall CPU use.

I haven't done much heavy testing in the last year or so, but (as an example) I remember when setting up LASS 2 on VE Pro that I'd see CPU use on each core go very high when using the built in convos, hence the reason why I disabled them. But its certainly also true that bad drivers cause CPU horrors - my old M Audio ones were lethal to anything that used eLicenser, and would cause debilitating CPU spikes. No problems like that in the world of RME, I'm happy to report.


----------



## rgames (Jan 8, 2014)

Guy Rowland @ Wed Jan 08 said:


> Hmm, this is interesting Richard but I'm not 100% convinced its quite this straighforward. Would the same audio hardware and same drivers produce the same real world performance in a Q6600 as a 4930k?
> 
> I've always assumed (perhaps wrongly) that a lot of the reasons why you get VST spikes without an overall CPU spike is to do with cores. If your plugin only uses one core and you hit 100%, that will (presumably?) register at only 25% of overall CPU use.
> 
> I haven't done much heavy testing in the last year or so, but (as an example) I remember when setting up LASS 2 on VE Pro that I'd see CPU use on each core go very high when using the built in convos, hence the reason why I disabled them. But its certainly also true that bad drivers cause CPU horrors - my old M Audio ones were lethal to anything that used eLicenser, and would cause debilitating CPU spikes. No problems like that in the world of RME, I'm happy to report.


Yes, it makes sense that if you max out any single core that you'll run in to issues. However, I haven't seen that. I get pretty even distribution across all cores and any single plug-in or instrument never puts any single core over the brink.

Regarding the LASS convo example, I find similar behavior with PLAY. I get very high CPU usage on some cores with PLAY. On my i5 2500k the CPU usage gets near 80% for *extremely* densely orchestrated passages (using HB) but it runs fine. On my 4930k, the same passage uses only about 30% CPU usage and runs fine as well.

So, yes, the CPU usage changes. But neither is a limitation in practical use. In order to get the CPU usage that high I have to use hypothetical music that I would never actually write.

Regarding Q6600 vs 4930k - it's impossible to answer because they have different chipsets and motherboards. And, as I've said, I believe the chipsets and motherboards have as much effect as the CPU. So there's no way to directly compare those particular processors. However, the chipsets and motherboards for the i5's and i7's I've compared are more alike than different so I think you can make the comparison there, and that comparison tells me that the CPU doesn't make much difference for practical DAW use. Certainly I would go with an i7 over an i5 for a master DAW just for margin, but 4770k vs. 4930k vs. some other i7 probably doesn't make much difference.

Actually, I have seen some indications that the 4770k (Haswell) chipset is actually better for DAW use, so that might be the better choice over a 4930k (Ivy-E) strictly form the standpoint of DAW use even though the 4770k is a less-powerful processor.

But, again, the bottom line is that you can make music with pretty much anything you buy these days. The differences in any meaningful productivity metric are pretty small.

rgames


----------



## kfirpr (Jan 8, 2014)

rgames @ Wed Jan 08 said:


> kfirpr @ Wed Jan 08 said:
> 
> 
> > Rob Elliott @ Wed Jan 08 said:
> ...



1. When you work with a large template and many instruments work on the same time you can get asio time usage peaks, overclocking will lower the chance of it to happen

2.like Rob stated when you add many mastering plugins you get more overhead which means more plugins to use with overclocked CPU


----------



## rgames (Jan 8, 2014)

Rob Elliott @ Wed Jan 08 said:


> Yea, totally makes sense Richard (about ASIO performance). One thing I noticed is that my BIOS version is 2 years old. I have all my settings (to replace defaulted NEW BIOS), wondering if I should start there with updating that - then perhaps try the 'auto turbo mode' in the ASUS utility?


I probably wouldn't mess with BIOS updates unless you know it will fix a specific problem. When you do that, you run the risk of messing up other things that are already working (like drivers for disk interfaces, chipsets, etc). Not likely, but possible. So unless you want to spend some time tweaking and testing, it might not be worthwhile. I only do BIOS updates when I'm installing an OS - that way, the OS is adapted to the specific BIOS that exists when it is installed. The link between the OS and BIOS is important and can cause issues, so you don't generally want to mess with it.

Regarding the auto-turbo mode, if that's an auto-overclocking tool then yes, you can give it a shot. The ASUS auto utilities seem to keep things pretty safe, and you can always go back to stock if it creates problems, so you can try it out to see what it does. However, I still think a good first step is just increasing the clock multiplier until you run in to issues. I'm sure there are some YouTube videos that show how to do that for whatever specific motherboard you have.

rgames


----------



## germancomponist (Jan 8, 2014)

What a great thread! Thanks Richard for all your informative posts!


----------



## rgames (Jan 8, 2014)

kfirpr @ Wed Jan 08 said:


> rgames @ Wed Jan 08 said:
> 
> 
> > kfirpr @ Wed Jan 08 said:
> ...


What I'm looking for is an actual example, not a theoretical example. I agree with the theory but I haven't seen a practical example.

I want to see videos or screenshots where you show a project that won't run on one configuration but will run on another. For example, show me a project that has clicks and pops at 3.6 GHz but none at 4.0 GHz. Or show me a project that has clicks and pops on an i7 4770k but not on an i7 4930k.

That will show that the CPU makes a practical difference.

Granted, you can do that with, e.g., hundreds of compressors. But who uses hundreds of compressors on an actual project? I want to see a practical example.

rgames


----------



## Guy Rowland (Jan 8, 2014)

rgames @ Wed Jan 08 said:


> Regarding the LASS convo example, I find similar behavior with PLAY. I get very high CPU usage on some cores with PLAY. On my i5 2500k the CPU usage gets near 80% for *extremely* densely orchestrated passages (using HB) but it runs fine. On my 4930k, the same passage uses only about 30% CPU usage and runs fine as well.
> 
> So, yes, the CPU usage changes. But neither is a limitation in practical use. In order to get the CPU usage that high I have to use hypothetical music that I would never actually write.



I definitely had the opposite experience with LASS 2 though in as much as I was definitely getting glitches and all sorts of nasties with those CPU core surges. Removing them from Kontakt made the problem go away.

On a related subject, I'd have thought that number of (real) cores has an effect too, especially when working with VE Pro - what's your experience there?


----------



## kfirpr (Jan 8, 2014)

rgames @ Wed Jan 08 said:


> kfirpr @ Wed Jan 08 said:
> 
> 
> > rgames @ Wed Jan 08 said:
> ...



Richard I don't know why you are so skeptical, for me with a certain project it did helped
and it lower my asio time usage, I will defiantly won't post any video to show you because I don't want to prove anything to anyone. Iv'e started this post to see if composers are overclocked or not.
Peace


----------



## chimuelo (Jan 8, 2014)

What I'd like to know is if you OC the multiplier on the i7 920, where you found the sweet spot. Just to confirm my suspicions.
Also someday I will get a Native synth, as it would compliment my DSP and hardware based units. 
Knowing if the u-He stuff got a boost would help me decide my next upgrade path.

Thanks.


----------



## rgames (Jan 8, 2014)

kfirpr @ Wed Jan 08 said:


> Richard I don't know why you are so skeptical, for me with a certain project it did helped
> and it lower my asio time usage, I will defiantly won't post any video to show you because I don't want to prove anything to anyone. Iv'e started this post to see if composers are overclocked or not.
> Peace


I'm just looking to fill in gaps in my knowledge. As I've said, the situations you describe make sense from a theoretical standpoint. I've just never seen any practical examples where people have demonstrated the behavior you describe. I've tried to create it and I can't. So yes, I'm skeptical!

So please do share the details - you can help educate me and everyone else who reads this thread. I am genuinely curious - I'm not trying to create conflict. I really would like to know the details! I've been curious about this topic for years and have discussed with a lot of people. However, I still can't find any examples of how CPU makes a practical difference for DAW use.

Again, I'm not looking for examples of CPU/ASIO usage *changes* - I've already seen that. I'm looking for practical examples of workflow impact - i.e. examples of projects that will not run on one CPU configuration but will run on another.

rgames


----------



## rgames (Jan 8, 2014)

Guy Rowland @ Wed Jan 08 said:


> I definitely had the opposite experience with LASS 2 though in as much as I was definitely getting glitches and all sorts of nasties with those CPU core surges. Removing them from Kontakt made the problem go away.


Here's a good opportunity for a test: could you overcome the core surges on a different CPU or by overclocking?

Regarding the number of cores, the only real data I have is for sample streaming using VSL, Kontakt and PLAY. For that application I have not seen a difference. Again, CPU usage changes, but I get the same number of voices before clicks/pops start to occur.

I also have the i7-920 vs. 4930k comparison 4-core vs. 6-core and that made about 5% difference in CPU usage on my full template. 920 ran at about 20%-25% and 4930k runs at about 15%-20% on a typical project.

rgames


----------



## Gusfmm (Jan 8, 2014)

rgames @ Wed Jan 08 said:


> The audio performance meter in your DAW is not a CPU performance meter. Just because you're spiking audio system performance doesn't necessarily mean you're running out of CPU. They can be related, but often they are not. For example, with my full template loaded, the Ozone5 output limiter spikes my VST meter at 128 buffer but my CPU usage never gets above 15% - 20%. It's ASIO limited, not CPU limited, so I have to increase the buffer size when I run that plug-in. This behavior is basically the same on both my i7-920 and the 4930k that replaced it. Obviously the 4930k is a *much* more powerful CPU, but the CPU usage on both is about the same and I have to change the buffer to run the Ozone5 limiter on both systems. That clearly indicates that it's not a CPU limitation, it's an ASIO limitation.
> rgames



I really have no objection to what you're saying. But I feel there is one element that I'm not sure is quite clear for everybody interested in the topic. So let me raise the question.

When you say, it is an ASIO limitation, what do you mean? Is it the ASIO driver, the actual audio hardware, is it Cubase processing the audio to be sent to the hardware's ASIO driver, is it the CPU not being able to process quickly enough?

As you've mentioned in a few opportunities, you may have a 12-core system, thus capacity may not seem like an issue, but that doesn't guarantee you will not have drop-outs. So, why is that?


----------



## kfirpr (Jan 8, 2014)

rgames @ Wed Jan 08 said:


> kfirpr @ Wed Jan 08 said:
> 
> 
> > Richard I don't know why you are so skeptical, for me with a certain project it did helped
> ...



Hi Richard I understand you now
I don't think that overclocking can increase daw performance.
I think that with today's processors you probably don't have to overclock to get good performances in daw, I do it for fun. There are several kontakt instruments that required more CPU power then others and when you combine them with Play engine and mastering effects you can get cracks and pops, however this is rare.

Let says that if you don't have problems in your workflow you shouldn't overclock.


----------



## Gusfmm (Jan 8, 2014)

rgames @ Wed Jan 08 said:


> I'm just looking to fill in gaps in my knowledge. As I've said, the situations you describe make sense from a theoretical standpoint. I've just never seen any practical examples where people have demonstrated the behavior you describe. I've tried to create it and I can't. So yes, I'm skeptical!
> 
> rgames



I'm with you, this is definitely a good point, no doubt about it.


----------



## Rob Elliott (Jan 8, 2014)

rgames @ Wed Jan 08 said:


> Rob Elliott @ Wed Jan 08 said:
> 
> 
> > Yea, totally makes sense Richard (about ASIO performance). One thing I noticed is that my BIOS version is 2 years old. I have all my settings (to replace defaulted NEW BIOS), wondering if I should start there with updating that - then perhaps try the 'auto turbo mode' in the ASUS utility?
> ...



Yea - if it ain't broke don't fix it mantra has kept me out of the soup on more than one occasion. I'll hold still on BIOS. Thanks again.


----------



## Gusfmm (Jan 8, 2014)

rgames @ Wed Jan 08 said:


> Regarding the number of cores, the only real data I have is for sample streaming using VSL, Kontakt and PLAY. For that application I have not seen a difference. Again, CPU usage changes, but I get the same number of voices before clicks/pops start to occur.
> 
> I also have the i7-920 vs. 4930k comparison 4-core vs. 6-core and that made about 5% difference in CPU usage on my full template. 920 ran at about 20%-25% and 4930k runs at about 15%-20% on a typical project.
> 
> rgames



Question: you went from a 4-core 3.8Ghz to a 6-core 4.4Ghz. About 12-13% speed gain. And you say you did see a 5% improvement somehow. On the other hand, when you ran your homebrewed benchmark, did you check the core activity? Did it change from using 4 virtual processors (for instance) on the 920 to using 8 on the 4930? I'm certain it didn't. 

At least it shouldn't, unless it was utilizing all 8 Vcores on the 920, but even this is a very weak assumption from my part, as it'd also highly depend on how Cubase (I forget if you were using VEP, whether you had Kontakt's multiprocessing enabled or not, etc) is designed to handle multiprocessing. 

But the reason why performance on the 4930 MUST be better (and the caviat here indeed is that I have not seen yet empirical evidence EITHER to substantiate this, but it is all theoretical predictions), is that the 4930 is capable of processing more per unit of time, thus at same latencies, you should be able to get less drop-outs.

So the 4930 does run your Ozone mastering algorythms faster than the 920. And thus my claim that any gain in processor speed should translate in better audio processing capacity. To what extend, in what ratio? I don't know, never have had the time and energy to attempt to demonstrate it.


----------



## rgames (Jan 8, 2014)

Gusfmm @ Wed Jan 08 said:


> Question: you went from a 4-core 3.8Ghz to a 6-core 4.4Ghz. About 12-13% speed gain. And you say you did see a 5% improvement somehow. On the other hand, when you ran your homebrewed benchmark, did you check the core activity? Did it change from using 4 virtual processors (for instance) on the 920 to using 8 on the 4930? I'm certain it didn't.


I do watch the individual cores but it's impossible to discern a difference because the levels are so low. All of the cores are active on both processors, that's for sure, and some rise and fall but I didn't notice any difference in levels on any individual core. Granted, I didn't look very closely, so maybe there is a difference on an individual core level. However, the point remains that the CPU usage levels are, in fact, very low. So yes, they are lower for the 4930k (about 5% overall) but the i7-920 was already *really* low, so going even lower doesn't have any practical impact. Again, this is from the standpoint of DAW use.

Regarding ASIO vs. CPU, here's an explanation:

The system (CPU + Sound Card + Video Card + MIDI interface + Software + All The Other Stuff) has to do three basic things:

1. Take an input (live or from a recorded track)
2. Process it to generate the appropriate audio
3. Pass that audio to the sound card

So the actual processing part is only one of three steps, and each of those steps takes some amount of time. The CPU power is only helpful in one of those steps - #2 (the CPU is involved in #1 and #3 but it takes very little processing power to accomplish those tasks). If your system takes a much longer time to do #1 and #3 than #2, then any increase in CPU power doesn't help that much because the system is spending all its time on #1 and #3 and the CPU is mostly just sitting there doing nothing waiting for other patrs of the system to finish #1 and #2 (hence the reason we see low CPU usage). In my experience, #1 and #3 are the real bottlenecks with systems from the last five years or so.

So what makes #1 and #3 happen slowly? Well, there are a lot of possibilities. Remember that the processor is still involved in doing #1 and #3, it's just not very taxing, so if the processor starts working on #1 and #3 but gets interrupted with a request to do something else, then #1 and #3 go on hold while the processor deals with that request. If the interrupting task prevents the processor from returning to #1 or #3 (as is the case with bad drivers), then the processor might sit there past the time where #1 and #3 need their data. For most applications like browsing the web or writing a document, there are no hard time limits and everything happens so fast that those delays don't matter. But for the real-time elements of the system (most notably audio and video), the delays do matter - the audio buffer must be filled at regular intervals or the audio stops/crackles. Likewise with the video buffer - the screen must be updated at regular intervals or you see stuttering video. So even if the CPU is very powerful and capable of processing a lot of information very quickly, if it gets distracted and misses a deadline, it can't make up for by working *really* hard in the next time step. The junk audio has already been sent to the audio card.

This is why CPU performance benchmarks don't necessarily tell us anything for DAW use - a very powerful CPU can make up for time lost to interruping tasks in a non-real-time application. It can work a lot harder over the second hundred microseconds to make up for time lost in the first hundred microseconds and the user will never notice. If, however, the sound card needs its audio in that first hundred microseconds, you're out of luck and you hear a crackle. So, for real-time applications, the CPU power doesn't necessarily make much difference.

That's why the i7 920 and 4930k perform about the same on my setup. Yes, the 4930k is the more powerful CPU, but the DAW performance relies more on the real-time performance of the system, not the raw CPU power.

rgames


----------



## Gusfmm (Jan 8, 2014)

My objection to your example above is that the interruption of #1 and #3 "to do something else" sound like some external factors (such as a non-audio driver, or another low-level OS kernel process), when trying to assess extrictly the DAW audio performance. While that is indeed a real frequent possibility, I prefer to assume there are no major external latency-impacting factors in this dialog, for simplicity sake. If there were, then the first thing to do is troubleshoot your other running drivers (LAN, video, OS services, ...).

With that in mind, then "internal" audio processing-related dropouts can occur when your DAW is unable to process an audio stream within the DAW, fast enough to fill up the ASIO buffer. So this is your #1, #2, #3 above. It could be the result of it not being able to get the audio data on-time from disk, the ASIO driver not being optimized (buggy), or the FX-processing load within the DAW, or mixing down the gazillion samples from the VSTi you have loaded. And I'm sure I maybe missing some other factors.

Case 1, when Ozone's heavy algorythms add XYms latency to your master mixdown. With a faster processor, your ability to either not have to increase your buffer size, or add more FX's should benefit as those algo's are processed faster. Would be a benefit of OC'ing.

Case 2, I know your homebrewed benchmark tries to assess some of the other factors by playing 100's of tracks simultaneously. In this case, there are various factors playing in at the same time: memory size/speed, streaming from disk or not, type of disks, sample playback engine (PLAY, VIP, Engine, Kontakt...) and its playback buffer settings, DAW, VSTi host, multithreading settings, etc... not a trivial assessment indeed. Every piece is different, every one adds some latency.

This project "dawbench.com" focuses on two different tests, which I think makes a lot of sense: a DSP performance, and a VI performance. The first would be more CPU/drivers-dependent, the second much more complex as I said above, in my opinion.


----------



## renegade (Jan 10, 2014)

Well, I've just experimented with OC for the first time and it actually makes a difference (thanks for the tip!) 
I tested the performance by playing some of the heavy patches from Lush-101 and the difference was rather pronounced.
I also noticed that the CPU (in this case) actually did a lot of work. When the ASIO was at max, the CPU showed 93% or more, so there clearly was ASIO improvement with increased CPU power.

When I loaded some projects with lots of samples it didn't make a significant difference (as expected).

I now run my i7 920 at 3,5 Ghz (from 2,67)
Temperatures: 40 - 60 c


----------

