I'm looking to buy a new PC.
I my budget I have a choice between:
-An i5 Dual Core 3.3ghz
-an intel quad core 2.3ghz
Both with the same RAM, hard drive etc.
I was wondering which would be quickest at video encoding. I will be mainly using software such as XMediaRecode, Handbrake, AVIDemuxe.
I'm just wondering which processor would give the quickest encode? I was thiking of getting the quad core but noticed the clock speed is 2.3 compared to the 3.3 of the dual core processor.
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 9 of 9
Name the exact models to get better advice. Base clock speed may be meaningless if all-core turbo boost is much higher. Also things like AVX2 or even hardware encoder may play a role. What do you want to encode to/from? AVC/H.264, HEVC/H.265? 8 bit, 10 bit?
But mostly video encoding scales well with multi-core CPUs, especially if it's only 4 cores. And 4x2.3 > 2x3.3. So most likely the quad-core would be better. If you are on a limited budget maybe AMD would also be worth looking at.
Last edited by sneaker; 5th Mar 2019 at 09:03.
Assuming (rather conservative Amdahl's law estimation 75% thread utilization) a four core CPU will be marginally faster than higher clocked two core CPU. If you are lucky then you may achieve higher gain so 4 core should be better. Also suggest to not discard AMD upfront - perhaps you will be win win on AMD (higher clock and higher number of cores).
How much RAM would be recomended with a quad core? Is 8gb enough, would i notice a vast improvment if i went with 16gb instead?
I have 16GB in my 8 core encoding PC, but less than 3GB is typically used for encoding with VidCoder, a hybrid of Handbrake.
But RAM seems to have gotten less expensive at present, so if you can afford a matched set of 16GB, go for it.
It does really help with graphics programs like PhotoShop and similar.
And I would definitely recommend a CPU water cooler for higher power CPUs.
For CPUs, I prefer AMD processors at present. My current PC:
Good point. I haven't ventured into UHD+ video yet, but it sounds interesting.
My monitor and video projector aren't up to those UHD+ specifications.
Depends on the encoder settings and filters. ffmpeg uses about 3 GB for x265 preset slow with 4K 10bit. Preset veryslow it's 4.3 GB. So if you aren't doing any complex filtering then 8 GB is still sufficient for 4K.
Still, I'd probably buy 16 GB just to have some reserve e.g. for background tasks. It's not very expensive at the moment.
Premiere Pro can make use of Intel's Quick Sync. Quick Sync works great for h.264/265. There will not be a huge difference between a 6 core CPU without HT and an 8 CPU with HT because the Quick Sync module on the Intel chips is the same regardless of the the amount of cores. In other words the 8 core CPU does not have 8 Quick Sync modules. FCPX and Edius can also make good use of Intel's Quick Sync.