# Xeon CPUs vs 7700k



## Phryq (Apr 30, 2017)

So I'm planning to build a travel-computer.

This board is ideal, as is supports 64gb of ram and is tiny,

http://asrockrack.com/general/productdetail.asp?Model=EPC612D4I#CPU

but it only supports E5 CPUs.

So I'm wondering, how do E5s, or E3 (I'm thinking the e3 1275 v6) compare to a 7700k. On all benchmarks online, the 7700k seems to win by far... so how do they compare for audio? Even close?

I'm seeing in general Xeons have lower clocks, but higher cache (and sometimes cores).

So running a big orchestral template (imagine Berlin Strings, Woods, and Brass) with a few verbs / EQ / compressors, how do they compare?

One thing I don't understand... everyone says single-core performance is key. But my laptop can run any single synth by itself - the only problem I have is with many tracks together. So since Reaper is spreading the load across tracks, shouldn't more cores allow me more tracks? In that case a low watt high-core Xeon like a Xeon-D should be ideal, no?

Is the high-clock thing only for ultra-low latency / live performance? I don't mind running a 1024 or 2048 buffer (right now I'm often at 8132. Waiting a second before playback isn't an issue).


----------



## EvilDragon (Apr 30, 2017)

Xeons are enterprise-grade CPUs, I wouldn't use them for pure audio stuff, exactly because of their slower core speed... Not to mention they demand the more expensive ECC RAM.

You should go with something like this: https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813132954

Or a comparable LGA1151 mini-ITX form board, then stick a 6700k or 7700k in it.


----------



## Phryq (May 1, 2017)

I was looking at that, but only 2 ram slots, so maximum 32gb. I'd ideally like 64. I could go for their z270g, which allows 4 slots, but then it's slightly bigger.

Will the x270i support a 7700k?

Maybe I should go with the registry-tweak, and try my 2x samsung 960 Pro (is a RAID 0 a good idea? I was thinking not).


----------



## Symfoniq (May 1, 2017)

I'm using a Xeon for audio. It's the most stable system I've ever owned, Mac or PC. The E3 series Xeons in particular are capable of clock speeds up to 4.0 GHz, comparable to the 7700k.

If you plan to overclock, the 7700k has a definitive advantage. On the other hand, the ability of Xeons to take ECC RAM is an asset, not a liability (and it is just an ability with the E3 Xeons--you don't have to use ECC). Bit flips in RAM are more common than you might think.


----------



## EvilDragon (May 1, 2017)

Phryq said:


> Will the x270i support a 7700k?



Yes, Z270 chipset is directly supporting Kaby Lake CPUs. That said, Z170 chipsets also support Kaby Lake.


----------



## EvilDragon (May 1, 2017)

Symfoniq said:


> On the other hand, the ability of Xeons to take ECC RAM is an asset, not a liability



Depends on what system is going to be used for. Servers, enterprise, for sure, ECC RAM is great in those cases. Audio production, not really that much... https://blog.codinghorror.com/to-ecc-or-not-to-ecc/

Scroll a bit down to "But who gives a damn what I think. _What does the data say?" _part. 


ECC is not really _necessary_ for our line of work.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (May 1, 2017)

It is if you have a Mac Pro, since that's what they take. 

Seriously, though, what kind of work is it necessary for? That's a real question, not an argument! I always just assumed that the error correction is to prevent instability and crashes, and that was why Apple uses it.


----------



## Symfoniq (May 1, 2017)

EvilDragon said:


> Depends on what system is going to be used for. Servers, enterprise, for sure, ECC RAM is great in those cases. Audio production, not really that much... https://blog.codinghorror.com/to-ecc-or-not-to-ecc/
> 
> Scroll a bit down to "But who gives a damn what I think. _What does the data say?" _part.
> 
> ...



What constitutes necessary? Caring about the integrity of your data? Ideally, all computer systems that create and store important data should have ECC RAM.

Data corruption increases with the density of RAM, and RAM densities are getting higher all the time.

The fact that Intel only offers ECC memory support on high-end platforms is more about profitable segmentation of its products than anything else. AMD has long supported ECC RAM on their consumer CPUs, as they should.


----------



## AlexRuger (May 1, 2017)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> It is if you have a Mac Pro, since that's what they take.
> 
> Seriously, though, what kind of work is it necessary for? That's a real question, not an argument! I always just assumed that the error correction is to prevent instability and crashes, and that was why Apple uses it.



Data servers, stuff like that. Anything that's on and doing something 24/7 and needs to be error-free.


----------



## EvilDragon (May 1, 2017)

Symfoniq said:


> Data corruption increases with the density of RAM, and RAM densities are getting higher all the time.



Looks like you didn't read the parts of that article I pointed out.

Soft issues with RAM are not a real issue anymore, hard issues (as in hardware failure) are a LOT more often than those.


----------



## Symfoniq (May 1, 2017)

EvilDragon said:


> Looks like you didn't read the parts of that article I pointed out.
> 
> Soft issues with RAM are not a real issue anymore, hard issues (as in hardware failure) are a LOT more often than those.



I enjoy Jeff Atwood's posts as much as anyone, but:


He admits that the cost difference between ECC and non-ECC RAM is minimal these days. So why not use it?
He uses Google's early, non-ECC servers as evidence that you don't really need ECC. What he doesn't mention (and might not know) is that an early Google engineer believed that not using ECC RAM was one of the biggest mistakes they ever made, and one they spent a lot of time fixing.
There is nothing to back up Jeff's assertion that "soft issues with RAM are not a real issue anymore." Yes, RAM is more reliable these days, but densities are higher, and the chance that an energetic proton or neutron causes a soft error in your RAM hasn't gone down.
Modern file systems (ZFS, btrfs) are getting better at detecting bit rot, but they can't do this as reliably without ECC RAM.
An interesting post discussing Jeff's ECC article from a Google employee is here.
If you don't care whether you can still open a file or use a particular sample more than five years from now, then you might not need ECC RAM. But these days, it's relatively cheap insurance.


----------



## chimuelo (May 1, 2017)

Error correction starts with a large CPU Cache.
When data retrieved from Cache is used it saves a trip to RAM.
Extra speed from high efficiency.
Same goes with ECC.

However whether our software is highly optimized or not is the question.
We have Plug ins that require 4.4ghz CPUs and a one size fits all OS.
I run equally impressive plug ins on 4 x Cores of a 400mhz DSP Chip, that uses a few lines of code from windows for compatability.

Nothing wrong with high speeds to cope from inefficient code.
It's not developers faults.

Imagine if they banned together to support and create an OS just for us.
No background processes, no permissions from the CPU for every little instruction regardless if it's repeated frequently.

Before long we'll see no more speed as heat is the problem, but more Cores to compensate...
I'm already seeing that with AMD.
If my number crunching DSPs can operate at such low speeds there's no reason our audio apps can't run 10 times more efficient with a dedicated OS.

What a future that would be.


----------



## EvilDragon (May 1, 2017)

Symfoniq said:


> If you don't care whether you can still open a file or use a particular sample more than five years from now, then you might not need ECC RAM.



Yes, I don't care. Why? Because in my past two computers and my current one, over 10 years, I've never had a file access issue caused by soft or hard RAM faults. Honestly.

There's a much greater chance of a hard drive breaking down and not complying.


----------



## Phryq (May 2, 2017)

Yes, I always thought it would be amazing if Reaper made an OS "ReaOS", that could only run Reaper and plugins, but it would need Windows VST compatibility.

*chimuelo *What plugins are you talking about?

Back to CPUs; I really don't care about ECC ram, or losing random files in 5 years.

However, I still don't know about Xeon vs Core, or Cores vs Clocks... I'm seeing arguments from all sides.

Logically it seems to me that more cores would be better. E.G., my crappy 47w Haswell can run any synth, or any single track, with only 2.7 GHz. Therefore, an 8 or 16 core at 2.7 GHz should also be able to run any synth/track, and also, 2 or 4 times as many of them, right? If my DAW (Reaper) is able to split the load among cores, there should be no problem.

Most likely I'm not understanding something; this is just my layman logic.


----------



## tack (May 2, 2017)

Phryq said:


> However, I still don't know about Xeon vs Core, or Cores vs Clocks... I'm seeing arguments from all sides.


A few related threads where this has been discussed:

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

http://vi-control.net/community/thr...tion-for-orchestral-composition-system.54893/

http://vi-control.net/community/threads/asio-guard-cpu-cores-vs-clock-speed.59643/


----------



## EvilDragon (May 2, 2017)

It's like this: a 2.7 GHz core will fall over much sooner than a 4.4 GHz core (especially with non-multicore compatible plugins like Reaktor or Falcon). Means you could load more stuff per track before a core gets overloaded. When you load multiple plugins in series, they are always processed on the same core in the DAW (serial processing like that *cannot* be parallelized, since input of second plugin depends on the output of the first plugin, which is logical).

So, for a great DAW, core frequency is just as important as number of cores, and in both cases the same adage works: the more, the merrier!


----------



## tack (May 2, 2017)

EvilDragon said:


> When you load multiple plugins in series, they are always processed on the same core in the DAW (serial processing like that *cannot* be parallelized, since input of second plugin depends on the output of the first plugin, which is logical).


I'm surprised to hear you say this. Isn't this exactly what Reaper's anticipative FX does? Anything not record armed (and therefore has no RT requirement) can be slightly pre-rendered. This allows for parallelism on the same FX chain, with each FX working on a different block in time. (At least any non master bus FX chain.)


----------



## Phryq (May 2, 2017)

I didn't know that ^^. I've always kept it off, because I heard somewhere, somehow it was buggy with samples...

But anyhow, high clock is still only important if your longest 'serial' is too much for a single core, right?

E.G. I have 100 tracks. Each track has Kontakt and an EQ. They all go to a single reverb/compressor send. On the master track is a multi-band compressor, EQ and limiter.

Therefore the 'serial' length would be Kontakt-EQ-Verb-Comp-MultiComp-EQ-Limiter. And one core has to be able to handle that.

However, for the 100 instances of Kontakt+EQ, more cores would be of more help, right? As long as my single core can handle that 'serial length', then more cores will allow more tracks?

_Disclaimer. I wouldn't have a chain like that. I would master separately._


----------



## tack (May 2, 2017)

Phryq said:


> I didn't know that ^^. I've always kept it off, because I heard somewhere, somehow it was buggy with samples...


I don't think I've run into any real issues with it. I do leave it on myself. But yes, when I find I'm troubleshooting something wonky it's the first thing I try disabling. 



Phryq said:


> Therefore the 'serial' length would be Kontakt-EQ-Verb-Comp-MultiComp-EQ-Limiter. And one core has to be able to handle that.


Well, again, not necessarily if you have anticipative FX enabled. If none of the tracks are record-armed, then Kontakt, Track EQ, Verb, and compressor can run in parallel across multiple cores (where they are each processing slightly different moments in time). The master bus FX chain is exempt from this parallelism regardless of whether anything is record-armed (for implementation reasons I can't claim to understand), so those would be serialized.

The moment you arm a track for recording, then that track's entire routing chain enters the realtime path and is all serialized. Your other (non-armed) tracks can be processed in parallel, but once they enter the routing path of the realtime chain they become serialized. For example, another track that sends to a reverb bus: the track FX can be processed in parallel, but once it sends to the reverb bus it can no longer be parallelized.

So, in the end, with a DAW like Reaper that can make pretty effective use of multiple processors, your main constraint in the cores vs clock decision will be your own realtime processing requirements. This can include recording on tracks involving crazy FX chains, or weighty single-threaded FX like say Zebra.


----------



## EvilDragon (May 2, 2017)

tack said:


> I'm surprised to hear you say this. Isn't this exactly what Reaper's anticipative FX does? Anything not record armed (and therefore has no RT requirement) can be slightly pre-rendered. This allows for parallelism on the same FX chain, with each FX working on a different block in time. (At least any non master bus FX chain.)



Anticipative processing processes the whole track in advance. Not each individual plugin on the track. At least AFAIK.

You cannot process the last plugin in the chain separately from the first plugin in the chain, the input to the last plugin depends on _everything_ coming before it. Basic causality.


----------



## Phryq (May 2, 2017)

Thanks.

In my case, I almost never record-arm, and when I do, I can simply freeze everything else. Mostly I'm inputting notation/midi with a mouse. I keep my buffer around 2048/4096 (because I don't notice much improvement beyond that). The only annoyance I get with this is during playback, my effects (graphical EQ) display before the sound is heard, so if I have a problem frequency, I'm seeing it before hearing it.

Anyhow, I'm thinking something like this motherboard (though I can't find it for sale, or a price)

It supports an e3 1275 (if that's powerful enough) and 64gb ram.

http://eps.msi.com/server/D3000#tab=overview


----------



## tack (May 2, 2017)

EvilDragon said:


> You cannot process the last plugin in the chain separately from the first plugin in the chain, the input to the last plugin depends on _everything_ coming before


You can by starting the processing slightly early and ensuring each FX in the chain is processing a different moment in time. This is the anticipative part of anticipative FX


----------



## Phryq (May 2, 2017)

> You cannot process the last plugin in the chain separately from the first plugin in the chain, the input to the last plugin depends on _everything_ coming before it.



I was thinking that too... I figured it would just mean more latency (so one core is taking a little break while the other core is working). Again, I know nothing so... I just want a computer that makes music for me


----------



## EvilDragon (May 2, 2017)

tack said:


> You can by starting the processing slightly early and ensuring each FX in the chain is processing a different moment in time. This is the anticipative part of anticipative FX



At any rate you cannot process the last FX _before the first one_ _has calculated its result_. So yeah, they are definitely scheduling the CPU time, but still, they are processed ahead of time sequentially, not out of order. Which is pretty much serial processing, but in blocks.


----------



## tack (May 2, 2017)

It wouldn't mean higher latency because it starts processing the track ahead of time, which it can do as long as it's not armed for recording.

I was fairly sure I understood how anticipative processing works but obviously having someone like ED disagree with you is enough to give one pause. I'll take this up over on the Reaper forum and we'll ask the gurus there. If I'm wrong I'd definitely like to know.


----------



## EvilDragon (May 2, 2017)

Yeah, me too. But to me it definitely seems that whole tracks are processed ahead of time, rather than each individual fx on a track.


----------



## tack (May 2, 2017)

EvilDragon said:


> Which is pretty much serial processing, but in blocks.


Serial with respect to one single block, but parallel with respect to multiple consecutive blocks. So you get parallelism on something that seems like it should be sequential (i.e. a timeline).

This is a pretty common trick in parallel computing. If Reaper isn't doing this it's a missed opportunity


----------



## EvilDragon (May 2, 2017)

Sure. But still, it cannot break causality, don't you agree? So IMHO those parallel consecutive blocks would belong to different tracks.

Similarly to how you cannot have PDC with feedback routing enabled.


----------



## tack (May 2, 2017)

EvilDragon said:


> But still, it cannot break causality, don't you agree?


If I disagreed it would only be for comedic effect.

Fortunately what I'm saying doesn't require turning the field of physics on its head.

At least until Reaper 6 comes out with its new Quantum Entanglement FX Processing Engine.


----------



## Phryq (May 2, 2017)

10 year old bench test from another thread,

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


----------



## EvilDragon (May 2, 2017)

10 years ago is 10 years ago... things have progressed since then on many fronts.


----------



## Phryq (May 2, 2017)

Right, but if anything, shouldn't scaling have increased?

Anyhow, the CPU I'm looking at ATM is the e3 1275, which is only 4 cores, 3.8 GHz, but 73 W, so a little less hot than a 7700k. Maybe overclocked to 91W, it would have the same clock, and then be pretty much equal?

The benefit would simply be the smaller motherboard, but I can't really find that board for sale, and it's probly very expensive.

An overclocked Ryzen would have more cores and the same clock... so maybe I just need to wait for the 'mature' Ryzen motherboard.

As long as my current computer doesn't melt before then


----------



## tack (May 2, 2017)

I started a thread on the Reaper forum.


----------



## Shad0wLandsUK (May 2, 2017)

EvilDragon said:


> Depends on what system is going to be used for. Servers, enterprise, for sure, ECC RAM is great in those cases. Audio production, not really that much... https://blog.codinghorror.com/to-ecc-or-not-to-ecc/
> 
> Scroll a bit down to "But who gives a damn what I think. _What does the data say?" _part.
> 
> ...


You do not have to use ECC with Xeons. I have a 12-Core Mac Pro and I am using Corsair non-ECC RAM. You only need ECC if you are doing video work or using the system as a Server.

Xeons are actually very good chips to use. I would probably use them instead of i Series. From experience I find i series have faster loading times, but in terms of constant running time, I would go Xeon.

I am not sure what experience you have with Xeon systems, but you only seem to giving ECC as the reason not to get them. Perhaps more reasons would be better.

Since you can get E series chips with high clock speeds.


----------



## JohnG (May 2, 2017)

Shad0wLandsUK said:


> You do not have to use ECC with Xeons.



Interesting. I am wondering if I can use non-ECC RAM on a PC with an Xeon E3-1275; 64GB, Windows 10 Pro. I will be using it as a sample playback computer.

Not sure how much better the i7-7700k is for that purpose.


----------



## EvilDragon (May 2, 2017)

Shad0wLandsUK said:


> Since you can get E series chips with high clock speeds.



But even then you can get an i7 that is faster, and cheaper. Currently fastest Xeon runs at 3.7 GHz and has 6 cores/12 threads (correct me if I'm wrong). The more cores it has, the slower they get. Difference in price is staggering (that fastest Xeon costs over $4000!). 

My i7-6700K comfortably runs at 4.4 GHz, and with a good config they can go to 4.7 GHz on air. And that is a difference that can definitely be felt and is very welcome in DAW matters.


----------



## Symfoniq (May 2, 2017)

JohnG said:


> Interesting. I am wondering if I can use non-ECC RAM on a PC with an Xeon E3-1275; 64GB, Windows 10 Pro. I will be using it as a sample playback computer.
> 
> Not sure how much better the i7-7700k is for that purpose.



With an E3 Xeon, almost certainly, yes. Just make sure the motherboard supports it. Mine supports both ECC and non-ECC.

But the main benefit of an E3 Xeon over the i7 is ECC support (the other notable one is being able to purchase E3 Xeons without onboard graphics). If you're not interested in ECC, you might as well buy a Z270 chipset motherboard instead of C236, as you'll have more options from which to choose.


----------



## EvilDragon (May 2, 2017)

Must say I like that some i-series chips have integrated graphics. One fan less in the case, one heat/noise source less. And for a DAW, it works extremely adequately, since I'm not concerned about squeezing those framerates that gamers need.


----------



## Symfoniq (May 2, 2017)

EvilDragon said:


> Must say I like that some i-series chips have integrated graphics. One fan less in the case, one heat/noise source less. And for a DAW, it works extremely adequately, since I'm not concerned about squeezing those framerates that gamers need.



Indeed, I used my Xeon with integrated graphics for a while. Once I upgraded to multiple 4K monitors, a dedicated graphics card became necessary, but onboard graphics can be useful, especially on a slave machine.


----------



## Phryq (May 2, 2017)

JohnG said:


> Interesting. I am wondering if I can use non-ECC RAM on a PC with an Xeon E3-1275; 64GB, Windows 10 Pro. I will be using it as a sample playback computer.
> 
> Not sure how much better the i7-7700k is for that purpose.



I'm thinking exactly the same thing. an e3 1275 v6 runs at 3.8 GHz, quad core. Same cache as 7700k. Is it the exact same chips but slightly slower?

To confuse things further, you can buy chips here delidded and relidded, and binned.

http://siliconlottery.com/

I'm told certain chips are 'leakier' than others; leaky chips can be overclocked, while non-leaky chips run cooler. Appearently re-lidding makes a huge difference to thermal/cooling, which is very important to me.


----------



## JohnG (May 2, 2017)

It's a kooky world out there, guys!

Found a solution and am going to go with the i7-7700k for new strings computer.


----------



## JohnG (May 2, 2017)

I am not going for power for dollar.


----------



## JohnG (May 2, 2017)

for someone new here you are a very aggressive person. If you want to help instead of showing off some IT crowd expertise, fine. What you are doing is unhelpful.

Unless you unacquainted with how I work, you can't know what I am trying to do.


----------



## Jaap (May 2, 2017)

JohnG said:


> It's a kooky world out there, guys!
> 
> Found a solution and am going to go with the i7-7700k for new strings computer.



If I remember correctly from another post this computer serves only as slave right and knowing you, probably using as strings the Hollywood Strings Diamond? A befriended composer here in the Netherlands also runs a slave computer with a i7 - 7700k with Hollywood Strings and Brass diamond versions and it runs very good.


----------



## EvilDragon (May 2, 2017)

anthraxsnax said:


> a high end 1151 is still a gaming oriented processor.



That is not to say it cannot be used for anything else? Marketing is one thing, performance is another. That, plus 1151 rigs are a generation or two ahead of 2011 rigs. Not to mention Z170/270 are more featureful chipsets.



anthraxsnax said:


> synths aren't that crazy on CPU



Err, some of them most certainly ARE.


----------



## Jaap (May 2, 2017)

anthraxsnax said:


> synths aren't that crazy on CPU



Try running a few instances of Diva (better now though, but still a powerhungry beast) or Serum can also be good way to stress test your system when running complex things within it and if you have more then 1 active.


----------



## EvilDragon (May 2, 2017)

anthraxsnax said:


> which clearly shows how much powerful 2011 chips are



Which one? The 10 core, at amazing almost $2k? Yeah, I'm not paying that JUST for a CPU. My whole rig costed about $2k, and that's with Thunderbolt and USB 3.1 support. X99 mobos that have those features are also much more expensive, from what I found.


----------



## EvilDragon (May 2, 2017)

anthraxsnax said:


> 6800k is about the same price as a 7700k. compare those.



http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-7700K-vs-Intel-Core-i7-6800K/3647vs3607

7700k is a better OCer, so yeah it swept the floor with that 6800k at single-core stuff. Sorry, mate  Broadwell-E is due for an update.

Sure, 6 cores and 12 threads sounds good (and ofc 6800k would be better there), but I'd take higher base clock with a still decent core/thread count instead 


And it's a drop-in replacement for my 6700k. Hmmmm. :D


----------



## EvilDragon (May 2, 2017)

anthraxsnax said:


> my 5960x at my conservative overclock is faster than a stock 7700k in single core performance



Yeah, at more than 3 times the price. Way to go there. :D


----------



## Jaap (May 2, 2017)

anthraxsnax said:


> and my case stands, my processor has no problem reaching the highest stock single thread performance. are they designing these synths for people with overclocked top end too?



That is very nice for you, but that doesn't mean that every synth isn't crazy on the cpu and regarding the design. No idea to be honest, but it are some fantastic and powerfull synths. For the record I also don't have any problems with them in my setup, but I have to be carefull to not go too beserk with them. In other words, I cannot fire up the amount of them as I can with samplers.


----------



## EvilDragon (May 2, 2017)

anthraxsnax said:


> synthetic benchmarks LMAO.
> 
> dragon, you're a smart dude - you're better than this. how about an actual DAW BENCH.



Synthetic benchmarks are not useless and have their place. Also considering that userbench website pools benches from thousands of users, it paints a pretty good picture of comparison.

Of course an 8-core 5960x would be an awesome choice for a DAW. However it is much more expensive than a 6700K or even a 7700K, mobos are more expensive, and they need/eat more power. I wasn't gonna fork over that much cash.

And I must say I have no problems running quite a decent amount of Diva and Reaktor instances on that "measly" 6700K. For the money I was willing to pay for a new config it runs smooth like butter. Which is exactly what I wanted.


----------



## EvilDragon (May 2, 2017)

Of course, 6 or 8 cores are going to be better at some jobs than 4 any time of the day. I am not ignoring that. The price and power consumption matters to some people, why are you ignoring THAT?


----------



## EvilDragon (May 2, 2017)

anthraxsnax said:


> make the argument why someone should get a 7700k over a 6800k... SAME PRICE.



Better power consumption, less heat, less noise. Also cheaper motherboards esp. if you want USB 3.1 and TB - Z170 gives USB 3.1 for free, TB can be an addon via DisplayPort converter card. X99 mobos that have both, from what I found, are at least twice the price.


----------



## EvilDragon (May 2, 2017)

Your arguments are somehow starting to morph into ad hominem, well done.


----------



## tack (May 2, 2017)

anthraxsnax said:


> now PLEASE. make the argument why someone should get a 7700k over a 6800k... SAME PRICE.


The 7700K would be the better choice for those people who do work for which single core performance matters more. Say, ZebraHZ. Or you're recording something with a demanding FX chain. Or both.

For example, a Sable legato patch (for whatever reason notoriously demanding of realtime performance even at 512 sample buffers) with a send to a VSR S24 and some small processing would make for a relatively demanding realtime chain that the 6800k may well not cope with except with large buffers that hinder playability.

Or try recording on a track with an FX chain consisting of ZebraHZ with some Diva filters and Adaptiverb. If I'm not running a lot of tracks with a lot of FX in a typical project overall but I'm running that kind of FX chain, I daresay that 7700K is a no-brainer over the 6800K.


----------



## Jaap (May 2, 2017)

anthraxsnax said:


> @Jaap runs the bottom of the line from 2 generations ago(5820k) do you feel like your creative process is hindered by your "slow single core performance?" you run a lot of synths/sound design stuff



No, it runs good here and the synths I use often and extensively are Zebra2 (not the DarkZebra), Diva, Serum and Reaktor (mostly Form). Other cpu stress monsters I tend to use are the Zynaptiq Adaptiverb and recently also messed around with Wormhole (but that thing did put my pc on it's knees, though discussed it elsewhere and others have it and probably needs an update first so not the most relative case)


----------



## tack (May 2, 2017)

anthraxsnax said:


> the 6800k loses only a bit of single core performance


I wouldn't say that 25% slower is "a bit."



anthraxsnax said:


> you're either not running many


You only need one such FX chain and try to record on it to feel the pain.



anthraxsnax said:


> and that's simply also false... because zebra would sit on one core - but the other processes would be redistributed.


Not during recording they aren't. (Well, they may be distributed across multiple cores, but the threads are synchronized so there is no parallelism.)



anthraxsnax said:


> are there demos? I'll run them.


You're kind of missing the point. I wasn't trying to list a specific FX chain that the 6800K can't run that the 7700K can. It was to underline the category of workload for which one would prefer faster cores over more cores. If I have a small number of tracks but the tracks I do have are burdened with costly FX, then I would not benefit from substantial parallel processing as much as I would benefit from the single processing headroom. And the more headroom I have on a single core, the more I can squeeze my ASIO buffer to improve responsiveness during recording.


----------



## tack (May 2, 2017)

anthraxsnax said:


> no, the zebra instance runs on a core, other FX are distributed to other cores...


Not during recording they aren't. You're just wrong about this. Even if this is how anticipative FX processing works in Reaper (which I had believed it did, although ED has called that into question and others on the Reaper forum aren't so sure about it either), all bets are off when the track is record-armed. The entire FX chain collapses to serialized processing and single core performance is all that matters.

Maybe re-read my the last paragraph in my previous post where I said "you're kind of missing the point," because I feel that you still are.


----------



## mat1 (May 2, 2017)

anthraxsnax said:


> no, the zebra instance runs on a core, other FX are distributed to other cores...



Is that just a Reaper thing? I don't believe other DAWs distribute load that way.


----------



## Jaap (May 2, 2017)

tack said:


> Not during recording they aren't. You're just wrong about this. Even if this is how anticipative FX processing works in Reaper (which I had believed it did, although ED has called that into question and others on the Reaper forum aren't so sure about it either), all bets are off when the track is record-armed. The entire FX chain collapses to serialized processing and single core performance is all that matters.
> 
> Maybe re-read my the last paragraph in my previous post where I said "you're kind of missing the point," because I feel that you still are.



I think I get your point Tack and you use it differently then I do. I use those synths in production process, but you are using the synths in probably a larger fx chain then I do and therefore needing more single core power. Also in another topic about asio guard it was mentioned that Cubase is just very efficient on distributing everything, so maybe that is also a difference here between us 
On my synth tracks I don't have any other fx active beside maybe a few eq's or Neutron or something like that. Often I do btw effects processing in the mix stage when I have everything already bounced to audio files. Effects like Adaptiverb as you also are using, I am having them (or mostly 1 or 2 instances) as send effect on a bus.


----------



## tack (May 2, 2017)

Jaap said:


> Also in another topic about asio guard it was mentioned that Cubase is just very efficient on distributing everything, so maybe that is also a difference here between us


Reaper is pretty good here too, but when you're recording, the FX path of the armed track(s) (i.e. the armed tracks plus all the sends through to the master bus) will be processed serially in order to ensure low latency. I imagine Cubase has to be the same way?

I used to have an i7 4930k and it just couldn't cope with a Sable legato patch and some light FX (Pro-Q2 and ValhallaVintageVerb) without crackling unless I bumped my ASIO buffer up to 1024 samples (which even then wasn't perfect), at which point I found the latency bothersome. That's a case where single core performance mattered more. I moved to a processor where I intentionally traded away cores for single core speed because that matched my workload better.


----------



## Jaap (May 2, 2017)

tack said:


> Reaper is pretty good here too, but when you're recording, the FX path of the armed track(s) (i.e. the armed tracks plus all the sends through to the master bus) will be processed serially in order to ensure low latency. I imagine Cubase has to be the same way?
> 
> I used to have an i7 4930k and it just couldn't cope with a Sable legato patch and some light FX (Pro-Q2 and ValhallaVintageVerb) without crackling unless I bumped my ASIO buffer up to 1024 samples (which even then wasn't perfect), at which point I found the latency bothersome. That's a case where single core performance mattered more. I moved to a processor where I intentionally traded away cores for single core speed because that matched my workload better.



Yeah I think Cubase is probably working in that same way when recording, though I have not faced any problems yet myself, but that is because probably I have less of a chain active then you. I am not too tech savy on this end though (and I have no idea how I ended up in a topic about cpu's haha).
Edit: oh and seems like Anthraxsnax is removed from the forum


----------



## tack (May 2, 2017)

Is the bar truly that low to be banned? Is being a little aggressive and obnoxious all it takes for excommunication nowadays?

I had just decided to stop responding to him because we had reached an impasse. I don't see why moderator intervention was necessary here.

I hope this is a misunderstanding. :(


----------



## Jaap (May 2, 2017)

tack said:


> Is the bar truly that low to be banned? Is being a little aggressive and obnoxious all it takes for excommunication nowadays?
> 
> I had just decided to stop responding to him because we had reached an impasse. I don't see why moderator intervention was necessary here.
> 
> I hope this is a misunderstanding. :(



Dunno, seems so... He annoyed the heck out of me, but banning feels like a step too far. A good warning to maybe adjust a little bit more seems to be more fair (though maybe that happened already before. In all honesty I reported him yesterday for derailling threads and I have the feeling that I probably have not been the only one, but in all fairness that is also because I took the bite and probably also some others and let themselves a bit go. Ignoring is often the better option  )
Edit: and he just started to grow a bit on me haha, though I did not like in any way how he posted, he was on the edge, but never really crossed it in my opinion, but I haven't seen everything and all of it, so it is also hard to make that judgement call from this side of course.


----------



## tack (May 2, 2017)

tack said:


> I started a thread on the Reaper forum.


Just to close the loop on this: although we haven't yet heard from devs, I've run a few more tests and concluded I was wrong about how Reaper's anticipative FX processing works.

It does seem to work as ED described: parallelized across tracks, but within a track the FX processing is serialized.

Like I said, when ED disagrees, it's enough to give one pause. 

Although the way I _thought_ it worked is actually a feasible optimization. I wonder if other DAWs do this.


----------



## chimuelo (May 2, 2017)

EvilDragon said:


> Must say I like that some i-series chips have integrated graphics. One fan less in the case, one heat/noise source less. And for a DAW, it works extremely adequately, since I'm not concerned about squeezing those framerates that gamers need.



I bought the Clarksdale when it was realeased and it sucked the life out of my CPU.
It was the first 1U I ever built and I choked big time.
Since then I've built a dozen 1Us and find the Intel iGPUs perfect for DAWs.

But totally agree with using i7s for DAWs.
The latest C236/E3 1275 v6 is a really great CPU, just not enough boards to choose from.
Waiting to hear about JohnG's i7 7700k build.

Ever since i7 3770k the performance increases aren't much until you push the BLCK.
Once you hit 4.4ghz each series seems to perform another 10-15% depending on the board used.
Also they get cooler too, use less voltage.

Keep us posted JohnG....


----------



## EvilDragon (May 3, 2017)

Yeah, banning anthraxnax was way too heavy-handed. What the hell.


----------



## Phryq (May 3, 2017)

So does that mean the 1275 is actually *better* than a 7700k?

Is it possible to compare them by TDP? E.G. E3 1275 overclocked to about 85 91 TDP vs 7700k @ 91TDP?

Because cooling is an issue for me, so I'm looking at what will work best at a given temperature.

Also I'm thinking a Ryzen 1800x. It's still a reasonable price for me if it outperforms a 7700k at high buffer (2048 or more).

I don't care about latency. I'm only mixing / editing.


----------



## Living Fossil (May 3, 2017)

EvilDragon said:


> Yeah, banning anthraxnax was way too heavy-handed. What the hell.



+1
Agree. When i read his posts i've always heard them with a very, very loud voice that is almost shouting and i also felt a bit confused why each dissent was followed by a personal insult, but then again, it's interesting to have different opinions and statements in a forum; and he had interesting informations to share. So i'm for debanning him!


----------



## Shad0wLandsUK (May 3, 2017)

Jaap said:


> Try running a few instances of Diva (better now though, but still a powerhungry beast) or Serum can also be good way to stress test your system when running complex things within it and if you have more then 1 active.


And Waves Element 2 with complex patches, that one will also tax your cores.


----------



## Phryq (May 3, 2017)

chimuelo said:


> Ever since i7 3770k the performance increases aren't much until you push the BLCK.
> Once you hit 4.4ghz each series seems to perform another 10-15% depending on the board used.
> Also they get cooler too, use less voltage.



I'm not quite understanding what you mean here.


----------



## chimuelo (May 3, 2017)

Just noticing with every new release the gains are barely noticed until you overclock your CPU.
Once you get to 4.4ghz on the i7s you can see each new release needs less voltage, emits less heat. That's a nice trend, but still not enough reason to upgrade.
Which is why they keep beefing up the chipset features.


----------



## Phryq (May 4, 2017)

Ok, thanks. Heat for me is a big deal, as I'm trying to build a small, and maybe passively cooled machine to fit in my backpack.


----------



## chimuelo (May 4, 2017)

Supermicro makes the best passive Copper Heatsink ( no fan) I've ever used.
It's meant only for reducing heat on stock CPU speeds in tight spaces.
Drops temps low enough for heavy server loads.

You might like the Corsair Bulldog.
Great HTPC that doubles as an audio Workstation for me.
It fits in my backpack and has built in Water AIO.


----------



## Phryq (May 4, 2017)

chimuelo said:


> Supermicro makes the best passive Copper Heatsink ( no fan) I've ever used.
> It's meant only for reducing heat on stock CPU speeds in tight spaces.
> Drops temps low enough for heavy server loads.
> 
> ...



Ok, thanks. Is this the heatsink you mean?

Amazing, supports 165 watt TDP? Even with a case fan, that's way better than other coolers, but is it true?

{edit} Seems I can't link amazon here? Anyhow, there are a few Supermicro heatsinks, so I wonder which one you mean.

About watercooling AIO; I'd be worried taking that through Airports, because of liquid regulations, and also, the chance of it leaking (I've heard of AIOs leaking).


----------



## chimuelo (May 4, 2017)

Any Supermicro Copper Heatsink is high quality.
They are really heavy too. Makes you feel like you're getting your money's worth.


----------



## Phryq (May 5, 2017)

chimuelo said:


> Any Supermicro Copper Heatsink is high quality.
> They are really heavy too. Makes you feel like you're getting your money's worth.



I guess being copper makes them heavy. What about Dynatron?


----------



## chimuelo (May 5, 2017)

Dynatron 1U Low Profile are great.
All of their HSF Combos for CPUs are ridiculously cheap too.


----------



## Phryq (May 5, 2017)

What are HSF Combos? I googled it but get all kinds of random stuff.

I'm trying to figure out the best passive cooler to mix with a 140mm case fan.


----------



## JohnG (May 5, 2017)

chimuelo said:


> Waiting to hear about JohnG's i7 7700k build.



Just to report in, the build is working but haven't stressed it at all yet. I'm going to move all my strings to that computer from a different one, but I'm in the middle of a game project so it won't be right away.

Good news is everything's working and Newegg kindly gave me an RMA for the Gigabyte board return. As another plus, the ASRock board cost over $200 less, and it has up to date functionality in other areas (USB etc.).


----------



## Phryq (May 6, 2017)

JohnG, what are the details of your build? I think I read about it before, but can't find it now.

http://www.dynatron-corp.com/?product=t318-2

*chimuelo *What do you think is the *best* heatsink? The Dynatron above is specked for 160w (but with what about of airflow?). I'm thinking to pair it with a SilentWings 3 140mm fan,

http://www.bequiet.com/en/casefans/721


----------



## chimuelo (May 31, 2017)

I'd look at Noctua for some really great designs.
4 years of R & D led up to the recent designs at Computex.
I want a 120mm and a pair of 80mm fans.
Waiting for the new low profile HSF too where you can flip the direction of the fan.
Really great additions to an already reputable line.


----------



## JohnG (May 31, 2017)

Phryq said:


> JohnG, what are the details of your build?



I'm glad to share but I wouldn't take me as an expert. We have several on the site like chimuelo -- suggest you listen to them.

ASRock Z270 Pro4 board (the one with a PCI slot)

64 GB of RAM; I think 2400 speed, although I don't think I have seen any evidence that the speed of RAM makes any measurable difference.

i7-7700k CPU

Coolermaster case

Noctua cooler https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00L7UZMAK/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o06_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1 (Noctua NH-D15 6 heatpipe with Dual NF-A15 140mm fans)


----------



## hdsmile (May 31, 2017)

yea Noctua cooler Noctua NH-D15 140mm fans is great product, I have also 2!


----------



## Phryq (May 31, 2017)

Ya, I'm reading lots of good stuff about Noctua and BeQuiet. It seems they all have great ideas - I just wish all those great ideas would combine into a single product (8mm 2 way direct 3d heatpipes, Noctual ball bearings, Bequiet fan design).

But isn't there a 3rd party measure for which company's heatsink offers the best *passive* cooling? Then pair that with a Noctua / BeQuiet fan.

Based on specs, it looks like Dynatron takes the cake, but that's Dynatron's own measurements so...


Btw, that Noctua above is way too big for me. I'm trying to build a computer to throw in my backpack on an airplane.


----------

