Cores / logical cores performance difference

Find topics on computers, studios and music-related hardware.
Post Reply
sebastianhas
New Member
Posts: 4
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2018 8:39 am
Contact:

Cores / logical cores performance difference

Post by sebastianhas » Fri Jul 13, 2018 9:05 am

Hello everyone,

I'm planning on upgrading my mixing rig and can't find a straight answer to my doubts.
I use Cubase 7.5 @ max buffer setting for mixing big, plugin heavy projects (300-500 tracks, 20+ groups, 20+ aux channels, hundreds of plugin instances). Low latency at low buffer is of no interest to me, need this rig to perform well at mixing stage.

I'm thinking of getting an i7 8700K or i5 8600K. Both are 6 core processors, but the i7 is also 12 threads / logical cores using hyperthreading.

My question is: will I benefit from having those extra threads, and can Cubase utilize them or is it better to have just plain 6 cores from i5?
Does anyone have experience with Cubase and 8700K vs. 8600K?

Thank you!
Kind regards,
Seb

Nickeldome
Member
Posts: 609
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2014 1:06 pm
Contact:

Re: Cores / logical cores performance difference

Post by Nickeldome » Sat Jul 14, 2018 1:21 pm

In general Cubase always benefits from higher processor speeds and not so much from more cores beyond 6-8 cores. But...it depends on usage.
In your case with so many tracks/plugins I would really aim at the i7 8700. Using so many tracks/plugins it wont hurt to have the extra processing power.
Cubase Pro - Wavelab Pro (always latest version) Windows 10 Pro 64bit / Asus TUF Mark 1 X299 / i9-7900X (at 4.3 GHZ) / 64GB RAM / Geforce GTX 1060 6G / System drive Samsung M.2 1TB 960Pro / Kontakt drives 3 x 1TB Samsung Evo / Project/Audio/Archive drive 10TB Seagate Ironwolf - Audio interface: Roland UA-1610 / External gear: Kawai MP11 / Kurzweil PC88 / Sequential Circuits Prophet 5 / Roland JV1080 / Roland D50 / Korg 01/W / Elka EK22 – Midi controllers: SoundQuest 8port-SE / Nektar Panorama P1 / Roland Octopad II / Akai MPD18 - Main VST's: Kontakt 6 / Padshop Pro / Spectrasonics Omnisphere 2.6, Trillian & Keyscape / Arturia V-collection / FXpansion BFD 3 / Toontrack Superior Drummer 3
All time user of Cubase since Atari V2 (around 1990)

User avatar
MattiasNYC
Grand Senior Member
Posts: 3630
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: Cores / logical cores performance difference

Post by MattiasNYC » Sat Jul 14, 2018 3:20 pm

I the tests I've seen Cubase absolutely benefits beyond 8 cores. There's no doubt about it.

http://www.scanproaudio.info/wp-content ... ssic-1.jpg
Nuendo 7.1.4 / Lynx TWO-B / Windows 10 Pro 64-bit / Ryzen 1700 3.7GHz (oc) / 16GB Corsair Vengeance DDR4@3200MHz / Nvidia GTX 660 / ASUS x370-A mobo/ 500GB WD Blue system drive / Crucial BX100 250GB SSD media / spinners for library/backup ::::: iZotope RX / Phoenixverb Surround / DaVinci Resolve / Faderport / Applied Acoustics UltraAnalog / my pet pony Frank

sebastianhas
New Member
Posts: 4
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2018 8:39 am
Contact:

Re: Cores / logical cores performance difference

Post by sebastianhas » Sun Jul 15, 2018 8:02 pm

Thanks for help, I'll go with the 8700!

Steako
New Member
Posts: 3
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2016 12:08 pm
Contact:

Re: Cores / logical cores performance difference

Post by Steako » Fri Oct 12, 2018 8:44 am

MattiasNYC wrote:
Sat Jul 14, 2018 3:20 pm
I the tests I've seen Cubase absolutely benefits beyond 8 cores. There's no doubt about it.

http://www.scanproaudio.info/wp-content ... ssic-1.jpg
I've seen test clearly showing good performances even at 64 or 32 buffers.
Anyhow I 've also seen the Windows 10 drop out issue due to MMCSS limitation to 32 threads with Cubase.

How come we can obtain such good performances in DAW tests (using Cubase) and avoiding issues related with above MMCSS limitations (occuring with high number of cores/threads like the 7900x/7920x etc.. ++ series)

Did I miss something ?

User avatar
MattiasNYC
Grand Senior Member
Posts: 3630
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: Cores / logical cores performance difference

Post by MattiasNYC » Fri Oct 12, 2018 3:14 pm

As far as I understand it the issue depends on the specific workload and which CPU is being used.

Either way, in general the test has shown year after year that relatively fast CPUs with more cores perform better. Sometimes there are differences in architecture that may change the outcome, but it's generally true.

By the way; there's the rumor floating around that there is an actual temporary "fix" to the MMCSS limitation in Windows for Cubase/Nuendo. I believe you have to contact Steinberg directly to get instructions on how to do it.
Nuendo 7.1.4 / Lynx TWO-B / Windows 10 Pro 64-bit / Ryzen 1700 3.7GHz (oc) / 16GB Corsair Vengeance DDR4@3200MHz / Nvidia GTX 660 / ASUS x370-A mobo/ 500GB WD Blue system drive / Crucial BX100 250GB SSD media / spinners for library/backup ::::: iZotope RX / Phoenixverb Surround / DaVinci Resolve / Faderport / Applied Acoustics UltraAnalog / my pet pony Frank

User avatar
peakae
Senior Member
Posts: 2975
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 8:15 pm
Location: Bedroom
Contact:

Re: Cores / logical cores performance difference

Post by peakae » Mon Oct 22, 2018 5:25 pm

That is not a rumor, Microsoft does not want that registry “fix” out in the wild. It is specific to the cpu used, and can have negative effects when just applied. Steinberg is allowed to dispense that fix in a per case scenario.
Microsoft are looking into it, but it will be at least til the spring update before we see any change.

Anyway We can agree on HT is beneficial, I don’t see the 40% to 70 % improvement that others do, but that really depends on the workload. Interesting that Intel has removed HT from the i7 line, that makes the i9’s look more attractive even at the inflated price tags .
Cubase Pro 10, Wavelab Elements 9, I7 3770K , win10x64, 16Gb Ram, RME Raydat, Steinberg MR816x, Motu 828mkII, Behringer ADA8200, Yamaha moXF6, Steinberg UR242, Yamaha THR 10, Grace Design m900, CMC TP, CMC CH.

Steako
New Member
Posts: 3
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2016 12:08 pm
Contact:

Re: Cores / logical cores performance difference

Post by Steako » Mon Oct 29, 2018 9:04 am

Well this is what I understood. I will probably change my PC setup during coming year, by now I run a core i7 970 (6C/12T) with X58 chipset old fashionned.
It gives rather good power but I'm limited to 24 GB of RAM, + considering a new Core i9 with 12 or 14 cores could give me x3 CPU power and a lot of RAM for samples..
But I don't want any Windows headeache at the time of discovering a new machine, so if Win 10 official update resolving every MMCSS issues (and especially this thread count limitation) has not come out, then I will stick with Windows 7 x64 that I know very well (and that is working very well despite "non support" rumors)

anyhow thank you for the information,

PS: Just wanted to add that currently I'm running Cubase 9.5.40 on Win7 x64 / Core i7 970 /RME Raydat 36 I/O with rock solid reliability and no issue/bug at all. I can run CPU up to 90% in Windows meter with no drop out at buffer 32, whan I play VSTis live, and the Cubase meter is red far before the first sound issue occurs. I hope I will have same ability to work hard load with new gen CPU.

Post Reply

Return to “Computer/Studio Hardware & Setup”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests