EEVblog #462 - Video Editing PC Assembly

[mariush]

PS while intel uses hyperthreading, AMD's now CPU's are also using something similar,consider it a better version of hyperthreading.

The AMD 8 core CPU's are not true 8 core chips since many of the components are shared where a traditional multi core CPU will have the various parts not shared.

Thats why AMD labels the 8 core CPU as having 4 core modules.

AMD doesn't use hyperthreading (or a version of it)

Each AMD "module" looks like this:



Basically, a module is made out of two separate cores each with their own integer section, that share a floating point section. That's the reason why people say the eight cores on AMD processors are not 8 real cores (because Intel's cores each have one integer and one floating point), and they're right : they're 8 integer cores and 4 to 8 floating point cores, depending on what type of floating point arithmetic threads want to use.

x264 - video encoding in general - is 99% integer based, floating point only matters at games and 3d rendering and other things.
So, in the video encoding area, an AMD processor will act as eight individual cores, with each 2 cores having maybe a 1-2% penalty due to the scheduler having to split and assign integer instructions to each core. During video encoding, the shared floating point module is NOT used, so it doesn't matter.

AMD processors simply have lower throughput and use more cycles for some instructions, hence why a processors like 3770k that has only 4 cores (but has more cpu extensions that are very useful for video encoding) can keep up with the AMD processors.

If 2 threads fall on a single core module (with it's supposedly 2 cores), you will see significantly lower speeds than if you take the same 2 threads and place them on 2 different core modules.

http://www.extremetech.com/computing/138394-amds-fx-8350-analyzed-does-piledriver-deliver-where-bulldozer-fell-short/2

All those tests in the link you posted are about software using the floating point section of modules.

When piledriver/bulldozer was launched, the operating system would not recognize this particularity of AMD processors, that the floating point unit is shared between two cores, so four threads would be put on 2 modules, each 2 threads sharing a floating point module.

A Windows patch later, and Windows these days will by default spread threads on separate modules in case those threads do floating point stuff.
Vishera just tweaked the architecture.

If you want to be honest about it, post  the same tests done with x264 and playing with modules/cores, and you'll see there's no difference. Or better yet, tell me why that website didn't test with x264 but tested with only software using floating point stuff.
 

[Razor512]

That is a major issue. Not many applications can use 8 threads, and many of the ones that will make use of 8 threads, will push the CPU into bottlenecks like that.

I compared the core module to hyperthreading because it shares all of the threading issues.

The OS used in the benchmark, had all of the patches needed for the FX CPU's they simply forced the core affinity to use a single core module VS 2 or more of them.



I will try to pull up some of the other benchmarks that I have seen which compare threading on a core module. with other applications In no case have I ever seen a single core module offer anything like the performance scaling of 2 separate core modules running a thread. (very few sites tested the core modules, more need to as it is a problem and AMD should not be advertising these CPU's as 8 cores, and instead advertise it as a quad core and add on some trendy marketing name to the end of it.

[ecat]

I have an old gaming rig in storage and I'm thinking of replacing the thermal compound with solder paste. The theory is that when the CPU heats up due to poor thermal connectivity the solder paste will re-flow soldering the CPU to the heat sink providing superior thermal contact. This has a 25% chance of working and a 75% chance of releasing the magic smoke, should be interesting. 

Or you could just buy some of this
http://www.frozencpu.com/products/10740/thr-77/Coollaboratory_Liquid_Ultra_100_Metal_Thermal_Interface_Material.html

Does it work?
It most certainly does, I use it in my current PC.
If the surface of the CPU conforms to the surface of the heatsink then this stuff will show you just how little thermal paste you really need - a grain of rice will look huge lol.

Does it have any negatives?
Yes. One used, separating the cpu and heatsink can be tricky. Not 'welded on' tricky but you need to exercise care.

Is it significantly better than the other brand name thermal pastes?
No. I'd argue there is no significant real world difference between any of the top thermal pastes. A degree or two here or there is not worth loosing sleep over when building a PC intended for daily use. Changes in ambient temperature will have a greater affect.

As for our generous host Dave perusing a new career in plastering, it's only worth worrying about if the paste squeezes out in sufficient quantity to short the test pads on the top of the chip package. Resistance, capacitance, whatever on these pads could cause problems.

[Short Circuit]

"You want the thinnest layer possible", he says as he coats the heat sink in an ocean of thermal paste 

Some people say you should spread it with a credit card others say you should dab it in the middle and let the pressure spread the compound others say you should apply to the CPU.

I have an old gaming rig in storage and I'm thinking of replacing the thermal compound with solder paste. The theory is that when the CPU heats up due to poor thermal connectivity the solder paste will re-flow soldering the CPU to the heat sink providing superior thermal contact. This has a 25% chance of working and a 75% chance of releasing the magic smoke, should be interesting. 

More like .25% chance of working  Original idea though.
Perhaps better chance if you use this super-low melting point reworking solder that Dave tested a while ago...? ChipQuick iirc

[Ferroto]

also not to jump on the band wagon or anything but you know the metal plate for the connections on the back of the motherboard is supposed to snap into the case first and the motherboard just presses into it.

[mariush]

(very few sites tested the core modules, more need to as it is a problem and AMD should not be advertising these CPU's as 8 cores, and instead advertise it as a quad core and add on some trendy marketing name to the end of it.

Sigh.. but they're not 4 cores.  A core has one integer scheduler and a floating point scheduler.  AMD's module has TWO integer schedulers and ONE floating point scheduler. Since forever (well, since pentium), a x86 core has one int and one fp.

have an old gaming rig in storage and I'm thinking of replacing the thermal compound with solder paste. The theory is that when the CPU heats up due to poor thermal connectivity the solder paste will re-flow soldering the CPU to the heat sink providing superior thermal contact. This has a 25% chance of working and a 75% chance of releasing the magic smoke, should be interesting.

It will work just fine.. until the paste dries up. Then it will still work, just not as well.

You can use toothpaste, you can use even vegemite: http://www.dansdata.com/goop.htm  <--- this guy tested with old cpus.  Current intels are even less hot at idle, so they won't have issues.

All transfer heat to a certain degree and the heatsink will dissipate heat off the cpu even with that crap between it and the cpu. 

But you probably imagined the solder paste will melt and all that... no, I don't think the temperature reaches 180-200c to have the paste do its magic.

[Ferroto]

But you probably imagined the solder paste will melt and all that... no, I don't think the temperature reaches 180-200c to have the paste do its magic.

Hmm what if I used that chip-quik stuff Dave reviewed awhile back, that has a much lower melting point.

[peter.mitchell]

Refer to the graph down the bottom http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/printpage/Thermal-Compound-Roundup-July-2011/1334

[SeanB]

I have used simple synthetic grease ( was the closest to hand that was not stringy wheel bearing grease or molybdenum based) and a lapped heatsink and it works well. Often I take the new heatsinks, remove the fan and polish them with some 1400grit waterpaper on the surface block, often this makes them mirror smooth, and generally they only then need 1 small match head sized bit of thermal compound to fully cover the CPU pad. Worked very well on older Celeron processors that had a bare die backside.

I used to make my own, using Dow silicone grease, zinc oxide powder and a lot of acetone to make a thin liquid that would gradually evaporate ( over a week in a glass jar left outside with a cloth top firmly wired to it) to make heatsink compound. Used that to do power supplies where you routinely changed 50 2N3773's in the case of a failure ( and never the 100A fuse) and needed at least 100g per unit.

[(In)Sanity]

I see everyone else picked up on the memory being in the incorrect slots for dual channel mode.   Yes,  far too much thermal compound was applied.  In the end it'll all work.   I've put together literally hundreds of high end machines in my life,  and the last one was just a week ago.    Reading the manual would have helped in so many areas for this install,  I would overclock the crap out of that thing.   Run memtest and prime95 on it for days.   I don't think I've ever owned a machine that wasn't overclocked.

Enjoy.

Jeff

[M0BSW]

I always thought computers were a hard thing to put together, only done by gods , anyway doesn't to bad a job to do.

[M. András]

shared resources or not on the vishera chips that damn thing almost doubled the performance on some programs i use simulation rendering gaming etc compared to a phenom II 1090t, stock memory bandwith up to 50% more at stock settings, i call that a big improvement

[Razor512]

The only slightly difficult part of building computers, is when you have to do a custom water cooling setup with multiple radiators.

It requires cutting hoses and testing for leaks (which requires you to modify a old DC power brick to run the cooling while computer is off)

PS when using liquid cooling for multiple devices, always place a radiator after each high wattage component, eg CPU > radiator> GPU > radiator > reservoir, and making sure you have a powerful pump to handle the radiators. Other than that, computers are for the most part fun to build

On my case around the unsupported parts of the PCB, I used rubber blocks cut to fit snugly under the board, then stuck to the case with a little bit of double sided tape. (prevents flexing, especially when you have a tighter case ) (you can usually buy a sheet of those gym floor mats  for a nice dense rubber like material) (just add small blocks around different connectors and around the PCI-e area, and a large strip under the 24 pin connector)

[Razor512]

One thing that this video can definitely teach us is how seriously people take someone else building a P.C. for themselves!!

Yes, I got beaten here in the past for daring to confess that these days I buy read-made PCs at the supermarket. I give a flying fart which exact CPU version they have or which motherboard / chipset. I couldn't care less. They are fast enough and no one at home ever complained.

But wouldn't you feel bad if you found out that you could have gotten a system with a faster CPU, motherboard with better VRM's so that you can overclock better, and a better videocard for the same or less money if you built your own?

PS with most budget prebuilt systems, the main area they cheap out on is the motherboard, memory, and hard drive.

Most PC users when buying generally focus on clock speed, brand of CPU, and having lots of RAM, but never really think about the motherboard, hard drive brand, number of phases dedicated to the CPU, power supply amps on the 12V rail, then run into issues when they need a new videocard and the power supply cant handle it, or want a better CPU but are floored by the board macing out at 95 watts for the CPU and not the 125 watts needed for the new CPU.

[Bored@Work]

But wouldn't you feel bad if you found out that you could have gotten a system with a faster CPU, motherboard with better VRM's so that you can overclock better, and a better videocard for the same or less money if you built your own?

Lets ignore that these PCs aren't as bad as people claim they are. Still no, I don't and wouldn't feel bad.

Buying such a PC saved me time. I didn't need to wade through urban myth, false or at best incomplete information to find "the best" CPU, motherboard, memory, PSU, etc. I don't have to waste time figuring out what the latest trend in memory, and what the must-have CPU cooler is. I have no interest in memorizing CPU type numbers or GPU types.

I don't have to sort out incompatibilities, electrical or mechanical. If the thing doesn't work or is to slow I bring it back. If it breaks down within the warranty period I bring it back.

I give a fscking fart about graphics performance. No one here in the house does, because since years onboard graphics is fast enough for all things we do with PCs. No one here is a gamer. Similar with overclocking, couldn't care less. I certainly won't waste hours just to tweak a PC to run 10% faster, with a 50% higher chance of crashing on a hot summer day.

Every month or so something allegedly "better" comes out in the PC market. Today's optimal system is tomorrow's dog. I refuse to play that game, I refuse to go on the eternal hunt for the "best" PC. All we need are reasonably performing PCs.

then run into issues when they need a new videocard and the power supply cant handle it, or want a better CPU but are floored by the board macing out at 95 watts for the CPU and not the 125 watts needed for the new CPU.

Upgrading PCs never worked for me in the past. New CPU? Sorry Sir, that old socket on your mother board is no longer supported, but we can offer you this nice new motherboard, too. Oh sorry, your old RAM doesn't fit any more. And the motherboard needs a new PSU, too. And that PSU, like the motherboard, doesn't fit in your old case. . Instead of upgrading I buy a new PC if someone outgrow the old one. No messing around with WTF the PC industry did this time to make upgrading hard and expensive or even impossible. I go straight for a new completer PC.

[SeanB]

Mostly I just am buying something near the bottom of the performance  band. If I buy as a ready built or as a set of boxes to assemble it is not a worry.

[Ed.Kloonk]

Dave, after watching that nice hardware being put together. Nice.

But then polluting it with windows (tm)...

[SeanB]

My laptop came with windows, used it only 3 times. once to make a set of recovery disks ( just in case), once to check a minipro programmer ( now runs in a VM) and once to run GOtomeeting, as I was not going to upgrade the XP VM to SP3 to run it. If I have to do this again I will get the SP's and do the pain.

[NiHaoMike]

Aside from install the RAM correctly (as others have mentioned), turn off the swap or move it to a HDD. Swap is no good on a (Flash) SSD. (And in most cases, you don't need swap with 16GB of RAM.)

That PSU looks really poor quality for a Corsair. (Make sure it's not a fake.) You shouldn't have any problems with it in your basic setup, but just beware in case you start adding video cards and RAID arrays later on.

I'm also not so sure about installing the heatsink vertically with one end of the pipes hanging below the CPU. The refrigerant would tend to collect near the bottom, and although they have copper braid or something inside to mitigate this, there is probably still some performance impact. Easy way to test is by turning the case over so that the CPU is at the bottom. If core temps drop significantly, turn the heatsink 90 degrees or just leave the case turned over.

[Slobodan]

But then polluting it with windows (tm)...

Yeah. And 37 GB just for the OS install. My Ubuntu 12.04 64 bit install only took litle over 3 GB.

[M. András]

But then polluting it with windows (tm)...

Yeah. And 37 GB just for the OS install. My Ubuntu 12.04 64 bit install only took litle over 3 GB.

try that with the recovery install on the asus gamer laptops. it installs 50Gb of crap which you wont ever use just a fresh installed system runs over 180 process (win7ultimate) my desktop which has over 150Gb of installed stuffs drivers monitoring softwares some cad stuffs runs with 140process

[amspire]

But then polluting it with windows (tm)...

Yeah. And 37 GB just for the OS install. My Ubuntu 12.04 64 bit install only took litle over 3 GB.

Windows doesn't need 37GBytes to install. Most of that space is probably virtual ramdisk paging file (if you have 16GBytes of RAM, Windows makes a 16G virtual ramdisk on the PC) and other files such as a hybernate save/restore file if you ever let the PC hibernate.

I think your Ubuntu 12.04 defaults to using the swap partition (if you have one) for hybernating, so it you have 16GBytes of ram for video editing and you want to be able to hybernate, then your Linux swap partition has to be a minimum of 16GBytes. That would make your Ubuntu installation a minimum of 18GBytes if you were building a similar system. Many of the opensource video editing tools have to be custom built on your Linux, and it is easy for the source and build files to consume many gigabytes of space. If you rely on the pre-built Linux apps, you are often using outdated versions of the applications. Ubuntu is pretty famous for never updating the application builds on old Ubuntu versions to the latest build.

If you choose to never hybernate and to only use a 2G swap partition, well you can do that in Windows as well.

But if you have plenty of drive space, why would you bother?

I like Linux, but I would only use it for video editing if I could afford to buy the very expensive commercial video editing/compositing/rendering packages that cost well into the thousands of dollars. It is very easy to spend over $10K on a decent Linux video editing system. Last time I looked, the free Linux video editing packages were just too buggy and primitive for efficient use.

[mariush]

Windows doesn't need 37GBytes to install. Most of that space is probably virtual ramdisk paging file (if you have 16GBytes of RAM, Windows makes a 16G virtual ramdisk on the PC) and other files such as a hybernate save/restore file if you ever let the PC hibernate.

My Windows folder is 21 GB. Just Windows 7 Home Premium 64bit with Windows updates up to date.
Program Files (x86) is 5.7GB
Program Files is another 4.3 GB
Users folder is another 3 GB

Just install, LibreOffice, some old stuff like Adobe CS 2 suite etc, Thunderbird (which is about 700MB sigh), Firefox profiles taking  about 500 MB... not many things.  It adds up.

You could go about enabling ntfs compression on some of the folders less used in Windows - ntfs compression reduces files sizes to about 50% on average. If you have ssd, they're read fast from it and they're decompressed close to real time and they're cached in ram also if you have a lot of ram.

[T4P]

Man, put the RAM into dual channel PLEASE!!!
Zero cable management ..

[Flsgd]

Why did you put all SSD and HDs together? I would imagine that's bad for airflow.