I have i7-7700 (NON-OC) on an ASUS Prime H270 Plus, 32 Gig memory, & old HD7870 2Gid video.
I did not want the heat and hassle of overclocking, but now I wish i'd gone with the "-K" CPU and "-Z" motherboard.
I have another i7-7700 (NON-OC) in my gaming rig (16 Gig memory, GT1060 video).
For games this CPU has never been a problem.
But for DAW work ... more CPU allows more freedom / less thought regarding VST use.

 

Yeah I looked it up and it looks like I have a z270.

In order to keep my ram . What ryzen and which ryzen motherboard would you go with ? I'm assuming once I swap the motherboard and install the new ryzen CPU, all I would need to do is probably update drivers for some hardware stuff,right ? What's a nice ryzen CPU that'll give me more / better performance ?

It's either a drum machine (mpc live) or a digitakt or CPU/motherboard upgrade right now. Would like a better running computer . Don't think I'll be using the drum machines as much to be honest . Again, it's not that my system sucks but I just wanna keep my system up to date (performance wise ) ... Also have a hydrasynth on its way lol.

 

I just switched from an I7-7700K to a Ryzen 3700X. I know you're upgrading still with the Intel but honestly the 7700K was and still is a beast. I'm sure you will see some performance gains on the cpu hogs but I don't think it will be by much. Switching from the 7700k to the ryzen I do notice I can load a lil more Acustica Audio and other cpu hogs but nothing crazy. Also running 32GB rams at 3600 speed.

 

You definitely want to hold off any Intel Z490 upgrade as this is a dead end platform that will end with Rocket Lake S.
It is doubtful that PCIe Gen 4 will not be available for Rocket Lake S.

The next Socket, LGA-1700 should have full PCIe Gen 4 features unless problems continue.

Would look at AMD for upgrading as an option. Minimum of Ryzen 5 3600. If your current memory works with XMP profiles, it should work with AMD CPUs.

 

As many others said: Keep the 7700k mate. If you want to go Intel for your own reasons, the only thing to do atm is wait. Although by the latest official news, Intel 7nm cpus have been postponed to the second half of 2022 or early 2023 (!).
If you feel adventurous though and have a Z series mobo, check out installing 9900k on a Z170/Z270. I must prepare you though, the mod/hack the guy does, is only for the adventurous types, i would advise against it if you are not sure you can get it right, and even then it may not work.
Cheers
PS: Check out the guy's channel for more info and more vids on the same subject.

 

Last edited: Jul 25, 2020

Ohhh, I can't imagine the workflow for which the I7-7700K is not enough

 

Its about ram speed.

 

This is soon my new build:
Intel Core i9-10900K Processor
Noctua NH-U12A CPU cooler
Gigabyte Z490 VISION D

 

i can not believe people actually agreed with you. its the exact opposite.
single core speed is where the majority of processing is done this is why you see a lot of people with 12/16 core cpu`s complaining all over the web regarding the daw, most of these cpus have a lower single core speed in favor of multiple core architecture.

 

Last edited: Aug 19, 2020

The 10th gen Intel i7 and i9 "K" CPUs Boost to 5.2 gHz in Single core without even overclocking. So, if you need that top notch single core speed, go Intel. I know I have to since I am upgrading my Hackintosh. I will go with the i9 10900K or 10850k, since the 10900k is hard to get in Germany at the moment and a Z490 Vision G probably.

Anyway, if you use a modern DAW and you have the luxury of having many cores and twice as many threads to spread the workload around on, single core performance doesn't matter that much. But if you use a shitty programmed App like Maschine (I use it every day) which basically just works off of one core, of course single core performance will be the limiting factor. But that's not AMDs fault, it's the developers fault for not implementing proper multicore processing!

People who complain about the single core performance of 12/16 core processors… what should I think about these people? Maybe they shouldn't have based their decision to buy a Ryzen/Threadripper on the rationale of "let me get the most amount of cores for the least amount of money" instead of thinking about what they need this CPU for. It's called Threadripper for a reason – it's not called gameripper! For Games, single core performance still is very important. For Audio, not so much for the reasons explained above.

 

Last edited: Aug 19, 2020

Hello Everyone!

I hope that people get this finally, HT is only there to fully utilize the core itself and in conclusion, only as good as the core itself!

*Here is a video from an Ex-intel engineer.
He is not talking about HT in particular, but, if you fast-forward to 16:13 min, you will see an illustration of the Intel-Skylake chip with his various sections and the space allocation of HT.
I am sure that you will observe, that HT is only a tiny part of the hole design of that chip.....!

 

Last edited: Aug 21, 2020

Ok Source Please

Many of them just complaining because there Systems are badly optimized . It's most of the time Users doing stupid things.

(Just a Small example If your DAW works with 1 thread per Track and a User put all effects on that Track it's clear why he kills his CPU with it)

And bad Audio drivers which kill the CPU performance too (Ok that happen on my PC just an old driver can make such a big difference with the same projects I got 25% less CPU usage in one case)

Most DAW are really good at paralleling the Processes
Ableton can support 64 Cores

 

Last edited by a moderator: Aug 19, 2020

This is a useful thread right now.
This type of thread is why I love this place.
Thank you @quadcore64 & all.

 

no, many complain because high core count cpus usually sacrifice on higher speed per thread.
and 8/8 cpu/thread will give you little advantage vs 8 cpu core in audio production, some daws prefer HT on off.
have seen countless producers ditching their 4/4 intel cpus for a 8/8 or more ryzen only to find out they did very little or nothing, sometimes even choking their big old plugin infested projects when the old cpu could still handle it and the new can not.
single core cpu speed is the first and main bottleneck in a daw, because once only one core is working at the max and all other only at half, you will get crackles and asio problems.
always pick the highest cpu speed architecture vs multiple core architecture on a lower core speed.
6/8 high speed is better vs 16/32 medium speed cpu.

 

As I recently found out Reaper's doing this. Do DAWs differ in this regard?

 

I assume you meant 6/12 high speed?

However, this depends on the project and the CPUs. If I have lots of tracks with low CPU load, more cores/threads may perform better than a slightly higher clock speed with less cores.

But I think we can agree on high speed and lots of threads are best (apart from the pecuniary aspect, ofc).

 

It has always been there to prevent cores from being idle while they're waiting for something like RAM or disk. It is only as good as the core itself, but note that it's usually the CPUs with hyperthreading that have "better cores". The only Intel CPUs without hyperthreading are the ultra low budget options and trust me, these don't have "faster cores" than their top offerings. TL;DR: yes, it's only as good as the core itself, but a core without HT is a crappy core since it is not utilized much at all

At first I thought you were talking about HP, the computer manufacturer. There is no such thing as "HP", it's hyperthreading or HT. The illustrations of chips are public knowledge openly shared by Intel in their programming manuals, nothing new here since hyperthreading was first introduced in 2002 in Xeon and Pentium 4.

Because it doesn't need to and you don't understand what hyperthreading is at all. What Intel calls hyperthreading is really just another set of CPU registers (think like 4KB of ultra fast RAM inside the CPU that is used directly when doing calculations). If the CPU has to wait for something to be loaded from RAM, disk, or for something else to finish calculating, it does exactly that - stops and waits for the trigger to continue, at least on that core. It can't do something else in the meantime, because it would have to overwrite the registers to do that - and it wouldn't have a copy to restore the previous state to resume the previous task.

Hyperthreading is all about providing two sets of registers (again, this is just really tiny but extremely fast memory) so that the cores that would be waiting can do some other tasks in the meantime. It's not about having more powerful computing units, it's about not wasting time waiting (which turns out the CPU does very often - this is why all but the crappiest CPUs use this technology). So it doesn't have to use much space at all since it's just a little bit of extra memory, but it provides a decent performance improvement - as it prevents your CPU from doing nothing when it could do something. Sure you could have a CPU without HT with "faster cores", but they would do nothing 50% of the time because your disk and RAM are very slow compared to how fast the CPU is. Thus never reaching the speed of your "faster cores".