Thanks, guys, pretty much what I gathered. And you're right it is a
20-30% difference depending on the benchmark that you use. For me,
that's not enough to invest close to $1k into. I do need an SSD for the
audio samples, just to make the loading faster and probably look into a
better audio interface. It amazes me that they spend all their time
with 24bit/192k A/D and D/A converters, then stick in a crap Chinese USB
chip so that the interface is wonky. From my perspective, it seems that
USB has gotten worse, rather than better. When you have to try all your
USB ports and/or add an extra card just so a 'universal' device will
work consistently, then there is a problem.
On 6/17/2017 2:03 PM, Greg Sevart wrote:
Agreed. While a 4770K to a 7700K would be more than 15% (a quick Google
shows 25-30%), the *perceptible* difference would be negligible. The biggest
thing driving upgrades now, IMO, really is the platform--USB 3.0/3.1, NVMe,
Optane support, etc.
I purchased an X99 board over a year ago. I purchased the i7-6950X the week
it came out. Both are still sitting on the bench, along with 64GB of memory,
a new Pascal GPU, a 960 Pro NVMe disk, and a Seasonic Titanium PSU. The
biggest reason is because I'm exceptionally lazy, but I have to think that
another part is simply because my ancient Sandy Bridge-E system (3930K) is
still more than sufficient for most of what I do. It's a new era in
computing. I think this really started when we first had quality dual-core
processors like the Core 2--all of a sudden CPU performance wasn't the
bottleneck like it used to be. Obviously the C2 is slow now, but anything
Sandy Bridge or newer (> 6 years old!) is really still fine for most tasks.
I am looking forward to the new Coffee Lake CPUs expected late this summer
though, but only because I have a specific purpose where I need the Intel
integrated GPU and could use more than 4 cores.
-----Original Message-----
From: Hardware [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
Of Winterlight
Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2017 11:43 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [H] Thoughts the the next processor upgrade
With modern processors I don't even notice a difference unless a new
CPU gives me at least 50 percent increase in power. I do video
encoding and, I wouldn't consider a upgrade of my CPU unless I could
double my processor power. That said, I have been running a six core
since 2013 but come Oct the new X9 with up to 18 cores + 18
Hyperthreading designed for the consumer market will be for sale.
...at a cost of 2K for the 18 core. ...target market is gamer and
enthusiast. Frankly, it is just not worth the time and effort
required to build and set up a whole new workstation... unless
something went south and, I had to do it.
At 10:29 AM 6/17/2017, you wrote:
I've started looking at the next upgrade for my main box. Currently
I have an i7-4770K with 24GB on an Asus Maximus VII Hero. I already
know that the next upgrade will probably require a new set of memory.
However, I've been looking at CPUs and have to say that I'm
underwhelmed when comparing my current system versus the new
processors. It seems that for an investment of over 500 bucks, the
most I can hope for is *maybe* a 15% increase in processing
power. Right now I don't do any high end gaming, the most rigorous
stuff I do is running a lot of soft synths in Cakewalk
Sonar. What's everybody's take on picking a new processor?
Thanks...Steve
