Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Video editing CPU: 3770, 3770K or 3930K?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
May 21, 2012 5:35:45 PM

I will be using video editing program that does not utilize Quicksync.

The questions I have:

(1) Will 3930K with its six cores be faster than 3770, even though 3770 is newer? And if so how much faster?
(2) Is there anything useful in Ivy Bridge that 3930K is lacking?
(3) Can 3770K be OC'd with stock cooler with mainstraim Mobo and case?
(4) Is it possible to outfit 3770/K with more than 32GB, or is that a hard maximum?

Thanks!
a b à CPUs
May 21, 2012 6:43:58 PM

the question you really have to ask yourself first is what is the budget?

A 3930K will be a lot more than the 3770K. (and you seem to be thinking about a mainstream mobo, and not springing for anything beyond stock cooling) Cheap air can give you a good OC on a 3770K

Best solution

a b à CPUs
May 21, 2012 6:50:14 PM
Share

The 3930k is based on the socket 2011 X79 platform. X79 supports quad-channel memory and max 64gb. The 3770 uses the socket 1155 (multiple supporting chipsets), uses dual-channel memory and max 32gb.

1) Yes in any well multi-threaded memory-hungry application the 3930k will beat the 3770. In single-threaded apps the 3770 should have a slight lead. But for serious video-editing that doesn't use quick-sync, the 3930k with 6 cores will beat the 3770. Here's an old review using CineBench 10. Compare the 3930k with the 2600k (which will perform a little slower but similar to the 3770k) and note the differences in single-thread vs. multi-thread: http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Processors/Intel-Core-i7-3...

2) Quick Sync (due to the presence of the iGPU) - but you've said you don't need it. Native PCIe 3.0 support but X79 boards have plenty of PCI 2.0 lanes to negate that benefit.

3) Personally I have clocked a 3770k @4.0ghz on the Intel stock cooler and saw temperatures rise into the 90s at which point I stopped the IBT run. The cooler was also very loud. It was just a quick test on a breadboard using the pre-applied thermal interface material so I'm not claiming that to be a true test of the stock cooler.

But even if you get a 3770 (no k) you should spend $30 for a decent air cooler - Ivy gets hot. My 3770k ended up at 4.5ghz 1.285v and the same IBT test maxes @78c on a Corsair H80. Yes, that is a lot hotter than sandy bridge! So the answer to your question is NO: the stock cooler totally sucks for IB due to the increased heat-density. Sandy-bridge makes the stock cooler look "good" since it already runs so nice and cool.

4) According to Intel that is the hard maximum for the 3770. I'm unsure whether there would be any way around that.

Summary: Obviously going with a 3930k with all the additional platform costs will be a lot more expensive. You'll have to decide whether its worth the extra money. You can look at the reviews of the 3930k and compare the benchmarks. If the 3770 isn't listed in the benches, just compare to the 2600. Sure the 3770 is faster than the 2600, but not by very much. It'll give you a good idea of what to expect though.
Related resources
a b à CPUs
May 21, 2012 6:53:26 PM

Yes 3930K is faster, Newer does not mean faster. I think 3770k would be good enough. I think the best benefit of 3770k is power consumption. 3770k will OC fine, but if you consider overclocking then I recommend 2700k. Memory support usually depend on the motherboard/chipset. But there is no point of putting more than 32GB of RAM.
May 21, 2012 6:59:15 PM

Best answer selected by ratsa.
May 21, 2012 7:02:16 PM

larkspur said:

But even if you get a 3770 (no k) you should spend $30 for a decent air cooler - Ivy gets hot.


Done! I will go with 3770. 6-core is better, but too expensive (platform wide) for now.

(1) What's the advantage of a 3-rd party cooler--why should I mind a little heat? Can I replace the cooler later or am I stuck once it goes on?

(2) Now to find the right Mobo.
a b à CPUs
May 21, 2012 7:28:03 PM

1) Even at vanilla stock clocks a 3rd party cooler will keep your chip cooler than the stock intel cooler. Heat=slow CPU death. Higher temperatures mean less potential lifespan. The 3770 won't overclock which is fine but it will run hotter than its little brother Sandy Bridge. Why not try to compensate for the additional heat-density by using a quality cooler? Also - a quality single-fan cooler will be quieter under load than the Intel stock cooler because the fan is larger (less RPM to push the same air). And while the Intel cooler's fan is durable - it has one heck of a noisy bearing.

You can replace it later but most 3rd party coolers use a backplate to mount to the motherboard. If your case's motherboard tray doesn't have a cutout (which allows you to access the back of the CPU socket, you would need to pull out your motherboard to install the backplate. It's best to start with a good cooler and just shelf the stock cooler.

2) The H77 chipset would probably suit your needs since you aren't going to overclock. Here's a list of chipsets that natively support Ivy Bridge: http://www.techspot.com/guides/519-intel-z77-panther-po...

Technically you can use the 6-series 1155 chipsets (like the H61, P67, z68, etc) but you have to make sure they come equipped with an updated BIOS to support the Ivy bridge chips. I'd just go with an H77 board that has the features you want (EDIT: I wasn't sure if you wanted to SLI/XFire video cards, if so most Z77 boards have SLI/Xfire support if you need it).
May 21, 2012 7:56:47 PM

Thank you larkspur. That link is super helpful.

I had taken it for granted that I needed Z77, but I am taking a closer look at H77 as you suggested. My only possible concern is that there is support for only one PCIe 3.0 card.

I was surprised to see that both the chipsets only support 6 SATA ports (4 IIs and 2 IIIs). I thought I've seen boards that have more. Are they providing the extra support through other means?

a b à CPUs
May 21, 2012 8:04:24 PM

More SATA ports can be added by a motherboard manufacturer by adding an extra SATA controller. If you look at the Asus lineup of Z77 ATX boards you find more features on the more expensive boards. Generally those features have to do with better overclocking, better motherboard cooling, etc. But you should be able to find boards with additional SATA outputs. For instance this Asus board has an ASMedia SATA controller for 2 extra SATA 6gb/s ports: http://www.asus.com/Motherboards/Intel_Socket_1155/P8Z7...
May 21, 2012 8:18:55 PM

Is there anything wrong with a microATX board? I found this inexpensive ASRock H77 board which seem like it would do the job:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

When a board like this has an eSATA connection, does that use one of its internal SATA connections? For example, this board is supposed to have 4 SATA IIIs and 4 SATA IIs for a total of 8; If you hook up an eSATA, does that mean you're down to 7 internal?
a b à CPUs
May 21, 2012 8:37:35 PM

MicroATX and the even-smaller Mini-ITX are great. It depends on what your computer case supports. If your case will support full-size ATX then it should also support MicroATX. But most people with big cases put in big motherboards (the connectors are easier to reach when everything is installed). But if you haven't bought a case yet then a microATX build shouldn't perform any different. They usually just have less features.

That board uses an ASMedia on-board SATA controller to give two additional SATA 6gb/s ports. On that particular board, yes, one port is shared with the eSATA connector. eSATA connectors aren't necessarily always shared with an internal port. But if you don't use the eSATA port on that board then you would still have 8 internal. It's only when the eSATA port (on the back I/O) is connected to a drive that one of the ASMedia internal connectors gets disabled.
July 10, 2012 7:56:09 PM

I think an important question has been missed... What software are you using to do your video editing?

I recently built a machine specifically for video editing with Adobe software.

Specs:
Intel i7-3770K overclocked to 4.5Ghz (Antec H20-920 liquid cooled)
Asrock Z77 motherboard
32GB DDR3 1600Mhz RAM
1TB HDD (2x500GB RAID0) + iRST caching enabled (64GB SSD)
1x120GB SATA3 SSD for temp storage (like render previews & stuff)
Nvidia GTX570 GPU (480 CUDA cores)

So far, I can tell you, it is a VERY good video editing machine. I do not see any hesitation in my real-time previews in Premiere Pro, even with effects added. Most After Effects previews will render in either real-time (24fps) or, for heavy effects, just under real-time. Exporting full HD videos (transcoding) happens at 2x real-time, typically. That means I can export a 2 hour HD video in 45-60 minutes. That speed is more apparent when exporting to lower resolutions, like DVD quality.

It's good that you're choosing to not use QuickSync (even though it does work with Adobe stuff) because the quality really sucks. It changes the colors and dynamic range of the final result. It's fast but not worth the loss in quality, in my opinion.
July 13, 2012 8:01:40 AM

tazlord said:
I think an important question has been missed... What software are you using to do your video editing?

I recently built a machine specifically for video editing with Adobe software.

Specs:
Intel i7-3770K overclocked to 4.5Ghz (Antec H20-920 liquid cooled)
Asrock Z77 motherboard
32GB DDR3 1600Mhz RAM
1TB HDD (2x500GB RAID0) + iRST caching enabled (64GB SSD)
1x120GB SATA3 SSD for temp storage (like render previews & stuff)
Nvidia GTX570 GPU (480 CUDA cores)

So far, I can tell you, it is a VERY good video editing machine. I do not see any hesitation in my real-time previews in Premiere Pro, even with effects added. Most After Effects previews will render in either real-time (24fps) or, for heavy effects, just under real-time. Exporting full HD videos (transcoding) happens at 2x real-time, typically. That means I can export a 2 hour HD video in 45-60 minutes. That speed is more apparent when exporting to lower resolutions, like DVD quality.

It's good that you're choosing to not use QuickSync (even though it does work with Adobe stuff) because the quality really sucks. It changes the colors and dynamic range of the final result. It's fast but not worth the loss in quality, in my opinion.


Your System sound the bomb mate. Can I ask you to explain further how you set the SSD's to work as they do in your machine?
July 13, 2012 12:06:36 PM

tazlord said:


It's good that you're choosing to not use QuickSync (even though it does work with Adobe stuff) because the quality really sucks. It changes the colors and dynamic range of the final result. It's fast but not worth the loss in quality, in my opinion.


There could be times when quick output without regard to quality may be called for. Does QuickSync work with Adobe Premiere Pro even with the GTX 570 installed?
July 14, 2012 8:26:14 PM

guetta said:
Your System sound the bomb mate. Can I ask you to explain further how you set the SSD's to work as they do in your machine?

Of course...

My system has a total of 4 drives installed internally:

First, I chose to go with a RAID0 HDD configuration (2x500GB WD Blue HDDs) simply because it's just faster than using a single HDD. I didn't want to limit my OS drive's capacity by using only SSDs for my OS so that's why I opted to enable the iRST caching feature. I did lots of testing of various configurations and this one gave me the best storage-to-performance benefits. And it's actually really fast for the applications I use regularly. Since no physical hard drive can ever actually fully saturate a SATA3 line, I connected both the HDDs to the SATA2 ports instead (I tested for difference in speed, there was none).

I have 2 120GB SSDs connected to the SATA3 ports.
The first SSD is a 120GB SSD configured as an accelerator to the RAID0 array, which is easily configurable via the Intel Rapid Storage application. iRST caching will only use up to 64GB so that's why I said it was a 64GB. I used the remainder of the drive to store my system swap file so IF the system ever has to swap memory, it's faster than the HDD.

The second SSD is a 120GB that I use solely for temporary file storage. When I create a project in Adobe Premiere or After Effects, I set the project temp storage to a folder on that drive. Having 32GB of RAM allows me to have significantly long RAM previews (up to around 20-24GB) but if the Adobe software ever needs to use the temp storage (like it does for non-CUDA accelerated effects), the SSD provides a faster storage medium than the HDD.

I documented and recorded the whole testing process. I'll, hopefully, get enough free time soon to put that video together and post it on Youtube. I'll share the link here when I'm done.
July 14, 2012 8:38:44 PM

ratsa said:
There could be times when quick output without regard to quality may be called for. Does QuickSync work with Adobe Premiere Pro even with the GTX 570 installed?

I agree. I use Quicksync when I want to show someone a "draft" of a project or throw something up on Youtube really quick. All my "final" projects are exported via the built-in codecs in Adobe's software. They are definitely much higher quality.

Yes, Quicksync does work in Adobe Premiere and Adobe Media Encoder (the plugin works for both). It's important to realize that CUDA has NO EFFECT on exporting videos in Adobe, unless there are CUDA-ready effects used in the project (denoted by the icon next to them). Even then, CUDA will accelerate the CUDA-ready effects ONLY, not the entire project. That being the case, the project can be exported using any export plugin or codec you have installed because the CUDA acceleration happens before it's fed into the export codec. In short, yes, you can use CUDA and Quicksync together. And it does actually significantly speed things up. One thing to note though, all CUDA effects are exported with "Use Maximum Render Quality" enabled, even if that check mark is not checked. That option is not available when using the Quicksync plugin so your clip quality will be different in the exported version. Usually it's not noticeable but it can be with certain clips.
March 3, 2013 9:44:56 PM

Great post Tazlord.

Just to confirm - you are using your raid array for your operating system and adobe apps?
March 3, 2013 10:00:34 PM

ray12345 said:
Great post Tazlord.

Just to confirm - you are using your raid array for your operating system and adobe apps?

Ray,
Actually, the price of SSDs has dropped some since this post so I have completely changed my configuration.

New Config:
OS/App Drive - 256GB OCZ Vertex 4 SSD
Games/Temp Drive - 256GB OCZ Vertex 4 SSD
Storage Drive - 1TB RAID 0 Volume (2 x 500GB WD Blue)

I no longer use Intel's caching feature since I am launching all my apps directly from SSDs. I still use a RAID 0 volume for my storage because I need to read in large video files for my projects (up to 4GB each) and a stripe is still faster than a single 1TB drive. Also, since I am using a non-redundant volume for my source video files, I also have a 3TB USB3 drive attached to back up all of my data. This new set up allows for 15 second boot times and sub 5 second app loads (typically). It's definitely faster but I had to wait for the prices of SSDs to drop before I considered it.
March 3, 2013 10:27:07 PM

Thanks for the quick answer

On the subject of time - I was actually looking at going for at least a 3930k using asus x79 pro as it was just within my budget - but the bigger ssds will bump up the cost

The most important thing for me is to view heavy effects in real time. Are you still happy with with the results you are getting?

Your configuration is within my budget but its only worth it If I can get good response times for multiple effects previews.

Just out of interest how much space are you assigning to the paging file on the temp drive?

Thanks again Ray


March 3, 2013 10:38:06 PM

Sorry forgot you are launching your apps from the ssds
!