Hi.

I'm thinking about my CPU upgrade from i5 6600k to i7 7700k.

6600k has 4 cores and 4 threads, 7700k has 4 cores but 8 threads and it's next gen after Skylake.

It's really intersting what CPU usage on 7700k for instruments like Diva (1 core and multi-core). I think this information can help me a lot to make a decision.

What do you think guys? Is it worth to update? Has anyone experience with 7700k processors?

 

In DAW+plugins performance you will get a boost of 20-25%. Is 330$ worth it? Your call
I wouldn't upgrade the cpu, just get a good cooler like a Noctua or Water AIO and overclock the fk out of what u got hehe. You 'll likely get more performance out of an overclocked 6600k than a 7700k with no overclock. Of course you can both upgrade and overclock it too

 

IF you plan to OC your CPU, YES!
i7 7700k can easily hit 5.1Ghz, if you're lucky 5.2Ghz.

if you don't plan on OCing just don't, i don't see a point, probably the other 4 threads might help?

 

I thought that performance will get a boost up to 40%.

Thanks for your replies. But maybe someone using this CPU right now and can share the experience.

 

I have a 6700k in my home machine, and i recently installed a 7700k for a client too. That's how i know. The two cpus have a marginal difference of about 2-3 %. You could get up to 40% or more increase out of the box with a 6 core Intel. (With the 7700k you will have to overclock it to reach that extra juice) Sadly this is a different socket meaning you gotta change mobo too. For DAW work though, the higher end socket 2011-3 has strong advantages over 1151 with first and foremost being able to install up to a 10 core unlocked i7 (that is if you can afford it since it costs about 1600$ lol). I have a strong feeling the audio world will be focusing a lot on Ryzen cpus.
I would still stick with what you got and try to squeeze some more performance out of it. If you have no idea how to overclock your cpu , all mobos now support automatic overclocking. Although it won't be as efficient as tweaked by an expert, you will get a +25% easily. Check your mobo's manual

 

Yeah, but you are talking about 6700k, not 6600k. Let say the difference between this two about 20%. On this picture we can see that 7700k has better perfomance about 15%:



So it seems like overall boost in performance is about 35%.

I'm not so sure. I saw a lot of test with new AMD Ryzen x1800 and i7 7700K and the difference not so huge. And as you can see on the picture above, intel is going to release next generation CPU that will have better performance on 15%.

I'm running my CPU in turbo mode, so it's a little bit overclocked. I can overclock it more, but i don't want to risk cause i've heard that 14nm processors are more sensitive to voltage changes (i'm not worrying about temperature cause i've got not bad noctua tower cooler with 2 fans and good ventilation in PC's case).

I would be very glad if someone make tests with Diva on 7700k and tell me about CPU usage in Live or Cubase.

 

I don't know why i5 6600k should not be enough, but is only worth it, if you could sell 6600k for roughly the same price as you buyed it. To pay over 300$ for 25% more, doesn't sound smart. Rather add(save) that money to future new machine.

 

If you already think you know the answer, then why post a question?

I doubt that hyperthreading will make a huge difference to your productivity. Why don't you just overclock the 6600k if you need more performance?

The performance increases between each generation have been abysmal in recent years. My 2600k runs stable at 4.6Ghz and I can run several instances of U-He Diva on the highest quality. I rarely run into CPU issues, even with heavy projects. Even my laptop, which has a Haswell 4700HQ has enough power for pretty much any VST I can find. And if I run out of CPU then I'll just bounce stuff to audio.

I'm all for more CPU power, just not an extra few percent for hundreds of ££s or $$s. So in answer to your question, is it worth it? No, in my opinion definitely not, you probably wouldn't even notice a difference.

There is a myth floating around that we have "fast enough" computing. This is complete nonsense, as it's a chicken and egg scenario. In the old days, computing power would double every few months, mainly driven by the huge increases in clock speed. Programmers would make software for these new computers, but that software wouldn't run on older systems, so after a while people would need to upgrade to run modern software.

But now we've been stuck at about 3-4Ghz for years, and the architectural improvements only give a few percent each year. So we haven't really seen any new game changing types of software, and modern software is often more efficient than older software. Such as Windows 8 running better than 7, and 10 has better performance than 8. They really are trying to get every last CPU cycle out of these stagnated chips. It's a shame, but that's where we are at the moment.

Things may change in the future with newer materials, we'll have to wait and see. For now, it's not worth upgrading too often, maybe every 5 years to even notice any difference at all.

 

Last edited: Mar 17, 2017

Seriously ? So you get your info from Intel posts? Did you expect them to say "its only 3% faster but please buy it?" Just as they posted that Skylake and KabyLake later won't run with Windows 7. Search the web for real world metrics.

 

I agree on all. As you can see above i tried hehe... The dude is determined to pay 330 more, for what seems as a useless upgrade, based on an intel advertisement and hearsay about 14nm cpus being sensitive to voltage changes. "Yes!! One more Diva instance for 330$ please". Lol

 

The problem is i "think" i know the answer, but i don't really know it. That's why i created this thread and decided to ask people who already using this CPU.

I'm totally agree here. The only exception is number of cores. I think the more cores with good multi-threading the better performance.

One of the reason why asked about this CPU i find it selling for 150$.

i wouldn't create this thread if i believed in that advertising

I'm not "hearsay" about that, i've f*cked up my first i5 6600k with overclock playing.

Of course if that the only benefit i would have, i will not make a desicion to upgrade.

 

Last edited: Mar 17, 2017

150 bucks ? do it!
you get about 200 or more for your 6600k easily
win win situation

 

I thought the difference between i5 and i7 was hyper-threading and only software coded to use it would see an advantage with it. I don't know of any DAW or plugin that uses hyper-threading so that's why I've always stuck with i5.

 

i made music with an Atari ST1040 till ten years ago , i think people should start to see that you do not need 16 Diva's and 20 serums and 15 omnispheres to make great music. i run an I7 860 with 14 gb ram and SSD and I run anything smooth, even large orchestral templates. i guess you can optimise your workflow , rather than always paying incredible stupid money for a few percentages more cpu . We talk different if you are a gamer

 

I can't agree with this more. Some of my favorite albums were made using gear that are ancient compared to today's standards.

 

if it is'nt broke dont fix it and do you really need an i7, an i5 is just as good spend your money on more ram and storage, that would be better, as you can always upgrade at a later date

 

Yeah, and i can't disagree with that. You can make a beautiful music even on a shovel with strings. I love my process, it's kind of geeky when i trying to emulate richness of analog sounding hardware.

I really like your reply. Maybe i don't have to chasing for so small benefit right now. Perhaps it's better to save money for the future bigger upgrade.

I just can change my workflow and bounce to audio all my CPU hugry instruments.

 

Honestly, it is not even worth to upgrade from my 2600K. Still going strong

 

7700k IS A BEAST. even on the stock cooler it can hit 4.75-5.?+ GHZ per core. Im planning on upgrading my i7-4790K in the next year or so. but right now my 4790k is clocked to constant 4.4ghz per core (turbo off constant 4.4) with max temps of like 40-45 C. with a water cooler i could get 4.7 ghz stable if i wanted but its not really worth it $100+CAD

 

One more instance if you're lucky lol. Yeah I wouldn't trust Intel's own measurements, especially for synthetic benchmarks. They're not the same as a real workload and only serve as an indicator of performance.

Actually I think hyperthreading is transparent to the software, the CPU will just show up as having more cores. So no special coding is needed, apart from the obvious - make it multithreaded.