(It’s also worth mentioning that, while better interfaces are available, I have established via group testing that this particular model offers a great performance/price ratio for new users wanting to make music.) For the same reason, all tests were performed in an identical Windows 7 OS installation, and the same DAW software (Reaper) was used: we can therefore be sure that the differences in performance shown on the chart aren’t due to any differences in software. Some expensive, better-performing interfaces may result in better performances overall, but the important thing is to establish a stable baseline. It’s important to keep other factors as consistent as possible, so I used the same USB audio interface (Native Instruments Komplete Audio 6) for all tests. By restricting the tests to a standard plug-in (Cockos’s ReaXComp multiband compressor, in this case), DAWBench enables you to make meaningful comparisons in performance. DAWBench has been discussed many times in SOS and there’s plenty of information at but, essentially, it loads instances of a plug-in in a DAW, measures the performance and generates a score. This reveals a lot about a CPU’s suitability for audio production: although it won’t give the full picture in regards to ASIO performance, which can vary according to other system factors, this test is designed specifically to ‘stress test’ a computer’s CPU. I spent quite some time comparing a wide range of CPUs commonly used in audio machines, using a standard test, the freely available DAWBench DSP Universal 2014 test. When moving on from a product that’s three, four or perhaps even more years old to a new setup, it’s therefore very difficult to figure out what sort of performance improvement your money will buy - and it’s particularly difficult to establish at what point spending more money takes you past the point of diminishing returns. (See the Intel & AMD box.) This means that when comparing different generations of similarly named chips, the clock speed and core count may appear similar, but the real-world audio performance will vary significantly. ![]() Despite the clock speeds not having increased dramatically in recent years, the processor manufacturers have continued to improve their chips in other ways. The days of being able to identify the best CPU by looking at the headline clock speed are long gone. There are others, not covered here, including the type of storage used and the amount and speed of RAM, but the CPU plays a hugely important part. The CPU (Central Processing Unit) is just one factor that influences your computer’s audio performance. So I’ll also explain in these pages a bit more about what makes a good CPU, and the implications of your CPU choice for the rest of the system (in terms of heat, cooling and noise, for example).ĭownload the full resolution chart here CPU Basics The chart makes clear which CPUs offer the best performance, but nothing about cost and certain other important considerations. I included a range of chips from the more cost-conscious to the fastest chips money can buy, and have looked at both mobile and desktop versions, as well as new chips and some that are now three or four years old. ![]() ![]() In this article, I’ll help you to answer those questions by taking you through the results of some CPU performance tests I carried out recently. Our benchmark tests show you which CPUs offer the best audio performance, whether you’re on a budget or money’s no object.Įvery few years, as resource-hungry software takes advantage of newer, more powerful computers, the same questions arise about the computer that lies at the heart of your studio: do I need to upgrade this machine, or should I replace it entirely? And what kind of improvement can I get for my money?
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |