• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

Need more CPU Power what to go for ?

yes if you went x79 for the six core cpu's

you can pick the 2600k/2700k quadcore(hyperthreaded)chips for your current board
 
might give a 2700k a go. if i decide to really go to town and blow a bit more cash on this what would be an ideal board / cpu to get the fastest rendering.
 
Don't spend too much - you'd be looking at best a 15-20% gain or so with the 2700K. Hyperthreading doesn't add any extra cores, it just makes running more threads a little more efficient.
 
Hyperthreading helps a lot if the current software isn't particularly well optimised, but can slow things down if it is. Hyperthreading is usually switched off in computing clusters. It might help with the software you're using, but I wouldn't assume it will without benchmarks.

I don't think rendering is particularly memory bound (though I would be pleased to be corrected), so quad to hex core intel should come reasonably close to the nominal 50% faster. A couple of people say amd does rendering well, but I wouldn't put enough faith in that to move away from the 2500k which wins soundly in almost everything else.

Anyhow. I'm mostly posting to say the words "render farm". The fastest rendering is invariably done using several computers networked together instead of one epic single socket overclocked board. Clustering is difficult in all the fields I am familiar with, but it's possible farming is now sufficiently mainstream that your rendering code supports it out of the box.

edit: as in, move from one computer to twelve, cut rendering time by a factor of ten - or something along those lines. The speedup depends on software and networking hardware.
 
Have a look at this chart http://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU/28 It's x264 but similar workload.

The stock 2500K comes in at 27.7 FPS, so the only options which give you +50% performance are:

Intel i7 4770K = 42.2 fps (£270)
AMD FX8350 = 44 fps (£150)
Intel i7 3930K = 52.3 fps (£470)

The only system in budget is the AMD one. You can get the CPU and a decent mobo for £260 or so, and keep all the rest of your kit (memory etc.).

Overclocking should give approx a linear speedup though, so if your 2500K goes from 3.3 to 4.6 that's a 40% increase, so your performance should also go up by 40%, which almost matches the chips at the top of the chart.

Cache is the only other factor really, which is partly why the 8350 does so well, it has 8 MB of L2 cache compared to the intel 1 MB.
 
Last edited:
He can put down 260 on a 3770K and overclock it.
The 3770K has more OC potential in total MHZ gain and percentage, it'll be the better performer, and it's the sameish price.

If you were buying brand new and didn't have a 1155 set up, then the FX83 would be better.
 
20% if you're lucky. The Sony Vegas benchmark I posted showed only a 6% gain going from a 3570K to a 3770K, and that's with a 3% increase in clock speed included.
 
Phixsator said:
I thought it was possible to render in vegas using the GPU? wouldnt that be a better option considering how much faster it is?
Click to expand...

+1 What version of Sony Vegas are you using? The newer versions support GPU rendering and it should speed up your encoding speeds considerably. I would search if your GPU is supported by the version of the program you are using.
 
what vegas settings you using as said a 2 minute render should not still take 20 minutes.

is your copy legit or a cracked version as this could be your problem ;)
 
Can you disable the 480 when rendering to see if it changes the time it takes the video to render. If it's taking longer with the 480 then try updating drives .etc
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom