Best New Processor

[Mark Morgon-Shaw]

Thinking about my next build, this i5 2500 has done me proud for 7yrs+ but one of the two motherboard dimm sockets has stopped working so time to start putting my list together for the next machine.

I am interested to know especially from anyone on the Dev side of Bandlab  which type of type of processor features are best suited to CBB 

Is it better to go for more cores ?  Or less cores with a faster base clock speed ? 

How important are the number of threads ? I can get a 12 thread hex core Ryzen for about the same price as a 6 core 6 thread Intel..so which is CBB optimised best for ?

Do modern intergrated graphics like the Intel 630 do a good job

Are CPU turbo speeds important or will I be needing to switch that feature off ?

I will be looking for the best bang per buck , I never buy high end processors.  I don't record a lot but I do use a lot of VI's to make tracks for TV so my preference is to run at an ASIO buffer size of 256 so everything still feels fairly snappy.  A top end i5 or one of the new Ryzen 5 3600x perhaps.

CBB is the main use case for my machine, I don't game or video edit. Just normal browsing, and making music.

Thanks

 

[CJ Jacobson]

19 hours ago, CosmicDolphin said:

Is it better to go for more cores ?  Or less cores with a faster base clock speed ? 

It depends, its not black and white.  It depends on the clock speed and the amount of cores you are comparing. For example, if the clock speed is just slightly lower, I go for the 'more cores and lower clock speed. BUT, if the clock speed is a lot lower, i may go with the faster speed and less cores. 

19 hours ago, CosmicDolphin said:

Do modern intergrated graphics like the Intel 630 do a good job

They should but it depends on the big picture of all your PC specs. The video card is a piece of the puzzle.

[Gswitz]

Jim always says clock speed is most important in daws, but you have to consider the whole picture.

[Jim Roseberry]

For DAW purposes, clock-speed is absolutely the single most critical factor.

Not all processes in a DAW can be multi-threaded.

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

Virtual instruments like UVI Falcon only use a single core.

 

In a perfect scenario, you want highest possible clock-speed... AND the highest number of cores you can get.

 

What you absolutely *don't* want to do is choose more cores... at the expense of significant clock-speed.

This is why Xeon CPUs (even though they're more expensive) are usually a significant performance hit compared to standard CPUs.

They have more cores... but typically significantly lower clock-speed.

 

Right now, this is why the Intel i9-9900k is such a great "sweet-spot" for a DAW.

With the proper configuration, you can lock all 8 cores (16 processing threads) at 5GHz.

That's super high clock-speed... and 16 virtual cores (8 physical cores).

With quality air-cooling, the 9900k will do the above while running near dead-silent.

To best the 9900k, you have to go high-end socket-2066 i9 (which is $1400+ just for the CPU).

 

Edited July 25, 2019 by Jim Roseberry

[Shuzi Weli]

Bandlab 

[Shuzi Weli]

A good sound processor for me when it comes to bandlab

[Misha]

Mark, 

in my 20+ year DAW journey I discovered that cores and RAM do play a role... but not as important as certain chip architecture.

To put in a perspective.  A few years ago I bought Thinkpad Xtreme (laptop) i7 9000 series processor, nvme 64 ram, 12 core (!) . It was a top of the line back then, but it struggled with intensive plugins. Something like multi plugin for example  Izotope Neutron or Ozone would just have continuous dropouts, even at highest buffers, with internet disconnected and system running  very slim. Number of cores played almost no role in my case. I tried balancing cores dedicating specific cores for Cakewalk use - no difference in performance. I spent so much time "optimizing" that machine, it's not funny. I gave up and got  a different Thinkpad (Thinkbook).  It's not top line and graphics are pretty standard, but seller had fantastic return policy so I decided to take a chance...

For testing purposes of the new machine, I've made a project with several (!) instances of Ozone and other plugins with "lookaheads" and it run absolutely fine. It can handle 50+ tracks with about 30 medium & heavy weight plugins/synth without any issues. The only time I get a dropout now  if I do something stupid. So, for consumer/prosumer machine it is awesome. The processor is 12th Gen Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-12700H   2.30 GHz.

The point I am trying to make, it's very individual and the Audio part, in my experience,  depends greatly on chipset and I/O of a particular machine / motherboard. 

 

[Mark Morgon-Shaw]

On 10/12/2024 at 10:16 PM, Misha said:

The point I am trying to make, it's very individual and the Audio part, in my experience,  depends greatly on chipset and I/O of a particular machine / motherboard. 

Thanks Misha

This thread is 5yrs old now, in the end I got the 12core Ryzen 3900x which has served me really well. I'm actually thinking about upgrading now. I won't go Intel because they've had huge probliems with their latest generation of chips . The new Sonar seems to have improved it's multi thread performance so at some point I will go for a 16core , probably the 9950X but I'll wait a while for it to come down in price. 

I've actually built 3 other PC's in that 5yrs for each of my kids as gaming rigs and went for AMD each time, partly so when I upgrade one of them can have my old CPU which will be faster then theirs. 

Back in the 90s  I got the original Autotune plugin, and I had to upgade from a 486-DX4 100 to a Pentium75 just so I could run one instance of it.

Edited October 17 by Mark Morgon-Shaw