The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Intel Processor Battle 5930k vs 5960X Audio Interfaces
Old 5th July 2015
  #1
Gear Maniac
 

Intel Processor Battle 5930k vs 5960X

I am trying to decide between the Intel 5930k and 5960x for a new PC build. My focus is on high-res audio recording (192khz). Mixing in the box with UAD-2 Octo cards and some native plugins. Max audio tracks are around 32 but I'd like some flexibility and I'd like the computer to last.

I use Pro Tools 11 and may try out Samplitude as well.

The 5930k has higher clock speed (3.5ghz vs 3ghz on the 5960x), but the 5960x has more cores (8 vs 6) and a higher L3 cache (20mb vs 15mb).

Any thoughts regarding my intended use would be much appreciated!
Old 5th July 2015
  #2
Lives for gear
 
norbury brook's Avatar
 

If you're using lots of tracks and plugins then the extra cores will make a difference. If you're using heavy CPU VI's then clock speed is more important,



MC
Old 5th July 2015
  #3
Lives for gear
 

I got the 5960, I did a small overclock to 4.0. Still cool and silent with a noctua cpu cooler
Old 5th July 2015
  #4
if your going for the 5930k might as well get the 5820k its exactly the same for audio, the only advantage is has over 5820k is more pci lanes for triple gpu setup but you won't be doing that most likely. so a $3-400 processor vs a $1k processor. It's up to you. If your doing a lot of 192k go 5960x, but you can probobly do with a 5820k overclocked. Make a hackintosh with these processors you get so much more performance out of it within pro tools just running it in OSX. I have a 5820k right now running OSX / Windows 7 dual boot. OSX blows it out of the water in terms performance in pro tools HD 11. Much much smoother when recording / mixing on low buffer and get probobly over 30 percent performance boost instantly just running it on Mac OSX vs Running it in windows. Funny thing is, with video its the other way around! Using a Nvidia Gtx 970, Windows blows OSX out of the water when it comes to video editing / encoding. Pro tools on mac > pro tools on windows. Video Performance on Windows > Video perfomance on mac. All with the same hardware / software. All in the code I guess. What I'm saying is, yes these processors are great, but pro tools performance isn't nearly as good in windows. If you want the most performance possible from these processors (for audio) go hackintosh and run pro tools in OSX you won't be dissapointed!
Old 5th July 2015
  #5
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by kangking View Post
If you want the most performance possible from these processors (for audio) go hackintosh and run pro tools in OSX you won't be dissapointed!
Thanks for everyone's replies so far. kangking- have you done any tweaks in Windows? From what I understand, straight out of the box Pro Tools performs better on OSX but once you tweak Windows, that isn't the case.

Last edited by minipoodle; 5th July 2015 at 03:35 PM..
Old 5th July 2015
  #6
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by norbury brook View Post
If you're using lots of tracks and plugins then the extra cores will make a difference. If you're using heavy CPU VI's then clock speed is more important,
MC
Hey- out of curiosity why do they extra cores help with tracks vs the clock speed for VIs? Just trying to understand "the why" better.

Cheers!

Last edited by minipoodle; 5th July 2015 at 03:37 PM..
Old 6th July 2015
  #7
Quote:
Originally Posted by minipoodle View Post
Thanks for everyone's replies so far. kangking- have you done any tweaks in Windows? From what I understand, straight out of the box Pro Tools performs better on OSX but once you tweak Windows, that isn't the case.
I tweaked windows, all the tweaks in the pro tools booklet. Windows performs ok but nothing like OSX on the same hardware. try it yourself
Old 6th July 2015
  #8
This is about mixing & recording.
When low latency software monitoring is required, higher clock speed usually is preferred.
If that is not essential, the 8 core offers more CPU cycles per track and should be preferred if max power is required.
Old 6th July 2015
  #9
Lives for gear
 
matucha's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by minipoodle View Post
I am trying to decide between the Intel 5930k and 5960x for a new PC build. My focus is on high-res audio recording (192khz). Mixing in the box with UAD-2 Octo cards and some native plugins. Max audio tracks are around 32 but I'd like some flexibility and I'd like the computer to last.

I use Pro Tools 11 and may try out Samplitude as well.

The 5930k has higher clock speed (3.5ghz vs 3ghz on the 5960x), but the 5960x has more cores (8 vs 6) and a higher L3 cache (20mb vs 15mb).

Any thoughts regarding my intended use would be much appreciated!
32 tracks @ 192khz and uad octo(s) (how many?)... You don't need more than 4core, let alone 8core. So the factor is future-proof then. CPUs don't evolve very fast these days. So investing in the 8core if you benefit from the power is not a bad idea, because it will stay very highend machine for a long long time. If the 8core is overkill for what you need, than you better keep your money and save on electricity bills by buying 5820k.
Old 6th July 2015
  #10
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by DAW PLUS View Post
This is about mixing & recording.
When low latency software monitoring is required, higher clock speed usually is preferred.
If that is not essential, the 8 core offers more CPU cycles per track and should be preferred if max power is required.
Hi Leon,

For my purposes, I can direct monitor via the Lynx software running with my AES16e, so it's more a matter of being able to run enough tracks at 192khz and use plugins.
Old 7th July 2015
  #11
In that case the 8 core gives you more headroom. If you use the UADs a lot, the 5820 might even be enough (or when you are not plugging every channel with the heaviest plugs), but it is always hard to tell what you will do in future projects.
Old 7th July 2015
  #12
Lives for gear
 
esaias's Avatar
5930k is pretty pointles IMO, 5820K will do just fine, you won't br needing those extra PCIe lanes for anything.

-Tomi
Old 7th July 2015
  #13
Gear Maniac
 

Thanks, everyone! I think I may try the 5820k as I don't use an awful lot of processing and most of that is UAD-2.
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz 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…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump