PDA

View Full Version : Upgraded to a I7 3930K.. not too impressed.



Sithxace
08-31-2012, 01:53 AM
I have i i7 960 overclocked to 3.3-3.4ghz, a radeon hd68xx, 16GB DDR3 ram and 2 SSD drives with SATA3. I just upgraded to the i7-3930k overclocked to 3.8-9ghz, 20GB DDR2 RAM (Faster timings) with now sata6 with the ssds. Using sony vegas, i didnt see much of an improvement rendering, just maybe less lag doing stuff as i render a couple projects at the same time.

I didnt expect huge improvments, but thought maybe i would have seen some noticable improvments. Gonna take off the autotuner for overclocking and see if I can manually overclock the 3930k to at least 4ghz.

arco1
08-31-2012, 05:38 AM
"...didnt see much of an improvement rendering..."


I am using Adobe CS instead of Vegas, but I had the same problem on my i7 (configured similar to yours.) I spent a bunch of money and time upgrading memory and SSDs, etc, before I found that many 3rd party plug-ins are limited to a single instance of CPU. So plug-in "X" might be hammering a given CPU at 97-100%, but the other 7 CPUs are loafing along at 17%. You may want to look at Task Manager to see if all instances are busy before you spend anytime tweaking the overclocking. BTW, the autotuner does a pretty good job and you'll have to work quite a bit to get even a little improvement.

Jim
Colorburst Video

daihard
08-31-2012, 05:55 AM
Just an after thought, isn't Adobe Nvidia optimised and not ATI? Im not sure what Sony is optimised for....
Could be the video card is an even larger factor over processors these days.
Sounds like you guys know your setups well though, so dont mind my "mac" thoughts if im way off.

Gary Huff
08-31-2012, 06:32 AM
Well, you went from Bloomfield to Sandy Bridge, hardly much of an upgrade (Sandy Bridge to Ivy Bridge was in the realm of 10-20%, which is hardly noticeable to normal use). Unless you're working in ultra high resolutions, i.e. 4k and above, you're rarely going to hit that 16GB limit of your previous configuration, and 6GB/ps SATA is only going to help if you're editing multiple video streams at once, so unless you're dealing with a multi-camera environment on a consistent basis, you weren't going to see any gains anyway.

It doesn't seem like you got much processing value for your money if your primary concern is with editing in Sony Vegas.

tom_wise
09-03-2012, 05:19 PM
4GB of RAm difference and RAM being useful for the render is your prob. Hopefully you went with a 2011MB and can take her on up to 32 and 64 GB RAM? Doubling your Ram would show you what you're after. When I went from 12 to 24, I noticed a Huge, huge diff! When I do upgrade from this lowly i930, I'll go 6 core, just because I don't think I'll see much improvement unless I do. And just in case, I'm same/similar to you; Oc'd to 4.0GHTZ ( from 2.3), 24 GB Ram, dual SSD's, etc.

Gary Huff
09-03-2012, 05:34 PM
Doubling your Ram would show you what you're after. When I went from 12 to 24, I noticed a Huge, huge diff!

That can hardly be the case, now. At some point there is diminishing returns, and 32-64GB of RAM for HD video rendering isn't going to hit any of that limit at 16GB.

If you're seeing such a "huge, huge difference!" with 24GB GB of RAM, what are we talking about exactly? Do you have numbers for the same project being rendered out at 12GB vs 24GB or is it just based on your "feeling"?

Sithxace
09-03-2012, 11:48 PM
RAM speed/timings are faster now than before as i removed the slower ram. After a few days i do otice improvements. One is HQ previewing on my 3rd screen is smooth with full screen, also another is being able to do other stuff as a project is rendering as if im not rendering, both speed up my workflow.

tom_wise
09-04-2012, 07:52 AM
RAM speed/timings are faster now than before as i removed the slower ram. After a few days i do otice improvements. One is HQ previewing on my 3rd screen is smooth with full screen, also another is being able to do other stuff as a project is rendering as if im not rendering, both speed up my workflow.

Are you using or trying adobes' recommendations on how to set preferences in regards to RAM settings: http://forums.adobe.com/thread/543440

This will especially come into play when performing tasks in addition to rendering.

tom_wise
09-04-2012, 08:10 AM
That can hardly be the case, now. At some point there is diminishing returns, and 32-64GB of RAM for HD video rendering isn't going to hit any of that limit at 16GB.

If you're seeing such a "huge, huge difference!" with 24GB GB of RAM, what are we talking about exactly? Do you have numbers for the same project being rendered out at 12GB vs 24GB or is it just based on your "feeling"?

What can hardly be the case? He only upped his RAM by 4GB. That is peanuts. I have no idea what the rest of your statement means, sorry.

As far as the Huge Huge difference goes: Yes & No. I didn't even think to swap back and forth to check the memory comparison of 12 vs.24. And at times I have thought about and even tried those benchmarking programs. But, what's the point. Where the rubber meets the road in rendering, is in fact, in rendering. So, I rendered. I think the biggest thing I was able to accomplish was additional tasks while rendering. I couldn't even consider it before ( in CS5.5) unless I was using only about 6GB of Ram, which left 6GB to render with. Now I can leave 6GB for other programs and still have 18GB rendering. That's three times more RAM available to render with. And Yes, I did notice a difference. I can honestly say, I didn't think to write those observations down mostly because of the joy at having an avg. render come in about 4 times quicker. I did write down my render times testing out HDD configurations and I wrote about that here: http://forums.adobe.com/thread/734343 mine is on page-2 my moniker is angevinII there. That feedback thread has tons of info for anyone wanting to tweak their system.