New Ryzen 8 core 16 thread CPU

[Jacek]

23 hours ago, Shirozina said:

Nonsense - nothing wrong with overclocking if done properly within the manufacturer's limits for voltage and temperature and lots to gain from faster processing. 

Sense :). I don't care if anybody agrees, just telling what I think based on my knowledge.

Overclocking is not disaster, but increasing risk of failure from for example 0.1% to 1%, which is significant, but not observed often (but still 99% of overclockers will say it's all ok).

Overclocking:

- increases risk of CPU, Motherboard failure and shortens their life time.

- increases rate of memory errors, some of them resulting in OS instability (part of Windows blue screens in old days or sudden restarts).

 

Look here (in other articles from other years you have different motherboards):

http://www.hardware.fr/articles/954-2/cartes-meres.html

Failure rate of motherboards for overclockers is many times higher in comparison to regular motherboards (despite higher price, golden pins, radiators and others). It is not because these motherboards are worse than their cheaper alternatives, they are just usually working with overclocked CPU/Memory. If you look in other articles from other months/years you can find tens of such examples.

 

I don't have time for other arguments, just do a research if you are interested. (If that's an argument :)- I'm not complete layman, have some background to judge facts - MSc in Physics and MSc in Computer Science [both on Polytechnic - more hardware related]).

 

But please avoid arguments like: My 3 PCs are working great, so i'm sure it's safe. Probably 95% or something Overclocked PC-s are working quite well, but it's not what I'm talking about.

Judge facts like this only based on statistics data, because we are talking about risk, which is statistics itself.

[Geoff CB]

Yeah I'll throw my hat in here, don't OC your computer when you render. I've lost two very important time sensitive renders, once when on a GPU based render, and once when on a CPU based render. I overclock slightly when editing, but never when exporting a project.

[liork]

@jcs The 4.0GHz Turbo boost speed of 6950K is for single core, not all cores turbo. That was your mistake. All cores turbo is 3.5GHz only.

[hmcindie]

4 hours ago, Jacek said:

Sense :). I don't care if anybody agrees, just telling what I think based on my knowledge.

Overclocking is not disaster, but increasing risk of failure from for example 0.1% to 1%, which is significant, but not observed often (but still 99% of overclockers will say it's all ok).

Overclocking:

- increases risk of CPU, Motherboard failure and shortens their life time.

- increases rate of memory errors, some of them resulting in OS instability (part of Windows blue screens in old days or sudden restarts).

That depends on a couple of factors. Are you increasing the voltage how much? And is the chip stable at the speeds you are pushing it?

A lot of the cheaper CPU's (and GPU's) are deliberately clocked lower at the factory. The actual chips inside are usually identical to higher clocked models. A 2.8ghz model overclocked to 3.5ghz model is usually the same as buying a 3.5ghz model in the first place. There are binning differences but all else being equal, that's just how it goes. Sometimes manufacturers fuse off parts of a chip to sell for cheaper but sometimes that overclocked model is exactly the same as something that is bought from the factory as is.

I've been running an oc'd 4ghz 5960x for a couple of years. Works great, renders well too. Risk of CPU or motherboard failure? Just don't push the limits too much, don't OC the memory (it's usually quite pointless) and be smart.

 

[Shirozina]

4 hours ago, Jacek said:

Sense :). I don't care if anybody agrees, just telling what I think based on my knowledge.

Overclocking is not disaster, but increasing risk of failure from for example 0.1% to 1%, which is significant, but not observed often (but still 99% of overclockers will say it's all ok).

Overclocking:

- increases risk of CPU, Motherboard failure and shortens their life time.

- increases rate of memory errors, some of them resulting in OS instability (part of Windows blue screens in old days or sudden restarts).

 

Look here (in other articles from other years you have different motherboards):

http://www.hardware.fr/articles/954-2/cartes-meres.html

Failure rate of motherboards for overclockers is many times higher in comparison to regular motherboards (despite higher price, golden pins, radiators and others). It is not because these motherboards are worse than their cheaper alternatives, they are just usually working with overclocked CPU/Memory. If you look in other articles from other months/years you can find tens of such examples.

 

I don't have time for other arguments, just do a research if you are interested. (If that's an argument :)- I'm not complete layman, have some background to judge facts - MSc in Physics and MSc in Computer Science [both on Polytechnic - more hardware related]).

 

But please avoid arguments like: My 3 PCs are working great, so i'm sure it's safe. Probably 95% or something Overclocked PC-s are working quite well, but it's not what I'm talking about.

Judge facts like this only based on statistics data, because we are talking about risk, which is statistics itself.

You have to weigh up the odds and make a choice - there's risk in everything. I wouldn't recommend someone overclock's their PC unless they know exactly what they are doing and I wouldn't overclock a CPU used in a workstation to the very limit of it's stability in voltage, temperature and frequency but neither would I state that overclocking is inherently bad or risky as a blanket statement.

[Santiago de la Rosa]

4 hours ago, Jacek said:

Sense :). I don't care if anybody agrees, just telling what I think based on my knowledge.

Overclocking is not disaster, but increasing risk of failure from for example 0.1% to 1%, which is significant, but not observed often (but still 99% of overclockers will say it's all ok).

Overclocking:

- increases risk of CPU, Motherboard failure and shortens their life time.

- increases rate of memory errors, some of them resulting in OS instability (part of Windows blue screens in old days or sudden restarts).

 

Look here (in other articles from other years you have different motherboards):

http://www.hardware.fr/articles/954-2/cartes-meres.html

Failure rate of motherboards for overclockers is many times higher in comparison to regular motherboards (despite higher price, golden pins, radiators and others). It is not because these motherboards are worse than their cheaper alternatives, they are just usually working with overclocked CPU/Memory. If you look in other articles from other months/years you can find tens of such examples.

 

I don't have time for other arguments, just do a research if you are interested. (If that's an argument :)- I'm not complete layman, have some background to judge facts - MSc in Physics and MSc in Computer Science [both on Polytechnic - more hardware related]).

 

But please avoid arguments like: My 3 PCs are working great, so i'm sure it's safe. Probably 95% or something Overclocked PC-s are working quite well, but it's not what I'm talking about.

Judge facts like this only based on statistics data, because we are talking about risk, which is statistics itself.

It´s not that simple, overclock has its risk of course, but that link it´s just for % of returned components. There are normal % as other type of electronics devices as Tv´s, phones or cameras.

ASRock 1,45% (contra 1,91%)

ASUS 1,90% (contra 1,96%)

Gigabyte 1,92% (contra 1,90%)

MSI 2,36% (contra 2,20%)

Nothing overclocked related.

And my argument it´s not "My 3 PCs are working great", as I have said, it´s not that simple, I have been doing overclock since K7 Athlon 800 (2000 year I think) and I have worked more than 15 years in systems and hardware.

Overclock is risky if you don´t know how to set up cooler and power, nothing more.

Today is really simple, lot of information in forums and electronics are made with more margin and quality controls.

Returning to Ryzen, here my numbers in Cinebench R15

 

[Shirozina]

Still impressed with that score and I'm assuming cinebench is fully utilising all cores? Would be interesting to see how that CPU stacks up in real world use in NLE's which may not use all cores as effectively.

[Santiago de la Rosa]

Next week Davinci Resolve work and if you have a project I can test it for you

[jcs]

9 hours ago, liork said:

@jcs The 4.0GHz Turbo boost speed of 6950K is for single core, not all cores turbo. That was your mistake. All cores turbo is 3.5GHz only.

AFAIK the BIOS only allows one to set the max rate for each core, and defaults to 4.0 for the 6950X. How and which version of TurboBoost runs is up to Intel's drivers and current load and thermal states (the system was not running at 4.0 for all cores all the time, only under TurboBoost as provided by Intel's drivers). In any case, Intel didn't seem to have an issue with that aspect- they were focused on max clock speed and voltage (which equals heat and thus wear, the typical cause of electronics failure). Common sense is that as long as the processor runs cool, and is 100% stable, it should be OK.

For the general question for both Intel and AMD, is it worth the hassle and downtime (warranty or not) to have a production/work machine go down for repairs? Interestingly Puget Systems sells machines overclocked: https://www.pugetsystems.com/parts/CPU/Intel-Core-i7-6950X-3-0GHz-Ten-Core-25MB-140W-Overclocked-11755, so they must be confident they'll last at least for the 1 year warranty (wonder if Intel gives them some kind of deal or do they have to eat overclocked processor failures since not officially covered under warranty by Intel).

[Henry Gentles]

The Ryzen 1700 is supposed to run at variable speeds, from 3.0 up to 3.7mhz. Mine runs comfortably at 3.9 @ 1.3375v but I've set it to 3.8 which is all I need. 

[liork]

6 hours ago, jcs said:

AFAIK the BIOS only allows one to set the max rate for each core, and defaults to 4.0 for the 6950X. How and which version of TurboBoost runs is up to Intel's drivers and current load and thermal states (the system was not running at 4.0 for all cores all the time, only under TurboBoost as provided by Intel's drivers). In any case, Intel didn't seem to have an issue with that aspect- they were focused on max clock speed and voltage (which equals heat and thus wear, the typical cause of electronics failure). Common sense is that as long as the processor runs cool, and is 100% stable, it should be OK.

For the general question for both Intel and AMD, is it worth the hassle and downtime (warranty or not) to have a production/work machine go down for repairs? Interestingly Puget Systems sells machines overclocked: https://www.pugetsystems.com/parts/CPU/Intel-Core-i7-6950X-3-0GHz-Ten-Core-25MB-140W-Overclocked-11755, so they must be confident they'll last at least for the 1 year warranty (wonder if Intel gives them some kind of deal or do they have to eat overclocked processor failures since not officially covered under warranty by Intel).

"Turbo Boost 2.0 is what Intel calls its maximum Turbo or ‘peak’ frequency. So in the case of the i7-6950X, the base frequency is 3.0 GHz and the Turbo Boost 2.0 frequency is 3.5 GHz. The CPU will use that frequency when light workloads are in play and decrease the frequency of the cores as the load increases in order to keep the power consumption more consistent.

Turbo Boost 3, in a nutshell, will boost the frequency of a single CPU core when a single-threaded program is being used." - Single core boost is 4GHz and only for a specific core.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/10337/the-intel-broadwell-e-review-core-i7-6950x-6900k-6850k-and-6800k-tested-up-to-10-cores/2

[Charlie]

9 hours ago, Henry Gentles said:

The Ryzen 1700 is supposed to run at variable speeds, from 3.0 up to 3.7mhz. Mine runs comfortably at 3.9 @ 1.3375v but I've set it to 3.8 which is all I need. 

I just got my Ryzen system built yesterday and went into a Premiere project, switched off my proxy files expecting playback of 4k files to be butter smooth but....No....its not!!

I am thinking i must have something set up incorrectly cause the system should sufficient - Ryzen 7 1700, 32GB RAM, Radeon RX 480 Nitro 8GB.

Any ideas???

Cheers

 

[zerocool22]

9 minutes ago, Charlie said:

I just got my Ryzen system built yesterday and went into a Premiere project, switched off my proxy files expecting playback of 4k files to be butter smooth but....No....its not!!

I am thinking i must have something set up incorrectly cause the system should sufficient - Ryzen 7 1700, 32GB RAM, Radeon RX 480 Nitro 8GB.

Any ideas???

Cheers

 

What codec are you editing with prores, dnxhr or H264? That might be the issue. (and I am sure you are using SSD's?) 

[Charlie]

1 minute ago, zerocool22 said:

What codec are you editing with prores, dnxhr or H264? That might be the issue. (and I am sure you are using SSD's?) 

H264, yes SSD.

I thought moving to this system would mean I would no longer need proxies or to convert to prores or whatever. I could already edit with proxies in my old core i5 system.

Surely I haven't spent all this money for nothing??

 

[zerocool22]

19 minutes ago, Charlie said:

H264, yes SSD.

I thought moving to this system would mean I would no longer need proxies or to convert to prores or whatever. I could already edit with proxies in my old core i5 system.

Surely I haven't spent all this money for nothing??

 

What about if you convert to prores or dnxhr, is it then smooth?

[Shirozina]

Even the fastest CPU's can't handle 4k H264 yet - you will still need to generate optimised media in Resolve or use proxies / transcode in Premier but at least this process will be a lot quicker with your new CPU.

[Charlie]

4 minutes ago, Shirozina said:

Even the fastest CPU's can't handle 4k H264 yet - you will still need to generate optimised media in Resolve or use proxies / transcode in Premier but at least this process will be a lot quicker with your new CPU.

OK, so I should see major improvements in rendering speed, adding multiple video fx etc....but not in real time playback?

The proxy workflow in Premiere CC 17 is fantastic but those proxies sure add to the overall size of the project.

[Shirozina]

Once the CPU is not having to uncompress H264 you will see speed improvements in other areas but it will depend on how much the particular process is able to use all the CPU cores. In Resolve most of the 'heavy lifting' is done by the GPU so CPU speed may not gain you much. 

[zerocool22]

Transcoding to prores or DNxHR might solve your problem

[Charlie]

2 minutes ago, zerocool22 said:

Transcoding to prores or DNxHR might solve your problem

If I transcode rather than using proxies, can I then delete the original MOV files?

If I cant then I might as well stick with the proxy workflow in Premiere.