Ableton Forum

Finally time to upgrade my circa 2009 desktop; me thinks.
Looks like the intel cpu choices are either an i7 quad core Haswell running at 4.0ghz = $340.
or the new entry-level Haswell i7 6-core @ 3.3 = $400

question is 20% more dollars for 50% more cpu core action ?

what think you ?

Go full yolo now that you have the money. Don't want to refrain on spending for the good stuff and then realize you spent the 60 bucks difference in shit you didn't need.

You could get the 6 core and overclock with Aftermarket cooler. From 3.3 to 4.0 wont be hard.

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

This site will answer you.

Intel Core i7-4930K @ 3.40GHz would be the best purchase for the price

Higher core clock speed is better than number of cores for Live.

timothyallan wrote:Higher core clock speed is better than number of cores for Live.

but the plugins! the plugins!!

Clock speed can be changed, numbee of cores is permanent.

H20nly wrote:

timothyallan wrote:Higher core clock speed is better than number of cores for Live.

but the plugins! the plugins!!

But the problems with multithreading audio, the problems with multithreading audio!!

^ glad I stimulated some conversation here but you cats are as clear as mud

are you saying that faster cpu clock speed is better for LIVE, not better for VST use ?

are you also implying that more cores = more hyperthreading issues (whatever that means) ?

pretend I'm a total idiot on the subject please . . .

peace

Mister Natural wrote:^ glad I stimulated some conversation here but you cats are as clear as mud

are you saying that faster cpu clock speed is better for LIVE, not better for VST use ?

are you also implying that more cores = more hyperthreading issues (whatever that means) ?

pretend I'm a total idiot on the subject please . . .

peace

I had a 12 core Mac Pro 2.6. My new quad core i7 2.6 rMBP matches or outperforms the 12 core because, (apart from appearing to have the same core speed), it's actually faster per core because of the CPU type. Live, and thus, VST's/AUs as well don't utilize massive amounts of cores well. I would get crackles at 1024 buffer when each core was showing about 12% usage. From what I understand, audio streams can't be split across cores very easily without crackling/mucking up the stream.

TL;DR I get much better performance with Live using 70% of each of my 4 physical cores then I ever did with Live only using 10% of my 12 physical cores. So make sure your cores are as fast as possible if you want a nice glitch free, low latency experience.

timothyallan wrote:Higher core clock speed is better than number of cores for Live.

The best processor on the market right now is Intel Xeon E5-2697 v2 @ 2.70Ghz

and it's not the highest clock speed.

Also, I have iStat Menus, and by running Live 9.1.4, I see that all 4 cores are equally sought, telling me that Live uses all cores equally.

lapieuvre wrote:

timothyallan wrote:Higher core clock speed is better than number of cores for Live.

The best processor on the market right now is Intel Xeon E5-2697 v2 @ 2.70Ghz

and it's not the highest clock speed.

Also, I have iStat Menus, and by running Live 9.1.4, I see that all 4 cores are equally sought, telling me that Live uses all cores equally.

Sure, which is pretty much what I typed above. The Xeon series is the cream of the crop and therefore, even though only having a clock speed of 2.7, will outperform many other chips at the same clock speed. Actually, clock speed comparison between CPU's has become irrelevant over the years since not everyone is running a Pentium anymore. You have to do a bit of digging to see what it will perform at compared to other chip types.

BTW my 12 Core was Xeon based as well, and this i7 Quad still outperforms with audio apps. Video/Rendering etc is a totally different ballgame however... the Xeons smoked this i7.

Love your work PR

lapieuvre wrote: Also, I have iStat Menus, and by running Live 9.1.4, I see that all 4 cores are equally sought, telling me that Live uses all cores equally.

it's not that simple. using multiple cores in parallel is not straightforward, especially for tasks with tight real-time constraints. splitting work across multiple cores, and keeping everything in sync is a big problem...