CPU Question.

[Shane_B.]

I posted this in the proper sub forum but didn't get a response, so I'll try here.

I'm just beginning to research CPU's seriously for the first time since I built my i7-6700k based system. Its not supported by Win 11 so its time to start looking before Win 10 reaches the end.

I see the new Core Ultra chips are the latest, but the benchmarks I'm seeing are basically showing the i9-14900k's are almost equal performance wise and cost far less than the top Core Ultra.

The 14900k is older now though. Is there any reason not to consider it for a new build?

Ozone 9 Advanced really struggles on my 6700K. Will I see an improvement on a 14900k?

Thanks for any input.

Edited March 12 by Shane_B.
Fixed typo.

[Mark Morgon-Shaw]

1 hour ago, Shane_B. said:

Ozone 9 Advanced really struggles on my 6700K. Will I see an improvement on a 14900k?

Yeah should be a huge improvement but there were loads of reports of stability issues with that chip so maybe do some research to see if things have improved or look at something like a Ryzen 7950x

 

[timboalogo]

I went to the "12th Gen Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-12700K  3.60 GHz" with 32 gigs of RAM and SSDs last year or so and couldn't believe the difference. I can load a zillion synths and effects without a hitch. There is an upper limit though, where things start to stutter but I can load way more software than I used to before this happens.

I find the newer software is more graphics intensive (Ozone 9). The onboard Intel graphics suits my needs but you may need a dedicated graphics card, but good ones are expensive.

I did a lot of research before my last build, including posting at tomshardware and although they don't know DAWs, they know enough to help. In fact they talked me out of the i9 to the i7.

I suppose it's up to how much of a risk you want to take with the ultra chips.

Hope this helps!

Timbo

[Pragi]

37 minutes ago, timboalogo said:

went to the "12th Gen Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-12700K  3.60 GHz" with 32 gigs of RAM and SSDs last year or so and couldn't believe the difference.

Same here.

The issue reports of the intel 13. and 14. CPU Generation are according to experts like

Jim Roseberry : overrated.

have a look at Jims tips for the configuration :

 

 

I've built scores of machines using 13th and 14th Gen CPUs.

If you know how to configure them... they're certainly not a problem.

 

Especially if you're talking about the i9 13900k or 14900k, they're not what I'd call a "novice-build".

If you just set everything to "Auto" and set memory to XMP Profile 1/2, you're going to have a machine that thermal-throttles under heavy loads... and will most likely be unstable (especially if using faster DDR5).

Proper BIOS configuration will prevent thermal-throttling, instability, and potentially damaging the CPU.

Edited March 13 by Pragi

[kitekrazy1]

34 minutes ago, timboalogo said:

I went to the "12th Gen Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-12700K  3.60 GHz" with 32 gigs of RAM and SSDs last year or so and couldn't believe the difference. I can load a zillion synths and effects without a hitch. There is an upper limit though, where things start to stutter but I can load way more software than I used to before this happens.

I find the newer software is more graphics intensive (Ozone 9). The onboard Intel graphics suits my needs but you may need a dedicated graphics card, but good ones are expensive.

I did a lot of research before my last build, including posting at tomshardware and although they don't know DAWs, they know enough to help. In fact they talked me out of the i9 to the i7.

I suppose it's up to how much of a risk you want to take with the ultra chips.

Hope this helps!

Timbo

Sounds nice esoecially if one is too look for a budget build.  This CPU is under $200

[kitekrazy1]

So much of this now is becoming a rocket science.  I find it confusing with these Intel cores.

AMD seems easier. I still think of replacing my rarely used AMD FX6300 with an AMD 8 core 64 watt system.

The reality for me is doing get carried away with wanting muscle car performance.  I don't ever need to be able to run 200 tracks when I rarely reach 30. Overhead that I will never use. 

You have to wonder if MS doesn't change their mind with the TMP requirement when people stay on W10 past it's existence.  Then there are 3rd party developers who can risk  a loss with W11 as a minimum requirement.    That would probably turn more people to using Reaper.   

No more updates from using W10 doesn't worry me.  In the software world the amount bad updates seems to increase using something. 

[Shane_B.]

I've been doing a lot of reading on these Gen 14 cpus. I definitely don't want to go with the new Ultra cpus. The cost/benefit factor doesn't add up. From what I read they run on a lot less power, but are barely faster than the Gen 14's. 

I'm leaning toward the i7 now. It has the same amount of P cores as the i9 and faster, which is what's important for daw's.

Three interesting things I've read.

1. One of the problems with Gen 14 was bad chips that oxidized on the inside. That's been fixed.

2. All BIOS's overclock them even when set not to. You have to manually set them up and you have to do it immediately.  Once they run for a while at the wrong settings they are permanently damaged. That wouldn't be a problem for me because I never overclock and always go in and manually override the cpu and memory swttings to base specs.

3. You can continue to safely use Win 10 after it's end of life. You can buy security updates yearly for it but you only get security updates. No new features or bug fixes.

I have an RTX 3060 12GB video card. I only play one game and not very often anymore. I like Fallout. A 3060 is overkill I think for DAW ussage so I think I'll be very happy if I go with the i7. I see no need for the i9. I'll mainly use my PC as a DAW, Word and Excel, and very very light gaming. I do just fine with the light photo and video editing I do with my current i7 6700k so I think I'll be in good shape with the i7 14700k.

[Shane_B.]

Here's a question I can't find an answer to.

If you have a PCIe Gen 5 mobo, you only get one Gen 5 GPU slot and one Gen 5 M.2 Drive slot. The rest are Gen 4, if the mobo even has more than one m.2 slot.

The Gen 5 GPU slot and the first Gen 5 m.2 slot are shared and have direct lines to the CPU. If there are any other m.2 slots they are Gen 4 and have their own processor.

On every PCIe Gen 5 mobo I've found, if you have the Gen 5 GPU and first M.2 slot filled (Gen 5), your CPU lanes are split between the two slowing them both down.

My question is after explaining all that lol, If you have a PCIe Gen 4 only mobo, a Gen 4 GPU and a Gen 4 m.2 drive, does it still get split, or are both directly connected to the cpu equally? I can't seem to find an answer anywhere.

[Shane_B.]

Still haven't found a solid answer. What I have found is, in the price range I'm looking at I can't find a single mobo that has all the same gen pcie slots and it makes sense after really reading up on it.

PCIe 4 has gpu and 1st m.2 slot shared Gen 4, and any others are Gen 3. Gen 5s have shared Gen 5 gpu and 1st m.2 slot and the rest Gen 4.

So, what I'll do is get Gen 5 so it's a little future proof for future gpu's and use the Gen 4 m.2 slots for drives.

I can't imagine any of it really matters. I've never had a single issue running anything DAW related on my old 6700 except for having to freeze Ozone from time to time.

[57Gregy]

35 minutes ago, Shane_B. said:

Still haven't found a solid answer. What I have found is, in the price range I'm looking at I can't find a single mobo that has all the same gen pcie slots and it makes sense after really reading up on it.

PCIe 4 has gpu and 1st m.2 slot shared Gen 4, and any others are Gen 3. Gen 5s have shared Gen 5 gpu and 1st m.2 slot and the rest Gen 4.

So, what I'll do is get Gen 5 so it's a little future proof for future gpu's and use the Gen 4 m.2 slots for drives.

I can't imagine any of it really matters. I've never had a single issue running anything DAW related on my old 6700 except for having to freeze Ozone from time to time.

Bub, did you see Jim's response in Computers?

[Pragi]

6 hours ago, Shane_B. said:

Still haven't found a solid answer. What I have found is, in the price range I'm looking at I can't find a single mobo that has all the same gen pcie slots and it makes sense after really reading up on it.

PCIe 4 has gpu and 1st m.2 slot shared Gen 4, and any others are Gen 3. Gen 5s have shared Gen 5 gpu and 1st m.2 slot and the rest Gen 4.

So, what I'll do is get Gen 5 so it's a little future proof for future gpu's and use the Gen 4 m.2 slots for drives.

I can't imagine any of it really matters. I've never had a single issue running anything DAW related on my old 6700 except for having to freeze Ozone from time to time.

How about to send a pm to Jim  ?

Til now I noticed him always as  helpful.

Edited March 18 by Pragi

[Shane_B.]

10 hours ago, 57Gregy said:

Bub, did you see Jim's response in Computers?

No I didn't. That's weird. I never got a notification there was a reply to that thread. I will check. Thanks for letting me know!

[Jim Roseberry]

I was just going to chime-in...  😉

Here's my response from the other thread... and I've added a bit more.

 

The 14900k is a fine performer.

You need large top-tier AIO cooling (forget air coolers).

I'd recommend top-tier AIO cooling for all three of the CPUs mentioned below.

 

The Core Ultra 9 285k is slightly faster... and at lower TDP (heat).

Using Cinebench R23 Multi-Core test for comparison:

• 14900k scores ~38712
• Core Ultra 9 285k scores ~42620
• 9950x scores ~42871

 

The AMD 9950x slightly outperforms the Core Ultra 9 285k.

 

14900k is a bit over $400

9950x is a bit over $500

Core Ultra 9 285k is ~$600

 

The Core Ultra 9 has a couple of advantages:

• Lower TDP (lower temps)
• Some reasonably priced Z890 motherboards come stock with a single Thunderbolt port.  That's enough for most users... and it's considerably less expensive than a high-end board with TB (typically $600-$1000)... or having to use an AIC.

If you don't need the power of the Core Ultra 9 CPU, the Core Ultra 7 265k is about the same price as the 14700k.

Edited March 18 by Jim Roseberry

[Shane_B.]

The base/default speed for ram on the system I'm looking to build is 5600Mhz max. I can't find 5600 with a decent latency but I did find 6000/CL30.

Can the 6000 be safely underclocked to 5600 and will it negatively effect latency?

[Pragi]

Yes, the 6000 MHz RAM can generally be underclocked to 5600 MHz, and it won't negatively affect latency. Here's why:

Underclocking RAM: When you underclock RAM (lower its speed from 6000 MHz to 5600 MHz), the memory will operate at the lower frequency without any significant issues. 

If you're trying to manually adjust the memory settings (speed and latency), make sure to test for stability.

While underclocking may not affect latency directly, it's a good idea to make sure your motherboard and BIOS/UEFI settings allow for the adjustment you want.

Overall, underclocking the 6000 MHz RAM to 5600 MHz should be fine and will not negatively affect latency.

 

[Shane_B.]

8 hours ago, Pragi said:

Yes, the 6000 MHz RAM can generally be underclocked to 5600 MHz, and it won't negatively affect latency.

Thank you!

I'm getting frustrated. The motherboard I'm looking at natively supports 5600 DDR5 and 3 other lower speeds. 6000 requires XMP and I don't want to use that.

I'm also finding that all stated speeds, such as 5600 or 6000 are their tested overclocked speeds. Every one I've found actually runs natively at 4800, and it's usually only listed when you download and read the spec sheets.

All I want is native 5600 CL30 or lower RAM but it doesn't seem to exist.

I want to stick with Kingston and they seem to be the clearest/most honest about their specs. We used to use Corsair at work and I used it at home for a while and it never lasted. We switched to Kingston and I can honestly say that in 20 years at work I've never had a bad stick of Kingston ram and my last 3 builds at home all had it and I never had an issue.

G.Skill shows the exact ram in looking for on their site, but when you dig deep it says it's actually 4800 and you have to use xmp to get the "listed" speed.

[Pragi]

I totally understand your frustration!

It can be really tricky navigating RAM specifications, especially when it comes to native speeds versus overclocked speeds. It sounds like you have a solid preference for Kingston, given your positive experiences over the years.

Finding native 5600 CL30 RAM can indeed be a challenge, as many manufacturers list their overclocked speeds prominently, which can be misleading. If you're set on Kingston, it might be worth reaching out to their customer support or checking their forums to see if they have any recommendations for RAM that meets your criteria.
 

[Shane_B.]

Straight from the horses mouth ....

"Hello Shane,

The JEDEC standard timing for DDR5 5600MT/s is CL46. anything outside of that would be considered overclocking."

They replied again and said it is confusing and as long as the Expo or XMP logo is somewhere, they can advertise whatever speed they want with the risk of instability.

That said, I've yet to find anything actually 5600. It all seems to be overclocked with a default of 4800. It's odd, because the motherboards say they support 5600 native. I must be misunderstanding something and maybe it is actually available and I just can't find it.

I've been perfectly fine with my 6700K and 48Gb of Kingston Value RAM. That has to be CL50 or more.