cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Image Editing - Optimization

Gobe
Level 8
I thought I'd post this as a new thread since there's been some talk on this in a couple places.

Here's the question: Why can I top 270K on image editing when the next nearest score is a solid 18K lower? If anyone has something they want me to try like recording my secondary/tertiary memory timings, I'll try to get to it if it sounds reasonable and post my results.

The system that I'm running is based around an Intel i7 5960x (pre-binned) running currently on an ASUS X99A USB 3.1 motherboard. My storage is dual Samsung 950 Pro NVMe (no raid). Memory is G.Skill Ripjaws V (32 GB Quad) with XMP at 3200/14-14-14-34. I run 1T. Video is dual GTX-960 (SLI). CPU cooling is via a dedicated custom loop.

Edit: Forgot to mention, Windows 7 professional.

Here's the first test I've run:

CPU = 4,900 MHz
Cache = 4,500 MHz
Dram = 3,200 MHz @ 14-14-14-34-1T

Let's see if the storage device makes a difference.

I installed various storage devices and made 5 runs for each of the RB image editing benchmark. Standard tweaks: Diagnostic Mode, 800x600, Explorer closed, and RealBench at realtime priority. NTFS for all. Best score for each device is recorded.

Samsung 950 Pro NVMe (PCIe) - 271,794
Toshiba Q Series Pro SSD SATA - 271,562
WD 7200 RPM SATA - 271,128
Toshiba 7200 RPM SATA via USB 3.0 - 271,345
USB 1.0 Flash - 108,717
USB 2.0 Flash - 250,689
USB 3.0 Flash - 152,198

It ain't the storage. NVMe and SATA whether solid state or spinner all clustered at 271K including a SATA spinner via USB 3.0. The USB 1.0 flash drive introduced a real bottleneck, but the performance hit for the USB 2.0 flash drive was only 21K. The USB 3.0 flash drive (PNY @ 32 GB) was interesting as it didn't perform nearly as well as the USB 2.0 flash drive (DataTraveler 100 G2 @ 32 GB) . Not all flash memory is the same. Apparently my USB 3.0 memory stick sucks.

Next, we'll drop the cache from 4,500 MHz to 3,000 MHz and see what we get.
21,153 Views
47 REPLIES 47

Gobe
Level 8
Cache @ 3,000 MHz

For this test, all I did was drop the cache from 4,500 MHz to 3,000 MHz. Everything else is the same, same 5 runs with the best score recorded. I only used the Samsung 950 Pro NVMe here since the previous storage test says the storage isn't the magic bullet.

Cache at 3,000 MHz = 262,809

OK, here's a noticeable drop-off of around 9K dropping the cache from 4,500 MHz to 3,000 MHz. The cache speed does matter, but it doesn't explain my 18K lead on the rest of the field since I'm still 9K ahead of the field with the cache loitering along at 3,000 MHz. The faster the cache, the better, but there probably won't be a dramatic improvement going from say 4,200 MHz to 4,500 MHZ or higher.

Next, we'll return the cache to 4,500 MHz and start farting around with the DRAM.

Memory Speed

Back to initial conditions:

CPU = 4,900 MHz
Cache = 4,500 MHz
DRAM = 3,200 MHz @ 14-14-14-34-1T

That DRAM looks awfully speedy at 3,200 MHz. Let's fix that.

DRAM = 2,133 MHz @ 14-14-14-34-1T = 269,548

So, yea, memory speed matters... barely. Dropping from 3,200 MHz down to 2,133 MHz drops us barely 2K.

I guess next I'll sabotage the whole works.

Our initial conditions:

CPU = 4,900 MHz
Cache = 4,500 MHz
DRAM = 3,200 MHz @ 14-14-14-34-1T

We'll keep the CPU speed the same since we know it makes a big difference. Let's bog down the cache speed AND memory timings and speed.

CPU = 4,900 MHz
Cache = 3,000 MHz
DRAM = 1,866 MHz @ 20-20-20-48-1T

259,883

We've choked the memory all the way back to 1,866 MHz from the original 3,200 MHz and we've played Hell with the timings loosening them from 14-14-14-34 to 20-20-20-48. We've dropped the cache from 4,500 MHz to 3,000 MHz. I also replaced the water in the cooling loop with maple syrup.

Well, I didn't do that last thing.

We're down 12K from the original test... still ahead of the field by 6K.

OK, that's all I've got.

I tested various storage devices and I threw wrenches into my memory speed and timings and cache speed both individually and in combination. And here's the damned thing, my image editing scores are still out of this world.

I'm beginning to wonder if there's something to the way I've got my OS (Win7 Pro) configured. I've got no idea what it could be since I just do the same stuff every time I do a new OS installation.

I know, I know, I can hear Arne screaming, "What are your damned secondary/tertiary memory timings?" I'll look at those this weekend and post them.

I'm also thinking about doing a Win7 Pro install to an SSD without doing all the usual stuff I do and see if that makes a difference.

Gobe
Level 8
Primary Memory Timings

OK, everything back to the settings from the initial test running with the Samsung 950 Pro NVMe.

CPU = 4,900 MHz
Cache = 4,500 MHz
DRAM = 3,200 MHz @ 14-14-14-34-1T

Let's loosen up those timings.

DRAM = 3,200 MHz @ 18-18-18-42-1T = 271,562

Well, look at that! Primary memory timings don't seem to matter... at all.

Arne_Saknussemm
Level 40
LOL...not screaming...just talking loudly...I have a kit of 32GB Ripjaws V incoming so will find out....:o

I'm on Win 10...if I get a chance I will try a win 8.1 run....you strip win7?

I clean installed W10 and just had RB there and got 257000 image....but no ice to do a full run...

Menthol
Level 14
What vcore does it take you guys to complete RB at 4.9ghz?

Menthol wrote:
What vcore does it take you guys to complete RB at 4.9ghz?

I haven't finished it at 4.9 yet - only 4875 at 1.37.

Diagnostic mode? Real-time? 800x600? It's like you guys are benchmarking? 😉 I had lowered the resolution, but not all of that stuff.

Menthol wrote:
What vcore does it take you guys to complete RB at 4.9ghz?


I have limited myself to 1.45 max and I don't think 4.9 will clear for me at that...4845 was my run...