ok, I had a look at the HP offering, nice, but as a "home user" this is way too expensive, the Xeon 12 core "E5-2690 V3" alone will cost more than 2000 Euro, so the whole computer probably like 3000-4000. Too much for a "home studio guy" like me.
Seen what I can pull out of my current modest i5 with SSD, I guess I will take small steps and go for an i7 with more RAM first and see what I can do with it. If I get overload, I rather freeze single tracks.
But without a doubt those HP machines are what's possible today... Impressive. Mac Pro also works with Xeons up to 12 core, costs about twice as much as the HP...
CPUBenchmark has a section on Dual CPU performance tests. I located the Xeon x5675, which is what some of the HP z800 workstations are using. Xeon 3.07ghz CPU.
The benchmark rating there is 12800. That is a pretty powerful rating. However, the new i7 5820k has a rating of around 12900. That is pretty impressive. With a higher Single Core speed that the x5675 Dual Xeon setup.
Numbers don't always tell the whole story. I always think of horsepower and torque; Gas engine vs Diesel. I consider the HP a diesel .
I haven't finished my research... but I am leaning toward the i7 5820k at this point. It would allow a processor upgrade easily if I want to in a couple years.
Yes, the i7 5820k with 6 cores looks like a good offering in terms of price/ performance ration, but for me it would mean a new mainboard (mine is 1155 socket), possibly new RAW and this new CPU, which alltogether is quite an investment.
Also, what makes you think that this allows a processor upgrade in a couple of years?
The 5820k uses the LGA 2011-V3 socket. So does the E5 Xeon V3 line, as well as other, more expensive i7 products.
Built in obsolescence aside, If you want to upgrade in a couple of years, and the price on the Xeon E5 eight or 12 core CPU's have come down in price, or the i7 5930k, or 5960k... You could take out the 5820k and sell it, put in a different CPU without changing anything.
I'm looking at it from that direction. A bit... at least it's a platform that isn't at it's End Of Life.
As I am new to Nebula and only tried it out a little bit with the "factory library", what is it that eats most cpu power? Putting one single instance of EQ on a single track equals around 5% of my cpu power, as far as I can judge.
So is it more the sum of all little things, or are there Nebula algorithms that really kill your cpu? Like the more complex models?
I just installed a new cpu on my old 1155 mainboard: Xeon E3-1270 (4x3,5 GHz overclocked to 4x4GHz). With it's hyperthreading (and 8 virtual cores) that was a clear update to my old i5 35-70 cpu. When I had a cpu load of - say - 50% in Ableton before, I now hardly have more then 30%. Of course once you set the latency to 256ms or less cpu load quickly goes up and artefact noises start, but generally I am quite happy with it. I now will learn to know and to use Nebula libraries to get a sound I like, and then if I hit limits, I can then think to also upgrade to a more recent mainboard (dual cpu) and some serious 6 cores (2 of them).