Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

SSD for video converting???

Last response: in CPUs
Share
December 18, 2009 9:56:44 AM

So I was all set to buy a new i7 920 with EVGA 4sli classified mother board, throw 12 gb 1600mhz of ram into antec 1200 tower when i started trying to figure out hard drives...then ssd's...my eyes are burning!!! I practically live on this site reading day in and day out, review after review...I need some advice...

I just want something to rip video fast! I have several Tb's of mkv movies that I want to convert down to mp4 to play portably. I would like to know if buy a raptor, or ssd along with the i7 would help or if it would even make a difference.

1 movie = about 5-8 Gb and takes about an hour using anyvideoconverter (free edition)

If i put some movies onto a ssd...the have it set to convert to another ssd...with the i7...would it be any faster? Or would regular old 7200rpm drives do the trick?

Thanks in advance...I can't wait to see the opinions i get...

More about : ssd video converting

Best solution

December 18, 2009 10:06:32 AM

jdr004 said:
So I was all set to buy a new i7 920 with EVGA 4sli classified mother board, throw 12 gb 1600mhz of ram into antec 1200 tower when i started trying to figure out hard drives...then ssd's...my eyes are burning!!! I practically live on this site reading day in and day out, review after review...I need some advice...

I just want something to rip video fast! I have several Tb's of mkv movies that I want to convert down to mp4 to play portably. I would like to know if buy a raptor, or ssd along with the i7 would help or if it would even make a difference.

1 movie = about 5-8 Gb and takes about an hour using anyvideoconverter (free edition)

If i put some movies onto a ssd...the have it set to convert to another ssd...with the i7...would it be any faster? Or would regular old 7200rpm drives do the trick?

Thanks in advance...I can't wait to see the opinions i get...


Regular hard disks will do the trick and may well even be faster, ripping movies is almost certainly CPU limited not hdd limited and given it typically involves large files and sequential reads only the very best SSDs will give a hdd a run for its money and then at a fraction of the capacity. I've been using samsung Spinpoint F3s in my computers for the last year or so and have been very pleased with the performance and price.

Depending on the GPU you're fitting in your system it will be worth investigating GPU based video encoders as they're typically much faster than their CPU based equivalents, either Badaboom for Nvidia/CUDA cards or AVIVO for ATI
Share
December 18, 2009 2:58:31 PM

So having a good GPU will aid in video conversion? And thanks for the advice about ssd's. So a raptor would still be a better choice over regular cavair black? I read in a post on here somewhere that they are ALMOST comparable even at the higher speed.
m
0
l
Related resources
December 18, 2009 3:41:32 PM

15k scsi cheetah. get a small 60GB model.
m
0
l
December 18, 2009 3:53:44 PM

"1 movie = about 5-8 Gb and takes about an hour using anyvideoconverter (free edition) "

I was just thinking about this. Your harddrives must be really slow or anyvideoconverter must not be that good.

I can compress a 1920x1080(1080p) FRAPS video stream about 110fps with my 920 i7(compressed to another 1080p stream). I use xvid and set it to max quality. The resulting compressed video looks REALLY nice.

Movies are 30fps, so 110fps should compress a 60 minute movie in ~16 minutes. That's for a BlueRay quality movie. If you have only DvD quality movies, then it should be even faster, ma'b 8 minutes per 60 minutes of movie.

I'm not sure how it takes an hour for one movie unless it's all 3 Lord of the Rings on BlueRay.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
December 18, 2009 3:55:49 PM

jdr004 said:
So having a good GPU will aid in video conversion? And thanks for the advice about ssd's. So a raptor would still be a better choice over regular cavair black? I read in a post on here somewhere that they are ALMOST comparable even at the higher speed.


If got either Nvidia cuda compatible GPU card or an ATI stream compatible gpu card (to make it simple, it's all gpgpu) and the program to use the tech, then that will be the better and faster than any of the most powerful cpus of today. It would only take mins to an hour under normal video editing/converting.

For ssd's, You would see a boost in speed, mainly due to no moving parts. although i would recommend a HDD for a few reason:

1. SSD have a limit write cycle. meaning if you keep putting stuff on it (like videos) and taking them off, ect. You'll start to lose storage space due to the blocks in the ssd wearing out.

2. with videos, you want lots of storage. SSD with large capacity are expensive. While HDD are cheap.

Comparison at same price
Intel ssd 80GB http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
WD caviar black 2tb http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

As for HDD choice, if you can find them i would get the WD caviar black 2tb as it's the same speed as the raptor
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
December 18, 2009 4:08:01 PM

Kewlx25 said:
"1 movie = about 5-8 Gb and takes about an hour using anyvideoconverter (free edition) "

I was just thinking about this. Your harddrives must be really slow or anyvideoconverter must not be that good.

I can compress a 1920x1080(1080p) FRAPS video stream about 110fps with my 920 i7(compressed to another 1080p stream). I use xvid and set it to max quality. The resulting compressed video looks REALLY nice.

Movies are 30fps, so 110fps should compress a 60 minute movie in ~16 minutes. That's for a BlueRay quality movie. If you have only DvD quality movies, then it should be even faster, ma'b 8 minutes per 60 minutes of movie.

I'm not sure how it takes an hour for one movie unless it's all 3 Lord of the Rings on BlueRay.

The op does not have the speed of a i7920 like you right now and also those MKV movies probably have a DTS audio track , that probably is converted to stereo mp3 inside his mp4 container adding at least 20% more work.
m
0
l
December 18, 2009 4:34:55 PM

Thanks for all the replies. I'm still gonna go with the i7 as $300 isn't really a bad price compared to the other options. I never in a million years would have thought to buy a video card for my video conversion! I've always cheaped out on cards or used on board because I don't game or do anything with them. But a whole new light has been shone on me! I'm assuming the higher (more expensive) the card that faster processing results i'll receive. EX GTX 220 vs GTX 295.
m
0
l
December 18, 2009 4:48:36 PM

notty22 said:
The op does not have the speed of a i7920 like you right now and also those MKV movies probably have a DTS audio track , that probably is converted to stereo mp3 inside his mp4 container adding at least 20% more work.


This is where I got lost I guess

"So I was all set to buy a new i7 920 with EVGA 4sli classified mother board, throw 12 gb 1600mhz of ram
[...]I just want something to rip video fast! I have several Tb's of mkv movies that I want to convert
[...]1 movie = about 5-8 Gb and takes about an hour using anyvideoconverter [..]"

He jumps from saying he's going to get an i7 with 12GB of ram and then states it takes 1 hour to compress a movie. This threw me off since it won't/shouldn't take 1 hour one he gets his new machine.

My bad.

"[...]those MKV movies probably have a DTS audio track , that probably is converted to stereo mp3 inside his mp4 container adding at least 20% more work"

Forgot my FRAPS didn't have audio set to record. good point.

Still, an i7 is crazy fast for these things and it will/should be no where near 1 hour per movie ONCE he gets his new machine.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
December 18, 2009 8:53:36 PM

jdr004 said:
Thanks for all the replies. I'm still gonna go with the i7 as $300 isn't really a bad price compared to the other options. I never in a million years would have thought to buy a video card for my video conversion! I've always cheaped out on cards or used on board because I don't game or do anything with them. But a whole new light has been shone on me! I'm assuming the higher (more expensive) the card that faster processing results i'll receive. EX GTX 220 vs GTX 295.


You are correct Higher the number normally means better gpu. Although what graphic card do you have? If you have:

ATI gpu from this list: (sorry having trouble finding a better list if there is one)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD_FireStream#AMD_stream_...

or

Nvidia gpu:
http://www.nvidia.com/object/cuda_learn_products.html

Then you have everything set to run on gpgpu programs.
m
0
l
December 18, 2009 9:08:15 PM

I actually don't have any video card at the moment...not in any of the systems i've built. They just haven't been "necessary" to me up until now...Do any of you know if there's going to be a huge difference in processing power with an expensive card ($600) to a more entry level card ($200 - $350)
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
December 18, 2009 9:34:29 PM

this page is hard to find. its the low bandwith version of Cuda section. There is a table to show you , how Cuda enhancements with the video transcoder badaboom
http://www.nvidia.com/content/graphicsplus/us/landing/m...


--------------------------Video Transcoding
-----------------GamePerf --------------PhysX™ 3D

GeForce GTX 280 5.9 ------- 2.4 ------------2.8
GeForce GTX 260 5.1--------2.2-------------2.6
GeForce 9800 GTX 3.8 ------ 2.1 -------------2.3
GeForce 9800 GT 3.0--------2.4-------------1.3
GeForce 9600 GT 2.4------- 1.3 ------------1.8
GeForce 9500 GT 1.0 -------1.0------------- 1.0

I would count more on the benefits of fast memory and cpu to encode than spending money on the GPU unless you game as well. GPU's aren't cheap, but this is a nice extra benefit.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
December 18, 2009 9:44:51 PM

jdr004 said:
I actually don't have any video card at the moment...not in any of the systems i've built. They just haven't been "necessary" to me up until now...Do any of you know if there's going to be a huge difference in processing power with an expensive card ($600) to a more entry level card ($200 - $350)


That i can not answer this very well as i dont have first hand experience with this tech.

Although what i will say is for nvidia cards as from what i have seen the more "Cuda cores" there are the better than faster cores.

For the a good gpgpu card (from nvidia), i would recommend GTX 275 for the performance and price.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=E...


The gtx 275, 280, and 285 all have 240 cuda cores, just different speeds.

The gtx 295 is a dual gpu card and it has 480 (240 x 2) cores but this is expensive (like $500 or somewhere close.)


I cant recommend a good gpgpu card from ATI as i have no clue about the card for your need but im sure some one else could do that. (maybe the graphic card section of the fourms can be better than i am. (cpu here :lol:  ))


Hope this helps.
m
0
l
a c 315 à CPUs
December 18, 2009 10:39:22 PM

The SSD is not a good device today for file processing. The problem is that many fast writes will overwhelm the capability of the underlying flash chip to store data.

I think your best option is to use two good conventional hard drives. Use one for the input source, and another for the output. If you have 4 drives, then raid-0 two for input, and two for output. The process can be sped up even more if you use a discrete hardware based raid card.

The 300gb velociraptor is very good, but the newer 1tb drives are cloce and have much more capacity.

There are some enterprise drives that will do even beter. The metric to look at is the maximum sustained data transfer rate. That info is found on the drive specification document found on the manufacturer's web site.
m
0
l
December 29, 2009 1:54:36 PM

Hey all...I just received an email asking me to select the best answer...The answers and support that I got from this site were all good...They gave me a variety of different options (lots of which i'd never even considered before) I wanted to thank everyone who contributed to this thread and hopefully no one is offended with the "best answer" because as I said there would definitely be more than one. Thanks again......JR (p.s i'll be back once i'm ready to over clock my system :p  ) LOL
m
0
l
December 30, 2009 1:34:05 PM

I agree with the concensus -- you can't go wrong with a couple (or more) of 7200 rpm drives in R0 for processing (consider something with redundancy if you want long term storage).

Regarding GPU, don't get mislead by the comments here. There are only a couple of applications on the market today that will actually utilize the GPU for encoding. While this is truly the future, it isn't quite standard in applications today. Badaboom has impressive performance, but it's locked to nVidia and the output is often garbage. I haven't tried the ATI option because it requires an AMD proc. Now, advantages for decoding on GPU can be realized today, but even a basic Intel GMA 4500 should be sufficient for this.

A cheap video card (GT 220) would work for now, or if you want a future proof option, go for something with DirectX 11 support like an HD5750. Don't overspend on something that doesn't have DirectX 11 and/or OpenCL support. Even then, I'm not aware of apps today that utilize this.

I am running an i7-860 and encoding is pretty quick without the GPU, but it all depends on having the right software and options for audio/video processing. If your software isn't utilizing all cores, get something else.

-Skiz
m
0
l
!