£600 video processing upgrade

killicks

killicks

killicks

Associate
Joined
7 Nov 2013
Posts
5
Hi guys

my current system Q8300 @ 2.50GHz 6GB NVIDIA GeForce G210

is struggling with my video editing on Sony Vegas

I initially considered upgrading to z77 with 3770k but similar money would get me x79 with 4820k which might be more futureproof

Video editing and rendering is all about CPU and memory so I have begged and borrowed a case, heat sink and PSU allowing me to target my £600 on CPU MOBO and memory. GPU isnt a priority but without onboard graphics I need something basic

So the current (over budget) spec is

Intel 4820K 3.70GHz £239.99

Gigabyte X79-UD3 Intel X79 £169.99

Patriot Viper "Black Mamba" Generation 3 16GB (2x8GB) £149.99

Asus GeForce GTX 650Ti DirectCU 1024MB £99.95

Total inc delivery : £671.32

I value your thoughts
 
The 4770k outperforms the 4820k in most cases.

Though the 2011 platform allows you to upgrade to a hex core. Is that your plan? If not go for the 4770k.

The problem with going 2011 is the motherboard prices. Id say your looking at £200 for a motherboard with 8 RAM slots. As you really need to go quad channel, 4 sticks at a time, 8 slots give you a chance upgrade.
 
Thanks guys. I'm not a gamer and don't require t
Enthusiast level components. To be honest I won't be upgrading for years by which time all the mobos discussed will be obsolete. I will look at some 4770 mobos
 
YOUR BASKET
1 x Intel Core i7-4770K 3.50GHz (Haswell) Socket LGA1150 Processor - Retail £275.99
1 x Patriot Viper "Black Mamba" Generation 3 16GB (2x8GB) DDR3 PC3-17000C11 2133MHz Dual Channel Kit (PV316G213C1K) £129.95
1 x Gigabyte Z87-D3HP Intel Z87 (Socket 1150) DDR3 ATX Motherboard £109.99
1 x Gainward GeForce GT640 2048MB GDDR3 PCI-Express Graphics Card £69.95
Total : £597.28 (includes shipping : £9.50).



Motherboard comes with free aftermarket cooler (bonus).

Room for another 16GB of RAM,

GPU has same amount of CUDA cores as the GTX 650ti but cheaper. The CUDA cores are what gelps video processing.. Though AMD have an alternative.. Anyway.. :)

And in budget too.. Hell yes!
 
joeyjojo said:
For rendering you might be better off with a cheaper CPU and a powerful GPU. Sony Vegas can use CUDA or OpenCL, so a powerful GPU (something like a GTX 770 or a 7950/7970) will be many times faster than a CPU costing the same amount. Plus you could get away with less system memory.

E.g. http://forum.overclock3d.net/showthread.php?p=615737
Click to expand...

I didn't get that from the thread you posted. All I got was that a gtx 670/770/7950 is better than a 7770.

You could get a 8320/8350 but I feel the i7 would be the better option.
 
True, not the best link.

Direct comparisons between CPU and GPU rendering are scant. This Anandtech review of the 290 touches on the uses of GPUs with Vegas:

Our 3rd compute benchmark is Sony Vegas Pro 12, an OpenGL and OpenCL video editing and authoring package. Vegas can use GPUs in a few different ways, the primary uses being to accelerate the video effects and compositing process itself, and in the video encoding step. With video encoding being increasingly offloaded to dedicated DSPs these days we’re focusing on the editing and compositing process, rendering to a low CPU overhead format (XDCAM EX). This specific test comes from Sony, and measures how long it takes to render a video.
Click to expand...

Whatever it's doing, if it takes a titan 38 seconds to do it and a 290(X) 22 seconds, you can bet a CPU will take a lot longer.

There's anecdotal evidence in forum threads too, e.g.
MP4, 1080p, select the option to render in OpenCL instead of CPU in project settings. CPU takes about 15 minutes. video card takes 3-4 minutes roughly for a 6 minute video.
Click to expand...
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2336829

I'm sure that watt-for-watt and pound-for-pound GPUs are several times better for this kind of work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom