Do AMD 6 and 8 core CPU's present any advantage in cost or performance over Intel when used for multi stream video analysis?

thud2 · Nov 9, 2014

Hi I've been using refurb Dell PC's with I5 3470 CPU's as video security camera NVR's and this CPU is great for this use. 4 1080p streams (up to 8 streams at times) being analyzed real time and only 20 to 60% CPU utilization. Not a hiccup.

I would like to find the least expensive CPU motherboard combo for this scenario. I've believe that this scenario is CPU bound as the Transcoding is done on camera and the camera provides multiple streams. The analytics is the challenge. So, the AMD 6300 has more cores, does this equal an ability to analyze more streams?

fkr · Nov 9, 2014

the amd chip should perform just as well

as i do not know the exact software that you are using you should do your own testing and see if that program that you are usings is using all four cores. if it is using multiple cores then yes the transition to amd should be fine.

just having more cores means nothing it is up to the software programmers to program the software to use those cores. if it is only using one core then you will be buting heads with the amds performance.

amd makes up the difference in CPU power compared to intel by using more cores but on a core to core basis intel is way ahead. I still think since you are using so little of that intel chip you should be fine but a test would ease that worry

thud2 · Nov 9, 2014

Thanks for responding so fast! The software is "Sighthound Video" and in my experience I believe it does use multiple cores but it is really taxing on the system because it analyzes the stream for "people" not just motion.

iron8orn · Nov 9, 2014

A i7 would be best but this is the type of threaded work loads that FX cpu's excel at. 8320 + GIGABYTE GA-970A-UD3P + CM Hyper 212 EVO

thud2 · Nov 9, 2014

I'm not an expert in CPU multithreading by any means (actually I have NO KNOWLEDGE

) I guess my question is; Do 6 0r 8 cores equal a major advantage in analyzing 6 or 8 threads?

thud2 · Nov 9, 2014

iron8orn :

My aim is to reduce cost so going to i7 just wouldn't be cost effective. I'm searching for low cost alternatives to i7/i5's.

I buy refurb Dell systems with i5 3470's for $300. I know this price/performance is almost IMPOSSIBLE to beat, but hey, business is tough, trying to save a buck. Any savings is food on the table for the family.

iron8orn · Nov 9, 2014

yeah the 8320 will handle the work load better than a i5 but the way the module design shares cache in FX cpu's the 6300 would not be the best for you.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128651

thud2 · Nov 9, 2014

iron8orn :

Thanks so much. This is exactly the info I'm looking for. Can anyone inform me of which inexpensive CPU's may have an advantage in this scenario or guide me to any articles, reviews or white papers on this subjuct?

thud2 · Nov 9, 2014

By the way the level and speed of the responses have been AMAZING! Thanks so much!

thud2 · Nov 9, 2014

iron8orn :

Do you think the new "Bulldozers" will close the performance gap?

fkr · Nov 9, 2014

all good info above. got stuck helping another poster for a while.

https://www.sighthound.com/support/system-requirements

the above is some good info and really adds to the more cores is better for your software.

they give some concrete examples at the bottom.

fx 6300 should be great for your uses. it is really goingg to come down to how many cameras you are pulling data off of.

thud2 · Nov 9, 2014

fkr :

thud2 · Nov 9, 2014

I cannot believe you did that research immediately. THANK YOU! I"m currently using 4 to 8 cams/1080p on most installs. So in this scenario more AMD cores should be helpful. I'll let you know about real world results!

thud2 · Nov 9, 2014

fkr and everyone, THANK YOU! Any additional info is GREATLY APPRECIATED! Have a great day!

thud2 · Nov 9, 2014

fkr :

To be honest, Sighthound was made with lower rez streams in mind and those spec's are for lower bandwidth streams. I'm trying to find a way to leverage hardware to squeeze the last bit of performance out of Sighthound to make Megapixel analysis possible.

Thanks so much for your help!

fkr · Nov 9, 2014

so this line tells a little bit

n general, you should be able to run two to four cameras per core on a dedicated machine (a little less if you are also using the machine for other applications). For example, a fast dedicated quad-core machine would be expected to perform as follows:

VGA video, low to moderate activity: 16+ cameras
1280 x 1024, moderate activity: 8-12 cameras

the only other metric you could try and use would seem to be (and this is just a guess) multiply out your resolutions for how many pixels you are recording and see if there is a correlation there.

this seems to be there assertion,"the default resolution for saving video is QVGA (320 x 240). Saving at a higher resolution, such as 1280 x 1024 requires processing seventeen times the number of pixels."

thud2 · Nov 9, 2014

fkr :

the amd chip should perform just as well

as i do not know the exact software that you are using you should do your own testing and see if that program that you are usings is using all four cores. if it is using multiple cores then yes the transition to amd should be fine.

just having more cores means nothing it is up to the software programmers to program the software to use those cores. if it is only using one core then you will be buting heads with the amds performance.

amd makes up the difference in CPU power compared to intel by using more cores but on a core to core basis intel is way ahead. I still think since you are using so little of that intel chip you should be fine but a test would ease that worry

thud2 · Nov 9, 2014

Thanks, Last weeks test was Celeron- MAJOR FAIL in this use! Hey, maybe my testing will help someone else in the same situation (I hope their not selling cam systems in my market

)

thud2 · Nov 9, 2014

fkr :

I've been using I5 3470 CPU's with 4 1080p streams (up to 8 streams at times) being analyzed real time at only 20 to 60% CPU utilization. Not a hiccup. So this is the real capability of the CPU/software but I want to find a cheaper processor/MB combo that will work. Anybody have an any ideas?

fkr · Nov 9, 2014

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: AMD FX-6300 3.5GHz 6-Core Processor ($99.99 @ Newegg)
Motherboard: MSI 970A-G43 ATX AM3+ Motherboard ($44.99 @ Newegg)
Total: $144.98
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-11-09 20:48 EST-0500

iron8orn · Nov 9, 2014

http://www.overclock.net/t/946407/amd-motherboards-vrm-info-database those 970 MSI boards are rated poorly.

The Gigabyte board might be a little overkill because how good it really is but I would not feel right giving someone one of those that may burn up in a month.

fkr · Nov 9, 2014

iron8orn :

msi is god about RMA at least.

anyways all of the cheap boards are cheap.

GIGABYTE GA-970A-UD3P:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128651&nm_mc=AFC-C8Junction&cm_mmc=AFC-C8Junction-_-na-_-na-_-na&cm_sp=&AID=10446076&PID=3938566&SID=

this one rates a little better and is around $75, it always seems like the AMD boards have fewer quality choices than intel.

you can do the ASUS M5A99FX PRO R2.0 for a sub $100

Do AMD 6 and 8 core CPU's present any advantage in cost or performance over Intel when used for multi stream video analysis?

Distinguished

Splendid

Distinguished

Admirable

Distinguished

Distinguished

Admirable

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Splendid

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Splendid

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Splendid

Admirable

Splendid

Share this page