# Suggestion of PC slave CPU



## dhlkid (Sep 15, 2017)

Hi

I haven't use PC for years but lately, I would like to build a PC slave.

Will it make a big difference between i7-7700 3.6GHz & i7-7820X 3.6-4.5GHz (US384 price difference) in virtual instruments playback via Vienna Ensemble Pro?

Thx


----------



## chimuelo (Sep 16, 2017)

I'd get the i3 8350k for fastest single core performance.
No hyper threading, no turbo, just 65w quad with room to clock to 5GHz.

For best performance on multi core 6 core coffee lake.

Or wait for AMDs new chips in 2018.
They're out performing Intels in Cinebench and rendering apps.
But for audio they need the 2nd gen Zen core with better memory controller and GPU/Vega on die with CPU cores.

I get similar performance on 4790k as the 6700/7700 CPUs.

Whoever has the biggest cache for a quad/hex in 2018 gets my money.

I tire from building and chasing around Intels latest chipsets.
Way too many releases to be properly supported.


----------



## AllanH (Sep 16, 2017)

I would go with latest generation Intel CPU and make sure you get a motherboard that can handle the maximum amount of RAM supported by the Intel chipset. In my experience, the i7 series perform better the XEON for audio/DAW use.

Unless you like to assemble yourself, I'd simply find a fully equipped Dell XPS or HP Pro/Elite and get that. There's virtually no cost premium, they are robust and supported. Buy through Costco, and you get two years of warranty typically.


----------



## Andrew Aversa (Sep 16, 2017)

i7-7700k is one of the best value & high performance CPUs. The i7-7820X runs hotter and draws something like 50% more power. As noted by AllanH, and I know rgames would agree, more cores doesn't necessarily mean better DAW performance; it's better to have 4 really fast cores (8 threads) than more cores at slower clockspeeds.

You are going to save a ton of money on the i7-7700k as you can get it for ~$300 in the US at a Micro Center/Frys, or $330 on Amazon. If you don't do any overclocking, save even more money by getting the 7700 (no K). The motherboards that support the i7-7700k are also cheaper than those for the 7820x.

You can use these savings to invest into more SSD storage or RAM.


----------



## Publius (Sep 18, 2017)

Maybe there should be a sticky thread here about slave pcs. We seem to have lots of similar questions. It may be helpful for people to post pc builds that they are using for slaves and what libraries/size of templates these pcs are handling. I have seen similar threads on other websites for other forms of software.


----------



## sleepfacingwest (Sep 18, 2017)

Publius said:


> Maybe there should be a sticky thread here about slave pcs. We seem to have lots of similar questions.


Honestly, I've been reading through previous posts and still have tons of questions. This would be super helpful. I was about to ask a very similar question. 

Most suggestions seem to be based off of very specific usage (all-in-one computer vs master/slave setup, DAW choice, etc). It seems like an awful lot of people advocate i7 use, but every professional slave builder I've found online uses Xeon; I can't help but feel like there's a reason for that. It seems that DAWs benefit from faster clockspeeds, but software like VEP (not doing any sequencing, but JUST running vi's) supposedly make better use of more cores. Most hardware benchmarks I've seen online are for all-in-one boxes so it's hard to get a feel for what's what. For the people who suggest against Xeon, are you running a master/slave setup? Do you do everything in the DAW or do you plug into a 3rd party vi host?


----------



## Andrew Aversa (Sep 18, 2017)

A somewhat cynical explanation: DAW builders want to make as much money as possible, and they can charge a premium for (very expensive) Xeon processors, boards, and ECC RAM.

Xeons have more cores & threads but lower clockspeeds. @rgames can chip in here, but while some DAWs have pretty good multithreaded performance, single-thread performance seems to be more crucial. Compared to something like an i7-7700k, you could be sacrificing 2ghz worth of single-threading to get a Xeon - depending on which you go with. Plus again, Xeons are WAY more expensive when factoring in the motherboard and RAM.

Even if a Xeon setup offered better performance overall, for the huge premium you would pay it would be more economical to simply build a second slave.


----------



## sleepfacingwest (Sep 18, 2017)

zircon_st said:


> single-thread performance seems to be more crucial.


Thanks for the reply! This seems to be the consensus if you're running your DAW and virtual instruments on the same machine. As I understand it, Logic, Cubase, etc, do not use multiple cores super well and benefit from faster clockspeeds, but does that still apply in a master/slave setup? I've read sources that say software like VEP makes super efficient use of multithreading. More cores (supposedly) directly correlates to the number of instruments you can run at any given time. If I recall correctly, VEP suggests running an instance per core. If I have 2 cores, I would max out at 32 individual midi tracks regardless of processing speed whereas 20 would give me 320 (assuming fast enough hard drives and sufficient RAM). If this is true, wouldn't an optimal setup would be more cores for your slave(s), and faster clockspeed for your master? I'm not trying to be antagonistic, I simply don't know. Given pricing for an additional motherboard/case/cooling/power supply/processors for 2 slaves, pricing might equal out for a single dual processor xeon slave.


----------



## Andrew Aversa (Sep 18, 2017)

I don't personally have enough experience with VEPro to speak to that; I think more benchmarks and user testing would be needed to say for sure.

Given lack of benchmarks, I would also wonder if a Ryzen chip is a better value here; the 1700 chip for example is comparable in price to an i7-7700 but with double the cores and threads. IF Ryzen proves itself to be adequate for VE Pro then it would be a much better deal than Xeons.


----------



## Confuzzly (Sep 18, 2017)

@sleepfacingwest So funny enough, I actually replied to your thread over at NG a while back (I recommended an i7) so I'll spare you from hearing more of that opinion.

However, you have some misconceptions about VEP. For example, you are not limited to 16 midi tracks in a VEP instance. I have about 50 midi tracks in my percussion instance alone. I'm sure I could add many more, but I simply don't have any more percussion instruments to add as of yet. 

Also, the number of threads does not limit how many instances you can have. I'm not a Logic user, but if I recall correctly, there was a time (or still is) where users would tend to have one VEP instance per instrument due to some limitation in Logic. Presumably, this would lead to many more instances than available threads, yet this apparently worked out ok for them.


I know I said I would spare you from more of my opinion, but practically speaking, with a modern i7 you are likely to run out of RAM before you run out of processing power when it comes to hosting sample libraries. So like Zircon said, even if the Xeon was better, it would likely be less economical.


----------



## sleepfacingwest (Sep 18, 2017)

Confuzzly said:


> @sleepfacingwest So funny enough, I actually replied to your thread over at NG a while back (I recommended an i7)


Thanks! I'd taken your suggestions to heart and saved the build you'd put together. I'd posted a follow up question, but must have forgotten to tag you (in fact looking back, I DEFINITELY did). I'm still trying to work out if i7's are better for a slave machine as well, or if this specifically is based on running a daw with virtual instruments on the same box. 


Confuzzly said:


> @sleepfacingwest you are not limited to 16 midi tracks in a VEP instance. I have about 50 midi tracks in my percussion instance alone.


I'll need to go back over the manual. I'm guessing futzing with the Midi Port # (which I've never touched) as opposed to JUST the channel probably has something to do with it  As far as number of instances goes, I had messed with upping the amount briefly and loading less instruments for each, but it didn't initially work out well. I was mid-project so I scrapped the experiment. Perhaps once things wind down I'll do some more tests. 
Out of curiosity, what libraries do you use?


----------



## Confuzzly (Sep 19, 2017)

sleepfacingwest said:


> Thanks! I'd taken your suggestions to heart and saved the build you'd put together. I'd posted a follow up question, but must have forgotten to tag you (in fact looking back, I DEFINITELY did).



I don't really check NG much these days, so I probably just missed it.



sleepfacingwest said:


> Out of curiosity, what libraries do you use?



Lots of Orchestral Tools, Sample Modeling Brass, a few Spitfire libraries, some other random libraries, and too many pianos.


----------



## JohnG (Sep 19, 2017)

Somewhat unusually, there is a fair amount of incorrect information in this thread, with now-ancient limitations of various software being dredged up from five years ago, or even further back. v.i. control member Richard G Ames ( @rgames ) has done benchmarking of various setups and his threads are still up here -- check those out for data from actual musical demands, rather than other forms of benchmarking that are not relevant to composing.

I use four PC slave computers. While I am not as expert as some (like @chimuelo ), I've had probably 20 of them over the years. My experience suggests:

*1. "Enough" Speed in CPU* -- You want speed, but you don't need the latest CPU chip. You can save a lot of money and get a "recent" chipset that is so powerful, its performance is indistinguishable (or nearly so) from the latest CPU that costs 2x. That said, these days I don't buy anything less than 4.0 GHz speed CPU (base state, not overclocked). Even if the computer is just for sample playback, scripting appears to be much more demanding than formerly. Besides, a lot of nifty synth sounds include delays, reverbs, chorus-delays -- you name it. You need processing to handle that.

*2. Get VE Pro.* VE Pro has improved enormously. Uses less resources, is more powerful, offers so many midi channels it's mind-boggling, and saves much, much faster. Some limitations mentioned on this thread are out of date, both for VE Pro and for sequencing software.

*3. Lots of RAM.* Get 64GB of RAM or more. It's not that costly and makes everything run better.

*4. Boot Drive.* SSD or M.2 for boot drive is nice, but not necessary. If you are constantly loading and closing samples / patches it's marginally (in my view, _very_ marginally) faster, and of course their cost has plunged. Even in light of that, for a PC slave which is handling your virtual orchestra (traditional strings, brass, percussion), super-fast boot drive speed doesn't make much difference in one's composing life once you establish your basic template, unless you are constantly closing and opening different ones, or using the computer for lots of other purposes besides music. You can save a little money by using an HDD instead of an SSD for the boot drive whereas, by contrast, the sample drives (where the sounds are stored) benefit enormously from SSDs and other flash storage, so put the money into SSDs for samples. Having an SSD for the boot drive is marginally faster, but for a slave computer, not usually very important.

Good luck,

John


----------



## sleepfacingwest (Sep 19, 2017)

Confuzzly said:


> Lots of Orchestral Tools, Sample Modeling Brass, a few Spitfire libraries, some other random libraries, and too many pianos.


Do you use a master/slave setup or all in one? While a screaming i7 setup will no doubt handle a lot, I keep asking for clarification on peoples' setups when they recommend it because typically those who swear by i7 are running both DAW and virtual instruments on the same machine.


----------



## sleepfacingwest (Sep 19, 2017)

JohnG said:


> v.i. control member Richard G Ames ( @rgames ) has done benchmarking of various setups and his threads are still up here -- check those out for data from actual musical demands, rather than other forms of benchmarking that are not relevant to composing.


I appreciate the straight-forward breakdown of hardware function and needs. I'll also take a look through @rgames posts. Thanks for the heads up!


----------



## Confuzzly (Sep 19, 2017)

sleepfacingwest said:


> Do you use a master/slave setup or all in one?



I use all in one.


----------



## Publius (Sep 19, 2017)

zircon_st said:


> A somewhat cynical explanation: DAW builders want to make as much money as possible, and they can charge a premium for (very expensive) Xeon processors, boards, and ECC RAM...



I have a xeon due to an unusual circumstance of using the computer as a server, and re-purposing it to a daw. I think there is a consensus here that non-xeon and non-ecc is a better value for daw usage--at least for an individual.

I don't know that I would characterize all DAW builders as pumping up their prices using xeon and ecc. As with any small business, different owners will have different approaches.

Also, I imagine that in the context of a recording studio recording an orchestra or the like, even doubling the cost of the daw to improve reliability 5% may well be a good investment, given the cost of an outage. If my daw goes down, no big deal, so don't want to pay for server-level parts.

On an unrelated note, I observe that a number of folks explore getting a slave so they don't have to pay for a more powerful apple computer. Make of that what you will...


----------



## Andrew Aversa (Sep 19, 2017)

@JohnG While I agree in theory that buying an older generation CPU is probably sufficient, prices have not depreciated by 50% for i7s even if you go back 3 generations. For example, a previously top-of-the-line i7-4770k (launched in 2013) still retails on Newegg for $399. If you're willing to buy pre-owned you could get it for less, but I hesitate to purchase ~4 year old PC parts... On the other hand you could walk into a Micro Center and buy a new i7-7700k for $300 or less.


----------



## JohnG (Sep 19, 2017)

zircon_st said:


> prices have not depreciated by 50% for i7s



I didn't say that. I said it's not worth paying twice the price for the latest "neato / new" processor, compared to the older CPUs. However, whether it's exactly twice or not is irrelevant to the point. Paying a premium for the latest and greatest does not often generate a commensurate increase in a music PC's capabilities.


----------



## Publius (Sep 19, 2017)

Agreed, I look for the best price/performance and often end up with at least one generation behind the leading edge.


----------



## Andrew Aversa (Sep 19, 2017)

Right right, I get what you're saying, and I agree. *But!* Specifically _right now_ we are at a weird point where the latest and greatest also happens to be the same price or cheaper than previous generations. The 6700k still retails for $340, the 4770k for $399.

Edit: Much to my surprise, even the higher-core count Intel chips are cheaper than previous generations. An i7-7820x has 8 cores / 16 threads at $600. The i7-6900k - for the same core count, and an older chip - costs $1000.


----------



## JohnG (Sep 19, 2017)

I'm not sure where you're looking; on Amazon, the i7 6700k is $313. About half the newest ones.

I'm not arguing that there's zero benefit to the latest-and-greatest, but for many, for a PC slave computer for music, i7 6700k or even an i7 4790k works well and is cheaper. Both are rated at 4.0 GHz and both can be overclocked.

My strategy anyway is to spread the load out over multiple PC slave computers, so I'd rather have two 64 GB RAM computers that are a little less expensive than one with 128. But not everyone is like that.


----------



## Andrew Aversa (Sep 19, 2017)

Ah, I was looking on Newegg; but the 6700k is comparable to the 7700k, which is just $15 more. If you're not overclocking, the i7-6700 is $297 on Amazon while the i7-7700 is $298. The 4790k is $355 on Amazon.


----------



## JohnG (Sep 19, 2017)

The point remains -- the "latest" chips are a lot more and provide questionable benefits.

Probably enough on that! Cheers


----------



## chimuelo (Sep 19, 2017)

Just finished my 3rd 32GB 1U PC Slave.
All 4.4GHz, NVMe Boot devices, and 1TB 850 EVOs x 2 per slave.
Time for a return to Theory Comp classes, this time with convincing instruments.

I'm an old Z97/4790k kind of guy.
Each newer Intel gets a bump with better instruction streamlining.

Still say the new i5 8350 (iirc) is going to be the last/best/fast quad made.
Gamers use more cores better and they drive the market.


----------



## rgames (Sep 19, 2017)

A good place to start is with your current CPU usage: in your most stressing tracks, are you approaching 100% CPU usage?

If not, more cores probably aren't going to help. If you're not up against a CPU bottleneck then higher clock speed will move you towards lower latency.

There are a few basic truths these days assuming you're running a typical VI setup:

1. Pretty much any i7 CPU will be "good enough" for DAW work.
2. Multiple machines perform better than any single machine on the basis of total cost (i.e. two $1500 machines outperform any single $3000 machine).
3. Dual CPUs on one motherboard are a bad idea for pretty much any task other than computational physics or other software specifically designed for such a system.
4. Clock speed provides more benefit than number of cores (4-6 cores at 4+ GHz is about the sweet spot for DAW use these days).
5. SSDs have more impact on performance than processors (within the i7 family). So if you have to choose between a higher price i7 processor and more/larger SSDs, go with the SSDs.

rgames


----------



## JohnG (Sep 20, 2017)

great summary @rgames


----------



## Publius (Sep 20, 2017)

I would add a recommendation that new systems going forward have a motherboard that supports 64 gig of ram--or maybe more--I suspect more than 64 gig gets into server technology where a xeon is required--but I am open to being educated about this subject from those with more experience. I think there is a big price jump after 64 gig since one is leaving the realm of consumer computing where number of product shipped keeps the cost down, and going to server land where the buyers are normally businesses who are used to paying a lot for servers.

If a 64 gig mobo has 4 slots, for example, one could buy 2 16 gig sticks and add two more later if need arises--as 64 gig of ram costs more than the cpu and motherboard together from what I have seen.

I already suggested a sticky thread along these lines, but a bit more on that. IIRC, GearSlutz has a large thread where people share their PC builds that have worked as DAWs. MacRumors may have a similar thread for hackintoshes that work--I don't recall clearly. I know they had a thread listing xeon upgrade chips that worked in old mac computers, and ones that did not.

The advice here is very forward thinking which is great, but existing systems can provide some guidance as to what sort of resources can accomplish what tasks, musically.

Maybe folks here could share their slave build hardware and software and indicate how well it works--maybe max number of instruments it supports, or something like that.


----------



## JohnG (Sep 20, 2017)

Publius said:


> I would add a recommendation that new systems going forward have a motherboard that supports 64 gig of ram--or maybe more



Not sure about more than 64 but agree with your idea in general.


----------



## bjderganc (Sep 20, 2017)

@rgames this basic build advice should really be stickied.


----------



## JaikumarS (Sep 22, 2017)

Anyone using (MacPro 8 Core ; 128RAM with Cubase ) - Master?


----------



## thereus (Sep 23, 2017)

The newest x299 motherboards for the x series processors can take 128Gig memory without wandering into Xeon territory.


----------



## thereus (Sep 23, 2017)

"Clock speed provides more benefit than number of cores (4-6 cores at 4+ GHz is about the sweet spot for DAW use these days)."

Rgames, Is this still true? Scan seemed to be getting very good results from the 7900x.

http://www.scanproaudio.info/2017/06/28/intel-i9-7900x-first-look/

Is it not also very dependent on how well set up your DAW is to use multiple cores? They seem to vary immensely. Reaper is excellent, Cubase at the other end of the scale.


----------



## chimuelo (Sep 23, 2017)

i3-8350k looks to be very cheap, and perhaps the last Quad made.
This means 1000 dollar Slaves in 2018.
Waiting to see 4.4GHz and 64GBs with polyphony counts.
MyDigitalSSDs are even cheaper than EVOs if budgets are needed.


----------



## Andrew Aversa (Sep 23, 2017)

@thereus I would always be wary of any benchmarks/testing coming from a company that has a vested interest in selling you the most premium product possible. Not saying to discard their results out of hand, but just to keep that in mind. I always like to see benchmarks verified by users and third parties who aren't also selling the same products they are testing.


----------



## thereus (Sep 24, 2017)

zircon_st said:


> @thereus I would always be wary of any benchmarks/testing coming from a company that has a vested interest in selling you the most premium product possible. Not saying to discard their results out of hand, but just to keep that in mind. I always like to see benchmarks verified by users and third parties who aren't also selling the same products they are testing.



You make a good point zircon_st.

This independent report finds the same thing.

I am wondering if the "get the fastest clock speed, not the highest number of cores" guidance is getting dated as the processor technology is increasingly optimised. I am also convinced that it depends highly on your choice of DAW.


----------



## thereus (Sep 24, 2017)

*Processor speed: Base clock speed vs. Multiple cores*

Here is another set of tests.

https://www.pcper.com/reviews/Proce...X-Processor-Review/Media-Encoding-and-Renderi

Again, the 7900x matches 7700k in single-core mode despite the base clock-speed and greatly exceeds it in multicore tasks. It does seem to depend on how well your software platform can handle multithreading. Reaper is good and Cubase is horrible for this. The questions in my mind are:

How well does VePro handle multithreading?
How well can Kontakt 5.7 handle multithreading?

*I/O*

The 7900x gives you room for 128GB memory and 44 PCI express lanes vs. the 7700k's 64GB and 16 PCI express lanes, so you can run more SSDs including M2s.

*Cost and Purpose*

For slaves, the rule holds because it's still faster and cheaper to run many less well-powered slaves. Buy two 7700k slaves with 64GB rather than one 7900x and you will still have change. As for a single machine setup or a master, I'm not sure things are so clear cut any longer.

I'm very happy for my musings to be proved wrong.


----------



## Rohann (Sep 25, 2017)

JohnG said:


> Somewhat unusually, there is a fair amount of incorrect information in this thread, with now-ancient limitations of various software being dredged up from five years ago, or even further back. v.i. control member Richard G Ames ( @rgames ) has done benchmarking of various setups and his threads are still up here -- check those out for data from actual musical demands, rather than other forms of benchmarking that are not relevant to composing.
> 
> I use four PC slave computers. While I am not as expert as some (like @chimuelo ), I've had probably 20 of them over the years. My experience suggests:
> 
> ...


Bookmarked, thanks for this.

I agree re: real world performance of i7's. CPU max speed has sort of plateaued as of late, and even a 4th gen i7 does quite well against a 7700k. There are improvements, of course, but I doubt the price difference is worth it when it can get you more RAM or add another SSD. It's taking a surprisingly long time for programs to _really _utilize multiple cores/threads efficiently, and I suspect we'll see interesting changes if that occurs. Of course I'm not well informed as to the conceptual issues or limitations that core distribution has, so it may well be that high base clock speed will always be the most important thing.


----------



## chimuelo (Sep 28, 2017)

You might want an ASRock Z370 Pro4 and the i3-8350k and 64GBs of DDR4.

I thought the Quads would be held back to move more Hex inventory, but I assumed wrong.
Just snap in a PCI-e audio Connector and go.
4.8GHz on air should be really fast, and the CPU is 167-180 USD.
ASRock board probably 125, get the cheapest RAM without the silly light show.


----------



## Andrew Aversa (Sep 28, 2017)

Yeah... Intel CPUs have really come DOWN in price overall. Getting an older CPU isn't saving you money anymore. A pre-owned i7-3770k is ~$190. The much more powerful 8350k (which is also newer) is cheaper.


----------



## chimuelo (Sep 28, 2017)

In 2 years when I look to move from i7 4790k Slaves I know what I'll be getting.
3 x PC Slaves sharing the same chassis, etc.
Each Slave should be 500 bucks....


----------



## Publius (Sep 29, 2017)

I have noted that in the last 30 years of buying and building pcs, I have often found the best price/performance maybe a generation behind the newest one. To be clear on this, every purchase merits its own analysis, and I was reporting what had happened most often after the analysis--my point is to be open minded and not get starry-eyed at the latest marketing hype. OTOH, if one needs 64 gig of ram, there is a definite cut-off point where older technologies will not do the job.

Having said that, its interesting to think about how computers are different from other products in ways that make the most recent technology less expensive:

1) Newer technologies increase the power and reduce heat produced by newer cpus--same for ram and now even 'disk' which is being replaced by non-disk technology.
2) Manufacturers save money by discontinuing the manufacture of older product lines--at a certain point.
3) Older cpu may cost the same per chip as newer cpu, but not command as high a price, so not economical to produce anymore.
4) Purchasing older products that are no longer being manufactured can cost more because supplies are drying up and these are only sold to people who need them. I have seen older and slower ram being more expensive per gig than new stuff for this very reason. In spite of that it may be worth it to upgrade the ram in a system to prolong its useful life.
5) I do look at craig's list for good deals on used computers, and as a rule with almost no exceptions, people selling their old stuff are hung up on how much they paid for it and seek non-competitive prices. This may be more noticeable for me as I build my own, so I have no interest in the premium prices paid for pre-built systems. The other reason used computers don't get purchased by me is that by the time someone wants to sell them, they are too behind the times to be interesting.

Where bargains can be had is in purchasing excess stock in the supply chain at discounted prices. By definition, this is unsystematic depending on who has excess stock in whichever technology when sales dry up due to a new product announcement.

So, in sum, work the numbers before each and every purchase--and then tell war stories with what you learned. Thanks to the folks here for keeping an eye on the marketplace and keeping us appraised on new developments. There are so many cpus, even from intel alone, along with byzantine product naming and packaging, that its not easy to keep on top of the marketplace.


----------



## Sami (Nov 7, 2017)

Can it be taken for a fact that High Frequency single core is superior to multithreaded at a lower frequency for vep? @chimuelo you are suggesting the 8350k, are you basing your suggestion on testing or experience?


----------



## chimuelo (Nov 7, 2017)

Read Richards Sticky.
He spent more time with VEPro than I have.
I’m still learning.


----------



## Sami (Nov 8, 2017)

chimuelo said:


> Read Richards Sticky.
> He spent more time with VEPro than I have.
> I’m still learning.


Do you happen to have a link? Thanks by the way!


----------



## chimuelo (Nov 8, 2017)

https://vi-control.net/community/th...e-vs-real-time-performance-in-your-daw.46807/


----------

