Multi-cores really matters?

[mkdr]

But I'd rather have a Quad core processor that handles more Flops than an 8+ core processor that does not (AMD, I'm looking at you).

Just to straighten some misconceptions..

Yes, an 8-core AMD does not run more raw Flops than a similar performance Intel quad-core. Nothing though is just pure Flops. Programs always do more than just floating point math, like logics, memory reads and writes. Here the bigger core count... counts. And unlike Intel's HyperThreads, the AMD cores are real cores. And based on real world tests with DawBench an 8-core AMD triumphs or equals an HyperThreaded Intel Quad. So it's not that black and white.

And the fact that an AMD uses more electricity? Sure on full load. But when not on full load it can throttle down much more efficiently than Intels (which on most cases don't work with DAW's without dropouts if the throttling isn't turned completely off).

Measurements:
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2012/1 ... 0-review/7



But yeah.. pretty much anything you buy today is better than the C2D you now have.

[VitaminD]

But I'd rather have a Quad core processor that handles more Flops than an 8+ core processor that does not (AMD, I'm looking at you).

Just to straighten some misconceptions..

Yes, an 8-core AMD does not run more raw Flops than a similar performance Intel quad-core. Nothing though is just pure Flops. Programs always do more than just floating point math, like logics, memory reads and writes. Here the bigger core count... counts. And unlike Intel's HyperThreads, the AMD cores are real cores. And based on real world tests with DawBench an 8-core AMD triumphs or equals an HyperThreaded Intel Quad. So it's not that black and white.

And the fact that an AMD uses more electricity? Sure on full load. But when not on full load it can throttle down much more efficiently than Intels (which on most cases don't work with DAW's without dropouts if the throttling isn't turned completely off).

Measurements:
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2012/1 ... 0-review/7



But yeah.. pretty much anything you buy today is better than the C2D you now have.

'Programs'? He is looking for a CPU for VSTs and Audio work.. VSTs are generally heavily float intensive..

Yes, there is way more than just floats in software. Even in music software. But, in this case, you don't want an underperforming CPU trying to make up with sheer number of cores. Even though more cores is a GOOD idea for which to look.

Seems like the modern AMD processors are pretty ok with respect to this. Still not in the category of the newer Intel CPUs though.

Multiple cores will largely help you handle more plugins, not handle a single plugin more quickly (since it seems, most of the time, the load balancing is per vst, per core and not per vst, multiple cores). There is a big caveat to this with plugins such as u-he DIVA which **can** in fact spread voices across cores.

Never mentioned anything about power usage, but that is another interesting consideration I think.

I'm still saying get a modern (4xxx) i5 or i7 today. You'll get better flop performance and, in the case of the i7, the extra v-'cores'. (Which, according to DAWBench, really do help)

[HM]

[
Multiple cores will largely help you handle more plugins, not handle a single plugin more quickly (since it seems, most of the time, the load balancing is per vst, per core and not per vst, multiple cores). There is a big caveat to this with plugins such as u-he DIVA which **can** in fact spread voices across cores.

I just read some old specs on Emulator X3, seems it also claims to take advange of multiple cores, so maybe
more than we think of the relatively old stuff can bennefit, or at least claims to be able,..

It makes me somehow split in my choise for CPU in a new X3-standalone PC, becourse I took it for granted that lot's of cores would be less important than high speed, (for this stand alone single-VSTi host specifically)

Due to my assumptions above I had settled for Intels dirt cheap unlucked G3258 anniversary speed-monster,
only dual-core, but very fast pr core, and overclock extremely well to, even on cheap m-ATX H81 boards

But I am not so sure any longer how fittet the 75$ G3258 are for this sampler stand-alone PC

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/pen ... ,3849.html

[mkdr]

'Programs'? He is looking for a CPU for VSTs and Audio work.. VSTs are generally heavily float intensive..

Well thats one of the misconceptions i was trying to explain to you. You rarely ever have just floating point calculations going on, other than in synthetic benchmarks. For example here's a line of code from a zdf filter. A line where there's lots of float calculations. But where do the values come from that we do the math with?

double y3 = (g3*s[3] + f3*g2*s[2] + f2*g1*s[1] + f1*g0*s[0] + f0*in[n]) / (1 + r*f0);

Every single one of the additions and multiplications are done on values that are stored in.. thats right.. memory. The 100% more power on logic and memory functions suddenly starts to look a lot better.

This was just to address the AMD's "underperforming float performance", and the fact that there's only 4 float operation units on the 8 core CPU. So only fixing wrong information. If you still feel Intel is more worth it, then go for it. I have nothing against that.

[Ashe37]

the problem with the new '8 core' AMD CPUs is... they have eight integer cores. Not, really, floating point cores. The differences in how they are implemented aside, a 'four-core' Intel CPU has the same number of floating point cores as an 'eight core' AMD CPU.

[Kaboom75]

It's also about how your software uses your OS.

Most plugins and software use only 1 CPU core. u-he synths can be set to run on multiple cores sharing the load out.

I know Ableton Live uses at least 8 CPU cores it runs each track on it's own core. I don't know if all DAWs do this.

The best way to compare CPUs is looking at benchmark websites that have tested the software you use.

[tony tony chopper]

The number of multithreaded synths are not great atm but I expect to see more of them in the future.

it's not, and it can't be.

Multithreading has a cost (kernel switching takes a massive amount of time), thus for multithreading to benefit to something, it has to be a CPU hog.

Multithread a very light plugin and it's gonna cost way more CPU than it will spare.
Like, I don't know, there's a new thing that allows you to make bank transfers more easily, but it costs you $10 per transaction. If you're transfering millions, it's way worth it. If you're doing $5 transfers, you're gonna avoid that.


Multithreading is done by the host, and plugins only when it spares more than it costs.


Also, of course, the plugin has to be multithreadable. Synths generally are, as voices are generally independent enough to be processed by different cores at the same time.
Effects however are generally not.

[Ashe37]

Many hosts run each track on their own core. Its about the easiest way to handle it. Some also can bridge plugins into their own separate process, especially if they are a 64-bit application hosting 32-bit plugins.

[Kaine]

Just to straighten some misconceptions..

Yes, an 8-core AMD does not run more raw Flops than a similar performance Intel quad-core. Nothing though is just pure Flops. Programs always do more than just floating point math, like logics, memory reads and writes. Here the bigger core count... counts. And unlike Intel's HyperThreads, the AMD cores are real cores. And based on real world tests with DawBench an 8-core AMD triumphs or equals an HyperThreaded Intel Quad. So it's not that black and white.

I did a new round up a few months back. The highest end AMD 8 cores hold their own at the price point, beating the 4 core i5's but being beaten by the 4 core + hyperthreaded i7's by no small amount.

http://www.scanproaudio.info/scan-audio ... arks-2015/

The AMD's have some strengths and offer value to a point, but they are still lagging behind overall.

And the fact that an AMD uses more electricity? Sure on full load. But when not on full load it can throttle down much more efficiently than Intels (which on most cases don't work with DAW's without dropouts if the throttling isn't turned completely off).

True, but when the AMD's do ramp, they are using twice as much wattage, with a lower heat throttle point and so require more, noisier cooling to handle them and keep them in line.

The intels need Turbo leaving on to Overclock these days, so they do/can declock to some extent just not as far as the AMD's, the power states are admittedly better to be left off in Windows still, although that's a windows problem more than anything and I'd normally suggest doing the same tweaks on either CPU platform.

[Ashe37]

what audio interface is that with?

Here's a Dell T5600, 2x 2687w, Echo Audiofire 2:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/pre ... 610-6.html

And yes, the AMDs hold their own at their price point... but Intel has much, much higher price points.

I'm still waiting to see how 2011-3 Xeons perform in DAWBench, though

[Kaine]

Edited the jpg out and included the full thing that gives more test details along with the scores.
(I'd broken the previous link somehow anyway it seems)

All testing on that chart done on the same OS install, using Reaper and a KA6.

The 2670 & 2620 scores on that chart are both a pair of v3's.

[Ashe37]

I'd like to see i5-4300U results added to that chart.

[bludreamsounds]

If anyone is in the market for an 8 core AMD motherboard bundle with RAM under $180, let me know.

[Midifinger]

LOL, I love Grammar Nazis.

I'm running an i7 3770, 32GB RAM, SATA III SSD's, Win 8.1, and it floats, no problems, no latency issues.