More RAM vs. Faster RAM for video encoding?

dkazaz

Junior Member
Mar 6, 2004
13
0
0
Hi,

I'm building a new system which I want to use for Video encoding and as a PVR.

The base config is going to be:
Pentium 4 2.8GHz,
Asus P4P800 Deluxe (Intel 865.PE Motherboard)
36GB Western Digital Raptor SATA - system drive
250GB Maxtor MaxlineII SATA - storage drive
Plextor 708A 8x DVD-/+RW & Pioneer 16x DVD-Rom
Asus GeForce FX 5600XT 128MB (SVideo-in)
Canopus ADVC1394 Analogue-Digital video converter/encoder

My question directed expecially at those of you that have some experience in video encoding is: should I go for 1GB RAm, or should I get 512MB but get really fast memory?

On my current system, running XP, I never use more than half of my 384MB RAM, so I'm unconvinced about the need of 1GB, even though people often talk about it as a minimum.

I'm only interested in the context of working with video anbd general usage. I never play games, so I'm not at all interested in fast 3D etc.

Any advice will be appreciated. Thanks!
 

nick1985

Lifer
Dec 29, 2002
27,153
6
81
just get a gig of 3200. timings dont make THAT much of a difference. i suggest kreton 3200. its cheap and works great.
 

TheWart

Diamond Member
Dec 17, 2000
5,219
1
76
for video encoding you will prolly need a gig. though if you have done a lot of video encoding and are positive that 384 is pretty much the most you use, then go for faster ram. just my opinion tho.
 

elkinm

Platinum Member
Jun 9, 2001
2,146
0
71
You would need at least 1 GB of Ram for encoding or in general. Even with fast ram the disk paging will cost you much more then the slowest 1 GB of ram.
 

dkazaz

Junior Member
Mar 6, 2004
13
0
0
Most of the advice I'm getting seems to be to go for size rather than speed. I can't say I'm unhappy as low latency RAM is almost twice the price of regular DDR400. I'd be happier to go down that route for a while and upgrade when DDR2 comes out along with the new intel chipsets, cpu's and PCIexpress.

I'm even toying with the idea of getting just 521MB of RAM so I don't make a large investment in atechnology soon to be outdated, but I think that would be going too far.
 

mechBgon

Super Moderator<br>Elite Member
Oct 31, 1999
30,699
1
0
Judging by your parts list I think you already know this, but just in case: make sure to get two modules so you can run in dual-channel mode. If you want to get more attention from the resident encoding folks, hit Edit on your original post and add "for video encoding" to the title of the thread. :) Welcome to the Forums, by the way.
 

Bovinicus

Diamond Member
Aug 8, 2001
3,145
0
0
Faster timings make almost no difference. The absolute largest difference you'll see is something like 5%; the normal is more like 1-2%. However, more memory can make a huge difference in performance if you are using an application that is memory hungry.
 

modedepe

Diamond Member
May 11, 2003
3,474
0
0
Since when does video encoding take a gig of ram? I see virtually no difference using 512mb as opposed to 1gb. That said, I still wouldn't pay a lot for fast low latency ram.
 

dkazaz

Junior Member
Mar 6, 2004
13
0
0
That certainly makes me happy - I only wanted to get 512MB in the 1st place, but almost everyone insisted I should get 1GB.

I personally don't know why you would need it for 2D and encoding but my experience is pretty slim, as my current PC is too slow fr me to do much.
That's why I'm asking people who have done some encoding to tell me if they think it would be worth doing...
 

oldfart

Lifer
Dec 2, 1999
10,207
0
0
When I encode using TMPGEnc or Pinnacle Studio, I dont use more than 512M of ram.

CPU speed mattes more than anything else for encoding (by far).
 

AWhackWhiteBoy

Golden Member
Mar 3, 2004
1,807
0
0
yea, so long as you have at least 256(with no other programs running), encoding doesn't lean a whole lot on ram. virtualdub never takes more than 50megs of my gig. encoding only depends on your CPU, and ram timing effects that.

now, do you mean encoding,or are you talking about rendering and video EDITING too?
 

dkazaz

Junior Member
Mar 6, 2004
13
0
0
If by rendering you mean advanced effects or 3DS max type work, then no. I mainly use my PC as a supplement for a home entrainment system, so I want to be able to do standard capture from or VHS, either direct to MPEG or DV (still trying to decide what I prefer, probably mpeg).

The main encoding I'd do would be AVI/DV to Mpeg4 (XviD/DivX) or AVI/DV to Mpeg2. I do use filters on VirtualDub but I don't do much proper Video editing. I'd also do some DVD authoring. All I really want to do is to be able to capture at really high quality and then encode my videos and put them on DVD's.

Your comments about not needing much memory echo many similar things I've heard in digital video forums - so far nobody's said that they specifically noticed encoding *needing* the GB of RAM, though of course it can't hurt - except my bank acount:)
 

AWhackWhiteBoy

Golden Member
Mar 3, 2004
1,807
0
0
yea,you use encoding for the exact reasons i do, i'd keep the money or get a faster CPU instead. you won't notice a difference with extra ram.

what codec do you usually use,divx or xvid?
 

dkazaz

Junior Member
Mar 6, 2004
13
0
0
I've mostly used DivX 5 so far, but lately I use XviD more and more - for certain types of content (e.g. cartoons) it seems to give comparable quality at much greater speed. Also the fact that its open source appeals to me a lot. unfortunately my current system is just not up to the job (P3-800, 384MB RAM, 40GB disk). I can only work on small video files and still a high quality encode takes 8 hours for 20 a min video. This is part of the reason why I'm building this new system.

If CPU speed is so important, I wonder If should get some overclockable memory - someone at another forum was telling me that PC3200 (DDR400) doesn't work well in dual channel mode, and suggested I get PC3700 or above to get the full benefit and also be able to overclock should I choose to. Overclocking doesn't appeal to me though, as it's a hassle that I don't really have the time for.
 

AWhackWhiteBoy

Golden Member
Mar 3, 2004
1,807
0
0
"someone at another forum was telling me that PC3200 (DDR400) doesn't work well in dual channel mode, and suggested I get PC3700 or above to get the full benefit"

thats garbage, there is no difference between 3200 and 3700 ram aside from its frequency ability.

i can see how you'd want an upgrade though. as i said in a prior thread recently, be aware that Divx is optimized for Intel processors, and Xvid is optimized for AMD. there IS A VERY noticable difference.
 

dkazaz

Junior Member
Mar 6, 2004
13
0
0
This guy was saying that some RAM modules are rated at the edge of their capability and when working in dual channel mode, they often get pushed past their stable limits, hence the suggestion to get higher rated modules - I don't think this would be an issue with Corsair RAM, even the 'Value' series that I'm considering.

I remember reading about the AMD optimisation in XviD somewhere - I think however that this depends on how you compile the code and there are packages out there optimised for Intel CPU's? I seem to remember having one of those at some point in the past, but I could be getting it mixed up with something else...

 

AWhackWhiteBoy

Golden Member
Mar 3, 2004
1,807
0
0
"This guy was saying that some RAM modules are rated at the edge of their capability and when working in dual channel mode, they often get pushed past their stable limits"

dual channel mode treats the ram no different than single channel, its merely a different way the controller uses the memory.
 

dkazaz

Junior Member
Mar 6, 2004
13
0
0
That's reassuring - I might just get 512MB of plain DDR400 and spend the rest of my money on something else, like a better capture card, or even a hardware encoder...
 

Bovinicus

Diamond Member
Aug 8, 2001
3,145
0
0
Originally posted by: dkazaz
This guy was saying that some RAM modules are rated at the edge of their capability and when working in dual channel mode, they often get pushed past their stable limits, hence the suggestion to get higher rated modules - I don't think this would be an issue with Corsair RAM, even the 'Value' series that I'm considering.

I remember reading about the AMD optimisation in XviD somewhere - I think however that this depends on how you compile the code and there are packages out there optimised for Intel CPU's? I seem to remember having one of those at some point in the past, but I could be getting it mixed up with something else...

The thing about anything past DDR400 memory is that it is still DDR400 memory. There is no JEDEC specification for anything beyond DDR400. All of the higher rated modules are still the exact same design as standard DDR400 modules with handpicked chips attached to the PCB.

 

Jeff7

Lifer
Jan 4, 2001
41,596
19
81
What program are you using for encoding/editing video? I use Ulead's Videostudio 7 to edit MPEG2 files, for use on DVD-R's. The only thing it lacks that I'd want are crop and deinterlace; other than that, it works fine. But anyway, VS7 usually doesn't use even 100MB of RAM; more like 80MB. So 1GB would be useless to it. Fast hard drives really help it out, as the files I work with are usually anywhere from 5 to 12GB each. I use a RAID 0 array of two 7200rpm drives for storage of the unedited files; the faster access time and raw transfer speeds let VS sift through the files faster when I'm seeking the in/out spots for the edits.
After that, CPU speed will be the big factor to render.

Also, you said that you don't game; you probably don't need such a powerful videocard then. If no games, then even a Geforce2/ATi Radeon 8500 should be fine, with 32MB of RAM. For capture then, maybe an AIW 8500, or else a Hauppauge PVR 250 or 350. The 250 and 350 offer the nice benefit of hardware MPEG2 encoding from their video-inputs.
 

dkazaz

Junior Member
Mar 6, 2004
13
0
0
That's very useful thanks. I'm pretty much decided on getting regular DDR400 and probably going for 512MB at this stage (I can always upgrade later).

I must admit disk speed is something I have doubts about - I've always used SCSI drives so far and have an Adaptec 2940UW with 2 10k SCSI disks in my current PC. The trouble is that SCSI is pretty bothersome to work with - the disks are loud and hot, and their prices are way too expensive, so Ive decided to leave it behind and go with SATA from now since the speeds are catching up too. I'm hoping the 7200rpm Maxline II will be fast enough to do the job - I'd rather not get into RAID0 for a multitude of reasons, like cost, complexity, risk of data loss etc. I'm hoping that since I'll only do encoding, and minimal editing, it won't be too bad.
 

KristopherKubicki

Golden Member
Jul 31, 2002
1,636
0
0
Disk speed makes very little difference unless you are doing on the fly stuff. memory will always be the bottle neck. Depending on your program, more memory is almost always what makes the difference.

Cheers,

Kristopher
 

dkazaz

Junior Member
Mar 6, 2004
13
0
0
Apologies, I'm a bit unclear on this - what do you mean by 'on-the fly stuff' exactly?

In what circumstances will memory matter and in what will disk speed be important?

Thanks!