PCPartPicker

  • Log In
  • Register

Dual X5690 72gb 1333mhz or Ryzen 2700x 16gb 3200mhz

Forum Search

Guidelines

  • Be respectful to others
  • No spam
  • No NSFW content
  • No piracy or key resellers
  • No link shorteners
  • Offensive content will be removed

Topic

jared_adams91 3 months ago

Hi everyone, I have the opportunity to upgrade. But it's either a new machine for $700 + Potential hard drive upgrades (400ish) or upgrade processors from dual x5680 to x5690 + hard drive upgrades. Budget is like, I'll make it back in a couple of weeks kinda budget.

Currently running on

Dell t5500 Dual Xeon X5680 72gb of 7x8gb Samsung DDR3 1333 with a very full and about 6 years old 180gb SSD system drive and quite full 2TB HDD about 10 years old. Can't Remember my current graphics card but I think the GTX 860.

I have the opportunity to move to a TSI 470x board Ryzen 2700 (not X) 16gb 3200 (2x8) Corsair GTX 1060 3gb 1 256 SSD and 1 500gb HDD 850W power supply built about 6 months ago for $700.

My other option of improvement is only upgrade the hard drives and the processors to x5690 (fastest processor the T5500 is compatible with).

I'm going to be adding and/or replacing current hard drives with: (1) PCIe SSD 1tb & (1) SATA SSD 1tb

Intention for this machine is for intensive Audio Processing (lots of midi, high voicing digital synthesizers, effects plugins). Not intended to be a graphics priority machine.

Anyhow, want to know thoughts whether or if there would be a noticeable difference in terms of performance and project load times and if it's worth dropping $700 + 450 on. Seems like the processor switchover, SSD system drive, and clocking would be of my interest. Clocking may or may not be implemented depending on how large some of the projects are.

Would the Single Ryzen 2700 machine be able to outperform two X5690 if I decided to just upgrade the processors and hard drives on my current machines?

Comments Sorted by:

Granddy 1 Build 2 points 3 months ago

Multi core performance wise, the dual xeon x5680 is around equal to the ryzen 7 2700x.

However, the single core speeds are around 35% slower than the ryzen 7 2700x.

If your workloads require more single core speed rather than more cores, then you'll see a huge benefit with going a ryzen 7.

shreduhsoreus 5 Builds 2 points 3 months ago

Heavy DSP workloads make use of cores, while VI's make use of clocks. The 2700 would be an improvement across the board in the type of workload they're doing. But there are better options depending on how many VI's they run.

Granddy 1 Build 1 point 3 months ago

Also, you can sell that t5500 system system for a really good chunk of money on ebay or cragslist.

shreduhsoreus 5 Builds 1 point 3 months ago

Check out DAWBench tests. Ryzen would provide better performance than your current system, but since it sounds like you're using a lot of VI's you would probably be better with an 8700K, even though it would cost you a little more.

It also depends on what kind of plugins you're running. Do you run a lot of Kontakt instances? Or EW Play by any chance?

Losing that much RAM might be a huge hindrance as well. My projects easily eat up 24+GB of RAM once I get all of the instruments loaded in. My most recent project had me a 92% memory usage with 32GB of RAM. Depends on the music you're producing though. Orchestration? 32GB, minimum. EDM? Probably could get by with 16.

Switching to SSD's will definitely reduce project and sample load times. If you hate waiting 10 minutes for a project to load, then it's definitely worth it. Especially since the delay can sometimes hamper creativity. I need to get more SSD storage. I have Hollywood Strings on a standard HDD, that's a 320GB string library. Most of my other libraries are on SSD's. The difference in load time for patches is massive.

Rin_Itoh 1 point 3 months ago

https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Xeon-X5650-vs-AMD-Ryzen-7-2700/m355vs3957 - X5650 vs 2700

https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Xeon-X5690-vs-AMD-Ryzen-7-2700/m16752vs3957- X5690 vs 2700

Those are both single CPU scores, but I imagine the scaling and other drawbacks of using dual processors would put it right on par with a 2700. You might see slight improvements if you OC the 2700 or go with the 2700x (I would still OC that one too). The biggest concern I see is the RAM situation. Are you actually utilizing 72 GB of RAM? If you are using anywhere near 72 GB of RAM the moving down to 16 GB is going to destroy your workflow more than either processor will.

You will probably see a larger increase in performance by going with NVMe SSD's or SSD's where you can instead of a HDD. You can keep the 180 GB SSD for a boot drive and holding your programs (although at that old it might be time for an upgrade to avoid a failing drive), then a new 500- 1 TB NVMe SSD or standard SSD as a scratch drive. I would also replace the HDD ASAP. 10 years is a long time for a drive and you will start seeing warning signs of a failing drive if you haven't already.

The ideal solution would be to build a whole new machine and sell the parts of your old one you can and salvage what you can. You can build a nice R7 2700 based system for right around $1000 USD. If your programs don't really take advantage of GPU then you don't really have to upgrade that either which can save you money.

Nullarc77 4 Builds 1 point 3 months ago

Userbenchmark

Well there's your problem.

DaMysteryMan 1 Build 2 points 3 months ago

Userbenchmark is fine, great rough comparison.

Granddy 1 Build 2 points 3 months ago

If Nullarc doesn't trust it enough, then passmark can be a good alt to it.

The only time I found userbenchmark unreliable is when it involved lga 1156 cpus since over 1/2 of them were overclocked (thanks to them being cheap and overclockable mobos being under 50 dollars) and kinda screwed the average results but couldn't find any other fault yet.

Rin_Itoh 1 point 3 months ago

I'm not sure what you mean. From what I have found Userbenchmark has had pretty accurate results. I link these for all sorts of comparisons I have had not had any sort of contact from PCPP about it being a known bad website, which I did receive when looking for a very specific part. I linked the only information I could find and PCPP deleted the comment. When I reached out to them to inquire about why it was deleted they said that the website was known for not providing accurate numbers.

Nullarc77 4 Builds 1 point 3 months ago

It's more a joke than anything.

Userbenchmark is hit ir miss. Sometimes it is alright other times it sucks.

It is just better in general to use find benchmarks of the applications using both than link those.

Rin_Itoh 1 point 3 months ago

I use Puget systems for the most part when I need to look for a certain application. Userbenchmark is pretty reliable in my usage for an overall comparison.

shreduhsoreus 5 Builds 1 point 3 months ago

The Ryzen chip smokes the Xeons in single core speeds, which is important for VI's.

DaMysteryMan 1 Build 1 point 3 months ago

Your current setup should be fine, plenty of RAM and multicore speeds. Unless you fast need single core speeds you are fine.

shreduhsoreus 5 Builds 1 point 3 months ago

VI's literally depend on fast single core speeds...especially with low buffers.

DaMysteryMan 1 Build 1 point 3 months ago

Then 8700k or 9900k, or 8 core zen 2.

shreduhsoreus 5 Builds 1 point 3 months ago

Not necessarily. Audio workstations are an entirely different beast than any other type of workstation. It's not as simple as a video editing PC where you can say "Oh, well I use Premier Pro". You've got not only your DAW, but samplers, VI's, DSP plugins. The best parts vary greatly depending on the specific plugins you're using, how many of them you're using, how much polyphony you've got going on.

DaMysteryMan 1 Build 1 point 3 months ago

Zen 2 threadripper should cover all of it then.

shreduhsoreus 5 Builds 1 point 3 months ago

And that's at least 6 months away. The thread is about somebody who has the opportunity to purchase a fully built R7 2700 system for $700.

Also, TR isn't always a good choice either due to latency caused by their design. At low buffers the CPU doesn't get fully utilized and performs worse than lower core count Intel chips, even in heavy DSP workloads. If you're tracking in real time, you need a low buffer to reduce latency. Nothing is more annoying than playing a note and not hearing it in real time.