# Cores vs Processor



## Kaufmanmoon (Jan 5, 2017)

Did ask in another thread but thought I'd ask here.

So if you had the choice of a 
8 core 3.0ghz Trashcan 64gb Ram
or
12 Core 2.4ghz Trashcan 64gb Ram

What would you go for to run Logic or any Daw for that matter.
Hearing it's not that simple to go for the 12 core


----------



## tack (Jan 5, 2017)

Lots of related discussion here:

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


----------



## Tyll (Jan 5, 2017)

Not a pro here, but from what I understand Geekbench3 benchmarks has a fairly decent reputation for being a somewhat reliable indicator of a CPUs power. So according to cpuboss.com a single core of a the 8 core Xeon E5 1680 v2 rates at 3,268 while the single core rating of the 12 core Xeon E5 2697 v2 is "only" 2,892. When utilizing all cores the 12 core processors sits at 29,581 while the 8 core processor scores 23,089 points. 

Now, assuming that geekbench3 benchmarks are somewhat relatable when working with audio, effects, samplers and synths, the question is whether or not the program utilizes multiple cores, and how many of them. Ableton, for example, is said to be scaling pretty well with multiple cores, with the limitation of being not able to split a single track among multiple cores. This means that unless you have very few tracks with very intensive plugins, you'll most likely want the 12 core processor. 

If this is wrong, someone please correct me. It sounds plausible and matches with my one experience with several computers and DAWs.


----------



## gsilbers (Jan 5, 2017)

its a hard one. logic pro has now been coded so it spreads the workload accross cores. 
at the same time, ive been reading for several years now that its better to have high cpu vs amount of cores. 
for software at least. 

if you run VEP with a ton of samples and plugins in the same pc as logic pro then more cores might be better. 
but i lost track with these new trashcan macs.


----------



## Kaufmanmoon (Jan 5, 2017)

Thanks for the link and thoughts so far
Reading up a bit more tonight it seems even with a 12 core machine, running VE Pro on the same machine will help the dreaded last core in Logic and run things a lot more smoothly. (as you mention above) @gsilbers )

I started on Cubase years ago and somehow just never got on with it. Logic just made sense to me and I'd hate to move away from it.


----------



## synthpunk (Jan 5, 2017)

Logic X update last year now allows for multi-threading during playback & live tracks.

Remember you also get virtual cores so having a 6-core machine will give you 12 cores having a 8 core machine will give you 16. I have a 6 core Vader helmet that runs everything just fine, bunch of other rigs that I placed have 8 cores vh and they run everything. don't forget you can always upgrade the processor down the road to 12 core


----------



## colony nofi (Jan 5, 2017)

Testing here, I managed to get better performance on cubase with the 6 core than the 8. But that was not using VEPro. I'm guessing VEPro would change things a bit.
I would say the difference between different sound cards though is a BIGGER difference than I saw going between the 6 & the 8.
B.


----------



## Tysmall (Jan 5, 2017)

You can't tell from cores or speed alone. There have been 1.2ghz cpus that outperform 2.5ghz. Cores in general for audio production are a good thing because daws can make use of however many we throw at them. Just look at benchmarks at cpubenchmark.com it's the only thing that matters. 
We're in a world where a 2 liter engine can make more horsepower than a 6 liter same goes for computers. The only thing that's important is real world performance.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 5, 2017)

My instinct is that 2.4GHz is the very minimum GHz, no matter what other specs there are.

Some things run on a single core, and I'd be nervous buying a machine... well, I'd want 3.0.


----------



## jcrosby (Jan 6, 2017)

Kaufmanmoon said:


> Did ask in another thread but thought I'd ask here.
> 
> So if you had the choice of a
> 8 core 3.0ghz Trashcan 64gb Ram
> ...


There's actually no simple answer to this because it depends on the software you run. Some plugins run better on a higher clock speed and some run better with more cores, some do both fairly well but can be limited to x number of cores etc... DAWs are good a spreading work across cores, but plugins often tend to prefer clock speed, but some DAWs are better at delegating work across cores so there really is no simple answer.


----------



## Kaufmanmoon (Jan 6, 2017)

Glad I asked this question. Knew it wasn't so straight forward


----------



## jcrosby (Jan 6, 2017)

Yeah it's tricky because they both have advatages and in some ways cancel each other out. 
If you run templates with 100 or more Vis, use VEP and Kontakt, and are in Logic then more cores is probably the better way to go... 

If you want to head into uncharted waters you could post a thread on macrumors and see what the consensus is... Just beware, it's like gearslutz for Mac nerds


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 6, 2017)

And also beware of people who are into specs for their own sake.

I'm not a fan of general computer benchmark tests, because they almost always distort reality- either because, again, the numbers aren't relevant, or because they don't put things in perspective. Even that site a few years ago where some guy tested to see how many reverbs he could run in Logic seemed dubious to me.

To underline what I'm saying about the importance of GHz, this is four instances of Omnisphere in Logic (I just copied the same MIDI to get them to play). See how they run on their own cores?


----------



## Kaufmanmoon (Jan 6, 2017)

Cheers Nick. I own Omnisphere & Logic.
I'm aware there's quite a few threads on whether people should go and upgrade the old towers or buy the latest NMP or even go Hackintosh.
It's been an absolute minefield and I saw you've struggled too, to warrant buying something from Apple.

I'll make a decision soon. In some ways I wish I had a plethora of Thunderbolt devices as that would have made my choice that much easier.


----------



## Tysmall (Jan 6, 2017)

_"This may not seem obvious at first, but it’s actually for a very simple reason. Modern CPUs are becoming much more efficient. That is, they can get more work done per clock cycle. For example, Intel released Pentium 4 chips clocked at 3.6 GHz in 2006. It’s now the end of 2013 and the latest, fastest Intel Haswell Core i7 CPUs are clocked at 3.9 GHz from the factory. Does that mean CPU performance has only improved a tiny bit in seven years? Not at all!


Instead, the Core i7 CPU can simply do much more during each clock cycle. It’s important to look not just at clock cycles but at the amount of work a CPU can do per clock cycle. All other things being equal, fewer clock cycles with more work are better than more clock cycles with less — fewer clock cycles means the CPU requires less power and produces less heat.


In addition, modern processors also have other improvements that allow them to perform faster. This includes additional CPU cores and larger amounts of CPU cache memory that the CPU can work with."
_
Also a lot of plugins run off of a single core, but windows scheduler may bounce them around the cores as space in one frees up. Windows scheduler ultimately has power over your daw's hyperthreading as well 

It's really just a rabbit hole you will never understand unless you devote an insane amount of time to. I am about to be a 4th year computer science major and still can't give you a good answer.

You really just have to bite the bullet and buy something .. because every core is different and there is so much that processor goes through that is beyond the oscillation that creates clock speed. That's why I suggest software benchmarks ... It might not be your software but it is testing the hyperthreading capabilities and efficiency on some other digital mess of code and spoonfeeds an easy to read number to you. All you can do is hope that it translates to your daw.

edit: also @Nick I'd be curious to see if the same were true under a high cpu load like 70%. A lot of multithreading applications like daws stay passive until a certain threshold is reached. I don't know how Logic works, but that's how FL handles it.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 6, 2017)

Dunno, Tysmall, but it's already multithreading at a lower CPU load. It looks to me like each instance is on its own core. That's why I say 2.4GHz is on the meh side - not impressive.

So I'd probably go for 8 x 3GHz over 12 x 2.4GHz without knowing any more than that (and actually I barely do  ).


----------



## tack (Jan 6, 2017)

I would go for the 8 cores at 3GHz over 12 cores at 2.4GHz all day long myself, assuming same gen CPUs. The RT performance benefits alone are worth it.

That said, http://www.apple.com/ca/mac-pro/specs/ is giving me a choice of quad core at 3.7GHz vs hex core at 3.5GHz. That's a different story. I think I just might spend the 200MHz for an extra two cores.

Edit: Oh, I see the config options of 8 cores at 3Ghz and 12 cores at 2.7GHz. I think on balance I'd go for the 6 cores at 3.5GHz for what I do. With hyperthreading, you get 12 logical CPUs, and for this kind of workload the hyperthreads are relatively effective.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 6, 2017)

Well, now I see why it's been so long since they updated the Mac Pro.

There aren't enough mafia chiefs who can afford to buy them.

Steve Jobs wouldn't have allowed anything that absurd.


----------



## rgames (Jan 6, 2017)

If you're currently running into CPU limtations, then more cores might help (up to a point - I don't think 10 or 12 offer much over 6 or 8 for DAW use).

If you're not CPU limited but are just trying to reduce latency then clock speed probably matters more.

The best of both worlds is a setup with multiple high-clock-speed systems (4+ GHz). In such a setup, cores don't make much difference because you hit real-time limitations long before CPU limitations - four cores per machine is plenty. But if you're trying to run everything from one machine then they might matter. But multiple, cheaper machines will still beat any single machine. Two $1250 machines will vastly outperform a single $2500 machine.

rgames


----------



## synthpunk (Jan 6, 2017)

You guys need an accountant one that can write off the cost of a new computer as business expense.



Nick Batzdorf said:


> Well, now I see why it's been so long since they updated the Mac Pro.
> 
> There aren't enough mafia chiefs who can afford to buy them.
> 
> Steve Jobs wouldn't have allowed anything that absurd.


----------



## chimuelo (Jan 6, 2017)

Totally agree with rgames, but that's on i7s and Xeons.

We don't know what X370 chipsets and AMDs Ryzen 8 Core can do with Samplestreaming and ASIO yet.
I'm building one in hopes that they use the same cache that the Vega GPU uses.

On i7s their brute force speed concept works well.
But cache misses occur regardless.
We can't measure the penalty but it's overcome by sheer brute force.

Super fast high bandwidth cache can make a noticeable difference on 2/4/6 and 8 cores.

Their Vega GPU shows a 50% performance increase in fps over GTX 1080 GPUs.
That's a market shaker, like the DX7 was.

Zen Master says we'll see.


----------



## tack (Jan 6, 2017)

chimuelo said:


> Their Vega GPU shows a 50% performance increase in fps over GTX 1080 GPUs.


Wow, where are you reading that? All I read was that Vega would be 40-50% faster than Fury X, and possibly marginally faster than a 1080 Ti.


----------



## chimuelo (Jan 6, 2017)

60fps vrs. the GTX 1080 40fps. in some GPU Killing game.
They credit the performance to the cache.
They're probably pushing it in the forum @ anandtech.com

The CES hits are anything AR, a selfie car, AMD Zen and Vega, smart bikes and the awesome Wallpaper UHDTV by LG.
It can be shaped like a drape or arrowhead, some really sick stuff.

You've never been to a convention until you see CES at Vegas.
Each year it just gets better and better.
Even the Drone Convention which is sick as hell pales.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 6, 2017)

Just in case anyone isn't aware, that graphics stuff makes no difference for music. Computer games, yes, but... well, to each his own. 

Synthpunk, our accountant deducts fleas as livestock. Those computers are still a ridiculous price. It really isn't necessary to spend that much money for a studio computer system, even if you have slave machines.


----------



## Joe_D (Jan 6, 2017)

.


Nick Batzdorf said:


> Synthpunk, our accountant deducts fleas as livestock.


----------



## URL (Jan 7, 2017)

More cores 6-8 and high Z-all my cores are evenly loaded.
10-18 core is to expensive for me.


----------



## Kaufmanmoon (Jan 7, 2017)

Just to bring it back on track slightly (even though I think the thread has given me what I need)
I was trying to figure out what would work better for using Logic.
This is what Create Pro are offering and they're the same price. 

8 Core 3.0ghz 
12 core 2.4ghz


----------



## Tysmall (Jan 7, 2017)

Buy the 12. 
Buy a watercooler.
Overclock the hell out of it.
Call it day, now you have cores and clock speed.


----------



## tack (Jan 7, 2017)

Although if you can overclock the 12, then you can overclock the 8, so overclocking doesn't really address the core count vs single core speed question in principle. It's still a tradeoff that needs to be considered for your workload.


----------



## Soundhound (Jan 7, 2017)

If I could ask without creating a sidetrack, what is overclocking and how it is done? And I think there are uses/apps/daws/processors when you can't do it?


----------



## Tysmall (Jan 7, 2017)

Soundhound said:


> If I could ask without creating a sidetrack, what is overclocking and how it is done? And I think there are uses/apps/daws/processors when you can't do it?



Overclocking is forcing your cpu to work faster at the expense of more fuel and heat. You need a good mobo and cooling. Apps don't play any part in compatibility. 
Also @tack if I may make a huge generalization here it is much easier to bring a slow clock speed up to kind of fast, than to bring a kind of fast to fast. If that makes any sense .. in general the slower speed should be easier to oc and would benefit more . You could get .9 more per core vs maybe .5 on the faster cpu without going completely unstable. 
Again huge generalization, but it's true in most cases. I invite the op to research both extensively if this is his route of choice. 

There are lots of computer nerds who spend all day logging overclocking settings and results.
This thread deserves an immortality award.


----------



## Nathanael Iversen (Jan 7, 2017)

I do not think a lot of 2.4Ghz cores are that useful. I am using an old 2010 era MacPro 8 core as a VEP slave. If I make a little stress testing template of two octave 16th note scales with velocity and mod wheel variation, I can get a few hundred voices of polyphony out of it before it just can't feed VEP the bits in time. In musical terms, this is Violins I, Violins II, Violas, Cello and by the time I copy the scale runs to the basses, it is tweaking out. Raising the buffer helps a little, but ultimately, the cores are just not fast enough. It is cruising along with 64GB of RAM and all SSD drives, but its real-time limits are pretty low. My 3.9Ghz I7-4771 four-core Windows DAW machine crushes it for real-time performance. 

I would listen to the voices in this thread that speak of core speed and L2/L3 cache. That is what matters for real-time as a priority. Of course, if you can have 4Ghz+, big cache, AND lots of cores, so much the better. That is why Chimuelo is so interested in the new AMD chips - they seem to have the promise of hitting all the marks.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 7, 2017)

I haven't heard of anyone overckocking a Mac, and I sure wouldn't do it.


----------



## URL (Jan 7, 2017)

Xeon is locked.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 7, 2017)

Anhtu, that post was still interesting. I say unhide it - it's very relevant and very interesting, even if you're using different model Macs.


----------



## Soundhound (Jan 7, 2017)

Yes doing a little reading on overclocking, and I think I'll steer clear. Will just wait for the next mac pro to come out, get a maxed one for $20k or whatever and be done with it. Not.


----------



## Nathanael Iversen (Jan 7, 2017)

I went back and retested my setup after a fresh start. I can run my "exercise template" against the 8 core 2.4Ghz MacPro and get about 1,700 voices out of it. It is running about 850% on the CPU meter and isn't glitching. There is still overhead due to the hyper-threaded "cores". I'd guess about 25% to go as that is what VEP reports? Given what is on the machine, I wouldn't need all that at once very often, if ever. So, you can get a decent amount of 8x2.4Ghz cores, but there are folk on this thread that get over 2,000 voices on 4 cores running at higher clock speed, so, maybe this is a data point. Note that I don't run DAW on this machine - it is just a VEP sample slave running about 56GB of samples.


----------



## Kaufmanmoon (Jan 8, 2017)

I've started a thread on MacRumors. I feel like Leeroy Jenkins right now (gaming joke)


----------



## chimuelo (Jan 8, 2017)

Soundhound said:


> Yes doing a little reading on overclocking, and I think I'll steer clear. Will just wait for the next mac pro to come out, get a maxed one for $20k or whatever and be done with it. Not.



I've been wanting a Logic X Hachintosh forever.
Since Logic seems to be efficient for Multicore the AMD 8 Core overclocked to 4.4ghz will be my first test.
Cost of this beast is 1600 USD.
WATERCOOLED 4U Rackmount w/ Samsung 850 Pros and 32gbs of RAM.
If the Hachintosh trick works I'll be happy.
If it fails I got a great DAW w/ the power to use lots of Softsynths and Samples.

AMD 8 Core ticks up at 25mhz at a time.
First pull will be for 400mhz to bring the base clock up to 4ghz, store the profile in the BIOS, then add 25mhz, reboot, repeat while monitoring the bitchin new Watercooler for Rack mounted CPU, VOILA....


----------



## mc_deli (Jan 8, 2017)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> Just in case anyone isn't aware, that graphics stuff makes no difference for music. Computer games, yes, but... well, to each his own.


That's not the case in my experience with Logic x. There have been a lot of people with GUI lag in various Logic versions. I get horribly slow GUI under heavy loads and regret getting the rMBP with integrated graphics. I long for faster snappier window resizing etc.

In other news the Logic multicore benchmark test is useful to a point.

Isn't what we really a universal voice count test with a free Kontakt player instrument that all users can benchmark in different daws, vep and on different machines... How could a voices count benchmark test work?


----------



## URL (Jan 8, 2017)

Logic interesting, Cubase is efficient... all my core is equable in % measured in HW monitor...no core spiks.


----------



## chimuelo (Jan 8, 2017)

mc_deli said:


> That's not the case in my experience with Logic x. There have been a lot of people with GUI lag in various Logic versions. I get horribly slow GUI under heavy loads and regret getting the rMBP with integrated graphics. I long for faster snappier window resizing etc.
> 
> In other news the Logic multicore benchmark test is useful to a point.
> 
> Isn't what we really a universal voice count test with a free Kontakt player instrument that all users can benchmark in different daws, vep and on different machines... How could a voices count benchmark test work?



I disable iGPU and use 29 dollar EVGA Cards with multi HDMI.
My remarks about GPU Vega was the super fast cache.
Praying that is also on the Ryzen CPU.

When I saw my i7 5775C @ 3.3ghz out perform my i7 4770S overclocked to 4ghz the only explanation was the L4 2.2ghz/128mb cache. That's slow compared to L2 and L3 cache.
This of course is my opinion but Xeon CPUs with 12mb cache running 3.2ghz/8 Core outperform i7s that are faster.

Your GUI could also work better with OS on an NVMe.
Even slower M.2s are great for GUI and workflow, especially on 4x PCI-e lanes.
I used them for streaming and they show scalability but not on the scale of benchmarks.
So next place was the OS.
Snappy Turtles bro...


----------



## chimuelo (Jan 8, 2017)

URL said:


> Logic interesting, Cubase is efficient... all my core is equable in % measured in HW monitor...no core spiks.



Of course, but using Zebra2HZ or Omnisphere 2.1 should not spread evenly as they are locked to a single core. Might be wrong on Omni as it could be different with 2.1, but Zebra2 HZ is definitely locked.
This is where cache coherency is crucial.
Instructions to Core locked synths are shorter, snatched up in pre fetch algos resulting in fewer cache misses.
i7 CPUs are designed to use brute force to overcome cache misses.
All CPUs have work arounds, and Intels designs remain devoted to die shrink instead of cache and pre fetch.
Won't know about 8 Core AMDs until I build one.


----------



## URL (Jan 8, 2017)

chimuelo said:


> Of course, but using Zebra2HZ or Omnisphere 2.1 should not spread evenly as they are locked to a single core. Might be wrong on Omni as it could be different with 2.1, but Zebra2 HZ is definitely locked.
> This is where cache coherency is crucial.
> Instructions to Core locked synths are shorter, snatched up in pre fetch algos resulting in fewer cache misses.
> i7 CPUs are designed to use brute force to overcome cache misses.
> ...



Okey didn't know Zebra, "Omni" were locked- they are really heavy on the cpu, hrm.
On my old system MP 266 Q-core, Omni 2.1 almost kill the cpu, it spiked so the only option was to install it in a slave.
With my new system I7-6-core I have 4 Omni tracks I one Q and a lot of tracks/rev and eq going simultaneously, and far from spiking.
Must check if Omni use all cores when I start my studio tomorrow, thats interesting.


----------



## Nathanael Iversen (Jan 8, 2017)

Does anyone know how many threads leading DAWs will use - Cubase, Logic, etc? Is there any way to know how many cores could be fully utilized? VEP definitely uses all the physical and hyperthreaded cores it can access in a very even way. Do we know how the DAWs do?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 8, 2017)

> That's not the case in my experience with Logic x. There have been a lot of people with GUI lag in various Logic versions. I get horribly slow GUI under heavy loads and regret getting the rMBP with integrated graphics. I long for faster snappier window resizing etc.



Integrated graphics is a different matter. I'm talking about fancy graphics cards. The lowly Radeon 2600 or whatever it is in my 2008 Mac Pro is absolutely fine.


----------



## tack (Jan 8, 2017)

chimuelo said:


> Might be wrong on Omni as it could be different with 2.1, but Zebra2 HZ is definitely locked.


Omnisphere remains single threaded.

Also, I don't see any evidence of processor affinity with Omnisphere. (At least I assume this is what you meant when you said "_locked _to a single core" since it was from the perspective of cache efficiency.) Same with Diva. Although Diva does have multithread support, when it's disabled, I can see it moving between logical CPUs like Omnisphere does (unless I set processor affinity myself of course).

Maybe ZebraHZ is different. I don't have it myself. (Some day. )


----------



## Nathanael Iversen (Jan 8, 2017)

I use the on-board graphics in the I7-4771/Z97 to drive a 4k monitor. Works great. No graphics card, no graphics card fan. Its only 4k/30p, but I don't need refresh rate for Cubase.


----------



## Soundhound (Jan 8, 2017)

Jimmy what's the scoop with AMD? Is it a newer processor that might be in the next generation of macs? I'm gonna need to a mac pro of some sort over the next year, the sooner the better but I can wait for a while right now. 



chimuelo said:


> I've been wanting a Logic X Hachintosh forever.
> Since Logic seems to be efficient for Multicore the AMD 8 Core overclocked to 4.4ghz will be my first test.
> Cost of this beast is 1600 USD.
> WATERCOOLED 4U Rackmount w/ Samsung 850 Pros and 32gbs of RAM.
> ...


----------



## chimuelo (Jan 9, 2017)

Not sure about what App£€ has up its sleeves.
But AMD and the new i7700k Kaby Lake CPUs were exciting products at CES.
WE the consumers win when competition is allowed.
Usually AMD were just i3/i5 competition, that had heating issues.
This time they're after enthusiast market share.

Supermicro wisely chose to not enter the X350 motherboard race.
Don't want to piss off Intel or the US Contracts they have.

Can't wait for them, must have the overclockable 8 Core.
If it's not up to snuff I'll get a Vega card and make a PC that smokes an XBox.
One of my kids/relatives can have a Chimuelo "enhanced" gamin PC.

OTOH the HDMI box I made with a Corsair Bulldog has the spare i7 6700k parts.
I can build my projects from a couch on a 60 inch UHD Screen, play games, burn BluRay, watch movies, pretty awesome stuff.
My ASIO Drivers just don't work on B150 or H/Z170 chips.
Hoping the X350/AMD stuff works.
Otherwise I have 3 x Z97 DAWs using 2 spares to wait for driver updates.
If not RME a few years down the road will be my new way to play Samples.

But 8 cores at 4ghz for 1200 USD cheaper is worth a shot.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 9, 2017)

Can you get hackintoshes to run on AMD processors?


----------



## synthpunk (Jan 9, 2017)

You think you hate computers now try a hackintosh 



Nick Batzdorf said:


> Can you get hackintoshes to run on AMD processors?


----------



## Darthmorphling (Jan 9, 2017)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> Can you get hackintoshes to run on AMD processors?



My son wanted to do this on his computer with an AMD and it can be done, but requires a lot of text editing and tweaking to accomplish. Whereas, intel has a lot less of that needed.

http://forum.amd-osx.com/


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 9, 2017)

I was just curious about the AMD processor for hackintoshes. At this point I'm unlikely to do that.

(synthpunk, I don't really hate computers - or if I do I'm a total fool, because I've bought about 25 of them over the years.  )


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 10, 2017)

Okay, now that I've posted how much I distrust benchmark tests, I did look at MacBench out of curiosity.

The 3.06GHz 12-core 5,1 Mac Pro has a great multiple core score (25K or something), but the single-core score is 2447. That's below a MacBook Air.

Is that really true?


----------



## synthpunk (Jan 10, 2017)

Did you convert your Macintosh into an aquarium? 











Nick Batzdorf said:


> I was just curious about the AMD processor for hackintoshes. At this point I'm unlikely to do that.
> 
> (synthpunk, I don't really hate computers - or if I do I'm a total fool, because I've bought about 25 of them over the years.  )


----------



## Dracarys (Feb 8, 2017)

Right now with my 3930k at stock speed, 64gb ddr3, and a mediocre IOP bottlenecking LSI adapter to bypass my SATA2 ports, my sessions are endless with track counts, and moderate FX. It's when I start adding serious plugins that I see a real difference in usage.

I just bought a RME hammerfall, this has drastically improved things, I can add many more intense FX when it's time to mix and not worried about latency, it's almost absurd. I don't have exact numbers but I'll post something soon.

Anyways, I'm impressed with my setup, I can only imagine how much power a new 10 core with DDR4 3200mz will give me. I don't buy in to the whole "No Evidence" thing, because for the longest time in this forum people convinced me that putting my OS and DAW on a SSD would be no different than a HDD, except when opening Apps. Also, that a good soundcard would not help performance in Cubase. I went from Focusrite to RME, and now setting my buffer to 1024 or 2048 brings Ve Pros cpu % from 90-100% to 50-60% in massive sessions. Not even close using lower tier cards such as mbox 3, focusrite 2i2, etc. Lastly, many say PCIe SSDs only help with load time, I can't wait to explore this area to see if it improves performance.

Free the slaves!


----------

