Would a 1090t or a i-7 990x or i-7 2600x make encoding times faster?

Hello all, I have been aganizing over this and since i have never had a Intel processor i cant compare, I have googled around and found some benchmarks but not enought for me to make a decision, so i come here you.

Presently i have a 1090t with 16GB DDR3 (13333) on a ASRock 890 motherboard.

I will be doing a lot of heavy video encoding, nothing fancy just home videos that are in both SD and HD. I will be spitting merging and re-encoding. I will be using either sony vegas or Ulead programs. I dont want to get premiere as i am not getting that detailed. I just want to make some home movies of the family.

I will be re- encoding to and from the following

HD to HD (50%) (home movies)
bluray rips to Ipod formats (bluray to ipod/iphone formats) (25%)
HD to Standard Video (blueray to regualr DVD) (so my kids can watch TV in the car) (25%)

Like most people i don’t have money growing out my ears, but I am willing to pony up the money to rebuild my system if it will make a big difference in ENCODING TIMES.

so my ? is this,

If I build a new i-7 2600k or the more expensive i-7 990x system will i see a big time saver in encoding times. I would be also putting in 24 GB of ddr3 triple channel and a gtx 580 video card. (heck the way i see it is if you are going high end then do it all the way). So far i am at about $3000 for the new i-7 990xsystem and 1800 for the I-2600x.

I am not worried about much else except the encoding times. In the past before i had a 6 core chip my encoding times were so long that i just gave up and decided to wait till a faster chip came out, then the 1090T came out, so i got it. I really have not had that much time to do video encoding since then and now the i-7 chips are out and i have more time to start doing this, So i am asking my self is it worth it to upgrade?

I will not use this machine for gaming only video editing and encoding. Secondary use will be a HTPC that i have built before and i know that no matter what set up i choose it will support it.

so what do ya think, 1090t or upgrade to save time on encoding.

I have seen benchmarks that the i-7 chips can make the jog about 25-35% faster, but i wanted to see if anyone else has any real world experience.

thanks all
16 answers Last reply
More about would 1090t 990x 2600x make encoding times faster
  1. With that kind of money, you can always look to build yourself a dual processor rig which will surely enhance performance with the CPU intensive tasks such as encoding.. Also, you need not purchase a video card as high end as the GTX 580 for those purposes..
  2. Emperus said:
    With that kind of money, you can always look to build yourself a dual processor rig which will surely enhance performance with the CPU intensive tasks such as encoding.. Also, you need not purchase a video card as high end as the GTX 580 for those purposes..


    Emperus said:
    With that kind of money, you can always look to build yourself a dual processor rig which will surely enhance performance with the CPU intensive tasks such as encoding.. Also, you need not purchase a video card as high end as the GTX 580 for those purposes..



    so the 580 is overkill? maybe a 570 or even 480?

    I need to sav money where i can but not to the point that i dont want to skimp.

    A duel processer rig i have beenlooking at but one issue i have been finding i the lack of SATA 6 Ports, I can always add in a SATA 6 controller card. if i were to do a duel processer system what would it be? I cannot afford 2 xeon interl chips. $3000 is a lot of money for me, this comes from my excess savings account that took a couple of years to save up for things such as this, a lawn mower, ect..

    I also like to upgrade every couple of years.

    If i do this then i will have to build a whole new system.

    Again my main concern is VIDEO ENCODING TIMES vs Getting the fastest encoding system with the least amount of money, or just keeping my own current setup?

    thanks
  3. i7 990x no doubt.
    video editing needs more core, more memory, good gpu.
    990x has 6 core 12 threads, triple channel memory(more memory support) plus an evga gtx550 series.
    sandy bridge's speed wont do much in apps that require more memory, its more of a gaming cpu.
    990x will run multi threaded apps like video editing and animation much stable because of more core and more memory support(triple channel).
  4. I actually prefer Vegas to Premiere. I like to do most of my editing on the timeline. I'd stick with your 1090t--you won't get significant improvements to render times that will justify the expense unless you move to multiple CPUs (you could recycle the 1090t and get a dual cpu workstation board and add a second 1090t giving you 12 cores). Vegas will also let you use additional computers on your network to render with With the budget you've got you could potentially get an additional license and build a small, ad hoc, render farm with cheap, stripped down, AMD computers.

    Anyway, the only real way to decrease render times is to throw more cpu cores at the problem.
  5. Please read this article.. It should be able to clear most of your doubts -

    www.anandtech.com/show/4083
  6. The i7's are noticeably faster than the 1090t - by a good third, without overclocking... the new i7-2600k would be a lot cheaper than the 990X without being much if any slower.

    http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1501/15/

    The issue is not all features are able to make use of all cores all the time. If you know exactly how Vegas nd Ulead perform on the features you are looking for, you can optimize your system for those capabilities.

    If you want a faster system then either the 990x or the 2600k will do the trick especially if you make use of their overclocking capabilites. The 2600k will cost a little less which you could put towards more RAM or SSD's (which REALLY help).
  7. hmmm a duel 1090t would be worth considering, I need to see what duel processer boards are out ther for duel 1090T.

    vvhocare5 you are correct in i should optimize the program i am using, the issue with that is i have used ulead only, i am not that happy with them, but i do like thier simplicity. I have found lack of encoding to toher devices though. I also use a series of programs called AVS4U. I have been been pretty impressed with them.

    I dont have a lot of time to spend on making my vids fancy or learning a new program such as premire. I really just want a simple but versitle editing program that i can use, then look at the system around that. VEGAS seems to be poping up alot from different sources i have found.

    my head wants to explode sometimes, always a give and take it seems like.

    I will read the articles you guys have posted and see if those helps.

    I have a bad habit of going overkill on things, I dont buy alot of things but when i do i go big, and sometimes to big. I dont want to overspend but also not underperform on this.
  8. ^^ what vvhocare5 says is true in almost all cases save rendering video in Vegas using a professional codec. Rendering is one of the few applications that can be distributed to multiple cores almost perfectly. It's physical core count that matters, not available threads. Physical core count has a greater impact on the time a render takes than even the speed of the individual cores. (this assumes that you are rendering reasonably complex projects as individual scenes and transitions can be divided among different cores).

    I encourage you to read the help section about network rendering in Vegas (since you have the software). It may clarify how rendering jobs are divided among cores, cpus and worksations.
  9. vvhocare5 said:
    The i7's are noticeably faster than the 1090t - by a good third, without overclocking... the new i7-2600k would be a lot cheaper than the 990X without being much if any slower.

    http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1501/15/

    The issue is not all features are able to make use of all cores all the time. If you know exactly how Vegas nd Ulead perform on the features you are looking for, you can optimize your system for those capabilities.

    If you want a faster system then either the 990x or the 2600k will do the trick especially if you make use of their overclocking capabilites. The 2600k will cost a little less which you could put towards more RAM or SSD's (which REALLY help).



    vvhocare5 that link is most impressive, it looks like on average the 2600 will beat my current 1090t by nearly 1/2 the time. That is certinly enought to justify to spend the money on a 2600k upgrade.

    Its too bad that it does not have the 980 or 990 x on there to compare it to. I will go a google check to see 2600k vs 980x or 990x for video encoding times, but @1/3 the price the 2600 might be the way for me to go so far as i can get a awsome system for under 1500 vs 3000 and upgrade a few other things instead. If there is not that much difference with the 2600k to the 980x or 990x then i am pretty sure i will upgrade to at least the 2600k, after i take a look at what a duel 1090t would look like or cost.

    you know any good links that test 2600k to a 970x 980x or 990x for encoding?
  10. Well its looking more and more like the 2600k is the best bang for the buck.

    http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/core-i7-990x-extreme-edition-gulftown,2874-9.html

    shows that the 990x is a bit better in encoding but only by 8%
    2600k beats my current 1090t by over 40% as they dont even test the 1090t but the 1100T so mine is even slower. Based on a few other benchmarks i saw it look like the the average incoding time between the 2600k and the 1090t is 1/2, yes 1/2 the time.

    the 2600k vs the 990x shows slight improvement but not much between 5-10% better but the cost for me to get the 990x is about 3000-3500 total, vs 1300-1700 for the 2600k top of the line.

    I will do more looking but it looks like 2600k is turning out to be the winner so far
  11. I'd say wait until intel's new cpus come out or even bulldozer. That i7 990x won't be top for much longer and for that amount of money I definitely say wait with the 1090 for a few months
  12. I'd also say to wait for bulldozer or sbe since you already have a 1090t.
  13. I think you are on the right track with the 2600k. There is a marked improvement over your current setup and the price is still very reasonable. Who's to say how much BD will cost and no one knows if it will even be faster than SB...
  14. can any one chime in if encoding with 16 gb ddr3 1333 duel channel vs 24 gb ddr3 2000 triple channel memory make any difference?

    that will help me deterimine what chip set to go with.
  15. If at all, demanding applications will gain more advantage with lower CAS timings compared to higher clock speeds.. IMO, memory operating at 1600 MHz with 8-8-8-24 timings are better.. That gives you headroom for overclocking the CPU also..
Ask a new question

Read More

CPUs Encoding