Dedicated Video conversion PC

[tonyaldr]

I'd like to have a single PC dedicated to video conversion for MPG/DVD to tablet compatible formats such as H.264. The PC would do nothing else and would be a Windows platform. Is one CPU type (Intel vs AMD and subtype) better than another or is it just the rated speed of the CPU that matters? Any other hardware recommendations? Thanx!

[dragonkeeper]

Typically the intel procwill encode faster than a similar spec'd amd chip. But usually you can get more cores with amd than you can with a simillar priced intel setup. And when it comes to encoding speed more cores rule. If your gonna be encoding to h264 i recommend the following chip http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103851. You should be able to encode in real-time with this chip.
I would also recommend 7200 rpm hard drives. And a minimum of 4 gb of ram.
Since this will not be a HTPC setup i thing these areas will be our primary concern.

[pepegot1]

An Intel i7, Sandy Bridge with the Z68 chipset, would be an excellent choice. Fast as hell and not expensive. I have the Z67 and it works just great on AVCHD video. The Z68 has more bells and whistles

[dragonkeeper]

An Intel i7, Sandy Bridge with the Z68 chipset, would be an excellent choice. Fast as hell and not expensive. I have the Z67 and it works just great on AVCHD video. The Z68 has more bells and whistles

Further proof the you get more cores for the money with AMD over Intel. The i7 (4 cores @ 3.4 Ghz) is indeed a fast chip, but with a price point of $300, compared to the AMD Phenom II 1055t Thuban (6 cores @ 2.8 Ghz) the Phenom should be able to encode video faster as it can utilize more cores.
And as stated before the more cores you have working the faster the encode completes. I may be incorrect in my assumption that speed is a consideration for the OP. But i would thank that it is considering they are willing to build a PC dedicated to video encoding.

If this was to be a typical PC build instead of a dedicated video encoding machine. I too would recommend the i7, as most applications will not benefit from the additional cores, the i7 would be faster when opening/using typical desktop applications. But most video encoders are able to make use of each of the cores i know this to be true with the x264 codec. As i have encoded video on a server with 24 cores (12 dual core chips) and each core was pegged at over 90%.

Also if a price of $300 seems reasonable take a look at AMD Opteron 8 core chips.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819105266

At 2.0 Ghz this may seem like a slow chip but again the numbers of cores more make up for slow speed.

I'm looking a trying to setup a server MB with two of these for my next build.

[deadrats]

I'd like to have a single PC dedicated to video conversion for MPG/DVD to tablet compatible formats such as H.264. The PC would do nothing else and would be a Windows platform. Is one CPU type (Intel vs AMD and subtype) better than another or is it just the rated speed of the CPU that matters? Any other hardware recommendations? Thanx!

does the term Quick Sync mean anything to you?

assuming you're going to be using software that makes use of QS then i would spend the bare minimum on a setup, that means an H61 based motherboard (easily under $60) coupled to a i3 2100 ($100) and some cheap ddr3 (usually $10 per gig capacity).

spending big bucks on a video centric pc at the moment is silly; bulldozer is set to come out sept 19 and ivy bridge will arrive early next year and it will be pin and chipset compatible with SB plus it will feature DX11 gpu (that's 30% faster than current gpu), 20% faster cpu cores and a QS engine that has improved quality and supposedly twice as fast.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/sandy-bridge-core-i7-2600k-core-i5-2500k,2833-5.html

according to toms, a top of the line SB was able to take a 4 minute 1080i source to 1024x768 ipad compatible h264 in 22 seconds using cyberlink's software, that works out to about 11 times real time or over 300 fps; i would think that dvd to sub-dvd would be even faster.

and the beauty of it is you don't need to dedicate the whole pc to the task, it uses specialized hardware for the most part (the motion estimation is carried out by the gpu), so you could still use the pc for other things without having to tie up the computer for extended extended encoding periods.

jagabo bought a i5 2500k (i think it's like $180), sweet cpu, he had promised to do some in depth QS tests, maybe he'll join this discussion and share some preliminary results with you to help with your decision.

in all honesty if you do go with a i5 2500k on a H61/67 or P68 motherboard, you'll be able to skip Ivy Bridge and wait until AMD finally brings Bulldozer II to the market; BD2 will probably revolutionize computing as we know it, if AMD can pull off what it's been promising for about 4 years now, namely integrating the gpu into the cpu transparently.

yes, both intel and amd have cpu's (amd calls its product an apu) with integrated gpu's but to a programmer and the OS they are still 2 distinct processors and an app has to be coded to take advantage of the integrated gpu's gpgpu capabilities, using complicated api's like direct compute and open cl; AMD's roadmaps indicate that within 2 generations of APU the processors thread dispatcher will automatically decide where to dispatch an instruction thread, the cpu cores or the gpu, meaning that as far as an app is concerned it's just one processor.

if this actually does happen the performance jump should be like going from a P4 to a Conroe and more importantly, it will remove a programmers ability to use an api from the equation, straight procedural programming will be sufficient to fully use such a processor.

within 2 years we may be in an entirely new computing era...

[deadrats]

At 2.0 Ghz this may seem like a slow chip but again the numbers of cores more make up for slow speed.

an 2 ghz 8 core chip is the equivalent of a 4 ghz 4 core chip of the same architectural family, if you're talking about running a single multithread task.

the 8 core chip would be preferred if you're running a web server which will have numerous connection requests but for video encoding, the added expense of a server board and ecc ram does not make it a wise choice.

furthermore, bulldozer will be out in a month, for that money you will be able to get an 8 core desktop chip using a superior architecture, if you're going to suggest going the software encoding route or the SB, either of which would be a better choice than an 8 core opteron based on the phenom architecture.

[_Al_]

What's the difference if you encode it week early or later,
do not give away more than $500, possibly window7 Pro , choose Intel , something like this:
http://www.microcenter.com/single_product_results.phtml?product_id=0351009
or something that's a bit more fluffed up, doesn't matter anyway ...

Make sure encoder gets close to 100% CPU, do some tests,tune it up, find yours, using MeGui myself, but not for reencoding DVD's just render from Vegas , it tends to go to 50-60% for SD video final, for HD it takes almost 100%, not sure why is that. This is important I'd say because why juiced up PC if it is going to run at 50% CPU.

[dragonkeeper]

At 2.0 Ghz this may seem like a slow chip but again the numbers of cores more make up for slow speed.

an 2 ghz 8 core chip is the equivalent of a 4 ghz 4 core chip of the same architectural family, if you're talking about running a single multithread task.

the 8 core chip would be preferred if you're running a web server which will have numerous connection requests but for video encoding, the added expense of a server board and ecc ram does not make it a wise choice.

furthermore, bulldozer will be out in a month, for that money you will be able to get an 8 core desktop chip using a superior architecture, if you're going to suggest going the software encoding route or the SB, either of which would be a better choice than an 8 core opteron based on the phenom architecture.

Test I've done with my 6 and dual core would indicate otherwise, the chips don't seem to scale linearly. The Opteron is a server chip i plan to run the two of the chips on a server MotherBoard. The two chips will be less then $600 and will encode video faster than chips being offered by intel for $1000.

[redwudz]

I've been quite happy with my six core AMD CPU. I did OC it to 3.5 Ghz. I mostly do Blu-ray>MKV conversions to put my BDs on my server. Most conversions take about 4 1/2 - 5 hours. This is about one hour less than my Intel Q9550 OC'd to 3.5 Ghz. At least for H.264, more cores are definitely better, IMO.

[johns0]

Further proof the you get more cores for the money with AMD over Intel. The i7 (4 cores @ 3.4 Ghz) is indeed a fast chip, but with a price point of $300, compared to the AMD Phenom II 1055t Thuban (6 cores @ 2.8 Ghz) the Phenom should be able to encode video faster as it can utilize more cores.

I use to have a AMD Phenom II 1055t and my 2600k encodes much faster,the phenom doesn't compare.

[dragonkeeper]

I've been quite happy with my six core AMD CPU. I did OC it to 3.5 Ghz. I mostly do Blu-ray>MKV conversions to put my BDs on my server. Most conversions take about 4 1/2 - 5 hours. This is about one hour less than my Intel Q9550 OC'd to 3.5 Ghz. At least for H.264, more cores are definitely better, IMO.

I couldn't agree with more the 6 core had been awesome, i was an intel fan boy for a long time. But the fact of the matter was i could get more bang for the buck with AMD. As my primary use of PC is audio and video encoding I great benefit from having additional cores from AMD vs the raw power of an intel .

I thought about going with an 8 core next, but getting 12 (two 6 core Opterons) cores for the price of 8 cores and having 32Gb of ram is simply irresistible. (Would like to go for the quad core server board but $800 for a MB is little pricey for me).

Seems that you have a set-up similar to mine, have you in looked at the HD projectors? The Epson Home Cinema 8150 is awesome, i mated mine up with a 120" screen. The family has really enjoyed it.

[deadrats]

I've been quite happy with my six core AMD CPU. I did OC it to 3.5 Ghz. I mostly do Blu-ray>MKV conversions to put my BDs on my server. Most conversions take about 4 1/2 - 5 hours. This is about one hour less than my Intel Q9550 OC'd to 3.5 Ghz. At least for H.264, more cores are definitely better, IMO.

you can't compare a phenom II based 6 core to a penryn quad core and use that as proof that more cores equals faster performance; compare the 6 core amd to a quad core bloomfield or newer and make the same claim.

[tonyaldr]

Wow. A lot to digest. Thanx to everyone!

[usually_quiet]

A lot of this depends on the size of your budget, how you want to allocate your funds, your flexibility, and the sales and combo offers available when you are ready to buy. In the lower and middle parts of the performance spectrum, many people could be satisfied with either Intel or AMD for video encoding. You will need to make a list of the stuff you really need, and balance that against the cost and relative importance of the stuff you want.

Intel Core i7 2600K probably is the fastest CPU available for video encoding at present, but the regular price is about $315.

If that seems like too much, the regular price of the Intel Core i5 2500K is about $220 and the regular price AMD Phenom II X6 1100T is about $200. The Phenom II X6 1100T is a bit faster than the Core i5 2500K using applications like Handbrake that can use all 6 cores. The Intel Core i5 2500K is faster in most other siturations, and has a lower TDP. There are other similar pairings between Intel quad cores and AMD hex cores if the fastest i7's are excluded from consideration on assount of cost.

The motherboards for Intel Socket 1155 are also typically a little more expensive than AMD AM3 motherboards from the same maker with similar features.

I'll be happy if Bulldozer is a world-beater at video encoding but it isn't for sale yet, and there is presently not much real-world data on it. The fastest will not be inexpensive.

[redwudz]

Seems that you have a set-up similar to mine, have you in looked at the HD projectors? The Epson Home Cinema 8150 is awesome, i mated mine up with a 120" screen. The family has really enjoyed it.

I have a Sony HD video projector and a 12 foot screen, along with a surround sound amp with 15" speakers and two 10" subwoofers. Fortunately I don't live in an apartment, so I can 'crank it up' when I want. https://forum.videohelp.com/threads/305973-Post-pics-of-your-HTPC?

But back to the OPs question. Spend a bit of time looking at your options so you end up with a system that suits you and your budget. This costs nothing and may save you some $$ in the long run.