CPU for a video editing machine

[Gadish]

Hi,

I'm looking to build a machine that will serve mainly for working with video (using Pinnacle Studio 10). Now please correct me if I'm wrong, but the processing when editing videos is done by the processor and not by the graphics card. I'm basing this whole thread on this notion, so if I'm mistaken please let me know

So the main Issue is the Processor of course. I've been out of the game for a few years now, I have no idea whether I should go for an AMD or Intel processor. And it's not just that, the are so many CPUs out there with different clocks speeds, different memory size, number of cores etc.. I really don't know where to begin. What more important for video editing? Higher clock speed, bigger cache memory on the CPU? I'd really appreciate some words of advice here as I'm totally lost here...

Thanks!

 

[ihyagp]

i7 920 and a fast drive

 

[Smartazz]

That is correct, it's more important to have a faster CPU for video editing. The more cores the better and currently the best processor you can buy for a desktop platform is the Intel Core i7. It has 4 physical cores with 8 logical cores total. They do run for a bit of money, but if money isn't really your concern, I'd say go for an i7 920 or 860 or higher if you don't want to overclock. The i7 860 might run you a little less money and it has turbo mode which helps with less threaded programs by ramping up the clock speeds when less than 4 cores are active. They're phenomenal processors and would probably be ideal for you. The Core i5 is also a good consideration if you want to spend a little less money.

 

[richierich1212]

Yep go with i7

 

[Gadish]

Thanks for the super quick replies!

How do I know which is better for me? Should i try to find out with Pinnacle wether Studio 10 can use the turbo mode?

I'll definitely be going for an i7 even though they are not really cost effective. If i could delay the whole thing by 6 weeks or so (I'll be away for a month or so starting the week after next) should I? are the prices of these high end CPU constantly dropping?

 

[Smartazz]

Originally posted by: Gadish
Thanks for the super quick replies!

How do I know which is better for me? Should i try to find out with Pinnacle wether Studio 10 can use the turbo mode?

I'll definitely be going for an i7 even though they are not really cost effective. If i could delay the whole thing by 6 weeks or so (I'll be away for a month or so starting the week after next) should I? are the prices of these high end CPU constantly dropping?

Turbo mode probably won't work with a video editing program because if I'm not mistaken, it'll be using all four cores constantly when being stressed and that's when turbo mode turns off. What else do you use your computer for though?

BTW, I doubt the prices will come down much for the i7s in the next few weeks seeing as there's not much competition in this market segment from AMD. If you have no plans to overclock, I'd go with the i7 860 because it requires a cheaper motherboard and runs cooler as well.

edit: Disregard my comments about Turbo mode in this post. Turbo Boost can work when all four cores are active, or when less than four cores are active, so yes, turbo boost would be beneficial in your case Gadish.

 

[Gadish]

The computer is mainly for video editing. Other than that just for internet and using MS office, no games.

As for overclocking, It's tempting but I'm not sure I'm up for it, given the potential warranty issues...

Which motherboards would you recommend for the 920 and 860?

and last question, just curious to know, how much performance will I gain with and i7 over an i5? Are we talking about a substantial difference or will i get tasks to complete just a few seconds faster?

thanks again for the super informative replies, the help I'm getting here is just too good to be true!

 

[Smartazz]

Then I'd recommend the i7 860 if you're concerned about money and have no intention of gaming. The i7 920 overclocks better and is a better gaming platform. I'm pretty sure that the i7 is substantially better than the i5 for video editing as it has hyperthreading technology(8 threads vs 4). Exactly how much of a difference? Hopefully somebody can tell us or we can find a benchmark somewhere.
Also, as far as motherboards go, I'm not sure which specific ones are good. The i7 860 would use a P55 motherboard which is cheaper than the X58 motherboards which are used for the i7 920.
Another consideration is future upgradability. The socket for the i7 920(socket 1366) will be the platform for the new six-core Core i9s in the future if you ever want to get that.

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: Gadish
Hi,

Now please correct me if I'm wrong, but the processing when editing videos is done by the processor and not by the graphics card. I'm basing this whole thread on this notion, so if I'm mistaken please let me know

It depends on what and how you're editing...
The finished rendering is done more by the CPU, but previewing the renders is done more by the video card. That's why professional systems require QuadroFX or similar to function.

 

[BTRY B 529th FA BN]

1366 socket

 

[aigomorla]

Originally posted by: Smartazz

Turbo mode probably won't work with a video editing program because if I'm not mistaken, it'll be using all four cores constantly when being stressed and that's when turbo mode turns off. What else do you use your computer for though?

oh really?

Works on cinebench R10 Fine..

http://i125.photobucket.com/al...nchmarks/Cinabench.jpg

Wish i could show u guys the gulftown with HT ON tho..

HT ON works in encoding.
The only time where HT ON will hurt ya, is when you need faster physical cores doing the work.

IE. Gaming.

But the physical cores will take over from the virtual cores as soon as there free'd up.
In Encoding.. you see it speed up, in gaming,, you probably wont notice the transition lag.

 

[Smartazz]

Originally posted by: aigomorla

Originally posted by: Smartazz

Turbo mode probably won't work with a video editing program because if I'm not mistaken, it'll be using all four cores constantly when being stressed and that's when turbo mode turns off. What else do you use your computer for though?

oh really?

Works on cinebench R10 Fine..

http://i125.photobucket.com/al...nchmarks/Cinabench.jpg

Wish i could show u guys the gulftown with HT ON tho..

HT ON works in encoding.
The only time where HT ON will hurt ya, is when you need faster physical cores doing the work.

IE. Gaming.

But the physical cores will take over from the virtual cores as soon as there free'd up.
In Encoding.. you see it speed up, in gaming,, you probably wont notice the transition lag.

Yeah, but doesn't your clockspeed go back down to its base clock when all four cores are active? My understanding of turbo mode is that it works when less than 4 cores are being utilized. Is this correct?

edit: never mind, I was wrong. Turbo Boost works even when all four cores are active, but ramps up more when less cores are active. My bad, Aigomorla.

 

[Gadish]

some guy on another forum suggested that what I'm doing is just graphical editing and not really Video editing and that i could do with a cheaper AMD processor.

What i do is get the movies from the DVcam to the PC, then chop them up, sequence them, add sound etc and compile the whole thing...

I can afford the ?Core i7 920, s1366, 8MB or ?Core i7 860, s1156, 8MB, with a good motherboard and 4GB of RAM. The question is, will those expensive processors give me significant improvement over the cheaper AMD versions for the kind of work I'm doing..?

What do you guys think?

 

[Gadish]

Found Studio 12 benchmarks!

But they are from a competing site, can i post them here ?

 

[California Roll]

some guy on another forum suggested that what I'm doing is just graphical editing and not really Video editing and that i could do with a cheaper AMD processor.

What i do is get the movies from the DVcam to the PC, then chop them up, sequence them, add sound etc and compile the whole thing...

I can afford the ?Core i7 920, s1366, 8MB or ?Core i7 860, s1156, 8MB, with a good motherboard and 4GB of RAM. The question is, will those expensive processors give me significant improvement over the cheaper AMD versions for the kind of work I'm doing..?

What do you guys think?

I don't know what the hell "graphical editing" means, but what you're doing is indeed video editing. Even if you're just snipping out the beginning/ends of clips, re-arranging clips, and adding a soundtrack, that's still video editing.

Where the speed of your cpu comes in is during rendering times. When you finally convert all your edits to a finished product, whether it's a DVD or something for YouTube.

If you're editing 10 minute clips and it's just really simple stuff, rendering time is short to begin with. Going from a low end quad core to an i7 920 will improve your rendering time by seconds or maybe minutes.

On the other hand, if you're working with a hour long clips with heavy editing, color corrections, special effects, cgi, etc., you're looking at hours, maybe days, of encoding. This is where having something like an i7 pays dividends. It will save you hours of time.

On a personal note, rendering times is not a big deal for me. I had a Q6600 overclocked to 3.0g, which is pretty low end these days, but more than acceptable for my needs. A 6 hour encode may take 3-4 hours with an i7 (not sure of exact improvement, just making this up). I'm not going to sit in front of my computer watching the status bar to finish. I'll run the render when I need to do errands or go out. If I have multiple projects I'll schedule them to all run overnight and be done by the time I wake up.

Buy the best processor you can afford. It won't help you edit much faster or make you better at it. All it really does is let you finish your renders faster.

 

[Viditor]

some guy on another forum suggested that what I'm doing is just graphical editing and not really Video editing and that i could do with a cheaper AMD processor.

What i do is get the movies from the DVcam to the PC, then chop them up, sequence them, add sound etc and compile the whole thing...

I can afford the ?Core i7 920, s1366, 8MB or ?Core i7 860, s1156, 8MB, with a good motherboard and 4GB of RAM. The question is, will those expensive processors give me significant improvement over the cheaper AMD versions for the kind of work I'm doing..?

What do you guys think?

What you are doing is cuts only editing...
There IS no rendering, so your friend is correct. Where you will need processing (and a good video card if you want to preview your effects) is in the transitions and layering. This is your wipes, dissolves, titling, etc...
If you aren't doing any of that, then you need very little for your system.

 

[T2k]

The difference won't be big unless you do a lot of effects, comping etc.

You can do fine with AMD and spend the difference on faster disk volume.

 

[Viditor]

The difference won't be big unless you do a lot of effects, comping etc.

You can do fine with AMD and spend the difference on faster disk volume.

Agree 100%...and a fast disk I/O should help you more than a faster CPU or video card.
You should look at SCSI (still the best for streaming and editing).

 

[Akino]

...

 

[mique]

I don't know how the Pinnacle software is optimized for the latest & greatest but if you'll be using Adobe software just forget about seeing some speed improvements over c2d. The thing is that on Windows platform there's just no real alternative to Adobe video software, while on mac you have some great system called Final Cut Pro... but the other thing is I would never buy a hardware that's impossible to overclock and you pay 50% of price just for the looks...

anyway - from my post, where I'm whining about PS bulls*it (core i7 & 12GB of ram):

I don't want to go into Premiere & Adobe media encoder stuff, cause it's hilarious how this "pro" video editing software is using only 30% of my resources and I still have to wait 3x time I should on editing & transcoding stuff... Not to mention they didn't hear about GPU (opencl?)...

It's so strange to buy yourself a brand new "workhorse" system nowdays, only to find out later that all the programs you're using are not working any faster than 2+ years old core2duo system...

 

[California Roll]

Depending how heavy an After Effects user you are, Vegas is a very good alternative to Premiere (for Windows users).

 

[Viditor]

Why are you guys assuming this guy will never use noise reduction or color correction in the editing process? Well maybe he won't, but I personally can't even imagine working like that. Even my most basic video projects had at least some plugins running on both the audio and video. The footage you get is never perfect, and it sure as hell is never broadcast ready.

The workstation system suggestions all across the internet seem to be torn apart by guys with either a background in servers or gaming. Neither of which are really appropriate.

When working with tons of clips, and those obnoxious goddamn preview thumbnails of hundreds and hundreds of HD files that you need to dig through, an SSD or two seem like a pretty damn good idea.

The rendering process itself is something to consider, I've never rendered a video project just once. Every other time I'd have to redo the whole thing to tune the imagine quality and file size a bit more, so a 30 minute render would turn into hours, or an entire day of re-rendering, experimenting with codecs, etc. Minor 10-15% performance differences between CPUs end up determining hundreds of hours of rendering time.

Before anything else you need to establish a budget and then go from there. And to figure that out first decide if you're aiming to do broadcast quality professional work, or chop some lolcats to throw up on Youtube.

You're making the same mistake I always used to make...applying high end professional standards to a consumer editor.
I have over 2 decades experience as both a broadcast on-line editor and a trainer of editors for several manufacturers, and I agree with your observations at the broadcast level.
However, it seems to me (from the OPs later comments) that he is not doing this for broadcast but for a lower standard. As such, his needs are vastly lower (and cheaper).

 

[Bassman2003]

The thing is that on Windows platform there's just no real alternative to Adobe video software, while on mac you have some great system called Final Cut Pro... [/I]

For the PC one can use Avid, Vegas or what I use, Edius.

All are good enough for any level of production.

I know that Edius scales with your computer and while encoding uses everything you have for it.