What's new

Thought on i9 9980XE CPU?

OP
jononotbono

jononotbono

Luke Johnson
I think what I’m going to do is buy a 9900k or 9900X and see how it performs. The X299 motherboard I’m thinking of buying (Asus WS Sage/10gb) allows me to use any of the x series i9s so like the option of upgradability is always there. Having Slave computers for sample lifting really does help and when I finally use a TB3 PC, I can then get an UA X6 interface finally using UAD sattelite cards which takes even more pressure off the main computer.

Both 9900k and 9900X seem like very fast CPUs and much cheaper than a 9980X.
 

FriFlo

Senior Member
If you want a main machine on Windows 10 with lots of juice for low latency DSP and cost efficiency is important to you, the i9 9900k is definitely the best thing ATM. For sample slaves, it might be a bit different, as voices do profit from more cores. If a 512 buffer (which is what you get with the VEpro 2x setting and a buffer of 256 samples) is alright, the best cost efficient machine could even be a AMD TR2. They show very good numbers on voices, if you don't throw in too many CPU intensive plugins ... it all greatly depends on the exact use case ... but the 9900k is a good competitor in any way. It just doesn't get your Kontakt voices all the way up, as some of the more expensive processors do.
I think/hope we will see this or next year a generation of processors, that will easily handle the voice needs. The AMD competition will push Intel and AMD will be ambitious in areas where they were not able to beat Intel yet (Single core performance). IMO, if there is no immediate need for a new PC, at this point it will be best to wait till Q3/4 of 2019.
 
Last edited:

PaulieDC

1967 Bizzarini GT 5300 Strada
I'm doing a bit of online window shopping for PC components and stuck on a CPU.

I think I am going to build a Thunderbolt 3 ready PC (to use with a UA Apollo X6 interface) and it's definitely going to be single CPU (Dual CPU slaves for samples) for speed. I was thinking about the i9 7900X. It's a 10 core. Any thoughts on this?

I know it's not the latest and greatest but I'm hoping that will make it more affordable.

Thanks! :)
The benchmark on the 16-core i9-9960X is slightly higher than the 18-core 9980XE. This is only one rating of course, BUT, the 9960 is $700 less:

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html

It's also important to look at price per increase... my 14-core 7940X scores at 25,406. Cost me $1100. The 9980XE scores at 29,506. Costs $2400 for only a ~17% gain.

If I were to build my rig today I'd probably save a grand and go for the 9940X... Under $1500, 14 cores with a 27,173 benchmark score, 9th gen cpu and faster 3.3GHz core which is great for processes that aren't multicore. Your single thread get 10% more speed than the 3.0GHz 9980XE. Oh, you save a grand too!
 

hdsmile

Member
I wanna also upgrade my: GA-Z170X-UD5 TH
Could you guys advise me the great MB with Thunderbolt 3 on board with support 9940X, 9980XE and more...
 
Last edited:

JohnG

Senior Member
I haven't done all the math, but is it possible (in view of the prices for these super-duper CPUs), that you could build two i9-9900k satellite PCs for about the same price?

I'm a fan of "many" as it spreads the load out over multiple computers -- the bussing, the CPU load, the "everything" load. When the original EWQLSO came out they recommended eight PCs to run it full-throttle; I bought six at that time.

So having "only" three PC satellite computers today seems like a luxury, by comparison.
 

benatural

Active Member
Alright, so. Update on the 9940x.

Turns out I had different versions of Vienna Ensemble Pro on my master and slaves. Master was the latest version, slaves were a year old. Upgraded the slaves to the same version as master and... WOW

My massive template now runs great with a 128 ms buffer. Very pleased with the result. The lowest I could go with my previous setup was 256, but I'd usually have to bump it up to 512.

I'll have to retract my previous statement. As it stands, the upgrade seems to have been worth the investment.
 
OP
jononotbono

jononotbono

Luke Johnson
I run at 128 daily.
So many variables in an endless question... but how many tracks? What’s instruments? Etc

With my current setup I can run everything at 128... when tracking a couple of guitar tracks for a song.

When using a full virtual Orchestra, not a chance.
 

Wolfie2112

Senior Member
I can run at 128 with my biggest templates....not massive, but epic orchestral stuff. Might be because I'm using an Apogee Thunderbolt interface? Never a hiccup.
 
OP
jononotbono

jononotbono

Luke Johnson
I can run at 128 with my biggest templates....not massive, but epic orchestral stuff. Might be because I'm using an Apogee Thunderbolt interface? Never a hiccup.
That’s great to know. I’m e cited about upgrading my main machine and interface. Lower than 512 would be excellent!:)
 
Top Bottom