Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Looking for the best video-encoding CPU.

Last response: in CPUs
Share
May 7, 2007 2:44:42 PM

Being a few years out of the hardware-world is a hell :(  It is just so hard to find my way again in all these new cpu's, chipsets and boards.

Therefore I need your help here, I'm looking for the best cpu-mainboard combination to run video-encoding.
Mostly the 64-bit version of windows media encoder 9. This for live streaming to web and internal circuit.
I'll probably use the high-end video acpture card from Osprey to get the video in (even in full HD!)

So..all suggestions are welcome to propose the best CPU (and eventually motherboard) to start building this ultimate video encoding system.

Thank you all !

More about : video encoding cpu

a c 111 à CPUs
May 7, 2007 3:31:58 PM

SuperMicro H8QM8-2
Quad-socketF with (4) PCIx slots, 6 SATA2 ports, Ultra320 SCSI
Up to (4) Opty 8xxx series upgradable to Barcelona

Tyan Thunder n3600M (S2932) 2-socketF with (3) PCIx slots, 6 SATA2 ports, 10 SAS SCSI ports
Up to (2) Opty 2xxx series upgradable to Barcelona

HT3 would not be available on either mobo

$1,500 for 8Gb ECC RAM

$1,200 for case - redundant PS

$??? hard drives (SATA2 around $.25/Gb - SCSI SAS backword/SATA compatible)

Nice rig . . .
Related resources
May 7, 2007 3:39:53 PM

At the moment Intel Quad Core.

If too expensive then Intel Core 2 Duo or high end Athlon FX although Athlon's are very overpriced now.

However, as AMD are just about to launch their Barcelona quad cores and Intel have the Penryns in the wing also waiting for launch, it might be worth waiting a while before taking the plunge.

If nothing else, the new release will push the prices on existing chips down.

As for motherboard, unsure as I'm into gaming.
May 7, 2007 7:54:12 PM

Quad FX is too costly for most people. The best deal is the E6600 or the X2 5600. As a recent article stated, you can get the most out of your system at stock speeds by matching the X2 5600+ with DDR800. Either option is good, although if you believe that barcelona will own then go with the 5600+ X2 chip. It's probably the best cost/performance right now anyway on the high end.
May 9, 2007 5:50:35 PM

Ok; Thank you all for the reply.

I'll go for the Core2Quad Q6600

Is there any good motherboard out there for this cpu?
e.g. MSI, Asus, Intel, ... ?

I'm planning to run Windows XP 64bit edition on it.

Thx
May 9, 2007 5:57:29 PM

I'll third the AMD recomendations above, it's a better strategy because you can put the superior Agena cpus that are coming right into that Am2 motherboard. Only go Intel if you need the max effecvt of quad core immediately. In any case, look at the chart from the first reply just under your OP post (message #2).
May 9, 2007 6:13:06 PM

Fuck me ... K10 hasnt even been benchmarked yet and you claim its superior to Penryn :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

I would not advise anyone to seek CPU advice here ... you'll just get screeched at by the fanbois.
May 9, 2007 6:14:15 PM

Intel BX2

Or one of the new P35 mobos that will definately support Penryn.
May 9, 2007 6:19:57 PM

Ok

I'll go for the Core2Quad processor and the Intel D975XBX2 mainboard
It has Raid so I can add 2 disks to stripe.

The reason that I prefer Intel is that in the future we would like to use it for Adobe Media Encoder and I still believe that Intel & Adobe are more friends then Adobe & AMD :) 
May 9, 2007 7:08:00 PM

Quote:
Ok

I'll go for the Core2Quad processor and the Intel D975XBX2 mainboard
It has Raid so I can add 2 disks to stripe.

The reason that I prefer Intel is that in the future we would like to use it for Adobe Media Encoder and I still believe that Intel & Adobe are more friends then Adobe & AMD :) 


This reminds me of how people often got an impression that AMD processors were unreliable, etc., had trouble with Windows, you name it. Anyone has to admire Intel's very superior advertising, which is loaded with clever suggestions. They are brilliant, in a nasty way.
May 9, 2007 7:09:28 PM

Quote:
**** me ... K10 hasnt even been benchmarked yet and you claim its superior to Penryn :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

I would not advise anyone to seek CPU advice here ... you'll just get screeched at by the fanbois.


I won't call your posts "screeches", but I suppose some would.
May 9, 2007 7:27:43 PM

Kids kids kids...let's give him GOOD advice here. Listen Z, if you want to do video editing and want it to be done in a few minutes, a Core2Duo E6600 will do fine for you. Every generation or two these processors are doubling in speed. A chip from 2 years ago isn't even half as powerful as a Core2Duo today is. If you want Quad and have cash to burn, go for it. But plan on putting it on your business account because buying it for personal use isn't a very wise investment. The truth here is that EITHER socket AM2 or 775 should be fine for what you need. I'm not a fanboy on either side, I want value and I want it to be fast. Both companies will have quad core chips by the end of the year in the $300 range for both of their respective sockets. If you really want video editing power, wait till winter to buy. You'll effectively double the power you'd get if you buy now, but that's how it always is. It's all up to you, but I say get an E6600 and sell it to me when you go quad. :-)
May 9, 2007 8:24:36 PM

Thats a toss up. On the one had in the price/performance category AMD's are better. Also AMD's aren't that much off of what Intel has to offer. Currently quad core CPU's aren't showing much of a gain over dual core CPU or even dual dual core CPU setups. The threading isn't there yet. Intel has historically been the king of the encoding realm and that lead continues to this day. Intel Quad cores use an MCP to achieve quad core CPU so it eats more FSB bandwidth whereas the C2D or 64X2 are both on the same die and able to talk to one another w/o going through the FSB or HTT link.

Either way: A AMD 64X2 is good for encoding and a Intel C2D is great for encoding. Although there is only about a 15% gain for the Intel one for $100 more.

Hope this helps.
May 9, 2007 9:14:07 PM

I can't believe someone comes here and asks for advice on "the best video-encoding CPU" and someone actually recomended the 5600+? Oh dear, what is THG forums comming to?
May 9, 2007 9:18:55 PM

Quote:
I can't believe someone comes here and asks for advice on "the best video-encoding CPU" and someone actually recomended the 5600+? Oh dear, what is THG forums comming to?


Like I said, its a toss up. If he is budget constrained, I'd lean more toward AMD. If hes not on a budget leash, go for the Intel CPU. Since he's doing mainly audio/video encoding, he won't notice much of a difference between either CPU. Now if it was rendering, thats a different story.
May 9, 2007 9:54:16 PM

Quote:
Being a few years out of the hardware-world is a hell :(  It is just so hard to find my way again in all these new cpu's, chipsets and boards.

Therefore I need your help here, I'm looking for the best cpu-mainboard combination to run video-encoding.
Mostly the 64-bit version of windows media encoder 9. This for live streaming to web and internal circuit.
I'll probably use the high-end video acpture card from Osprey to get the video in (even in full HD!)

So..all suggestions are welcome to propose the best CPU (and eventually motherboard) to start building this ultimate video encoding system.

Thank you all !


It all depends on your budget.

For very high-end, Intel QX6800 would be the best, altough maybe not available, as it is only for premium customer. Then QX6700 would be just as good.

Forget about AMD on the high-end until they release their next generation cpu (Barcelona) that won't be available for at least another 3 months, and probably more.

For the chipset/mobo equation. Get any mobo that use the P965 chipset. I personally use the Asus P5B Deluxe and have only good words for it.

And about memory. The more the better when video encoding is considered. I personally use 4GB (4*1GB) of total memory (on Vista Home Premium 64-bit) since last week-end. Everything feels faster, and video encoding IS slightly faster on Roxio Media Creaton 9. I'll even go for more when 2*2GB memory set will be available at a good price, I guess same time next year :twisted: .

In the mid-range category, I'd go for the E6600 (the one I use) OR A64X2 that sells for about the same price. I personally prefer the E6600 for it's overclocking potential (I easily do 3.0Ghz at below 41C under load at all time and would do way more if I didn't shoot for long-term stability). You might try the A62X2 6000+ for it's potential to use Barcelona when it's available in 3-6 months from now. This is assuming it's gonna surpass the E6600 overclocked, which might very well be the case.
a c 473 à CPUs
May 9, 2007 10:17:59 PM

Although Penryn (Conroe's successor) is not out yet, it will have SSE4 instructions. The next version of DivX (v6.6) is rumored to support SSE4 which should make make video encoding on the Penryn faster than both current Core 2 Duo and Athlon 64 CPUs.

However, if you cannot wait for Penryn to come out later this year and you have a big enough budget, the C2D E6600 is the best CPU to get because it is very overclockable. If overclocking is not your thing, then get the E6700.

If you are on a budget, then an Athlon 64 X2 is a better choice.
May 9, 2007 10:41:23 PM

Quote:
I can't believe someone comes here and asks for advice on "the best video-encoding CPU" and someone actually recomended the 5600+? Oh dear, what is THG forums comming to?
The X2 5600 is the best for AM2 with stock DDR2-800 ram. We believed that he might also have budget restraints and we like to give options. If he's a soccer dad just doing some home movies it's likely the 5600+ would suit him fine. So you see buddy, just because someone says "the best" doesn't mean it's not "the best within reason" Spending money on Quad FX or something would just be stupid for anyone who doesn't have their retirement portfolio well underway.
May 10, 2007 3:54:40 AM

He did say that he wanted to encode HD video and was thinking of buying a capture card that costs ~$3000, so probably any X2 CPU is not a good option.

The ideal setup would be to get a dual socket motherboard with 2 quad-core Xeon 2.66Ghz CPUs. I think windows media encoder 9 scales well with the number of cores.
May 10, 2007 9:25:03 AM

Woohoo, a lot of CPU advice here.

So I'll stick to the choice of the Core2Quad processor. But can anyone agree with the choice of the mainboard ?

Intel D975XBX2

Thx
May 10, 2007 9:57:21 AM

If money is no issue,then purchase the CXQ cpu from INTEL.But if it is an issue,then purchase the AM2 5600 or 6000+.Bothe processors perform just fine for encoding.And their price per performance is really good.

Dahak

AMD X2-4400+@2.6 TOLEDO
EVGA NF4 SLI MB
2X EVGA 7950GT KO IN SLI
4X 512MB CRUCIAL BALLISTIX DDR500
WD300GIG HD/SAMSUNG 250GIG HD
ACER 22IN WIDESCREEN LCD 1600X1200
THERMALTAKE TOUGHPOWER 850WATT PSU
COOLERMASTER MINI R120
3DMARK05 13,471
May 10, 2007 10:00:29 AM

Works for me.If you really want to know about hardware,you need to look up specs and then go to the forums,like here.Intel does have some awesome chipsets that work very well with the cpu and the rest of the system.

Dahak

AMD X2-4400+@2.6 TOLEDO
EVGA NF4 SLI MB
2X EVGA 7950GT KO IN SLI
4X 512MB CRUCIAL BALLISTIX DDR500
WD300GIG HD/SAMSUNG 250GIG HD
ACER 22IN WIDESCREEN LCD 1600X1200
THERMALTAKE TOUGHPOWER 850WATT PSU
COOLERMASTER MINI R120
3DMARK05 13,471
a c 111 à CPUs
May 10, 2007 2:40:39 PM

Quote:
Woohoo, a lot of CPU advice here.

So I'll stick to the choice of the Core2Quad processor. But can anyone agree with the choice of the mainboard ?

Intel D975XBX2

Thx


By all means . . .go ahead :roll:

...but you are making a huge mistake . . .
May 10, 2007 2:44:48 PM

Quote:
Woohoo, a lot of CPU advice here.

So I'll stick to the choice of the Core2Quad processor. But can anyone agree with the choice of the mainboard ?

Intel D975XBX2

Thx


By all means . . .go ahead :roll:

...but you are making a huge mistake . . .

How, exactly?

Last I checked, the C2D has single cycle SSE execution, making it well suited for video ENCODING applications.
May 10, 2007 11:24:32 PM

I think too he should go with an E6600. I'd recommend that to just about anyone now. It's tite and a good buy. If he wants to upgrade later on he can. There will be faster and cheaper procs out than any of Intel's current quads. Besides, I don't think Xeon is all that great, especially for anyone who doesn't need a SERVER. :-) This is a soccer dad, not an entrepreneur who desires the latest and greatest untested tech. Even if he is Mr. Moneybags he probably wants to buy sensibly. Most super high end processors aren't really a good deal for anyone. An E6600 will impress him over any computer he's seen before regardless. Right now it's the fast mainstream processor of choice. OR the X2 5600. They are similar, the 5600 is a bit cheaper but not as fast. Either choice is sound advice.
a c 111 à CPUs
May 11, 2007 12:27:40 PM

As noted in this thread the OP has selected a highly scalable high-end video capture card/system noted for its ability to output multiple streams in multiple formats at multiple bitrates for each input channel. If he is a ** soccer dad** he needs to consider other alternatives.

With the exception of an entry level card, Osprey's require PCIx - not available on the Intel D975XBX2. That's why I noted the PCIx slots in my first post above. I think this summer or fall a high-end osprey PCIe will be available (probably driving down the cost of those *X* cards - LOL)

I don't particularly care what cpu he uses but I think he is looking at an enterprise workstation/server solution versus a desktop solution if he is using a ViewCast product. That said . . .

Multi-core cpu's offer speed gains in video encoding but increases in efficiency tend not to be linear when scaled. *Doubling cores* with a quad is not going to reduce encoding time by 50%.

Intel's quad-core designs put two dual-core dies on a single socket. In a matter on months this technology will be surpassed by both Intel and AMD with native quad core deisigns - Barcelona & Tigerton.

Intell's 2X *dual-core dies* must communicate with each other over an increasingly taxed front-side bus. They have effectively acknowledged this with their plans for CSI. Without knowing the OP's roadmap we can't really advise.

If he is going to be capturing 6 streams, editing, encoding, building DVD's, running PhotoShop & After Effects - the ultimate media-multitasker - NUMA and the AMD on-die memory controller with WinV64 running High-Def H.264 codecs in Premiere Pro works for me . . .

. . . especially with a Barcelona/Phenom upgrade path!
a c 111 à CPUs
May 11, 2007 2:22:01 PM

That's a good looking start - :) 

Let us know how the rack turns out . . .
a c 111 à CPUs
May 11, 2007 2:30:24 PM

Oh . . . .I forgot . . .

Quote:
he reason that I prefer Intel is that in the future we would like to use it for Adobe Media Encoder and I still believe that Intel & Adobe are more friends then Adobe & AMD


I run Adobe on 2-way dual socket Intel and 4-way dual socket AMD rigs . . .

Adobe don't discriminate . .. as long as your money is GREEN
May 11, 2007 4:57:49 PM

Quote:
Wisecracker,


This machine has to encode live full HD video on the fly :) 

Anyway, the mainboard is not what we need then as we allready bought the Multibridge card :s
http://www.blackmagic-design.com/products/multibridge/


If you want to encode video on the fly you probably do want quad, but what we're telling you is that price/performance wise it isn't worth it yet. You can upgrade probably within a year to a much better chip for less and in the meantime do fine with a Core2Duo or X2. But damn, if you're spending that kind of money on hardware...go for the new 45nm quads they day they come out.
a c 111 à CPUs
May 11, 2007 7:22:43 PM

I imagine that the **Blackmagic** will capture and encode multiple streams **on the fly** in and is capable of all types of up/down conversions in real time. I'm not familiar with it but it's a great name - - :)  - so I'm not sure what type of stream conversions you will be dealing.

Real-time conversion of those streams is an entirely different matter. Adobe has a new line coming out this summer for High-Def H.264 conversions. After all the *voodoo you do** it is highly HIGHLY unlikely that your final encode will be anywhere close to 1:1 regardless of the cpu you choose.

Win Encoder 64-bit will use 4 threads. I'm not sure about the new Adobe. I'm sure it will be sweet with every cutting edge codec available recognizing multiple threads - as it does now. I'm saving up for my upgrades . . . Don't know about a 64-bit version and Real Media encoding upgrades in Premiere..

Quick time encoding is currently only two threads - I imagine Adobe may change that - LOL - (or it will cost you in another upgrade in six months , , , )
!