Reason 9.5 & above CPU Stress Tests (2017, two different songfiles included)!

This forum is for discussing Propellerhead's music software. Questions, answers, ideas, and opinions... all apply.
User avatar
aeox
Posts: 2198
Joined: 23 Feb 2017

Post 30 May 2017

Complex

37.686 seconds @ 1024 samples and 56.842 seconds @ 16384 samples

CPU usage limit set in Reason 9.5 = 95%
Sample rate = 44,100 Hz
Buffer length = 1024 samples (not max)

Hardware:
x2 Xeon E5-2670s ($52.00 USD each, the motherboard was $175.00 USD for anyone wondering)
RAM 16 GB Dual Kit 1333 MHz ECC DDR3
Behringer UMC404HD

buffer length = 1024 samples

Image

max buffer length = 16384 samples (I usually keep it at 8192 samples)

Image
Last edited by aeox on 11 Jul 2017, edited 1 time in total.
Random songs/ideas go here:

User avatar
Kategra
Posts: 288
Joined: 18 Jan 2015

Post 30 May 2017

aeox wrote:37.686 seconds @ 1024 samples and 56.842 seconds @ 16384 samples

Hardware:
x2 Xeon E5-2670s ($52.00 USD each, the motherboard was $175.00 USD for anyone wondering)
That is an insane Performance per $ ratio!!! How about the cooling? Can it be silent?

User avatar
aeox
Posts: 2198
Joined: 23 Feb 2017

Post 30 May 2017

Kategra wrote:
aeox wrote:37.686 seconds @ 1024 samples and 56.842 seconds @ 16384 samples

Hardware:
x2 Xeon E5-2670s ($52.00 USD each, the motherboard was $175.00 USD for anyone wondering)
That is an insane Performance per $ ratio!!! How about the cooling? Can it be silent?
it's cooled with x2 Hyper 212 EVOs. ( i'm sure there are quieter options out there, these were just cheap)

it's under my desk and i can hear it, but it's not really noticeable to me. i guess it would depend on what silent means to you, because i never really even thought about it or really noticed.
Random songs/ideas go here:

User avatar
Kategra
Posts: 288
Joined: 18 Jan 2015

Post 30 May 2017

aeox wrote:
it's cooled with x2 Hyper 212 EVOs. ( i'm sure there are quieter options out there, these were just cheap)

it's under my desk and i can hear it, but it's not really noticeable to me. i guess it would depend on what silent means to you, because i never really even thought about it or really noticed.
I thought that all the server cases are using custom cooling and off the shelf PC coolers won't fit in them because they are too tall. Do you have a tall server case?

User avatar
aeox
Posts: 2198
Joined: 23 Feb 2017

Post 30 May 2017

Kategra wrote:
aeox wrote:
it's cooled with x2 Hyper 212 EVOs. ( i'm sure there are quieter options out there, these were just cheap)

it's under my desk and i can hear it, but it's not really noticeable to me. i guess it would depend on what silent means to you, because i never really even thought about it or really noticed.
I thought that all the server cases are using custom cooling and off the shelf PC coolers won't fit in them because they are too tall. Do you have a tall server case?
the case i'm using is the Phanteks Enthoo Pro Full Tower.

it's one of the few cases that fit a dual socket server motherboard into without any modding, the thing is pretty huge though :D
Random songs/ideas go here:

User avatar
alex
Posts: 397
Joined: 16 Jan 2015
Location: Italy

Post 30 May 2017

Here's my tests.

PC Configuration
CPU: i7 6800k @3,4GHz (stock speed, no overclock)
MB: ASUS X99-A II (1504 BIOS/UEFI)
RAM: 32G 4x8G DDR4 quad channel, Corsair Vengeance LPX @2133Mhz (stock speed, no XMP)
GPU: NVIDIA GTX1060 Gainward Phoenix GS 6G
SSD: EVO850, 250GB (Windows 10)
SSD: EVO500, 500GB (DATA+Reason Stuff)
Audio Card: RME Babyface 1st GEN USB 2.0
O.S.: Windows 10 Pro 64bit

- 27 secs with buffer size @2048 (max allowed value)
Image

- 24,5 secs with buffer size @1024
Image

Other than the common audio/DAW optimizations, here's some Win 10 things that I uninstalled or disabled:
- cortana
- onedrive
- windows update
- windows defender
- ethernet and wifi devices
The best things happen after reading the manual. ;)
:reason: :re: :refill: :ignition:

User avatar
Kategra
Posts: 288
Joined: 18 Jan 2015

Post 30 May 2017

aeox wrote:
Kategra wrote:
aeox wrote:
it's cooled with x2 Hyper 212 EVOs. ( i'm sure there are quieter options out there, these were just cheap)

it's under my desk and i can hear it, but it's not really noticeable to me. i guess it would depend on what silent means to you, because i never really even thought about it or really noticed.
I thought that all the server cases are using custom cooling and off the shelf PC coolers won't fit in them because they are too tall. Do you have a tall server case?
the case i'm using is the Phanteks Enthoo Pro Full Tower.

it's one of the few cases that fit a dual socket server motherboard into without any modding, the thing is pretty huge though :D
Thanks for the info! I did not knew cases like yours actually exist;

Cheers!

User avatar
Kategra
Posts: 288
Joined: 18 Jan 2015

Post 30 May 2017

alex wrote:Here's my tests.

PC Configuration
CPU: i7 6800k @3,4GHz (stock speed, no overclock)
MB: ASUS X99-A II (1504 BIOS/UEFI)
RAM: 32G 4x8G DDR4 quad channel, Corsair Vengeance LPX @2133Mhz (stock speed, no XMP)

Audio Card: RME Babyface 1st GEN USB 2.0
O.S.: Windows 10 Pro 64bit


- 24,5 secs with buffer size @1024


Other than the common audio/DAW optimizations, here's some Win 10 things that I uninstalled or disabled:
- cortana
- onedrive
- windows update
- windows defender
- ethernet and wifi devices
When I have time, I'll try to do the same tweaks to the OS as you did to see if it makes a difference.

Thank you all for sharing your results!

mrnicehat
Posts: 17
Joined: 03 Mar 2017

Post 30 May 2017

Hi Kategra,

1min and 21seconds on "Reason 9.5 Benchmark"
samplebuffer 1024@44100Hz.
babyface pro.
on 2x2630 Broadwell-EP(20 physical cores)
i don't know if this is good.
If I enable hyper-threading I can play zero seconds.
Seems that there is problem how reason handles multicore.
Especially with vsts support.

Maybe you can help me out here:

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=7501446

User avatar
Kategra
Posts: 288
Joined: 18 Jan 2015

Post 30 May 2017

mrnicehat wrote:Hi Kategra,

1min and 21seconds on "Reason 9.5 Benchmark"
samplebuffer 1024@44100Hz.
babyface pro.
on 2x2630 Broadwell-EP(20 physical cores)
i don't know if this is good.
If I enable hyper-threading I can play zero seconds.
Seems that there is problem how reason handles multicore.
Especially with vsts support.

Maybe you can help me out here:

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=7501446

I think that it's a great result! You have 2 different CPU so I guess that speed between them is slower than core to core inside same CPU, so Reason would not scale as good as if all 20 cores would have been in the same CPU with speedy access to all the L3 cache.
Can you test with only 1 CPU enabled?

Ostermilk
Posts: 1514
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

Post 31 May 2017

Oh man Kategra!

I'm having real trouble working out the purpose of this particular test other than it being a game of "How quickly can I knock out the top 10 cpus in the World" or "How high can I make my wee wee go".

You can't accurately measure relative performance between Reason versions with it, you can't gauge how heavy a work load you can expect from your particular machine with it so what is it for other than the two uses I've suggested for it.

Also a test to destruction is pointless as it's not at the point when your computer gives up the fight with a "Computer Too Slow" message it's the point at which the audio starts popping and crackling that determines 'useful load'.

I've gone back over the various Reason 'bench' tests that have appeared over the years and the original dberthelo Reason 5 test .rps file is more useful than this one.

The best one as far as it's usefulness goes where you could actually accurately measure relative performance between Reason versions and work out what kind of useful load you could expect from a particular Reason version post R6 on a particular machine is the one Enoch and Yourself did for R7 which was largely based on the dberthelo file. That may need extending out somewhat to take into account more powerful hardware and the test may take longer to complete (which is a good thing as far as accuracy goes) but at least you will be able to derive some useful information from it.

I admire your efforts but this as it stands is a total waste of time IMO.

User avatar
Kategra
Posts: 288
Joined: 18 Jan 2015

Post 31 May 2017

Ostermilk wrote:Oh man Kategra!

I'm having real trouble working out the purpose of this particular test other than it being a game of "How quickly can I knock out the top 10 cpus in the World" or "How high can I make my wee wee go".

You can't accurately measure relative performance between Reason versions with it, you can't gauge how heavy a work load you can expect from your particular machine with it so what is it for other than the two uses I've suggested for it.

Also a test to destruction is pointless as it's not at the point when your computer gives up the fight with a "Computer Too Slow" message it's the point at which the audio starts popping and crackling that determines 'useful load'.

I've gone back over the various Reason 'bench' tests that have appeared over the years and the original dberthelo Reason 5 test .rps file is more useful than this one.

The best one as far as it's usefulness goes where you could actually accurately measure relative performance between Reason versions and work out what kind of useful load you could expect from a particular Reason version post R6 on a particular machine is the one Enoch and Yourself did for R7 which was largely based on the dberthelo file. That may need extending out somewhat to take into account more powerful hardware and the test may take longer to complete (which is a good thing as far as accuracy goes) but at least you will be able to derive some useful information from it.

I admire your efforts but this as it stands is a total waste of time IMO.
The purpose for this particular test was to find the next best CPU performance/$ for users like myself that already have a computer which can play the whole R8+ benchmark song. So when I want to upgrade the i7 6800K computer , I don't want to second guess (like it happened with my purchase of Ryzen R1700X--- my fault for thinking that good Cinebench performance=good Reason perfomance), but to get the best deal for my money.

If someone else would make a better "benchmark" song that could be used to gauge the relative performance between older mainstream CPU (SandyBridges dual, quads, older AMDs) and present enthusiast/ server CPUs than that would be awesome, I would use it and I would not feel wronged if this thread was deleted or locked to not have confusion.

My point is that any CPU that can play the whole R8.1 song can also play at least 20 seconds in this new R9.5 song and there is still room left testing the new 16 core Ryzens and 12 to 18 core i9s that will be launched this year.

I may be repeating myself: I don't think that you can make a song with Reason Devices + stock REs + Players + Automation (a formula that I use, and I would take a guess that so does the majority of R9 users) that can accurately measure the ratio of Reason performance between Intel i5-2500k/AMD FX-8320 and the upcoming Intel i9 7980XE/AMD Ryzen 9 Threadripper 1998X.
IMHO, any benchmark song with various devices and automation that that will show "Computer too slow to play song" for the i9/R9 will not play even 2 seconds on the dual core/quad core sandybridge/vishera.

Ostermilk
Posts: 1514
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

Post 01 Jun 2017

Kategra wrote:
The purpose for this particular test was to find the next best CPU performance/$ for users like myself that already have a computer which can play the whole R8+ benchmark song. So when I want to upgrade the i7 6800K computer , I don't want to second guess (like it happened with my purchase of Ryzen R1700X--- my fault for thinking that good Cinebench performance=good Reason perfomance), but to get the best deal for my money.

If someone else would make a better "benchmark" song that could be used to gauge the relative performance between older mainstream CPU (SandyBridges dual, quads, older AMDs) and present enthusiast/ server CPUs than that would be awesome, I would use it and I would not feel wronged if this thread was deleted or locked to not have confusion.

My point is that any CPU that can play the whole R8.1 song can also play at least 20 seconds in this new R9.5 song and there is still room left testing the new 16 core Ryzens and 12 to 18 core i9s that will be launched this year.

I may be repeating myself: I don't think that you can make a song with Reason Devices + stock REs + Players + Automation (a formula that I use, and I would take a guess that so does the majority of R9 users) that can accurately measure the ratio of Reason performance between Intel i5-2500k/AMD FX-8320 and the upcoming Intel i9 7980XE/AMD Ryzen 9 Threadripper 1998X.
IMHO, any benchmark song with various devices and automation that that will show "Computer too slow to play song" for the i9/R9 will not play even 2 seconds on the dual core/quad core sandybridge/vishera.
You've already made a better 'benchmark' than this, the R7 one!!! You just need to make it longer to the point even the best CPU's wont make it even if it takes 20 minutes to test. In fact the longer it takes the more accurate the comparisons you can draw because the load introduced on each bar doesn't increase in such massive steps.

Just take a look how DAWBench DSP is set up and meant to be used, it doesn't use a bunch of fancy plugins designed to overload the system at start-up just a well selected bunch of half-dozen or so that use resources in different ways that get added to incrementally so even from the humblest setup to the latest record breaking system can run it and comparisons can be drawn, between anything. It hasn't changed since 2014 and it will eventually wipe out even the best system today, ScanUK among others use it to test their latest 3XS systems and because the benchmark hasn't changed there's nearly 4 years worth of comparison data to draw on. Likewise the R7 benchmark is still sufficient.

Similarly the R7 bench test can be used to successfully test performance changes between versions from R6 - R9.5 if it was a constant. It can also show users how much improvement a hardware upgrade has made...again if it was a constant, and you'd be able to use it successfully on any machine. Certainly though you'd be able to get a picture of how different CPU's stacked up against each other in this context better than you could with Cinebench or any other non-Reason based benchmark.

What can't be done in Reason with any accuracy sadly is test like for like performance from any other DAW to Reason as Reason is a pretty unique animal in that it carries around a rack full of stuff before it even does anything and most other DAWs use plugin's for their main functionality but we will be able to chart improvements to VST performance from this point on.

I'm not trying to pee on anyone's fireworks here, and I really appreciate the amount of work that you put into this stuff, but changing the test each time a new version comes out negates much of it's usefulness and worse in this case when you are running a current CPU and your DSP is almost maxed out before you even press play it could cause a lot of unecessary anxiety to someone who's just spent the best part of a grand on a shiny new box just to watch their prized new machine limp to a little over a few seconds when the truth is they are going to be able to make lots of great music regardless.

Perhaps you could just add the old R7 version to the OP and call it ReasonBench 'Classic' after extending it a bit (or providing users instructions how to do so) so higher end CPU's don't defeat it, and call your latest one ReasonBench 'Extreme' then people could just state which test they are doing when they post results.
Last edited by Ostermilk on 01 Jun 2017, edited 2 times in total.

Sunsiare
Posts: 31
Joined: 19 Apr 2017

Post 01 Jun 2017

Intel Kaby Lake i5 7600K @4.2ghz, 32Gb of ram, SSD 256gb Intel, Reason 9.5, Fireface UX 400, 1024 sample, 44.1

It doesn't event start :)

Ostermilk
Posts: 1514
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

Post 01 Jun 2017

Sunsiare wrote:Intel Kaby Lake i5 7600K @4.2ghz, 32Gb of ram, SSD 256gb Intel, Reason 9.5, Fireface UX 400, 1024 sample, 44.1

It doesn't event start :)
Then clearly you need to update your clapped out old machine... :puf_bigsmile:

Only kidding, I managed to get my similarly specced i5 6600 crawling for a few seconds until my CPU asked if I was joking!!!

Yet in normal use my setup hasn't ever missed a beat and I've certainly given it plenty to do.

User avatar
Kategra
Posts: 288
Joined: 18 Jan 2015

Post 01 Jun 2017

Ostermilk wrote:
Kategra wrote:
The purpose for this particular test was to find the next best CPU performance/$ for users like myself that already have a computer which can play the whole R8+ benchmark song. So when I want to upgrade the i7 6800K computer , I don't want to second guess (like it happened with my purchase of Ryzen R1700X--- my fault for thinking that good Cinebench performance=good Reason perfomance), but to get the best deal for my money.

If someone else would make a better "benchmark" song that could be used to gauge the relative performance between older mainstream CPU (SandyBridges dual, quads, older AMDs) and present enthusiast/ server CPUs than that would be awesome, I would use it and I would not feel wronged if this thread was deleted or locked to not have confusion.

My point is that any CPU that can play the whole R8.1 song can also play at least 20 seconds in this new R9.5 song and there is still room left testing the new 16 core Ryzens and 12 to 18 core i9s that will be launched this year.

I may be repeating myself: I don't think that you can make a song with Reason Devices + stock REs + Players + Automation (a formula that I use, and I would take a guess that so does the majority of R9 users) that can accurately measure the ratio of Reason performance between Intel i5-2500k/AMD FX-8320 and the upcoming Intel i9 7980XE/AMD Ryzen 9 Threadripper 1998X.
IMHO, any benchmark song with various devices and automation that that will show "Computer too slow to play song" for the i9/R9 will not play even 2 seconds on the dual core/quad core sandybridge/vishera.
You've already made a better 'benchmark' than this, the R7 one!!! You just need to make it longer to the point even the best CPU's wont make it even if it takes 20 minutes to test. In fact the longer it takes the more accurate the comparisons you can draw because the load introduced on each bar doesn't increase in such massive steps.

Just take a look how DAWBench DSP is set up and meant to be used, it doesn't use a bunch of fancy plugins designed to overload the system at start-up just a well selected bunch of half-dozen or so that use resources in different ways that get added to incrementally so even from the humblest setup to the latest record breaking system can run it and comparisons can be drawn, between anything. It hasn't changed since 2014 and it will eventually wipe out even the best system today, ScanUK among others use it to test their latest 3XS systems and because the benchmark hasn't changed there's nearly 4 years worth of comparison data to draw on. Likewise the R7 benchmark is still sufficient.

Similarly the R7 bench test can be used to successfully test performance changes between versions from R6 - R9.5 if it was a constant. It can also show users how much improvement a hardware upgrade has made...again if it was a constant, and you'd be able to use it successfully on any machine. Certainly though you'd be able to get a picture of how different CPU's stacked up against each other in this context better than you could with Cinebench or any other non-Reason based benchmark.

What can't be done in Reason with any accuracy sadly is test like for like performance from any other DAW to Reason as Reason is a pretty unique animal in that it carries around a rack full of stuff before it even does anything and most other DAWs use plugin's for their main functionality but we will be able to chart improvements to VST performance from this point on.

I'm not trying to pee on anyone's fireworks here, and I really appreciate the amount of work that you put into this stuff, but changing the test each time a new version comes out negates much of it's usefulness and worse in this case when you are running a current CPU and your DSP is almost maxed out before you even press play it could cause a lot of unecessary anxiety to someone who's just spent the best part of a grand on a shiny new box just to watch their prized new machine limp to a little over a few seconds when the truth is they are going to be able to make lots of great music regardless.

Perhaps you could just add the old R7 version to the OP and call it ReasonBench 'Classic' after extending it a bit (or providing users instructions how to do so) so higher end CPU's don't defeat it, and call your latest one ReasonBench 'Extreme' then people could just state which test they are doing when they post results.

Thank you for the constructive criticism Ostermilk. I am working now an a different type of benchmark that will focus only on FX chains and should be able to be used by low and extreme power computers.

User avatar
Kategra
Posts: 288
Joined: 18 Jan 2015

Post 01 Jun 2017


I made an additional benchmark, updated the 1st post to include this one also:
Reason 9.5 2017 Simple FX Chain benchmark song V0 ------> http://s.go.ro/uc61gyv6

Please post results for both the Complex RE and the Simple FX Chain version.

Thank you all the feedback, such a great forum to be on!



CPU usage limit set in Reason 8 = 95%
Sample rate = 44,100 Hz
Buffer length = 1024 samples (max )

Hardware:
CPU i7 6800K @ 3.98 Ghz
RAM 16 GB Quad Kit 2400 Mhz, CL14
SSD Samsung 250 GB (Windows 10 Creators edition 64 bit + Reason installed on SSD)
RME ASIO Fireface 400 audio interface

RESULTS
Complex RE = 24 seconds
Simple FX Chain = 1 min 10 seconds



Complex RE = 24 seconds
R9.5 Complex RE 24 seconds.jpg

Simple FX Chain = 1 min 10 seconds
R9.5 Simple FX Chain 1min 10 seconds.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Ostermilk
Posts: 1514
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

Post 01 Jun 2017

Kategra wrote:

Thank you for the constructive criticism Ostermilk. I am working now an a different type of benchmark that will focus only on FX chains and should be able to be used by low and extreme power computers.
Cool, I'm glad you took it in the intended spirit, like I say I really appreciate the work you do on this, and I've got some useful information from previously posted results.

User avatar
Re8et
Posts: 686
Joined: 14 Nov 2016

Post 01 Jun 2017

My 12 core Xeon stops @50 sec with V2 1024 sample motu mk2 fw

I'm curious about Ryzen, it seems to be more powerful.

forgot, my ram nanolatency is 13.2
26.JPG
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
AttenuationHz
Posts: 1881
Joined: 20 Mar 2015
Location: Back of the Rack-1

Post 01 Jun 2017

I suspect I could squeeze a few more second out of it. Tried the 8.1 and above test at the start of the pc life and got nearly to the end after a few months of using the pc tested again and got drastically different results.

Your CPU model : Intel i7 4790k @4.0Ghz no OC
16BG Ram 2x8
Mbox 2 mini will be upgrading that soon.
sample rate 44100 Hz
95%
COMPLEX RE ----> @ 2048 buffer everything is maximised 0:00:02:043 ???
Simple FX Chain ----> @ 2048 buffer 0:01:32:741 @4096 buffer 0:01:36:131
Kategra wrote:

RESULTS
Complex RE = 24 seconds
Simple FX Chain = 1 min 10 seconds

Just waiting on reason to respond had to nip out earlier! took an age to close the optimised version after V2 was opened. could gradually see the ram being released on WTM

COMPLEX RE ----> @ 2048 buffer everything is maximised 0:00:02:043 .... @4096 0:00:08:173 <---- that is not a typo that's with all devices collapsed
With all devices minimised and song file saved and optimised @ 2048 0:00:05:062 @4096 0:00:08:081
Last edited by AttenuationHz on 01 Jun 2017, edited 4 times in total.
Waiting for Navigation by Routing to be added! viewtopic.php?p=275484#p275484f=6&t=749 ... 97#p275497
:refill: http://rwrd.io/qx9m5wx Referral!

User avatar
EnochLight
Posts: 5640
Joined: 17 Jan 2015
Location: your mom

Post 01 Jun 2017

Re8et wrote:My 12 core Xeon stops @50 sec with V2 1024 sample motu mk2 fw

I'm curious about Ryzen, it seems to be more powerful.
Than your 12 core Xeon? Perhaps, but achieving low latency might be an entirely different problem with Ryzen:

viewtopic.php?p=334571#p334571
Win 10 | Reason 11 |  Studio One 4.5 | i7 3770k @ 3.5 Ghz | 16 GB RAM | Reactor 1TB SSD | RME Babyface Pro | Nektar Panorama P-4 | Akai MPC Live | Roland System 8 and System 1 | Roland TR-8 with 7x7 Expansion | Roland TB-3 | Roland VT-4 | Roland MX-1

User avatar
devilfish
Posts: 177
Joined: 20 Jan 2015

Post 01 Jun 2017

Windows 10 x64
Intel Xeon E5-2683v3 (QFQK - 250€ eBay)
16GB RAM ECC
Mackie Onyx Blackjack USB Audiointerface
44.1kHz / 95% / 256 Samples (7ms/9ms)
Ati Radeon EX 460
Super Silent PC, you can´t hear anything :D

Complex stop @ 33.2.2.37 (0:01:04:644)
Cubase 10 @ Xeon E5-2683v3
Philips Momentum 43“ UHD Monitor,
Behringer UMC1820, ADA8200 & Neutron,
Elektron Digitakt, A4 MK2 & Rytm MK2,
Novation BS2, Moog Subsequent 37,
Vermona Perfourmer MK2, Korg SQ-1

User avatar
aeox
Posts: 2198
Joined: 23 Feb 2017

Post 01 Jun 2017

the big boy expensive Xeons have entered the building :D i'll be getting some of those 5 or so years from now when they are selling like hotcakes on ebay for pennies
Random songs/ideas go here:

User avatar
EnochLight
Posts: 5640
Joined: 17 Jan 2015
Location: your mom

Post 01 Jun 2017

aeox wrote:the big boy expensive Xeons have entered the building :D i'll be getting some of those 5 or so years from now when they are selling like hotcakes on ebay for pennies
They're selling for pennies on eBay right now. You can get E5-2630's for $26 USD each, and E5-2650's for $46 USD each. Slap a couple of those in a dual-socket motherboard, and you'll have a rockstar system for substantially less money than they would have been a few years ago! YMMV, of course...
Win 10 | Reason 11 |  Studio One 4.5 | i7 3770k @ 3.5 Ghz | 16 GB RAM | Reactor 1TB SSD | RME Babyface Pro | Nektar Panorama P-4 | Akai MPC Live | Roland System 8 and System 1 | Roland TR-8 with 7x7 Expansion | Roland TB-3 | Roland VT-4 | Roland MX-1

User avatar
aeox
Posts: 2198
Joined: 23 Feb 2017

Post 01 Jun 2017

EnochLight wrote:
aeox wrote:the big boy expensive Xeons have entered the building :D i'll be getting some of those 5 or so years from now when they are selling like hotcakes on ebay for pennies
They're selling for pennies on eBay right now. You can get E5-2630's for $26 USD each, and E5-2650's for $46 USD each. Slap a couple of those in a dual-socket motherboard, and you'll have a rockstar system for substantially less money than they would have been a few years ago! YMMV, of course...
oh i actually have dual e5-2670 xeons right now in a dual socket mobo which i got before the craze started for 53 a piece, i'm talking about the v3 and v4s chips that are quite spendy
Random songs/ideas go here:

  • Information
  • Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests