# Skylake-X review is up...



## Symfoniq (Jun 16, 2017)

It would appear that we no longer have to choose between single-core and multi-core performance. As fast as a 7700K in single-threaded tasks, faster than anything that isn't a (very expensive) Xeon in multi-core workloads: http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/cpu/107017-intel-core-i9-7900x-14nm-skylake-x/


----------



## kunst91 (Jun 17, 2017)

Seems cool, although I still wonder if the quad core isn't better for daw performance?


----------



## dtonthept (Jun 18, 2017)

I've got a system running a 6900 on the way, 8 core, feels like the right choice for now! Especially as X99 is pretty ironed out by now...


----------



## chimuelo (Jun 18, 2017)

Well the i7 7700k is sure a bad ass chip.
After the i7 7740k they have to go to 10nm.
Adding more Watts is a sign the end of the road is here.


----------



## tabulius (Jun 18, 2017)

I really, really would like to go for AMD threadripper route, but without thunderbolt support I think I'll have to choose 8 or 10 core i9. Before I didn't care about thunderbolt that much but there are some interesting low latency TB audio interface releases like Presonus Quantum and Slate's 8-channel modeling interface.

There are some very justified criticism about Intel X299 release and I agree all of that. Why cut down the PCI lanes from i9 8-core? For 10-core costing 1000 bucks I'll get the "full" PCI lanes support. Thanks Intel. I'm hoping there would be a thunderbolt support soon in AMD products as well. It might happen in end of this year, but I don't know if I would like to wait that long.

But still in the end, I'll have to choose the chipset that works best with my work - even if I dislike company's current strategies.


----------



## Symfoniq (Jun 19, 2017)

tabulius said:


> I really, really would like to go for AMD threadripper route, but without thunderbolt support I think I'll have to choose 8 or 10 core i9. Before I didn't care about thunderbolt that much but there are some interesting low latency TB audio interface releases like Presonus Quantum and Slate's 8-channel modeling interface.
> 
> There are some very justified criticism about Intel X299 release and I agree all of that. Why cut down the PCI lanes from i9 8-core? For 10-core costing 1000 bucks I'll get the "full" PCI lanes support. Thanks Intel. I'm hoping there would be a thunderbolt support soon in AMD products as well. It might happen in end of this year, but I don't know if I would like to wait that long.
> 
> But still in the end, I'll have to choose the chipset that works best with my work - even if I dislike company's current strategies.



Thunderbolt is going royalty-free next year, so I think the odds are pretty good that we will see it adopted on AMD motherboards before too long (though Zen2 might be out by then).

I agree that Threadripper looks interesting. I'm waiting for benchmarks before building my next system.


kunst91 said:


> Seems cool, although I still wonder if the quad core isn't better for daw performance?



A quad-core is only better if its individual cores clock higher, have more IPC, and your workload isn't particularly parallel, or your DAW handles threads poorly. Based on the linked benchmarks, Intel's new 10-core is neck-and-neck with the fastest quad-core in single-core performance (and obviously obliterates it in multi-core). Its the rare case of having your cake and eating it too.


----------



## Symfoniq (Jun 19, 2017)

And now Anandtech's review is up: http://www.anandtech.com/show/11550...ew-core-i9-7900x-i7-7820x-and-i7-7800x-tested


----------



## Symfoniq (Jun 19, 2017)

Tom's Hardware: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-core-i9-7900x-skylake-x,5092.html


----------



## Felipe Opazo (Jun 19, 2017)

i'm about to build my first PC for in more than 10 years (i've been using Mac all this time) and that i9-7900x sure looks great (i was about to choose an 8 core 6900). BTW i work making both videos and music so i really need a powerful system that goes in two different ways (great GPU + lots of RAM + fast processor)


----------



## jamwerks (Jun 19, 2017)

Gonna do a 7900x build also!


----------



## Symfoniq (Jun 20, 2017)

I'd personally wait until there are more DAW-specific benchmarks and some of the BIOS issues are ironed out. Intel has moved from a ring bus to a mesh design which is resulting in increased inter-core latency (in some cases higher than the supposedly unacceptable latency with Ryzen). Ryzen's latency between the first 8 logical cores is actually lower than on Skylake-X at the moment. It's hard to be sure how much of this is due to design consequences and how much is due to poor BIOS optimization.

A good overview of this can be found here: https://www.pcper.com/reviews/Proce...X-Processor-Review/Thread-Thread-Latency-and-


----------



## Alatar (Jun 20, 2017)

Symfoniq said:


> I'd personally wait until there are more DAW-specific benchmarks and some of the BIOS issues are ironed out. Intel has moved from a ring bus to a mesh design which is resulting in increased inter-core latency (in some cases higher than the supposedly unacceptable latency with Ryzen). Ryzen's latency between the first 8 logical cores is actually lower than on Skylake-X at the moment. It's hard to be sure how much of this is due to design consequences and how much is due to poor BIOS optimization.
> 
> A good overview of this can be found here: https://www.pcper.com/reviews/Proce...X-Processor-Review/Thread-Thread-Latency-and-




Interesting. How does the inter-core communication affect audio and our DAWs? 
Is it really much of a problem? After all, even the worst latency is below 200ns it seems. So thats still much faster than musical sampling. So, does it really matter?


----------



## tabulius (Jun 22, 2017)

Ok, I've read few articles and watched reviews. In regards of X299 lineup:

Pros:
+It's fast
+Cheaper than Intel's last gen X99 (1999 euros for a 10-core!!)

Cons:
-Power draw is massive. Intel made a new Bulldozer.
-There are heating problems with the overclocking. Heat means loud fans.
-You'll still have to pay 1000 dollars for full PCI-lane support
-There have been BIOS problems and stability issues with some combinations.

I'm interested what AMD has to offer later this summer. I'm not sure if I'm liking the new Intel CPUs or not.


----------



## Guffy (Jul 28, 2017)

Did anyone try out a X299 build yet?
I'm considering going for a 7800x. It's even cheaper than 6800k (which i was originally going to go for, before Skylake-X release).
Any news regarding latency, power draw and heating issues?


----------



## DanielBrunelle (Aug 11, 2017)

Fugdup said:


> Did anyone try out a X299 build yet?
> I'm considering going for a 7800x. It's even cheaper than 6800k (which i was originally going to go for, before Skylake-X release).
> Any news regarding latency, power draw and heating issues?




I was about to pull the trigger on a Ryzen for my first VE Slave build but now I'm thinking spend more for an 8 core 7820.

Any real world experience out there on the x299?


----------



## rgames (Aug 11, 2017)

I've been testing out an i9 7900x with a full orchestral template and three slaves running everything over VE Pro. It's running overclocked at 4.5 GHz but stock otherwise (i.e. I leave all power-saving features enabled).

That setup runs at 192 total sample buffer at 44.1 kHz (96 for sound card + 96 for VE Pro) for dense orchestrations. I'm using an RME FireFace 802 over USB 2. I get maybe one ASIO overload an hour or something like that. ASIO load is below 25% most of the time with the full orchestra loaded up and connected.

I've used it only for 4-5 projects so far but for DAW work I'd say it's roughly equivalent to the i7 6800k it replaced, maybe slightly better. It kills in video rendering, though.

It does run hotter than other chips and pulls more power under extreme load but you almost never do that. Actual power usage will not be that much different unless you're running a video render 24 hours a day. For DAW use I'd say heat and power are only 10% more. For video rendering, I'd say slightly more power usage, maybe 20%. When running projects the entire systems pulls 120 - 200 W from the wall, usually closer to 120 W. Note, though, that I leave all power-saving features enabled.

rgames


----------



## tack (Aug 11, 2017)

rgames said:


> It does run hotter than other chips and pulls more power under extreme load but you almost never do that.


Thanks Richard, I've been waiting for this kind of feedback. How are you cooling it, and how do you find the temperatures while idle and while under moderate load?


----------



## Living Fossil (Aug 13, 2017)

rgames said:


> I've used it only for 4-5 projects so far but for DAW work I'd say it's roughly equivalent to the i7 6800k it replaced, maybe slightly better. It kills in video rendering, though.



Isn't that quite bad, if one considers that it has 4 additional cores?


----------



## rgames (Aug 13, 2017)

Living Fossil said:


> Isn't that quite bad, if one considers that it has 4 additional cores?


For DAW use I haven't seen much benefit from additional cores since processors got up to the 4 GHz mark. I think 6 cores is about where the benefits end. I've used a four-core, six-core and now ten-core and they all run the same template at about the same latency. But they all ran at 4.0+ GHz.

Clock speed seems to matter a lot more for DAW use. The great thing about the i9 7900x is that unlike previous high-core-count CPUs it can do the clock speed, too. So you can use it for video as well as DAW tasks.

rgames


----------



## rgames (Aug 13, 2017)

tack said:


> Thanks Richard, I've been waiting for this kind of feedback. How are you cooling it, and how do you find the temperatures while idle and while under moderate load?


I'm using a Corsair H115i liquid cooler. It's louder than a fan with basically the same perfomance, but it's in a machine room and I wanted to try liquid cooling just for fun... The package was maxing out around 65 C under typical workloads. On the AIDA stress test (which you never come close to for any length of time in real life) it got up to 90 C.

Intel's spec is 105 C so there's plenty of headroom there. Plus, in all my years of overclocking computers I've neve heard of a CPU failure due to heat unless someone did something really stupid like disable the thermal throttling. I got thermal throttling when overclocked to 4.6 GHz on the AIDA stress test. I dropped it to 4.5 GHz and it runs fine.

If the CPU gets too hot it'll take care of itself, so I wouldn't worry about it. You'll know there's a problem long before you do any permanent damage.

rgames


----------



## Gerhard Westphalen (Aug 13, 2017)

rgames said:


> I've been testing out an i9 7900x with a full orchestral template and three slaves running everything over VE Pro. It's running overclocked at 4.5 GHz but stock otherwise (i.e. I leave all power-saving features enabled).
> 
> That setup runs at 192 total sample buffer at 44.1 kHz (96 for sound card + 96 for VE Pro) for dense orchestrations. I'm using an RME FireFace 802 over USB 2. I get maybe one ASIO overload an hour or something like that. ASIO load is below 25% most of the time with the full orchestra loaded up and connected.
> 
> ...



If you're running everything on your slaves, does the DAW really matter all that much to be able to evaluate the performance of these processors (unless you're using a ton of plugins)? Wouldn't a better test be to have it running with VEP on the same computer?


----------



## jamwerks (Aug 14, 2017)

rgames said:


> For DAW use I haven't seen much benefit from additional cores since processors got up to the 4 GHz mark. I think 6 cores is about where the benefits end. I've used a four-core, six-core and now ten-core and they all run the same template at about the same latency. But they all ran at 4.0+ GHz.


That's kind of a bummer. Wonder if Steiny is able to better this?


----------



## Symfoniq (Aug 14, 2017)

jamwerks said:


> That's kind of a bummer. Wonder if Steiny is able to better this?



Until this issue is resolved, I'm not sure how much benefit we're going to see going beyond 14 logical cores under Windows 10. It might help explain why rgames didn't see much benefit going from six to ten cores (twelve and twenty logical cores, respectively, assuming hyper-threading wasn't disabled).


----------



## rgames (Aug 14, 2017)

Gerhard Westphalen said:


> If you're running everything on your slaves, does the DAW really matter all that much to be able to evaluate the performance of these processors (unless you're using a ton of plugins)? Wouldn't a better test be to have it running with VEP on the same computer?


If you're CPU limited, which you might be if you're trying to run everything on one machine, then I bet there is more of a difference. But you're probably still limited to 10+ ms total latency with such a setup.

I think that drives home the idea that multiple, lower-power CPUs are still the best bet for low latency. High-core-count CPUs don't seem to help that much for such setups. At least not the way I run them (full orchestral templates).

rgames


----------



## rgames (Aug 14, 2017)

jamwerks said:


> That's kind of a bummer. Wonder if Steiny is able to better this?


It's true for a lot of software and has been for a while. There are a lot of benchmarks that show that even video rendering in Adobe products doesn't benefit beyond 8-10 cores. The Puget Systems benchmarks are a good reference: https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Should-you-use-a-Dual-Xeon-for-Premiere-Pro-CC-2017-932/

(Yet another example where practical reality is not reflected in synthetic benchmarks.,..)

You really need pretty specific software to take advantage of that kind of computing power (e.g. computational physics). For DAW use it's the system's real-time performance that matters most, not CPU power. They're related, but it seems to be a pretty weak relationship.

Bottom line: if you're maxing out your CPU usage (*not* ASIO usage) then more cores might help. But you most likely won't get lower latency with more cores.

As a result, if you're not CPU limited, and I haven't been for years, then more cores don't buy you anything.

rgames


----------



## rgames (Aug 14, 2017)

Symfoniq said:


> Until this issue is resolved, I'm not sure how much benefit we're going to see going beyond 14 logical cores under Windows 10.


Yes - it's odd that the problem doesn't seem to affect me. I was expecting the worst but it turns out the system runs just fine.

Maybe the problem has been fixed since that thread was created.

rgames


----------



## Gerhard Westphalen (Aug 14, 2017)

rgames said:


> I think that drives home the idea that multiple, lower-power CPUs are still the best bet for low latency. High-core-count CPUs don't seem to help that much for such setups. At least not the way I run them (full orchestral templates).



I'm waiting for the day that someone releases a way to run something like VEP on the GPU. That way you get a single computer and put, say, 8 powerful GPU's in it and you're all set for as much power as you'd ever need. You could have things loaded on the graphics card memory or in ram. Imagine having something equivalent to a fast quad core for every 16GB. I'm not sure if the PCIe bus can handle the latency requirements though. Distance wise you're pretty far from the processor and ram and at these speeds, every cm on the mobo affects the performance.

I recently saw a video about some new cards that can use each other's memory via the PCIe bus (no proprietary connections linking the cards). 

It's being developed by private companies and I believe uhe is trying to do it for runnign Zebra.


----------



## chimuelo (Aug 14, 2017)

Agree on multiple machines.
Just finished my 3rd H97 1U.
Still unsure of what I will do for a Main DAW.

Needs to be 64GBs and 4.4GHz.
Mainly because I've seen the benefits of single core speed.

Great reads though.
Probably saving me money.


----------



## Nathanael Iversen (Aug 14, 2017)

Gerhard Westphalen said:


> I'm waiting for the day that someone releases a way to run something like VEP on the GPU.



Unfortunately it doesn't work that way. The GPU cores are optimized for a different task than real-time audio. If it would work, all the companies would have developed to GPU's ages ago as they are plentiful and cheap. That said, CPU cost is no longer that big of a deal with all the new announcements. If anything, they are more than is needed for audio. 

Audio DSP is also cheaper than it has ever been: UAD cards? even HDX cards for $3k are a lot cheaper than they used to be.... latency of under 3ms? from several different approaches? Now possible. It is a good time for digital audio...


----------



## Nathanael Iversen (Aug 14, 2017)

chimuelo said:


> Needs to be 64GBs and 4.4GHz.
> Mainly because I've seen the benefits of single core speed.



I have a Z97 main DAW, but the i7-4771's 3.9Ghz (Turbo, pegged by motherboard) clock leaves me with lots of dropouts when mixing. I've got a 4790K in-bound. Tops out at 32GB, which I already have, but I'm not running out of RAM - most of the samples live external. I just need clock speed, and the 4790K is a drop-in replacement.


----------



## chimuelo (Aug 14, 2017)

I liked the 4790k so much I bought 4 total. One as a spare with another H97m and 64GBs of xtra RAM to ensure years of stability for gigging.
Another CPU that impresses me is i7 5775C w/ iGPU disabled.
I get the same performance from that @3.8GHz as the i7 4790k's @ 4.4GHz.
It's picky with motherboards though and hasn't come down in price, that's why I grabbed the group buy at Micro Center on the 4790's.
I had to drive 160 miles to get them.

How do samples live externally? You mean DFD right from an SSD?
If so please explain.
I'd love to stay with 4790k's. The right speed and temps for me.


----------



## Nathanael Iversen (Aug 14, 2017)

chimuelo said:


> How do samples live externally? You mean DFD right from an SSD?
> If so please explain.
> I'd love to stay with 4790k's. The right speed and temps for me.


Ah, sorry. VEP out to external sample host machines. The main DAW has Cubase, Sibelius (and Dorico) on it for software. It also has NI Komplete, all my soft synths, and plugins. I do have the SampleModeling Brass on there, but the orchestral template is spread across two other machines, connected with VEP. If I'm not using the orchestral machines, I can record all the acoustic (and synth) instruments in my studio, mix, etc without turning them on.


----------



## Nathanael Iversen (Aug 14, 2017)

Also, agreed on CPU temps... The 4771 is an 84W part. The 4790k is 88W. From where I sit, it seems that power=heat=noise... 

My main DAW is essentially silent. There is a single fan in the whole system - the CPU air cooler and it runs so slowly that you have to put your ear right on the case to hear it. Even 3 ft away it is inaudible. I have this case - it is essentially completely open and offers no sonic protection at all. It also provides almost no resistance to air movement. My build is based on the observation that "if it doesn't make noise", I don't have to figure out how to quiet it down. Intel built-in graphics drive a 4k/30Hz display, and SSD's are silent. The power supply is over spec'd and the fan NEVER comes on. There's essentially nothing that can make noise. 

One of my sample servers I bought from another composer. It had the popular Corsair liquid cooler. That pump whine drove me nuts. Pulled that out and put a Noctua in there... I also replaced the motherboard - a bit of high-pitched coil whine was NOT ok. I disconnected all the case fans but one and now it too is virtually silent.

If you haven't seen the Calyos cases - check them out. They can passively cool a Threadripper 16c processor and NVIDIA 1080ti without any fan. Not portable, and only two PCI slots usable. Not perfect, but for the right workloads, completely livable. Killer video edit machine potential. I've got two on order. Seems to be a way to deal with the heat/power/noise issues that higher spec parts bring. But I'm waiting on CPUs until the dust settles. I need to see some real audio benchmarks on the new stuff. Else I'll move my sample slaves onto these cases, and lose all fans in my room.

DAWs don't seem to bury the CPU - mine rarely hits 50%, but that clock-speed... It is needed all the time.


----------



## chimuelo (Aug 14, 2017)

I see. 
Actually have 96GBs with the 3 Slaves.
I mix in a DSP Rack so it's the big number chewer.
I should do some more math with samples and see if a 4 x PC VEPro using 128GBs total can cover my needs.
I always assumed the Main DAW had to be at least 64GBs.


----------



## Gerhard Westphalen (Aug 14, 2017)

Nathanael Iversen said:


> Unfortunately it doesn't work that way. The GPU cores are optimized for a different task than real-time audio. If it would work, all the companies would have developed to GPU's ages ago as they are plentiful and cheap. That said, CPU cost is no longer that big of a deal with all the new announcements. If anything, they are more than is needed for audio.
> 
> Audio DSP is also cheaper than it has ever been: UAD cards? even HDX cards for $3k are a lot cheaper than they used to be.... latency of under 3ms? from several different approaches? Now possible. It is a good time for digital audio...



I know very little about GPU cores but it seems like they would be well suited to the simple operations for a lot of DSP as opposed to the cumbersome ISA involved with the CPU. I think trying to run something like VEP would be terrible but if you design a proprietary engine (like running SAM on it) I think it could work. I think it hasn't been developed largely because people get by using the CPU and it's only the really high end systems that would need this and be able to afford $8000 GPU's (each). I'm not talking about using $200 cards. Even if you needed more memory operations, you're so much closer to the memory and you have a dedicated amount for each processor. Seems like with a synth where you're only crunching numbers instead of reading samples would be even more likely to work.


----------



## EvilDragon (Aug 15, 2017)

Unfortunately, no. DSP is in majority of cases not a highly-parallellizable operation, which is why GPU is not ideal for anything except convolution perhaps (because FFT bins can be parallelized, but that's just one part of what convolution is). However stuff like synthesizers, where you have a clear serial structure (oscillator->filter->amplifier) and a lot of effects (especially involving feedback) cannot be efficiently done on GPU at all. Latency incurred by communication between GPU and CPU is also a problem (ESPECIALLY if you want to do disk streaming, that just doesn't make any sense, GPU has slower access to the hard drive than CPU becuase it HAS to go over the CPU to get the data from the hard drive - it's just not viable!). In short: you can stop dreaming, it will probably never happen. GPU is for graphics, not audio. For audio, there are special chips and already exist. They just can't run anything you throw at them, but purpose-made software (UAD, ex-TC PoCo).


----------



## jamwerks (Aug 15, 2017)

How about coding a sampler (Kontakt or VIP) to run on something like a UAD card?


----------



## URL (Aug 15, 2017)

Is there any news regarding Win 10 and multicore problems?


----------



## URL (Aug 15, 2017)

The best way to handle large loads in composing or mixing is to acquire multiple computers that share the burden. Personally, I stick to the I7 6-core but feel it's getting cramped in the PCI bus. Dedicate a main computer for composing and mixing if the opportunity exists - or make an advantage or convert everything to audio, then one need a lot of Ssd... Let Computer slave handle the sample streaming.

I use a mainly plugins for mixing some hardware and my UAD cards are usually full during a mixing session.
If it were so obvious that 18-core helps to take down the cpu load with 3ggr "equivalent" what a 6-core can handle .... then maybe ...
To boost my I7 6-core from 3.6 to 3.9 Ghz did not make me to happy.

Wishing a real daw / audio test where you really can see how big the difference is between
Such as I7 6-core- I9 18-core and Amd 16-core- AMD 6-core where you use plugins to implement a powerful mix.
I never found a test like that on the net?


----------



## Publius (Aug 15, 2017)

The xeon in my current rig is good and powerful but it only puts out about 80 watts. I agree on the 6 core being a good place to end acquiring the diminishing returns of additional cores. I am ok on my current setup right now, but I like to keep on top of developments so I can make prudent purchases when its time to upgrade. My best guess right now is that when I build a new pc in a year or two, the threadripper line may be the route I take. The 299 seems too big and heavy for what I try to do with my workstation builds.

I typically do an evaluation and end up getting stuff that is one generation old and try to hit a sweet spot on price-performance. Right now I am not in a position to need the most powerful pc available--I just build a pretty strong one.


----------



## thereus (Aug 15, 2017)

The price of the CPU is dwarfed by the memory and ssd prices at the moment, anyway.


----------



## Publius (Aug 15, 2017)

I think I priced out something with 64 gig, and that ram cost does add up.


----------



## Symfoniq (Aug 16, 2017)

RAM is just brutally expensive right now. I'd like to put 128 GB in my next build, but will probably settle for 64 GB until RAM prices return to earth.


----------



## niven (Aug 16, 2017)

Hi, new to the forum. Definitely would appreciate some advise. I'm quite scared of making a very expensive mistake with what I'm about to buy.

I'm returning to teaching. I have a small group of private students that want to study composition with me. However, my knowledge of computer workstations is very poor. I've got an old pc:
Asus Xtreme Phase..motherboard.
24gb...ram
2 Barracuda 1500gb HDs
UAD PCie cards...this is from about 2006! I think..
I was thinking of buying the following v expensive set up:
Asus Prime X299A motherboard
Core i9 7900X 10 core/20 thread 4.3ghz
64gb dDR4 Vengeance ram ...2400Mhz?....3000?if possible....
4x500gb SSDs. Budget wise this pre built is about £3000+

Or should I go for less expensive machines...and fully utilise VEP6?
Would you kindly suggest some alternatives for the above, whether it be another singular top flight set up, or several (two?) medium priced computers in lieu?
I've read various views on the X299A...not too happy at putting all my eggs in one basket. I can teach relatively well....however, I know that I have absolutely no expertise in judging the correct hardware to use.

My software consists of the complete Berlin Series...Hollywood Gold Strings,Woodwind and Brass only... VSL Special Editions 1&2...and Komplete 9.
What I've read, just in this one thread, has put the fear of God into me.
Sorry about the long post.
Hope you can help.
regards
niven.


----------

