To transcode and encode videos, what processor is fine to use?

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I'm probably the best person to ask regarding video encoding.

I've tested first, second and third gen i5s and i7s along with various AMDs.

The absolute best bang for buck is the i5. No question! Overclocked there is no difference between that and the i7 on the same clock speed. Once you go over 4GHz Hyper Threading makes little to zero gains.

Say clear of Cuda, good software encoding yields better results

Which AMD CPUs are these and what software and what versons did you use??

Another factor is that the sub £140 Core i5 CPUs have lower Turbo too.

Moreover,looking at the FX6300(which also can be overclocked),it can keep up or is faster than a Core i5 2400(I have the Xeon E3 1220 which is the same CPU with more L3 cache). Considering the 35% to 40% more you need to spend for the lower end Core i5,they are NOT the best bang for buck looking at the reviews. You are not seeing a 35% to 40% improvement in performance at all.

The K series Core i5 if overclocked are better value than the cheaper Core i5 CPUs and probably the Xeon E3 1230 V2 if you don't. However,overclocking means greater costs for the motherboard,CPU(K series) and cooler,on top of the CPU cost.

I even tested HB 0.9.5 and 0.9.6 as part of a effort on another forum with dozens of contributors,a while back,and the AMD CPUs seemed OK TBH. I can't comment on later versions,though especially with the issues regarding CPU utilisation problems. I think they might have been fixed now.

The Dell one seems to be better with the higher clock speed and better GPU.

The one with the Core i7(which is a tad over budget) seems the best.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Yes in my posts I do come across as favouring intel only because I've only ever had intel systems and do not know much about AMD. I also get told by friends and family that AMD is to be avoided whilst others say AMD is cheaper as well as just as good as intel. People also say that intel is just a big name and are expensive. You guys would know more than me about Intel and AMD so if there are any AMD processors similar to the i5 or i7, i'll consider them (yes I know it has been mentioned in the above posts).

Whether you go for an AMD CPU or an Intel one,ignore all the old wives tails about AMD!!

A few things:
1.)The fastest supercomputer in the US uses AMD CPUs,the massive aerospace company Lockheed Martin bought an AMD powered one recently,and one of the fastest supercomputers in the UK,HECToR,uses AMD CPUs.
2.)The Wii and Xbox360 uses AMD graphics cards
3.)The Wii U uses an AMD graphics card and the next Xbox and the PS4,supposedly will use both an AMD CPU and and graphics card.

Now,if huge companies and establishments don't have an issue using AMD,then neither should you or anyone else!!

Look at the iPad?? It uses a CPU from a company most people hardly knew anything about,ie,ARM and yet did it stop the iPad selling so many units??

So,its more about finding what fits your budget better,whether it is AMD or Intel.

 

[HankScorpio]

Comes down to cost. AMD give more value for money with their products, but CPU wise cannot really touch intel for all round and raw performance.(on high end cpus)

 

[jrwagh333]

Also getting in on this... What would people say is the best program to convert a MKV to an MPEG4 file?

 

[wam7]

Once you go over 4GHz Hyper Threading makes little to zero gains.

Sorry, but this is incorrect. If the software utilises HT correctly then it will scale linearly. (As tested on my I7 CPU at 5Ghz with HT enabled and disabled). If you really are into a lot of encoding then you should aim for an I7 2600k or 3770k.

Stay clear of Cuda, good software encoding yields better results

This is good advice. Also include in that Quicksync; very fast but fairly poor results.