Improving encode times

Pkiely · 23 Jul 2009 at 16:47

Hi folks just a quick question that google isn't being directly helpful over, I've been spending more and more time in video production, with After Effects and such programs, but it's getting to the point where the desired effects I want on some things are taking days to render fully!
Whats the biggest benefit to improve the render time and encoding?
I got e2180, 2gb RAM, 8800gts 512, abit i35 pro, i'm not looking to build a new pc for another 2 years or so, but maybe a component or 2 if it halves or the time, but not if its marginal improvements. Cheers

theheyes · 23 Jul 2009 at 18:37

Overclock. Also, what operating system are you using?

UKDTweak · 23 Jul 2009 at 18:41

Change the e2180 to a Q6600 and for more just OC it to at least 3ghz

miniyazz · 23 Jul 2009 at 19:46

UKDTweak said:
Change the e2180 to a Q6600 and for more just OC it to at least 3ghz

This, or try Badaboom (or other CUDA-enabled video encoder).

AbsenceJam · 23 Jul 2009 at 20:04

Get a Q6600 and some more RAM. What formats do you encode in? Usually quicker/better to encode outside of After Effects.

Ignore the above poster, Badaboom and other CUDA encoders give horrendous quality. After Effects uses CUDA but not for the final render and encoding IIRC.

Pkiely · 24 Jul 2009 at 11:18

Thanks for responses guys. I'm on XP 32 Pro.
As for encoding, if it's a draft i'll do a LQ xvid internally, if it's medium + beyond, i'll be rendering uncompressed/huffyuv and encode with x264 with aac audio, 720p format.

I'm not that brave at OC'ing, f.e. I only have the 2180 at 2.4ghz when it can easily easily do far more! But Q6600 idea - the application benefits from quad core? And do you think the times would be marginal or pretty good.
Cheers!

theheyes · 24 Jul 2009 at 14:32

It would be worth checking if the software you use takes advantage of/is optimized for 64bit and multiple cores so you can maybe upgrade your OS (although you might need more RAM) and CPU.

Probably the best bang for buck would be to get a Q6600 and overclock it. I don't consider myself a hardcore overclocker but I took my Q6600 to 3Ghz without too much trouble with that board. If you're confident enough to replace the CPU and fit an aftermarket cooler then you should be okay tweaking a few motherboard settings - there will be plenty of help on offer in the appropriate forum.

Nick1881 · 24 Jul 2009 at 15:02

If you do go for the new CPU option the Q6700 is a good buy atm.

theheyes · 24 Jul 2009 at 16:02

Yeah if you do choose to upgrade ask the guys in the CPU/overlocking forums for what is best at the moment.

CaptainCrash · 24 Jul 2009 at 17:39

AbsenceJam said:
Ignore the above poster, Badaboom and other CUDA encoders give horrendous quality.

There's a recent review here which appears to suggest otherwise.

asim18 · 24 Jul 2009 at 17:49

CaptainCrash said:
There's a recent review here which appears to suggest otherwise.

All of those screenshots say "CPU" on them.

EDIT: also, Premiere CS4 takes up over 90% on all four cores when encoding. A quad core will greatly improve your encode times.

Andre · 25 Jul 2009 at 06:03

You could look into one of the [url=http://www.matrox.com/video/en/products/]Matrox Video Products depending how serious you are[/URL]

If not, fastest quad-code (Hyperthreading if you can stretch to it) CPU you can buy

AbsenceJam · 25 Jul 2009 at 09:26

CaptainCrash said:
There's a recent review here which appears to suggest otherwise.

I read the article to humour you but it doesn't suggest otherwise at all and it's hard to take seriously in any way. Their using one rather poor encoding package that can use CPU, CUDA and Stream - no fullsize screenshots, no comparison to other encoders, no details on version, settings used etc.
x264 would have been quicker and provided vastly better quality.