GPU USELESS For Lightroom Classic!

Started 3 months ago | Discussions
Robert Zanatta Senior Member • Posts: 1,988
Re: Adobe Lightroom Classic Suck!
1

Download and install the latest driver from NVidia's website.

GPU had no effect on export.

 Robert Zanatta's gear list:Robert Zanatta's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark IV
Batdude
OP Batdude Veteran Member • Posts: 4,951
Re: Adobe Lightroom Classic Suck!

Robert Zanatta wrote:

Download and install the latest driver from NVidia's website.

It already has the latest drivers.

GPU had no effect on export.

Sadly it did not and apparently it doesn't use the full power of the Ryzen either.  That's just lame.

 Batdude's gear list:Batdude's gear list
Fujifilm X10 Nikon D4 Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm X-T1 Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D +8 more
Batdude
OP Batdude Veteran Member • Posts: 4,951
Something is wrong, please help

I feel like something is wrong.  Maybe my PC hasn't been set up properly, I don't know what it is but I have that gut feeling that something is not right.

I did a really quick test, and this is something I have done hundreds of times with the i7-6700K I had.  After exporting all the 1900 jpeg photos  to a folder, there I tried copying and pasting those 1900 photos to a different folder to start separating stuff for my customers, from the same M.2.  Folder to folder.  I actually just tried both M.2 SSD C: drive and my second M.2 SSD for storage.

For some reason it feels like my i7-6700K is faster.  I recall that every time I did that with the intel transferring the photos was almost immediate and you wouldn't even see the copy transfer window.  With my new Ryzen 3900X system is taking five entire seconds.  I feel like something is REALLY wrong here.

The PC shop where I had it built is closed tomorrow so I'll have to wait til Monday to take it back but meanwhile can you think of anything that could be wrong with this?  I just cannot believe that this Ryzen CPU is behaving much slower than the i7-6700K.  I mean, every single component is much newer at double the speed.  Perhaps I'm not having a "lightroom" problem but something else instead??? 

Any windows/AMD experts out there?

 Batdude's gear list:Batdude's gear list
Fujifilm X10 Nikon D4 Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm X-T1 Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D +8 more
Batdude
OP Batdude Veteran Member • Posts: 4,951
Never mind
1

Batdude wrote:

I feel like something is wrong. Maybe my PC hasn't been set up properly, I don't know what it is but I have that gut feeling that something is not right.

I did a really quick test, and this is something I have done hundreds of times with the i7-6700K I had. After exporting all the 1900 jpeg photos to a folder, there I tried copying and pasting those 1900 photos to a different folder to start separating stuff for my customers, from the same M.2. Folder to folder. I actually just tried both M.2 SSD C: drive and my second M.2 SSD for storage.

Found some interesting stuff and looks like the XMP in the BIOS was disabled and the RAM speed was set to 2100MHZ. Enabled it and the 3600MHZ kicked in.  Big difference and now is copying/transferring much faster so that's fantastic.

For some reason it feels like my i7-6700K is faster. I recall that every time I did that with the intel transferring the photos was almost immediate and you wouldn't even see the copy transfer window. With my new Ryzen 3900X system is taking five entire seconds. I feel like something is REALLY wrong here.

The PC shop where I had it built is closed tomorrow so I'll have to wait til Monday to take it back but meanwhile can you think of anything that could be wrong with this? I just cannot believe that this Ryzen CPU is behaving much slower than the i7-6700K. I mean, every single component is much newer at double the speed. Perhaps I'm not having a "lightroom" problem but something else instead???

Any windows/AMD experts out there?

I also went ahead and tried exporting the 1900 images all over and this time it took 11:40 compared to the 15 minutes I was getting before enabling XMP.  This is more like it

 Batdude's gear list:Batdude's gear list
Fujifilm X10 Nikon D4 Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm X-T1 Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D +8 more
Simon Garrett Veteran Member • Posts: 6,875
Re: Never mind
2

Batdude wrote:

Batdude wrote:

I feel like something is wrong. Maybe my PC hasn't been set up properly, I don't know what it is but I have that gut feeling that something is not right.

I did a really quick test, and this is something I have done hundreds of times with the i7-6700K I had. After exporting all the 1900 jpeg photos to a folder, there I tried copying and pasting those 1900 photos to a different folder to start separating stuff for my customers, from the same M.2. Folder to folder. I actually just tried both M.2 SSD C: drive and my second M.2 SSD for storage.

Found some interesting stuff and looks like the XMP in the BIOS was disabled and the RAM speed was set to 2100MHZ. Enabled it and the 3600MHZ kicked in. Big difference and now is copying/transferring much faster so that's fantastic.

For some reason it feels like my i7-6700K is faster. I recall that every time I did that with the intel transferring the photos was almost immediate and you wouldn't even see the copy transfer window. With my new Ryzen 3900X system is taking five entire seconds. I feel like something is REALLY wrong here.

The PC shop where I had it built is closed tomorrow so I'll have to wait til Monday to take it back but meanwhile can you think of anything that could be wrong with this? I just cannot believe that this Ryzen CPU is behaving much slower than the i7-6700K. I mean, every single component is much newer at double the speed. Perhaps I'm not having a "lightroom" problem but something else instead???

Any windows/AMD experts out there?

I also went ahead and tried exporting the 1900 images all over and this time it took 11:40 compared to the 15 minutes I was getting before enabling XMP. This is more like it

What motherboard are you using?

I have an Asus (X570-F Gaming), and apart from turning on XMP (called DOCP in Asus boards), I reduced VDDCR by 0.1V.

Googling, I found bloggers saying that, compared to Intel processors, AMD processors tend to throttle back clock speeds more to limit temperatures and powers. Asus (and perhaps other mb makers) set VDDCR rather high by default, which reduces the risk of blue screens, but increases power consumption (and temperature) and thus means that multi-core speed may be reduced as the chip throttles back more. In Asus mbs, the setting for VDDCR allows "Auto", "Manual", or "Offset".  If you choose the latter you then choose "+" or "-", and then the offset value (e.g. "-" and 0.1V).  It can probably go lower, but I haven't tried. It's completely stable at an offset of -0.1V on mine, and multi-core benchmarks are a few percent higher.  Marginal, but why not if it's stable?

You might find other motherboard settings with safe but non-optimal defaults.

-- hide signature --

Simon

 Simon Garrett's gear list:Simon Garrett's gear list
Nikon D800
IanYorke Veteran Member • Posts: 4,333
Re: Never mind
1

Simon Garrett wrote:

Batdude wrote:

Batdude wrote:

I feel like something is wrong. Maybe my PC hasn't been set up properly, I don't know what it is but I have that gut feeling that something is not right.

I did a really quick test, and this is something I have done hundreds of times with the i7-6700K I had. After exporting all the 1900 jpeg photos to a folder, there I tried copying and pasting those 1900 photos to a different folder to start separating stuff for my customers, from the same M.2. Folder to folder. I actually just tried both M.2 SSD C: drive and my second M.2 SSD for storage.

Found some interesting stuff and looks like the XMP in the BIOS was disabled and the RAM speed was set to 2100MHZ. Enabled it and the 3600MHZ kicked in. Big difference and now is copying/transferring much faster so that's fantastic.

For some reason it feels like my i7-6700K is faster. I recall that every time I did that with the intel transferring the photos was almost immediate and you wouldn't even see the copy transfer window. With my new Ryzen 3900X system is taking five entire seconds. I feel like something is REALLY wrong here.

The PC shop where I had it built is closed tomorrow so I'll have to wait til Monday to take it back but meanwhile can you think of anything that could be wrong with this? I just cannot believe that this Ryzen CPU is behaving much slower than the i7-6700K. I mean, every single component is much newer at double the speed. Perhaps I'm not having a "lightroom" problem but something else instead???

Any windows/AMD experts out there?

I also went ahead and tried exporting the 1900 images all over and this time it took 11:40 compared to the 15 minutes I was getting before enabling XMP. This is more like it

What motherboard are you using?

I have an Asus (X570-F Gaming), and apart from turning on XMP (called DOCP in Asus boards), I reduced VDDCR by 0.1V.

Googling, I found bloggers saying that, compared to Intel processors, AMD processors tend to throttle back clock speeds more to limit temperatures and powers. Asus (and perhaps other mb makers) set VDDCR rather high by default, which reduces the risk of blue screens, but increases power consumption (and temperature) and thus means that multi-core speed may be reduced as the chip throttles back more. In Asus mbs, the setting for VDDCR allows "Auto", "Manual", or "Offset". If you choose the latter you then choose "+" or "-", and then the offset value (e.g. "-" and 0.1V). It can probably go lower, but I haven't tried. It's completely stable at an offset of -0.1V on mine, and multi-core benchmarks are a few percent higher. Marginal, but why not if it's stable?

You might find other motherboard settings with safe but non-optimal defaults.

Have you tried optimising the 3900x by setting the speeds for the 2 chiplets differently? AMD bin the chiplets so that you get 1 strong chiplets that meets the highest boost speed spec and another chiplet

Thus you can get 1 chiplet running at a higher speed than is possible with an all core clock where the weak chiplet restricts speeds.

Thus you get one 6 core cpu running at 4.35GHz and the other at 4.15GHz at lower voltages and power.

All can be done in Ryzen Master so more convenient than BIOS.

Ian

Simon Garrett Veteran Member • Posts: 6,875
Re: Never mind

IanYorke wrote:

Simon Garrett wrote:

Batdude wrote:

Batdude wrote:

I feel like something is wrong. Maybe my PC hasn't been set up properly, I don't know what it is but I have that gut feeling that something is not right.

I did a really quick test, and this is something I have done hundreds of times with the i7-6700K I had. After exporting all the 1900 jpeg photos to a folder, there I tried copying and pasting those 1900 photos to a different folder to start separating stuff for my customers, from the same M.2. Folder to folder. I actually just tried both M.2 SSD C: drive and my second M.2 SSD for storage.

Found some interesting stuff and looks like the XMP in the BIOS was disabled and the RAM speed was set to 2100MHZ. Enabled it and the 3600MHZ kicked in. Big difference and now is copying/transferring much faster so that's fantastic.

For some reason it feels like my i7-6700K is faster. I recall that every time I did that with the intel transferring the photos was almost immediate and you wouldn't even see the copy transfer window. With my new Ryzen 3900X system is taking five entire seconds. I feel like something is REALLY wrong here.

The PC shop where I had it built is closed tomorrow so I'll have to wait til Monday to take it back but meanwhile can you think of anything that could be wrong with this? I just cannot believe that this Ryzen CPU is behaving much slower than the i7-6700K. I mean, every single component is much newer at double the speed. Perhaps I'm not having a "lightroom" problem but something else instead???

Any windows/AMD experts out there?

I also went ahead and tried exporting the 1900 images all over and this time it took 11:40 compared to the 15 minutes I was getting before enabling XMP. This is more like it

What motherboard are you using?

I have an Asus (X570-F Gaming), and apart from turning on XMP (called DOCP in Asus boards), I reduced VDDCR by 0.1V.

Googling, I found bloggers saying that, compared to Intel processors, AMD processors tend to throttle back clock speeds more to limit temperatures and powers. Asus (and perhaps other mb makers) set VDDCR rather high by default, which reduces the risk of blue screens, but increases power consumption (and temperature) and thus means that multi-core speed may be reduced as the chip throttles back more. In Asus mbs, the setting for VDDCR allows "Auto", "Manual", or "Offset". If you choose the latter you then choose "+" or "-", and then the offset value (e.g. "-" and 0.1V). It can probably go lower, but I haven't tried. It's completely stable at an offset of -0.1V on mine, and multi-core benchmarks are a few percent higher. Marginal, but why not if it's stable?

You might find other motherboard settings with safe but non-optimal defaults.

Have you tried optimising the 3900x by setting the speeds for the 2 chiplets differently? AMD bin the chiplets so that you get 1 strong chiplets that meets the highest boost speed spec and another chiplet

Thus you can get 1 chiplet running at a higher speed than is possible with an all core clock where the weak chiplet restricts speeds.

Thus you get one 6 core cpu running at 4.35GHz and the other at 4.15GHz at lower voltages and power.

All can be done in Ryzen Master so more convenient than BIOS.

Ian

Thanks, I'll investigate.

-- hide signature --

Simon

 Simon Garrett's gear list:Simon Garrett's gear list
Nikon D800
Prairie Pal Senior Member • Posts: 2,802
Re: GPU USELESS wasted time

Right. Those comments are getting nasty and useless. Let's not go there.

Moderator:  is there anyway in this or ANY forum that the "irrelevant" posts can be flagged as such in the thread overview to avoid wasted time by the people looking for real information?  I get so sick and tired of having to slog through threads then skimming through the "quotes" only to find it vacant of pertinent information.

-- hide signature --

Ivan

 Prairie Pal's gear list:Prairie Pal's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Nikon D600 Nikon D7200 Olympus OM-D E-M10 II Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR +10 more
Prairie Pal Senior Member • Posts: 2,802
Re: GPU USELESS For Lightroom Classic!

Batdude wrote:

I quite agree with you: a powerful graphics card is wasted on Lightroom.

Better, I think, to spend money on a fast M.2 NVMe SSD for C drive, raw cache, catalog and previews. That can all be the same drive if it's big enough.

I agree. I had some gift cards and some credit card reward points accumulated and used and got me two 1TB M.2 fast SSD. Pretty much everything was doubled in this new system including the RAM and its speed.

I'm fine tuning the specs of a new custom build I'm having a local shop is doing for me.  I am looking at 2TB of M.2.  I've read somewhere that installing 2 units x 1TB each somehow creates a faster enviornment than 1 stick of 2TB.  Is that why you installed 2 sticks instead of one?

-- hide signature --

Ivan

 Prairie Pal's gear list:Prairie Pal's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Nikon D600 Nikon D7200 Olympus OM-D E-M10 II Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR +10 more
Batdude
OP Batdude Veteran Member • Posts: 4,951
Re: GPU USELESS For Lightroom Classic!

Prairie Pal wrote:

Batdude wrote:

I quite agree with you: a powerful graphics card is wasted on Lightroom.

Better, I think, to spend money on a fast M.2 NVMe SSD for C drive, raw cache, catalog and previews. That can all be the same drive if it's big enough.

I agree. I had some gift cards and some credit card reward points accumulated and used and got me two 1TB M.2 fast SSD. Pretty much everything was doubled in this new system including the RAM and its speed.

I'm fine tuning the specs of a new custom build I'm having a local shop is doing for me. I am looking at 2TB of M.2. I've read somewhere that installing 2 units x 1TB each somehow creates a faster enviornment than 1 stick of 2TB. Is that why you installed 2 sticks instead of one?

Yes I installed two sticks but I'm not too familiar about that causing a faster environment. I did though, think that because the hardware I just purchased is double the speed of my previous system I did thought I was going to see this thing fly, but so far that hasn't been the case and that is something that I'm looking into at this moment and I think my new system is not optimized yet.

Two separate 1TB sticks hasn't impressed me that much at the moment when transferring hundreds of files from folders to folders.  But I will say that the import/export process is for sure a LOT faster than my previous i7-6700 and in task manager I do see that for certain things that I do the system uses the hard drive and RAM a lot.

 Batdude's gear list:Batdude's gear list
Fujifilm X10 Nikon D4 Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm X-T1 Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D +8 more
Batdude
OP Batdude Veteran Member • Posts: 4,951
Re: Never mind

Simon Garrett wrote:

Batdude wrote:

Batdude wrote:

I feel like something is wrong. Maybe my PC hasn't been set up properly, I don't know what it is but I have that gut feeling that something is not right.

I did a really quick test, and this is something I have done hundreds of times with the i7-6700K I had. After exporting all the 1900 jpeg photos to a folder, there I tried copying and pasting those 1900 photos to a different folder to start separating stuff for my customers, from the same M.2. Folder to folder. I actually just tried both M.2 SSD C: drive and my second M.2 SSD for storage.

Found some interesting stuff and looks like the XMP in the BIOS was disabled and the RAM speed was set to 2100MHZ. Enabled it and the 3600MHZ kicked in. Big difference and now is copying/transferring much faster so that's fantastic.

For some reason it feels like my i7-6700K is faster. I recall that every time I did that with the intel transferring the photos was almost immediate and you wouldn't even see the copy transfer window. With my new Ryzen 3900X system is taking five entire seconds. I feel like something is REALLY wrong here.

The PC shop where I had it built is closed tomorrow so I'll have to wait til Monday to take it back but meanwhile can you think of anything that could be wrong with this? I just cannot believe that this Ryzen CPU is behaving much slower than the i7-6700K. I mean, every single component is much newer at double the speed. Perhaps I'm not having a "lightroom" problem but something else instead???

Any windows/AMD experts out there?

I also went ahead and tried exporting the 1900 images all over and this time it took 11:40 compared to the 15 minutes I was getting before enabling XMP. This is more like it

What motherboard are you using?

Hi Simon.

Gigabyte B550 Aorus Pro AC.

FYI I also had a Gigabyte in my previous intel system and had no issues.

I have an Asus (X570-F Gaming), and apart from turning on XMP (called DOCP in Asus boards), I reduced VDDCR by 0.1V.

You manually reduced the voltage? What did that do?

Googling, I found bloggers saying that, compared to Intel processors, AMD processors tend to throttle back clock speeds more to limit temperatures and powers. Asus (and perhaps other mb makers) set VDDCR rather high by default, which reduces the risk of blue screens, but increases power consumption (and temperature) and thus means that multi-core speed may be reduced as the chip throttles back more. In Asus mbs, the setting for VDDCR allows "Auto", "Manual", or "Offset". If you choose the latter you then choose "+" or "-", and then the offset value (e.g. "-" and 0.1V). It can probably go lower, but I haven't tried. It's completely stable at an offset of -0.1V on mine, and multi-core benchmarks are a few percent higher. Marginal, but why not if it's stable?

To be honest you speaking a language here that I'm not familiar with and I've NEVER seen and messed around with this sort of stuff.

You might find other motherboard settings with safe but non-optimal defaults.

I kind of agree with that. It looks to me that this system is really not a "plug and play" as my previous one and more has to be done to it. Are all or most new, or higher end CPUs and motherboards all do this where you have to manually set all these things yourself?

For sure I will take this puppy back to the shop first thing Monday because i'm sure they know way more than me about this, but I think I have a few weeks to decide and return the MB and CPU, but I don't know if with a higher end intel CPU I will run into the same situation?

 Batdude's gear list:Batdude's gear list
Fujifilm X10 Nikon D4 Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm X-T1 Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D +8 more
Batdude
OP Batdude Veteran Member • Posts: 4,951
Re: Never mind

IanYorke wrote:

Simon Garrett wrote:

Batdude wrote:

Batdude wrote:

I feel like something is wrong. Maybe my PC hasn't been set up properly, I don't know what it is but I have that gut feeling that something is not right.

I did a really quick test, and this is something I have done hundreds of times with the i7-6700K I had. After exporting all the 1900 jpeg photos to a folder, there I tried copying and pasting those 1900 photos to a different folder to start separating stuff for my customers, from the same M.2. Folder to folder. I actually just tried both M.2 SSD C: drive and my second M.2 SSD for storage.

Found some interesting stuff and looks like the XMP in the BIOS was disabled and the RAM speed was set to 2100MHZ. Enabled it and the 3600MHZ kicked in. Big difference and now is copying/transferring much faster so that's fantastic.

For some reason it feels like my i7-6700K is faster. I recall that every time I did that with the intel transferring the photos was almost immediate and you wouldn't even see the copy transfer window. With my new Ryzen 3900X system is taking five entire seconds. I feel like something is REALLY wrong here.

The PC shop where I had it built is closed tomorrow so I'll have to wait til Monday to take it back but meanwhile can you think of anything that could be wrong with this? I just cannot believe that this Ryzen CPU is behaving much slower than the i7-6700K. I mean, every single component is much newer at double the speed. Perhaps I'm not having a "lightroom" problem but something else instead???

Any windows/AMD experts out there?

I also went ahead and tried exporting the 1900 images all over and this time it took 11:40 compared to the 15 minutes I was getting before enabling XMP. This is more like it

What motherboard are you using?

I have an Asus (X570-F Gaming), and apart from turning on XMP (called DOCP in Asus boards), I reduced VDDCR by 0.1V.

Googling, I found bloggers saying that, compared to Intel processors, AMD processors tend to throttle back clock speeds more to limit temperatures and powers. Asus (and perhaps other mb makers) set VDDCR rather high by default, which reduces the risk of blue screens, but increases power consumption (and temperature) and thus means that multi-core speed may be reduced as the chip throttles back more. In Asus mbs, the setting for VDDCR allows "Auto", "Manual", or "Offset". If you choose the latter you then choose "+" or "-", and then the offset value (e.g. "-" and 0.1V). It can probably go lower, but I haven't tried. It's completely stable at an offset of -0.1V on mine, and multi-core benchmarks are a few percent higher. Marginal, but why not if it's stable?

You might find other motherboard settings with safe but non-optimal defaults.

Have you tried optimising the 3900x by setting the speeds for the 2 chiplets differently? AMD bin the chiplets so that you get 1 strong chiplets that meets the highest boost speed spec and another chiplet

Thus you can get 1 chiplet running at a higher speed than is possible with an all core clock where the weak chiplet restricts speeds.

Thus you get one 6 core cpu running at 4.35GHz and the other at 4.15GHz at lower voltages and power.

All can be done in Ryzen Master so more convenient than BIOS.

Ian

Hello Ian and thank you,

no I haven't. I just got the system and started running stuff that I normally do and that's why I'm seeing that there is (some) speed missing here, coming from an i7-6700K (never over clocked it) and since I'm not a computer expert I'm not familiar with optimizing the 3900X. I did check some basic stuff in windows and found something in youtube that mentioned that XMP setting and it actually worked.  That was kind of like a miracle for me

I did have one question regarding XMP. In the Gigabyte MB BIOS when enabling XMP it automatically selected it's own settings and this is what's there now:

DDR4-3600 18-22-22-42-68-1.35V

I did go to the AMD website and there they provide a specific number for the specific RAM that I have, it is: 3600/17-19-19-39. What do these numbers mean and why is the one in the BIOS different? Do I just ignore that?

Regarding optimizing the 3900X I guess I can call tech support on Monday so that they can help me with that.

 Batdude's gear list:Batdude's gear list
Fujifilm X10 Nikon D4 Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm X-T1 Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D +8 more
IanYorke Veteran Member • Posts: 4,333
Re: Never mind
2

Batdude wrote:

Simon Garrett wrote:

Batdude wrote:

Batdude wrote:

I feel like something is wrong. Maybe my PC hasn't been set up properly, I don't know what it is but I have that gut feeling that something is not right.

I did a really quick test, and this is something I have done hundreds of times with the i7-6700K I had. After exporting all the 1900 jpeg photos to a folder, there I tried copying and pasting those 1900 photos to a different folder to start separating stuff for my customers, from the same M.2. Folder to folder. I actually just tried both M.2 SSD C: drive and my second M.2 SSD for storage.

Found some interesting stuff and looks like the XMP in the BIOS was disabled and the RAM speed was set to 2100MHZ. Enabled it and the 3600MHZ kicked in. Big difference and now is copying/transferring much faster so that's fantastic.

For some reason it feels like my i7-6700K is faster. I recall that every time I did that with the intel transferring the photos was almost immediate and you wouldn't even see the copy transfer window. With my new Ryzen 3900X system is taking five entire seconds. I feel like something is REALLY wrong here.

The PC shop where I had it built is closed tomorrow so I'll have to wait til Monday to take it back but meanwhile can you think of anything that could be wrong with this? I just cannot believe that this Ryzen CPU is behaving much slower than the i7-6700K. I mean, every single component is much newer at double the speed. Perhaps I'm not having a "lightroom" problem but something else instead???

Any windows/AMD experts out there?

I also went ahead and tried exporting the 1900 images all over and this time it took 11:40 compared to the 15 minutes I was getting before enabling XMP. This is more like it

What motherboard are you using?

Hi Simon.

Gigabyte B550 Aorus Pro AC.

FYI I also had a Gigabyte in my previous intel system and had no issues.

I have an Asus (X570-F Gaming), and apart from turning on XMP (called DOCP in Asus boards), I reduced VDDCR by 0.1V.

You manually reduced the voltage? What did that do?

Googling, I found bloggers saying that, compared to Intel processors, AMD processors tend to throttle back clock speeds more to limit temperatures and powers. Asus (and perhaps other mb makers) set VDDCR rather high by default, which reduces the risk of blue screens, but increases power consumption (and temperature) and thus means that multi-core speed may be reduced as the chip throttles back more. In Asus mbs, the setting for VDDCR allows "Auto", "Manual", or "Offset". If you choose the latter you then choose "+" or "-", and then the offset value (e.g. "-" and 0.1V). It can probably go lower, but I haven't tried. It's completely stable at an offset of -0.1V on mine, and multi-core benchmarks are a few percent higher. Marginal, but why not if it's stable?

To be honest you speaking a language here that I'm not familiar with and I've NEVER seen and messed around with this sort of stuff.

You might find other motherboard settings with safe but non-optimal defaults.

I kind of agree with that. It looks to me that this system is really not a "plug and play" as my previous one and more has to be done to it. Are all or most new, or higher end CPUs and motherboards all do this where you have to manually set all these things yourself?

For sure I will take this puppy back to the shop first thing Monday because i'm sure they know way more than me about this, but I think I have a few weeks to decide and return the MB and CPU, but I don't know if with a higher end intel CPU I will run into the same situation?

If XMP wasn't enabled for you I would ask them to ensure the BIOS and all Gigabyte drivers are up to date. This can make a big difference. Win 10 2004 updates are available for Gigabyte boards.

CPU does very little with disk transfers so it's unlikely to be anything to do with the CPU. This is where driver issues may come in.

If you are transferring between m.2 drives the speed should be very fast. There are disk speed measuring programs that you can use to check.

Also make sure they fitted the heat sinks for the drives that came with the board. Drives get hot and will slow down.

Then there is the CPU cooler, high performance CPU's like the 3900x need decent coolers. A badly fitted/faulty cooler can slow your system to a crawl.

How about case fans is the system getting plenty of air?

I know I have raised several issues but you can ask the questions of the PC shop. See what answers you get.

Fingers crossed.

Ian

IanYorke Veteran Member • Posts: 4,333
Re: Never mind
3

Batdude wrote:

IanYorke wrote:

Simon Garrett wrote:

Batdude wrote:

Batdude wrote:

I feel like something is wrong. Maybe my PC hasn't been set up properly, I don't know what it is but I have that gut feeling that something is not right.

I did a really quick test, and this is something I have done hundreds of times with the i7-6700K I had. After exporting all the 1900 jpeg photos to a folder, there I tried copying and pasting those 1900 photos to a different folder to start separating stuff for my customers, from the same M.2. Folder to folder. I actually just tried both M.2 SSD C: drive and my second M.2 SSD for storage.

Found some interesting stuff and looks like the XMP in the BIOS was disabled and the RAM speed was set to 2100MHZ. Enabled it and the 3600MHZ kicked in. Big difference and now is copying/transferring much faster so that's fantastic.

For some reason it feels like my i7-6700K is faster. I recall that every time I did that with the intel transferring the photos was almost immediate and you wouldn't even see the copy transfer window. With my new Ryzen 3900X system is taking five entire seconds. I feel like something is REALLY wrong here.

The PC shop where I had it built is closed tomorrow so I'll have to wait til Monday to take it back but meanwhile can you think of anything that could be wrong with this? I just cannot believe that this Ryzen CPU is behaving much slower than the i7-6700K. I mean, every single component is much newer at double the speed. Perhaps I'm not having a "lightroom" problem but something else instead???

Any windows/AMD experts out there?

I also went ahead and tried exporting the 1900 images all over and this time it took 11:40 compared to the 15 minutes I was getting before enabling XMP. This is more like it

What motherboard are you using?

I have an Asus (X570-F Gaming), and apart from turning on XMP (called DOCP in Asus boards), I reduced VDDCR by 0.1V.

Googling, I found bloggers saying that, compared to Intel processors, AMD processors tend to throttle back clock speeds more to limit temperatures and powers. Asus (and perhaps other mb makers) set VDDCR rather high by default, which reduces the risk of blue screens, but increases power consumption (and temperature) and thus means that multi-core speed may be reduced as the chip throttles back more. In Asus mbs, the setting for VDDCR allows "Auto", "Manual", or "Offset". If you choose the latter you then choose "+" or "-", and then the offset value (e.g. "-" and 0.1V). It can probably go lower, but I haven't tried. It's completely stable at an offset of -0.1V on mine, and multi-core benchmarks are a few percent higher. Marginal, but why not if it's stable?

You might find other motherboard settings with safe but non-optimal defaults.

Have you tried optimising the 3900x by setting the speeds for the 2 chiplets differently? AMD bin the chiplets so that you get 1 strong chiplets that meets the highest boost speed spec and another chiplet

Thus you can get 1 chiplet running at a higher speed than is possible with an all core clock where the weak chiplet restricts speeds.

Thus you get one 6 core cpu running at 4.35GHz and the other at 4.15GHz at lower voltages and power.

All can be done in Ryzen Master so more convenient than BIOS.

Ian

Hello Ian and thank you,

no I haven't. I just got the system and started running stuff that I normally do and that's why I'm seeing that there is (some) speed missing here, coming from an i7-6700K (never over clocked it) and since I'm not a computer expert I'm not familiar with optimizing the 3900X. I did check some basic stuff in windows and found something in youtube that mentioned that XMP setting and it actually worked

I did have one question regarding XMP. In the Gigabyte MB BIOS when enabling XMP it automatically selected it's own settings and this is what's there now:

DDR4-3600 18-22-22-42-68-1.35V

I did go to the AMD website and there they provide a specific number for the specific RAM that I have, it is: 3600/17-19-19-39. What do these numbers mean and why is the one in the BIOS different? Do I just ignore that?

Regarding optimizing the 3900X I guess I can call tech support on Monday so that they can help me with that.

I was replying to Simon. Best not mess with anything I said to him. A world of pain awaits those foolish enough to Overclock PC's. Not really necessary for modern CPU's as they behave much like GPUs and overclock (boost) themselves.

Some of us like to experiment, and then buy a new CPU

See my other reply to you with some ideas that may help.

Ian

Batdude
OP Batdude Veteran Member • Posts: 4,951
Re: Never mind

IanYorke wrote:

Batdude wrote:

Simon Garrett wrote:

Batdude wrote:

Batdude wrote:

I feel like something is wrong. Maybe my PC hasn't been set up properly, I don't know what it is but I have that gut feeling that something is not right.

I did a really quick test, and this is something I have done hundreds of times with the i7-6700K I had. After exporting all the 1900 jpeg photos to a folder, there I tried copying and pasting those 1900 photos to a different folder to start separating stuff for my customers, from the same M.2. Folder to folder. I actually just tried both M.2 SSD C: drive and my second M.2 SSD for storage.

Found some interesting stuff and looks like the XMP in the BIOS was disabled and the RAM speed was set to 2100MHZ. Enabled it and the 3600MHZ kicked in. Big difference and now is copying/transferring much faster so that's fantastic.

For some reason it feels like my i7-6700K is faster. I recall that every time I did that with the intel transferring the photos was almost immediate and you wouldn't even see the copy transfer window. With my new Ryzen 3900X system is taking five entire seconds. I feel like something is REALLY wrong here.

The PC shop where I had it built is closed tomorrow so I'll have to wait til Monday to take it back but meanwhile can you think of anything that could be wrong with this? I just cannot believe that this Ryzen CPU is behaving much slower than the i7-6700K. I mean, every single component is much newer at double the speed. Perhaps I'm not having a "lightroom" problem but something else instead???

Any windows/AMD experts out there?

I also went ahead and tried exporting the 1900 images all over and this time it took 11:40 compared to the 15 minutes I was getting before enabling XMP. This is more like it

What motherboard are you using?

Hi Simon.

Gigabyte B550 Aorus Pro AC.

FYI I also had a Gigabyte in my previous intel system and had no issues.

I have an Asus (X570-F Gaming), and apart from turning on XMP (called DOCP in Asus boards), I reduced VDDCR by 0.1V.

You manually reduced the voltage? What did that do?

Googling, I found bloggers saying that, compared to Intel processors, AMD processors tend to throttle back clock speeds more to limit temperatures and powers. Asus (and perhaps other mb makers) set VDDCR rather high by default, which reduces the risk of blue screens, but increases power consumption (and temperature) and thus means that multi-core speed may be reduced as the chip throttles back more. In Asus mbs, the setting for VDDCR allows "Auto", "Manual", or "Offset". If you choose the latter you then choose "+" or "-", and then the offset value (e.g. "-" and 0.1V). It can probably go lower, but I haven't tried. It's completely stable at an offset of -0.1V on mine, and multi-core benchmarks are a few percent higher. Marginal, but why not if it's stable?

To be honest you speaking a language here that I'm not familiar with and I've NEVER seen and messed around with this sort of stuff.

You might find other motherboard settings with safe but non-optimal defaults.

I kind of agree with that. It looks to me that this system is really not a "plug and play" as my previous one and more has to be done to it. Are all or most new, or higher end CPUs and motherboards all do this where you have to manually set all these things yourself?

For sure I will take this puppy back to the shop first thing Monday because i'm sure they know way more than me about this, but I think I have a few weeks to decide and return the MB and CPU, but I don't know if with a higher end intel CPU I will run into the same situation?

If XMP wasn't enabled for you I would ask them to ensure the BIOS and all Gigabyte drivers are up to date. This can make a big difference. Win 10 2004 updates are available for Gigabyte boards.

I'll look into it. Why do you ask, is there a different and specific bios/driver for enabling XMP specifically?

CPU does very little with disk transfers so it's unlikely to be anything to do with the CPU. This is where driver issues may come in.

If you are transferring between m.2 drives the speed should be very fast. There are disk speed measuring programs that you can use to check.

Also make sure they fitted the heat sinks for the drives that came with the board. Drives get hot and will slow down.

Yes they are installed.

Then there is the CPU cooler, high performance CPU's like the 3900x need decent coolers. A badly fitted/faulty cooler can slow your system to a crawl.

Indeed. I installed the Noctua NH-D15S

How about case fans is the system getting plenty of air?

I'll look into it.

I know I have raised several issues but you can ask the questions of the PC shop. See what answers you get.

These are serious issues so thank you I really appreciate it.

Fingers crossed.

Ian

By the way, what is that Ryzen Master software all about?  I just saw it in Youtube.

 Batdude's gear list:Batdude's gear list
Fujifilm X10 Nikon D4 Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm X-T1 Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D +8 more
skyglider Veteran Member • Posts: 5,678
Re: GPU USELESS For Lightroom Classic!
1

Batdude wrote:

Batdude wrote:

Igot me two 1TB M.2 fast SSD.

Two separate 1TB sticks hasn't impressed me that much at the moment when transferring hundreds of files from folders to folders. But I will say that the import/export process is for sure a LOT faster than my previous i7-6700 and in task manager I do see that for certain things that I do the system uses the hard drive and RAM a lot.

Batdude,

I'm wondering.  When you say import/export process is a LOT faster than your previous i7-6700, are you just using the i7-6700 as a reference to that computer?

Or are you attributing the lot faster import/export speed to the difference between your AMD CPU vs the Intel i7-6700?

Seems to me that import/export speed is a function of the storage device (in your case two 1TB M.2 SSDs) and that the CPU has little to do with import/export speed.

Thanks,
Sky

IanYorke Veteran Member • Posts: 4,333
Re: Never mind
3

Batdude wrote:

IanYorke wrote:

Batdude wrote:

Simon Garrett wrote:

Batdude wrote:

Batdude wrote:

I feel like something is wrong. Maybe my PC hasn't been set up properly, I don't know what it is but I have that gut feeling that something is not right.

I did a really quick test, and this is something I have done hundreds of times with the i7-6700K I had. After exporting all the 1900 jpeg photos to a folder, there I tried copying and pasting those 1900 photos to a different folder to start separating stuff for my customers, from the same M.2. Folder to folder. I actually just tried both M.2 SSD C: drive and my second M.2 SSD for storage.

Found some interesting stuff and looks like the XMP in the BIOS was disabled and the RAM speed was set to 2100MHZ. Enabled it and the 3600MHZ kicked in. Big difference and now is copying/transferring much faster so that's fantastic.

For some reason it feels like my i7-6700K is faster. I recall that every time I did that with the intel transferring the photos was almost immediate and you wouldn't even see the copy transfer window. With my new Ryzen 3900X system is taking five entire seconds. I feel like something is REALLY wrong here.

The PC shop where I had it built is closed tomorrow so I'll have to wait til Monday to take it back but meanwhile can you think of anything that could be wrong with this? I just cannot believe that this Ryzen CPU is behaving much slower than the i7-6700K. I mean, every single component is much newer at double the speed. Perhaps I'm not having a "lightroom" problem but something else instead???

Any windows/AMD experts out there?

I also went ahead and tried exporting the 1900 images all over and this time it took 11:40 compared to the 15 minutes I was getting before enabling XMP. This is more like it

What motherboard are you using?

Hi Simon.

Gigabyte B550 Aorus Pro AC.

FYI I also had a Gigabyte in my previous intel system and had no issues.

I have an Asus (X570-F Gaming), and apart from turning on XMP (called DOCP in Asus boards), I reduced VDDCR by 0.1V.

You manually reduced the voltage? What did that do?

Googling, I found bloggers saying that, compared to Intel processors, AMD processors tend to throttle back clock speeds more to limit temperatures and powers. Asus (and perhaps other mb makers) set VDDCR rather high by default, which reduces the risk of blue screens, but increases power consumption (and temperature) and thus means that multi-core speed may be reduced as the chip throttles back more. In Asus mbs, the setting for VDDCR allows "Auto", "Manual", or "Offset". If you choose the latter you then choose "+" or "-", and then the offset value (e.g. "-" and 0.1V). It can probably go lower, but I haven't tried. It's completely stable at an offset of -0.1V on mine, and multi-core benchmarks are a few percent higher. Marginal, but why not if it's stable?

To be honest you speaking a language here that I'm not familiar with and I've NEVER seen and messed around with this sort of stuff.

You might find other motherboard settings with safe but non-optimal defaults.

I kind of agree with that. It looks to me that this system is really not a "plug and play" as my previous one and more has to be done to it. Are all or most new, or higher end CPUs and motherboards all do this where you have to manually set all these things yourself?

For sure I will take this puppy back to the shop first thing Monday because i'm sure they know way more than me about this, but I think I have a few weeks to decide and return the MB and CPU, but I don't know if with a higher end intel CPU I will run into the same situation?

If XMP wasn't enabled for you I would ask them to ensure the BIOS and all Gigabyte drivers are up to date. This can make a big difference. Win 10 2004 updates are available for Gigabyte boards.

I'll look into it. Why do you ask, is there a different and specific bios/driver for enabling XMP specifically?

CPU does very little with disk transfers so it's unlikely to be anything to do with the CPU. This is where driver issues may come in.

If you are transferring between m.2 drives the speed should be very fast. There are disk speed measuring programs that you can use to check.

Also make sure they fitted the heat sinks for the drives that came with the board. Drives get hot and will slow down.

Yes they are installed.

Then there is the CPU cooler, high performance CPU's like the 3900x need decent coolers. A badly fitted/faulty cooler can slow your system to a crawl.

Indeed. I installed the Noctua NH-D15S

How about case fans is the system getting plenty of air?

I'll look into it.

I know I have raised several issues but you can ask the questions of the PC shop. See what answers you get.

These are serious issues so thank you I really appreciate it.

Fingers crossed.

Ian

By the way, what is that Ryzen Master software all about? I just saw it in Youtube.

The XMP has nothing to do with drivers but if they didn't enable it for you what else haven't they done?

Ryzen Master is about overclocking, really stay away, it is not needed as 3900X will overclock itself in a completely safe way in normal operation as do modern intel CPUs.

Ian

skyglider Veteran Member • Posts: 5,678
Re: GPU USELESS For Lightroom Classic!

Simon Garrett wrote:

The 3900X is not hugely faster than the i7-6700 at single-core speed, but it has 24 processors as against the i7-6700's 8, and so has much greater all-core speed.

I've made the same upgrade (in my case i7-6700K, slightly over-clocked) to 3900X, and here are the CPU-ID benchmarks: first figure is single-core speed, second is all-core:

i7-6700: 474, 2377

i7-6700K: 483, 2555

3900X: 532, 8201

Processor clock speeds have not risen greatly since the i7-6700, but current processors have many more cores. Lightroom does not seem to use anything like the 24 processors on my machine, but uses around half of them when exporting or building previews.

...snip...

I quite agree with you: a powerful graphics card is wasted on Lightroom.

Better, I think, to spend money on a fast M.2 NVMe SSD for C drive, raw cache, catalog and previews. That can all be the same drive if it's big enough.

Hi Simon,

Since you upgraded from an i7-6700 CPU to the AMD 3900X, just wanted to get your opinion.

I'm running an i7-6700 CPU and I have never experienced any slowdown when editing in Lightroom5, Photoshop7, or SonyMovieStudioPlatinum12 video editing.

Where is the additional speed of an upgraded CPU evident? I'm not saying that you made any such claim but I respect your expertise so would like your viewpoint based on your experience.

(in case it's needed, additional specs for my system are: 16GB DDR4 2133MHz ram, Samsung 860 EVO, 500GB SSD system C drive, 2TB 7200rpm hard drive for data storage.)

Thanks,
Sky

Simon Garrett Veteran Member • Posts: 6,875
Re: GPU USELESS For Lightroom Classic!

skyglider wrote:

Simon Garrett wrote:

The 3900X is not hugely faster than the i7-6700 at single-core speed, but it has 24 processors as against the i7-6700's 8, and so has much greater all-core speed.

I've made the same upgrade (in my case i7-6700K, slightly over-clocked) to 3900X, and here are the CPU-ID benchmarks: first figure is single-core speed, second is all-core:

i7-6700: 474, 2377

i7-6700K: 483, 2555

3900X: 532, 8201

Processor clock speeds have not risen greatly since the i7-6700, but current processors have many more cores. Lightroom does not seem to use anything like the 24 processors on my machine, but uses around half of them when exporting or building previews.

...snip...

I quite agree with you: a powerful graphics card is wasted on Lightroom.

Better, I think, to spend money on a fast M.2 NVMe SSD for C drive, raw cache, catalog and previews. That can all be the same drive if it's big enough.

Hi Simon,

Since you upgraded from an i7-6700 CPU to the AMD 3900X, just wanted to get your opinion.

I'm running an i7-6700 CPU and I have never experienced any slowdown when editing in Lightroom5, Photoshop7, or SonyMovieStudioPlatinum12 video editing.

Where is the additional speed of an upgraded CPU evident? I'm not saying that you made any such claim but I respect your expertise so would like your viewpoint based on your experience.

(in case it's needed, additional specs for my system are: 16GB DDR4 2133MHz ram, Samsung 860 EVO, 500GB SSD system C drive, 2TB 7200rpm hard drive for data storage.)

Thanks,
Sky

On my 3900X machine, LR is faster at building previews, and thus scrolling through the library with images I haven't looked at recently, and exporting is faster.  I suspect that the speed increase in mainly with tasks that use multiple cores (12 against the i7-6700's 4), and faster throughput to/from the processor, faster memory and faster SSDs.

Single core clock speed of the 3900X is only 12-14% faster than the i7-6700 (10-12% faster than the i7-6700K) but multi-core speed (all cores active) is 350% faster.  LR uses multiple cores mainly for export and preview-building.

Clearly (in my build) disk-intensive tasks will benefit from the faster SSD.  The SSD I'm now using for LR catalog and previews is 7 times faster than the one I was using before, and 2 times the speed of the one I was using for raw cache.

LR is also faster and with fewer pauses generally, but what aspect of the new build contributes to that I'm not sure.

-- hide signature --

Simon

 Simon Garrett's gear list:Simon Garrett's gear list
Nikon D800
skyglider Veteran Member • Posts: 5,678
Re: GPU USELESS For Lightroom Classic!

Simon Garrett wrote:

skyglider wrote:

Hi Simon,

Since you upgraded from an i7-6700 CPU to the AMD 3900X, just wanted to get your opinion.

I'm running an i7-6700 CPU and I have never experienced any slowdown when editing in Lightroom5, Photoshop7, or SonyMovieStudioPlatinum12 video editing.

Where is the additional speed of an upgraded CPU evident? I'm not saying that you made any such claim but I respect your expertise so would like your viewpoint based on your experience.

On my 3900X machine, LR is faster at building previews, and thus scrolling through the library with images I haven't looked at recently, and exporting is faster. I suspect that the speed increase in mainly with tasks that use multiple cores (12 against the i7-6700's 4), and faster throughput to/from the processor, faster memory and faster SSDs.

Single core clock speed of the 3900X is only 12-14% faster than the i7-6700 (10-12% faster than the i7-6700K) but multi-core speed (all cores active) is 350% faster. LR uses multiple cores mainly for export and preview-building.

Clearly (in my build) disk-intensive tasks will benefit from the faster SSD. The SSD I'm now using for LR catalog and previews is 7 times faster than the one I was using before, and 2 times the speed of the one I was using for raw cache.

LR is also faster and with fewer pauses generally, but what aspect of the new build contributes to that I'm not sure.

Ah, building previews.  Yes I can see the benefit of a faster CPU doing that, not only in LR but in any image viewing software including Faststone.

Thanks much for sharing your insights,
Sky

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads