Benchmarking i7 3770k, 4.6GHz vs i7 3930K, 4.2GHz and 4.0GHz at DVinfo.net

Kim Olsson · May 20th, 2013, 05:29 PM

Hi everyone. This is a follow up on the thread "Building a new SuperComputer for Vegas Pro"...
I wanted to do this test because I wanted to know how a overclocked Ivy Bridge 3770k stood against the 3930k with a lower overclock.
At the time both CPU's was announced, the 3930k did cost about two times more. And still is, almost I guess...
So is it worth buying a 2x pricier CPU for doing video editing?
Im posting the results from the testing we made out from 2 different kind of CPU's and various clockspeed.
One of us had a Intel 3770k, 4 core (8 threads) CPU, and 2 of us had a Intel 3930k, 6 core (12 threads) CPU.
The 3770k had a clock speed of 4.6GHz, and the two 3930k's had a clockspeed of 4.2GHz and 4.0GHz...
From my general thoughs before I started this test, was that the clockspeed did boost preview playback more than more cores.
And also that more the cores, faster the rending times would be, with clockspeed combined ofcourse...
I am editing in Vegas Pro 12 with videoclips from my Canon 60D on the timeline. There are 11 clips in the timeline.
2 clips have no effects, some have just some simple color correction and levels, 1 clip have Neat Video,
2 clips has Magic Bullet, 1 clip have 2x Magic Bullet and 1 clip has 10 FX added but only from the tab "GPU accelerated FX".
This is my results:

RENDER TIME RESAULTS:

Source: Videoclips from my Canon 60D
MPEG-4 (Quicktime), 47.6Mbps, 1920x1080 (16:9), 29.970fps, AVC (Baseline@L5.0),
[Canon 60D:ORIGINAL BITRATE], Picture Style: Lightform - CINEMA

Output:
MainConcept AVC/AAC (*.mp4;*.avc) - RENDER TIME:

Ivy Bridge i7 3770k (4.6GHz), 32GB RAM, nVidia GTX 670 [Kim] GPU 00:14:52 SECONDS - CPU 00:14:46 SECONDS
Ivy Bridge i7 3930K (4.2GHz), 32GB RAM, nVidia GTX 570 [Gerarld] GPU 00:16:24 SECONDS - CPU 00:25:05 SECONDS
Ivy Bridge i7 3930K (4.0GHz), 32GB RAM, nVidia GTX 460 [Jeff] GPU 00:15:42 SECONDS - CPU 00:19:04 SECONDS

Output:
SONY AVC/MVC (*.mp4;*.m2ts;*.avc) - RENDER TIME:

Ivy Bridge i7 3770k (4.6GHz), 32GB RAM, nVidia GTX 670 [Kim] GPU 00:11:16 SECONDS - CPU 00:11:58 SECONDS
Ivy Bridge i7 3930K (4.2GHz), 32GB RAM, nVidia GTX 570 [Gerarld] GPU 00:17:09 SECONDS - CPU 00:17:09 SECONDS
Ivy Bridge i7 3930K (4.0GHz), 32GB RAM, nVidia GTX 460 [Jeff] GPU 00:13:19 SECONDS - CPU 00:23:13 SECONDS

Output:
Video for Windows [UNCOMPRESSED] (*.avi) - RENDER TIME:

Ivy Bridge i7 3770k (4.6GHz), 32GB RAM, nVidia GTX 670 [Kim] -------------------- - CPU 00:16:28 SECONDS
Ivy Bridge i7 3930K (4.2GHz), 32GB RAM, nVidia GTX 570 [Gerarld] GPU 00:15:33 SECONDS - CPU 00:25:17 SECONDS
Ivy Bridge i7 3930K (4.0GHz), 32GB RAM, nVidia GTX 460 [Jeff] -------------------- - CPU 00:17:03 SECONDS

CONCLUSION:
This came actually as a shock to me. The 3770k, 4.6GHz rendered this project fastest on every output besides the .avi format.
Notice my 600 serie Kepler card isnt supported, therefor I almost get the same results with "only CPU" (CPU) and "use CUDA if availible" (GPU).
Both nVidia GTX 460 and GTX 570 is obvious accelerating the render speed for Gerarld and Jeff.
From this small test we done, its obvious that clockspeed have a bigger impact when rendering then 2 more cores.
Maybe Vegas Pro isnt utilized to fully use so many cores/threads... Because if it would, 2 more cores should theoretical boost the rendering with about 33%.
I must say this was very interessting. Im very excited to retest this project with a bounch more people...

PREVIEW PLAYBACK SPEED
This test is hard to draw any conclusions because I have added effects which all are in the category "GPU accelerated",
which means they all support GPU if you have a graphiccard supported. We should of disabled the option:
"GPU acceleration of video processing" in the option tab so only the CPU would be in the benchmark. Next time. Its still interessting.

Only two did this testing, and this is the results (numbers showing FPS when playing the clip on the timeline):

[Kim, 3770k - 4.6GHz] [Gerarld, 3930k - 4.2GHz]
NO EFFECTS

Clip 1: Clip 1:
Preview-half: 29,9 Preview-half: 29,9
Preview-full: 29,9 Preview-full: 29,9
Good-half: 29,9 Good-half: 29,9
Good-full: 29,9 Good-full: 29,9
Best-half: 29,9 Best-half: 29,9
Best-full: 29,9 Best-full: 29,9

Color curves, Color corrector (sec)

Clip 2: Clip 2:
Preview-half: 29,9 Preview-half: 29,9
Preview-full: 29,9 Preview-full: 29,9
Good-half: 29,9 Good-half: 29,9
Good-full: 29,9 Good-full: 29,9
Best-half: 29,9 Best-half: 29,9
Best-full: 29,9 Best-full: 29,9

Color curv, Color cor (sec), Warm Spot Focus

Clip 3: Clip 3:
Preview-half: 29,9 Preview-half: 29,9
Preview-full: 19,0 Preview-full: 29,9
Good-half: 29,9 Good-full: 29,9
Good-full: 19,0 Good-full: 29,9
Best-half: 29,9 Best-half: 29,9
Best-full: 19,0 Best-full: 29,9

Neat Video (Noise reduction), Color curv, Color cor

Clip 4: Clip 4:
Preview-half: 19,0 Preview-half: 23,9
Preview-full: 5,6 Preview-full: 8,7
Good-half: 19,2 Good-half:25,3
Good-full: 5,6 Good-full: 8,6
Best-half: 19,2 Best-half: 18,7
Best-full: 5,5 Best-full: 8,9

NO EFFECTS

Clip 5: Clip 5:
Preview-half: 29,9 Preview-half: 29,9
Preview-full: 29,9 Preview-full: 29,9
Good-half: 29,9 Good-half: 29,9
Good-full: 29,9 Good-full: 29,9
Best-half: 29,9 Best-half: 29,9
Best-full: 29,9 Best-full: 29,9

Color Cu, Color Co(sec), Unsharp M, Color Co

Clip 6: Clip 6:
Preview-half: 29,9 Preview-half: 29,9
Preview-full: 29,9 Preview-full: 29,9
Good-half: 29,9 Good-half: 29,9
Good-full: 29,9 Good-full: 29,9
Best-half: 29,9 Best-half: 29,9
Best-full: 29,9 Best-full: 29,9

Color Cu, Color Co(sec), Unsharp M, Cookie C, Guassian B

Clip 7: Clip 7:
Preview-half: 29,9 Preview-half: 26,8
Preview-full: 27,0 Preview-full: 15,0
Good-half: 29,9 Good-half: 29,9
Good-full: 27,0 Good-full: 14.9
Best-half: 29,9 Best-half: 29,6
Best-full: 27,0 Best-full: 18,5

Color Cu, Color Co(sec), Unsharp M, Glint

Clip 8: Clip 8:
Preview-half: 29,9 Preview-half: 19,5
Preview-full: 1,9 Preview-full: 1,8
Good-half:29,9 Good-half:20,0
Good-full: 1,9 Good-full: 1,8
Best-half: 29,9 Best-half: 18,9
Best-full: 1,9 Best-full: 1,7

MBL (Dream Look Sharp)

Clip 9: Clip 9:
Preview-half: 29,9 Preview-half: 24,9
Preview-full: 20,8 Preview-full: 13,5
Good-half: 29,9 Good-half: 24,0
Good-full: 20,8 Good-full: 13,6
Best-half: 29,9 Best-half: 25,0
Best-full: 20,8 Best-full: 13,3

MBL (Swing Tilt Film), MBL (Popstar)

Clip 10: Clip 10:
Preview-half: 13,3 Preview-half: 10,5
Preview-full: 7,7 Preview-full: 5,0
Good-half: 14,5 Good-half: 11,5
Good-full: 7,5 Good-full: 5,4
Best-half: 14,7 Best-half: 11,4
Best-full: 7,7 Best-full: 5,5

Lens flare, Fill light, Color curv, Glow, Sharpen, Starburst, Timecode, Saturation adjust, Lab adjust (more yellow), Linear Blur

Clip 11: Clip 11:
Preview-half: 29,9 Preview-half: 20,0
Preview-full: 13,0 Preview-full: 4,5
Good-half: 29,9 Good-half: 21.5
Good-full: 13,0 Good-full: 5,0
Best-half: 29,9 Best-half: 22,0
Best-full: 13,0 Best-full: 5,0

CONCLUSION:
The 3770k, 4.6GHz was also faster when it came to preview playback speed. The 3930K, 4.2GHz was only faster when using Neat Video.
The 3770k was using GTX 670 which isnt supported by Vegas Pro offically.The 3930k did use GTX 570 which is supported.
However it doesnt seems that the 3930k has any advatage when preview playback over the 3770k which have higher clock...
Why its interesting to compare the 3930k around 4GHz and a 3770k around 4.6GHz, is that its harder to clock the 3930k because its gets warmer then the 3770k.
More the cores, more the heats generates. So its alot easier to clock the 3770 higher than the 3930k.

This is not a super advance testing. The purpose of this test was to test the difference between these two CPU's in real life, with real guys editing.
And see if there where any benefits having the more expensive 3930k for editing in Sony Vegas Pro.
Other things could of matters. Like Which SSD you used, which drive did you render to, which drive did u have your media on? And so on..
If someone have any suggestion how we can better compare the CPU's your welcome to replay.
Sorry for the text, I did first write it down in a .txt.
/Happy editing!

Jeff Harper · May 20th, 2013, 07:03 PM

Thanks for all of your hard work in putting the test together, and in compiling the results. It is very interesting, indeed!

Leslie Wand · May 20th, 2013, 08:16 PM

2nd jeff's comment. well done and thanks.

Gerald Webb · May 21st, 2013, 05:57 AM

well done Kim. You have inspired me.
Just got a stable OC at 4.3ghz very easily.
Is noticeably snappier and a fair bit faster rendering a 35 min DVD im doing this arv.
Might push it a bit further tomorrow....
Burn baby burn lol

Kim Olsson · May 21st, 2013, 07:50 AM

Great you liked it :D

Sry about the text.. I first wrote it down in a .txt. And when pasted it on the forum, it does look like a mess.. ;/
Hope you all can read it and understand it.

Yeah interessting, high coreclock is indeed a strengh in both playback preview when editing and rendering..
More than I though from the beginning.

Gerald up with the coreclock :D dont forget to buy if you not already have one, a better cpu cooler then the original. I have a Corsair H100. I think I'll purchase a custom water cooling system next time I invest in a new system.. Intel Haswell isnt far from release ;).

Would be fun to rerun a test like we did another time ;) with more numbers! ;)

Mike Prendergast · May 22nd, 2013, 06:20 AM

Kim, Thanks for performing and posting the test results.

Jeff Harper · May 22nd, 2013, 06:37 AM

For those who are not aware: CPU speed affects playback. Multiple cores do not affect playback at all.

On the other hand, multiple cores AND CPU speed improve rendering speed. A 4.6 six core will out perform a 4.6 four core machine on rendering, but on playback should be the same.

Kim Olsson · May 22nd, 2013, 04:04 PM

Great you guys like it!

And like Jeff says, if the application supports multiple cores, it does render faster.
How many cores a application supports, depends on the application itself.
How many cores/threads can Vegas Pro utilize? I have no idea...
In Sony Vegas option, "maximum number of rendering threads" is set to maximum 16, that would practically mean that Sony Vegas would be able to use a 8Cores with hypertheading or 16core CPU !!
But hey, im not the engineer. I am just talking loud =D

Corespeed has a huge advantage on playback speed in Vegas Pro. But i do have to think that multiple cores have some play in it.

Remember your single core systems back in the days... even with high clockspeed, it was a pain editing bigger/advanced projects.
Today with quad cores being standard these days, it easy to setup a $1000 resonable editing system. But of course, if it is your work/hobby you will spend more for more power.

But like I said before. This wasnt my last test with Vegas Pro. I have known Vegas since V5 or V6, So its really fun to watch the progress being made...

/Happy editing!

Jeff Harper · May 28th, 2013, 05:48 PM

Kim on playback, I cannot quote the source, but I remember that it has been said somewhere here by someone that knew, that in Vegas, corespeed affects playback but # of cores does not affect it at all.

I found this was true because I upgraded to my six core processor and saw little improvement in playback, and was very disappointed. Rendering improved, but playback did not improve at all.

Another thing that will affect playback is a slow hard drive, as we all should know. I have some very fast SAS 15K drives that run in RAID 0 which playback video just fine, but when I edit from a slower 2GB storage drive playback struggles and stutters with multicam edits.

May 20th, 2013, 05:29 PM	#1
Kim Olsson Major Player Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Sweden Posts: 263	Benchmarking i7 3770k, 4.6GHz vs i7 3930K, 4.2GHz and 4.0GHz Hi everyone. This is a follow up on the thread "Building a new SuperComputer for Vegas Pro"... I wanted to do this test because I wanted to know how a overclocked Ivy Bridge 3770k stood against the 3930k with a lower overclock. At the time both CPU's was announced, the 3930k did cost about two times more. And still is, almost I guess... So is it worth buying a 2x pricier CPU for doing video editing? Im posting the results from the testing we made out from 2 different kind of CPU's and various clockspeed. One of us had a Intel 3770k, 4 core (8 threads) CPU, and 2 of us had a Intel 3930k, 6 core (12 threads) CPU. The 3770k had a clock speed of 4.6GHz, and the two 3930k's had a clockspeed of 4.2GHz and 4.0GHz... From my general thoughs before I started this test, was that the clockspeed did boost preview playback more than more cores. And also that more the cores, faster the rending times would be, with clockspeed combined ofcourse... I am editing in Vegas Pro 12 with videoclips from my Canon 60D on the timeline. There are 11 clips in the timeline. 2 clips have no effects, some have just some simple color correction and levels, 1 clip have Neat Video, 2 clips has Magic Bullet, 1 clip have 2x Magic Bullet and 1 clip has 10 FX added but only from the tab "GPU accelerated FX". This is my results: RENDER TIME RESAULTS: Source: Videoclips from my Canon 60D MPEG-4 (Quicktime), 47.6Mbps, 1920x1080 (16:9), 29.970fps, AVC (Baseline@L5.0), [Canon 60D:ORIGINAL BITRATE], Picture Style: Lightform - CINEMA Output: MainConcept AVC/AAC (.mp4;.avc) - RENDER TIME: Ivy Bridge i7 3770k (4.6GHz), 32GB RAM, nVidia GTX 670 [Kim] GPU 00:14:52 SECONDS - CPU 00:14:46 SECONDS Ivy Bridge i7 3930K (4.2GHz), 32GB RAM, nVidia GTX 570 [Gerarld] GPU 00:16:24 SECONDS - CPU 00:25:05 SECONDS Ivy Bridge i7 3930K (4.0GHz), 32GB RAM, nVidia GTX 460 [Jeff] GPU 00:15:42 SECONDS - CPU 00:19:04 SECONDS Output: SONY AVC/MVC (.mp4;.m2ts;.avc) - RENDER TIME: Ivy Bridge i7 3770k (4.6GHz), 32GB RAM, nVidia GTX 670 [Kim] GPU 00:11:16 SECONDS - CPU 00:11:58 SECONDS Ivy Bridge i7 3930K (4.2GHz), 32GB RAM, nVidia GTX 570 [Gerarld] GPU 00:17:09 SECONDS - CPU 00:17:09 SECONDS Ivy Bridge i7 3930K (4.0GHz), 32GB RAM, nVidia GTX 460 [Jeff] GPU 00:13:19 SECONDS - CPU 00:23:13 SECONDS Output: Video for Windows [UNCOMPRESSED] (.avi) - RENDER TIME: Ivy Bridge i7 3770k (4.6GHz), 32GB RAM, nVidia GTX 670 [Kim] -------------------- - CPU 00:16:28 SECONDS Ivy Bridge i7 3930K (4.2GHz), 32GB RAM, nVidia GTX 570 [Gerarld] GPU 00:15:33 SECONDS - CPU 00:25:17 SECONDS Ivy Bridge i7 3930K (4.0GHz), 32GB RAM, nVidia GTX 460 [Jeff] -------------------- - CPU 00:17:03 SECONDS CONCLUSION: This came actually as a shock to me. The 3770k, 4.6GHz rendered this project fastest on every output besides the .avi format. Notice my 600 serie Kepler card isnt supported, therefor I almost get the same results with "only CPU" (CPU) and "use CUDA if availible" (GPU). Both nVidia GTX 460 and GTX 570 is obvious accelerating the render speed for Gerarld and Jeff. From this small test we done, its obvious that clockspeed have a bigger impact when rendering then 2 more cores. Maybe Vegas Pro isnt utilized to fully use so many cores/threads... Because if it would, 2 more cores should theoretical boost the rendering with about 33%. I must say this was very interessting. Im very excited to retest this project with a bounch more people... PREVIEW PLAYBACK SPEED This test is hard to draw any conclusions because I have added effects which all are in the category "GPU accelerated", which means they all support GPU if you have a graphiccard supported. We should of disabled the option: "GPU acceleration of video processing" in the option tab so only the CPU would be in the benchmark. Next time. Its still interessting. Only two did this testing, and this is the results (numbers showing FPS when playing the clip on the timeline): [Kim, 3770k - 4.6GHz] [Gerarld, 3930k - 4.2GHz] NO EFFECTS Clip 1: Clip 1: Preview-half: 29,9 Preview-half: 29,9 Preview-full: 29,9 Preview-full: 29,9 Good-half: 29,9 Good-half: 29,9 Good-full: 29,9 Good-full: 29,9 Best-half: 29,9 Best-half: 29,9 Best-full: 29,9 Best-full: 29,9 Color curves, Color corrector (sec) Clip 2: Clip 2: Preview-half: 29,9 Preview-half: 29,9 Preview-full: 29,9 Preview-full: 29,9 Good-half: 29,9 Good-half: 29,9 Good-full: 29,9 Good-full: 29,9 Best-half: 29,9 Best-half: 29,9 Best-full: 29,9 Best-full: 29,9 Color curv, Color cor (sec), Warm Spot Focus Clip 3: Clip 3: Preview-half: 29,9 Preview-half: 29,9 Preview-full: 19,0 Preview-full: 29,9 Good-half: 29,9 Good-full: 29,9 Good-full: 19,0 Good-full: 29,9 Best-half: 29,9 Best-half: 29,9 Best-full: 19,0 Best-full: 29,9 Neat Video (Noise reduction), Color curv, Color cor Clip 4: Clip 4: Preview-half: 19,0 Preview-half: 23,9 Preview-full: 5,6 Preview-full: 8,7 Good-half: 19,2 Good-half:25,3 Good-full: 5,6 Good-full: 8,6 Best-half: 19,2 Best-half: 18,7 Best-full: 5,5 Best-full: 8,9 NO EFFECTS Clip 5: Clip 5: Preview-half: 29,9 Preview-half: 29,9 Preview-full: 29,9 Preview-full: 29,9 Good-half: 29,9 Good-half: 29,9 Good-full: 29,9 Good-full: 29,9 Best-half: 29,9 Best-half: 29,9 Best-full: 29,9 Best-full: 29,9 Color Cu, Color Co(sec), Unsharp M, Color Co Clip 6: Clip 6: Preview-half: 29,9 Preview-half: 29,9 Preview-full: 29,9 Preview-full: 29,9 Good-half: 29,9 Good-half: 29,9 Good-full: 29,9 Good-full: 29,9 Best-half: 29,9 Best-half: 29,9 Best-full: 29,9 Best-full: 29,9 Color Cu, Color Co(sec), Unsharp M, Cookie C, Guassian B Clip 7: Clip 7: Preview-half: 29,9 Preview-half: 26,8 Preview-full: 27,0 Preview-full: 15,0 Good-half: 29,9 Good-half: 29,9 Good-full: 27,0 Good-full: 14.9 Best-half: 29,9 Best-half: 29,6 Best-full: 27,0 Best-full: 18,5 Color Cu, Color Co(sec), Unsharp M, Glint Clip 8: Clip 8: Preview-half: 29,9 Preview-half: 19,5 Preview-full: 1,9 Preview-full: 1,8 Good-half:29,9 Good-half:20,0 Good-full: 1,9 Good-full: 1,8 Best-half: 29,9 Best-half: 18,9 Best-full: 1,9 Best-full: 1,7 MBL (Dream Look Sharp) Clip 9: Clip 9: Preview-half: 29,9 Preview-half: 24,9 Preview-full: 20,8 Preview-full: 13,5 Good-half: 29,9 Good-half: 24,0 Good-full: 20,8 Good-full: 13,6 Best-half: 29,9 Best-half: 25,0 Best-full: 20,8 Best-full: 13,3 MBL (Swing Tilt Film), MBL (Popstar) Clip 10: Clip 10: Preview-half: 13,3 Preview-half: 10,5 Preview-full: 7,7 Preview-full: 5,0 Good-half: 14,5 Good-half: 11,5 Good-full: 7,5 Good-full: 5,4 Best-half: 14,7 Best-half: 11,4 Best-full: 7,7 Best-full: 5,5 Lens flare, Fill light, Color curv, Glow, Sharpen, Starburst, Timecode, Saturation adjust, Lab adjust (more yellow), Linear Blur Clip 11: Clip 11: Preview-half: 29,9 Preview-half: 20,0 Preview-full: 13,0 Preview-full: 4,5 Good-half: 29,9 Good-half: 21.5 Good-full: 13,0 Good-full: 5,0 Best-half: 29,9 Best-half: 22,0 Best-full: 13,0 Best-full: 5,0 CONCLUSION: The 3770k, 4.6GHz was also faster when it came to preview playback speed. The 3930K, 4.2GHz was only faster when using Neat Video. The 3770k was using GTX 670 which isnt supported by Vegas Pro offically.The 3930k did use GTX 570 which is supported. However it doesnt seems that the 3930k has any advatage when preview playback over the 3770k which have higher clock... Why its interesting to compare the 3930k around 4GHz and a 3770k around 4.6GHz, is that its harder to clock the 3930k because its gets warmer then the 3770k. More the cores, more the heats generates. So its alot easier to clock the 3770 higher than the 3930k. This is not a super advance testing. The purpose of this test was to test the difference between these two CPU's in real life, with real guys editing. And see if there where any benefits having the more expensive 3930k for editing in Sony Vegas Pro. Other things could of matters. Like Which SSD you used, which drive did you render to, which drive did u have your media on? And so on.. If someone have any suggestion how we can better compare the CPU's your welcome to replay. Sorry for the text, I did first write it down in a .txt. /Happy editing!

May 20th, 2013, 07:03 PM	#2
Jeff Harper Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 8,425	Re: Benchmarking i7 3770k, 4.6GHz vs i7 3930K, 4.2GHz and 4.0GHz Thanks for all of your hard work in putting the test together, and in compiling the results. It is very interesting, indeed!

May 20th, 2013, 08:16 PM	#3
Leslie Wand Trustee Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: upper hunter, australia Posts: 1,410	Re: Benchmarking i7 3770k, 4.6GHz vs i7 3930K, 4.2GHz and 4.0GHz 2nd jeff's comment. well done and thanks. __________________ www.lesliewand.com.au

May 21st, 2013, 05:57 AM	#4
Gerald Webb Trustee Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Central Coast Australia Posts: 1,046	Re: Benchmarking i7 3770k, 4.6GHz vs i7 3930K, 4.2GHz and 4.0GHz well done Kim. You have inspired me. Just got a stable OC at 4.3ghz very easily. Is noticeably snappier and a fair bit faster rendering a 35 min DVD im doing this arv. Might push it a bit further tomorrow.... Burn baby burn lol __________________ http://vimeo.com/livewebvideo

May 21st, 2013, 07:50 AM	#5
Kim Olsson Major Player Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Sweden Posts: 263	Re: Benchmarking i7 3770k, 4.6GHz vs i7 3930K, 4.2GHz and 4.0GHz Great you liked it :D Sry about the text.. I first wrote it down in a .txt. And when pasted it on the forum, it does look like a mess.. ;/ Hope you all can read it and understand it. Yeah interessting, high coreclock is indeed a strengh in both playback preview when editing and rendering.. More than I though from the beginning. Gerald up with the coreclock :D dont forget to buy if you not already have one, a better cpu cooler then the original. I have a Corsair H100. I think I'll purchase a custom water cooling system next time I invest in a new system.. Intel Haswell isnt far from release ;). Would be fun to rerun a test like we did another time ;) with more numbers! ;)

May 22nd, 2013, 06:20 AM	#6
Mike Prendergast Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Erie, CO Posts: 52	Re: Benchmarking i7 3770k, 4.6GHz vs i7 3930K, 4.2GHz and 4.0GHz Kim, Thanks for performing and posting the test results.

May 22nd, 2013, 06:37 AM	#7
Jeff Harper Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 8,425	Re: Benchmarking i7 3770k, 4.6GHz vs i7 3930K, 4.2GHz and 4.0GHz For those who are not aware: CPU speed affects playback. Multiple cores do not affect playback at all. On the other hand, multiple cores AND CPU speed improve rendering speed. A 4.6 six core will out perform a 4.6 four core machine on rendering, but on playback should be the same.

May 22nd, 2013, 04:04 PM	#8
Kim Olsson Major Player Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Sweden Posts: 263	Re: Benchmarking i7 3770k, 4.6GHz vs i7 3930K, 4.2GHz and 4.0GHz Great you guys like it! And like Jeff says, if the application supports multiple cores, it does render faster. How many cores a application supports, depends on the application itself. How many cores/threads can Vegas Pro utilize? I have no idea... In Sony Vegas option, "maximum number of rendering threads" is set to maximum 16, that would practically mean that Sony Vegas would be able to use a 8Cores with hypertheading or 16core CPU !! But hey, im not the engineer. I am just talking loud =D Corespeed has a huge advantage on playback speed in Vegas Pro. But i do have to think that multiple cores have some play in it. Remember your single core systems back in the days... even with high clockspeed, it was a pain editing bigger/advanced projects. Today with quad cores being standard these days, it easy to setup a $1000 resonable editing system. But of course, if it is your work/hobby you will spend more for more power. But like I said before. This wasnt my last test with Vegas Pro. I have known Vegas since V5 or V6, So its really fun to watch the progress being made... /Happy editing!

May 28th, 2013, 05:48 PM	#9
Jeff Harper Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 8,425	Re: Benchmarking i7 3770k, 4.6GHz vs i7 3930K, 4.2GHz and 4.0GHz Kim on playback, I cannot quote the source, but I remember that it has been said somewhere here by someone that knew, that in Vegas, corespeed affects playback but # of cores does not affect it at all. I found this was true because I upgraded to my six core processor and saw little improvement in playback, and was very disappointed. Rendering improved, but playback did not improve at all. Another thing that will affect playback is a slow hard drive, as we all should know. I have some very fast SAS 15K drives that run in RAID 0 which playback video just fine, but when I edit from a slower 2GB storage drive playback struggles and stutters with multicam edits.