CPU for video encoding

[Johnnie.it]

Hi there guys, I'll need a quick advice about that, as the selection of AMD CPUs on the bench section is quite limited.

Right now I've got a Phenom II x4 955 3.2 BE, but the x264 encoding takes really a lot of time so I was considering to upgrade my CPU.
Judging by the results on the benchmark section, viable candidates were the Phenom II X4 980 and the FX-8150.
I was oriented towards AMD because of a price issue in the first place, and also because my current mainboard already supports both of them.

Is there any cheaper (I mean €/fps) intel processor I should consider?
Of course, that mean I'd have to replace the mainboard too.

This rig I used mainly for gaming, there's also 2x4gb gskill ripjaw 1333 cas7 and a 6950. Up until now it's handled anything I could throw at it, always at 1080p and max details.
Now I started converting all my bluray discs for my htpc...the fellowship of the ring took 15 hours and I just can't stand that. Of course I could sacrifice some quality to speed up the process, but if a couple hundred euros can solve the issue, why not?

So, what do you think?

...aaaaand of course, let me thank you in advance

 

[AtenRa]

What motherboard do you currently use ??

 

[NTMBK]

If your processor will support them, a Phenom II X6 would be the best bet. Amazon still has the 1045T in stock, and if you shop around you should be able to find a 1090T in stock somewhere.

 

[inf64]

In x264,FX has the edge over X6. If you can get FX8120 ,go for it. Even at stock 3.1Ghz FX8120 is better CPU for encoding than X6 1100T. Then you can push it with no problems to 4-4.2Ghz on air cooling and you will have a much better performance than what you have now.

 

[Johnnie.it]

The mainboard I'm using is an ASUS M4A89GTD PRO/USB3. I'm wondering, in case I choose an FX-8150, if I should replace it.
On the CPU support page, this CPU is reported as "Beta support only"
Ref. http://www.asus.com/Motherboards/AMD_AM3/M4A89GTD_PROUSB3/#CPUS
Well, in case it's not a problem to waste 60-70€ on a new mainboard. I was considering the ASROCK 970 PRO3.

Anyway on the benchmark section here on anandtech the two processors are not that different. One is better on first pass, but the 8150 rocks on the second pass. I didn't average the FPS but, as long as the price difference goes, I thought the 980 was better value.

Anyway, the performance right now is quite right (of course, I'm talking about everything else but encoding) so the upgrade is just for that.
Needless to say, I don't want, in any way, to save time for video encoding while sacrificing any FPS for gaming.

Also, I might consider moving to a combo intel cpu+mainboard, as long as I don't have to sell a kidney

If you don't have anything else to say about that, I'll go with ASROCK 970 PRO3 (or possibly an ASROCK 970 EXTREME3 - just 10€ price difference, but as long as I have 1 or 2 sata3 and usb3 ports, I'm fine) and an FX-8150.

Any last thoughts?

@inf64: why the 8120? Why not a 6200, if it's just to save money?

 

[Yuriman]

If you're willing to pony up for a new board, go Intel. Elsewise the x6 is a great value.

 

[Idontcare]

Now I started converting all my bluray discs for my htpc...the fellowship of the ring took 15 hours and I just can't stand that. Of course I could sacrifice some quality to speed up the process, but if a couple hundred euros can solve the issue, why not?

What are you doing that is taking 15hrs?

Ripping shouldn't take 15hrs, and if it is for HTPC then replaying a ripped blueray/dvd doesn't require transcoding of anything...htpc players can play the ripped disc straight up.

Are you transcoding to reduce the file size for storage limitation reasons or transcoding to reduce the image resolution itself?

 

[Johnnie.it]

@Yuriman: replacing the board is not a problem, but usually picking up a similar intel processor requires quite a lot of money more.
For instance, take the comparison between the FX-8150 and a Core i7-975.
Both score pretty much the same here: http://www.techspot.com/review/523-ivy-bridge-intel-core-i7-3770k/page6.html
only, the FX costs €170, the i7 costs about €1000.
I don't want to go that far.

Back to transcoding: 15 hours was the worst I could do, turning on all filters I could, double pass and slow first pass etc.
Of course in 4 hours I can do that (for a movie about 3h40m long isn't bad).

And, xbmc can't play blurays without some hacks, that would totally disrupt my setup.
At first I tried downloading some "good" mkv files (it's films I already own, so that shouldn't be an issue) but I always found that either the video had some grain, or the audio tracks weren't what I wanted, or were encoded badly, or the files were too big/small etc...so I decided to rip and encode my own.
Now, since I've got a collection with hundreds of movies (and I'm not even thinking of ripping everything) I still have to compromise on the space.

 

[Makaveli]

What are you doing that is taking 15hrs?

Ripping shouldn't take 15hrs, and if it is for HTPC then replaying a ripped blueray/dvd doesn't require transcoding of anything...htpc players can play the ripped disc straight up.

Are you transcoding to reduce the file size for storage limitation reasons or transcoding to reduce the image resolution itself?

Very good question was wondering the same thing.

15 hours? are you using a single core p4

 

[inf64]

Why not 6200 instead of 8120? As of now, 6200 is just 20$ cheaper on newegg so I suppose it's similar difference everywhere else. The difference in performance is huge though since you have 25% more CPU cores and they both OC roughly the same on air cooling. So for 20$ more you get 25% more performance. FX8120 is arguably the best perf./$ Bulldozer CPU right now. Soon maybe PD based FX8320 (3.5Ghz ~180$) will take its place , but until it launches the FX8120 is the best way to go if you want FX based machine for encoding job. Spending money on aging X6 which is slower than even 3.1Ghz 8120(as you can see in that review in both Handbrake and x264) is pointless.

 

[Durvelle27]

just get these


AMD CPU FX Series 8120 Black Edition 8 Core Processor Bulldozer £117.37

http://www.scan.co.uk/products/amd-...1ghz-16mb-total-cache-ht-5200mt-s-125w-retail


Asus M5A97 AMD 970 AM3+ Motherbaord £65.96

http://www.scan.co.uk/products/asus...r3-sata-iii-6gb-s-raid-sata-pcie-20-(x16)-atx

 

[Johnnie.it]

Why not 6200 instead of 8120?

sorry, I was watching the "x264 HD Benchmark 4.0" chart.
There, the 8120 and the 6100 score pretty much the same.

Then, moving on to 8120 vs. 8150, why the first? is the ~60€ price difference not worth it, or is there anything else?

just get these


AMD CPU FX Series 8120 Black Edition 8 Core Processor Bulldozer £117.37

http://www.scan.co.uk/products/amd-...1ghz-16mb-total-cache-ht-5200mt-s-125w-retail


Asus M5A97 AMD 970 AM3+ Motherbaord £65.96

http://www.scan.co.uk/products/asus...r3-sata-iii-6gb-s-raid-sata-pcie-20-(x16)-atx

Yes, I think I might do just that.

Thanks a lot everybody.

 

[T_Yamamoto]

8120=8150

They're the same thing.

 

[AtenRa]

First of all wait ~7-10 days for the PileDriver to be released,

Then if you will like to buy a new AM3+ mobo go for a new one that will %100 support PileDriver CPUs as well.

As for the 8120 vs 8150, if you OC go for the first and add the price difference to a good HSF, if you dont OC then go for the 8150.

 

[Johnnie.it]

Sadly, I can't wait. There's an offer on a vendor that really tickles me

Anyway, I'm using a scythe katana 3 for cooling now, and I have to say it's the best alu heatsink I've ever had. The fan is very smooth too.
I always do "tune up" the cpu a bit, but I'm not an hardcore overclocker, so...
well, to cut it out I pretty much decided for the 8150. It's only 25€ more than the 8120, I think I can live with that.

As for the mainboard, I really can't see any difference between:
€ 75.99 - ASUS M5A97 LE R2.0
€ 87.99 - ASUS M5A97 PRO
€ 97.99 - ASUS M5A97 EVO R2.0

They're pretty much the same board. The specs reported on the website look almost identical, as far as I can see, so I think I'm gonna get the first.

Anyone has anything else to add?
The shopping list is, for now:
€ 75.99 - ASUS M5A97 LE R2.0
€ 174,90 - AMD FX-8150 BE

 

[inf64]

That's it,if you are not OCing. Should be massive boost in encoding vs your X4(2nd pass should be more than 2x faster on FX8150 than on X4 @ 3.4Ghz).

 

[Deaks2]

Is there a reason you're only looking at AMD CPU's? An i5-3570K can be had for under $200 USD.

 

[AtenRa]

Is there a reason you're only looking at AMD CPU's? An i5-3570K can be had for under $200 USD.

The 3570K cost more and perform worst than the FX8150 in x264.

 

[Deaks2]

The 3570K cost more and perform worst than the FX8150 in x264.

Ummm, from here: http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core-i7-3770k-i5-3570k_7.html

Seems to me that the 4 fps loss in the 2nd pass would be more than offset by the 40+ fps advantage during the first pass...

 

[Deaks2]

Then add in QuickSync and the AMD has no chance:

From: http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/cpu/38421-intel-core-i5-3570k-22nm-ivy-bridge/?page=5

 

[jones377]

1 hour video @ 30frames/s = 108000 frames.

8150:
1st pass 108000/123,92 = 871 seconds = 14,52 minutes
2nd pass 108000/37,42 = 2886 seconds = 48,10 minutes
Total encoding time (video only) 14,52 + 48,10 = 62,62 minutes

3570K:
1st pass 108000/166,53 = 648 seconds = 10,81 minutes
2nd pass 108000/33,78 = 3197 seconds = 53,29 minutes
Total encoding time (video only) 10,81 + 53,29 = 64,10 minutes

A bit closer than I thought it would be at first glance, still a narrow win for Bulldozer. One of the very few uses where you can actually justify it vs SB/IB.

 

[Idontcare]

The 3570K cost more and perform worst than the FX8150 in x264.

When is the 8350 out?

 

[Durvelle27]

When is the 8350 out?

next week

 

[AtenRa]

Then add in QuickSync and the AMD has no chance

You dont have the same Quality as with the x264 codec, it may be ok to use QuickSync when you play the video in small screens (phones or pads) but for a big screen viewing(TV or Projector) you need x264 for the best Image Quality.

Unless you dont care having the best IQ.

 

[Makaveli]

You dont have the same Quality as with the x264 codec, it may be ok to use QuickSync when you play the video in small screens (phones or pads) but for a big screen viewing(TV or Projector) you need x264 for the best Image Quality.

Unless you dont care having the best IQ.

This is true cpu encoding still has the best IQ out of all the available options currently.