Quantcast
Coffeelake i7 8700K and i9 7920X benchmarks - Gearspace.com
The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
Coffeelake i7 8700K and i9 7920X benchmarks
Old 5th October 2017
  #1
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
Coffeelake i7 8700K and i9 7920X benchmarks

Intel's Coffeelake platform launched today and I managed to get the 7920X tested this week as well, so a double update in this post.

http://www.scanproaudio.info/2017/10...ine-injection/

http://www.scanproaudio.info/2017/10...-on-the-bench/
Old 5th October 2017
  #2
Gear Addict
 
🎧 10 years
Thanks a bunch for this, Pete. Greatly appreciated.
Old 8th October 2017
  #3
Gear Addict
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete Kaine ➑️
Intel's Coffeelake platform launched today and I managed to get the 7920X tested this week as well, so a double update in this post.

http://www.scanproaudio.info/2017/10...ine-injection/

http://www.scanproaudio.info/2017/10...-on-the-bench/
Hi again, Pete.

I was wondering: Will you be benching the 7940X, you reckon? It seems like a great CPU with high boost numbers and a price per core quite similar to the 10 core 7900X (very different pricing than the previous generation).

Also: What are your thoughts on binning and the non-linear TDPs for these higher core count CPUs?
Old 8th October 2017
  #4
Gear Head
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete Kaine ➑️
Intel's Coffeelake platform launched today and I managed to get the 7920X tested this week as well, so a double update in this post.

http://www.scanproaudio.info/2017/10...ine-injection/

http://www.scanproaudio.info/2017/10...-on-the-bench/
Hi Pete.

Im currently running a 1600X which I do find struggles with Ableton and Cubase htting hard with lots of VSTs especially synths. Do you think a move to a 8700K would be worth it for me. Also whcih Z370 MB would you recommend for the 8700K. Im currently running a X370 Gaming 5 as it was a great deal at the time but I dont really need all the features. I would like to have something with lighting included as im running a TG case, but its not a given.

Thanks.

Mike
Old 10th October 2017 | Show parent
  #5
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skap ➑️
I was wondering: Will you be benching the 7940X, you reckon?
It's on the list of things I need to get around to very soon, even more so now some stock has arrived. That chip kind of makes most sense to me as most of the sequencers seem to cap out at 32 threads max, going above it however I suspect will become diminished returns.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skap ➑️
Also: What are your thoughts on binning and the non-linear TDPs for these higher core count CPUs?
I'm as lost as most other people by how they are presenting these as some of these specs across the range look pretty damn erratic on paper. It feels like they are plucking the stock clocks from out of the air and the turbo is a hypothetical max only available if the moons, stars, and black holes align, unless you put in the extra effort to make sure the system is setup properly to cope with it. The power pull on these things seems to be at or around the nominated stock clock speed, and even with the turbo just pushing it higher I'm not so sure if that TDP figure is overly useful.

Quote:
Originally Posted by djfearny ➑️
I'm currently running a 1600X which I do find struggles with Ableton and Cubase hitting hard with lots of VSTs especially synths. Do you think a move to an 8700K would be worth it for me?
We're talking around 40% more overhead between the 1700X and 8700K so, I'd expect something in the 50% margin with the 6 core 1600X against the 8700k. So, it's a reasonable increase although if you need a new board and cpu then the price grows large fast. If you can keep bouncing to audio until the next generation and eak out another 6ish months on that platform, then the resulting bang per buck would be a lot more promising. All depends how maxed out you are currently I guess.

Quote:
Originally Posted by djfearny ➑️
I would like to have something with lighting included as I'm running a TG case, but it's not a given.
I tend to favour the Asus ones, some people favour the Gigabyte's, both lots have Thunderbolt models and card options, so I guess one of those. You need to pick a board with a header port on the board to support it, which normally midrange board or above, but otherwise pick the one that matches the features you need.
Old 11th October 2017 | Show parent
  #6
Gear Addict
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete Kaine ➑️
It's on the list of things I need to get around to very soon, even more so now some stock has arrived. That chip kind of makes most sense to me as most of the sequencers seem to cap out at 32 threads max, going above it however I suspect will become diminished returns.



I'm as lost as most other people by how they are presenting these as some of these specs across the range look pretty damn erratic on paper. It feels like they are plucking the stock clocks from out of the air and the turbo is a hypothetical max only available if the moons, stars, and black holes align, unless you put in the extra effort to make sure the system is setup properly to cope with it. The power pull on these things seems to be at or around the nominated stock clock speed, and even with the turbo just pushing it higher I'm not so sure if that TDP figure is overly useful.
Thanks, Pete. Perfect. Really looking forward to reading your 7940X review.
Old 12th October 2017
  #7
Gear Maniac
 
🎧 5 years
Currently putting together a system on scan.co.uk. Spec'd it with an 8700k and Asus z370-A.

8700K looks like the one to go for for Ableton use. Fastest Cores, and six of them. (i'm on a budget)

Would you say this platform is already stable for audio? Or should i go for a earlier gen cpu/mobo?

Need a new (reliable) pc as we speak, so i won't be waiting too long to take the plunge.
Old 12th October 2017 | Show parent
  #8
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
Yeah, the platform itself is fine, but the problem you might have however is stock availability. Like most resellers we blew through the stock they allocated us on the most popular chips (8700K included) on launch day and restocks could be a few weeks off yet.
Old 12th October 2017
  #9
Gear Head
 
🎧 5 years
Order in for my Prime A and 8700K today. Sold the ryzen board and cpu for Β£310 so quite happy about that. Hopefully some of my bottleneck issues will face away now. Just wasn't amds turn this time round.
Old 12th October 2017
  #10
Lives for gear
 
3 Reviews written
🎧 10 years
Getting my 8700k tomorrow! Scan had some in stock today 'unexpectedly' and have sent out to those who pre-ordered (I am one of them). Thankfully at the normal/sane price.

My Asus Maximus X awaits...
Old 12th October 2017 | Show parent
  #11
Gear Nut
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pro5 ➑️
Getting my 8700k tomorrow! Scan had some in stock today 'unexpectedly' and have sent out to those who pre-ordered (I am one of them). Thankfully at the normal/sane price.

My Asus Maximus X awaits...
Keep us posted! Air or water cooling? Overclock or not?

Andy B
Old 12th October 2017 | Show parent
  #12
Lives for gear
 
3 Reviews written
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by w1awb ➑️
Keep us posted! Air or water cooling? Overclock or not?

Andy B
Yes overclock, noctua air NH-14 (Dual tower 2 fan cooler) (for now as I already have it), thermal grizzly paste see what temps that gets me and what result, will move to (a good as some lower end are no better and sometimes worse than good air coolers) AIO if have severe issues, if not i'm fine on AIR and a (slightly) lower clock.

Ram is G.Skill 3200mhz CL14 (will o/c this too)

Last edited by Pro5; 12th October 2017 at 11:16 PM..
Old 15th October 2017
  #13
Gear Addict
 
🎧 10 years
Pete, I was thinking, since DAW usage usually will make use of many cores but almost always seems to overload a couple of cores before the rest are maxed out, would it for DAW work be an idea to use f.i. ASUS's ability to set individual clock frequencies and voltage per core so that the strongest cores are instructed to work harder and the weaker cores are set to a more forgiving setting? F.i. setting the four strongest cores of a 7940X to 4.5 GHz, the four weakest cores to 3.8 GHz and the remaining 6 cores to whatever the cooling will allow? Does this make sense? I'm sure a different, more sensible approach could be made as well, but you get the idea.

Also: Will a DAW be given the fastest core for the heaviest load, or will it not work like that?

If some iteration of this could work, it could potentially be very handy for DAW usage and still letting us use air coolers comfortably.
Old 17th October 2017
  #14
Here for the gear
 
🎧 10 years
Thanks Pete for the Benchmarks.
IΒ΄ll planning to build my new rig in November. Right now i run cubase 9.0.30 on a i7-4790K @4600Mhz an 16 GB Ram. (Win 10 CU)
I hit the cpu meter in every projekt (no problems with spikes after Bios tuning ... the usual stuff) and i have to freeze most of my tracks. This is slowing down my production.
So i start to plan building the new Rig with a i9-7900X and 32 GB Ram on an Asus or Gigabyte Board. But then i read about Cubase in Windows 10 does have some Problems if the CPU has more than 8 cores (basicaly).
Would you suggest going for a "safe" 6 Core i7-8700K CPU or for a i9-7900X (or even i9-7920X) in my case?
Old 17th October 2017 | Show parent
  #15
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skap ➑️
would it for DAW work be an idea to use f.i. ASUS's ability to set individual clock frequencies and voltage per core so that the strongest cores are instructed to work harder and the weaker cores are set to a more forgiving setting? F.i. setting the four strongest cores of a 7940X to 4.5 GHz, the four weakest cores to 3.8 GHz and the remaining 6 cores to whatever the cooling will allow? Does this make sense? I'm sure a different, more sensible approach could be made as well, but you get the idea.

Also: Will a DAW be given the fastest core for the heaviest load, or will it not work like that?
As far as I'm aware it's the OS and BIOS that deal with the whole "strongest core turbo" clock management side of things and the DAW can't address it directly.

It's a Good idea in theory, but if the DAW has no way of identifying those threads in order to assign the channel to be processed. Rather it'll proceed to make use of them in a first come, first served scenario which is likely to see us bottleneck quicker than we would otherwise if a heavy load hits a slow core.
Old 17th October 2017 | Show parent
  #16
Gear Addict
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete Kaine ➑️
As far as I'm aware it's the OS and BIOS that deal with the whole "strongest core turbo" clock management side of things and the DAW can't address it directly.

It's a Good idea in theory, but if the DAW has no way of identifying those threads in order to assign the channel to be processed. Rather it'll proceed to make use of them in a first come, first served scenario which is likely to see us bottleneck quicker than we would otherwise if a heavy load hits a slow core.
Thanks, Pete. Yeah, you're probably right. Perhaps it is something a DAW manufacturer would have to look into, then, but I guess it's a very obscure and highly specialized need/wish, so if the user can't do it him- or herself today I doubt we'll ever see it happen. Makes sense to cater to the majority of users. Thanks again, Pete.

Looking forward to the DAWbench numbers, OC-ability and temperature readings for that 7940X.
Old 19th October 2017 | Show parent
  #17
Gear Addict
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete Kaine ➑️
As far as I'm aware it's the OS and BIOS that deal with the whole "strongest core turbo" clock management side of things and the DAW can't address it directly.

It's a Good idea in theory, but if the DAW has no way of identifying those threads in order to assign the channel to be processed. Rather it'll proceed to make use of them in a first come, first served scenario which is likely to see us bottleneck quicker than we would otherwise if a heavy load hits a slow core.
Hi again, Pete. I just read a post about something that might be related to this in a thread over at overclock.net: Skylake-X/Kaby Lake-X Combined Discussion - Page 439

"I am sure others already know but Windows 10 1709 supports favored cores natively! It uses my two 4.8 GHz cores preferentially all the time now. It is much better than Intel's Turbo boost 3.0 driver.

Uninstall the Intel Turbo Boost 3.0 application and then reboot and switch the CPU power management configuration "MFC Driver Override" option to "OS Native Support". This was in the BIOS of my Asus R5 Apex.

Much improved, I hated that Turbo Boost application."



Could this potentially change anything for DAW usage, and perhaps make the per core optimizations more useful? Thanks again.
Old 19th October 2017
  #18
Lives for gear
 
3 Reviews written
🎧 10 years
I have ALL cores of my 8700k o/c to 4.9ghz, locked there. I'm getting over double the plug count/perf of my previous system. Just don't use MCE/auto, manual volting/oc to get a stable and decent temperature all cores speed.
Old 20th October 2017
  #19
Gear Maniac
 
🎧 10 years
Any thoughts on oc [email protected] vs [email protected]?
Old 20th October 2017 | Show parent
  #20
Gear Nut
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pro5 ➑️
I have ALL cores of my 8700k o/c to 4.9ghz, locked there. I'm getting over double the plug count/perf of my previous system. Just don't use MCE/auto, manual volting/oc to get a stable and decent temperature all cores speed.

What are your temps like with the air cooling? Is that working? What was your previous system? This sounds pretty exciting.
Old 20th October 2017 | Show parent
  #21
Gear Maniac
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skap ➑️
Pete, I was thinking, since DAW usage usually will make use of many cores but almost always seems to overload a couple of cores before the rest are maxed out, would it for DAW work be an idea to use f.i. ASUS's ability to set individual clock frequencies and voltage per core so that the strongest cores are instructed to work harder and the weaker cores are set to a more forgiving setting? F.i. setting the four strongest cores of a 7940X to 4.5 GHz, the four weakest cores to 3.8 GHz and the remaining 6 cores to whatever the cooling will allow? Does this make sense? I'm sure a different, more sensible approach could be made as well, but you get the idea.

Also: Will a DAW be given the fastest core for the heaviest load, or will it not work like that?

If some iteration of this could work, it could potentially be very handy for DAW usage and still letting us use air coolers comfortably.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete Kaine ➑️
As far as I'm aware it's the OS and BIOS that deal with the whole "strongest core turbo" clock management side of things and the DAW can't address it directly.

It's a Good idea in theory, but if the DAW has no way of identifying those threads in order to assign the channel to be processed. Rather it'll proceed to make use of them in a first come, first served scenario which is likely to see us bottleneck quicker than we would otherwise if a heavy load hits a slow core.
Some users MIGHT be able to use "Process Lasso" to select fastest cores but I don't think this gets you completely there.

https://bitsum.com/

I use their "Park Control" software in some in older computers.

BTW - this is mentioned in a good beginner overclocking video series for the 7920x on MSI boards

Old 24th October 2017 | Show parent
  #22
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skap ➑️

"I am sure others already know but Windows 10 1709 supports favored cores natively! It uses my two 4.8 GHz cores preferentially all the time now. It is much better than Intel's Turbo boost 3.0 driver.

Uninstall the Intel Turbo Boost 3.0 application and then reboot and switch the CPU power management configuration "MFC Driver Override" option to "OS Native Support". This was in the BIOS of my Asus R5 Apex.

Could this potentially change anything for DAW usage, and perhaps make the per core optimizations more useful? Thanks again.
That is indeed interesting, as is the Lasso suggestion above. The problem is, is that to fully optimize this you'd need to put the busiest track onto the strongest core and as Vanallan states, this wouldn't quite get you there.

You can assign specific applications to specific cores, but I don't think (AFAIK) that you can assign parts of that application (i.e. per track) at such a granular level.

I guess in theory you could write a routine for the sequencer to check with the OS for the strongest core in this scenario and then it could assign the busiest tracks accordingly. As far as I'm aware I don't think it's done currently and as I'm not a coder I've no idea how viable it would be to implement in reality. It's always easier just discussing stuff like this in theory!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aith ➑️
Any thoughts on oc [email protected] vs [email protected]?
At the same clock speed? No contest, the 7820x doesn't quite offer the same bang per buck as the 8700k at stock, but it's still a noticeable step up. Running them both at the same clock speed makes the 7820X better far value without a doubt. I'm just not sure you'd hold that 4.8GHz however without some series cooling loops going on, and even then I'm not sure how stable it'd be long term.
Old 27th October 2017
  #23
Gear Maniac
 
🎧 5 years
Is it feasible to cool the new coffee lake 6 core 8700k 95watt cpu's in a passive system with the No fan CR95C cpu cooler?

I hate noise and dust.
Old 27th October 2017 | Show parent
  #24
Lives for gear
 
3 Reviews written
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by w1awb ➑️
What are your temps like with the air cooling? Is that working? What was your previous system? This sounds pretty exciting.
https://valid.x86.fr/1f1x0y < that was 5ghz on air noctua DH-14.

If I go to 5ghz I'm pushing it a bit on temps (due to volts needed). Maybe on water it wouldn't matter. I don't need to be at 5ghz so I settle for 4.9ghz which is still 500mhz per core faster than my old O/C CPU at 4.4 (+ 2 more cores!).

At 4.9 the temps are a non issue, generally in the 30s for normal browsing, into the 50s/60s under load for work (inc DAW work). They only hit the 70s when I'm benching or pushing it and occasionally into the 80s if StESSING IT (prime 95 test).

In fact I just tested it with a mix I've got on in zero latency mode (S1) so it's pushing the system, tons of plugs, the CPU temps are showing in the mid 40s max! The overall CPU us (on the task manager) is showing around 35%, the buffer size is currently at 320 (to use S1's zero latency thing), so not like I have it on large 2048 buffers either (which I often had to resort to on my old system to stop crackles)

For me it's a massive improvement but hey, my old CPU that you asked about was a mere 2700k (Sandy Bridge's top chip) at 4.4ghz which was long overdue for an upgrade (as old as it was I wasn't quite ready to upgrade to 'just' another 4 core esp as the IPC gains year on year weren't night and day) but the 8700k with 2 more cores and accumulated IPC/Clock/architecture (Instructions) gains added up to make a sensible choice for me. Great price (inc motherboard) vs the HEDT stuff.

In my tests with reference tests from ryzen 8 cores, the 8700k when o/c will MATCH them on multicore and beat them by 50% on single core. As real world DAW use is a mix of both, either way it's beating ryzen/tr 8 cores. I've even seen it match/beat some skylake X 10 cores on certain things. Skylake X isn't all that tbh. Good for very specific needs but not very well balanced, not a great overall CPU esp factoring in the expense of the supporting motherboard etc. It's pretty much a given now that anyone running an 8700k O/C (which is easily done) is going to way outperform most *8* core chips even with just 6 cores, EXCEPT in super highly multi threaded apps like 3D rendering that can take full advantage, and even there the 6 core 8700k can *match* the 8 core ryzens (not sure about skylake x but we are talking a very specific case here that has very little to do with all round computing and DAW use).

I mean take a look at this: http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare...20X/3937vs3928

7820x (as someone asked about above) vs 8700k. You'd think it would be night and day? but actually benches show 8700k is '4th' fastest CPU in the world (on there) while 7820x is two steps down in 6th place. While as a workstation the skylake X takes it (just) it's clearly NOT a great all round chip vs 8700k which gives you the best of all worlds right now.

And sure, while the HEDT may do a little better in DAWS, it's not actually NEEDED. I have zero issues now with 8700k even running a ton of live plugs that soak up CPU power, on my old system I'd never have dared push it like that or it was impossible to mix, now I don't even think I just mix. I reach my own internal need limit for plug-ins before the 8700k does.

And bear in mind I record/mix at 88.2k! which is pushing my system harder than those at 44.1k (I would advise 88 for plug in reasons not recording reasons but many do still run at 44 and in that case expect even more performance). My point is It takes everything I throw at it even at 88.2k, if you are at 44.1k then it's never gonna be an issue at all imo.

As I don't and won't ever use nebula/acqua anymore I think it's more than enough until some real good gains again in 4-5 years. That said I have tried some acqua demos recently and while I can run many of them without my CPU crying, they still have all the same issues on loading speed (even with FAST ram at 3333mhz CL14 and an SSD) and are a pain to duplicate on tracks (they hold the mix/system up for multiple seconds sometimes tens of seconds while they load/copy - its just a bad way to work even on a fast system imo)

Also I needed an 8700k on this system as it's multipurpose not just DAW, Its also used for software development and VR (games) the latter of which isn't too hot on high core CPUS with low clocks (ryzen and threadripper are pretty crappy for VR and games compared to an O/C 8700k), and I find the 8700k is a pefect balance of cores to speed with more than enough power to make a decent workstation for video editing and some rendering too (though if I was purely into 3D rendering then sure I'd get as many cores as possible). Ignore the old gtx780 in that CPUz bench, that GPU is holding the system back on graphics but was just in for testing the CPU.

For a balanced system at a decent price I think 8700k is hard to beat. Purely for DAW use? Maybe there's other better options but as the 8700k can handle everything I throw at it in its sleep I don't see why I should suffer in other computing areas to cater to more cores when often, at least in Studio One, single core speed is more important when plugs on a track/bus/mixbus all accumulate on a single core. It does still spread the load obviously where it can and I can see the 2 extra cores paying off even in Studio One.

Last edited by Pro5; 27th October 2017 at 09:16 AM..
Old 27th October 2017 | Show parent
  #25
Lives for gear
 
3 Reviews written
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by wafa ➑️
Is it feasible to cool the new coffee lake 6 core 8700k 95watt cpu's in a passive system with the No fan CR95C cpu cooler?

I hate noise and dust.
My 8700k on Noctua DH-14 may not be silent but its VERY VERY quiet under normal use. Only when pushing it for video encoding/Gaming would I hear it ramp up. The noctua is pretty quiet for an air cooler. My case (Fractal Designs Meshify C) is also pretty quiet and runs quite cool. Lastly dust isn't an issue on this case and the location I have it (don't put the case on the floor and dust issues are cut by a massive amount).

Not sure it would work with passive (you mean no air and no water either?) coolers, but it would probably be a waste of the 8700ks potential to hamper it with less then great cooling as you won't be able to O/C it and get the use out of it as much. But that's your call. It does run relatively warm without a GREAT cooler (Air or water) so if silence is your goal you could look at one of the lesser coffee lakes that should still do well but push less power/heat.
Old 27th October 2017 | Show parent
  #26
Gear Nut
 
🎧 5 years
Thanks for this post. Super informative. I'm using an i7 4930 system I put together in 2013 and looking to upgrade in the next year or two. The 8700k definitely caught my eye but I really didn't want to have to go to a water cooler. You have allayed my fears!






Quote:
Originally Posted by Pro5 ➑️
https://valid.x86.fr/1f1x0y < that was 5ghz on air noctua DH-14.

If I go to 5ghz I'm pushing it a bit on temps (due to volts needed). Maybe on water it wouldn't matter. I don't need to be at 5ghz so I settle for 4.9ghz which is still 500mhz per core faster than my old O/C CPU at 4.4 (+ 2 more cores!).
Old 30th October 2017 | Show parent
  #27
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by wafa ➑️
Is it feasible to cool the new coffee lake 6 core 8700k 95watt cpu's in a passive system with the No fan CR95C cpu cooler?
I'd attempt it on the 8700 but not the "K" edition as TDP is expected average load and not what it pulls under peak. As much as I like the CR95C, I think this one might prove a little borderline.
Old 30th October 2017 | Show parent
  #28
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pro5 ➑️
They only hit the 70s when I'm benching or pushing it and occasionally into the 80s if StESSING IT (prime 95 test).
Yeah, I'm seeing mid to high 80's with Prime95 in a lot of my testing and that drops to less than 70 degrees with AVX testing disabled but otherwise running 100% load.

Currently AVX in real terms doesn't hammer the CPU like a benchmark tool does, so generally, I'm happy these days as long as it doesn't break 90 or throttle and as long as the none AVX test is south of 80 degrees. I'd expect more software to leverage it over the years, so I do like to play it safe, but then I do leave some overhead when I do these write-ups.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pro5 ➑️
I mean take a look at this: UserBenchmark: Intel Core i7-7820X vs i7-8700K

7820x (as someone asked about above) vs 8700k. You'd think it would be night and day? but actually, benches show 8700k is '4th' fastest CPU in the world (on there) while 7820x is two steps down in 6th place. While as a workstation the skylake X takes it (just) it's clearly NOT a great all round chip vs 8700k which gives you the best of all worlds right now.
Userbenchmark.com seems to average all sorts of metrics in ways that don't make sense. I've seen "age of hardware" affect overall scores before on the GPU side, which is pretty odd for something that otherwise looks to be benchmark centric.

Yes, Coffeelake has a higher per core clock and no doubt that skews the perceived performance upwards in some benchmarks, but we're not gaming here and we can use the extra cores properly.

If you compare the chips via CPUBenchmark or Geekbench then both are more clear on the single thread advantages of one and the multi-core handling and overall better performance of the other.

Quote:
Also I needed an 8700k on this system as it's multipurpose not just DAW, Its also used for software development and VR (games) the latter of which isn't too hot on high core CPUS with low clocks (ryzen and threadripper are pretty crappy for VR and games compared to an O/C 8700k), and I find the 8700k is a perfect balance of cores to speed with more than enough power to make a decent workstation for video editing and some rendering too (though if I was purely into 3D rendering then sure I'd get as many cores as possible). Ignore the old gtx780 in that CPUz bench, that GPU is holding the system back on graphics but was just in for testing the CPU.

For a balanced system at a decent price, I think 8700k is hard to beat. Purely for DAW use? Maybe there are other better options but as the 8700k can handle everything I throw at it in its sleep I don't see why I should suffer in other computing areas to cater to more cores when often
Ahh.... when I say we're not gaming...

Ok, so that pretty much sums it up. Yeah, I agree with you completely on that as games rarely use more than 4 cores (or even more than 2), so a higher core clock is always going to be preferable, up until the point where you hit or exceed 4 cores.
Old 30th October 2017 | Show parent
  #29
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skap ➑️
I was wondering: Will you be benching the 7940X, you reckon? It seems like a great CPU with high boost numbers and a price per core quite similar to the 10 core 7900X (very different pricing than the previous generation).
Finally got around to it.

http://www.scanproaudio.info/2017/10...bench-testing/
Old 30th October 2017 | Show parent
  #30
Gear Addict
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete Kaine ➑️
Thanks for the update, Pete. A great read. Really appreciated.

They don't come cheap, but at least the CPUs seem to follow the rule of diminishing returns in a more forgiving manner compared to the previous generation.

Interesting that the 16 core would clock the same as the 14 core. For these HCC CPUs to reach 4.5 GHz for non-AVX DAW loads, do you think the TIM or the cooler is the main bottleneck?

Regarding those ASUS Prime boards, does your experience tell you anything about how much overclocking the VRMs can handle before they throttle?

Is DPC an issue at all for the X299 platform?

Thanks again, Pete.
πŸ“ Reply

Similar Threads

Thread / Thread Starter Replies / Views Last Post
replies: 4616 views: 619152
Avatar for smoke
smoke 7th May 2021
replies: 98 views: 40588
Avatar for dfghdhr
dfghdhr 5th June 2021
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearspace Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…

Forum Jump
Forum Jump