Guys what is the best cpu for reason?

This forum is for discussing Propellerhead's music software. Questions, answers, ideas, and opinions... all apply.
User avatar
EnochLight
Posts: 5508
Joined: 17 Jan 2015
Location: your mom

Post 26 Nov 2018

QVprod wrote:
25 Nov 2018
i7s outclass Xeons for gaming though, but the single core performance of i7s with gaming doesn't transfer over to DAW performance.
This is the exact opposite of what I've read, as well as experienced first hand. Single-core (thread) performance in gaming is literally no different that what DAW require. DAW/plugins, like games, can chew through single-threads and benefit a great deal if the CPU has high single-core/thread performance. About the only difference I've read about is that games obviously require a fast GPU as well.
Windows 10 | Reason 10.4 |  Studio One 4.5 | Asus Sabertooth Z77 | Intel i7 3770k Quad-Core @ 3.5 Ghz | 16 GB RAM | Mushkin Reactor 1TB SSD | RME Babyface Pro| Nektar Panorama P-4 | Akai MPC Live | Roland System 8 | Roland TR-8 with 7x7 Expansion

User avatar
QVprod
Posts: 2260
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

Post 26 Nov 2018

EnochLight wrote:
26 Nov 2018
QVprod wrote:
25 Nov 2018
i7s outclass Xeons for gaming though, but the single core performance of i7s with gaming doesn't transfer over to DAW performance.
This is the exact opposite of what I've read, as well as experienced first hand. Single-core (thread) performance in gaming is literally no different that what DAW require. DAW/plugins, like games, can chew through single-threads and benefit a great deal if the CPU has high single-core/thread performance. About the only difference I've read about is that games obviously require a fast GPU as well.
From what I understand, games are more reliant on single core performance. DAWs benefit more from multi core abilities. If you consider that Mac Pros have always had Xeon processors while the lesser apple models (laptops, iMacs) have had the i7 option it sort of lines up being that Pro models were aimed at markets such as video editors and pro audio.

User avatar
EnochLight
Posts: 5508
Joined: 17 Jan 2015
Location: your mom

Post 26 Nov 2018

QVprod wrote:
26 Nov 2018
EnochLight wrote:
26 Nov 2018
This is the exact opposite of what I've read, as well as experienced first hand. Single-core (thread) performance in gaming is literally no different that what DAW require. DAW/plugins, like games, can chew through single-threads and benefit a great deal if the CPU has high single-core/thread performance. About the only difference I've read about is that games obviously require a fast GPU as well.
From what I understand, games are more reliant on single core performance. DAWs benefit more from multi core abilities. If you consider that Mac Pros have always had Xeon processors while the lesser apple models (laptops, iMacs) have had the i7 option it sort of lines up being that Pro models were aimed at markets such as video editors and pro audio.
Sure, but no matter the amount of cores, single thread performance (per core) really has a positive effect on DAW/plugin count. This often translates into game performance as well (though many games aren't optimized to utilize more than 8 cores). The bottom line is, if you look at DAW bench scores, you'll find that CPU's with the fastest single thread performance tend to offer the highest count of plugins in your DAW of choice. I'm sure we can agree on that!

Here's a popular Xeon (due to its affordability on the second hand market right now). While the mutti-threaded performance is still good by today's standards (easily trouncing my old 3770K), its single-thread performance is painfully slower. Now compare it to the latest i9-9900K...

Which one would you rather have? ;)


xeon_vs_9900k.JPG
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Windows 10 | Reason 10.4 |  Studio One 4.5 | Asus Sabertooth Z77 | Intel i7 3770k Quad-Core @ 3.5 Ghz | 16 GB RAM | Mushkin Reactor 1TB SSD | RME Babyface Pro| Nektar Panorama P-4 | Akai MPC Live | Roland System 8 | Roland TR-8 with 7x7 Expansion

User avatar
QVprod
Posts: 2260
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

Post 26 Nov 2018

EnochLight wrote:
26 Nov 2018
QVprod wrote:
26 Nov 2018


From what I understand, games are more reliant on single core performance. DAWs benefit more from multi core abilities. If you consider that Mac Pros have always had Xeon processors while the lesser apple models (laptops, iMacs) have had the i7 option it sort of lines up being that Pro models were aimed at markets such as video editors and pro audio.
Sure, but no matter the amount of cores, single thread performance (per core) really has a positive effect on DAW/plugin count. This often translates into game performance as well (though many games aren't optimized to utilize more than 8 cores). The bottom line is, if you look at DAW bench scores, you'll find that CPU's with the fastest single thread performance tend to offer the highest count of plugins in your DAW of choice. I'm sure we can agree on that!

Here's a popular Xeon (due to its affordability on the second hand market right now). While the mutti-threaded performance is still good by today's standards (easily trouncing my old 3770K), its single-thread performance is painfully slower. Now compare it to the latest i9-9900K...

Which one would you rather have? ;)



Image
The Xeon in that comparison chart is a slower clock speed than the other 2 though. I would expect it to have slower performance. What would performance comparison look like with a 3.5ghz Xeon?

I'm not well versed in what comparison charts to use but I did find these; https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/I ... 317vsm7574.

i7 3770K PassMark
Xeon E5 1650 v2 PassMark

According to that the single thread performance of the i7 is only slightly faster than the Xeon of the same generation (I'm assuming) as they're both Ivy Bridge. 2083 vs 1999 yet the xeon has 42% better multicore speed which is also important as DAWs spread the processing of multiple tracks across cores. Yes I'm also aware that the Xeon in this example is a 6 core. The price difference between them seems to be less than $200.

User avatar
EnochLight
Posts: 5508
Joined: 17 Jan 2015
Location: your mom

Post 27 Nov 2018

Yeah I'd still go with the i9-9900k. That single-thread performance is absolutely through the roof.
Windows 10 | Reason 10.4 |  Studio One 4.5 | Asus Sabertooth Z77 | Intel i7 3770k Quad-Core @ 3.5 Ghz | 16 GB RAM | Mushkin Reactor 1TB SSD | RME Babyface Pro| Nektar Panorama P-4 | Akai MPC Live | Roland System 8 | Roland TR-8 with 7x7 Expansion

PeterP
Posts: 60
Joined: 26 Apr 2016
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden

Post 27 Nov 2018

You're comparing a ninth generation i9 to a third generation i7 to a second generation Xeon... There's absolutely nothing fair at all with that comparison :)

User avatar
QVprod
Posts: 2260
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

Post 27 Nov 2018

EnochLight wrote:
27 Nov 2018
Yeah I'd still go with the i9-9900k. That single-thread performance is absolutely through the roof.
To be fair, the i9 9900K is just over a month old. There's no Xeon equivalent as of yet and maybe there wont be one. I wasn't really thinking about the i9 in my comparison as it's the i7s the Xeons have mainly been compared to. If the i9 is in your budget I'd definitely say go for it.

User avatar
EnochLight
Posts: 5508
Joined: 17 Jan 2015
Location: your mom

Post 27 Nov 2018

PeterP wrote:
27 Nov 2018
You're comparing a ninth generation i9 to a third generation i7 to a second generation Xeon... There's absolutely nothing fair at all with that comparison :)
I'm not interested in fair; I'm interested in "what is the best cpu for reason?" The answer is: the absolute fastest your budget can afford. :) Anyway, the comparison was to show the progress single-thread performance has come over those generations of chips. It's been suggested in the past that buying an older affordable used Xeon was a good option. I'd counter that their performance isn't all that great.
Windows 10 | Reason 10.4 |  Studio One 4.5 | Asus Sabertooth Z77 | Intel i7 3770k Quad-Core @ 3.5 Ghz | 16 GB RAM | Mushkin Reactor 1TB SSD | RME Babyface Pro| Nektar Panorama P-4 | Akai MPC Live | Roland System 8 | Roland TR-8 with 7x7 Expansion

RandyEspoda
Posts: 242
Joined: 14 Mar 2017

Post 13 Dec 2018

That 9900K runs mighty hot though, a Dark Rock or even Noctua cannot really tame it, unless you either run it below stock or disable Turbo.
Even at stock settings, with Turbo enabled, it easily hits 90°C or even starts throttling in high demand loads.

It's been reviewed a thousand times already, to run the 9900K decently below 90°C you really need water cooling with a big *ss rad setup.

Also it seems to have an issue of the heatsink not always being perfectly flat, AND also the die, which would both need to be lapped,
in which case the temps DO get a bit better, say 10° cooler.

Check out Der8auwer's channel, also Hardware Unboxed and Gamer's Nexus for the actual tests and reviews.
I'd rather just have an 8700K optimized in clocks with a decent mobo and ram setup than this mess. Single clock still rules in DAWS,
and in that regard the 8700K does almost as good as a 9900K.

Then again, I even went AMD in stead, and still don't regret it.

User avatar
EnochLight
Posts: 5508
Joined: 17 Jan 2015
Location: your mom

Post 13 Dec 2018

RandyEspoda wrote:
13 Dec 2018
It's been reviewed a thousand times already, to run the 9900K decently below 90°C you really need water cooling with a big *ss rad setup.
:shock: :? :o

This is not what first-hand user experience has been in the DAW-world. Both Kaine (who runs Scan Pro Audio) as well as Jim over at Purrrfect Audio find the 9900K runs perfectly fine on air-cooling. Jim sells systems overclocked to 5 Ghz - all 8 cores - on air, and they don't throttle at all.

The 9900K runs almost identical to the 8086k (all cores locked at 5GHz on both CPUs). Maybe a degree warmer at idle.

https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopi ... 6&t=513167

You certainly don't need water cooling for the 9900K!
Windows 10 | Reason 10.4 |  Studio One 4.5 | Asus Sabertooth Z77 | Intel i7 3770k Quad-Core @ 3.5 Ghz | 16 GB RAM | Mushkin Reactor 1TB SSD | RME Babyface Pro| Nektar Panorama P-4 | Akai MPC Live | Roland System 8 | Roland TR-8 with 7x7 Expansion

juniper
Posts: 2
Joined: 15 Dec 2018

Post 15 Dec 2018

Just sold my MacBook 2012 i5, very very tame in terms of speed etc, was having lots of issues for a good reason.

I’m about to buy an Asus ROG that someone has put more work into

It’s got an i7 7700 hq.
16gb ram
HDD 1 tb
256 solid state
And whatever graphics card people use for games

Will the i7 7700 hq cut it?

User avatar
EnochLight
Posts: 5508
Joined: 17 Jan 2015
Location: your mom

Post 15 Dec 2018

juniper wrote:
15 Dec 2018

It’s got an i7 7700 hq.
16gb ram
HDD 1 tb
256 solid state
And whatever graphics card people use for games

Will the i7 7700 hq cut it?
It’ll perform close to how my 6+ year old desktop chip performs (just a hair slower):



639183BC-8E12-4EFF-9790-15C2676568FF.jpeg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Windows 10 | Reason 10.4 |  Studio One 4.5 | Asus Sabertooth Z77 | Intel i7 3770k Quad-Core @ 3.5 Ghz | 16 GB RAM | Mushkin Reactor 1TB SSD | RME Babyface Pro| Nektar Panorama P-4 | Akai MPC Live | Roland System 8 | Roland TR-8 with 7x7 Expansion

User avatar
candybag
Posts: 46
Joined: 26 Feb 2018
Location: Sweden

Post 18 Dec 2018

RandyEspoda wrote:
13 Dec 2018
That 9900K runs mighty hot though, a Dark Rock or even Noctua cannot really tame it, unless you either run it below stock or disable Turbo.
Even at stock settings, with Turbo enabled, it easily hits 90°C or even starts throttling in high demand loads.

It's been reviewed a thousand times already, to run the 9900K decently below 90°C you really need water cooling with a big *ss rad setup.
Sure it's hot but i don't sit around running synthetic test suites all day on a mobo with subpar MOSFETs. I could probably max out to 105 C if i kept it going for a few hours, but what's the point?

To this day, i have never seen my 9900k go above 90 on dsp heavy projects. I use the NH-D15 and some random Gigabyte auto OC between 4.7 and 5.0 GHz across all cores.

From a personal perspective it does all i ever wanted to, no hassle. I rejected Ryzen pretty early becsuse reasons.
Yamaha HS7 - HD600 - Focusrite Scarlett 2i2 - Akai MPK261 - AT2050 - Auralex Project 2™ Roominator Kit
9900K - 16 GB - 3xXB270HU - GTX 1080 ti

User avatar
EnochLight
Posts: 5508
Joined: 17 Jan 2015
Location: your mom

Post 18 Dec 2018

candybag wrote:
18 Dec 2018
To this day, i have never seen my 9900k go above 90 on dsp heavy projects. I use the NH-D15 and some random Gigabyte auto OC between 4.7 and 5.0 GHz across all cores.
The 9900K's T-Junction (maximum temperature allowed at the processor die) is 100°C, so you're perfectly fine. It likely throttles well below that, though.
Windows 10 | Reason 10.4 |  Studio One 4.5 | Asus Sabertooth Z77 | Intel i7 3770k Quad-Core @ 3.5 Ghz | 16 GB RAM | Mushkin Reactor 1TB SSD | RME Babyface Pro| Nektar Panorama P-4 | Akai MPC Live | Roland System 8 | Roland TR-8 with 7x7 Expansion

User avatar
miscend
Posts: 1235
Joined: 09 Feb 2015

Post 19 Dec 2018

AMD are due to announce new chips at the CES show. It’s looks like they’ll be significantly faster than Intel chips at the same price points. They’ll have more cores too. So if you’re planning a 2019 build it might be worth holding out for the Zen2.

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-r ... 38233.html

User avatar
EnochLight
Posts: 5508
Joined: 17 Jan 2015
Location: your mom

Post 19 Dec 2018

miscend wrote:
19 Dec 2018
AMD are due to announce new chips at the CES show. It’s looks like they’ll be significantly faster than Intel chips at the same price points. They’ll have more cores too. So if you’re planning a 2019 build it might be worth holding out for the Zen2.

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-r ... 38233.html
Really hoping they address the latency between their dies. I'm still open to building an AMD system if that's addressed.
Windows 10 | Reason 10.4 |  Studio One 4.5 | Asus Sabertooth Z77 | Intel i7 3770k Quad-Core @ 3.5 Ghz | 16 GB RAM | Mushkin Reactor 1TB SSD | RME Babyface Pro| Nektar Panorama P-4 | Akai MPC Live | Roland System 8 | Roland TR-8 with 7x7 Expansion

mech242
Posts: 1
Joined: 11 Jul 2019

Post 11 Jul 2019

Im curious to see how the Ryzen 3000 series performs in reason now that the single thread performance of the zen 2 core is so similar to intel

User avatar
EnochLight
Posts: 5508
Joined: 17 Jan 2015
Location: your mom

Post 12 Jul 2019

mech242 wrote:
11 Jul 2019
Im curious to see how the Ryzen 3000 series performs in reason now that the single thread performance of the zen 2 core is so similar to intel
I expect it to perform great, but the question remains about running audio interfaces at low sample rates/latency (which Intel seems to excel at). That's still a problem with the Zen architecture die latency, and I wonder if the speed increases will help (I doubt it, but would love to be proved wrong).

Welcome to the forums, BTW... ;)
Windows 10 | Reason 10.4 |  Studio One 4.5 | Asus Sabertooth Z77 | Intel i7 3770k Quad-Core @ 3.5 Ghz | 16 GB RAM | Mushkin Reactor 1TB SSD | RME Babyface Pro| Nektar Panorama P-4 | Akai MPC Live | Roland System 8 | Roland TR-8 with 7x7 Expansion

Retake
Posts: 17
Joined: 08 May 2018

Post 12 Jul 2019

The 3700x seems to be the sweet spot. Need more reviews/tests though.

http://www.scanproaudio.info/2019/07/12 ... ic-number/

I plan to wait a little bit before building an AMD system. It looks very promising, but I'm in no rush to be an early adopter. There's always BIOS kinks right after launch.

reggie1979
Posts: 613
Joined: 11 Apr 2019

Post 12 Jul 2019

I just hope it works at lower latencies. Seems that was a potential problem early on.

bluzdogs
Posts: 21
Joined: 17 Feb 2019

Post 12 Jul 2019

Dean wrote:
17 Oct 2018
Hey guys,
I am upgrading my pc and i am wondering what kind of cpu i should get?
I’ve heard mixed opinions about it should have more cores or it should have fast single core speed. Which is best i7 8700k i9 7900x i980 xe or something like 2950x, 2970x ryzen?
Also higher RAM helps alot right?
I read mixed opinions about that too
I'm using Core i5-6600K at stock speed with 16GB RAM. I have no issues with Reason by itself or with multiple apps running simultaneously. I must admit tho that I haven't really loaded up the Reason Rack but I've had as many as 10 tracks open with no issues at all.

User avatar
EnochLight
Posts: 5508
Joined: 17 Jan 2015
Location: your mom

Post 13 Jul 2019

reggie1979 wrote:
12 Jul 2019
I just hope it works at lower latencies. Seems that was a potential problem early on.
To be clear, all of the Ryzen/Zen generation CPU’s work 100% fine at lower latencies. It’s just that Intel chips will offer slightly more plugins at low latencies (64 samples, etc). But the difference isn’t massive IIRC...
Windows 10 | Reason 10.4 |  Studio One 4.5 | Asus Sabertooth Z77 | Intel i7 3770k Quad-Core @ 3.5 Ghz | 16 GB RAM | Mushkin Reactor 1TB SSD | RME Babyface Pro| Nektar Panorama P-4 | Akai MPC Live | Roland System 8 | Roland TR-8 with 7x7 Expansion

zagrad
Posts: 4
Joined: 09 Aug 2019

Post 09 Aug 2019

Hi guys and EnochLight in specific,

First of all: thanks for all your great help in this thread. It's helping me at least and I guess others as well.

So I just registered to this forum since you seem to know a lot about this (and I don't). I'm currently getting a DAW assembled for Reason. I'm currently looking into the details before I buy anything.
So the guy at the shop recommended a AMD Ryzen 5 3600X if I want to save some bucks.

Reading through this whole thread you seem to propagate 2 things over and over again:
- Single Thread rating is most important for DAW's
- AMD chips have this latency problem thingy

You seem to mention Intel Core i9-9900K @ 3.60GHz a lot if I've seen correctly, so I made a comparison to that one.
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/AM ... 3494vs3334

The AMD chip scores higher on the Single Thread Rating as well as the CPU Mark. Can I then conclude that the AMD chip is in fact better / faster, or does the "low latencies" thing you mention have nothing to do with those numbers?

To be clear: I also read your last comment "To be clear, all of the Ryzen/Zen generation CPU’s work 100% fine at lower latencies" and I think I'm just going with the AMD chip.
I'm just trying to understand what I'm buying and/or why I should or should not go with this AMD chip :)

BTW: If anyone has anything interesting on the full setup, please shoot :)

Case Cooler Master MasterBox K500 RGB, ATX
Motherboard Gigabyte B450 Aorus Elite, ATX, AM4, 4xD
Processor AMD Ryzen 5 3600X, 3,8GHz / 4,4GHz, 35M
SSD Intel SSD 660p, 1TB, M.2, NVMe
Graphics Gigabyte GeForce® GTX 1650, 4GB, OC
RAM G.Skill Ripjaws V 16GB(2x8GB) 3200MHz C
Power be quiet! Pure Power 11 500W, 80+ Gold
Cabels? BitFenix 3x 3-Pin Adapter 60cm Sleeved

I'm thinking about doubling the RAM to 32GB.

I'm looking forward for your insights guys.

sled9e
Posts: 4
Joined: 02 Jun 2016

Post 13 Aug 2019

I would double up at the ram , i am going sort of same route but waiting for 3900x or 3950x.shame none of them are yet available even the 3900x ain't :-( .going to be fitted on a MSI x570 prestige Creation though.
I havent decided yet on the other stuff needed

zagrad
Posts: 4
Joined: 09 Aug 2019

Post 13 Aug 2019

Thanks. Why are you waiting for the 3900x? Don't you think 3600x is fast enough?

  • Information
  • Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot] and 5 guests