Technically yes overclocking will reduce reliability of a system, but whether or not it does to a degree that is meaningful for you is a personal choice. A reasonably conservative overclock that is tuned well can run for years at load if there is sufficient cooling and power delivery.fi3er wrote: ↑Tue Jan 09, 2018 7:54 pmHi dmeyer,
so looking at your tests concluded thus far & looking at prices of custom builds featuring the different CPUs,
it seems to me that 7980xe is the most suitable performance/price wise. (for my budget which is £5k)
I am considering a build (viewtopic.php?f=140&t=45085) featuring 7980xe,
but unsure if to go with overclocked one or the @stock speed. The workstation will be rendering overnight 7 days a week, so not much downtime for it to cool down. Do you think its better to stick with the @stock speed for such continuous rendering or the overclocking speed gain is worth the instability risk?
thanks a lot for sharing your tests.
Yep that's about what I'd expect.fi3er wrote: ↑Tue Feb 06, 2018 4:41 pmJust ran Benchwell on my new system:
Intel i9-7980xe CPU, water cooled, overclocked @ 4.0 Ghz, 128GB RAM, motherboard ASUS Rampage VI extreme
Benchwell Maxwell 22.214.171.124:
time: 2:02 (not sure if this will be lower or higher in v4 Benchwell?)
@dmeyer, this looks in line with your test results on i9, correct?
I agree, sort of. The chip itself is significantly cheaper, but the rest of the system components are not. So it really depends on the rest of the system specs whether or not the chip savings as a percent of system are significant to you. A user doing a $12K system is probably less concerned about saving $800 on a cpu than a user doing a $5K system.
thanks a lot, I'm gonna follow your recommendation[…]
I hope someone has seen before this and can help. […]
not directly linked to your question, but you migt[…]