Is the i7 8700K processor good enough for PT Native?

[noiseboyuk]

Originally Posted by risey

There is a big difference between 9679 and 9895

2.2%.

[risey]

Originally Posted by noiseboyuk

2.2%.

Thats like 10fps in gaming, life and death mate lol.... hahahahha

[guitardom]

I have hard Pro Tools numbers from tests like I outline here on builds I have done over the years. The 8700k smokes the 5960x in every possible way in PT. Most testing I have done has it upward of 15+% more power (at about 1/4 of the cost) in PT. This is over multiple systems, though the results are consistent from build to build.

Your other problems are related to something else. I cant say without looking at the system. It could be plugin related or a hardware driver issue or setting.

The only area I would take the 5960x is if I needed the PCIe lanes.

[risey]

Originally Posted by guitardom

I have hard Pro Tools numbers from tests like I outline here on builds I have done over the years. The 8700k smokes the 5960x in every possible way in PT. Most testing I have done has it upward of 15+% more power (at about 1/4 of the cost) in PT. This is over multiple systems, though the results are consistent from build to build.

Your other problems are related to something else. I cant say without looking at the system. It could be plugin related or a hardware driver issue or setting.

The only area I would take the 5960x is if I needed the PCIe lanes.

Like I said I moved on to the 8700k now, for gaming it beats the 5960x hands down no argument but for working scenarios no it does not and there is nothing wrong with lanes or settings, there is no sugar coating here, I say it as it is and this is why I advise the original poster to be careful in his choice and maybe look at the i9, but..... if he is also a gamer then 8700k would be a good trade off....

[TNM]

Originally Posted by risey

Like I said I moved on to the 8700k now, for gaming it beats the 5960x hands down no argument but for working scenarios no it does not and there is nothing wrong with lanes or settings, there is no sugar coating here, I say it as it is and this is why I advise the original poster to be careful in his choice and maybe look at the i9, but..... if he is also a gamer then 8700k would be a good trade off....

dude a guy who builds pro tools computers for a living says the 8700k is more powerful with pro tools.. not just games.. and although he and I have had our differences, there is no way he'd be wrong about that if he says so. People who build pro audio PC's benchmark them.. there is something else up with the syste,

[guitardom]

Originally Posted by risey

Like I said I moved on to the 8700k now, for gaming it beats the 5960x hands down no argument but for working scenarios no it does not and there is nothing wrong with lanes or settings, there is no sugar coating here, I say it as it is and this is why I advise the original poster to be careful in his choice and maybe look at the i9, but..... if he is also a gamer then 8700k would be a good trade off....

You might want to look at the clock speeds on your test. The 5960x Turbo speed is 3.5Ghz. You have it manually clocked to 3.7Ghz. The 8700k Turbo speed is 4.7Ghz and you have it clocked at 4.2Ghz. This minor oversight would make me wonder if there is not a number of other problems in your settings/testing. In properly configured systems, they should not really be that close. As I said, I have results of identical performance tests done in Pro Tools on multiple of those systems. I went and checked a few other "legit" sources and they all report the 8700k is faster in every test.

[noiseboyuk]

Originally Posted by guitardom

I have hard Pro Tools numbers from tests like I outline here on builds I have done over the years. The 8700k smokes the 5960x in every possible way in PT. Most testing I have done has it upward of 15+% more power (at about 1/4 of the cost) in PT. This is over multiple systems, though the results are consistent from build to build.

Your other problems are related to something else. I cant say without looking at the system. It could be plugin related or a hardware driver issue or setting.

The only area I would take the 5960x is if I needed the PCIe lanes.

Is there a chart somewhere with test results? Would love to see.

Risey, have to disagree with much of your advice. I'm pretty wary of the i9s at the moment - thermal performance is very poor, so they're a bad choice for DAW use unless you have a machine room.

I've been testing a bit myself over a new build, and getting Scan in the UK to run some tests for me as well (they've been excellent). Depending on the exact use, both single and multi scores are important for slightly different reasons. For me it would be a bad choice to just go for the most cores, it has to be weighed with clock speed and thermals. I've ended up going for a modestly overclocked 7820X, but the 8700K was a very close second, and indeed betters the 7820X by a small amount in real time tests. In the end the Z270 chipset was more of a factor for me, with poor connectivity. The X299 platform was far superior if you're running a lot of internal drives and I/O.

[risey]

Originally Posted by noiseboyuk

Is there a chart somewhere with test results? Would love to see.

Risey, have to disagree with much of your advice. I'm pretty wary of the i9s at the moment - thermal performance is very poor, so they're a bad choice for DAW use unless you have a machine room.

I've been testing a bit myself over a new build, and getting Scan in the UK to run some tests for me as well (they've been excellent). Depending on the exact use, both single and multi scores are important for slightly different reasons. For me it would be a bad choice to just go for the most cores, it has to be weighed with clock speed and thermals. I've ended up going for a modestly overclocked 7820X, but the 8700K was a very close second, and indeed betters the 7820X by a small amount in real time tests. In the end the Z270 chipset was more of a factor for me, with poor connectivity. The X299 platform was far superior if you're running a lot of internal drives and I/O.

]

Yes sir, below is a chart of results, I also build computers and been involved with computers since 2001. Below is my results, benchmark using Time Spy, it first runs a GPU then CPU and GPU and then CPU tests. The ones in denial are trying to say the results are wrong there must be something wrong with my system lol... So I will included a colleagues 8700k result also, maybe there is something wrong with his hahahahh... lol
MY RESULTS
https://www.3dmark.com/spy/3430537 i7 8700k
https://www.3dmark.com/spy/3370976 i7 5960x

Bens Result (also builds computers lol): https://www.3dmark.com/spy/3369622 i7 8700k

NOTE: All benchmarks at stock settings...

Cheers...

[noiseboyuk]

(sorry Risey, that first part of my post was directed at guitardom, who has tested extensively with PT. You already posted those tests and, well, its still a 2.2% difference. Guitardom, would love to see your results)

[ejinbc]

One of the best current DAW benchmark-based comparisons of CPUs I have seen are here:

https://techreport.com/review/32642/...pu-reviewed/14

and here:

https://techreport.com/review/32607/...us-reviewed/12

This data would suggest that at 64 buffers CPU single thread performance is critical. At higher buffer settings (128) the extra cores pay off.

For low latency performance this data makes it very clear that the 8700K is the way to go UNLESS money is not an issue. From the posted results at 64 buffer the 8700K (O/C) beats the 7960 for VI performance, and equals the 7920 for DSP performance. An 8700K system is much cheaper than the 7960 system - use the difference to buy a good microphone.

All caveats apply. Hope this helps.