Clock speed vs core count

dxdy wrote on 10/13/2014, 7:34 AM
It is getting to be time to build a new computer. The new Haswell-E CPUs come in 3 flavors - six cores at 3.3 and 3.5 GHz, and eight cores at 3.0 Ghz.

Creating a metric (which may be too silly to be informative), I multiplied the core count by the clock rate and got:

i7-5820 3.0 x 6 = 18.0
i7-5930 3.3 x 6 = 19.8
i7-5960 3.0 x 8 = 24.0

Then I divided the above numbers by the MSRP, seeking a "value" of some sort:

(Prices in USD)
i7-5820 18.0 / $389 = .0462
i7-5930 19.8 / $583 = .0339
i7-5960 24.0 / $1,000 = .0240

Ignoring GPUs, I now am trying to make the following leap:

ASSUMING SVP 13.0 can effectively use all the threads I throw at it AND disk and memory speed are not issues, the 5960 should be 21.2% faster than the 5930. So, speed is good (and has been since I was a car-crazed teenager 50 years ago), but the best value (core-clocks per dollar) is the 5820.

Aaah, what to do, what to do?

Edited to fix the math

Comments

john_dennis wrote on 10/13/2014, 8:13 AM
Buy the GTO, it has a 389 cu. in. engine and a four-speed on the floor with a Hurst shifter.

If you want a "grocery-getter", buy a Falcon.
Hulk wrote on 10/13/2014, 9:00 AM
I'd opt for the cheapest 6 core option. I don't think you'll notice the performance difference with Vegas. Especially with a good GPU.
There's just too much value compared to the other ones for me!
john_dennis wrote on 10/13/2014, 12:40 PM

When motherboards and chipsets lasted longer, I would initially buy a processor that was at the bottom of the ones that were available for the platform. Then, after a couple of years, I would buy one near or at the top of the line either used or at a relatively lower price than what was available when the platform was new. This worked relatively well a few times:

1) A Pentium 90 which ended life as a Pentium 233.

2) A Pentium II 350 slot CPU which ended life as a Pentium III 850.

3) A Pentium IV 2.4 which ended life as a Pentium IV 3.06 HT.

This strategy broke down with Conroe when I had to replace my much too expensive motherboard in order to run a Q9450 to get two more cores.
Now, I’ve given up on any optimizing strategy for getting maximum utility from a computer platform over time.

I passed on the X79 platform because I’m not making any money with it. I bought an i7-3770(k) but likely have received no benefit from the unlocked processor since I don’t over clock it. It is quite pleasant in that it gets the job done and doesn’t use a lot of power or make a lot of noise.

Lately, I’ve been running a Windows 10 trial and Vegas 13 on a two socket, eight core, Xeon server with sixteen logical processors and I will admit that is very nice to have lots of cores available.

Given the amount of money I spend on coffee, I could forego a cup now and then and pay the difference between the 5820 and 5960.



If I did go without coffee to buy more cores, the relative render results that Vegas 13 might deliver can be summarized in this graphic.


Mainconcept MPEG-2 makes the best use of multiple cores, followed by Mainconcept AVC, followed in a dismal third place by Sony AVC.

BUT, in terms of getting the render out the door, Mainconcept MPEG-2 is still the fastest however the roles reverse between Mainconcept AVC and Sony AVC.

22 minute video rendered in:

 

Mainconcept MPEG-2   =  6:49


Sony AVC (21.9 mbps) = 34:32


Mainconcept AVC      = 50:30

 


System Specs shown in the graphic. Source 35 mbps max (~28 mbps actual) 1920x1080-23.97p MPEG-2-PCM audio in a MXF wrapper. Absolutely no GPU assistance.

 

Steve Mann wrote on 10/13/2014, 10:38 PM
I disagree. Years ago I hosted a Rendertest database (www.mmdv.com/sonyvegas/rendertest, the password is 'vegasuser')

In the same processor family, the processor clock speed ruled, but when the few users with more than the common four cores posted results, the 6 and 8 core processors were the fastest. The dual-Xeons blew everyone else out of the water.
OldSmoke wrote on 10/14/2014, 7:12 AM
This is where my delama is right now. I do intent to upgrade my system and since everything has changed anyways, DDR4, Socket 2011-3 and so on I need a complete new system aside from drives. So the choice is dual Xeon or single 8-core 59660X. My goal is to work on 4K footage without proxies and a preview setting of Best/Full which my currrent system cant do but it seems the 5960X also can't.

Proud owner of Sony Vegas Pro 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 & 13 and now Magix VP15&16.

System Spec.:
Motherboard: ASUS X299 Prime-A

Ram: G.Skill 4x8GB DDR4 2666 XMP

CPU: i7-9800x @ 4.6GHz (custom water cooling system)
GPU: 1x AMD Vega Pro Frontier Edition (water cooled)
Hard drives: System Samsung 970Pro NVME, AV-Projects 1TB (4x Intel P7600 512GB VROC), 4x 2.5" Hotswap bays, 1x 3.5" Hotswap Bay, 1x LG BluRay Burner

PSU: Corsair 1200W
Monitor: 2x Dell Ultrasharp U2713HM (2560x1440)

JohnnyRoy wrote on 10/14/2014, 7:49 AM
Here is something to consider:

1) 4K is around the corner (actually it's here for some people).

2) Sony recommends a "minimum" of 8-cores for comfortable 4K work.

Why would you buy anything less than an 8-cores?

(Note: even if you think you are not going to 4K, you never know what the future brings)

~jr
VidMus wrote on 10/14/2014, 12:44 PM
@ JohnnyRoy,

My budget just went for my cameras so my computer will have to die of old age in approximately three years.


https://vimeo.com/channels/cocnwp
dxdy wrote on 10/14/2014, 3:58 PM
Well, I pulled the trigger and order a 5960-based machine with AMD Radeon R9 290X 4GB. JR's post reminded me that with 4K coming, I will need all the oomph I can get. With 16 GB memory and a couple WD Black drives, and Win 7, I spent the same thing I spent in the mid 80's on an IBM AT with a 20 MB hard disk (not accounting for inflation - the US BLS says $3500 in 1984 would be $8000 today).
Stringer wrote on 10/14/2014, 4:23 PM
Nice setup..

It would be interesting to see how it performs with Steve Mann's benchmark posted a couple of posts up..
mean_streets wrote on 10/15/2014, 10:14 PM
Going in the other direction, I just bought an Asus t100 with the updated z3775 4core soc and installed my copy of studio platinum 11 32 bit on it. With the right settings, I am able to do basic cuts on wedding video (28mbit AVC 1080pf) without being stuck in the home office. I was pretty impressed with where the power of a $350 tablet is now.
dxdy wrote on 10/16/2014, 10:16 AM
I will be happy to run Steve Mann's rendertest when I get the new machine. Cyberpowerpc is building it the end of the month - one or more of the components I ordered is hard to get - I was pretty fussy about case, power supply, mobo and CPU.

Edited for clarification
lewist57 wrote on 10/20/2014, 2:30 PM
I built a 2 x quad core PC in 2008 and used it for Vegas 10 (I think), and by disabling one processor, and playing with the speed, I found the processor clock speed was more of a factor than the number of cores. Which makes sense if you think about it, the more cores, the more 'overhead' the operating system and VP has to maintain to keep up with what each core is doing.
dxdy wrote on 11/3/2014, 11:39 AM
The 5960 arrived, slightly battered, but it powered up and I believe I have to agree with those here who say clock speed is most important.

With its 3.0 GHz clock speed, it ran the new rendertest in 28 seconds, comparable to the overclocked 4770ks and even an OC 2600K.

The Sony press release car benchmark ran the XDCAM render really fast (with the AMD R9 290 GPU) but was run of the mill for the Mainconcept MP4.

I strongly suspect I could have saved myself a lot of money by going with the 6 core CPU at 3.5 Ghz and even a AMD 270.
BruceUSA wrote on 11/3/2014, 1:02 PM
Can you run Vegas press release project with cpu only? turned off gpu in preference and must restart the computer to take full effect, and do a render MC MP4 CPU only. I want to see how the 8 core do. Previously, I have tested on a 3930K @ 5.0Ghz and got 105s CPU only. I would expect, 5960X would sill be able to beat that time @ stock clock.
dxdy wrote on 11/3/2014, 2:37 PM
Bruce,

Without GPU, CPU only after a restart, XDCAM=212 seconds (!) and MC = 188 seconds(!!!!!). All with Preview RAM = 200. The 6 cores at 5 GHz really trumps 8 cores at 3 GHz./
OldSmoke wrote on 11/3/2014, 2:56 PM
Interesting; I get 182sec with MC and 270sec with XDCAM 1080i on my 4.3GHz 3930K. I would have expected more form 5960X.

Proud owner of Sony Vegas Pro 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 & 13 and now Magix VP15&16.

System Spec.:
Motherboard: ASUS X299 Prime-A

Ram: G.Skill 4x8GB DDR4 2666 XMP

CPU: i7-9800x @ 4.6GHz (custom water cooling system)
GPU: 1x AMD Vega Pro Frontier Edition (water cooled)
Hard drives: System Samsung 970Pro NVME, AV-Projects 1TB (4x Intel P7600 512GB VROC), 4x 2.5" Hotswap bays, 1x 3.5" Hotswap Bay, 1x LG BluRay Burner

PSU: Corsair 1200W
Monitor: 2x Dell Ultrasharp U2713HM (2560x1440)

Stringer wrote on 11/3/2014, 3:00 PM
Why are you comparing 6 cores at 5g vs 8 at 3?

That doesn't seem very realistic..


Clock only beats cores, when you increase the clock enough to do it...


OldSmoke wrote on 11/3/2014, 3:39 PM
Why are you comparing 6 cores at 5g vs 8 at 3?

That is quite simple. I am not sure how far you can push the 5960X but I have been running my 3930K at 4.3GHz for two years now without any trouble. I assume you can OC the 5960X too, maybe up to 3.5-3.8GHz but certainly not up to 4.3 or 5.0GHz. As such, the 5960X doesn't seem to deliver what I would have expected from an 8-core or Vegas just doesn't make use of all these cores efficiently. It certainly clear that at stock, the 5960X doesn't make much of a difference.

Proud owner of Sony Vegas Pro 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 & 13 and now Magix VP15&16.

System Spec.:
Motherboard: ASUS X299 Prime-A

Ram: G.Skill 4x8GB DDR4 2666 XMP

CPU: i7-9800x @ 4.6GHz (custom water cooling system)
GPU: 1x AMD Vega Pro Frontier Edition (water cooled)
Hard drives: System Samsung 970Pro NVME, AV-Projects 1TB (4x Intel P7600 512GB VROC), 4x 2.5" Hotswap bays, 1x 3.5" Hotswap Bay, 1x LG BluRay Burner

PSU: Corsair 1200W
Monitor: 2x Dell Ultrasharp U2713HM (2560x1440)

BruceUSA wrote on 11/3/2014, 4:41 PM
If you can, try to go with custom watercooling and push this bad boy to 4.4-4.6ghz, that will absolutely make a big different in compute power and this would be really nice for editing/rendering. I really think Vegas work best with 8 core with high clocks frequency is the ticket. I am holding off for 1-2 yrs, ddr4 pricing drop and then I will go 8 core broadwell cpu 6960x ? and you can bet on it, it will be push to the max just like my 3930k/4930k and I am loving it. A Xeon low clocks and 10-12 core is no match to a high clocks 8 core cpu.
Stringer wrote on 11/4/2014, 8:13 AM
Nick Hope has posted in this forum that he is at 4.6ghz @ 1.3v..

http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?MessageID=905212&Replies=53#909183

Googling up 5960x overclocking returns a lot of extreme examples, but a series of tests at AnandTech included a range of 4 - 4.4ghz, with Vcore under 1.3v, which sounds like a respectable expectation, and clear competition for a 3930k at the same ghz..

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8426/the-intel-haswell-e-cpu-review-core-i7-5960x-i7-5930k-i7-5820k-tested/3
OldSmoke wrote on 11/4/2014, 9:09 AM
Stringer

You are right, that sounds lot more promising. I also googled it yesterday and it seems that the 5960X will handle 4.3GHz with ease. I might well get one of these soon and test it for myself. I already have all the custom water-cooling and some great video cards too.

Proud owner of Sony Vegas Pro 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 & 13 and now Magix VP15&16.

System Spec.:
Motherboard: ASUS X299 Prime-A

Ram: G.Skill 4x8GB DDR4 2666 XMP

CPU: i7-9800x @ 4.6GHz (custom water cooling system)
GPU: 1x AMD Vega Pro Frontier Edition (water cooled)
Hard drives: System Samsung 970Pro NVME, AV-Projects 1TB (4x Intel P7600 512GB VROC), 4x 2.5" Hotswap bays, 1x 3.5" Hotswap Bay, 1x LG BluRay Burner

PSU: Corsair 1200W
Monitor: 2x Dell Ultrasharp U2713HM (2560x1440)