Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Best configuration for video rendering

Last response: in Systems
Share
December 4, 2011 10:17:35 AM

Hello,
I'm a video maker that use program like Avid studio or Adobe premiere to make some film about family or working stuff.
I like using effects and lost of transistion.
I play also some games on my computer like crysis 1 or 2.

I have an actual configuration that doesnt suits well for making video film.
I thought this configuration will suits well for this kind of operation, but actually everything is slow when I open my pinnacle program to render a film. Even when just working with the timeline is slow to render.

My config is:
Asus P5K Deluxe with DualCore Intel Core 2 Duo E6700, 2666 MHz.
Ram is Dual DDR2 SDRAM 4Gb.
My graphic card is a Asus EN8800GTX with 768Mb.


So i figured out to by new strong components.

i was looking for this configuration.

motherboard: Asus Z8NA-D6 (1366)
cpu: 2 x Intel Xeon E5502
ram: Kingston ValueRAM DDR3 PC3-10600 ECC - 2x12 GB Kit
graphic card: PNY Quadro 2000 (PCIe 16x).

But when i found the price for the whole, waouww...
I'm not that rich just right now. ;-(

Maybe This will be my christmas gift! ;-)

Has anybody helpfull advice if this config will suit well or to well or not enough may be ?

Thanks for help and tips.

Michael
December 4, 2011 11:12:59 AM

those xeons are slow compared to say for instance a stock 2600K (twice the clockspeed), the SB-E processors are a quicker than Sandy Bridge, but perhaps not by much, have a look at toms Sandy Bridge E review from a few weeks ago.

an overclocked (and its not difficult) 2600K could take you to 3x clockspeed of those xeons, on a more efficient architecture. RAM is cheap, so make sure you have a board that can cope with 16GB and you'll have the best you can have now. The other possibility is to look at what acceleration pinnacle can use, can it use CUDA, in which case get a great big nvidia card too. If it demands quadro, then you are stuck with quadro unless you want to try bios editting an nividia gaming card, note that quadro's don't always game well (cysis is very hungry), due to driver optimisations.

Oh! and the xeons are dual core, whereas the 2600K is quad with 4 additional hyperthreaded cores. And as it uses a std mobo it'll be cheaper. What sort of cost were you looking at?
Score
0
December 4, 2011 11:34:50 AM

13thmonkey said:
those xeons are slow compared to say for instance a stock 2600K (twice the clockspeed), the SB-E processors are a quicker than Sandy Bridge, but perhaps not by much, have a look at toms Sandy Bridge E review from a few weeks ago.

an overclocked (and its not difficult) 2600K could take you to 3x clockspeed of those xeons, on a more efficient architecture. RAM is cheap, so make sure you have a board that can cope with 16GB and you'll have the best you can have now. The other possibility is to look at what acceleration pinnacle can use, can it use CUDA, in which case get a great big nvidia card too. If it demands quadro, then you are stuck with quadro unless you want to try bios editting an nividia gaming card, note that quadro's don't always game well (cysis is very hungry), due to driver optimisations.

Oh! and the xeons are dual core, whereas the 2600K is quad with 4 additional hyperthreaded cores. And as it uses a std mobo it'll be cheaper. What sort of cost were you looking at?


Thanks. that was quick.

i have never done overclocked, but if you say it's simple, i will get a try... I will look for a website unless you know a good one ;-)

I was regarding for something about 200-300$ max (graphic card and memory). and another 400$ max for mobo and cpu.

About your phrase (
Quote:
xeons are dual core
):
I thought xeon was quad core (Socket LGA1366 - Quad Core - 1.86 GHz - QPI @ 4.8 GT/s - 4 MB L3 Cache - 80W )?

So if i understand, i have to find a graphic card that can match game and movie rendering. I have read a lot about difference between having a good motherboard and a good graphic card. Where dealing with rendering is more a cpu cost than having good gddr memory in graphic card.
I'm not making a film like George Lucas, but dealing with effect (video rendering) takes a lot from the graphic card...?






Score
0
Related resources
December 4, 2011 11:38:41 AM

My mobo can only hold 8Gb RAM, so i will surely change it!
Score
0
December 4, 2011 11:46:06 AM

400 bux... hmm if you already had the x58 motherboard then i would say get a 950 that should outperform the xeon and will cost less than half your 400 budget. or you could get a sandy part with a cheap motherboard and ram and just scrape 400.
i know a cheap motherboard isnt ideal but it will at least allow you to get it up and running. even with lesser parts it will out perform the xeon by some way...
300 for gfx will get you a very nice card indeed. shop about and you could get a deal on a custom 570 which would out perform any quadro and pulverise the 1 you have listed. in most tests, so perfect for your needs.
seriously m8 unless you need the programmability and x64 antialiasing and extreme settings like that then forget quadro. there over priced for what you get by a long long way if your joe public.

the 1 you have listed is a 300+ part but if you bought its comparable gaming part the gtx 260 you would pay about 70 for it and all you would have to do is flash its bios as they are pretty much exactly the same (as far as i know) so you would be throwing 230 away on nothing.
Score
0
December 4, 2011 12:06:15 PM

HEXiT said:
400 bux... hmm if you already had the x58 motherboard then i would say get a 950 that should outperform the xeon and will cost less than half your 400 budget. or you could get a sandy part with a cheap motherboard and ram and just scrape 400.
i know a cheap motherboard isnt ideal but it will at least allow you to get it up and running. even with lesser parts it will out perform the xeon by some way...
300 for gfx will get you a very nice card indeed. shop about and you could get a deal on a custom 570 which would out perform any quadro in most tests, so perfect for your needs.

dont forget you need things like psu and Hdd's too...


thanks!
yes, i have 4 raptor 300Gb (10000rpm) and a nice 550W from Antec. That should be good. ;-)

I havent bought anything now. I will begin tommorow to have the whole thing before christmas.

So Can this be a good conclusion to what you said both:

mobo: a goodASRock X58 like the Extreme3 (socket 1366).
cpu: Core i7-960
ram: 16Gb: (pc3-12800) Corsair XMS3 DDR3 PC3-10600 Classic (4x4 GB)
graphic: quadro (fx570 entry) or good gforce 570

the whole for about (200+300+120+300) = 920.--


is this correct for my needs ?

Thanks.





C

Score
0
December 4, 2011 12:21:29 PM

if you are buying new then don't use 1366 board, use a Z68 1155 socket board? 1366 is a dead socket, if you already had one then upgrade, but buying new, there's no point.

I checked on intel ARK http://ark.intel.com/products/37092/Intel-Xeon-Processo...(4M-Cache-1_86-GHz-4_80-GTs-Intel-QPI) it claims they are a slow dual core.
Score
0
December 4, 2011 12:24:01 PM

This topic has been moved from the section CPU & Components to section Systems by Mousemonkey
Score
0
December 4, 2011 1:26:38 PM

13thmonkey said:
if you are buying new then don't use 1366 board, use a Z68 1155 socket board? 1366 is a dead socket, if you already had one then upgrade, but buying new, there's no point.

I checked on intel ARK http://ark.intel.com/products/37092/Intel-Xeon-Processo...(4M-Cache-1_86-GHz-4_80-GTs-Intel-QPI) it claims they are a slow dual core.

Ok. Thanks for the tip. I thought I had also read about this... So I will look forward a 1155. ;-).

Score
0
December 4, 2011 1:27:14 PM

Mousemonkey said:
This topic has been moved from the section CPU & Components to section Systems by Mousemonkey

ok. thanks.
Score
0
December 4, 2011 1:34:18 PM

The Reasoning behind Z68, is that it allows access to overclocking (easily 4.0 Ghz by changing the multiplier (no voltage increase required)). And quick synch which is good for video transcoding with the right software, not much supports it right now, but that will improve I'm sure.
Score
0
December 4, 2011 1:44:37 PM

13thmonkey said:
The Reasoning behind Z68, is that it allows access to overclocking (easily 4.0 Ghz by changing the multiplier (no voltage increase required)). And quick synch which is good for video transcoding with the right software, not much supports it right now, but that will improve I'm sure.


Many thanks.

Just one last question: i have the opportunity to buy a ASROCK P67 Extreme4 Gen3 for a good price. Will this be also ok for overcloaking as easy as the z68?

Score
0
December 4, 2011 2:17:50 PM

I can't recall, there are three types of boards, Z lets you OC and use quicksync/video, and of the remaining two P and H one lets you use video and one lets you overclock. Can't recall which is which.
Score
0
December 4, 2011 2:20:30 PM

P67 lets you overclock. Unless you have a good use for Quick Sync (nobody has a good use for SSD caching, as it doesn't work very well), P67 is as good as Z68, and it's often a little cheaper. Go for that Extreme4.
Score
0
December 4, 2011 2:22:37 PM

Cool.
Real thanks to everyone on this one.

It's my first day here in Tomshardware. And I will surely come back to question or answer as it goes the both way ;-)

thanks to all...
Score
0

Best solution

December 4, 2011 2:22:49 PM

looks like P lets you overclock and H lets you use onboard GPU (its not very good really)

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/z68-express-lucidlogix-vi...
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/intel-z68-express-smart-r...
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/sandy-bridge-efficienct-3...
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/core-i7-3960x-x79-sandy-b...

Some articles to have a look at, the final article is to let you know what the extreme version of sandy is like (only a bit better than normal sandy)

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/Benchmarks-Intel-Ivy-Brid...
Ivy vs sandy, not much improvement, the big jumps are for the gpu, which will not be good enough hi-res gaming by the looks of it.

Share
December 4, 2011 2:24:19 PM

If it were not for you video work I'd agree with Kajabla, but quicksync is really really quick at transcoding, and it bound to be used by more software houses. And you cannot use it on the P range.
Score
0
December 4, 2011 2:44:58 PM

13thmonkey said:
If it were not for you video work I'd agree with Kajabla, but quicksync is really really quick at transcoding, and it bound to be used by more software houses. And you cannot use it on the P range.


Sounds I need a Z...
I have read all the posts. I come to another conclusion.
the mixing parameters of a good mobo and a good gfx is not always as good as it appears on the papers.
The gaming purpose is not that important for me. Better be good at rendering video in h.264 and those annoying transitions or effects with video editing tools.

So I will take a good z68 mobo with a quad core 2700 i7 cpu (2600 sounds resonable).

the hard stuff comes to the calculation between good ram (non ECC that are overcloakable easily) and a gfx that deals good timing with transitions and effects (Cpu doesnt deal a lot with theses).

Anyway, things are much much clear now in my head :pt1cable: 

Two thumbs up!
Score
0
December 4, 2011 2:55:50 PM

kajabla said:
P67 lets you overclock. Unless you have a good use for Quick Sync (nobody has a good use for SSD caching, as it doesn't work very well), P67 is as good as Z68, and it's often a little cheaper. Go for that Extreme4.

sounds that the transcoding to take advantage of the quick sync is only on mainboard unless you take a z cheapset that will benefit the gfx...





Score
0
December 4, 2011 3:03:36 PM

2600K for sure over 2700K The 2700K's just binned a little higher, so you can OC a little more, but you won't be pushing your CPU to the limit on air anyway. Sure, Z68 would work.
Score
0
December 4, 2011 4:00:00 PM

mikmouk said:
sounds that the transcoding to take advantage of the quick sync is only on mainboard unless you take a z cheapset that will benefit the gfx...


or a H where you cannot Overclock.
Score
0
December 4, 2011 4:04:54 PM

mikmouk said:
Sounds I need a Z...
I have read all the posts. I come to another conclusion.
the mixing parameters of a good mobo and a good gfx is not always as good as it appears on the papers.
The gaming purpose is not that important for me. Better be good at rendering video in h.264 and those annoying transitions or effects with video editing tools.

So I will take a good z68 mobo with a quad core 2700 i7 cpu (2600 sounds resonable).

the hard stuff comes to the calculation between good ram (non ECC that are overcloakable easily) and a gfx that deals good timing with transitions and effects (Cpu doesnt deal a lot with theses).

Anyway, things are much much clear now in my head :pt1cable: 

Two thumbs up!


Don't be concerned about memory, memory overlcocking is of minimal impact and is not required (unlike the old FSB days), all you do is increase the multiplier.

2600K is quite enough, as increasing the multi by 1 and you have a 2700K, thats it.

So the question is whats on the recommended/supported hardware list for your software with reagrds to GPU acceleration.

There was also a toms article on comparing the GPU accelerated transcoding and quicksync, image degradation was higher on GPU and slow than quicksync. Have a mooch around regarding news for your software and see if they do/will support it.

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/video-transcoding-amd-app...
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/video-transcoding-amd-app...

the 2nd was more interesting from memory, lots of reading I know, graphs and pictures tell the story.
Score
0
December 4, 2011 4:55:42 PM

13thmonkey said:
Don't be concerned about memory, memory overlcocking is of minimal impact and is not required (unlike the old FSB days), all you do is increase the multiplier.

2600K is quite enough, as increasing the multi by 1 and you have a 2700K, thats it.

So the question is whats on the recommended/supported hardware list for your software with reagrds to GPU acceleration.

There was also a toms article on comparing the GPU accelerated transcoding and quicksync, image degradation was higher on GPU and slow than quicksync. Have a mooch around regarding news for your software and see if they do/will support it.

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/video-transcoding-amd-app...
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/video-transcoding-amd-app...

the 2nd was more interesting from memory, lots of reading I know, graphs and pictures tell the story.


Well, to be sure, i read them all :whistle:  .
These are really interesting articles.

reading those one day before buying component, is a good choice. :sol: 
It has alter my decision.

I can clearly see the lines where I have to choose the material only regarding the "what i should use it for".

I my case, hardware acceleration will be the best choice because of the rendering. Cpu wont help me a lot.
Cpu will help me a lot when it comes time to click on "make the film". But this represent only 3% of the whole. I can do the film at night and go to sleep

So definitly, I will make an effort on the GPU.

It is a vendor problem (or market) to isolate a solution to render more quickly.

So to be sure i dont make mistake (not because I havent been nicely directed, but because of software and hardware incompatibility),
My step would be to first buy a good mobo (with quicksync) with a good cpu.

And then I will test the quicksync solution.

If this is not enough, i will go on a gpu.



:kaola: 



Score
0
December 4, 2011 5:03:42 PM

Clearly, this mobo is the best choice for the price:

Z68 Extreme4 Gen3.
The extreme7 doesnt overcome much on this).

I can only benefit of the quicksync+ hd3000 with a i7 2600k cpu.
So the cpu will be:
INTEL Quad Core i7-2600K 3.4GHz [ LGA1155 - 8MB - 32 nm ].

That will rock!!!
Score
0
December 4, 2011 5:17:24 PM

Agreed, 2500K will be a tad cheaper, but without the exra 4 cores which may be useful for your purposes.
Score
0
December 4, 2011 9:20:39 PM

^Not relevant to the decision, but the 2600K does NOT have eight cores. It has eight threads running on four cores.
Score
0
December 5, 2011 4:42:06 AM

kajabla said:
^Not relevant to the decision, but the 2600K does NOT have eight cores. It has eight threads running on four cores.


yes, i have noticed. thanks anyway. :hello: 

Score
0
December 5, 2011 5:12:03 AM

kajabla said:
^Not relevant to the decision, but the 2600K does NOT have eight cores. It has eight threads running on four cores.


i've referred to them being hyeprtheaded extra cores in previous posts I think. Not intended to represent these as being real cores.
Score
0
December 5, 2011 9:38:04 AM

13thmonkey said:
i've referred to them being hyeprtheaded extra cores in previous posts I think. Not intended to represent these as being real cores.


no worries... :D 
Score
0
December 12, 2011 8:25:10 AM

Best answer selected by mikmouk.
Score
0
February 26, 2012 5:29:14 PM

This topic has been closed by Mousemonkey
Score
0
!