intel i7 980x

[joeymusicguy]

so im coming back to microshaft / windowz / cubendo world

i want to build the most ridiculous thing i can build so i can run most of a mix at 64 sample block size buffer in cubendo

i've read tons and tons of stuff on all of this, but im hoping someone here has a lot of money and already owns the processor and runs it on a daw

any experience notes?

also, for anyone wondering, yes im selling all of my other rig (pt hd 3, mac pro dual 64 bit processors) and the 192 i/o with a/d upgrade along with digidesign input and output snakes and other bonus cables (the cables racked up around 500 extra dollars after i bought my pt system)

 

[Loren Littlejohn]

Just out of curiosity. Why did you opt for a new machine instead of loading windows on your mac?

 

[joeymusicguy]

Just out of curiosity. Why did you opt for a new machine instead of loading windows on your mac?

windows on my mac?

spare me the headache

plus i want the low latency performance peak you get with i7 (single processor) go check out the real world benchmark results. running a cubase project.

also, for anyone who wants to ask why i dont just use cubase on my mac. well in case you didn't know, core audio performance is actually much weaker at low latencies when compared to AISO

im going for a "DSP-like" system built on native.

 

[Soundlurker]

i want to build the most ridiculous thing i can build so i can run most of a mix at 64 sample block size buffer in cubendo
[/I]

You'll need a good supply of liquid nitrogen then

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3n91MkkO1s&feature=related[/ame]

Imagine the i7 at similar frequencies :zombie:

 

[FloridaRolf]

Better start a thread on a PC-hardware forum like tomshardware etc.
I've only seen mainboards that just support 2 quadcore cpus, maybe you have to wait a bit for boards with dual octotcore support

 

[kev]

Joey, I understand you want to build the best here, but my opinion is that the gulftown is a huge waste of your hard earned dude. I have a few of the chips at work and their value really is not good. If you want, i'll send you the specs of my home system and the settings that will rip up the 980x core per core, will get you straight into 64 sample mixing world unless you really throw the kitchen sink at it, and also has funky things such as USB 3.0 on board for some insane transfer rate in the not too distant future. The 980x is a pointless buy for many reasons at the moment (chief reason being that you can build a whole system faster than it for the price of the cpu alone) and I would only advise buying one under very special circumstances- all of which wouldnt be to do with audio.

Remember that once you have the gear in place to run the i7 platform, you can slot yourself a 980x in next year and void yourself of the bleeding edge premium that intel want.

 

[TheWinterSnow]

Joey, I understand you want to build the best here, but my opinion is that the gulftown is a huge waste of your hard earned dude. I have a few of the chips at work and their value really is not good. If you want, i'll send you the specs of my home system and the settings that will rip up the 980x core per core, will get you straight into 64 sample mixing world unless you really throw the kitchen sink at it, and also has funky things such as USB 3.0 on board for some insane transfer rate in the not too distant future. The 980x is a pointless buy for many reasons at the moment (chief reason being that you can build a whole system faster than it for the price of the cpu alone) and I would only advise buying one under very special circumstances- all of which wouldnt be to do with audio.

Remember that once you have the gear in place to run the i7 platform, you can slot yourself a 980x in next year and void yourself of the bleeding edge premium that intel want.

let the benchmarks do the talking on terms of performance. Who cares about core to core performance, what does the benchmarks/performance to price ratio look like. The price of the 975 and 980 are steep, but the 975 still does about 30% better than the 930. So for joey its about if 30% faster is worth an extra $600 (or 200% price increase)

 

[Ermz]

I'd advocate looking into a server grade, dual-cpu mobo and just running two 920s or 930s in there. Invest in some serious aftermarket cooling and crank the juice up running into them.

I'm currently running a single i7 920 and let me tell you I struggle on mix sessions at 1024 and 2048 buffer. Either Cubase 5.1 isn't very CPU efficient or the CPU itself just can't keep up with moderate sized sessions (usually between 100 and 150 tracks for me). So bear that in mind.

I'd definitely go for a dual CPU rig over a single in this day and age. I'm not sure that hexacore deal is worth buying into presently. But if you really want to get insane with it, see if any of the dual CPU boards support the new hexacore CPUs and build yourself a 12-core. That should be able to handle more than the kitchen sink unless you're running Nebula on every channel at 32 buffer.

 

[kev]

let the benchmarks do the talking on terms of performance. Who cares about core to core performance, what does the benchmarks/performance to price ratio look like. The price of the 975 and 980 are steep, but the 975 still does about 30% better than the 930. So for joey its about if 30% faster is worth an extra $600 (or 200% price increase)

Sure, lets take a look at this then. My setup is hitting 8600 and is 24/7 stable. I dont see your 30% figure there dude. You can say its "30% faster at stock speeds" but who gives a damn about that...

You need to bear in mind the intel manufacturing process firstly. The dies in these processors are all made using the same techniques at Intel and get churned out and stress tested in batches (by their hundreds and thousands) to see how well they have turned out. The good ones get the 975 label and the slightly lesser ones will get a 930/920 and so on. The irony is they are all pretty much the same.

Both of the chips 930 and 975 are going to max out at around 4.5ghz on air, and fwiw ive never seen an i7 that will not hit 4ghz. I also have a theory that intel have an undercover marketing strategy which effectively means they leave their chips underclocked when they release them, in order to cause a huge stir on the Internet anyway. AMD are in the same boat here too- take their most recent hexa core releases. The scaled down home version was alledgedly a 4 core version of their "six core beast", however the last two cores can be unlocked by software (so not even laser locking)- these guys know exactly what they are doing.

 

[joeymusicguy]

I'd advocate looking into a server grade, dual-cpu mobo and just running two 920s or 930s in there. Invest in some serious aftermarket cooling and crank the juice up running into them.

I'm currently running a single i7 920 and let me tell you I struggle on mix sessions at 1024 and 2048 buffer. Either Cubase 5.1 isn't very CPU efficient or the CPU itself just can't keep up with moderate sized sessions (usually between 100 and 150 tracks for me). So bear that in mind.

I'd definitely go for a dual CPU rig over a single in this day and age. I'm not sure that hexacore deal is worth buying into presently. But if you really want to get insane with it, see if any of the dual CPU boards support the new hexacore CPUs and build yourself a 12-core. That should be able to handle more than the kitchen sink unless you're running Nebula on every channel at 32 buffer.

But so many people are showing that more than one processor on cubed is worse than multicore

Also. Every benchmark Ive seen shows a massive improvement in peak performance with i7

These benchmarks are made WITH the program I am going to use so they are pretty real world looking to me

1k for more hardcore power isn't that much to me!

To anyone and kev: Post me som other specs running the same benchmark with the results .... Dawbench.com

 

[joeymusicguy]

Sure, lets take a look at this then. My setup is hitting 8600 and is 24/7 stable. I dont see your 30% figure there dude. You can say its "30% faster at stock speeds" but who gives a damn about that...

You need to bear in mind the intel manufacturing process firstly. The dies in these processors are all made using the same techniques at Intel and get churned out and stress tested in batches (by their hundreds and thousands) to see how well they have turned out. The good ones get the 975 label and the slightly lesser ones will get a 930/920 and so on. The irony is they are all pretty much the same.

Both of the chips 930 and 975 are going to max out at around 4.5ghz on air, and fwiw ive never seen an i7 that will not hit 4ghz. I also have a theory that intel have an undercover marketing strategy which effectively means they leave their chips underclocked when they release them, in order to cause a huge stir on the Internet anyway. AMD are in the same boat here too- take their most recent hexa core releases. The scaled down home version was alledgedly a 4 core version of their "six core beast", however the last two cores can be unlocked by software (so not even laser locking)- these guys know exactly what they are doing.

I failed to see your point... You said some stuff about intel then showed a huge graph that says i7 980x is the best CPU ever. What am I missing lol.

 

[kev]

The point I was making was that a $200 930 can get you pretty much the same speed as the 6 core monster that costs $1000 lol.

If you look at the points Joey, the 980x is getting 8800, and the 930 I have here is getting 8600 and cost me $800 less. Yes the 980x can be boosted a bit as well, but 32NM processors dont take the voltage too well 24/7 and after the 4ghz mark I wager nobody will notice the difference anyway haha. Its big cash for little gain basically, but if you have $800 burning a hole in your pocket you cant get anything better .

 

[joeymusicguy]

The point I was making was that a $200 930 can get you pretty much the same speed as the 6 core monster that costs $1000 lol.

Oh

Yeah the price jump is stupid and I see your point now

But I still feel like I will need every ounce I can get. You're right but I don't care a whole lot to pay that extra to get the performance. But at the same time waiting wouldn't be so bad either considering I don't necessarily need that power RIGHT now

 

[joeymusicguy]

The point I was making was that a $200 930 can get you pretty much the same speed as the 6 core monster that costs $1000 lol.

If you look at the points, the 980x is getting 8800, and the 930 I have here is getting 8600 and cost me $200. Yes the 980x can be boosted a bit as well, but 32NM processors dont take the voltage too well 24/7 and after the 4ghz mark I wager nobody will notice the difference anyway haha.

How does your daw perform, considering you have what I want already (including the windows 7 setup)?

Do u run waves plugins?

 

[joeymusicguy]

I'd advocate looking into a server grade, dual-cpu mobo and just running two 920s or 930s in there. Invest in some serious aftermarket cooling and crank the juice up running into them.

I'm currently running a single i7 920 and let me tell you I struggle on mix sessions at 1024 and 2048 buffer. Either Cubase 5.1 isn't very CPU efficient or the CPU itself just can't keep up with moderate sized sessions (usually between 100 and 150 tracks for me). So bear that in mind.

I'd definitely go for a dual CPU rig over a single in this day and age. I'm not sure that hexacore deal is worth buying into presently. But if you really want to get insane with it, see if any of the dual CPU boards support the new hexacore CPUs and build yourself a 12-core. That should be able to handle more than the kitchen sink unless you're running Nebula on every channel at 32 buffer.

I got to thinking more about your post and realized... I have a three year old intel system ... That runs hundreds of tracks at 1024 easily. I can max it out with avox choir plugins, but that's about it. Perhaps your rig is messed up somehow. I know with a huge session that your system needs to be pretty highly optimized with services off and disabling almost every sub system you can, including security layer and windows audio....

 

[kev]

Well dude, cubase is running like a dream on here and windows 7 is hands down the best OS I have ever had now in terms of compatability, stability, usability, speed etc. (Although I wasnt a huge fan right to begin with) Nothing has taxed it yet from waves to slate platinum. I havent used my nebula 2 on this build that I bought last year, but im sure it will chomp through that with ease too. Lightweight mixing is a doddle at 64 samples, but if you're going to be packing shitloads of cpu intensive vsts in, as you know you will need to start to back off a little. I should also mention that I use this as an Internet/gaming machine as well, I have f-secure anti-virus 2010, messenger, itunes, dropbox, and steam all running 24/7 whilst I mix, and it still doesnt quiver. I switch a fair degree of windows stuff off, firewall/defender and all that crap, but as far as services go I really havent bothered tampering on my most recent build. In other words, there is plenty more tuning of this system to be done if/when required.

I need to grind ermz down into overclocking his 920 since winter is on its way to australia

P.S

You should really get some solid state drives for this new beast of yours too. They are crazy speed, crazy reliable and windows 7 is optimized to use them.

 

[joeymusicguy]

Well dude, cubase is running like a dream on here and windows 7 is hands down the best OS I have ever had now in terms of compatability, usability, speed etc. (Although I wasnt a huge fan right to begin with) Nothing has taxed it yet from waves to slate platinum. I havent used my nebula 2 on this build that I bought last year, but im sure it will chomp through that with ease too. Lightweight mixing is a doddle at 64 samples, but if you're going to be packing shitloads of cpu intensive vsts in, as you know you will need to start to back off a little.

Word

Yeah but the bump from 64 to 128 is still in a performance level arena, with double the performance increase. Keyboard players are a lot cooler with lag than guitar players are, understandably so

Man now if I could just figure out all the other components in an hour and overnight this shit haha

 

[TheWinterSnow]

@kev: i totally agree with you. Intel makes basically the same chip, they test them and locate their highest stable clock and charge more for the faster ship (they also turn off parts of the cache to compensate as well). They do the same thing with multicores, the chores that fail inspection are turned of hence having the same platform chip, one being a dual core, tri core and quad core. You can unlock those cores but they may or not be stable and may or may not work correctly.

As for the clock frequency it comes down to this, with a 980x, you know that it will run stable all the time at 3.3GHz, however, you cannot guarantee that the 930x (the same internally) will be stable at that same speed, so yes you could overclock and get the same performance for much cheaper, but it will always be less stable at that speed. When you are hitting your processor hard onwards to maximum load even stable stock frequencies can become unstable, which means an overclocked CPU will give out much sooner. In joey's case if he is pushing a sextuple core to maximum load an overclocked 930x will become unstable much sooner. And beside that a stock frequency CPU will have a longer lifespan than an overclocked CPU.

its like vacuum tubes, they test them, seeing if they pass basic quality, the cheap ones are thrown into a batch of unlabled tubes sold for cheaper, high gain or balanced tubes (where the current is higher and where the current is equal on both triodes (matched pair for Pentodes) respectively) we pay a premium price for since there are fewer of them.

The cheap man's solution is to overclock a cheaper CPU which i do not object I used to do that until I got my hands on the fastest dual core that AMD makes so I do not need to compensate unless I want to start competing with the quad cores in bandwidth. On the other hand if you do not care about money to some degree and want the fastest most stable setup, you pay the premium to get it, and I don't think Joey cares about the price difference.

 

[joeymusicguy]

P.S

You should really get some solid state drives for this new beast of yours too.

I'm thinking about it. Right now, I don't know enough about it to buy confidently. But I will research it.

 

[Ermz]

I need to grind ermz down into overclocking his 920 since winter is on its way to australia

I've been meaning to do so but the stock idle temperatures of my rig are absolutely insane. 55 degrees idling in windows. I have no idea what's wrong with the rig but to start with I'll need to re-mount another heat sink and make sure it's all done properly this time. The entire rig seems to run a bit hotter than it should. Do you think windows could be underclocking my CPU to stop it frying? What are those mobo extensions that should be disabled to disallow the OS to mess with CPU clocks?

@Joey: I don't know what the deal is to be honest. I run a dedicated OS installation cut off from the net, with most unnecessary services disabled. I run into a pretty significant shortage of juice in my mix sessions. Not sure, it could be the newer wave of plug-ins being a lot more taxing than the old guard. All the same, I run into a shortage of power regularly.