CPU for video editing

[Shephard]

By cost, do you mean my budget? I don't have much of a budget; I'm willing to pour some money into a system right now. Mine is over 5 years old, and I'm more interested in these criteria:
- performance
- no need for water cooling

That's about it. I was under the impression xeons were better at floating-point stuff, and I do a lot of fluid dynamic simulation. I also work in games, so I'm doing just as much real-time work, so I'm all across the board.



Did you mean 264? or is there a newer codec and I've just been out of the loop that long?

lol no I wrote that post to fast.

I think it's called h264 or x264 maybe they are the same. I am not the expert on this subject as you can see.

I use to* use wmv with a Sony Vegas template.

 

[2is]

3-4 hours a week for only a few months out of the year doesn't seem like enough to justify an expensive new build IMO. I could understand if you were on a Core 2 Duo or something, but a 2500k, especially over clocked is still a very capable processor.

If it was for something you did as your regular day job year-round and made your living off of, that's one thing, but it seems like more of a part time hobby than anything else.

 

[Artician]

lol no I wrote that post to fast.

I think it's called h264 or x264 maybe they are the same. I am not the expert on this subject as you can see.

I use to* use wmv with a Sony Vegas template.

Interestingly enough, when I googled x624, I got a ton of results from that as well. I can tell you that h.264 has been a great standard for video quality since... 2005? But I haven't messed with editing for a couple years, so I wasn't going to be surprised if there were something new (though that numbering scheme seems odd).
My guess is that you meant x/h.264, so to answer your question:
Yeah, x264 is the best quality for compressed films. They're extremely small filesize and extremely high quality.
The reason your buddy might have suggested rendering to an uncompressed format first was just so you have the highest possible quality original to fall back on. That's something I can agree with, but it's really a luxury step if you have the harddrive space for it. Personally I render into a TGA sequence instead of uncompressed AVI, but regardless, if you have the HDD space, why not? If you don't, then don't sweat it! Just render it out into whatever format gives you the best quality and smallest filesize, and that's definitely x264.

 

[Makaveli]

By cost, do you mean my budget? I don't have much of a budget; I'm willing to pour some money into a system right now. Mine is over 5 years old, and I'm more interested in these criteria:
- performance
- no need for water cooling

That's about it. I was under the impression xeons were better at floating-point stuff, and I do a lot of fluid dynamic simulation. I also work in games, so I'm doing just as much real-time work, so I'm all across the board.



Did you mean 264? or is there a newer codec and I've just been out of the loop that long?

By cost I meant the overall cost of the platform. I brought it up cause he mentioned the cpu prices aren't too far off which is correct however the rest of the build most likely won't be similar in price.

Your budget is equally important.

The Xeon at the same clock speed as a desktop will usually be equal or a tad slower due to ECC memory and the Xeon motherboard tuned for stability over outright performance. Those system are usually tested for 24/7 operation also where as a desktop rig that isn't as important. You pay extra for the other features they enable and the testing and validation which isn't done on desktop parts.

However once you start going the Multiprocessor route and start loading up memory this is where the Xeon system will start to really outpace a similar desktop configuration etc.

 

[Shephard]

well I would like to see someone with 3570k or 2500k do a 12 minute video render in the best quality settings. I want to see speed.

 

[lakedude]

I've got a 2500k, a 3770 (which would be basically the same thing as a 3570 if I cut off the HT), and an AMD 1055t.

What software are you wanting this 12min render on? Is the software GPU accelerated? Can I get it free or maybe a trial version?

Be happy to help if you can work the software out somehow...

I/O is likely to make a big difference so that will be a wildcard. All 3 systems have different video cards and different storage as well.

 

[Shephard]

Sony Vegas. I mean I guess you could use Windows Movie Maker. Does that even exist in Windows 7? I haven't looked.

I was recording game footage so I am not sure what you will use to show me. 12 mins of game footage, ultra settings, in game resolution 1280x720p windowed (because I only have 1680x1050 monitor so I can't do 1080p).

CPU should be faster than GPU? I thought only nvidia cards can render too. CPU has more cores? I thought you only use GPU if you have an ancient computer lol.

 

[lakedude]

Sony Vegas. I mean I guess you could use Windows Movie Maker. Does that even exist in Windows 7? I haven't looked.

I was recording game footage so I am not sure what you will use to show me. 12 mins of game footage, ultra settings, in game resolution 1280x720p windowed (because I only have 1680x1050 monitor so I can't do 1080p).

CPU should be faster than GPU? I thought only nvidia cards can render too. CPU has more cores? I thought you only use GPU if you have an ancient computer lol.

Ahh, I don't have that program.

Re GPU (GPU = video card):


***UPDATE as of August 2012***
New Version of this Suite has now been released.
The suite which I just reviewed has been given a slight name change and is now called "Movie Studio Platinum 12 Suite".
This newer version is now a 64 bit program!!!
So if you have a 64bit Windows Operating System, I would encourage you to have a serious look at the newer Version 12.
It can now use ALL available RAM installed on your computer, whereas V11 was capped at only 4GBs.
Also has GPU Acceleration, which means V12 can now utilize the power of your Graphics Card to Speed Up rendering times and improve playback quality in the Preview Window.

 

[Shephard]

I don't understand?

Why would you use a GPU for rendering over a CPU? CPU has more cores and is faster?

Only nvidia can render as well?

Ok use whatever program you want. I am sure they are all equal when it comes to render times. Sony Vegas is overpriced and just has fancy effects. I don't know of a free program besides Movie Maker for Windows XP.

 

[2is]

A CPU does not render faster, if it did there would be no need for GPUs to play games.

 

[Artician]

In what way are you guys using the term "Rendering"?

Rendering in Real-time uses the GPU.

Rendering a video 3D file uses the CPU.

 

[Shephard]

yes I am talking about a video.

12 minute HD video at the best settings. I don't know the best settings so post them once the video is done.

upload it to youtube, which will compress it a bit but then I can compare it to my HD video.

Then tell me how long it takes to render.

thanks

 

[colonelciller]

In what way are you guys using the term "Rendering"?

Rendering in Real-time uses the GPU.

Rendering a video 3D file uses the CPU.

that's my understanding as well... and is the reason why CAD/3D Design/Video Editing workstations are often built using 2CPU server motherboards... lots of cores + ram to feed them.

 

[monstercameron]

lol no I wrote that post to fast.

I think it's called h264 or x264 maybe they are the same. I am not the expert on this subject as you can see.

I use to* use wmv with a Sony Vegas template.

isnt x.264 the opensource codec for h.264?

 

[Shephard]

isnt x.264 the opensource codec for h.264?

I think so.

one of them is the best rendering codec.

 

[2is]

I thought h264 was the open source codec and x264 needed to be licensed. Could be wrong.

 

[TheRyuu]

I thought h264 was the open source codec and x264 needed to be licensed. Could be wrong.

h264 is the codec.

x264 is an open source h264 encoder. It is dual licensed under both the GPL and a commercial license (companies want the support).

 

[Hulk]

I'm in the same position as you. 2500k at 4.2GHz. At first I was going to upgrade to a 2600k since I do quite a bit of video editing and HT would definitely be helpful. Then Ivy was on the horizon so I waited. Ivy turned out not to be the greatest overclocker (not that my 2500k is either!) and since there wasn't huge performance gains to be had I waited.

Now I'm waiting for Haswell and I'll most likely upgrade in the fall. Why? I have a feeling Has will go to 4.2GHz at least and with HT probably give a huge boost to my video editing apps. It's the new kid on the block and it'll be fun to check it out. My current 2500k and mobo can move to my HTPC. And most importantly Haswell is the coolest new processor name since Dechutes.

 

[lakedude]

Only nvidia can render as well?

Depends on the software. It looks like that Sony program will work with ATI as well. Check out the link:

http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/vegaspro/gpuacceleration

Why would you use a GPU for rendering over a CPU? CPU has more cores and is faster?

Now I'm no expert but here is how I understand it.

A CPU is a general purpose computing device that can do pretty much any job, like a jack of all trades. CPUs are very flexible. A typical CPU these days has from 1 to 8 cores which is like having a small team of up to 8 handymen on a team. They can do any job that comes up.

A GPU (video card) is a special purpose device that is much more parallel than a CPU. A GPU has a great many small "cores" (they don't really call them cores) that can not do every job but they are very fast at the jobs they can do. Think of the GPU like a whole team of hundreds of painters. Sure your CPU/handy men can paint and they can even paint decent but if you really need painting done nothing beats the team of painters.

 

[Shephard]

have you had the chance to make the movie yet?

 

[lakedude]

Been lazy and haven't figured out how I'm going to do it. 2 of the computers are not in my primary residence so that is going to be tricky as well.

I'll figure out a decent test late tonight. I'll most likely use HandBrake since it is free. I'll need to disable the video card end of things somehow because HandBrake will use the GPU if available. I've also got NERO and Premiere somewhere...NERO is old and doesn't get along with Vista or newer... Premiere is just as old...

Also I'll need to pick a suitable video clip to transcode...

Were you taking to me?

 

[Makaveli]

Is the newest version of handbrake finally updated to use GPU's?

Last I check it was still only CPU.

 

[smitbret]

A lot of stuff being thrown around here. If you really need help with video editing workflow, try these websites/forums:
www.videohelp.com
www.doom9.org

Videohelp is a great place to start with a busy message board and is fairly tolerant of new posters. My go to place for help.

Doom9 is the geek board and while there is a lot of great, in-depth info, you hade better bring your 'A' game and don't deviate from forum guidelines. Bans are fast and frequent. Outside of the gaming sites that are populated by teens and mouthy young adults, it's the least friendly forum I've ever been to.

That being said:

x264 is the open source version of h264. h264 will also be called AVC on occasion. For the most part, h264/x264/AVC can be used interchangably. Encoding speeds using this codec can vary greatly depending on your material and/or settings. I can re encode a 2 hour DVD in 20 minutes or 8 hours depending on the settings I choose. The settings and the encoder are basically the same, regardless of the front end UI. Handbrake is the most popular free one and the one I use most. RipBot264 is another great free one that isn't quite as flexible, but has recently enabled distributed encoding which can be very useful if you're equipped.

Neither of these utilizes GPU encoding. The nVidia version is called CUDA and the AMD version is called OpenCL. Your software must be written to take advantage of it and it can make the jobs considerably faster at the expense of quality. As a general rule, GPU encoded video is inferior to CPU encoded video. If it's something you want to try, IMToo and Xilisoft give you the option to use CUDA/OpenCL. If you are a serious video editor and don't need to encode a 30 minute clip in as little time as humanly possible, then just stick with CPU encoding.

My CPU progression over the last few years looks like this:

AMD Dual Core 4400+
AMD Phenom II x4 955 and it was about twice as fast for h264.
AMD 6100 6-core is about 40% faster than the 955.

I would guess that a stock 2500k would be about the same for h264 as the 6100, maybe a little better.

 

[vampirr]

FX 8350 shines with h264/x264, it beats i7 3770k in h264/x264...

 

[smitbret]

A lot of stuff being thrown around here. If you really need help with video editing workflow, try these websites/forums:
www.videohelp.com
www.doom9.org

Videohelp is a great place to start with a busy message board and is fairly tolerant of new posters. My go to place for help.

Doom9 is the geek board and while there is a lot of great, in-depth info, you hade better bring your 'A' game and don't deviate from forum guidelines. Bans are fast and frequent. Outside of the gaming sites that are populated by teens and mouthy young adults, it's the least friendly forum I've ever been to.

That being said:

x264 is the open source version of h264. h264 will also be called AVC on occasion. For the most part, h264/x264/AVC can be used interchangably. Encoding speeds using this codec can vary greatly depending on your material and/or settings. I can re encode a 2 hour DVD in 20 minutes or 8 hours depending on the settings I choose. The settings and the encoder are basically the same, regardless of the front end UI. Handbrake is the most popular free one and the one I use most. RipBot264 is another great free one that isn't quite as flexible, but has recently enabled distributed encoding which can be very useful if you're equipped.

Neither of these utilizes GPU encoding. The nVidia version is called CUDA and the AMD version is called OpenCL. Your software must be written to take advantage of it and it can make the jobs considerably faster at the expense of quality. As a general rule, GPU encoded video is inferior to CPU encoded video. If it's something you want to try, IMToo and Xilisoft give you the option to use CUDA/OpenCL. If you are a serious video editor and don't need to encode a 30 minute clip in as little time as humanly possible, then just stick with CPU encoding.

My CPU progression over the last few years looks like this:

AMD Dual Core 4400+
AMD Phenom II x4 955 and it was about twice as fast for h264.
AMD 6100 6-core is about 40% faster than the 955.

I would guess that a stock 2500k would be about the same for h264 as the 6100, maybe a little better.