Intel is pricey

[kitekrazy1]

 Most of their CPUs no longer have coolers.   Future proof is a myth.  (how many retired a 4790k?)

If my motherboard ever dies I'm screwed when it comes to a replacement.  A Z97 board would cost about $300 brand new. 

I guess the alternative would be a new CPU, 300 series board- the most affordable thing, DDR4 RAM - not cheap these days.

I wish AMD would make a more serious dent in the market.   The rumor is Apple is going to make their own CPU, even they think Intel is pricey.  I'm sure only the fanboys will buy a loaded Mac Mini at $4K.

 I have yet to see how bad it would be if my AMD system with an FX6300 goes bad.

 CPUs never go bad.  I have a box of those leftover AMD AM2 sockets.  My Intel Q6600 machine is still running, too bad I don't have a board that can overclock it to 3ghz,  I still have an AMD 945 on an nForce2 chipset. 

[Grem]

I have read that AMD's new generation of CPU's are much better at single core performance. Which makes the 'bang-for-buck' performance ratio much better than before.

Is Intel still the fastest for Single core performance? Yep. But the gap between i7 and Threadripper single core performance doesn't make the money you spend for that performance difference worth it. Or at the very least, not as appealing.

44 minutes ago, kitekrazy said:

(how many retired a 4790k?)

 

I'm still running my 2600K! It's overclocked, but still got it going. 

[kitekrazy1]

2 minutes ago, Grem said:

I have read that AMD's new generation of CPU's are much better at single core performance. Which makes the 'bang-for-buck' performance ratio much better than before.

Is Intel still the fastest for Single core performance? Yep. But the gap between i7 and Threadripper single core performance doesn't make the money you spend for that performance difference worth it. Or at the very least, not as appealing.

 

I'm still running my 2600K! It's overclocked, but still got it going. 

 Seems like a lot of users on this forum are using older hardware.

[Grem]

5 minutes ago, kitekrazy said:

 Seems like a lot of users on this forum are using older hardware.

 

If all I am doing is recording, I have no problem CPU wise. But I don't use fx in the box. WHen I get CPU bound is when I start mixing and loading the plugins up!! I use a lot more than I did when I built this system. Ran it for years at stock speed. I am still waiting to see how AMD will do in a DAW system. Not enough users with the new Ryzen chips yet. None that I know in fact. Kinda waiting on @Jim Roseberry to give his thoughts on the second generation of Ryzen CPU's in a DAW.

[PhonoBrainer]

1 hour ago, kitekrazy said:

 Most of their CPUs no longer have coolers.   Future proof is a myth.  (how many retired a 4790k?)

If my motherboard ever dies I'm screwed when it comes to a replacement.  A Z97 board would cost about $300 brand new. 

I guess the alternative would be a new CPU, 300 series board- the most affordable thing, DDR4 RAM - not cheap these days.

I wish AMD would make a more serious dent in the market.   The rumor is Apple is going to make their own CPU, even they think Intel is pricey.  I'm sure only the fanboys will buy a loaded Mac Mini at $4K.

 I have yet to see how bad it would be if my AMD system with an FX6300 goes bad.

 CPUs never go bad.  I have a box of those leftover AMD AM2 sockets.  My Intel Q6600 machine is still running, too bad I don't have a board that can overclock it to 3ghz,  I still have an AMD 945 on an nForce2 chipset. 

Does this work as a pick up line with the chicks? ?

[kitekrazy1]

12 minutes ago, Grem said:

 

If all I am doing is recording, I have no problem CPU wise. But I don't use fx in the box. WHen I get CPU bound is when I start mixing and loading the plugins up!! I use a lot more than I did when I built this system. Ran it for years at stock speed. I am still waiting to see how AMD will do in a DAW system. Not enough users with the new Ryzen chips yet. None that I know in fact. Kinda waiting on @Jim Roseberry to give his thoughts on the second generation of Ryzen CPU's in a DAW.

Ryzen would be better for video.  There are a small number of Ryzen users running FL Studio.   Intel will still beat AMD hands down in lower latency.   

[Grem]

6 minutes ago, kitekrazy said:

Intel will still beat AMD hands down in lower latency

I understand that. What I am thinking is for my use, I don't need those single digit latency numbers. Most of my recording is done with direct monitoring, so I don't need to go in/out the box at break-neck speeds! : )

 

Let me make clear, I am waiting to see what the word will be on the new Ryzen Zen 2 (third gen). I know the 2 gen Ryzen chips didn't quite make the cut for a DAW. They were a big improvement over the gen before, but still not up to the task (I am referring to 'bang-for-buck' single core performance).

[kitekrazy1]

29 minutes ago, Grem said:

I understand that. What I am thinking is for my use, I don't need those single digit latency numbers. Most of my recording is done with direct monitoring, so I don't need to go in/out the box at break-neck speeds! : )

 

Let me make clear, I am waiting to see what the word will be on the new Ryzen Zen 2 (third gen). I know the 2 gen Ryzen chips didn't quite make the cut for a DAW. They were a big improvement over the gen before, but still not up to the task (I am referring to 'bang-for-buck' single core performance).

 When are those coming out? 

[Grem]

14 minutes ago, kitekrazy said:

 When are those coming out? 

AMD has been quiet about the date, but speculation is around May/Jun if they hold to past behavior patterns. And it's rumured to be 7nm! I think it's the server chips to be 7nm with speculation being the consumer version will be sometime later this year.

[Jim Roseberry]

12 hours ago, Grem said:

 

If all I am doing is recording, I have no problem CPU wise. But I don't use fx in the box. WHen I get CPU bound is when I start mixing and loading the plugins up!! I use a lot more than I did when I built this system. Ran it for years at stock speed. I am still waiting to see how AMD will do in a DAW system. Not enough users with the new Ryzen chips yet. None that I know in fact. Kinda waiting on @Jim Roseberry to give his thoughts on the second generation of Ryzen CPU's in a DAW.

I have nothing at all against AMD.

At any point in time, I'll use what I feel is the best overall CPU available.

 

With Ryzen, Thunderbolt-3 is not available.

That's a show-stopper for myself and many of our clients.

 

Ryzen's "Infinity Archtecture" benefits from running faster RAM (DDR4/3200)... but it's hard to find a motherboard that'll run DDR4/3200 absolutely rock-solid.

Ironically, Intel architecture doesn't benefit significantly from running faster RAM... but most motherboards will run DDR4/3200 without issue.

 

From a performance standpoint, Ryzen is amazing at tasks that are heavily multi-threaded (video rendering).

With lower clock-speed, Ryzen is not so amazing at are tasks that aren't heavily multi-threaded.

In a DAW application, not all tasks can be heavily multi-threaded.

Playing thru an AmpSim plugin and monitoring in realtime using a 32-sample ASIO buffer size at 96k is not something that lends itself to being heavily multi-threaded.

Thus, when it comes to a DAW, CPU clock-speed is the most critical factor.

As far as cores, you want as many as you can get (or afford).

What you don't want to do is sacrifice significant clock-speed for more cores.

This is why Xeon CPUs are often a significant performance hit (when used for DAW purposes). 

 

Another thing to be aware of is that CPU core performance doesn't scale 1:1

IOW, doubling the number of CPU cores doesn't double performance.

 

I don't see Intel being particularly "pricey".  ?

With the release of the i9-9900k, you've got high-end "workstation" level performance in a mid-tier (cost) CPU.

You have to go high-end socket 2066 i9 to significantly best the 9900k.

The 9900k has 8 cores (16 processing threads) that can be locked at 5GHz.

You've got the best of both worlds (super high clock-speed and 8 cores/16 processing threads).

 

With AMD, we've notice small "incompatibility" type issues.

ie:  On one of the Cakewalk demo sessions (which we often used to compare performance), Boost 11 was used on a kick drum track.

When running a Ryzen CPU, Boost 11 was producing an unwanted "click/snap" that almost sounded like digital clipping.

Running the same exact project with an Intel CPU, Boost 11 (same exact settings) yielded no click/snap.

I don't put the fault for this on AMD (many applications/plugins  aren't fully optimized for Ryzen CPUs)... but you're likely to encounter similar issues.

 

As a point of reference, I paid ~$100 more for my PII-266 (266MHz single core CPU) than I did for my 9900k (8 cores at 5GHz).

 

Healthy competition from Ryzen is good for all involved.

Right now, I prefer Intel (for the reasons above).

If/when AMD fully leap-frogs Intel,  we'll be happy to use their CPUs.  We built many Athlon and Athlon II based machines when AMD was beating Intel (badly) in floating-point performance.

 

Regarding Apple manufacturing their own CPUs:

AMD has been at it for decades... and still can't best Intel's top 9980xe CPU.

Apple would likely reap higher profit margin by using their own CPU... but I have serious doubts that it would be on par with the best AMD/Intel CPUs.

Apple has all but abandoned their power-users... so it wouldn't be out of character for them to continue this direction (fully knowing their machines would offer lower performance).

The iMac Pro is a sleek/slick looking machine.  But when that represents the pinnacle of your top-performance range, you're not aiming high. 

[jesse g]

I will be using the gear in my signature until it dies,  then I am going back to a mixing console.   ?

[Starise]

The best deal for me is usually a chip that's mid tier. Never had a problem affording intel if I do that. I'm still running my old 5820K overclocked to over 4ghz. I think you can still buy a 5820 for not much $$. 5820 would likely be low tier now but it works fine for me....and will for the majority of home studio small recording studio applications.

I've thrown a lot at it and it's never let me down.

[Some Guy]

14 hours ago, Grem said:

I'm still running my 2600K! It's overclocked, but still got it going. 

Which is why Intel is in the position it's in.  They actually were Future Proof.  Anyone who has used a pre-Ryzen AMD CPU knows the deal (I certainly do) - ESPECIALLY if they had a Laptop with one in it.  Those CPUs and APUs were absolute atrociousness compared to Intel; and, even back then, they did have decent multi-core Performance.  The single core performance is better, now, but Intel still has  upwards of an 8-10% lead in Single-Quad Core performance.

There are tons of people running Sandy Bridge or Haswell machines that still perform quite well.  Nothing from AMD in that timeframe has held up nearly as well - nothing - except maybe server CPUs.  No one is even recommending anyone use a Trinity/Kaveri-era AMD CPU/APU, while people routinely tell others to keep their Haswell CPUs and just upgrade the GPU in many instances.

Additionally, while AMD CPUs have lots of Cores/Threads, thermal limits come into play. Clock speeds increase in "cap" the more cores you max out, and Intel still has IPC advantages over AMD.  So, a 4GHz Ryzen CPU may only run at 4GHz if you're using 1 or 2 Cores, then its' 3.8GHz up to 4, then 3.5 up to 6, etc. (Not factual, just to illustrate what I'm talking about).

Intel uses less cores in their CPUs, have better thermal control (CPUs run cooler), so you tend to lose less when you load them up - on top of their IPC advantage... which means their CPUs still end up giving comparable performance with less cores (and  lower clock speeds) than AMDs.

Lastly, developers tend to bias to Intel due to prevalence and market share.  If Intel introduces new technology, developers tend to adopt it quicker.  The support for Intel QuickSync Video (everywhere) and Nvidia NVDEC/NVENC (decent support) over AMD UVD/VCE (comparatively poor support) is a good example of that.

[synkrotron]

7 hours ago, jesse g said:

I will be using the gear in my signature until it dies

I will be using the gear in my signature until I die...

[jesse g]

3 hours ago, synkrotron said:

I will be using the gear in my signature until I die...

? ? ?

[Pragi]

I´ll be using my Intel I 3770 as long as I live.

[kitekrazy1]

On 4/16/2019 at 11:44 PM, Pragi said:

I´ll be using my Intel I 3770 as long as I live.

 More evidence that Intel is pricey.   I guess if one is on a budget the i5 9700k seems like a good one.  6 cores, no HT but unlocked.

[Pragi]

I don-t think that way.

The I 3770 is including a video chip and the fact, that it is after 6years still able to run Win 10 ,Cakeawlk aso 

very comfortable,,qualifies the price,

paid 240 bucks that time

.The   i5 9700k is about 260 bucks, so this is a good offer for now..

 

Edited April 24, 2019 by Pragi

[msmcleod]

3 hours ago, Pragi said:

I don-t think that way.

The I 3770 is including a video chip and the fact, that it is after 6years still able to run Win 10 ,Cakeawlk aso 

very comfortable,,qualifies the price,

paid 240 bucks that time

.The   i5 9700k is about 260 bucks, so this is a good offer for now..

 

I've got it's baby brother, the i3570 which I'm more than happy with. I've never had it max out yet in a real project.

[Mark Morgon-Shaw]

I am still using an i5 2500 and only switched from 8.5 when CBB was launched. Think I can still go a couple more years, definitely got good value from Intel.

I've made just over 90 pieces of music since CBB came out ( for TV Libraries ),  having an older processor doesn't really slow me down. Some track freezing here and there, maxing out my latency during mixdown all help.  I'll probably go for an i7 when I do eventually upgrade.