Messages in this topic - RSS

Home ? General Discussion ? AMD RYZEN 7 1800X

pages: 1 2 | Please log in or register, then complete your details to create a post.
22/03/2017 14:36:23

PatMarrNCMuvizu mogul
PatMarrNC
Posts: 1742
Is anybody out there running Muvizu on a system that has an AMD Ryzen 7 1800x CPU? If so, I want to hear your thoughts on it.

If you aren't already aware of it, the Ryzen 7 is an 8 core 16 thread CPU that costs about half what intels 8 core 16 thread i7 6900 costs. It looks like a good processor for content creation like modelling, animation and video. Coupled with a good GPU, I'm wondering how it would handle what we do.
permalink
28/03/2017 17:04:30

PatMarrNCMuvizu mogul
PatMarrNC
Posts: 1742
well, I decided to take a chance on this new CPU which was just released in March 2017. Ordered it a few days ago, and it should arrive today. I'll review it after I have a chance to install Muvizu and my video editor..

I had previously tried to increase my performance by installing a better graphics card (I already had a gaming computer, but with an inferior graphics capability). It helped with things like effects, but it didn't affect my slow loading times or lag when I had a bunch of stuff going on in the scene at the same time.

Turns out that Muvizu relies heavily on the CPU for some tasks, and on the GPU for other tasks, so both are important. In my case, after my GPU upgrade, the CPU was the bottleneck.

Until now, the newer intel CPUs had a major advantage due to their hyper threading. Each core works like 2 cores, so a 4 core i7 has 8 threads of computing power. The Ryzen is AMDs first line that offers the same advantage of two threads per core... but at a much lower price!

The Ryzen 7 has 8 cores - 16 threads, which throws a lot of computing power at CPU intensive tasks, like loading complex sets into Muvizu. That's the theory anyway... I'll report back with real-world results after some testing. If it works like I'm hoping, the Ryzen series could be the most inexpensive path to a computer that can handle Muvizu without breaking a sweat.

Ah... doorbell... UPS... let the testing begin....
permalink
28/03/2017 19:21:29

roroduck
roroduck
Posts: 28
PatMarrNC wrote:
well, I decided to take a chance on this new CPU which was just released in March 2017. Ordered it a few days ago, and it should arrive today. I'll review it after I have a chance to install Muvizu and my video editor..

I had previously tried to increase my performance by installing a better graphics card (I already had a gaming computer, but with an inferior graphics capability). It helped with things like effects, but it didn't affect my slow loading times or lag when I had a bunch of stuff going on in the scene at the same time.

Turns out that Muvizu relies heavily on the CPU for some tasks, and on the GPU for other tasks, so both are important. In my case, after my GPU upgrade, the CPU was the bottleneck.

Until now, the newer intel CPUs had a major advantage due to their hyper threading. Each core works like 2 cores, so a 4 core i7 has 8 threads of computing power. The Ryzen is AMDs first line that offers the same advantage of two threads per core... but at a much lower price!

The Ryzen 7 has 8 cores - 16 threads, which throws a lot of computing power at CPU intensive tasks, like loading complex sets into Muvizu. That's the theory anyway... I'll report back with real-world results after some testing. If it works like I'm hoping, the Ryzen series could be the most inexpensive path to a computer that can handle Muvizu without breaking a sweat.

Ah... doorbell... UPS... let the testing begin....



This is very useful information. Thanks much!
I recently purchased an I7 7700 but am going without a graphics card until I decide what I need. Thinking an EVGA 1050 with 2 GB could help.
Until your info I was in the dark but wondering what it takes to make Muvizu run better.
I'm also wondering about (when making a video from Muvizu) what is the best bitrate and resolution combination to set.
edited by roroduck on 28/03/2017
permalink
28/03/2017 20:13:49

PatMarrNCMuvizu mogul
PatMarrNC
Posts: 1742
roroduck wrote:


This is very useful information. Thanks much!

great! i was hoping it would be useful to somebody. The question about system resources comes up fairly often, and this is a fairly new product that wouldn't show up in any other searches on the topic ... hence, the thread.

I recently purchased an I7 7700...


that should be a good choice, as that chip has the hyper threading I mentioned previously. If you overclock it, it should be even faster.

but am going without a graphics card until I decide what I need. Thinking an EVGA 1050 with 2 GB could help.


Muvizu is hungry for graphics power, so buy the best you can afford. Be aware that graphics cards are power hungry, and you might have to install a bigger power supply to support the new GPU... or risk frying your computer. Don't ask how I know this. ;-(

One consideration with graphics cards is CUDA cores. They enhance the performance, but not all programs are designed to use that capability. For example, Muvizu does not use CUDA cores even if your GPU has them. Neither does Hit Film. Adobe Premiere Pro (NOT Premiere Elements) DOES use CUDA cores, and so does Sony Vegas and a few others. so they would benefit from a card that has CUDA. Check to see if your video program supports CUDA before buying a video card. If neither your video editor nor Muvizu uses CUDA cores, it might not make sense to spend the extra money on a card that supports CUDA.

Until your info I was in the dark but wondering what it takes to make Muvizu run better.
I'm also wondering about (when making a video from Muvizu) what is the best bitrate and resolution combination to set.
edited by roroduck on 28/03/2017

I can't answer that one. Maybe somebody else would chime in with some thoughts on that topic.

-----------------------
edited by PatMarrNC on 28/03/2017
permalink
02/04/2017 16:12:36

PatMarrNCMuvizu mogul
PatMarrNC
Posts: 1742
well, I'm not a product review kind of guy... but I promised to follow up with a little info about how this system works with Muvizu. In short, it works well with Muvizu.

Without any tweaking to get the system's best performance, it loads complex sets 3 to 4 times faster than my previous low-end gaming system. Now that I'm using Rod's multimesh animation, I had noticed that having multiple video textures running at the same time was bogging my old system down. Now I see no degradation of performance even with lots of other elements being added to the scene.

The system I bought came with a GTX-1080 GPU, which is better than my previous GTX-1060, so once the CPU does what it has to do and turns the ball over to the GPU, all bases are covered.

Given the much lower pricing of AMDs Ryzen series of CPUs (compared to similarly powered intel CPUs), anyone looking to upgrade their PC need not be afraid of the Ryzen. At least for content creation. If you are also a heavy duty gamer there might be better choices for you. I don't game at all, so content creation was the niche for which I wanted to find the best "bang for the buck"

As far as benchmarks, test results vary but ...
the system's best frame rate at 1080p is about 115 fps (average is around 100fps)
Cinebench score on the CPU averages around 1730cb, (if you are a person who cares about such things)

----------------------------------
edited by PatMarrNC on 10/04/2017
permalink
03/04/2017 01:32:53

Rocque
Rocque
Posts: 359
I am looking forward to your progress with your new computer, Pat. I am happy with the one I purchased last summer, but not happy with how they partition the two hard drives that come with it. They made the smaller one the master C drive and that automatically holds all my programs. The larger drive is the D drive and it has so much room, while the C drive is almost out of room in less than a year.

I asked a tech guy at work if I could somehow change the drives around and he said not unless I wanted some major headaches.
I wonder why they would install a C drive with small space on it. Let me know if you have a solution for this one.

Thanks!
permalink
03/04/2017 02:38:58

PatMarrNCMuvizu mogul
PatMarrNC
Posts: 1742
Rocque wrote:
I am looking forward to your progress with your new computer, Pat. I am happy with the one I purchased last summer, but not happy with how they partition the two hard drives that come with it. They made the smaller one the master C drive and that automatically holds all my programs. The larger drive is the D drive and it has so much room, while the C drive is almost out of room in less than a year.

I asked a tech guy at work if I could somehow change the drives around and he said not unless I wanted some major headaches.
I wonder why they would install a C drive with small space on it. Let me know if you have a solution for this one.

Thanks!

you can use C drive for just the operating system and put everything else on D... but you have to change the default settings or windows puts everything on drive C:

One thing you might be able to change "relatively painlessly" is to copy all your DOCUMENTS to your D drive. I just cut and pasted mine, then put a shortcut in the CBig Grinocuments folder, so that when my applications automatically try to store data and projects on drive C, the shortcut redirects me easily to my drive D DOCUMENTS folder.

Once programs are installed, they don't grow.. its the data and projects that need all that extra space anyway.
edited by PatMarrNC on 03/04/2017
permalink
03/04/2017 04:55:08

Rocque
Rocque
Posts: 359
I just cut and pasted mine, then put a shortcut in the Cocuments folder, so that when my applications automatically try to store data and projects on drive C, the shortcut redirects me easily to my drive D DOCUMENTS folder.



How does this shortcut work? That would save a lot of grief in the future.


Thanks for the fast reply.
permalink
03/04/2017 13:26:28

PatMarrNCMuvizu mogul
PatMarrNC
Posts: 1742
Rocque wrote:
I just cut and pasted mine, then put a shortcut in the C documents folder, so that when my applications automatically try to store data and projects on drive C, the shortcut redirects me easily to my drive D DOCUMENTS folder.



How does this shortcut work? That would save a lot of grief in the future.


Thanks for the fast reply.


1) I created a new folder on Drive D: and named it DOCUMENTS

2) Then I copied the folder and all of its sub-folders from the DOCUMENTS folder on drive C: to drive D:

3) Once everything was copied, I deleted the files in the C: version of documents (but you don't have to )

4) I created a shortcut at the top of the C: documents folder which leads to D: Documents. In my case, that's the only thing in the documents folder on drive C: now, so I can't miss it.

5) When you save project or data files, most programs automatically open up a SAVE dialog box, and the default folder is DOCUMENTS. When that dialog opens, I see my shortcut, since that's the only thing in that directory now. I double click the shortcut, and it takes me to D: DOCUMENTS where I have sub folders for all the programs that save data. I then scroll to the correct folder and save as usual

Hope that answers your question about "how does that work"
edited by PatMarrNC on 03/04/2017
permalink
03/04/2017 14:40:40

MrDrWho13Muvizu mogulExperimental user
MrDrWho13
Posts: 2220
Ouch this sounds like a slightly crude workaround - I'm assuming you're talking about Windows 7?
Rocque are you using Windows 10? (There's a way to set this up easily where it automatically chooses the D drive for your files)

What is currently on your D drive? When you go to save a file in word or whatever, which drive is it saying you should save in?
permalink
03/04/2017 14:42:53

MrDrWho13Muvizu mogulExperimental user
MrDrWho13
Posts: 2220
Rocque wrote:
I am looking forward to your progress with your new computer, Pat. I am happy with the one I purchased last summer, but not happy with how they partition the two hard drives that come with it. They made the smaller one the master C drive and that automatically holds all my programs. The larger drive is the D drive and it has so much room, while the C drive is almost out of room in less than a year.

Also this is probably because the smaller drive is faster, and it saves maybe $100 or more to have a small fast drive and a large slow drive instead of one big fast drive.
The reason they set it up to save the programs and Windows there is so things open in a matter of seconds rather than minutes.
edited by MrDrWho13 on 03/04/2017
permalink
03/04/2017 14:55:54

PatMarrNCMuvizu mogul
PatMarrNC
Posts: 1742
I previously mentioned that there was a setting in Win 10 for that, but since Rocque has been using her computer for a year, changing that setting now would result in having her data files scattered across 2 drives, which I assumed would be confusing to most people.

At the very least, moving the existing project files to the other drive accomplishes most of her goal (use the space on the larger drive instead of the limited space on the boot drive). Whether to use a shortcut or a windows configuration to open the new location by default is almost a moot point, since functionally speaking the low level commands end up being about the same.
permalink
18/04/2017 21:37:21

sgnrmedia
sgnrmedia
Posts: 36
What are your render times like for exporting videos/TGA(or PNG) sequences?


I'm looking to upgrade, as I'm finding my overclocked i5 2500k is starting to show its age, but one thing that's always confused me is that my CPU and GPU usage have been so low when rendering to my SSD. I know my disk's write speed can handle high FPS at high resolutions, so there's no bottlenecking going on there, and was wondering if newer platforms are more fully utilized in terms of CPU/GPU power to render out projects
permalink
18/04/2017 21:40:05

MrDrWho13Muvizu mogulExperimental user
MrDrWho13
Posts: 2220
sgnrmedia wrote:
What are your render times like for exporting videos/TGA(or PNG) sequences?


I'm looking to upgrade, as I'm finding my overclocked i5 2500k is starting to show its age, but one thing that's always confused me is that my CPU and GPU usage have been so low when rendering to my SSD. I know my disk's write speed can handle high FPS at high resolutions, so there's no bottlenecking going on there, and was wondering if newer platforms are more fully utilized in terms of CPU/GPU power to render out projects

The rendering in Muvizu relies almost entirely on your GPU. I know you can get rendering up to what would be considered "real-time" but mine isn't powerful enough to say if it can go faster. What GPU do you have at the moment?
permalink
19/04/2017 01:58:35

sgnrmedia
sgnrmedia
Posts: 36
MrDrWho13 wrote:

The rendering in Muvizu relies almost entirely on your GPU. I know you can get rendering up to what would be considered "real-time" but mine isn't powerful enough to say if it can go faster. What GPU do you have at the moment?



Running an AMD Radeon HD7970 that's overclocked in MSI After burner to be about as fast as a stock R290. When I'm in the editor I'm getting about 60-85 FPS, but when rendering the frame rate tanks to under 10, and many times under 5 FPS.

The strange thing is my CPU usage almost never goes above 45%, and my GPU usage drops to 20%. My Disk usage barely breaks 1% since I render to SSD to avoid having my mechanical drive being a bottleneck for render speed.

I'm running the latest Crimson drivers, and fully support DX11, so I'm not sure why this is happening only during rendering.
permalink
19/04/2017 06:37:43

MrDrWho13Muvizu mogulExperimental user
MrDrWho13
Posts: 2220
That does seem very unusual. Did you see the GPU usage before the most recent update?
permalink
19/04/2017 12:48:06

sgnrmedia
sgnrmedia
Posts: 36
MrDrWho13 wrote:
That does seem very unusual. Did you see the GPU usage before the most recent update?

I've actually never seen any significant GPU usage while rendering in any version of either the AMD drivers or Muvizu.
In editor mode however, I've seen really complex scenes use up 80-90% of the GPU and most of the VRAM while navigating/directing etc. In fact, other than rendering times, my system works really well with Muvizu. I just don't get why my render speeds are so low. I wish I had a NVidia card to borrow to see if it's just an issue where CUDA core rendering just works better than what AMD has to offer for GPU processing.


My apologies btw for apparently hijacking the thread. I am genuinely interested in a Ryzen upgrade and would love to know what render performance is like.
permalink
19/04/2017 14:25:26

PatMarrNCMuvizu mogul
PatMarrNC
Posts: 1742
create a test project and render it so you know how long it takes... then send it to me and I'll render it at your same settings and tell you how long it took. You can message me the dropbox link.
permalink
19/04/2017 14:38:16

sgnrmedia
sgnrmedia
Posts: 36
PatMarrNC wrote:
create a test project and render it so you know how long it takes... then send it to me and I'll render it at your same settings and tell you how long it took. You can message me the dropbox link.


Will do when I get home from work later today. Thanks.
permalink
20/04/2017 13:11:39

sgnrmedia
sgnrmedia
Posts: 36
So I want to thank PatMarrNC for doing a Ryzen render test for me with the project file from my most recent Grand Bastardo video.

The results were actually a bit eye opening as I fully expected Pat's system (Ryzen 1800X and GTX1080) to wipe the floor with my system (i5 2500K/HD7970) when rendering image sequences. Yet the render times were not that far off between systems (just about 4% faster for Pat), which leads me to believe that the rendering engine doesn't scale with hardware after a certain point.

Still, there was a solid 17% improvement for rendering directly to MP4 videos which is very encouraging. Especially since I'd likely see as much if not more gains in things like editing my final videos.

Ryzen looks like a winner.
permalink
pages: 1 2 | Please log in or register, then complete your details to create a post.

Home ? General Discussion ? AMD RYZEN 7 1800X