Overclock.net › Forums › Intel › Intel CPUs › [OFFICIAL] == Sandy Bridge-E == Overclock Leaderboard & Owners Club ==
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[OFFICIAL] == Sandy Bridge-E == Overclock Leaderboard & Owners Club == - Page 114

post #1131 of 2297
Quote:
Originally Posted by leetmode View Post

I'm in the same boat, currently have an i7 920 and I'm wondering if I would notice a difference when working with Photoshop if I jumped to a 3930k?

Only in 3D rendering I assume. Where you would notice the difference would be encoding videos.
post #1132 of 2297
Quote:
Originally Posted by leetmode View Post

I'm in the same boat, currently have an i7 920 and I'm wondering if I would notice a difference when working with Photoshop if I jumped to a 3930k?

The biggest noticeable difference will be in 3D rendering times, no doubt.

Photoshop does take advantage of multiple cores (I.E. multithreaded) but the only time you'll see a difference in photoshop is when using CPU intensive filters on large images (radial blur, etc).
PoorHouse
(9 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
5960x MSI X99S SLI Plus GTX 560 Crucial  
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingPower
Samsung 950 Pro NVMe Samsung 250GB 830 MCP35X2 -> Nova1080 -> CPU-370 Seasonic 1000 Platinum 
Case
Define R4 
  hide details  
Reply
PoorHouse
(9 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
5960x MSI X99S SLI Plus GTX 560 Crucial  
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingPower
Samsung 950 Pro NVMe Samsung 250GB 830 MCP35X2 -> Nova1080 -> CPU-370 Seasonic 1000 Platinum 
Case
Define R4 
  hide details  
Reply
post #1133 of 2297
new around here...
319
post #1134 of 2297
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schnitter View Post

Only in 3D rendering I assume. Where you would notice the difference would be encoding videos.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ugotd8 View Post

The biggest noticeable difference will be in 3D rendering times, no doubt.
Photoshop does take advantage of multiple cores (I.E. multithreaded) but the only time you'll see a difference in photoshop is when using CPU intensive filters on large images (radial blur, etc).

Thanks for the info guys. I do a lot of Medium format and Large format photography and my scans can reach up to 1GB or more after editing depending on which scanner I'm using, many times my computer just locks up, I assumed maybe I didn't have enough RAM but that didn't really make a difference after adding more.
post #1135 of 2297
Quote:
Originally Posted by leetmode View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Schnitter View Post

Only in 3D rendering I assume. Where you would notice the difference would be encoding videos.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ugotd8 View Post

The biggest noticeable difference will be in 3D rendering times, no doubt.
Photoshop does take advantage of multiple cores (I.E. multithreaded) but the only time you'll see a difference in photoshop is when using CPU intensive filters on large images (radial blur, etc).

Thanks for the info guys. I do a lot of Medium format and Large format photography and my scans can reach up to 1GB or more after editing depending on which scanner I'm using, many times my computer just locks up, I assumed maybe I didn't have enough RAM but that didn't really make a difference after adding more.

This may be related to hard drive speed as well; what is your scratch disk? Writing and reading that much data is going to cause hangs if your HDD can't keep up.
post #1136 of 2297
Quote:
Originally Posted by omega17 View Post

This may be related to hard drive speed as well; what is your scratch disk? Writing and reading that much data is going to cause hangs if your HDD can't keep up.

At the moment I'm using a Crucial C300 128gb, I did purchase two Crucial 256gb M4s and would like to run them in raid 0 for the next build.
post #1137 of 2297
Would love to join the club!

Currently got my 3930K at 4.5GHz with 1.28V.

Almost thought I had it as low as 1.25 testing with IBT and Prime95, but some Rosetta@Home proved me wrong in no time.

So up to 1.28V it went - but I absolutely can not go higher as one of my cores peaked at 83C frown.gif Others were all below 80 though.

Might invest in better cooler, though I do like my Zalman CNPS10X Flex.... and I can't get something too big, as it simply won't fit.
post #1138 of 2297
Those temps are really high for 1.28V. Do you have two fans mounted on that Flex?
post #1139 of 2297
Quote:
Originally Posted by omega17 View Post

Those temps are really high for 1.28V. Do you have two fans mounted on that Flex?

Yeah, I know my temps are bad.

Have 2 1600rpm Akasa fans with relatively decent pressure, but I just can't get temps down.

Have tried reseating cooler many times, applying thermal paste using different methods, lowered other voltages (PLL, VTT, etc) as much as possible, but just can't seem to get them down further.

Honestly did think the Flex would cope better at these clocks and voltages.
post #1140 of 2297
I don't think the Flex was designed with the 2011 socket in mind; having 6 HT cores really ramps up the heat output.

Unless you can put your rig somewhere cooler, I'd back off on the overclock. The absolute maximum they can handle is 91c, and you're getting pretty close...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Intel CPUs
Overclock.net › Forums › Intel › Intel CPUs › [OFFICIAL] == Sandy Bridge-E == Overclock Leaderboard & Owners Club ==