|
Looking to Build a New Gaming PC
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
24. December 2008 @ 11:23 |
Link to this message
|
|
Except they aren't. The rest of the architecture may be more expensive, but the i7 920 is only 50% more expensive retail, and in video editing, which Mackles is doing, is actually 60% faster.
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
|
JaguarGod
Senior Member
|
24. December 2008 @ 18:42 |
Link to this message
|
|
I guess it would really depend on how much video editing the OP does. The actual editing portion wouldn't matter which CPU, but for the encoding there will be differences. If the OP is only doing a few minutes of video, then there will be no difference. If the OP is going to be encoding all day, then there will be a pretty large difference in the amount of work done.
For Cinema4D, either CPU is utter crap. You would need maybe 48 i7 920s to be a decent C4D build. I guess you could set them up in a cluster or something, but then you are looking at about $50,000 and a very happy Electric company :P The reason is that the i7 965 takes about 50 seconds to render 1 frame at 800x600x8. To render in High Def would probably take 5 minutes for one frame, so you are looking at 2 hours per second of video. Of course you can turn off every feature in Advanced Render Module and not use any lighting or shadows, but then what's the point of using C4D?
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
24. December 2008 @ 20:44 |
Link to this message
|
|
Well, either way, the i7 will still fare better than the C2Q...
|
Member
|
24. December 2008 @ 20:47 |
Link to this message
|
|
But theyre SO expensive right now...I guess that doesn't matter here, seeing as the OP doesn't really have a budget.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
24. December 2008 @ 20:50 |
Link to this message
|
The CPU isn't, it's just the motherboard and RAM, and if you encode video, you're right to pay the extra.
|
|
Mackles
Newbie
|
27. December 2008 @ 17:03 |
Link to this message
|
|
|
|
gera229
Member
|
27. December 2008 @ 19:04 |
Link to this message
|
|
sammoris what is video editing? I mean what do you mean by video editing? Thanks.
|
|
JaguarGod
Senior Member
|
28. December 2008 @ 02:52 |
Link to this message
|
@Mackles,
Even the onboard audio will be sufficient for gaming.... Audio quality is as good as the worst component. If you have a typical $100 - $200 setup, then it won't make a difference. If you have a $50,000 BeoLab surround setup, then it makes sense to worry about the audio source.
@gera229,
Video Editing is just as the name suggests. It is editing video in some way. This could be anything from adding subtitles streams, merging different clips together, resizing, adding color effects, etc... It would require using a video editing software like Adobe Premier Pro, Sony Vegas, Avid, even free stuff like VirtualDubMod etc...
Video editing requires more system memory, lots of CPU strength and a good graphics card. Technically, a Workstation card would work best, but desktop cards are enough for editing. The software can actually use over 2GB of system memory depending on what you do. If you are capturing HD video, then a good Dual Core would be a minimum requirement.
The CPU plays the major role in actually encoding the final clip. Encoding has always been very heavy on the CPU and will put it under full load. Therefore, the better the CPU, the faster the encoding gets done. With the i7, they are able to process 8 threads, so encoding is much faster than C2Q. Even the i7 920 will be faster than the QX9770. Video editing can actually take advantage of multiple CPUs as well, so the more CPUs you use to encode, the faster the job gets done. Additionally, you can use networked PCs to increase encoding speed even more.
Newer software will be utilizing GPU rendering. I think the only cards that will work are Quadro cards and ATI HD 4000 series, but I could be mistaken. I have not looked into that too much. A GPU will be much faster than a CPU and will definitely give a nice speed boost.
The most CPU intensive would be 3D CAD/Animation rendering. For example, if you want to render a still frame at 4000x4000, it would take about 15 minutes with a Q6600. Also, 3D modeling will eat up any desktop graphics card you can throw at it. This is why Workstation cards are used for this. Once you get a little complex in your scenes, there is much noticeable lag when working with a desktop card. For rendering video in 3D, you would want to use a network at the very least, or you will have your PC working at 100% for days, if not weeks. There are also render farms which is a huge network of PCs that you can send your 3D scenes to and they will render it for you. This is not free, but is the best solution for someone wanting to create an animation.
|
|
gera229
Member
|
28. December 2008 @ 13:10 |
Link to this message
|
|
So like photoshop it's video editing right?
|
|
Mackles
Newbie
|
28. December 2008 @ 13:47 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by gera229:
So like photoshop it's video editing right?
Think about what you just said :P
Photoshop is for editing still frames, pictures. Pictures aren't video, so technically it is not video editing, it is graphic design.
Video editing consists of programs such as Sony Vegas, Adobe Premiere, Final Cut Pro, Adobe After Effects, etc. You would be editing actual video clips. Cutting them up, changing transitions, masking this and that, adding effects, adding text, etc. You would end up rendering out into a .avi, a .wmv, a .mov, a .mp4, etc. NOT a .png or a .jpg like you might with Photo Editing in a program like Photoshop.
|
|
gera229
Member
|
28. December 2008 @ 17:13 |
Link to this message
|
|
So video editing is basically used for making videos yourself? Thanks.
|
|
Mackles
Newbie
|
28. December 2008 @ 20:26 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by gera229:
So video editing is basically used for making videos yourself? Thanks.
Not necessarily making them, it's modifying them or adding EFFECTS to make them look better / different. Although i guess some could say that certain types of video editing involve creating footage.
|
|
gera229
Member
|
28. December 2008 @ 23:57 |
Link to this message
|
|
Ok with the q9550 will the video editing be smooth enough? Like sam said the i7 will do 60% faster but to me it really doesn't matter if it's still going to be smooth enough if so and I won't mind spending the extra money on the i7 if it will be fine with the q9550. Oh and also what kind of stuff to you edit in video editing? Thanks. Peace.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 28. December 2008 @ 23:58
|
|
Mackles
Newbie
|
29. December 2008 @ 02:52 |
Link to this message
|
What edition of vista do i want? I know i want 64-bit to utilize my cores and ram, but on newegg there are TONS of versions, ranging from 700$ to 80$.
Thanks
|
|
gera229
Member
|
29. December 2008 @ 03:02 |
Link to this message
|
|
Well u don't need a vista that's too expensive in my experience I didn't even need those high end vista Operating Systems. Also Ok with the q9550 will the video editing be smooth enough? Like sam said the i7 will do 60% faster but to me it really doesn't matter if it's still going to be smooth enough if so and I won't mind spending the extra money on the i7 if it will be fine with the q9550. Oh and also what kind of stuff to you edit in video editing? Thanks. Peace.
|
|
JaguarGod
Senior Member
|
29. December 2008 @ 04:51 |
Link to this message
|
@Mackles,
You would want any Vista 64 package. Probably Vista 64 Premium or Business would be best.
@gera229,
I've used tons of software on a 700MHz CPU and the editing is smooth as silk on it. You will not put any stress on a CPU by merely editing a video file. Maybe importing will take a few minutes, but nothing crazy.
When you are finished editing and it is time to encode the project, that is where the CPU matters. The encode time will vary depending on which format you choose and what advanced settings you use. Also, the software is very important. If a software cannot utilize more than 2 threads, than a Quad Core will probably be outperformed by a Dual Core (because of clock speed). Most Commercial software should take advantage of Quad Core CPUs.
I don't know how Hyperthreading works, and this is what makes the i7 faster than the C2Q. If a software has to support hyperthreading in order to utilize this, then the software would make all the difference. With Cinema4D for example, it will use 8 threads with an i7, so rendering is much faster than a C2Q and even the 920 would outperform the QX9770.
When SMT is disabled, the i7 will perform about equal to C2Q. For example, in Cinebench, my Q6600 at 3.2GHz scores 13200 and the i7 965 scores a 13600. The render takes 66 seconds for me to complete. This would mean that the score of 13600 of the i7 965 would be roughly a 64.28 second encoding time.
In single thread (SMT does not matter here), the i7 965 scores a 3700 - 3900 depending on the motherboard and the Q6600 at 3.2GHz scores 3681.
Based on this, I think that it is SMT that makes the difference and I don't know if that is dependent on the software, or if it is just a way to make the cores more efficient regardless of software...
i7 965 with SMT:
3725 * 4 cores = 15000 actual was 15250
3900 * 4 cores = 15600 actual was 15680
Q6600 @ 3.2:
3681 * 3.59 = 13207
i7 965 @ 3.2 no SMT:
3815 * 3.57 = 13607
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 29. December 2008 @ 04:55
|
|
gera229
Member
|
29. December 2008 @ 12:38 |
Link to this message
|
|
"i7 965 with SMT:
3725 * 4 cores = 15000 actual was 15250
3900 * 4 cores = 15600 actual was 15680
Q6600 @ 3.2:
3681 * 3.59 = 13207
i7 965 @ 3.2 no SMT:
3815 * 3.57 = 13607 "
I don't understand the above.
And when you encode you just wait for it to finish right? If yes then to me it really doesn't matter. Oh I want to ask what else is it better for other than video editing?
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 29. December 2008 @ 12:40
|
|
Mackles
Newbie
|
29. December 2008 @ 15:27 |
Link to this message
|
|
|
|
JaguarGod
Senior Member
|
29. December 2008 @ 16:25 |
Link to this message
|
@Mackles,
Yes, that is a 64 bit Vista. I did not list it because of the price, but I see it has a rebate of $50. Ask some questions on Vista though. I read lots saying that Ultimate was crap and a waste of money. I know that it can support more RAM than Premium, but I think that is 128GB vs. 64GB. I don't know what other differences there would be. Personally, I don't even use Vista (I use XP Pro x64).
If you do not have expensive Microsoft Software, you can give Linux a try. I used Ubuntu before and that was no different than Windows. The benefits of Linux is the price (free) and there is a lot of free software for it.
@gera229
Those are benchmark scores based on the time it takes to encode. The faster the time, the higher the score.
Here is a translation:
15250 = 56.8 seconds (i7 965 w/SMT)
15680 = 53.8 seconds (i7 965 w/SMT)
13207 = 66 seconds (Q6600 @ 3.2GHz)
13607 = 64.2 seconds (i7 965 no SMT)
As you can see, the difference is up to 12.8 seconds!
The way the benchmark works is that a single 800x600x8 image is encoded and the time is recorded and it comes up with a benchmark score.
Scores of 15000+ would require a C2Q to be overclocked past 3.6GHz. Maybe 3.7 or so. A score of 14750 would be approx a 60 second render time. Since this is a still frame, even though the i7 performs much better than a similarly clocked C2Q, it is still not nearly enough to use for Cinema4D or any other 3D app. You would still require a render farm or some type of Rendering Cluster or Network.
You can take these figures and translate them to other apps. If the i7 performs 18.5% better in encoding software, this would translate to much more work done in a given amount of time or power savings since the PC will be idle longer.
|
|
gera229
Member
|
29. December 2008 @ 17:38 |
Link to this message
|
|
What power savings? Power lasts long enough. I guess I would go for the C2Q then because I don't think I will be doing those things. I'm just asking, but did you list any other things the i7 would be better for and how much better? If not tell me what else it's better for thanks. Peace.
|
|
JaguarGod
Senior Member
|
29. December 2008 @ 20:04 |
Link to this message
|
It will run everything faster except for games. I don't know how much faster, but some apps up to 60% faster.
The software that will most likely take advantage of its speed is anything video related. So if you use software to re-encode (compress) DVDs, or if you convert your movies to mpeg4 etc..., it will make a difference.
You asked for video editing, which would be very CPU intensive. If a software supports multicore encoding, then the i7 will be much faster. Like encoding an mpeg4 video, may take 2 hours on a Q9550, but that same movie would take 1 hour 30 minutes with the i7 920. If you do this a lot every day, then the difference will be that you will get a lot more done in any given amount of time.
As for power savings, I meant energy bill. A PC under 100% real life load, will consume about need about 250 watts and consume roughly 310 watts. So the longer it runs, the more energy it will use. In that 30 minute difference, the PC would waste an extra 2.2 cents. That seems like nothing, but in 1 year, that could add up to being $127! After factoring in interest rates, that is like spending an extra $122 on the slower PC.
If you were just wondering about video editing, and are not going to do it, then the i7 will have virtually no benefit. Yes, it will run programs faster, but if you are not going to put your system under full load, then you will not see much difference. For instance, my Q6600 can load firefox instantly. It loads Photoshop CS4 Extended in about 1/4 of a second. After Effects CS4 takes 3 seconds to load. Premier Pro takes about the same... It will seem blazing fast and it puts the CPU under about only a 40% load for a split second...
So unless you are doing something where the CPU will be running under a high load for a long time, there is no real benefit to an i7. The Q6600 is the entry level C2Q and it is so fast when OC'd to 3.2GHz... Maybe in a few years the i7 will make more sense, but for now, unless you are doing a lot of editing/encoding related work, the i7 is not the best option.
If you are planning to play games, the Q6600 will do great, but the Q9550 would be the best choice. The C2D may actually outperform them, however, this is until newer games come out that will utilize 4 cores.
Maybe it would help if you list some examples of what you do with your PC.
|
|
gera229
Member
|
29. December 2008 @ 20:47 |
Link to this message
|
|
Oh I got and on the power did you mean you have to pay for it???? Or is it for the programs?
I don't think I would do video editing that much so yea.
basically
high end gaming
photoshop
just anything that's media and gaming but I don't do much editing though. Not that much like everyday in a year at least. And you said u load cs4 very quickly but what kind of cpu do you use? Do you do video editing? do you do it A lot? Thanks. Peace.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 29. December 2008 @ 20:48
|
|
JaguarGod
Senior Member
|
29. December 2008 @ 22:25 |
Link to this message
|
The power I meant the electric bill :P
I have a Q6600 overclocked to 3.2GHz. I just finished this build maybe 2 weeks ago and I have just installed Creative Suite 4 Master Collection, so the most I have done is launch the applications included to see what they look like (I previously had CS3 on my old PC).
As for video editing, I have not done any yet since this PC was just put together. I am still organizing and installing whatever I need. However, like I said, the actual editing will not stress your CPU. It is only the encoding that will do it. I will do a little test some time tonight to see how the PC performs, however, I have never used After Effects, so it may take me a while to figure it out :P
Media-wise, High Def video files put literally no stress on the CPU. The max I get is 1%. With anti-virus, the start-up scan takes 2 seconds to complete.
For Photoshop, the CPU will not matter. When they benchmark Photoshop, they are doing tons of pictures rendered in .tiff and high resolution. This is not normal use for Photoshop. I think RAM and GPU would affect it more.
Gaming, the C2Q perform equal to the i7. The only advantage the i7 has in gaming is the X58 chipset which fixes issues with crossfire and SLI. They tend to scale much better, but that is more for 2500x1600 gaming with all settings max, however, a single HD 4870x2 seems to take care of this resolution.
Overall, I think the Video Card would be the most important in your system, then the CPU/RAM. So if you have an HD 4870 or higher, any Quad with performance RAM would do the trick.
|
|
gera229
Member
|
29. December 2008 @ 22:50 |
Link to this message
|
Yea I want to build my own pc with q9550, gtx 260 216 core black edition, and corsair ram at 1066 mhz ddr2 not ddr3 u think that would be more than enough? well maybe less than 1066 cuz that's what it says on specs but my mobo and cpu might no support 1066 unless I overclock? Or it will support it? Well someone told me it's only going to be 667mhz ram speed at stock cuz 333x2 is 666. Thanks. Peace.
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
JaguarGod
Senior Member
|
30. December 2008 @ 00:48 |
Link to this message
|
The CPU will be stock at 1333FSB, meaning that it will be 333.4 MHz x 4. So RAM will work at a 1:1 ratio at 667.2MHz. If you decide to overclock the CPU using FSB to 1600MHz, then the RAM would have a 1:1 ratio at 800MHz.
If you leave it at stock, you will have to use a 5:4 ratio with 800MHz RAM in order to get 800MHz. Once you look at the motherboard settings in the BIOS this is easy to figure out.
The Q9550 is probably the best for your situation. It is a faster chip than what I have. BTW, I tried an editing test and the CPU capped off at 44%. It was going to finish a 100 minute movie in 12 minutes, so I think the software is not able to handle 4 cores. I would have to get an updated version (I used Mainconcept). I wanted to use After Effects, but there is nothing on my HDD that I can import :P
I am not sure which Motherboard you are using though, so I cannot say how the RAM will clock.
With Photoshop though, the program does get faster with ATI HD 4000 series cards because it uses GPU acceleration. If ATI is an option for you, the closest to the GTX 260 Black Edition is the HD 4870 1GB.
|
