Encoding PC - which CPU

[duffbeer]

I have an i7 3770k system which is now 7 years old and starting to show it's age. It's becoming a little flakey and too slow to encode UHD files with x265.
I am considering a 9700k or a 9900k. I don't mind the extra cost providing the encoding speed benefit is decent.
I believe my 3770k has lasted this long because I spent good money at the time and bought good components to go with the top of the range i7.

During my research I have not found any relevant information comparing the 3770k to the 9700k/9900k. I assume this is because the age gap is so large! Most reviews seem to be talking gaming performance which is not what I need to know.

I have a couple of questions about the latest Intel CPUs:

1. I'm hoping that either if the new CPUs would at least double my encoding speed. Does that sound realistic?
2. I've read that too many threads can degrade image quality. Is 16 threads on the 9900k too many?
3. I really want to know about any real world comparisons between the 9700k and the 9900k with regard to x264 and x265 encoding. Is the difference noticeable?

Thanks in advance for any advice - I really need it!

 

[duffbeer]

Thanks for posting. Sounds like my guess at the speed increase may be about right.
I can't convince myself to go down the AMD route. If I was gaming it would be a good choice but for video encoding I think the Intel is a better option as they have higher clock speeds and less threads.
Any idea about the image quality? I'm not sure if I would be better off with a 9700k as that doesn't have HT.

 

[duffbeer]

All my encoding is offline using constant quality - some x264 and some x265.
It looks like the 9900k beats the 9700k by a decent amount but I have read a couple of forum posts that suggest you shouldn't have threads in double digits. I'm confused but probably over thinking it.

 

[duffbeer]

Thanks for the suggestion. Quality is obviously very subjective but every test I have ever seen suggests that GPU encoding is still a long way behind software encoding. The file sizes are also much bigger with GPU encoding.

Still confused to be honest. I can't find anyone who has real world experience with encoding on these processors.

 

[duffbeer]

I think the 9900x is a little too pricey. Tempted to check out the new Ryzen CPUs but there's always something better round the corner!

 

[duffbeer]

I like the idea of going for Ryzen but I have a couple of worries.
1. Some reviews show the 2700x beating a 9700k in x264 and some show exactly the opposite.
2. Lack of iGPU means I need to buy a GFX card and that means there is no real saving.
3. I don't know much about AMD quirks - I've read about memory problems etc.

Being able to upgrade the CPU in a couple of years seems like a VERY good idea.

 

[duffbeer]

As Rainmaker has stated, a budget would be good so your replies can be more tailored. As you mentioned 9700K I assumed you might want to save a little cash though if you're really serious about encoding and have the cash to spare then you would look to go Threadripper for a massive improvement in encoding/transcoding speeds.

One important thing to note, the amount of threads does not adversely impact quality. I have a 48 thread encoding rig and I see no difference in quality. Another important point is that I disable HT for my encodes. In my tests my overall encodes were faster when using only actual cores. This is why I would get the 9700K over the 9900K if the choice were between those two.

I don't have a specific budget. I am willing to spend more if the performance is significantly better. I realise that sounds a little vague but that's my train of thought at the moment.

Interesting to read your comment about extra threads not affecting quality but your point about disabling HT is what concerns me. Some reviews put the 9900k x264/x265 speeds way above the 9700k and some only slightly above.
I'm tempted by the upgrade possibilities with Ryzen but from what I can see the threadripper doesn't have any advantages (for my usage) over the 9900k.

 

[duffbeer]

Thanks for all the comments above - I really appreciate it. 7 years since I built my previous PC and I feel a little out of date!

I haven't even started to think about SSDs and DDR4 yet!

 

[duffbeer]

Same boat (and CPU) as you, but I'm going to wait till the new AMD Zen chips get released before taking the plunge. I've had the same CPU since 2012, so I don't see that a couple of more months will make that much difference

Just a note about GPU encoding, I bought a Turing-based GPU, and the latest version of NVenc appears to be pretty good - file size is still greater than x264, but I couldn't tell the difference in terms of quality between a couple of test files I did (QP 10 vs CR 10).

I think my HDs are about to die so my upgrade is a little more urgent. Waiting for the new Ryzens is the best plan if you're not in a hurry as hopefully it will reduce the cost of Intels at the same time.

On another subject...…..CR10!!!

 

[duffbeer]

If your hard drive(s) is threatening to fail, then that's certainly requiring an urgent replacement. Changing your CPU/mobo/RAM at the same time... isn't.

I mentioned in my first post that the PC is getting flakey. It's not just the hard drives, there is a problem with the LAN connection and also a weird power related issue that could be the PSU or the motherboard. Its time for an upgrade!
Besides, I see no point in buying hard drives and reinstalling a PC that is not powerful enough to do the job I need in a reasonable amount of time.

So, how close is the 2700x to a 9900k with x265 encoding? The comparison reviews are inconsistent to say the least!