CPU for 4k video editing?

[Doomedspeed]

Would a overclocked Intel I5-2500K struggle with 4k video?

Anyone^?

Yeah a 2500k will struggle.

As said above, you really need a big amount of virtual cores.

The 8320 has 8, the 4770k has 8 (they are better than the 8320's though) but the 2500k has 4.

If you're going intel get an i7 with HT, if not, get a 8320.

 

[snips86x]

Yeah a 2500k will struggle.

As said above, you really need a big amount of virtual cores.

The 8320 has 8, the 4770k has 8 (they are better than the 8320's though) but the 2500k has 4.

If you're going intel get an i7 with HT, if not, get a 8320.

If you don't you'll kick yourself. The addition of QuickSync will also help with rendering.

Don't skimp!!

 

[Martini1991]

I assume he's got a 2500k overclocked, you wouldn't upgrade to an FX8320 from that for 4K, you'd want an i7.

 

[Phixsator]

4930k or 3930k would be the best thing to go for. Going from a 2500k to an [email protected](most should OC to this with proper cooling) wont yield enough performance increase considering the entire platform change you would have to do. You want those 6 cores 12 threads.

 

[deusexlumina]

as above, 6 cores 12 threads is the best option here.

 

[ghost.florian]

Sony Vegas Pro 13 supports GPU acceleration with Open CL cards. £230 I believe gets you an AMD Radeon 280x, which is a great card for Open CL.

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=GX-322-SP&groupid=701&catid=56&subcat=1842

I wouldn't worry about your CPU if you have a 2500k overclocked. Most of the times, the software itself would be the bottleneck.

 

[deblow]

i have done some 4K video editing on my setup, captured from my phone then used After Effects & other to edit,
no chance at running 4k games though

i5 2500k
8GB Ram
7970 GPU

screen res 1440p

 

[colinmcr]

4930K certainly worth a look if you can manage that in your budget

 

[Toytown]

However, for video encoding + other things like gaming you want a HyperThreaded Intel chip.

The performance penalty from using HyperThreading is approx 15-25%. The lead developer on x264 posted about this on doom9 over a year ago.

You are effectively losing almost an entire core of a quad core cpu, by leaving hyperthreading turned on in the bios, in the case of video encoding.

 

[wam7]

The performance penalty from using HyperThreading is approx 15-25%. The lead developer on x264 posted about this on doom9 over a year ago.

You are effectively losing almost an entire core of a quad core cpu, by leaving hyperthreading turned on in the bios, in the case of video encoding.

I don't think that it currently the case now though.
I tested this doing two encodes and the first one showed a 3.9% decrease in speed with HT on and the second file showed a 6.2% increase with HT on. This is on the system in my sig using a 2-pass encode.

Interestingly enough in both cases HT made the 1st pass slower and the 2nd pass quicker. I understand this might have something to do with the core scheduling in Win 7. Aoparently Win8 has better scheduling but I'll do the test again next week when I give Win8 a try.

Though for the OP, for mainly a video encoding system then an 3930k/4930k in conjunction with a large SSD is a good way to go.

 

[joeyjojo]

We had a pretty good discussion about this the other week

£2000 PC Build for 4K Video Editing

As I wrote in post #23, I'd be shooting for a similar ratio of CPU to GPU to I/O performance as those new mac pros (which can do realtime rendering of 4K with many filters! ).

A recent 6 core Intel CPU, fast GPU (e.g. 780 Ti), and large, fast SSD (1 TB 840 EVO) should give great results.

Definitely don't underestimate the importance of the GPU and I/O system.