calculate cpu speed increase?

[emosun]

As im shopping for a newer daily driver i'm running into a small issue of not having much in the way of benchmark information on the system im looking to go for which will be a quad socket xeon setup. As such not many people have run benchmarks on their systems to get a good idea of how they compare.

I'm able to find benchmarks of the cpu's by themselves in a single socket configuration. I also know that my current daily driver has a cpu speed increase of just under 50% when a second cpu is present maybe 48%. So i assume if the system i'm looking to buy is similar in terms of diminished results each added cpu configuration will add 48% speed to the machines previous configuration. So with two cpu's i'd see a 48% speed increase over a single one , and with 4 cpu's i'd then see a 48% increase over two cpu's.

So effectively 4 cpu's would result in a 125ish pecent increase over a single cpu. Least thats how i've calculated it. I know when a system has to share resources across this many sockets the results diminish but i'm just having trouble calculating what the speed would actually be.

[Electronics Wizardy]

What are you doing on here? What cpu's are you looking at? Quad socket normally isn't a gread desktop system. What os?

[Pixel5]

the performance increase is going to depend entriely on the workload you put on the CPUs.

 

if you have something that can run in parallel on an unlimited number of cores you could even see nearly linear scaling but since we have no info what the system should be doing its hard to tell.

[emosun]

7 minutes ago, Electronics Wizardy said:

What are you doing on here?

effects rendering

8 minutes ago, Electronics Wizardy said:

What cpu's are you looking at?

e5-4650

9 minutes ago, Electronics Wizardy said:

What os?

windows 7

9 minutes ago, Electronics Wizardy said:

Quad socket normally isn't a gread desktop system.

well i have a celphone if i need to check my email or watch cat videos

4 minutes ago, Pixel5 said:

the performance increase is going to depend entriely on the workload you put on the CPUs.

the load would be 100%

[Pixel5]

1 minute ago, emosun said:

effects rendering

 

the load would be 100%

the load is referring to what kind of program and if this program supports so many cores, your load is not gonna be 100% if that is not the case.

[Electronics Wizardy]

Just now, emosun said:

effects rendering

What program?

 

Just now, emosun said:

windows 7

Windows 7 only supports 2 sockets. The other 2 just won't be used at all.

 

Also windows 7 is a good amount slower than 10 and linux in many uses

1 minute ago, emosun said:

the load would be 100%

There are lots of workloads with 100% load that scale badly. Cpu usage really isn't great as it takes in time waiting for the cpu to fetch things from memory and do things like wait for io often.

 

Why not get a ryzen 7 or threadripper? Faster in most all programs

[emosun]

5 minutes ago, Pixel5 said:

the load is referring to what kind of program and if this program supports so many cores, your load is not gonna be 100% if that is not the case.

Yeah thats why i said 100% becuase the load will be 100% over every core.  anything that isn't used will be made up in a vm running a second instance. the effects processing isn't a very speedy task with frames tasking several seconds each to render so yeah I'm not going to have an issue giving the cores something to do.

[Pixel5]

is power consumption, cooling or the loudness of the system any issue?

 

a quad socket xeon setup will be very power hungry and it will be hard to find good coolers, probably going for a single socket threadripper setup will give you better performance.

[emosun]

4 minutes ago, Electronics Wizardy said:

What program?

one or two instances of after effects depending on when it runs out of cores it can handle

5 minutes ago, Electronics Wizardy said:

Windows 7 only supports 2 sockets. The other 2 just won't be used at all.

ah good to know , i'll use windows server then. 

5 minutes ago, Electronics Wizardy said:

Also windows 7 is a good amount slower than 10 and linux in many uses

I've noticed zero change in rendering times between the two os's

6 minutes ago, Electronics Wizardy said:

Why not get a ryzen 7 or threadripper?

They aren't as fast as what i'd like. 

[emosun]

1 minute ago, Pixel5 said:

is power consumption, cooling or the loudness of the system any issue?

no

1 minute ago, Pixel5 said:

going for a single socket threadripper setup will give you better performance.

from what i've seen the threadripper isn't as fast for the task i want. the only advantage it has is price to performance , but i know it being slower than i want would always bother me.

[Electronics Wizardy]

Just now, emosun said:

one or two instances of after effects depending on when it runs out of cores it can handle

What exactly are you rendering in aftereffects? It normally doesn't scale too well with cores.

 

Id go dual xeon e5 or threadripper. Threadripper would be a good amount faster here

 

1 minute ago, emosun said:

from what i've seen the threadripper isn't as fast for the task i want. the only advantage it has is price to performance , but i know it being slower than i want would always bother me.

threadripper will be faster in almost every task. If you got money to spend go epyc or xeon scaleable. But quad socket for these tasks doesn't normally make sense

 

 

[Pixel5]

so pricing is no issue then and you are going to get more modern xeons or are you looking for older used hardware?

 

another option would be to get a dual socket board for EPIC CPU´s which would give you up to 64 cores to render on for a lower price.

[emosun]

 

2 minutes ago, Electronics Wizardy said:

What exactly are you rendering in aftereffects? It normally doesn't scale too well with cores.

thats why you run more than one instance. when it stops scaling you just start another instance in a vm and render out two halves of a project. the effects take hours to render while joining the two clips later on take no time at all.

6 minutes ago, Electronics Wizardy said:

quad socket for these tasks doesn't normally make sense

it does when you can give them something to do

[emosun]

5 minutes ago, Pixel5 said:

so pricing is no issue then and you are going to get more modern xeons or are you looking for older used hardware?

pricing is an issue which is why i'm trying to avoid paying for overpriced ddr4 that i dont need.

[Pixel5]

what is the total maximum budget so we can see whats the best performance you can get for this price.

[Electronics Wizardy]

19 minutes ago, emosun said:

thats why you run more than one instance. when it stops scaling you just start another instance in a vm and render out two halves of a project. the effects take hours to render while joining the two clips later on take no time at all.

 

 

19 minutes ago, emosun said:

t does when you can give them something to do

Then why not go with 2 dual socket systems? Faster and about the same price. If you don't care about power, just make a big cluser of dual 1366 systems or 2011 systems.

 

The reason why quad socked isn't recommended is that scaling is bad, and unless you need lots of ram for things like large databases you much better off with 2 dual socket systems that will be cheaper and faster. 

 

What system are you looking at? r820?

[emosun]

9 hours ago, Electronics Wizardy said:

The reason why quad socked isn't recommended is that scaling is bad,

Its ok if the scaling is bad so long as the entire system cost is lower than that of another option. 

 

I did consider simply  building two seperate machines but the cost would be higher as both machines would need components that im carrying over from the previous build so they end up costing more than just using a quad socket board.

 

Now after looking at more comparable benchmarks I can see the system for my uses will be roughly the same speed as a few i9 models but will cost less to purchase as I can reuse the ram from the previous system.

 

I honestly thought I might get some help for my initial questions and didn't consider that the entire build would be questioned instead. It's honestly my fault for forgetting that most don't typically use computers the way I do and are more or less concerned with low core count tasks. I probably should have put this topic on level1techs instead so its my fault. Perhaps there's someone else here who works with higher end machines that may know more about speed scaling and can help with the initial question.

[Electronics Wizardy]

2 minutes ago, emosun said:

Its ok if the scaling is bad so long as the entire system cost is lower than that of another option. 

 

I did consider simply  building two seperate machines but the cost would be higher as both machines would need components that im carrying over from the previous build so they end up costing more than just using a quad socket board.

 

Now after looking at more comparable benchmarks I can see the system for my uses will be roughly the same speed as a few i9 models but will cost less to purchase as I can reuse the ram from the previous system.

 

I honestly thought I might get some help for my initial questions and didnt consider that the entire build would be questioned instead. It honestly my fault for forgetting that most dont typically use computers the way I do and are more or less concerned with low core count tasks. I probably should have put this topic on level1techs instead so its my fault. Perhaps theres someone else here who works with higher end machine that may know more about speed scaling and can help with the initial question.

Look at this for performance. https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/After-Effects-CC-2018-CPU-Comparison-Intel-8th-Gen-vs-X-series-vs-Ryzen-vs-Threadripper-1123/

 

Unless your using cinema 4k for your projects, your best bet is normally a 8700k due to the higher clocks. Aftereffects really don't use a ton of cores well.

 

I use after effects a good amount, and the general idea is that it doesn't scale well to quad socket.

[emosun]

Just now, Electronics Wizardy said:

Aftereffects really don't use a ton of cores well.

I feel like I've typed the answer twice now so I don't need to type it again

[Electronics Wizardy]

2 minutes ago, emosun said:

I feel like I've typed the answer twice now so I don't need to type it again

what are you doing in after effects? It doesn't scale well with cores most of the time.

 

Really a ryzen 2700x would be a better bet for most all projects. Otherwise if you want old hardware get dual 2011 system.

[emosun]

6 minutes ago, Electronics Wizardy said:

what are you doing in after effects? It doesn't scale well with cores most of the time.

I've answered this already. Please read the responses. if you're going to run one instance of after effects then yeah i imagine it wouldn't make use of 32 cores. If you can come up with a reason why i would only run a single instance i'd like to hear it.

[Electronics Wizardy]

6 minutes ago, emosun said:

I've answered this already. Please read the responses. if you're going to run one instance of after effects then yeah i imagine it wouldn't make use of 32 cores. If you can come up with a reason why i would only run a single instance i'd like to hear it.

What are you doing in after effects? 

 

 

Is this your workstation or just your render box?

 

Affter effects cares about single threaded performance aswell. You can't just throw more cores and expect it to be faster. 

 

Quad socket is a pretty bad value, go with multiple single socket systems instead.

[emosun]

3 minutes ago, Electronics Wizardy said:

 

Quad socket is a pretty bad value, go with multiple single socket systems instead.

dear , fucking , lord

just stop replying , you aren't helping , you aren't even reading , just stop. even if nobody else comes along to help with the initial question it will be an improvement.