# PC Upgrade from a 12-core Xeon



## Cat (Jun 29, 2019)

I have been using my Xeon E5-2690 v3 based Windows 10 PC for a while now (Cubase + VEP). It is not bad, although it is rather old (Q3 2014) and, having a poor single-core performance (2.6 GHz, turbo at 3.1 GHz), it maxes out on some virtual instruments. Well, the 12 cores help with the running of lots of Kontakt libraries within VEP but I would like to be able to run power-hungry synth VSTi’s at a lower latency as well.


I am thinking of upgrading to a newer CPU with better performance single core but also multi-core. The problem is that there is no way I could test this beforehand. Once I build a machine, I cannot return it anymore.


So I am asking here for the computer gurus’ advice: what would be my options for a solid and guaranteed increase of performance? 


Options that I am considering:



*i9 9900K*. Cheap, very good single core performance (I assume?) turbo at 5GHz+ However it is only 8-cores. Would the multi-core performance be less of my Xeon E5-2690 v3?
*i9 9940x*. This is not cheap at all, it has only 4.5 GHz turbo boost, probably less single-core performance than option1 above, but with 14-cores it will do a good job with the multi-core performance. Probably better than what I have now, but is it going to be a significant increase of performance with this high price tag?
The new *Scalable Skylake Xeons*. Very expensive, lots of cores, that’s great, but also relatively lower frequency. Would those be better at both single-core and multi-core perforamce than what I have? 
Stay with what I have and get used to a higher audio buffer (and latency) 

Any thoughts?


----------



## samphony (Jun 29, 2019)

What about a 16core amd ryzen?


----------



## Cat (Jun 29, 2019)

samphony said:


> What about a 16core amd ryzen?


I am scared to death of any possible software incompatibility. I would rather stick with Intel.


----------



## Damarus (Jun 29, 2019)

9900k is still king for the price. Are you getting close to maxing out all 12 cores?


----------



## Cat (Jun 29, 2019)

Damarus said:


> 9900k is still king for the price. Are you getting close to maxing out all 12 cores?


yes, sometimes, when I run VSTi synths directly in Cubase, as opposed to Kontakts in VEP.


----------



## Damarus (Jun 29, 2019)

Cat said:


> yes, sometimes, when I run VSTi synths directly in Cubase, as opposed to Kontakts in VEP.



I don't know how large your projects are but, the 9900k should be a more than enough, especially if you get a decent overclock out of it.


----------



## pderbidge (Jun 29, 2019)

Cat said:


> I am scared to death of any possible software incompatibility. I would rather stick with Intel.


Interesting comment. Are you referring to any particular instance where this has happened with AMD? I used to work for a company that contracted with Intel's Developer Optimization Program, so I tend to lean toward Intel out of bias, but not for fear of any software incompatibility. AMD has made some great strides recently with Ryzen and I wouldn't be afraid at all of going that route. Also, there is a cross license agreement between AMD and Intel (I think forced or at least influenced by the law) where Intel and AMD eventually have to share certain technologies that are deemed industry standard. IE; Hyperthreading. Intel introduced it and after some time AMD was able to implement the technology into their chips. Same with some other intel technologies and instruction sets such as SSE, SIMD and AVX


----------



## JohnG (Jun 29, 2019)

Damarus said:


> I don't know how large your projects are but, the 9900k should be a more than enough, especially if you get a decent overclock out of it.



Agree 100%. Built two computers with that chip and they are boss.


----------



## Living Fossil (Jun 29, 2019)

JohnG said:


> Agree 100%. Built two computers with that chip and they are boss.



Do you have 128 GB Ram in each of them?


----------



## Cat (Jun 29, 2019)

pderbidge said:


> Interesting comment. Are you referring to any particular instance where this has happened with AMD? I used to work for a company that contracted with Intel's Developer Optimization Program, so I tend to lean toward Intel out of bias, but not for fear of any software incompatibility. AMD has made some great strides recently with Ryzen and I wouldn't be afraid at all of going that route. Also, there is a cross license agreement between AMD and Intel (I think forced or at least influenced by the law) where Intel and AMD eventually have to share certain technologies that are deemed industry standard. IE; Hyperthreading. Intel introduced it and after some time AMD was able to implement the technology into their chips. Same with some other intel technologies and instruction sets such as SSE, SIMD and AVX


No, I haven't heard of anything in particular, but I use common sense. Intel has been the industry standard. AMD might be equally good for music, better, or it might be worse. I am not in the position to afford to take this risk. More research and experimentation are needed here...Not for me


----------



## Cat (Jun 29, 2019)

Damarus said:


> I don't know how large your projects are but, the 9900k should be a more than enough, especially if you get a decent overclock out of it.


Huge projects (templates)...The 12-cores xeon helps...until I load a power hungry VSTi without multi-core implementation...


----------



## JohnG (Jun 29, 2019)

Living Fossil said:


> Do you have 128 GB Ram in each of them?



No -- I think I read people are doing that but I don't know if that is in the spec or not. I have 64 in each of mine.


----------

