Kontakt instances and current gen i7 9700K / i9 9900K

Hi, so I’m finally replacing my ancient PC with a custom build pro audio PC from Scan UK this week - either an i7 9700K or i9 9900k build (both with ASUS Prime Z390 A motherboard, 500 M.2 SSD, 16GB ram, plenty of storage etc)

I’m just wondering what people’s experience was with using Kontakt (and the other instruments/synths in Komplete) with the current gen i7 9700K and i9 9900K processors.

Whichever one I decide on, I won’t be overclocking for now. As it’s only me, making music for myself, my projects are typically only small-medium in size, and consist of around 15-20 max instruments (Kontakt instruments mainly, but also a couple of Absynth, Massive, Hive by U-he tracks etc. )

Effects wise, I use Waves, PSP, iZotope and Fabfilter, and a little automation here and there.

Right now in Cubase 10 Pro (in my dinosaur of a PC), I can get about 7 Kontakt instruments going before my CPU maxes out and I have to bounce/freeze tracks.

Just wondered how other people faired with today’s processors and NI products? What sort of mileage do you get? How many instrument tracks ‘in the box’ are you roughly achieving? Do you have the headroom to mix/add effects without bouncing tracks?

Although it lacks hyperthreading, I have been leaning towards the i7 9700K build. I feel like the i9 9900K might be overkill for me, and also gets a fair bit hotter....and I’d rather use the extra cash to max out my ram and SSDs.

Just wondered your thoughts

 

I made I test wit 128 instances of kontakt, 2 sends no further fx per track and if I run it with 128 samples buffer!!! on my computer all 6 (+6) cores are almost at 100 percent (but it runs) . So that's the boundarie with an Ryzen 5 2600x. So you should be fine with an i7 9700 Intel cause they are better with music programs.

Uwe

Oh wrong I opened it again 32 instances but 4 instruments each = 128 instruments

 

Hi, thanks for replying. That’s really interesting...I’m presuming that multi-loading instruments into 1 Kontakt instance would roughly use the same resources as loading them as separates (or maybe a little less, but surely similar?), so that sounds like a pretty impressive amount you achieved.

 

You'll be fine with either... Those are the top tier consumer CPU's, can't get any better (on the Intel side) unless you go for the X-Series which would be insane for music.

I'm on an 8700k overclocked to 5Ghz, I never managed to max it out or run into issues with around 15-30 instruments and my buffer usually sits at 64/32, I never freeze/bounce anything, ever, I hate doing that. (I don't use very high latency inducing fx tho)

A 9700k is already overkill so If you're aiming for such high-grade CPU then you should get the 9900K imo since you're investing in a whole new system, insane amounts of ram is super overrated, I am 16GB and I don't really need more for Audio, buying an SSD later or additional 2 sticks of ram will save more money than eventually replacing the CPU.

 

Thanks for the reply! It’s good to know that you are getting good results with the overclocked 8700K.

To be honest, I could have either processor overclocked by the company, but having researched a bit online, I’ve been worried about the temperature the i9 can raise to. Even with good coolers, people have been reporting scarily high temps! I know the 7900K lacks hyperthreading, but it has 8 real cores, so I’m pretty happy with that because my old processor only has 4!

Both new build specs are similar, it’s just the processor, cooler and PSU that differ:
(I haven’t included storage as I’m putting in my current HDDs and SSDs)

Fractal Design Define R6
ASUS PRIME Z390-A
i7 9700K / i9 9900K
Be Quiet! Shadow Rock 2 / Be quiet! Dark Rock PRO 4
16GB Corsair Vengeance LPX 2666Hz DDR4
500W PSU / 650W PSU
500GB Samsung 860 EVO M.2 SSD (OS and programs)

The price difference between the builds is £230, so I’m leaning towards the non-overclocked i7 7900k and using that extra money to double the ram to 32GB and put in a couple more SSDs.

 

I do

Mixing an album in Studio One, working on the Project-Mastering-Page and have 11 individual songs open to correct and change vice versa takes about 12GB.
It would work probably with 16GB, but, as always, it is up to what you need it for. I need a bit more

 

My desktop pc machine from 2013 contains 64 gb ram.

 

Fair enough, that's what I saying, it depends a lot on what you do but for the average user 16Gb is more than enough, I know some folks who have 128GB of ram and really use it, but that's super rare, usually folks doing realistic orchestral stuff with an insane amount of libraries at the same time.
Also, keep in mind a modern OS always fills your ram as empty ram is wasted ram some people don't realize this when posting ram usage results.

What a dislike is a general notion that more ram somehow makes a computer faster, allow smaller buffer or have less audio dropouts, that's a myth for the most part. Just curious though, are you talking about having 11 masters on a project or actually having 11 full projects open at the same time?

I personally opted for lower GB but faster ram (3200MHz).

Yeah, 8 cores and 8 threads is plenty, especially in a desktop, up to you really... The only thing I would be worried is how much CPU power will be diverted towards graphics since you have no dedicated GPU on your build, I always had dedicated GPU's so I have no idea how that works especially if you have a hi-res screen.

AMD will release 12C/24T CPU supposedly at the same price point of the 8C/16T 9900k which is pretty bananas, if I wasn't a Hackintosh guy I would get that as the price to performance is unmatched.

Why are you worried about temps? With a Shadow Rock 2 you should be around 77C under synthetic load which is pretty acceptable, keep in mind those benchmark results people post around use applications that push the CPU in a way Audio Production doesn't, unless when you are exporting if at all.

Why is the price difference that high? It should be around 100£, are you buying the desktop pre-built? Oh.. Try to buy your ram as 2x8GB slots and avoid 4x4GB, you will miss out of quad-channel advantages but this way if you want to upgrade in the future you have free ram slots and don't have to buy a full new kit.

 

I agree. It is not necessary for speed. Higher clock would be more efficient.

I have 11 full projects (songs) open, with all included plugin and fx.

In Studio One (and this is very, very nice) you can add every song you are working on to an specialized "Project-Page". This is the mastering page. There appears all added and bounced tracks, which are added in a timeline.
From there you can master your songs, side by side, and if you realize, you have to change something rather in the song than by mastering, doubleclick the bounced waveform and you are in the project (song with all tracks, fx, etc.).

You could then just actualize this song and it appears edited and bounced on the master page. Just a few clicks, not loading every track at once, change something, bouncing, etc.

Hard to explain for me in English
It might be better explained here:

https://www.soundonsound.com/techniques/seamless-mixing-mastering-studio-ones-project-page

 

Interesting... As I understand it, all projects are loaded in the background so 'opening' one to make changes is fast, that's pretty cool. I can see how that would require a lot of Ram if the projects are complicated.

Again just curious, what do you do to need such a high amount of ram? I see you use Reaktor a lot, do you use complicated ensembles that require a lot of ram?

 

Yeah, it is not loading anymore, you just switch from one page to another. This is really great. If just the bouncing process after editing the song were a bit faster

 

I have a mid-range graphics card lined up - either the Palit passive 1050ti (for silence) or the Evga/ASUS 1650 single fan versions - I’m able to either of those for a reasonable price and they won’t need additional power, so I’m planning on getting the GPU a few days after the computer arrives.

True, I guess a lot of people were running intensive tests to really push the processor in the reviews...I think my concern comes from having a small tower/case for the last ten years that always seemed to bake. The Define R6 is like a mansion in comparison, so I’m more than likely worrying over nothing due to my lack of experience with newer gear

The price difference is (I presume) down to the better processor, a larger cooler (dark rock 4) a bigger wattage psu, and a 2TB storage drive. The 16GB ram comes in 2X8GB, so I’ll add the same at some point if needed to get 32GB. I’ll see how things go as I’ve making more soundtracks recently.

 

Cool, then you're good and will have a machine to last quite a few years.
You're probably nor interest in AMD but since the new chips were announced just yesterday I thought I would post it here anyway in case more people read it.

Cheaper, faster, less power consumption/heat, and no security issues that need patching.. pretty sweet for windows users.

 

Yeeesss in 2 years or so my R 5 2600x will be upgraded to an 8 core 16 threads or more - and the cool thing I will not need a new mainboard like with intel and every new processor generation

 

That looks very promising, but one should always be a bit skeptical when a vendor is presenting his new product with superior properties over the competitor, in this case the standard-cpu. AMD did this in the past and I wasn't convinced at all.

As I said, I I did change my system from a good running i5 3500 (don't know exactly) to the at this time new Ryzen, but that was a badly disappointment regarding to his perfomance, especially in the audio demands.

But AMD returned after a long period and I believe, that their cpu's are getting stronger and better. And for the money, it is almost unbeatable.

I am excited about, in which directions this will go further

 

Yes absolutely - I waited for the second generation ryzen and some real world tests. But for most of us hobbyists a ryzen 2 now ryzen 3 (from mid class on) is more then enough I would say.

 

I agree. This is going to be a excited competition of the giants

 

If only all the tech reviewers bothered to make more productivity and audio specific benchmarks, it's always everything gaming/fps. Some audio dev out there has to make an easy to use Audio Benchmark application.

 

This is a brilliant idea. Please, get this started

 

I’m not sure if I’m allowed to post links, but I did find this today - Pete at Scan testing/benchmarking the two processors I’m looking at purely in the context of audio production. He’s looked at a few others too if you search his blog. Might be worth keeping an eye on the page in case he benchmarks any future releases from either company!

The link is here: http://www.scanproaudio.info/2018/10/19/intels-i9-9900k-and-the-coffee-lake-refresh/

(If the link gets removed, just search i9 9900k dawbench and it should get you to the blog