Building new PC - will a i7-5960x cpu with 8 cores help in video rendering?

first, some background. At 68 yrs old, with no computer literacy i built my first computer 2 yrs ago
CPU i7-4790 (4.0 GHz)
16 GB ram
GPU - Nvidia GTX 750 Ti, 2 GB

my main use was and is to render video files - when i first built it, my rendering time on an approx 35 GB video file was 3 hours on my previous duo core (e8500 iirc) computer, and it dropped to 35-40 minutes on the i7-4790 cpu, which was tremendous drop. This was all using Handbrake to render the files to a managable 5-8 GB size.

Well, we recently bought a 4k TV and i'm getting ready to upgrade the computer to 4k capability. Remembering the drop in rendering times going to a 4 core cpu, can I expect a similiar drop in rendering time, and considering jumping to 4k video files, at least avoiding an increase in rendering times.

One thing i remember, (it's been a couple of years since i've been on the forum), another poster and i compared rendering times for the same movie file, and we were both surprised i had a faster render time even though he was running a i7-5920 or 5930 series cpu with six cores, but his cpu clock speed was down in the mid 3s, ie 3.4 or 3.5GHz - we then wondered if clock speed was more critical to render speed rather than cores. The i7-5960x stock is 3.0 GHz, but can be overclocked, with 4.0 - 4.2 seeming to the reported max stable OC.

On a side note, i was surprised when I rendered some files with and without the Nvidia GTX 750 Ti GPU, and got the same rendering times with the intel integrated gpu - so i removed it from the system

so the question is, is an 8 core cpu, like the i7-59260x going to speed up rendering times? Obviously, as it doesn't come with an integrated gpu, i'll need a GPU card. Recommendations there also sought

thanks for your time
 
Solution
When you are rendering you want as many cores as possible as the rendering will 9/10 times use every core. The base clock speed will affect every core, so 3.15 x 6 cores is slower than 3.00 x 8 cores, so more is better. Which is exactly the opposite as gaming. As far as rendering cpu's I personally am not very knowledgeable but here is a resource for you: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-core-i7-5960x-haswell-e-cpu,3918-5.html

Your GPU will not effect the speed at which your file will save, that has to do with HDD/SSD and CPU. The GPU only enables the video to render onto your monitor at a reasonable rate. I would recommend bare minimum a GTX 950 for 4k. Although you'll see a sizeable boost in the 960.

Owen
i agree i like the price better, but i like the 8 cores, and what i'm curious about is the benefit of cores vs clock speed

i'm also thinking in terms of "future proofing" as this is probably the last computer i'll build. The movie files i'm rendering are for a "movie library" to take on the road with us. Just finished building a mini-RV and it will give us something to watch when we're in the boonies (northern canuck land).

Just for reference, i'm doing 5-10 movie files a week - using MakeMKV to rip a blu ray takes 20-25 minutes but that's a limitation of the blu-ray player. Then rendering at 35-45 minutes becomes time consuming. I forget the next level cpu but it was 10 cores at $1600, which is definitely out of the question
 

Owen_24

Commendable
Oct 23, 2016
18
0
1,540
When you are rendering you want as many cores as possible as the rendering will 9/10 times use every core. The base clock speed will affect every core, so 3.15 x 6 cores is slower than 3.00 x 8 cores, so more is better. Which is exactly the opposite as gaming. As far as rendering cpu's I personally am not very knowledgeable but here is a resource for you: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-core-i7-5960x-haswell-e-cpu,3918-5.html

Your GPU will not effect the speed at which your file will save, that has to do with HDD/SSD and CPU. The GPU only enables the video to render onto your monitor at a reasonable rate. I would recommend bare minimum a GTX 950 for 4k. Although you'll see a sizeable boost in the 960.

Owen
 
Solution

hdmark

Distinguished
Feb 16, 2015
1,367
0
19,660
I dont really have any expertise in this, but something owen_24 said got me. What storage are you using with this computer? I'm not sure how fast these renderings are going, but maybe a SSD could help if youre outpacing a HDD?
also - i just looked up handbrake and it looks like a gpu minimally increases performance (from the site i saw). have you looked into other programs that utilize GPU power for rendering? might be cheaper to keep your current system, find a GPU rendering program and pick yourself up a gtx 1070 or whichever GPU is best for that program. Id imagine it would be a much cheaper alternative and potentially run faster. if gpu rendering is even a thing that is....
 


perfect link - thanks Owen_24

clikking on the second chart, it slid to a comparison using Handbrake converting to h264 which is the format i'm using, and the 5960X outclocked the xeon cpu - from the other comparisons it does appear clock speed plays a factor as well

if i read your response correctly, that would explain rendering times being the same with and without the GTX 750 Ti - i didn't realize the graphics card only affected display rates (re-affirms my stmt regarding my computer illiteracy). As far as drives, i'm running the samsung 950 Pro 512 gb for the OS drive, and using SSDs (840s for "work table" drives, then rendering to the 950 Pro

comparing the render times of the 5960x, which was the fastest using handbrake to render h264, to the i7-4790k (which is clocked to 4.4 GHz, faster than my 4790), that alone showed a 33% reduction in render time, so i'll assume a slightly higher reduction for my current render times.

I follow your logic over cores vs speed, but in some of the comparisons the 5930k running at 3.5GHZ vs 3.0 stock speed for the 5960x, outpaced the 5960x.

As to GPU, i was looking at the GTX 1080 w/8GB - even if it doesn't affect save rate, i use one program to record from the screen (Camtasia Studio), - i copy some UK TV shows, (wife loves the british period dramas). Camtasia is particularly slow, first records in it's own proprietary format (.trec), then is especially slow rendering to mp4/h264. One hour program will take 40-45 minutes

again, that link was exactly what i needed - mucho grazias
 

Owen_24

Commendable
Oct 23, 2016
18
0
1,540
Glad I could help :). the last time I helped someone with rendering was a solid 5 years ago and he was doing some serious video editing. So hopefully the information I gave you is still relevant to this day and age.

Always happy to help :)