New Computer Build Questions

[wingspar]

I have finally decided it is time to upgrade my computer. Using same case and data drives, except using an SSD drive for the C:\ drive and moving from Win XP 32 bit to Win 7 64 bit.

I had chosen an AMD 8350 Processor and an ASUS board, but the number of comments to go with an Intel system forced me to at least look. I found AMD systems much easier to understand, but after nearly a week, I’m getting a handle on Intel and understanding models and terminology.

I’ve settled on the i7 3770 (not the “K”) and the ASUS P8Z77-V Pro board. My main reason is to try the on board video capabilities of the i7 3770 and this board vs buying a video card with an AMD system.

I use Sony Vegas 9, but can’t upgrade to the current version with XP, but will upgrade to 12 once I get new computer up and running. My video editing is a hobby, and a minor part of my computer use.

My question is for those that use an Intel on board video for editing videos. How does it work, and is it a good option?

[louv68]

wingspar,

If you have a Micro Center within driving distance, get the i7 3770k They have it for $229 (in store only). I haven't overclocked it, and quite frankly I don't think I need to. The only reason I went with the k is the price MC had it for.

I went from a Athlon 64 X2 4600+ on Win XP 32bit w/ 2GB ram to 16GB and Samsung 840 SSD on my new PC running Win 7 64 bit Pro.

The speed difference is amazing. As examples, encoding a 'movie only' BD rip to BD9 with BDtoAVCHD (on Very Slow) on my old PC could take 26+hrs On the new, about 3.5hrs

DVD-Rebuilder encode would take about 2 to 2.5 hrs, now about 17-22 minutes.

[davexnet]

Thanks for posting info about your new build. The timing stats are quite interesting. How's the onboard video
of the i7? I had a friend who bought an AMD A10-based system. He seems quite happy with it, apparently has
a half decent onboard video itself.

[wingspar]

wingspar,

If you have a Micro Center within driving distance, get the i7 3770k They have it for $229 (in store only). I haven't overclocked it, and quite frankly I don't think I need to. The only reason I went with the k is the price MC had it for.

I went from a Athlon 64 X2 4600+ on Win XP 32bit w/ 2GB ram to 16GB and Samsung 840 SSD on my new PC running Win 7 64 bit Pro.

The speed difference is amazing. As examples, encoding a 'movie only' BD rip with BDtoAVCHD (on Very Slow) on my old PC could take 26+hrs On the new, about 3.5hrs

DVD-Rebuilder encode would take about 2 to 2.5 hrs, now about 17-22 minutes.

Never heard of Micro Center. I live out in the sticks. 80 miles to nearest Walmart. $229 is a good price, but I have no choice but to order online, and it’s $280 at Newegg.

Small world, tho I guess there are still a lot of people on XP machines. I’m running the Athlon X2 3800+ on Win XP with 2GB RAM.

Are you using the on board video or do you use a dedicated video card?

[jman98]

You don't HAVE to buy Intel. And I don't know where this advice came from, but it sure as hell wasn't here. We have plenty of AMD users here. I'm one of them. It's your money so do whatever you feel best. Note that Intel's video, whether on board or not, is the least respected in the industry. If you're not playing cutting edge games you should be fine with it though. I am always puzzled by queries like yours that seem to think that the on board video is just critical to editing video. It's not as far as I know but I suppose there's always some chance that you could use some specialized editor where it actually does make a difference.

AMD systems use ATI for on board video because AMD owns ATI. Most people feel that ATI and Nvidia are better than Intel video.

[jagabo]

Wait a few weeks. Intel is just about to introduce the new Haswell processors. If nothing else, the Ivy Bridge processors will drop in price.

[louv68]

Thanks for posting info about your new build. The timing stats are quite interesting. How's the onboard video
of the i7? I had a friend who bought an AMD A10-based system. He seems quite happy with it, apparently has
a half decent onboard video itself.

It's actually not bad. I don't game, so I bought a low end graphics card, but still haven't installed it. Lazy I guess. I would rather encode with software than hardware. Quality first!

Never heard of Micro Center. I live out in the sticks. 80 miles to nearest Walmart. $229 is a good price, but I have no choice but to order online, and it’s $280 at Newegg.

Small world, tho I guess there are still a lot of people on XP machines. I’m running the Athlon X2 3800+ on Win XP with 2GB RAM.

Are you using the on board video or do you use a dedicated video card?

Onboard graphics are perfectly fine for my purposes.

I'm very happy with my new build as I had held off upgrading for so long. Honestly though, heed jagabo and jman98's advice. They are highly regarded on this site.

[jagabo]

Since Sandy Bridge was introduced a few years ago Intel's onboard graphics has been fine for desktop usage. It's only in games where it lags behind AMD's onboard graphics. If you're a serious gamer you won't use any onboard graphics, you'll buy a graphics card.

For GPU encoding, Intel's Quick Sync is by far the fastest. Nvidia's CUDA and AMD's AVIVO are slower. All the GPU encoders deliver lower quality than x264, Intel and Nvidia are rougly tied in quality, AMD is worse. x264 at very fast (and hence lower quality) settings on a i7 3770 will be just about as fast as Quick Sync and still deliver better quality. Quick Sync on the upcoming Haswell processors should be even faster (I doubt the quality will get any better) so it may be faster than x264 at fast settings. Haswell's graphics performance for light gaming will probably catch up to AMD's onboard graphics.

I know Sony Vegas supports CUDA encoding (and for some video effects). But I don't think it supports Quick Sync or AVIVO (my guess is Nvidia paid them to support CUDA exclusively for some time). The crippled Main Concept CPU h.264 encoder in Vegas doesn't deliver great quality. I don't know how its quality compares to the GPU encoders. It's definitely worse than x264.

[deadrats]

since video editing is a hobby for you and a small part of your overall computer use, you should downgrade to a FX 8320:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113285

$175 from newegg, microcenter has it for about $150

and instead of an SSD i would go with a 10k WD velociraptor.

having said that, i would check to see if you live anywhere near a microcenter:

microcenter.com

and if you live even within a few hours of one i would make a road trip out of it, by the time you factor in the price premium on cpu's, motherboards, ram and hard drives that places like newegg and tiger direct charge even taking into account tolls and gas you will still save some serious cash by driving a couple of hours to a microcenter if there's one within a 100 miles or so.

[jagabo]

since video editing is a hobby for you and a small part of your overall computer use, you should downgrade to a FX 8320:

Then the $100 you save over an i7 3770 can go to paying your higher electricity bill over the next few years. LOL While everything other than x264 runs significantly slower.

[wingspar]

You don't HAVE to buy Intel. And I don't know where this advice came from, but it sure as hell wasn't here. We have plenty of AMD users here. I'm one of them. It's your money so do whatever you feel best. Note that Intel's video, whether on board or not, is the least respected in the industry. If you're not playing cutting edge games you should be fine with it though. I am always puzzled by queries like yours that seem to think that the on board video is just critical to editing video. It's not as far as I know but I suppose there's always some chance that you could use some specialized editor where it actually does make a difference.

AMD systems use ATI for on board video because AMD owns ATI. Most people feel that ATI and Nvidia are better than Intel video.

I know I don’t have to buy Intel. I had already decided on an AMD FX 8350, but I got way too many people telling me Intel is top dog and I’d be crazy to go with AMD, so I at least had to research it. Choosing an AMD processor took one day. Choosing a motherboard took another day. I’ve been researching Intel for over a week, and only finally understood it enough to choose a processor and a motherboard just today. That’s where I am now. Still asking questions on going with Intel. I didn’t want this thread to get into an AMD vs Intel discussion. I’m just trying to get a better feel for Intel.

Since I now know my processor and motherboard configurations for AMD and Intel, I figured out today that it will cost me $145 more to build the Intel system, but I don’t have to buy a video card which actually makes the two systems nearly the same cost. Am I out in left field with that, or will I really need a dedicated video card with the Intel system?

Either AMD or Intel will do 95% of what I do almost exactly the same. Video rendering is where it sounds like Intel has the edge, and since I do not play games, and will not over clock, this forum seemed like the best place to get better info regarding video editing. Most computer forums seem to be geared towards games and over clocking.

[wingspar]

Wait a few weeks. Intel is just about to introduce the new Haswell processors. If nothing else, the Ivy Bridge processors will drop in price.

Actually, I’m never one to jump on the latest and greatest. There is a lot of talk on the Haswell processors on the computer forums, so I know it’s coming. That may or may not mean a soon to happen reduction in price for Ivy Bridge. My goal is to have the new system up and running by June 10.

[wingspar]

I know Sony Vegas supports CUDA encoding (and for some video effects). But I don't think it supports Quick Sync or AVIVO (my guess is Nvidia paid them to support CUDA exclusively for some time). The crippled Main Concept CPU h.264 encoder in Vegas doesn't deliver great quality. I don't know how its quality compares to the GPU encoders. It's definitely worse than x264.

Guess I need to read up on Quick Sync. Something I haven’t done yet, but you aren’t saying that I could not use Sony Vegas on an Intel system, are you?

[wingspar]

since video editing is a hobby for you and a small part of your overall computer use, you should downgrade to a FX 8320:

Then the $100 you save over an i7 3770 can go to paying your higher electricity bill over the next few years. LOL While everything other than x264 runs significantly slower.

It’s either an AMD FX 8350 or the i7 3770. Not going to downgrade. I’d rather spend the $100 on a system I’m going to love for a very long time.

[jman98]

Why do you think you have to buy a video card with AMD systems? I have no explanation for why you think that. Their motherboards usually come with on board video too.

[jagabo]

Guess I need to read up on Quick Sync. Something I haven’t done yet, but you aren’t saying that I could not use Sony Vegas on an Intel system, are you?

You can run Vegas on any Intel system. But Vegas doesn't support the Quick Sync encoder (as far as I know). You will have to use CPU encoding.

Why do you think you have to buy a video card with AMD systems? I have no explanation for why you think that. Their motherboards usually come with on board video too.

Yes. You're buying the wrong motherboard if it doesn't support the 8350's GPU.

[deadrats]

Then the $100 you save over an i7 3770 can go to paying your higher electricity bill over the next few years. LOL While everything other than x264 runs significantly slower.

going by newegg prices it's $130, not $100 and $100 savings in electricity bills over the course of a few years isn't really a good argument for choosing the i7 over the fx.

obviously if money is no object he should go with the intel, but i did end up picking up 1000 shares of AMD stock because my Intel stock was getting lonely so either way he goes i win.

[jagabo]

It’s either an AMD FX 8350 or the i7 3770.

Just look at all the tech sites that benchmark CPUs. Look at the results with kind of the programs you use. Then decide whether the extra $100 for the 3770 is worth it to you.

For example, this site has the 8350 vs the 3770k (a tiny bit faster than the 3770) with a wide variety of programs:

http://us.hardware.info/reviews/3314/22/amd-fx-8350--8320--6300-vishera-review-finally...-cinebench-115

Another:
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/697?vs=551

Look carefully, on some tests lower is better, on others higher is better.

AMD charges a little less than Intel's roughly equivalent (over a wide range of applications) processors. If they charged more nobody would buy them. If they charged less they'd be leaving money on the table. Intel owns the high end (and charges disproportionately higher prices) because AMD has nothing to compete there.

[jagabo]

going by newegg prices it's $130, not $100

I was rounding.

[usually_quiet]

Why do you think you have to buy a video card with AMD systems? I have no explanation for why you think that. Their motherboards usually come with on board video too.

Yes. You're buying the wrong motherboard if it doesn't support the 8350's GPU.

The FX-8350 which uses socket AM3+ doesn't include a GPU, so either a motherboard with on-board graphics or a discrete graphics card are needed. The A series APUs which use socket FM1 or FM2 include a GPU, but the FX-8350's multi-threaded performance is much better than any of the A-series models.

[jagabo]

The FX-8350 which uses socket AM3+ doesn't include a GPU, so either a motherboard with on-board graphics or a discrete graphics card are needed. The A series APUs which use socket FM1 or FM2 include a GPU, but the FX-8350's multi-threaded performance is much better than any of the A-series models.

Sorry. My mistake.

For the OP: a $60 graphics card will beat the 3770's GPU performance.

[wingspar]

Guess I Never should have mentioned AMD in my original post. I didn’t expect mentioning it would take this thread in an AMD vs Intel direction. I like AMD. I built this rig in 2006 with an AMD processor. All I’m doing is keeping my options open and doing all the research I can to make as educational purchase that I can. I have nothing against AMD. I have not ruled AMD out, but this thread is Not about AMD.

So, please keep this discussion on Intel and my original question, which was “for those that use an Intel on board video for editing videos without a dedicated video card. How does it work, and is it a good option”?

Another question. I’ve read myself blue and watched YouTube videos on Intel’s Quick Sync, but I still don’t understand what it is besides being build into the hardware. Is it used for true video editing, or is it just used to convert video formats?

[wingspar]

For example, this site has the 8350 vs the 3770k (a tiny bit faster than the 3770) with a wide variety of programs:

You have no idea how many benchmarks I’ve read on the two processors, including the two you linked to and videos on YouTube. Video rendering might be the only thing to sway me to the Intel processor. I doubt I’d notice any differences between the two processors I’ve listed in any other application I use other than video rendering. Photoshop being the one I use the most, and even this 6 year old AMD computer handles Photoshop just fine.

[budz]

Just buy what you can afford....nuff said....

[jagabo]

“for those that use an Intel on board video for editing videos without a dedicated video card. How does it work, and is it a good option”?

I don't use Vegas so I can't speak to how well Vegas works with my Sandy Bridge i5 2500K with Intel HD 3000 graphics. But in my day to day use of the computer I've never found the graphic lacking (this computer isn't used for gaming). I don't use Quick Sync because it delivers lower quality and I can get just as fast h.264 encoding with x264 at the veryfast preset -- and even at that fast encoding speed the CPU encoding still looks better than Quick Sync.

Another question. I’ve read myself blue and watched YouTube videos on Intel’s Quick Sync, but I still don’t understand what it is besides being build into the hardware. Is it used for true video editing, or is it just used to convert video formats?

Quick Sync is the name of Intel's hardware video encoding and decoding engine. Technically it's not part of the GPU but rather dedicated portion of the CPU. But it's only available on the CPUs with built in GPUs so it might as well be part of the GPU. It uses hardware specialized for video compression and decompression. As with any hardware, driver and software support are also required. In theory the GPU could be used for filtering and effects too. All of this may be meaningless to you since Vegas doesn't support QS.

This article is a few years old now but the situation hasn't changed much:

http://www.behardware.com/articles/828-1/h-264-encoding-cpu-vs-gpu-nvidia-cuda-amd-str...-and-x264.html

At the end of the day, the marketing promises in terms of GPGPU transcoding haven’t been kept. The manufacturers highlight the rapidity of their solutions as a solution to the very real problem of the excessive amount of time required for CPUs to encode video alone. By offering rapid encoding solutions, but with quality that leaves too much to be desired, H.264 encoding via GPGPU solutions remains, as yet, a poor solution to what is a real problem.

[wingspar]

I don't use Vegas so I can't speak to how well Vegas works with my Sandy Bridge i5 2500K with Intel HD 3000 graphics. But in my day to day use of the computer I've never found the graphic lacking (this computer isn't used for gaming). I don't use Quick Sync because it delivers lower quality and I can get just as fast h.264 encoding with x264 at the veryfast preset -- and even at that fast encoding speed the CPU encoding still looks better than Quick Sync.

Quick Sync is the name of Intel's hardware video encoding and decoding engine. Technically it's not part of the GPU but rather dedicated portion of the CPU. But it's only available on the CPUs with built in GPUs so it might as well be part of the GPU. It uses hardware specialized for video compression and decompression. As with any hardware, driver and software support are also required. In theory the GPU could be used for filtering and effects too. All of this may be meaningless to you since Vegas doesn't support QS.

This article is a few years old now but the situation hasn't changed much:

http://www.behardware.com/articles/828-1/h-264-encoding-cpu-vs-gpu-nvidia-cuda-amd-str...-and-x264.html

Vegas should work just fine with the i7 3770 Ivy Bridge and the HD 4000 graphics according to the Vegas site and things have been improved since Sandy Bridge and HD 3000 graphics, which isn’t supported in the latest version of Vegas.

A few things have changed since that article was written, but not by much, and I’ll have to say that article is pretty well over my head, tho I did learn a little more about video containers, not that I still understand it.

I have a feeling I am going to try the i7 3770 for this build. I’ll know for sure in the morning, cause I plan on ordering the rest of the components I need to rebuild this computer. Memory, PSU and Win 7 arrive tomorrow. If the on board video doesn’t cut it, and I guess I’ll never know for myself till I have some time with it, I can always add a video card later on.

[wingspar]

Just buy what you can afford....nuff said....

I figured out the cost of the AMD and Intel systems side by side today, and the Intel system will only cost $80 more. Money really isn’t the object here. The object has been trying to educate myself on Intel to make the best decision I believe I can between AMD and Intel and to end up with a system that works and does everything I throw at it. It will end up costing me about $600.00 less than my current rig cost me to build back in 2006.

[budz]

Just buy what you can afford....nuff said....

I figured out the cost of the AMD and Intel systems side by side today, and the Intel system will only cost $80 more. Money really isn’t the object here. The object has been trying to educate myself on Intel to make the best decision I believe I can between AMD and Intel and to end up with a system that works and does everything I throw at it. It will end up costing me about $600.00 less than my current rig cost me to build back in 2006.

There will always be another CPU more powerful and faster in a few months. I haven't built a new rig in 3 years as I feel there's no need to for what I do. Intel has always had a edge over AMD. If money isn't a issue then just buy what you think will satisfy your needs. Nuff said!

[wingspar]

There will always be another CPU more powerful and faster in a few months. I haven't built a new rig in 3 years as I feel there's no need to for what I do. Intel has always had a edge over AMD. If money isn't a issue then just buy what you think will satisfy your needs. Nuff said!

True, the new processor from Intel has already been announced, and should be out in the next month or three. I will have a rocking state of the art computer for a few weeks.

When I built this rig, AMD was considered top dog and Intel was behind. They may just switch places for top dog a few more times in the coming years. Really, I doubt I would have gone wrong with either system. It was a tough decision to go with Intel.

For now, I’m hoping the onboard GPU will be all I need. If not, the I can take my time and get a video card that will meet, and probably exceed my needs.

Going from an XP 32 bit 2GB ram machine to a Win 7 64 bit 16GB ram machine is going to be a big step, and I’m sure would have been impressed at the video rendering capabilities over my old XP machine no matter if I went with AMD or Intel.

[jagabo]

True, the new processor from Intel has already been announced, and should be out in the next month or three. I will have a rocking state of the art computer for a few weeks.

Haswell's CPU performance isn't expected to be significantly better than Ivy Bridge. Focus is on lower power draw (Intel is claiming as little as half as much) and better graphics performance (2x to 3x). We'll find out for sure this weekend.

When I built this rig, AMD was considered top dog and Intel was behind. They may just switch places for top dog a few more times in the coming years.

It's doubtful AMD can ever take the top slot again. They are a full process behind Intel and falling further behind every day.