Reason 8.1 & above CPU Stress Test (songfile included)!

This forum is for discussing Reason. Questions, answers, ideas, and opinions... all apply.
Ostermilk
Posts: 1535
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

14 Mar 2017

Marco Raaphorst wrote:You're all mentioning the Graphic Card when using a Mac. But Reason won't use this dedicated graphics card only the integrated one which uses CPU cycles and might cause some glitching.
Except you are overlooking one thing in your mad quest to make this known everywhere you turn up!:

That is that this is a Ryzen build there is no integrated video so Reason WILL be using a discrete video card. Besides if I was running a 6Mb 1060 GTX I probably wouldn't be enabling the mighty onboard Intel 530 graphics either.

:lol:

User avatar
Kategra
Posts: 327
Joined: 18 Jan 2015

15 Mar 2017

Did a clean Win 10 install, managed to get the DDR4 up to 2933 and CPU to 4 GHZ

REASON 8.3

CPU: AMD R7 Ryzen 1700X
Motherboard: Gigabyte B350 AB Gaming 3 with F5 BIOS , SMT=off -> 8 core, 8 threads
RAM Corssair LPX 3000Mhz in dual channel 2X8GB @2933 DDR4
Video card: MSI 1060 GTX 6GB
SSD Samsung 850 EVO 250 GB

Audio interface: RME Fireface 400 .

44,1k,1024 samples buffer, 95% CPU --> CPU OC to 4.0 Ghz all 8 cores-> 1 minute and 20 seconds (with Reason windows minimized, playing in the background, no GUI updates)

User avatar
Marco Raaphorst
Posts: 2504
Joined: 22 Jan 2015
Location: The Hague, The Netherlands
Contact:

15 Mar 2017

Ostermilk wrote:
Marco Raaphorst wrote:You're all mentioning the Graphic Card when using a Mac. But Reason won't use this dedicated graphics card only the integrated one which uses CPU cycles and might cause some glitching.
Except you are overlooking one thing in your mad quest to make this known everywhere you turn up!:

That is that this is a Ryzen build there is no integrated video so Reason WILL be using a discrete video card. Besides if I was running a 6Mb 1060 GTX I probably wouldn't be enabling the mighty onboard Intel 530 graphics either.

:lol:
On a Mac the discrete video card will almost never being used. Probably most users won't ever need it. Not even on 4K video playback. And not when using Reason.

Le Boeuf
Posts: 91
Joined: 16 Mar 2017
Location: Copenhagen
Contact:

16 Mar 2017

Hi all, im new here, but i got some interresting readings for thoose running macbook pro considering buying a desktop windows pc.

Macbook Pro 2.8 Ghz 2015
Hardware:
CPU i7 4980Q @ 4.3 Ghz
16GB 1600 MHz DDR3L SDRAM
1000 gb SSD
Balance Audio interface

Time = 49.319 Sec



Desktop pc 2017:
Hardware:
CPU i7 7700 @ 4.2 Ghz (base 3.5Ghz)
8GB 2400 MHz DDR4
512 gb SSD
Asus B250M-A Prime Motherboard
Balance Audio interface

Time = 47.647 Sec

So my new desktop pc is actually a bit slower which is really annoying, what could be the bottleneck here?
Would love some suggestions.
I did the test with no apps open on both. Im really dissapointed by the new 7700 cpu, should i change it to a 7700k, would that make the difference ?
The only good thing about the Windows pc, is that it makes no noise. the macbook pro sounded like an airplane runing this test.

User avatar
Gorgon
Posts: 1233
Joined: 11 Mar 2016

16 Mar 2017

Le Boeuf wrote: So my new desktop pc is actually a bit slower which is really annoying, what could be the bottleneck here?
16Gb RAM vs 8Gb RAM is a big difference.
"This is a block of text that can be added to posts you make. There is a 255 character limit."

Ostermilk
Posts: 1535
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

16 Mar 2017

Le Boeuf wrote:Hi all, im new here, but i got some interresting readings for thoose running macbook pro considering buying a desktop windows pc.

Macbook Pro 2.8 Ghz 2015
Hardware:
CPU i7 4980Q @ 4.3 Ghz
16GB 1600 MHz DDR3L SDRAM
1000 gb SSD
Balance Audio interface

Time = 49.319 Sec



Desktop pc 2017:
Hardware:
CPU i7 7700 @ 4.2 Ghz (base 3.5Ghz)
8GB 2400 MHz DDR4
512 gb SSD
Asus B250M-A Prime Motherboard
Balance Audio interface

Time = 47.647 Sec

So my new desktop pc is actually a bit slower which is really annoying, what could be the bottleneck here?
Would love some suggestions.
I did the test with no apps open on both. Im really dissapointed by the new 7700 cpu, should i change it to a 7700k, would that make the difference ?
The only good thing about the Windows pc, is that it makes no noise. the macbook pro sounded like an airplane runing this test.
What is the price difference between a MBP and an Window I7 7700 box running on a B250 Mb?

You say the MacBook is a 2.8 Ghz 2015 but you then say the 4980Q is running @ 4.3Ghz and the i7 at stock speeds (which it will have to be running that chip on a B250 chipset board) is running pretty much on a par with the MacBook. Those results are pretty much what I would expect in that case.

If you wanted the Kaby Lake chip to smoke the MBP then you'd have certainly been better of with the 7700K on a z270 board then with that chip clocked at the same speed as the Mac you'd have certainly seen better results. Case in point I'm running an i5 6600k @ 4.3 Ghz and I'm getting 53 seconds even out of that.

Bear in mind also that around the 50 second mark is going to be plenty good enough to make loads of great music without having to be THAT careful with your resources, even if like me you don't win the most bad ass computer on the forum award. My box cost me around £500 to build and that's a pretty good bang for buck ratio as far as I can tell, as apart from running this test I can't remember the last time I saw the 'Computer too slow..." message.

User avatar
Bonkhead
Posts: 335
Joined: 18 Jan 2015

16 Mar 2017

Kategra wrote:
Bonkhead wrote:Anybody got some Ryzen cpu's nearby to test already ?
CPU: AMD R7 Ryzen 1700X
thanks ! :thumbs_up:

Le Boeuf
Posts: 91
Joined: 16 Mar 2017
Location: Copenhagen
Contact:

17 Mar 2017

Gorgon wrote:
Le Boeuf wrote: So my new desktop pc is actually a bit slower which is really annoying, what could be the bottleneck here?
16Gb RAM vs 8Gb RAM is a big difference.

I have to disagree here, in this particular song it never used more than 4 gbs of ram. I could be wrong tho.

Le Boeuf
Posts: 91
Joined: 16 Mar 2017
Location: Copenhagen
Contact:

17 Mar 2017

Ostermilk wrote:
Le Boeuf wrote:Hi all, im new here, but i got some interresting readings for thoose running macbook pro considering buying a desktop windows pc.

Macbook Pro 2.8 Ghz 2015
Hardware:
CPU i7 4980Q @ 4.3 Ghz
16GB 1600 MHz DDR3L SDRAM
1000 gb SSD
Balance Audio interface

Time = 49.319 Sec



Desktop pc 2017:
Hardware:
CPU i7 7700 @ 4.2 Ghz (base 3.5Ghz)
8GB 2400 MHz DDR4
512 gb SSD
Asus B250M-A Prime Motherboard
Balance Audio interface

Time = 47.647 Sec

So my new desktop pc is actually a bit slower which is really annoying, what could be the bottleneck here?
Would love some suggestions.
I did the test with no apps open on both. Im really dissapointed by the new 7700 cpu, should i change it to a 7700k, would that make the difference ?
The only good thing about the Windows pc, is that it makes no noise. the macbook pro sounded like an airplane runing this test.
What is the price difference between a MBP and an Window I7 7700 box running on a B250 Mb?

You say the MacBook is a 2.8 Ghz 2015 but you then say the 4980Q is running @ 4.3Ghz and the i7 at stock speeds (which it will have to be running that chip on a B250 chipset board) is running pretty much on a par with the MacBook. Those results are pretty much what I would expect in that case.

If you wanted the Kaby Lake chip to smoke the MBP then you'd have certainly been better of with the 7700K on a z270 board then with that chip clocked at the same speed as the Mac you'd have certainly seen better results. Case in point I'm running an i5 6600k @ 4.3 Ghz and I'm getting 53 seconds even out of that.

Bear in mind also that around the 50 second mark is going to be plenty good enough to make loads of great music without having to be THAT careful with your resources, even if like me you don't win the most bad ass computer on the forum award. My box cost me around £500 to build and that's a pretty good bang for buck ratio as far as I can tell, as apart from running this test I can't remember the last time I saw the 'Computer too slow..." message.

Sorry mate, the MBK Pro is called 2.8 Ghz, maybe that is the base freq? but with turbo speed at 4.0 Ghz and not 4.3. my bad!

What do you think i would get the best result for in reason then?
Changing it to a 7700k and a z270 Motherboard or something?
Or going with an 6800k and Asus X99-A II.

Im really not into computer hardware as you may have noticed by now, i just want something that works flawless :-)

User avatar
Kategra
Posts: 327
Joined: 18 Jan 2015

17 Mar 2017

Go with the i7 6800K, with a good silent cooler like Noctua NH15 -D, X99 board and 16GB ram.
It should give you more play time than 1 minute and 10 seconds without overclocking the CPU. I won't be surprised if it actually plays 1 minute and 25 seconds, or the whole song if you overclock the CPU.
Last edited by Kategra on 17 Mar 2017, edited 1 time in total.

Le Boeuf
Posts: 91
Joined: 16 Mar 2017
Location: Copenhagen
Contact:

17 Mar 2017

Kategra wrote:Go with the i7 6800K, with a good silent cooler like Noctua NH15 -D, X99 board and 16GB ram.
It should give you more play time than 1 minute and 10 seconds withouth overclocking the CPU . I won't be surprized if it actualy plays 1 minute and 25 seconds, or the whole song if you overclock the CPU.
Thank you mate, really appreciate the insights

User avatar
Gorgon
Posts: 1233
Joined: 11 Mar 2016

17 Mar 2017

Le Boeuf wrote:
Gorgon wrote:
Le Boeuf wrote: So my new desktop pc is actually a bit slower which is really annoying, what could be the bottleneck here?
16Gb RAM vs 8Gb RAM is a big difference.

I have to disagree here, in this particular song it never used more than 4 gbs of ram. I could be wrong tho.
Fine, disagree then. :puf_bigsmile:
"This is a block of text that can be added to posts you make. There is a 255 character limit."

User avatar
Marco Raaphorst
Posts: 2504
Joined: 22 Jan 2015
Location: The Hague, The Netherlands
Contact:

17 Mar 2017

Le Boeuf wrote:
Gorgon wrote:
Le Boeuf wrote: So my new desktop pc is actually a bit slower which is really annoying, what could be the bottleneck here?
16Gb RAM vs 8Gb RAM is a big difference.

I have to disagree here, in this particular song it never used more than 4 gbs of ram. I could be wrong tho.
I am using a Mac and the amount of memory used when running this song, including OSX etc, is 8,85 GB. I have 16 GB available but on OSX 8 GB is absolutely not enough for serious audio in my opinion.

Le Boeuf
Posts: 91
Joined: 16 Mar 2017
Location: Copenhagen
Contact:

17 Mar 2017

Marco Raaphorst wrote:
Le Boeuf wrote:
Gorgon wrote:
Le Boeuf wrote: So my new desktop pc is actually a bit slower which is really annoying, what could be the bottleneck here?
16Gb RAM vs 8Gb RAM is a big difference.

I have to disagree here, in this particular song it never used more than 4 gbs of ram. I could be wrong tho.
I am using a Mac and the amount of memory used when running this song, including OSX etc, is 8,85 GB. I have 16 GB available but on OSX 8 GB is absolutely not enough for serious audio in my opinion.
I know it is not enough, i was going to order some more later on. but it was not the bottleneck for me here at 46 sek at least. So i returned the pc and ordered one With a 6800k and 16 GB ram. #RamMathers i know :geek: :-)

User avatar
Kategra
Posts: 327
Joined: 18 Jan 2015

17 Mar 2017

Le Boeuf wrote:
--------------------------- So i returned the pc and ordered one With a 6800k and 16 GB ram. #RamMathers i know :geek: :-)
Don't forget to post the result here of the i7 6800K playing the benchmak song :puf_smile:

Ostermilk
Posts: 1535
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

17 Mar 2017

Le Boeuf wrote:
I know it is not enough, i was going to order some more later on. but it was not the bottleneck for me here at 46 sek at least. So i returned the pc and ordered one With a 6800k and 16 GB ram. #RamMathers i know :geek: :-)
A wise choice I think you'll be happier with that.

User avatar
Dante
Posts: 531
Joined: 06 Jun 2015
Location: Australia
Contact:

18 Mar 2017

Intel i7 4790 on ASUS Z87 @3.6 GHz - not overclocked
. RAM 16GB
. Audio Interface - Sonic Core XITE-1D - set to 25ms latency - buffer 1024 samples
. Sample rate 44100Hz
. CPU Usage 95%
. R8 Playback stops bar 24.4 - time 47.5 seconds
. R9 Playback stops bar 23.2 - time 44.5 seconds

To me this looks like around a 5% loss between R8 and R9 - has anyone else tested R8 vs R9 ?

User avatar
bjmatt
Posts: 25
Joined: 05 May 2015
Location: Budapest

20 Mar 2017

Reason 9
CPU: Intel i7 7700K @ 4.2GHz (no overclocking)
RAM: Crucial 8GB DDR4 2400MHz Ballistix Sport
Soundcard: Focusrite Solo, 44100Hz, 1024 samples
CPU usage limit @ 95%
playback stops @ 24.4.1.193 / 0:00:47:601

I was expecting a little more from this config, any ideas for improvement?

Le Boeuf
Posts: 91
Joined: 16 Mar 2017
Location: Copenhagen
Contact:

20 Mar 2017

bjmatt wrote:Reason 9
CPU: Intel i7 7700K @ 4.2GHz (no overclocking)
RAM: Crucial 8GB DDR4 2400MHz Ballistix Sport
Soundcard: Focusrite Solo, 44100Hz, 1024 samples
CPU usage limit @ 95%
playback stops @ 24.4.1.193 / 0:00:47:601

I was expecting a little more from this config, any ideas for improvement?
Did you try at 4096 samples as the test says?
I had the 7700 non k and got to 46 sek aswell, but i also only had 8 gbs of ram.

Le Boeuf
Posts: 91
Joined: 16 Mar 2017
Location: Copenhagen
Contact:

20 Mar 2017

So i got the new PC today and was rushing to test it :D

Intel® Core™ i7-6800K 6x3.4GHz(Turbo 3.6GHz) 15MB cache
Asus X99-A II Motherboard
Kingston 16GB DDR4-2400
Balance
Windows 10

And was i excited to see that it played the whole song at 4096 samples with no stops, yay!
Even without overclocking. The 6800K is really bang for the buck.
Even at 1024 samples with 13 ms lag, which i would still be able to play with. It goes almost to the end of the track. Maybe it would nail it with some OC.

User avatar
bjmatt
Posts: 25
Joined: 05 May 2015
Location: Budapest

20 Mar 2017

Le Boeuf wrote:
bjmatt wrote:Reason 9
CPU: Intel i7 7700K @ 4.2GHz (no overclocking)
RAM: Crucial 8GB DDR4 2400MHz Ballistix Sport
Soundcard: Focusrite Solo, 44100Hz, 1024 samples
CPU usage limit @ 95%
playback stops @ 24.4.1.193 / 0:00:47:601

I was expecting a little more from this config, any ideas for improvement?
Did you try at 4096 samples as the test says?
I had the 7700 non k and got to 46 sek aswell, but i also only had 8 gbs of ram.
Nah, 1024 is the maximum with Focusrite ASIO. But something's weird, i've just tried it again, and it played through the whole song, but with lots of crackling after ~50-55 seconds. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

User avatar
Kategra
Posts: 327
Joined: 18 Jan 2015

20 Mar 2017

Le Boeuf wrote:So i got the new PC today and was rushing to test it :D

Intel® Core™ i7-6800K 6x3.4GHz(Turbo 3.6GHz) 15MB cache
Asus X99-A II Motherboard
Kingston 16GB DDR4-2400
Balance
Windows 10

And was i excited to see that it played the whole song at 4096 samples with no stops, yay!
Even without overclocking. The 6800K is really bang for the buck.
Even at 1024 samples with 13 ms lag, which i would still be able to play with. It goes almost to the end of the track. Maybe it would nail it with some OC.
That's great!
I'm contemplating now if I should return my AMD Ryzen CPU & mobo and get the i7 6800k instead!

User avatar
Carly(Poohbear)
Competition Winner
Posts: 2871
Joined: 25 Jan 2015
Location: UK

20 Mar 2017

bjmatt wrote:
Le Boeuf wrote:
bjmatt wrote:Reason 9
CPU: Intel i7 7700K @ 4.2GHz (no overclocking)
RAM: Crucial 8GB DDR4 2400MHz Ballistix Sport
Soundcard: Focusrite Solo, 44100Hz, 1024 samples
CPU usage limit @ 95%
playback stops @ 24.4.1.193 / 0:00:47:601

I was expecting a little more from this config, any ideas for improvement?
Did you try at 4096 samples as the test says?
I had the 7700 non k and got to 46 sek aswell, but i also only had 8 gbs of ram.
Nah, 1024 is the maximum with Focusrite ASIO. But something's weird, i've just tried it again, and it played through the whole song, but with lots of crackling after ~50-55 seconds. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Did you still have the CPU usage limit on? (as the result you are describing sounds like it was switched off)..

User avatar
gak
Posts: 2840
Joined: 05 Feb 2015

21 Mar 2017

Le Boeuf wrote:So i got the new PC today and was rushing to test it :D

Intel® Core™ i7-6800K 6x3.4GHz(Turbo 3.6GHz) 15MB cache
Asus X99-A II Motherboard
Kingston 16GB DDR4-2400
Balance
Windows 10

And was i excited to see that it played the whole song at 4096 samples with no stops, yay!
Even without overclocking. The 6800K is really bang for the buck.
Even at 1024 samples with 13 ms lag, which i would still be able to play with. It goes almost to the end of the track. Maybe it would nail it with some OC.
I hate you :lol:

User avatar
gak
Posts: 2840
Joined: 05 Feb 2015

21 Mar 2017

The Ryzen just isn't the shizzle. It just isn't. I'm sorry for people that have it, but it's not the intel-killer it's hyped to be.

@9 vs 8, etc:

Yep. Noticed right away when trying 9 that it is less efficient. In fact, from 8 to 8.3 it got less efficient each update.

Have no idea why, but same computer, same specs, so.

Post Reply
  • Information
  • Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests