i5 2500 or i7 2600 For Video Encoding & Streaming ?

[Bint Box]

Hi,

Would the extra cost of an i7 2600 CPU over an i5 2500 CPU be justified for video encoding and web streaming?

I will be using either Flash Media Live Encoder or Wirecast as the encoder and streaming SD media, not HD.

Thx
Binty

 

[R088ieS86]

What are you streaming?

In my last test stream, adobe live media encoder was using about 40% of my i7-920.
That was streaming Xbox360 and 2 Web Cams to ALME to Xsplit.
(all 3 inputs @ 720p)

if you are going to be doing a lot of video editing - maybe if you are saving streams then editing them for highlight etc the i7-2600/2700 would be a better choice. If you are just streaming, use the i5-2500

Sub note, if you have wirecast 1. I hate you and 2. I hate you

 

[Surveyor]

If the video encoding application is multi threaded then you'll get a decent boost from the hyperthreading of the i7.

More importantly you should get the "K" version of whichever processor you choose, along with a P67/Z68 motherboard, so you can overclock it properly.

There's only very limited overclocking possible with the none "K" versions.

 

[JasonKnights]

Hi there I currently own an i7 2600k running with a turbo mode set to 4.5Ghz. I use software called convertxtodvd and it recognises 8 cores. (4 cores each with 2 threads)
an average length film (120mins) is encoded in around 3-4mins running at an average of 550fps.

I put a new system together for my friend, a 2500k also set to 4.5ghz in turbo mode and also installed this software. it only recognises 4 cores on this cpu

however the average fps i was gettin was around 400fps. i was quiet shocked as i thought the 8 threads would have been twice as fast as 4 threads.

I have found a bigger difference in loading, installing and multitasking though. i can do countless amount of things on my pc e.g. downloading, gaming, encoding, all at the same time.everything happens just so easy and smooth. but when i was installing the programs and apps on my friends system it was nowhere near as fast or seamless! just took that bit longer. maybe ive just been spoilt having that little extra power. but unless your on a tight budget id go for the better 2600k or even the newer 2700k . i would say its more future proof if more and more apps will be multithreaded compatable

 

[Bint Box]

What are you streaming?...

I am streaming a single stream of live SD composite video captured by a Viewcast Osprey capture card with the video being streamed to an online CDN portal.

....Sub note, if you have wirecast 1. I hate you and 2. I hate you

I managed to locate a free copy of Wirecast 4.0.1, full version......


Binty

 

[Bint Box]

If the video encoding application is multi threaded then you'll get a decent boost from the hyperthreading of the i7.

More importantly you should get the "K" version of whichever processor you choose, along with a P67/Z68 motherboard, so you can overclock it properly.

There's only very limited overclocking possible with the none "K" versions.

I am a bit stuck re the option of using a "k" CPU as the machine is an off the shelf Dell with their proprietary motherboard. My understanding is that with the Dell proprietary motherboard I would not be able to take advantage of the unlocked status of the "k" CPU, presumably because of lack of overclocking options from the motherboard?

I will need to check out if Wirecast or Flash Media Live Encoder are multi-threaded applications.


Binty

 

[Bint Box]

Hi there I currently own an i7 2600k running with a turbo mode set to 4.5Ghz. I use software called convertxtodvd and it recognises 8 cores. (4 cores each with 2 threads)
an average length film (120mins) is encoded in around 3-4mins running at an average of 550fps.

I put a new system together for my friend, a 2500k also set to 4.5ghz in turbo mode and also installed this software. it only recognises 4 cores on this cpu

however the average fps i was gettin was around 400fps. i was quiet shocked as i thought the 8 threads would have been twice as fast as 4 threads.

I have found a bigger difference in loading, installing and multitasking though. i can do countless amount of things on my pc e.g. downloading, gaming, encoding, all at the same time.everything happens just so easy and smooth. but when i was installing the programs and apps on my friends system it was nowhere near as fast or seamless! just took that bit longer. maybe ive just been spoilt having that little extra power. but unless your on a tight budget id go for the better 2600k or even the newer 2700k . i would say its more future proof if more and more apps will be multithreaded compatable

Thx for the detailed reply.

I would go for the best CPU that I can get for the socket 1155 on the motherboard. However, as I indicated above, I think I might be wasting money on a "k" CPU due to the limitations of the prorietary Dell motherboard in the system?


Binty