EEVblog Electronics Community Forum

General => General Chat => Topic started by: EEVblog on April 08, 2013, 01:36:21 pm

Title: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: EEVblog on April 08, 2013, 01:36:21 pm
Well, I did it, I bravely entered an Apple store today  :o
Me: "Where's your Mac Pro, I want to try Final Cut Pro"
Dude: "Over there Sir"
Me: "No, that's the notebook, I want the desktop"
Dude: "Oh, I think we might have one right over there in the back"
Me: "Ok, so how do I use Final Cut Pro"
Dude: "What's that?"
Me: "It's video editing software"
Dude: "I'll have to see if a technology training specialist can help you with that."
Me: "Ok, thanks. I'll have a go myself while I wait. Now, how do I copy these files from my USB stick to the hard drive"
Dude: "You just drag and drop"
Me: "I can't use a copy command?"
Dude: "I have no idea, you just drag and drop"

New specialist dude arrives.

Dude: "I highly recommend you don't get the Mac Pro desktop"
Me: "Why?"
Dude: "It hasn't been updated in a long time, and it's just not recommended as a new system"
Me: "But I need to install a PCI accelerator card"
Dude: (has actually heard of the matrox card, impressive) "Ah, ok, that's the only reason you'd want one.
Me: "So how do a I copy these .MTS video files from my camera into Final Cut"
Dude: "You can't do that, it has be in the original card format"
Me: "You're kidding right? I can't just copy and drop a .MTS file onto the timeline"
Dude: "Nope, it's always been that way, it's silly"
Me: "That's almost a show stopper. How about this .MP4 file?"

and to cut it short, the MP4 file worked, Final Cut Pro edited stuff like I expected it to, and Compressor did seem to have a Constant Quality H.264 render option.

So we started rendering my 10 minute H.264 MP4 file (with no edits, just a single clip on the timeline) with same specs as the input file and default "High" for constant quality setting. And we watched the progress bar creep up and up I gave up at the 30 min mark when it still wasn't half way, and it said 39min left.

Me: "This is your top of the line Mac Pro right?"
Dude: "Yep, fully optioned up"
Me: "Is it always this slow to render"?
Dude: "Yep."

Holy crap.
No wonder the Matrox CompressHD card boasts that it takes Final Cut Pro up to "real time" rendering, it had bloody well want to!

For reference, to render and transcode the same 10 minute video on my current system, would take <20min total, for both steps in the process.
And I have a nothing special i7 notebook.

So it looks like, at best, a $3000+ Mac Pro with $330 Final Cut pro and a $500 Compress HD card would probably come out the same speed as a relatively high power cheap i7 system running $80 Vegas + free Handbrake.

Fail.
Sorry sorry all you Mac and FinalCut Pro fanboys.  :--
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: LapTop006 on April 08, 2013, 01:42:20 pm
So...

The current gen "Retina" MacBook Pro's are actually faster then the current Mac Pro's (which are horribly out of date and long overdue for replacement).

As for performance there's a whole mess there, it shouldn't be anything like that slow. The best thing to do would be find someone who already uses FCP and sit down with them for a while.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: EEVblog on April 08, 2013, 01:50:16 pm
The current gen "Retina" MacBook Pro's are actually faster then the current Mac Pro's (which are horribly out of date and long overdue for replacement).

How much faster on rendering? I'm betting not a huge amount.
Thing is, I'd want to get a full workflow improvement of at least say 400% to make it worthwhile switching, as I can likely double my current speed with just a PC hardware upgrade, which is half the price of a new Mac.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: nitro2k01 on April 08, 2013, 02:18:54 pm
Dude: "You just drag and drop"
Me: "I can't use a copy command?"
Dude: "I have no idea, you just drag and drop"
What is this copy command you speak of? I believe you can select multiple files and press cmd+C/cmd+V to copy the files. (Similar to ctrl+C/ctrl+V in the Windows file explorer.) Or right click (or, lacking a right mouse button, ctrl-click or double finger tap) and choose copy, if I recall correctly.

Hmm, I wonder. Did the version of FCP on that Mac even support multicore video encoding? That's going to make all the difference for encoding. Like someone said, without the accelerator card, you should have tried the MacBook instead as it probably has a faster CPU. And also, encoding is just one aspect, which depends mostly on CPU power. There might be other aspects, like application response time and similar which might be better because of the underlying OS design. Or not. I haven't compared how OSX and Windows compare when it comes to video editing, I'm just saying.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: DeRaaf on April 08, 2013, 02:23:21 pm
I didn't try it myself.

But an new generation iMac is most probably what you want. There is no need for internal PCI slots no more.

Thunderbolt isn't just the faster "FireWire"!! -> http://www.sonnettech.com/product/echoexpresschassis.html (http://www.sonnettech.com/product/echoexpresschassis.html) (Matrox is a partner for the thing, so should work)

Don't become a Mac hater because you tried a very old (I know it's new from the shop) Mac Pro. Here in Europe the thing is even banned from the market.

Don't buy a retina MacBook. That's overpriced hype. I just got a new MacBook (bottom of the range 13 inch, i5 cpu, just the internal INTEL hd4000 gpu, 16GB ram (way overkill, but fun! I can make a temporary RAM HDD which blows even the fastest SDD out of the water), normal 5400 RPM HDD). Got it for around €1000.

I render a 10 minute full HD .mp4 fill (from camera (.mp4 format), edited in Premiere Pro) in about 20 minutes with Adobe Media Encoder. That is with normal HDD and no ThunderBolt PCI expansion. Plenty fast for me.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: Strada916 on April 08, 2013, 02:29:01 pm
Mac are running intel chips now days? I'm guessing the hardware would not be too far from a generic PC?
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: free_electron on April 08, 2013, 02:32:02 pm
I render a 10 minute full HD .mp4 fill (from camera (.mp4 format), edited in Premiere Pro) in about 20 minutes with Adobe Media Encoder.

and that is still bloody slow !

I never understood why this encoding is so slow on computers .... come on, the simplest camera that can shoot AVCHD costs well under 300$ and encodes in real time after all....
I have a matrox RTx-2 and that thing flies through encoding... provided you capture the source video end let it decompress while capturing... computers aren't up to decoding , manipulating re-encoding on the fly apprently... that RTx is basically a virtex FPGA from Xilinx with an embedded PowerPC processor in it... all bolted onto a PICx card.

The same goes for that Matrox card that dave is talking about. its a small card with merely 1 chip on it. : poof realtime H264 encoding... and here you have quadcore cpu's racing at 3 GHz and they can't cope...
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: cwalex on April 08, 2013, 02:36:02 pm
I didn't try it myself.

But an new generation iMac is most probably what you want. There is no need for internal PCI slots no more.

Thunderbolt isn't just the faster "FireWire"!! -> http://www.sonnettech.com/product/echoexpresschassis.html (http://www.sonnettech.com/product/echoexpresschassis.html) (Matrox is a partner for the thing, so should work)

Don't become a Mac hater because you tried a very old (I know it's new from the shop) Mac Pro. Here in Europe the thing is even banned from the market.

Don't buy a retina MacBook. That's overpriced hype. I just got a new MacBook (bottom of the range 13 inch, i5 cpu, just the internal INTEL hd4000 gpu, 16GB ram (way overkill, but fun! I can make a temporary RAM HDD which blows even the fastest SDD out of the water), normal 5400 RPM HDD). Got it for around €1000.

I render a 10 minute full HD .mp4 fill (from camera (.mp4 format), edited in Premiere Pro) in about 20 minutes with Adobe Media Encoder. That is with normal HDD and no ThunderBolt PCI expansion. Plenty fast for me.

Wow those things look awesome! They are pretty darn expensive though, the Pro version is $799 and the cheaper ones about 500bucks... Hopefully some other companies will make equivalent products for a bit more reasonable price.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: DeRaaf on April 08, 2013, 02:44:08 pm
Mac are running intel chips now days? I'm guessing the hardware would not be too far from a generic PC?

Yes (it's been 8(?) years till they start using Intel inside) and yes.

And yes I believe the Premium price for Apple is justified. Been using Macs and "normal" PC's. Apple build quality is exceptional good, I find the OS a lot easier to work with than Windows (or Linux). And they keep there value more than a "normal" PC. Just sold my old White MacBook (2006 model, Intel core2duo 2.2ghz, 4GB ram) for €250 (a little on the low side compared to other MacBooks on the market here).
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: DeRaaf on April 08, 2013, 02:53:50 pm
I render a 10 minute full HD .mp4 fill (from camera (.mp4 format), edited in Premiere Pro) in about 20 minutes with Adobe Media Encoder.

and that is still bloody slow !

I never understood why this encoding is so slow on computers .... come on, the simplest camera that can shoot AVCHD costs well under 300$ and encodes in real time after all....
I have a matrox RTx-2 and that thing flies through encoding... provided you capture the source video end let it decompress while capturing... computers aren't up to decoding , manipulating re-encoding on the fly apprently... that RTx is basically a virtex FPGA from Xilinx with an embedded PowerPC processor in it... all bolted onto a PICx card.

The same goes for that Matrox card that dave is talking about. its a small card with merely 1 chip on it. : poof realtime H264 encoding... and here you have quadcore cpu's racing at 3 GHz and they can't cope...

Don't know why it's so slow. But dedicated hardware should make a difference, otherwise why does it exits?

By the way my MacBook (13 inch) is bottom of the range. So 2.5Ghz, dual core i5 (quad in hyper threading). So a 15 inch MacBook pro i7 (real quadcore and dedicated NVIDIA GeForce GT 650M gpu) should be a lot faster. 
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: DeRaaf on April 08, 2013, 03:02:39 pm
I didn't try it myself.

But an new generation iMac is most probably what you want. There is no need for internal PCI slots no more.

Thunderbolt isn't just the faster "FireWire"!! -> http://www.sonnettech.com/product/echoexpresschassis.html (http://www.sonnettech.com/product/echoexpresschassis.html) (Matrox is a partner for the thing, so should work)

Don't become a Mac hater because you tried a very old (I know it's new from the shop) Mac Pro. Here in Europe the thing is even banned from the market.

Don't buy a retina MacBook. That's overpriced hype. I just got a new MacBook (bottom of the range 13 inch, i5 cpu, just the internal INTEL hd4000 gpu, 16GB ram (way overkill, but fun! I can make a temporary RAM HDD which blows even the fastest SDD out of the water), normal 5400 RPM HDD). Got it for around €1000.

I render a 10 minute full HD .mp4 fill (from camera (.mp4 format), edited in Premiere Pro) in about 20 minutes with Adobe Media Encoder. That is with normal HDD and no ThunderBolt PCI expansion. Plenty fast for me.

Wow those things look awesome! They are pretty darn expensive though, the Pro version is $799 and the cheaper ones about 500bucks... Hopefully some other companies will make equivalent products for a bit more reasonable price.

I agree a little to pricey for my wallet at the moment. I believe there are some other developers working on it at the moment. Hope this makes the prices drop a bit in the near future.
Title: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: ddavidebor on April 08, 2013, 03:15:46 pm
Well, I did it, I bravely entered an Apple store today  :o
Me: "Where's your Mac Pro, I want to try Final Cut Pro"
Dude: "Over there Sir"
Me: "No, that's the notebook, I want the desktop"
Dude: "Oh, I think we might have one right over there in the back"
Me: "Ok, so how do I use Final Cut Pro"
Dude: "What's that?"
Me: "It's video editing software"
Dude: "I'll have to see if a technology training specialist can help you with that."
Me: "Ok, thanks. I'll have a go myself while I wait. Now, how do I copy these files from my USB stick to the hard drive"
Dude: "You just drag and drop"
Me: "I can't use a copy command?"
Dude: "I have no idea, you just drag and drop"

New specialist dude arrives.

Dude: "I highly recommend you don't get the Mac Pro desktop"
Me: "Why?"
Dude: "It hasn't been updated in a long time, and it's just not recommended as a new system"
Me: "But I need to install a PCI accelerator card"
Dude: (has actually heard of the matrox card, impressive) "Ah, ok, that's the only reason you'd want one.
Me: "So how do a I copy these .MTS video files from my camera into Final Cut"
Dude: "You can't do that, it has be in the original card format"
Me: "You're kidding right? I can't just copy and drop a .MTS file onto the timeline"
Dude: "Nope, it's always been that way, it's silly"
Me: "That's almost a show stopper. How about this .MP4 file?"

and to cut it short, the MP4 file worked, Final Cut Pro edited stuff like I expected it to, and Compressor did seem to have a Constant Quality H.264 render option.

So we started rendering my 10 minute H.264 MP4 file (with no edits, just a single clip on the timeline) with same specs as the input file and default "High" for constant quality setting. And we watched the progress bar creep up and up I gave up at the 30 min mark when it still wasn't half way, and it said 39min left.

Me: "This is your top of the line Mac Pro right?"
Dude: "Yep, fully optioned up"
Me: "Is it always this slow to render"?
Dude: "Yep."

Holy crap.
No wonder the Matrox CompressHD card boasts that it takes Final Cut Pro up to "real time" rendering, it had bloody well want to!

For reference, to render and transcode the same 10 minute video on my current system, would take <20min total, for both steps in the process.
And I have a nothing special i7 notebook.

So it looks like, at best, a $3000+ Mac Pro with $330 Final Cut pro and a $500 Compress HD card would probably come out the same speed as a relatively high power cheap i7 system running $80 Vegas + free Handbrake.

Fail.
Sorry sorry all you Mac and FinalCut Pro fanboys.  :--

Dave, please send me in some way this raw video.

I think the one you tried has the  hardware acceleration not enabled, maybe for sw or hw reason. Let me try on my imac.

Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: EEVblog on April 08, 2013, 03:21:36 pm
Don't know why it's so slow. But dedicated hardware should make a difference, otherwise why does it exits?

Of course they make a difference.
The fact is, Matrox themselves advertise the CompressHD card as bringing the Mac up to "real time" encoding speed.
So that tells me the Mac (any Mac) is simply not a viable solution to my problem.
I'm sure I can get a the same or better from an existing cheaper PC solution I'm already familiar with.

I have an existing work flow that works for me. Changing any part of that will require very significant savings in workflow time to justify changing.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: peter.mitchell on April 08, 2013, 03:24:23 pm
Mac are running intel chips now days? I'm guessing the hardware would not be too far from a generic PC?

Yes (it's been 8(?) years till they start using Intel inside) and yes.

And yes I believe the Premium price for Apple is justified. Been using Macs and "normal" PC's. Apple build quality is exceptional good, I find the OS a lot easier to work with than Windows (or Linux). And they keep there value more than a "normal" PC. Just sold my old White MacBook (2006 model, Intel core2duo 2.2ghz, 4GB ram) for €250 (a little on the low side compared to other MacBooks on the market here).

Build quality is certainly there in the notebooks, however, competitors are certainly catching up, eg, Asus Zenbooks and samsung series 9s, but as far as their desktops are concerned, the increase in build quality isn't sufficient to justify it. What build quality on a desktop is of concern? Keyboard, mouse, monitor, thats about it, all of which you could use apple versions of, on your PC. What is in the box is built just like all the others, and since you don't interface with it, provided it works, and doesn't break, it does it's job.

If you want the OS, no problems, go into an apple store, buy the disc (legit), and install it on your PC with DSDT.

I didn't try it myself.

But an new generation iMac is most probably what you want. There is no need for internal PCI slots no more.

Thunderbolt isn't just the faster "FireWire"!! -> http://www.sonnettech.com/product/echoexpresschassis.html (http://www.sonnettech.com/product/echoexpresschassis.html) (Matrox is a partner for the thing, so should work)

Don't become a Mac hater because you tried a very old (I know it's new from the shop) Mac Pro. Here in Europe the thing is even banned from the market.

Don't buy a retina MacBook. That's overpriced hype. I just got a new MacBook (bottom of the range 13 inch, i5 cpu, just the internal INTEL hd4000 gpu, 16GB ram (way overkill, but fun! I can make a temporary RAM HDD which blows even the fastest SDD out of the water), normal 5400 RPM HDD). Got it for around €1000.

I render a 10 minute full HD .mp4 fill (from camera (.mp4 format), edited in Premiere Pro) in about 20 minutes with Adobe Media Encoder. That is with normal HDD and no ThunderBolt PCI expansion. Plenty fast for me.

Wow those things look awesome! They are pretty darn expensive though, the Pro version is $799 and the cheaper ones about 500bucks... Hopefully some other companies will make equivalent products for a bit more reasonable price.

I agree a little to pricey for my wallet at the moment. I believe there are some other developers working on it at the moment. Hope this makes the prices drop a bit in the near future.

Unfortunately, at 1000 euro + $500 for the external box + $500 for the matrox card, it is more expensive than just building a PC and throwing raw CPU power at it; to which if is still too slow, then you could throw in the matrox card.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: Skimask on April 08, 2013, 03:25:01 pm
Dave, please send me in some way this raw video.

Better yet, post the raw video of Dave in the Apple store talking to a store employee that seems to know what they're talking about!!!
Now THAT would be a rare find...
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: EEVblog on April 08, 2013, 03:26:08 pm
I render a 10 minute full HD .mp4 fill (from camera (.mp4 format), edited in Premiere Pro) in about 20 minutes with Adobe Media Encoder. That is with normal HDD and no ThunderBolt PCI expansion. Plenty fast for me.

That's no quicker, if not slower than my (pretty ordinary) setup. And are you doing constant quality encoding with that?
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: EEVblog on April 08, 2013, 03:28:53 pm
Unfortunately, at 1000 euro + $500 for the external box + $500 for the matrox card, it is more expensive than just building a PC and throwing raw CPU power at it; to which if is still too slow, then you could throw in the matrox card.

And that's the trap, and why I can't see a Mac being a viable solution.
The only viable Mac to buy is fast new Mac notebook, which I'll pay a premium price for (I don't need monitors or another notebook for example) + final cut pro + all that extra hardware.
So unless someone can show me that hardware setup is at least say twice as fast as a new faster PC solution, then it's a no-go.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: RCMR on April 08, 2013, 03:52:30 pm
Come on Dave, where's the love?

Apple isn't about performance or value -- it's about "style"!

(dons fireproof suit).

Okay, I admit, they may some very nice kit and many people find it easier to use and more comfortable to use than the old Wintel option -- but style is still a *huge* part of the Apple experience.

Next thing you'll be telling us that you prefer Android to IOS and the Nexus to the iPad.

Wash your mouth out  :-DD :-DD :-DD
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: Lightages on April 08, 2013, 03:59:06 pm
I have tried to switch to a Mac 3 times in my life. Each time I looked at the "power" of the Macs and the price and each time it seemed I was paying twice as much as I could build in a PC. Then the cost of the software all over again and limited selection of software shut the idea down each time.

Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: EEVblog on April 08, 2013, 03:59:26 pm
Teknotronix just tweeted that he has a Thunderbolt PCI adapter for his Mac Pro, and in his words "I wouldn't recommend. The performance is just not there yet."
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: Ed.Kloonk on April 08, 2013, 04:00:39 pm
Come on Dave, where's the love?




So it looks like, at best, a $3000+ Mac Pro with $330 Final Cut pro and a $500 Compress HD card would probably come out the same speed as a relatively high power cheap i7 system running $80 Vegas + free Handbrake.

Fail.
Sorry sorry all you Mac and FinalCut Pro fanboys.  :--

Sorry, late to the party. Had to work today.  >:(  Someone's gotta support this govmnt.  ;)

Nar, he's right. F. Apple!

I'd normally prefer not to harp on. But I will anyway...

This is why I suggest setting yourself up a Lee-Nooks solution, command-line encoder usb-stick portable setup. You'll find, if you find the right combination of software and commands, you can also take your software across many machines. If you update hardware you can just bring the software across. No drivers. No proprietary, goal-post-moving shit. Just a package that you made that works and keeps working. If it can boot a usb stick you're good to go!

As an aside, if you get desperate and NEED your windows GUI while encoding, consider Virtual Box emulator which can run the usb-stick and utilise your i7's many cps whilst still running windows underneath. There are plenty of Linux nuts on here that can help you, if you'd only ask!

 :palm:
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: Eliminateur on April 08, 2013, 04:02:18 pm
no wonder at all, mac is and will always be massively overpriced "boutique" pretty-shiny stuff that always will underperform for stuff that matters.

Dave, for a fraction of the cost of the mac pro ALONE you can build a dedicated encoding rig using an AMD FX-8350 -top of theline amd cpu right now- (i know the i7-3770K IS faster at encoding but a significantly steeper price and the FX is right there in performance for video encoding).
Or you can wait until handbrake gets full quicksync support -the first versions do look like they'll be out in june-, but from what i've read in their forums it's not made for quality output but as an option for the --superfast encoding option of handbrake/x264 AND it looks to be geared for haswell

Or if you MUST spend the same ammount of cash, build a rig based on a i7-3970X (1000$ MSRP), that's Sandy Bridge 6c/12t at 3.5 to 4GHz, there's simply nothing that can encode faster than that, period (unless you go for octacore Xeons), check out a small benchmark:
(http://media.bestofmicro.com/Z/0/360252/original/handbrake.png)

in fact, going with the i7-3930X will save a ton of money(costs nearly half) and offer comparable performance once you overclock it... (or not and it's at shooting distance).

but.. check the fx-8350 standing, simply cannot be beat bang per buck (because it costs like a i5 and offers i7 performance)
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: smashedProton on April 08, 2013, 04:37:54 pm
I do a lot of avi to mp4 compression on my desktop.  I have an overclocked amd hexicore at 4.2 ghz though.  I will never buy an apple computer because the hardware is always two generations late.  Who in their right mind will buy machined aluminium and dated electronics when they are in the market for a compur er?
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: aargee on April 08, 2013, 04:43:08 pm
I don't understand Dave, it seems like you're trying to produce a motion picture not an Internet video cast? Is it the video camera format that's being a problem or is this an issue for anyone wanting to produce 1080p content? (Me coming from a place of little experience in the this area)

Regarding the Apple store, my son has a Mac Book Pro, just out of warranty, I took it in for a power problem, mentally preparing myself for the too bad how sad response I seem to get from many other tech manufacturers. Instead it was a pleasant and timely no problems fix then and there. Apple do seem to do this well. Most PC stores would have great difficulty holding a similar conversation that you had with Apple.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: EEVblog on April 08, 2013, 04:46:50 pm
This is why I suggest setting yourself up a Lee-Nooks solution, command-line encoder usb-stick portable setup.

It's kinda hard to edit video on a timeline with the command line.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: EEVblog on April 08, 2013, 04:49:00 pm
I don't understand Dave, it seems like you're trying to produce a motion picture not an Internet video cast? Is it the video camera format that's being a problem or is this an issue for anyone wanting to produce 1080p content? (Me coming from a place of little experience in the this area)

I've explained it dozens of times, and it's hard to understand unless you are in my exact same position with my exact same requirements.
But yes, it will likely be same issue for anyone that produces 1080p content (and gives a shit about the quality) on an almost daily basis. Some will be in a better position with regards to internet upload speed, and that plays a big part.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: EEVblog on April 08, 2013, 04:55:55 pm
no wonder at all, mac is and will always be massively overpriced "boutique" pretty-shiny stuff that always will underperform for stuff that matters.

Unfortunately there are lot of people out there who keep screaming at me, try a Mac and Final Cut Pro and you problems will vanish. So I did, and they didn't  ::)

Quote
Dave, for a fraction of the cost of the mac pro ALONE you can build a dedicated encoding rig using an AMD FX-8350 -top of theline amd cpu right now- (i know the i7-3770K IS faster at encoding but a significantly steeper price and the FX is right there in performance for video encoding).

Yes, I'm temped to do this.

Quote
but.. check the fx-8350 standing, simply cannot be beat bang per buck (because it costs like a i5 and offers i7 performance)

Thanks, very useful table.
Yes, I'd be inclined to spend less and be happy with slightly less performance, and I can spend more on the Nvidia card too, because I'd want to accelerate both Sony rendering speed, and Handbrake. I'll likely just upgrade again in a year or two anyway, so it silly to pay absolute primo price.

Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: Ed.Kloonk on April 08, 2013, 04:59:26 pm
This is why I suggest setting yourself up a Lee-Nooks solution, command-line encoder usb-stick portable setup.

It's kinda hard to edit video on a timeline with the command line.

True but you should ( I think) be dumping to a largish, fast video format once your edits are done. From there you could have a script find the completed, edited blog(s), encode it to what ever youtube wants (I don't know) automatic upload and email a success (or fail) on completion.

Maybe just me but the extra step is better than waiting for the editing program to encode with heavy compression. Wouldn't you rather dump it quickly to another machine and perhaps start to edit another blog?

Only trying to help. I'm sure there's a solution in this somewhere. If I'm barking up the wrong tree however...

 :)
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: westfw on April 08, 2013, 04:59:37 pm
The Mac Pros are certainly getting long-in-the-tooth.
Quote
But I need to install a PCI accelerator card
PCI Express, hopefully.  The Mac Pros don't have any ordinary PCI slots.
Do you know if the version of FCP you were using supported multiple core encoding?  It's certainly a bottleneck on an 8-core box if your SW doesn't use them.

I really liked the old version of iMovie, that came with the Macs.  But the new version... rather a lot less.  Sigh.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: akcoder on April 08, 2013, 05:01:30 pm
I don't understand Dave, it seems like you're trying to produce a motion picture not an Internet video cast? Is it the video camera format that's being a problem or is this an issue for anyone wanting to produce 1080p content? (Me coming from a place of little experience in the this area)

I've explained it dozens of times, and it's hard to understand unless you are in my exact same position with my exact same requirements.
But yes, it will likely be same issue for anyone that produces 1080p content (and gives a shit about the quality) on an almost daily basis. Some will be in a better position with regards to internet upload speed, and that plays a big part.

Quality is a big part of why your blog is so successful. The video quality is there, and the content quality is there. Its hard to watch someones youtube video when its all shaky, and the volume has to be cranked up. Those issues aren't there with your stuff!

Although, I would suggest you wear your lapel mic again, in your last few videos the audio volume noticeably drops out when you move away from what I presume is your shotgun mic?

-dan
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: EEVblog on April 08, 2013, 05:12:03 pm
True but you should ( I think) be dumping to a largish, fast video format once your edits are done. From there you could have a script find the completed, edited blog(s), encode it to what ever youtube wants (I don't know) automatic upload and email a success (or fail) on completion.

That's exactly what I do. I output from Sony using Sony AVC at the exact same bitrate and details as my input files, so it does minimal processing. That is the fastest encoder that Sony supports (I've tried them all), except for this mythical FrameServer that I can't get working.
It's still real time encoding, so a 1hr video takes an hour to output from Sony.
I have yet to find the magic bullet here.

Dave.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: firewalker on April 08, 2013, 05:16:48 pm
Now... Use GNU/Linux. Trololololol!

Alexander.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: peter.mitchell on April 08, 2013, 05:18:17 pm
I don't understand Dave, it seems like you're trying to produce a motion picture not an Internet video cast? Is it the video camera format that's being a problem or is this an issue for anyone wanting to produce 1080p content? (Me coming from a place of little experience in the this area)

I've explained it dozens of times, and it's hard to understand unless you are in my exact same position with my exact same requirements.
But yes, it will likely be same issue for anyone that produces 1080p content (and gives a shit about the quality) on an almost daily basis. Some will be in a better position with regards to internet upload speed, and that plays a big part.

Quality is a big part of why your blog is so successful. The video quality is there, and the content quality is there. Its hard to watch someones youtube video when its all shaky, and the volume has to be cranked up. Those issues aren't there with your stuff!

Although, I would suggest you wear your lapel mic again, in your last few videos the audio volume noticeably drops out when you move away from what I presume is your shotgun mic?

-dan

The other part is being a true blue top notch aussie bloke (even though he doesn't drink beer)
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: EEVblog on April 08, 2013, 05:18:39 pm
Although, I would suggest you wear your lapel mic again, in your last few videos the audio volume noticeably drops out when you move away from what I presume is your shotgun mic?

No, the internal mic on my HF G10. It's just more convenient, and has the same or better general audio level consistency than my lapel mic (try turning your head with a lapel mic), but yes, if I do move away from the camera it varies a lot of course.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: kripton2035 on April 08, 2013, 05:24:07 pm
Dave, I strongly suggest you to go to an apple video specialist near you, and please not an apple store...
they only play with itunes and sometimes imovie there ...

http://consultants.apple.com/au/mlocator (http://consultants.apple.com/au/mlocator)
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: EEVblog on April 08, 2013, 05:28:52 pm
Dave, I strongly suggest you to go to an apple video specialist near you, and please not an apple store...
they only play with itunes and sometimes imovie there ...

Sorry, but I'm pretty sure Apple is not going to be worthwhile investment, so will not pursue it any more, it's just "the vibe"
It's not just Apple I need, I'd also need the Matrox board etc

Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: mikeselectricstuff on April 08, 2013, 05:49:21 pm

I never understood why this encoding is so slow on computers .... come on, the simplest camera that can shoot AVCHD costs well under 300$ and encodes in real time after all....
The simple camera has a dedicated hardware accelerator. Doing highly specialised things like video encoding on a general purpose PC is not an efficient use of silicon, so even the fastest "Turbo Nutter" PC will struggle to keep up with an encoder based on custom silicon
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: Ed.Kloonk on April 08, 2013, 05:57:33 pm
True but you should ( I think) be dumping to a largish, fast video format once your edits are done. From there you could have a script find the completed, edited blog(s), encode it to what ever youtube wants (I don't know) automatic upload and email a success (or fail) on completion.

That's exactly what I do. I output from Sony using Sony AVC at the exact same bitrate and details as my input files, so it does minimal processing. That is the fastest encoder that Sony supports (I've tried them all), except for this mythical FrameServer that I can't get working.
It's still real time encoding, so a 1hr video takes an hour to output from Sony.
I have yet to find the magic bullet here.

Dave.

Ah. Gotcha. Yeah I played with avi_synth and the bogus frameserver ten years ago. As soon as you want to upgrade the OS underneath, all hell breaks out.

Hmm. It's a toughie. Wish I had said magic bullet.
 :-\
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: firewalker on April 08, 2013, 06:50:16 pm

I never understood why this encoding is so slow on computers .... come on, the simplest camera that can shoot AVCHD costs well under 300$ and encodes in real time after all....
The simple camera has a dedicated hardware accelerator. Doing highly specialised things like video encoding on a general purpose PC is not an efficient use of silicon, so even the fastest "Turbo Nutter" PC will struggle to keep up with an encoder based on custom silicon

Even the GPU's support in mainly for hardware decoding.

Is there any dedicated cards for encoding?

Alexander.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: Eliminateur on April 08, 2013, 08:36:54 pm
Like several people say, the video quality in the blog IS there so the settings you're using and workflow IS sound, and it's easily noticeable in 1080p when you can make all the little detail be it small letters in the PDFs, serigraphy, traces, DSO screens, etc.

Dave, BTW, i was browsing Sony's page about HW accel and it seems that only Vegas PRO has openCL encode acceleration, might that be the magic bullet you're missing?: http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/vegaspro/gpuacceleration (http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/vegaspro/gpuacceleration)
There'sd also a guide for Vegas pro 11 on how to enable gpu render: http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/GPU_power_in_Vegas_Pro_11 (http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/GPU_power_in_Vegas_Pro_11)
i don't have vegas installed at hand so no idea if the non pro version has the same dialog...
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: ivan747 on April 08, 2013, 08:41:42 pm
I do a lot of avi to mp4 compression on my desktop.  I have an overclocked amd hexicore at 4.2 ghz though.  I will never buy an apple computer because the hardware is always two generations late.  Who in their right mind will buy machined aluminium and dated electronics when they are in the market for a compur er?

The same reason people buy Tektronix over Rigol.

And guys, stop comparing the Mac Pro, that thing is like 3 year old technology that should be updated or discontinued.

A more fair comparison would be against an iMac or a MacBook Pro.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: ivan747 on April 08, 2013, 08:48:43 pm
Dave, Handbrake is also available for Mac (and it works quite well). It can convert .mts files for FInal Cut import. Other than Sony Vegas, everything else needs conversion before importing.

I wouldn't think Apple employees would be allowed to tell you that but I know a guy who's some sort of official support provider (20 years in the business) and I am sure he would tell you this.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: peter.mitchell on April 08, 2013, 09:00:21 pm
Dave, if you use sony vegas pro 12, and the card I sent you and one of the formats in they previously linked benchmarks you could be looking at 2x to 3x the rendering speed.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: EEVblog on April 08, 2013, 09:33:17 pm
Dave, BTW, i was browsing Sony's page about HW accel and it seems that only Vegas PRO has openCL encode acceleration, might that be the magic bullet you're missing?

Movie Studio has it too. It's actually slower than Intel QSV, at least on my i7 2630QM DV7 notebook with Radeon HD6770M GPU
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: EEVblog on April 08, 2013, 09:34:51 pm
Dave, Handbrake is also available for Mac (and it works quite well). It can convert .mts files for FInal Cut import. Other than Sony Vegas, everything else needs conversion before importing.

Converting files before import is not an option. That's just an extra step that takes time.
Title: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: ddavidebor on April 08, 2013, 09:35:40 pm
Dave, you should upload the raw video! You'll get 10 people trying to convert it, and next you can choose the better conversion time.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: Eliminateur on April 08, 2013, 09:48:44 pm
Dave, BTW, i was browsing Sony's page about HW accel and it seems that only Vegas PRO has openCL encode acceleration, might that be the magic bullet you're missing?

Movie Studio has it too. It's actually slower than Intel QSV, at least on my i7 2630QM DV7 notebook with Radeon HD6770M GPU
Does Movie studio supports QSV encoding?, wasn't aware of it
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: dimlow on April 08, 2013, 10:22:53 pm
Dave, ditch the notebook, get a high end pc, yes your notebook may have an"i7" but its a notebook, not a performance pc, big difference there. Forgot Apple, they are just overpriced bull crap for people that like shiny things. Stick a good encoder card in the PC and you will be sailing along. Stop playing with the toys if you want to play with the big boys. Video encoding takes time, ram, hard drive speed and space and lots of processing power.  Laptops just can cut it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JivvsCHXjIc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JivvsCHXjIc)
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: EEVblog on April 08, 2013, 11:13:00 pm
Dave, you should upload the raw video! You'll get 10 people trying to convert it, and next you can choose the better conversion time.

Ok, for those interested, here is a 2 min 22sec original .MTS files form my camera that I load direct into Sony MS.
http://www.eevblog.com/files/EEVblogTestRender2Min22.MTS (http://www.eevblog.com/files/EEVblogTestRender2Min22.MTS)
It is shot at a constant 12Mbps, 1440x1080, 25fps.

It takes 1:43 to render that clip using the Sony AVC encoder at constant 12Mbps, 1440x1080, 25fps (same as input file) 48K/192K/32bit audio with High profile.
(203MB file)
That is the fastest encoder I can use in Sony.
For example , the MainConcept one takes 4:33 for the exact same clip at a fixed 12Mbps (212MB file)
and Video For Windows Sony YUV takes 3:03 (with a file size of 14GB!)

It takes 2:01 to transcode that Sony AVC file into my H.264 MP4 I upload to Youtube. Using a constant quality factor of 22
Here is the final file:
http://www.eevblog.com/files/EEVblogTestRender2min22-SonyAVC-1440x1080.mp4 (http://www.eevblog.com/files/EEVblogTestRender2min22-SonyAVC-1440x1080.mp4)
Is it 111MB compared to the 203MB fixed bitrate one from Sony. So you can see why I do extra encoding with Handbrake to get the file size down for the upload to Youtube.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: Eliminateur on April 08, 2013, 11:31:25 pm
Are you using one of the premade profiles of handbrake for internet video or you cooked a custom special profile?
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: dimlow on April 08, 2013, 11:33:12 pm
I dont have vegas but i do have handbrake, i just dropped it in and clicked start, it took 1:18 on my old Q6600 overclocked to 3.8 Ghz. Will try to find vegas and give it a go
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: dimlow on April 08, 2013, 11:37:05 pm
Just noted you used an QF of 22, so i set it to that and it rendered in 1:16 seconds
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: EEVblog on April 08, 2013, 11:44:24 pm
Are you using one of the premade profiles of handbrake for internet video or you cooked a custom special profile?

Yes, I have a custom script I wrote.

Quote
HandBrakeCLI" -i "%%G" -t 1 -c 1 -o "F:\Video\EEVblog\1440x1080\%%~nH-1440x1080.mp4" -f mp4 --strict-anamorphic  -e x264 -q 22 -r 25 --cfr  -a 1 -E faac -B 192 -6 stereo -R 48 -D 0 --gain=0 --audio-copy-mask none --audio-fallback ffac3 -x ref=2:bframes=2:subq=6:mixed-refs=0:weightb=0:8x8dct=0:trellis=0 --verbose=1
Title: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: ivan747 on April 08, 2013, 11:52:05 pm
Dave, Handbrake is also available for Mac (and it works quite well). It can convert .mts files for FInal Cut import. Other than Sony Vegas, everything else needs conversion before importing.

Converting files before import is not an option. That's just an extra step that takes time.

Well, you can only use Sony Vegas then. Or get a new camera and get rid of stupid proprietary formats when you have standards like MPEG's.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: dimlow on April 09, 2013, 12:05:41 am
I ran you script after modding it for my local paths and got 1:40
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: peter.mitchell on April 09, 2013, 12:11:39 am
ummm... AVCHD is a standard format, heaps of software suites support it, what the heck are you on about?

1:40 is only a little bit faster than realtime, which i think is what dave already gets.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: firewalker on April 09, 2013, 12:13:06 am
My GNU/Linux, i3 4Gbyte RAM laptop, converted it (with the handbrake script) in  4m28.665s (125,7 Mb). OpenShot loads that MTS file with no problem.  ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: mikeselectricstuff on April 09, 2013, 12:24:19 am
Maybe an answer is to get an internet connection with faster upload speed (or is it throttled at Youtube's end?)
If only Vegas could encode and stream to Youtube at the same time it would save a lot of time - ISTR it will do, but only at low res.

 
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: dimlow on April 09, 2013, 12:26:23 am
1:40 is only a little bit faster than realtime, which i think is what dave already gets.

Yea, but my ststem is not an i7 its a q6600 4 core cpu 7 years old, not fast by todays standards ,daves render is 2:01 im sure with a modern desktop with a good CPU he could half his handbrake rendering times.

I notice dave script generates a file of 125 MB, were as Handbrakes UI generates a file of 111Mb. dave was quoting files sizes of 111MB and a time of 2:01 my guess is Dave encoded with Handbrakes UI for his timings. so to compare, my timing for the UI are 1:16 thats closer to 2x. thats is much.much  better than his laptop.
Ditch the laptop get a GOOD desktop machine. See the link to the video i posted.

My GNU/Linux, i3 4Gbyte RAM laptop, converted it (with the handbrake script) in  4m28.665s. OpenShot loads that MTS file with no problem.  ;D ;D ;D
Laptop speed here, Pretty darn slow.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: moemoe on April 09, 2013, 12:40:39 am
There's a real huge difference with different CPUs (and perhaps a little OS influence, but didn't boot up Linux on the faster machine), I tested it with:

i7 L640  @2.13GHz, Debian 64bit, SSD: 9m00s
i5 2500K @3.3GHz, Win7 64bit, rotating rust: 1m48s

If you take a look at http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_lookup.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i7+L+640+%40+2.13GHz&id=848 (http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_lookup.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i7+L+640+%40+2.13GHz&id=848) and http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_lookup.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i5-2500K+%40+3.30GHz&id=804, (http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_lookup.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i5-2500K+%40+3.30GHz&id=804,) that roughly represents the same result: 2200 and 6400 points. And this goes up to Intel Core i7-3770K @3.50GHz with 9,637 points.

So you should probably buy a decent encoding machine with some good cpu, 500 bucks and the encoding will be about 1.5xRealtime.

And this clearly shows that clock and i3/i5/i7 as model is not enough information, you need to specify the excat model.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: ecat on April 09, 2013, 12:46:49 am
1:40 is only a little bit faster than realtime, which i think is what dave already gets.

Yea, but my ststem is not an i7 its a q6600 4 core cpu 7 years old, not fast by todays standards ,daves render is 2:01 im sure with a modern desktop with a good CPU he could half his handbrake rendering times.

I'll give it a go on my i5 once the download is finished... 32MB downloaded so far, 1 hour  20 minutes remaining - bloody hell, what do you Antipodeans use for servers, recycled Fosters cans and dingo brains ? ;)
 
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: dimlow on April 09, 2013, 12:53:08 am
The i5 is too slow, Dave want at least a 3930K overclocked to get some good performance.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: bxs on April 09, 2013, 01:08:24 am
I don't see the lack of MTS files as a big fail, MTS is just a contender, in this case a transport stream, you can simple remux it to something like a mp4, it will be as fast as your hard drive.

Something like this will do the job:
Code: [Select]
ffmpeg -i EEVblogTestRender2Min22.MTS -acodec copy -vcodec copy EEVblogTestRender2Min22.mp4In this case: EEVblogTestRender2Min22.MTS(214MB) -> EEVblogTestRender2Min22.mp4(203MB)

You don't even need to copy the MTS files to disk, simple read them from SD and write the MP4 to HDD, a simple script will do that with no trouble.

But, yes, is another steep...

About handbreak, I ran:
Code: [Select]
HandBrakeCLI -i EEVblogTestRender2min22-SonyAVC-1440x1080.mp4 -t 1 -c 1 -o EEVblogTestRender2min22-SonyAVC-1440x1080_a.mp4 -f mp4 --strict-anamorphic  -e x264 -q 22 -r 25 --cfr  -a 1 -E faac -B 192 -6 stereo -R 48 -D 0 --gain=0 --audio-copy-mask none --audio-fallback ffac3 -x ref=2:bframes=2:subq=6:mixed-refs=0:weightb=0:8x8dct=0:trellis=0 --verbose=1and got: EEVblogTestRender2min22-SonyAVC-1440x1080.mp4(109MB) -> EEVblogTestRender2Min22_a.mp4(94MB)

This in a very old AMD dual core PC, I have it for 7 years, and even them it was a weak PC, so weak that I only  bought it because cause the shop was so desperate to sell it that almost gave me the the PC  :-DD and took 6min, so your modern system is only 3X faster???  :-//

You probably are not using a proper system for the job...

Just another note, I read that Intel released or will release a QSV SDk and remember reading that handbreak will make use of it  :-+
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: ddavidebor on April 09, 2013, 01:20:31 am
handbrake on i7 late 2009 mac with normal hd (and overwriting existing files) take less than 1 min with an average frame rate of 65.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: Rufus on April 09, 2013, 01:47:00 am
Quote
HandBrakeCLI" -i "%%G" -t 1 -c 1 -o "F:\Video\EEVblog\1440x1080\%%~nH-1440x1080.mp4" -f mp4 --strict-anamorphic  -e x264 -q 22 -r 25 --cfr  -a 1 -E faac -B 192 -6 stereo -R 48 -D 0 --gain=0 --audio-copy-mask none --audio-fallback ffac3 -x ref=2:bframes=2:subq=6:mixed-refs=0:weightb=0:8x8dct=0:trellis=0 --verbose=1

Handbrake x64, SSD, notebook with i7 2670QM @ 2.2G. The script ran in 1:54.0

Handbrake x64, SSD, i7 920 overclocked @ 4.2G. The script ran in 1:17.3

Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: kripton2035 on April 09, 2013, 02:04:33 am
handbrake on i7 late 2009 mac with normal hd (and overwriting existing files) take less than 1 min with an average frame rate of 65.
and a high end late 2009 i7 imac @2.8GHz is almost same speed as today base mac pro (and 1/3 of today high end mac pro)
see Dave, why I told you not to go in an apple store ? ;)
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: ecat on April 09, 2013, 03:05:03 am
Numbers!
For what they are worth...

i5 2500k @ 4.2GHz (for those interested, CPU Mark = 7405 ish as I had some light stuff running in background) , ATi 6950.

In Movie Studio, Sony AVC/MVC as per (my understanding of) Dave's settings in reply #48

CPU only: 2:10 200.5MB file
GPU if available 1:58 212MB file

In Movie Studio, MainConcept AVC/AAC. No option here for 12Mbps so I tried 10Mbps and 14Mbps

CPU only 4:33 212MB file (10Mpbs I think)
OpenCL 1:27 176MB file (10Mbps)
OpenCL 1:30 246MB file (14Mbps)

Conclusion:
I'm hungry. I'll try thinking and eating at the same time and see what the delusionary stew turns up.
For sure the ability of Sony AVC/MVC and MainConcept AVC/AAC to utilise the GPU differs with the former is best suited for CPU and the latter showing a considerable GPU gain.


Reason for edit:
Changed incorrect (12Mbps) to (14Mbps)
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: Wuerstchenhund on April 09, 2013, 03:49:19 am
And yes I believe the Premium price for Apple is justified. Been using Macs and "normal" PC's. Apple build quality is exceptional good,

Only if you compare to cheap consumer PCs. And even then it's up for discussion if the higher price is justified.

Aside from Macs (Mac user since 1993) I am mostly using PC workstations (I'm typing this on a soon-to-be-replaced HP z800), and not only is the quality at a similar or even better level (especially when it comes to components) than with Apple, the hardware capabilities are also far superior than anything Apple offers in the high end range. That was already the case when they were selling Powermac G5s, and hasn't changed since.

And then there are the occasional design flaws Apple tends to build into their products. Which wouldn't be that bad if they at least would fix them without hassle, but unfortunately that's not how Apple works.

Quote
I find the OS a lot easier to work with than Windows (or Linux).

I think its around on par with Windows but I can't really say I find OS X easier than Windows 7 or Windows 8. In addition, for high performance tasks it's generally Windows or Linux as both are more capable than OS X.

Quote
And they keep there value more than a "normal" PC.

That is true, but then I'm not buying a computer as investment portfolio but as a tool, and at the end of the day a more capable and faster system saves me time and thus more money than what I could get more over a comparable PC after 4- years.

I have a few friends who work internationally in professional video/film production, and they often told me that the majority of machines you find there are not Macs but mostly HP and (to a smaller extend) Dell workstations. Apparently there are some die-hards who still hold onto Macs (especially in audio production) but apparently the majority happens on HP gear running Windows or Linux.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: marmad on April 09, 2013, 04:51:01 am
Win7 x64 - i7 950 @ 3.06GHz - No overclocking
Source: SSD
Destination: HD RAID Stripe
Handbrake Encode Time: 1:07

You'd likely get slightly better times using an SSD RAID Stripe as the Destination.

I agree with Wuerstchenhund on all his points surrounding Apple/Windows/Linux - and would only add that most people find the OS that they started with the easiest to work with. I've heard just as many complaints from Windows people trying to get around in OS X. If you use both OSes regularly (which you will inevitably do if you use Windows at home and teach), you'll find both of them have nice features - and other features that you absolutely hate. And in terms of learning them: both have features which make it easy and hard for new users.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: free_electron on April 09, 2013, 04:57:17 am
Dave : Why 1440X1080 ? that may be one of the problems.... sony software may upscale to downscale again... should be 1920x1080. filming in 4:3 ?
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: bxs on April 09, 2013, 05:13:05 am
Dave : Why 1440X1080 ? that may be one of the problems.... sony software may upscale to downscale again... should be 1920x1080. filming in 4:3 ?

I also dislike filming in 4:3 a 16:9 video, I see it as cheating  :o

them in youtube it will reencode it from 1440x1080 to 1920x1080, kind of a mess.

look the example of video 451: hxxp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TSr9nFN1GU
Code: [Select]
Available formats:
37      :       mp4     [1080x1920]
46      :       webm    [1080x1920]
22      :       mp4     [720x1280]
45      :       webm    [720x1280]
35      :       flv     [480x854]
44      :       webm    [480x854]
34      :       flv     [360x640]
18      :       mp4     [360x640]
43      :       webm    [360x640]
5       :       flv     [240x400]
17      :       mp4     [144x176]

I have a slow connection, so it will not affect me, some times I can't even see the 480p from youtube...
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: marmad on April 09, 2013, 05:20:45 am
The i5 is too slow, Dave want at least a 3930K overclocked to get some good performance.
I don't think so - I agree with Eliminateur (http://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/i-tried-a-mac-for-video-editing/msg214573/#msg214573), who suggested that Dave would be better off building a system around the AMD FX-8350, thereby getting ~83% of the 3930K encoding speed at ~35% of the price.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: moemoe on April 09, 2013, 05:33:31 am
You'd likely get slightly better times using an SSD RAID Stripe as the Destination.

Don't think so, a video of this size can be written in 1-2s by a modern HDD. So give it some additional seconds for seeks, and you're still on the safe side.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: hans on April 09, 2013, 05:57:05 am
Intel i5 3570k @ 3.6GHz (stock):1:33
Intel i5 3570K @ 4GHz: 1:18.  4GHz is pretty easy overclock these days.

Asus P8Z77-V PRO, 2x8GB 1600MHz RAM, AMD HD7850 GPU.  I used a 2GB RAM disk (6GB/s+ Read speeds, woohoo! (https://dl.dropbox.com/u/207647/ramdisk.png)) because for temporary files, it's actually useful.
If I'm actually using my hard drives, I usually use 2 physically seperate drives to source and write to. I don't run raid nor have very fast bulk drives, so that works best for me.

Also used Handbrake 0.9.8. Does it use QuickSync from Intel? It should be quicker than AMD or Nvidia GPU acceleration. (source) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvf05jVbPiU) I think I did read that Intel would work together with Handbrake to incorporate this, but I dunno whether it's released yet.

A Intel i7 3770K has 8 threads (instead of 4) but is  ~50% more expensive. For me, spending 50% extra for more threads sounds useless, because I rarely encode lots of video.
AMD make better bang per buck chips, but I am uncertain about their raw performance, especially for video encoding.
Moreover.. notice how Marmad's system (i7 950) that's a couple of years old still beats this system. Though, not sure if I can use Quicksync, maybe that's a lot faster.

I personally don't see any benefit of a Mac. I believe in the past a Mac Pro workstation would cost a fortune and was a power house. Nowadays I think it's only the 'user experience' that would set things apart, and that's user preference. I personally find Mac on a technical environment 'limiting', think about toolchains for ARM, your favorite design CAD tool, etc. Installign Dual-boot or VM with Windows? Then it defeats the purpose of having a Mac.. also, every program you can get for Mac is available for Windows. In more or less frustration free packaging.

Moreover, the Mac hardware these days is the same Intel platform.  "But they are optimized for Mac OSX". That's suggesting Intel deliberately write slower drivers (like chipset, MEI, etc.) for Windows than for Mac. I call it BS.
Even better, my motherboard (Asus P8Z77-V PRO with UEFI) comes with a shiny "Performance" button which overclocks the CPU to 4.4GHz. Not with the best settings (70C temp full load with case fans off) but ~800MHz boost which is 20% theoretical performance for free (given you run a good CPU cooler, which I would anyway for silent computing).
If Mac would have any advantage, I am pretty sure this takes it back with a bit of margin.

Also, upgrades for a desktop machine are so much cheaper.. For e.g.: 250GB Samsung 840 SSD: ~140 euro's (200$). A 512GB SSD in a Mac Pro costs 750$.
Or.. 16GB RAM upgrade would cost me about 80 euro's. For a Mac, chances are they don't upgrade it after your purchased. Or they charge you 600$ for hardware that costs 100 dollar .

Absolutely insane pricing scheme.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: marmad on April 09, 2013, 05:59:58 am
Don't think so, a video of this size can be written in 1-2s by a modern HDD. So give it some additional seconds for seeks, and you're still on the safe side.

This is just a test video - I assume the videos Dave would actually be encoding would be much much larger - which is what I was referring to.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: kripton2035 on April 09, 2013, 06:00:41 am
You'd likely get slightly better times using an SSD RAID Stripe as the Destination.

Don't think so, a video of this size can be written in 1-2s by a modern HDD. So give it some additional seconds for seeks, and you're still on the safe side.
+1 dont need ssd to encode movies.
I had a bunch of movies to encode from avi to mp4 and I changed the drive from 500Go 7200tr to 512go ssd
the encoding time was almost the same, no visual difference.
only the true power of the cores counts for video encoding, drive speed is not important.
also if the encoding software uses all the cores count !
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: mariush on April 09, 2013, 06:03:34 am
Dave : Why 1440X1080 ? that may be one of the problems.... sony software may upscale to downscale again... should be 1920x1080. filming in 4:3 ?

I also dislike filming in 4:3 a 16:9 video, I see it as cheating  :o

them in youtube it will reencode it from 1440x1080 to 1920x1080, kind of a mess.


That's how the camera saves the video on the card.  It's the same with my Sony Handycam HDR-SR5E, the highest format is 1440x1080 interlaced at 15 mbps, and it saves to HDD. 

You might want to perform the deinterlacing yourself and stretch to 1920x1080 but you're just adding more stuff to squeeze down later before it's uploaded to youtube.

Youtube will recompress the video either way, so that it works better with their streaming strategies.  Either way, it's several recompressions. Could be even argued that leaving it 1440x1080 is better for the cases when Youtube resizes the video down to lower resolutions such as 720p and 480p.

If anyone really cares, I can do a test on my FX-8320 to see how fast it encodes video at various crf presets.

I usually just write a quick Avisynth script in which I load the video I want to recompress (usually just using DGAVCIndex, because I don't have a nvidia card to do hardware decoding) and then I load the avs script straight into x264
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: M. András on April 09, 2013, 06:11:19 am
if you are in no hurry im going to get a fx8350 within 2 weeks (waiting on the stabilisation of our currency), and i can do a test run for you with an ati 6970card 32 gig of ram so ram drive in ram drive out folders or using only the ssd as only drive. or could try it with my current 1090t which isnt much slower then the fx8350, note that this config rendered a 1080p bluray disc faster then a high-mid end nvidia card running on cuda support, dunno the editor software now but it wasnt any of the sony stuffs,  under a 2700k intel cpu about twice as fast
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: marmad on April 09, 2013, 06:13:13 am
only the true power of the cores counts for video encoding, drive speed is not important.

I love pronouncements from people with no data to back them up  :)
There are good reasons that people and companies have been using Stripe arrays for video-editing for decades.

With this small test video:
Encoded to HD: 1:09
Encoded to HD RAID Stripe: 1:07
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: moemoe on April 09, 2013, 06:21:57 am
Don't think so, a video of this size can be written in 1-2s by a modern HDD. So give it some additional seconds for seeks, and you're still on the safe side.

This is just a test video - I assume the videos Dave would actually be encoding would be much much larger - which is what I was referring to.
Yes, but as the encoding also takes much longer, there is more time available to write…

It's not like encoding the whole software in some magic black hole and after finishing warping it back as one big blob from the n-th dimension onto your hard disk ;)
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: dimlow on April 09, 2013, 06:33:29 am

I don't think so - I agree with Eliminateur (http://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/i-tried-a-mac-for-video-editing/msg214573/#msg214573), who suggested that Dave would be better off building a system around the AMD , thereby getting ~83% of the 3930K encoding speed at ~35% of the price.

Dave may waste his money however he wishes, But really AMD  FX-8350 :-DD My Q6600 can piss higher than that.

http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=2333339 (http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=2333339)
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: mariush on April 09, 2013, 06:43:25 am
FX-8320 , 16 GB of ram, video in a 8 GB ramdrive.

Source is 1440x1080 h264 stream  2m 30s = 452,290,777 bytes , so about 24 mbps , using the following AVS script:

Code: [Select]
loadplugin("c:\Programs\MeGUI\tools\dgavcindex\DGAVCDecode.dll")
AVCSource("sequence.dga")

No video card acceleration, the Radeon 4850 is not supported well and it's AMD so I can't use the DGAVCIndex made for nVidia cards.

The recompression will be a bit faster with streams that have lower bitrate.
Also, the speed will be a bit higher with a better multithreaded h264 decoder. Using "DirectShowSource" instead of AVCSource to decode the h264 stream using another codec resulted in 26.8 fps for the CRF 28 test, about 3 fps more.

FX-8350 may be slightly faster but probably a few more frames. FX-8320 defaults to 3.5 Ghz and turbo boosts to 4 Ghz from, fx-8350 defaults to 4 ghz and turbo boosts to 4.2 ghz.  Throughout the tests, the 8 cores stayed at about 88-93% cpu usage.

CRF 19

Code: [Select]
y:\>x264.exe --crf 19 -o seq.mp4 sequence.avs
avs [info]: 1440x1080p 0:0 @ 25/1 fps (cfr)
x264 [info]: using cpu capabilities: MMX2 SSE2Fast SSSE3 SSE4.2 AVX XOP FMA4 FMA3 SSEMisalign LZCNT BMI1
x264 [info]: profile High, level 4.0
aborted at input frame 1605, output frame 1550
encoded 1550 frames, 16.59 fps, 10689.29 kb/s

CRF 23

Code: [Select]
y:\>x264.exe --crf 23 -o seq.mp4 sequence.avs
avs [info]: 1440x1080p 0:0 @ 25/1 fps (cfr)
x264 [info]: using cpu capabilities: MMX2 SSE2Fast SSSE3 SSE4.2 AVX XOP FMA4 FMA3 SSE Misalign LZCNT BMI1
x264 [info]: profile High, level 4.0
[..]
aborted at input frame 1466, output frame 1411
encoded 1411 frames, 21.72 fps, 5333.93 kb/s

CRF 28

Code: [Select]
y:\>x264.exe --crf 28 -o seq.mp4 sequence.avs
avs [info]: 1440x1080p 0:0 @ 25/1 fps (cfr)
x264 [info]: using cpu capabilities: MMX2 SSE2Fast SSSE3 SSE4.2 AVX XOP FMA4 FMA3 SSE Misalign LZCNT BMI1
x264 [info]: profile High, level 4.0
[..]
aborted at input frame 1534, output frame 1479
encoded 1479 frames, 24.16 fps, 2685.54 kb/s
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: hans on April 09, 2013, 06:47:05 am
I've just tried Mediaconverter 8 trial with proper Intel Quicksync setup. QuickSync doesn't seem to help Handbrake though. CPU i5 3570K @ 4GHz (light overclock, but irrelevant for GPU rendering), 16GB RAM

CPU core; "Youtube" output (=1080p, 30fps; VBR, seems to around 6000Kbps, 48kHz AAC audio): 120MB output, took 0:35
Intel Quicksync: "Youtube" output; 180MB output (doh), took 0:18
Intel Quicksync: custom Youtube output (1080p; 30fps; 6000Kbps, 48kHz AAC 128kbps); 104MB output in 0:23

Pretty quick, but don't see a lot of options in Mediaconverter 8 :(
Quality for me personally is still very good, no complaints. Although 30fps is maybe a bit too much (seems to be fixed), and 128kbps is a bit low (ah well..)
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: marmad on April 09, 2013, 06:50:21 am
Dave may waste his money however he wishes, But really AMD  FX-8350 :-DD My Q6600 can piss higher than that.
Seriously? Wow, a literal pissing contest - complete with the requisite boasts and lack of data  ;)

Here - let me help: http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core2-Quad-Q6600-vs-AMD-FX-8350 (http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core2-Quad-Q6600-vs-AMD-FX-8350)
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: Eliminateur on April 09, 2013, 06:56:52 am
whilst the Q6600 is a very good cpu, it's completely outclassed by an FX-8350 in anything, SPECIALLY encoding, and you can check the benchmark i pasted in last page...

about ssd output, for the bitrates dave uses a SSD is unnecessary, simply reading from a hdd and writing to a different hdd should do the trick (the extra times can be because of the reading AND writing to the same HDD at 10~12Mbps*2).
after all 10/12mbps or 24mbps is hardly enough to bother a mechanical hdd and it's a sequential workload, perfect for HDD
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: dimlow on April 09, 2013, 06:57:07 am
 ;D
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: marmad on April 09, 2013, 07:03:53 am
about ssd output, for the bitrates dave uses a SSD is unnecessary, simply reading from a hdd and writing to a different hdd should do the trick (the extra times can be because of the reading AND writing to the same HDD at 10~12Mbps*2).
after all 10/12mbps or 24mbps is hardly enough to bother a mechanical hdd and it's a sequential workload, perfect for HDD

I've been talking about using SSD Stripe arrays - and yes, it would only shave off a couple of seconds if Dave is only doing encoding and nothing else. But I assumed Dave was going to be doing some editing as well, no? And if he's putting together a new desktop machine for that, then he should be outfitting it with a Stripe array.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: dimlow on April 09, 2013, 07:13:08 am
OK, I saw that this was about to turn into a pissing contest and stuck my toe in to test the water. You both bit it right off! >:D

But seriously he should buy a good CPU, nothing out there is better for encoding than the 3930k add an overclock to that and he will be seriously happy. It may seem like a waste of money, but look at it this way I have have my Q6600 now for 7 Years and only one person on this forum has had better encoding speeds. This CPU has lasted me. i have had no need to upgrade for 7 years. Think of all the other upgrades people have wasted their money on in that time. Whilst i have kept my money in my pocket. Really did i waste my money when i bought the Q9900 many many years ago and paid top dollar? I dont think so. Yes maybe now its time to upgrade, but to be honest the only thing that stresses this machine is video encoding and i don't do a lot with that. Again its faster than most people machines 7 years later.

Raid would be for editing, not encoding.

Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: hans on April 09, 2013, 07:13:41 am

I don't think so - I agree with Eliminateur (http://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/i-tried-a-mac-for-video-editing/msg214573/#msg214573), who suggested that Dave would be better off building a system around the AMD , thereby getting ~83% of the 3930K encoding speed at ~35% of the price.

Dave may waste his money however he wishes, But really AMD  FX-8350 :-DD My Q6600 can piss higher than that.

http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=2333339 (http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=2333339)

A 4.2GHz overclock is pretty high. 1.6V core voltage... How much power is that consuming? Probably more than a toaster. Not very practical easy-to-use and reliable setup.
 I pushed my old Q6600 further than 3.4GHz or so without increasing the core voltage too much (and thus creating a local heater).
I have to say, it's amazing how fast a Q6600 chip today still is. In many tasks it can keep it up, even though it's already 6 years old.... Too bad my old motherboard memory controller got dementia on every bank so Windows wouldn't install anymore.

Also, the bitrates here are pretty low indeed.. 24Mbps is still only 3MB/s raw data. If you do have something like Quicksync that can encode at 7-8x at 1080p, it's still only 24MB/s input data rate.
However, copying files, loading, editing, etc. is A LOT faster.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: _Sin on April 09, 2013, 07:20:33 am
FWIW, my aging Mac Pro encodes the file in under 50s using HandBrake, but that's with less than 50% CPU usage. If I encoded two files at once I could probably average better times.

Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: dimlow on April 09, 2013, 07:22:35 am

A 4.2GHz overclock is pretty high. 1.6V core voltage... How much power is that consuming? Probably more than a toaster. Not very practical easy-to-use and reliable setup.
 I pushed my old Q6600 further than 3.4GHz or so without increasing the core voltage too much (and thus creating a local heater).
I have to say, it's amazing how fast a Q6600 chip today still is. In many tasks it can keep it up, even though it's already 6 years old.... Too bad my old motherboard memory controller got dementia on every bank so Windows wouldn't install anymore.

I runs at 3.8, water cooled with 6x120 rads, its speed stepped, runs at 2.4 at idle consumes 90 Watts at idle. Pulls 240 watts when running at 4.2

(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-Hrh9ttjxGAI/UWM-Dffo-aI/AAAAAAAACIw/WZWNwygABIE/s664/20120415_095712.jpg)

Edit: Added a pic for you all
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: marmad on April 09, 2013, 07:28:32 am
But seriously he should buy a good CPU, nothing out there is better for encoding than the 3930k add an overclock to that and he will be seriously happy. It may seem like a waste of money...

Raid would be for editing, not encoding.

This thread has become all about encoding - but that's not where it started. It was about Dave getting a new machine for editing, rendering, and encoding - and that's what I've been speaking to. He already expressed a desire to save money - and benchmarks clearly show the AMD CPU as an excellent bargain in regards to encoding - so my advice for Dave would be to save money on an expensive CPU - and either invest it in an SDD RAID subsystem - or pocket it and just use a normal HDD RAID. Anyway, my final two cents.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: ivan747 on April 09, 2013, 08:03:11 am
Dave, if you still have some hope left for Mac:

Quote from: MacRumors
Apple will announce its replacement for the company’s Mac Pro lineup this month, a source who has been correct about Apple product matters in the past has just informed us.

Our source offered no information as to whether the "Mac Pro replacement" would be a tower, mini-tower, or some other solution, but did caution that the announcement "could slip into May or even June, but currently April looks most likely."

Still, that doesn't justify they didn't update it for 3 years. And I know the hardware is expensive, but take into account the quality of the construction (although this is more relevant on laptops, I admit), service, replacement parts, aftermarket additions and such.

Something that adds value is the operative system. It is much simpler to use when you get used to it. It's just like the Qwerty vs. Dvorak battle. You lose some time getting used to it, but after that things are easy to figure out. Little details like drag and drop support in pretty much anything, text rendering and mouse gestures are great.

But I think I lost this battle.  :-\

One thing. When you work on Apple's stuff (specially things like iTunes and iPhoto) is either their way or the highway. Usually their way is excellent. One example: iTunes sorts audio files by their tags and it is the only way it works. If you buy the songs from iTunes or rip them from original CDs, no worries. If you got the MP3s from god knows where, you better add the tags before you en up with a total mess. Some players like VLC don't give a fuck and play music directly form your poorly organized folders or if you prefer, they use the tags.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: Lightages on April 09, 2013, 08:05:37 am
Like I said, these guys have a couple of good buying guides on hardware. They are a respected business too.
http://www.videoguys.com/Guide/E/Videoguys+DIY9+Its+Time+for+Sandy+Bridge+E+DIY+95+Update/0xe9b142f408a2b03ab88144a434e88de7.aspx (http://www.videoguys.com/Guide/E/Videoguys+DIY9+Its+Time+for+Sandy+Bridge+E+DIY+95+Update/0xe9b142f408a2b03ab88144a434e88de7.aspx)
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: SteigsdB on April 09, 2013, 09:01:37 am
No, no..

Dave, you're going about this all the wrong way.

Clearly, you need to pick up an Alexa (http://www.arri.com/camera/digital_cameras/cameras/camera_details.html?no_cache=1&product=251&cHash=4d3858908f0a8971c86318d603d7a5dd) and a copy of Media Composer (http://www.avid.com/US/products/media-composer) to play nicely with your Matrox card.

Maybe even grab a 2nd Alexa and get a 3ality (http://www.3alitytechnica.com/3D-rigs/) rig for those lifelike teardowns...

  >:D
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: c4757p on April 09, 2013, 09:07:12 am
Something that adds value is the operative system. It is much simpler to use when you get used to it.

Any operating system released after 2000, having more than three people who have heard of it, is going to be simple to use once you get used to it. That's kind of what "getting used to it" means.

Quote
Some players like VLC don't give a fuck and play music directly form your poorly organized folders or if you prefer, they use the tags.

I've never understood the need for anything else. It seems like every music player in the world has to reinvent the file system.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: EEVblog on April 09, 2013, 09:08:44 am
Dave : Why 1440X1080 ? that may be one of the problems.... sony software may upscale to downscale again... should be 1920x1080. filming in 4:3 ?

The camera only has 24Mbps 1920x1080, 17Mbps 1920x1080, or 12Mbps 1440x1080 (or lower, which I use for the long live shows)
I keep all raw footage, so file space is important.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: EEVblog on April 09, 2013, 09:11:21 am
This thread has become all about encoding - but that's not where it started. It was about Dave getting a new machine for editing, rendering, and encoding - and that's what I've been speaking to. He already expressed a desire to save money - and benchmarks clearly show the AMD CPU as an excellent bargain in regards to encoding - so my advice for Dave would be to save money on an expensive CPU - and either invest it in an SDD RAID subsystem - or pocket it and just use a normal HDD RAID. Anyway, my final two cents.

Most sources I have read on the subject say RAID systems and SSD's do nothing to improve the situation for rendering or transcoding. The drive is not the bottleneck. Regular cheap 7200rpm drives are fast enough.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: EEVblog on April 09, 2013, 09:13:55 am
I've been talking about using SSD Stripe arrays - and yes, it would only shave off a couple of seconds if Dave is only doing encoding and nothing else. But I assumed Dave was going to be doing some editing as well, no? And if he's putting together a new desktop machine for that, then he should be outfitting it with a Stripe array.

I don't need to speed up my editing, it already has zero delay.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: c4757p on April 09, 2013, 09:14:02 am
Most sources I have read on the subject say RAID systems and SSD's do nothing to improve the situation for rendering or transcoding. The drive is not the bottleneck. Regular cheap 7200rpm drives are fast enough.

Yeah, if your hard drive isn't thrashing, there's no point in upgrading. Don't tell that to the SSD fanboys though.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: EEVblog on April 09, 2013, 09:15:44 am
I don't see the lack of MTS files as a big fail, MTS is just a contender, in this case a transport stream, you can simple remux it to something like a mp4, it will be as fast as your hard drive.

It is a show stopper.
There is no way I am going to add another conversion step to my workflow, that would be silly. I like taking the file direct from the camera and start editing it.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: marmad on April 09, 2013, 09:51:03 am
Most sources I have read on the subject say RAID systems and SSD's do nothing to improve the situation for rendering or transcoding. The drive is not the bottleneck. Regular cheap 7200rpm drives are fast enough.

I use a desktop machine with 3 RAIDS and a few individual 7200rpm and SSD drives - and I've noticed a difference in the process when using the RAIDs when editing large videos with multiple tracks - and there are certainly plenty of sources that suggest RAIDs - even Adobe themselves - you just have to Google Final Cut Pro and RAID. But hey, it was just a suggestion - I know what works for me but everyone has their own particular needs.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: westfw on April 09, 2013, 10:03:37 am
For a moment there, it looked like we had an actual benchmark going.  But perhaps not.
Code: [Select]
time HandBrakeCLI -i /Downloads/EEVblogTestRender2Min22.MTS -t 1 -c 1 -o EEVblogTestRender2min22-SonyAVC-1440x1080_a.mp4 -f mp4 --strict-anamorphic  -e x264 -q 22 -r 25 --cfr  -a 1 -E faac -B 192 -6 stereo -R 48 -D 0 --gain=0 --audio-copy-mask none --audio-fallback ffac3 -x ref=2:bframes=2:subq=6:mixed-refs=0:weightb=0:8x8dct=0:trellis=0 --verbose=1Ran in 1m46s on my PowerMac (2008 vintage, 8core 2.8GHz Xeon.  MacOS 10.7.5)  It did claim to be using most of all 8 cores...  That's not blindingly fast, compared to what other people are seeing, but it's also not dramatically slower as per "The Apple Store Experience."

(is that I reasonable test?  I thought Dave said he was going from the MTS to something else, and THEN running handbrake on it.)

My wife's newer but less tricked-out iMac (3.2GHz i3 with 2C, 4T) did much worse: 3:31 or so.  Don't get one of them!
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: Someone on April 09, 2013, 11:01:32 am
....Me: "So how do a I copy these .MTS video files from my camera into Final Cut"
Dude: "You can't do that, it has be in the original card format"
Me: "You're kidding right? I can't just copy and drop a .MTS file onto the timeline"
Dude: "Nope, it's always been that way, it's silly"
Me: "That's almost a show stopper. How about this .MP4 file?"....
I don't see the lack of MTS files as a big fail, MTS is just a contender, in this case a transport stream, you can simple remux it to something like a mp4, it will be as fast as your hard drive.

It is a show stopper.
There is no way I am going to add another conversion step to my workflow, that would be silly. I like taking the file direct from the camera and start editing it.
The workflow with MTS files and sony cameras is actually not so bad, but the people in the typical store wont know the ins and outs of the pro software. Historically the resellers made a lot of money in training so they became specialists in specific market segments (music shops selling protools rigs with macs, resellers selling macs and video hardware).

http://www.pavtube.com/guide/import-avchd-to-final-cut-pro-7.html (http://www.pavtube.com/guide/import-avchd-to-final-cut-pro-7.html)

No idea what the workflow is in their "X" version, but the support documents suggests they support it;
http://help.apple.com/finalcutpro/cameras/en/index.html (http://help.apple.com/finalcutpro/cameras/en/index.html)
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: RCMR on April 09, 2013, 12:15:17 pm
Sorry, but I'm pretty sure Apple is not going to be worthwhile investment, so will not pursue it any more, it's just "the vibe"
Are you sure it's not Mabo or the constitution -- no, you're right, it's mainly "the vibe".

Find yourself a good rendering machine and take it straight to the pool room!

 :-+ :-+
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: NiHaoMike on April 09, 2013, 12:17:58 pm
But seriously he should buy a good CPU, nothing out there is better for encoding than the 3930k add an overclock to that and he will be seriously happy. It may seem like a waste of money, but look at it this way I have have my Q6600 now for 7 Years and only one person on this forum has had better encoding speeds. This CPU has lasted me. i have had no need to upgrade for 7 years. Think of all the other upgrades people have wasted their money on in that time. Whilst i have kept my money in my pocket. Really did i waste my money when i bought the Q9900 many many years ago and paid top dollar? I dont think so. Yes maybe now its time to upgrade, but to be honest the only thing that stresses this machine is video encoding and i don't do a lot with that. Again its faster than most people machines 7 years later.
If you're going for a high end machine for video editing, a 3930k is the way to go. With a good fan (I highly recommend Delta), it's very easy to push it up to 3.8GHz continuous by tweaking the Turbo Boost settings.

As for a video card, a GTX 650 is a great choice for general use, though you'll want a GTX 660 or above if you plan to do gaming/advanced 3D CAD/CUDA/etc. Even more so if you're going to be using a 120Hz/240Hz 1080p or above monitor - a 680 or two 660s would be a good minimum for that. (My 560 Ti can do 120Hz 1080p in D2X-XL but it frame jitters on really detailed levels. I plan to buy another video card in the near future and use the existing one as a secondary CUDA card and to drive more monitors.)

As for SSDs, they're worth it if you value a fast boot, but you'll definitely still need HDDs for video editing. Go for at least 16GB of RAM since it's really cheap nowadays. (Note that once you have that much RAM, the kernel has a lot of disk cache to work with and the advantage of using a SSD is much smaller.)
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: EEVblog on April 09, 2013, 12:19:09 pm
I use a desktop machine with 3 RAIDS and a few individual 7200rpm and SSD drives - and I've noticed a difference in the process when using the RAIDs when editing large videos with multiple tracks - and there are certainly plenty of sources that suggest RAIDs - even Adobe themselves - you just have to Google Final Cut Pro and RAID. But hey, it was just a suggestion - I know what works for me but everyone has their own particular needs.

I have no problems with editing at all, it's all instant, no lag, nothing.
Rendering and transcoding in Handbrake are the only things that take time and could do with some improvement, and both of these spend most of their time processing, not writing to disk, so having a fast disk system does not matter.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: EEVblog on April 09, 2013, 12:24:17 pm
As for a video card, a GTX 650 is a great choice for general use, though you'll want a GTX 660 or above if you plan to do gaming/advanced 3D CAD/CUDA/etc. Even more so if you're going to be using a 120Hz/240Hz 1080p or above monitor - a 680 or two 660s would be a good minimum for that. (My 560 Ti can do 120Hz 1080p in D2X-XL but it frame jitters on really detailed levels. I plan to buy another video card in the near future and use the existing one as a secondary CUDA card and to drive more monitors.)

I have absolutley no need to play games or do anything else fancy, all the video card will get used for is the CUDA (with Nvidia), or OpenCL (Radeon) GPU acceleration with Sony MS (and perhaps Handbrake once it gets this capability).
I have had far too many issues with Radeon driver and Sony, so I'll almost certainly go Nvidia.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: EEVblog on April 09, 2013, 12:50:50 pm
My old lab dumpster dive Dell XPS 420 2.4GHz Q6600 with 4GB of RAM and single 7200 drive renders EEVblogTestRender2min22-SonyAVC-1440x1080.mp4 in 3:02
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: dimlow on April 09, 2013, 12:53:01 pm
You do know that is its not OpenCL for AMD and CUDA for Nvidia ? Nvidia cards support both OpenCL and CUDA. NVIDIA has been delivering OpenCL support in end-user production drivers since October 2009, supporting OpenCL on all 250,000,000+ CUDA architecture GPUs shipped since 2006.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: dimlow on April 09, 2013, 12:54:18 pm
My old lab dumpster dive Dell XPS 420 2.4GHz Q6600 with 4GB of RAM and single 7200 drive renders EEVblogTestRender2min22-SonyAVC-1440x1080.mp4 in 3:02

Clock speed is the key here.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: EEVblog on April 09, 2013, 12:57:24 pm
You do know that is not OpenCL for AMD and CUDA for Nvidia ? Nvidia cards support both OpenCL and CUDA. NVIDIA has been delivering OpenCL support in end-user production drivers since October 2009, supporting OpenCL on all 250,000,000+ CUDA architecture GPUs shipped since 2006.

All I know is that Sony MS supports both CUDA and Open CL, and Radeon does not have CUDA so you are forced to use OpenCL with it, and I've had big problems with using Open CL with Sony MS. Maybe it's just a Radeon issue, but maybe not.
So I will be trying Nvidia and CUDA.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: dimlow on April 09, 2013, 01:12:39 pm
Just for a heads up if you're going the Nvidia route, take note that the GTX 6XX series cards perform slower than the GTX 5XX when using CUDA and OpenCL. I use a GTX570 plus a GTX 580 for rendering 3D in Blender. some time back there were a lot of people disappointed with their new GTX 6XX cards and render speeds. Things may have changed now as i have not checked in a while and there have been driver updates. But this was only 6 months ago when i was looking for some extra rendering speeds.

see the third post here http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/forum/347529-33-560ti-cuda (http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/forum/347529-33-560ti-cuda)

Oh an i don't play 3d games either.

Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: EEVblog on April 09, 2013, 01:44:22 pm
Just went to my local computer stores, USB stick in hand to test some system.
But they don't have any fast machine configured in the store, just crap demo systems for the consumer. Real machines are built to order only.
Best machine I could find did the render test in over 3min
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: dimlow on April 09, 2013, 01:54:55 pm
Unfortunately if you want a fast machine , it is better to build it, or get someone that knows their stuff. You will also end up with better components. Most box shifters just want the specs to look good. When you open one of these up you often find that it may have a cheap micro ATX board and no room for expansion, crap cooler, all the mem sockets are full with cheap low performing RAM, only internal graphics and no spare slots to upgrade and a power supply that can only just do the job.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: EEVblog on April 09, 2013, 02:04:49 pm
Unfortunately if you want a fast machine , it is better to build it, or get someone that knows their stuff.

Yes.
Any recommendations for a good online Oz supplier of systems that offers a ton of flexible options to build your own machine?
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: dimlow on April 09, 2013, 02:22:26 pm
Well how about Cairns, Queensland ?

But i think this guy goes a little overboard for what you want.

http://www.youtube.com/user/SingularityComputers (http://www.youtube.com/user/SingularityComputers)
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: EEVblog on April 09, 2013, 02:32:31 pm
But i think this guy goes a little overboard for what you want.

Yeah, that's kinda overboard  ::)

These mobs do custom PC's with all the options it seems:
http://gamingpcs.com.au/?gclid=CMDWzfXdvLYCFSVNpgodvWkABQ (http://gamingpcs.com.au/?gclid=CMDWzfXdvLYCFSVNpgodvWkABQ)
http://www.centrecom.com.au/catalog/build.php (http://www.centrecom.com.au/catalog/build.php)

And there are probably a dozen others.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: EEVblog on April 09, 2013, 02:46:16 pm
Ok, it seems fairly safe to assume now that rendering speed is pretty much CPU (& memory) type/speed dependent.
My current 2GHz machine is highlighted here in red:
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_lookup.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i7-2630QM+%40+2.00GHz (http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_lookup.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i7-2630QM+%40+2.00GHz)

Even the relatively "pedestrian" i7 3770 at 3Ghz or AMD FX-8350 is almost double the speed of my current processor.
I'd rather spend more on a fast motherboard, memory, and graphics card than flat out best CPU speed I think.

Some quick shopping cart playing shows a decent system to be in the $1200 ballpark minimum, with no OS.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: dimlow on April 09, 2013, 02:48:44 pm
Yep, way overboard, but his systems are the dogs, er, i forget you're saying. I was not recommending him but he's the only guy i now in Oz that builds PC's

Dave i'm sure you are more than capable of assembling a system. You just need a parts list and a couple of hours. Building a PC is just like lego these days. I expect if you publish a budget here forum users could come up with a parts list for you. I would do it, but i'm off to bed now, its almost 6 am and i have been working all night on my GPIB-USB controller. Its time i got some sleep.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: EEVblog on April 09, 2013, 03:00:03 pm
Dave i'm sure you are more than capable of assembling a system. You just need a parts list and a couple of hours. Building a PC is just like lego these days.

Yes, but it's just easier to pick and order everything from someone like this:
http://www.centrecom.com.au/catalog/build.php (http://www.centrecom.com.au/catalog/build.php)
Rather than buying this bit from here, this bit from there etc.
I suspect you won't save a huge amount by sourcing separately and building yourself?  :-//
It's been decades since I built my own PC.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: dimlow on April 09, 2013, 03:09:05 pm
OK, one last post before bed. I would think CPU speed is No 1,then MB, ram and drive speed SSD. I would not put too much into graphics card.

If you don't have an SSD i would seriously consider it. Night and day compared to Hard Drives. You don't need a big one just enough for OS and some software. Other files/storage  go on another HD.

By building, you know exactly what you put in it. If centrecom can build it at a reasonable price that you are happy with then fine. But building is not that difficult, you just need to make sure you have compatible parts. I don't think you will save money by building it.

I'll be back in about 6 hours.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: peter.mitchell on April 09, 2013, 03:26:07 pm
Dave i'm sure you are more than capable of assembling a system. You just need a parts list and a couple of hours. Building a PC is just like lego these days.

Yes, but it's just easier to pick and order everything from someone like this:
http://www.centrecom.com.au/catalog/build.php (http://www.centrecom.com.au/catalog/build.php)
Rather than buying this bit from here, this bit from there etc.
I suspect you won't save a huge amount by sourcing separately and building yourself?  :-//
It's been decades since I built my own PC.

Dave, have you checked out itestate or MSY, msy has a horrible website but their prices are great, itestate is a bit more tolerable.

Most "pre assembled" computers usually charge something around $60 + 10% on parts, however, centrecom are one of the few that don't charge the 10% on parts, so if their prices are comparable to itestate and msy, i'd just get it there, also a great place to just check the prices on parts is www.staticice.com.au (http://www.staticice.com.au)
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: moemoe on April 09, 2013, 04:31:11 pm
Even the relatively "pedestrian" i7 3770 at 3Ghz or AMD FX-8350 is almost double the speed of my current processor.
I'd rather spend more on a fast motherboard, memory, and graphics card than flat out best CPU speed I think.

I don't see any reason – aside some of your programs needs some decent 3d capabilities – to buy a seperate video card these days. The integrated graphics core on the i* chips works quite well fucking awesome today, and the GPU in the K models is even better.

I built the system some pages ago (i5 2500K @3.3GHz, Win7 64bit, rotating rust: 1m48s) for about 500€ 1.5a ago. A modern system with Intel Core i7-3770K should be about 100€ more. Just add some mainboard, case, hdd, psu.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: EEVblog on April 09, 2013, 06:45:03 pm
I don't see any reason – aside some of your programs needs some decent 3d capabilities – to buy a seperate video card these days. The integrated graphics core on the i* chips works quite well fucking awesome today, and the GPU in the K models is even better.

Possibly. I can always build the machine and try it with the integrated graphics first and see what I get.
I'm currently using my DV7 notebook with the integrated graphics driving dual screens no problems at all. I'm not using the extra Radeon graphics card built in othe notebook, as the drivers screwed up Sony.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: hans on April 09, 2013, 07:12:46 pm
Dave i'm sure you are more than capable of assembling a system. You just need a parts list and a couple of hours. Building a PC is just like lego these days.

Yes, but it's just easier to pick and order everything from someone like this:
http://www.centrecom.com.au/catalog/build.php (http://www.centrecom.com.au/catalog/build.php)
Rather than buying this bit from here, this bit from there etc.
I suspect you won't save a huge amount by sourcing separately and building yourself?  :-//
It's been decades since I built my own PC.
Not really no. In Netherlands we are cheap, and have pricewatches. A couple of dozen shops update their prices daily for products, so we can find the best, place reviews etc. Unfortunately, all local market.
However, I do use it when putting together a new system. If you would order all parts at 1 'good' shop with reasonable prices, compared to getting cheapest everywhere (sometimes ordering at 4 or 5 shops).. it saves about <10% or so. E.g., on 600 euro's I can save about 50.

My experience with PC's these days is: it's very easy to assemble but not completely frustration free.
For example: I owned a Gigabyte motherboard once, which had such a crappy UEFI BIOS it wouldn't boot with certain USB devices plugged in (external harddrive) or a displayport monitor (I have to use DisplayPort for triple screen setups). Took me a week to figure out it's Gigabyte's crappy BIOS firmware.
RMA'ed the board (takes 1-2 weeks to process), had to seek replacement PC in the meantime, buy a different board, etc.

At that point I wish I just bought all the parts + 50 euro assembly + testing fee.
However, then the shop would need a computer case, harddrives, PSU, etc. I always reuse those parts, so I am not going to buy them twice..

Ah well, what I would do when assembling a new system now:

Intel i5 3570K or i7 3770K CPU. Note the 'K'. This is an unlocked CPU, ready for overclocking, and costs about 10$ - 15$ more. Moreover, it features a Intel HD4000 GPU over a HD2500 (in the non-K edition), which is faster with Quicksync video encoding.
So even on casual systems I'd spend 10$ extra for the much faster GPU. It may come in handy some day.

RAM: 16GB, 2 sticks of some sort. 1333/1600MHz DDR3 is good
Motherboard: recommend sticking with the major guys like Asus or MSI. I always have had trouble with other manufacturers.
SSD: Crucial m4, Samsung 840 series, Plextor M5P series, are all very fast and good drives. Get like 128G or maybe 256G (if you have big apps or games) as boot and Windows drive. Can't live without..
GPU: If you don't run games use the onboard Intel. It would probably outrun a low-end dedicated GPU..

HDD's/casing/power supply: reuse, buy whatever you like. Wouldn't cut on PSU's too much, as we all know how bad PSU's can get.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: EEVblog on April 09, 2013, 08:04:51 pm
Hmm, looks like I can get a 2nd hand Xeon Dell machine pretty cheap (under $1K).
A Precision T3600 with Quad Core Xeon E5-1620 @ 3.60GHz
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Xeon+E5-1620+%40+3.60GHz (http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Xeon+E5-1620+%40+3.60GHz)
With 7200 RAID hard drive system and a NVIDIA Quadro NVS310 card (doesn't sound that modern?)

Would that be a good deal and decent system for rendering?
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: peter.mitchell on April 09, 2013, 08:08:39 pm
Not really, you could get a pre-assembled equivalent for about the same price AND warranty.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: EEVblog on April 09, 2013, 08:10:16 pm
Not really, you could get a pre-assembled equivalent for about the same price AND warranty.

It includes a 1yr warranty.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: peter.mitchell on April 09, 2013, 08:30:08 pm
Not really, you could get a pre-assembled equivalent for about the same price AND warranty.

It includes a 1yr warranty.

Sorry for assuming, though, it still doesn't make it much better, for example, here is a "budget" equivalent hardware one.

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/677635/Scorpion%20Technology%20Computers%20Pty%20Ltd.htm (https://dl.dropbox.com/u/677635/Scorpion%20Technology%20Computers%20Pty%20Ltd.htm)

I say equivalent hardware, because it does not include assy or OS, it doesn't include an optical drive, though you could just scavenge one, however the hardware is better i assume (in regards to ram, hdds, cpu ect) to make up for that.

With that said, i don't know the complete specs of the other machine, however, having a xeon e5-1620 does imply it is a pretty good system still.

Also, on the website, it show the included card, quadro NVS310 pretty far down the list http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/directCompute.html (http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/directCompute.html)
I'd swap it out for the 5870.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: EEVblog on April 09, 2013, 08:47:47 pm
With that said, i don't know the complete specs of the other machine, however, having a xeon e5-1620 does imply it is a pretty good system still.

Yes, it seems pretty much on par with the i7 3770 and AMD FX-8350 solutions. It's only has 8GB of 1600MHz non-eCC ram though.
The whole point I guess be have it be a well engineered known base machine, not just some slapped together box.
It does come with this RAID controller:
http://www.dell.com/Learn/us/en/04/campaigns/dell-raid-controllers?c=us&l=en&s=bsd (http://www.dell.com/Learn/us/en/04/campaigns/dell-raid-controllers?c=us&l=en&s=bsd)
https://express.ikoula.com/sites/default/files/fiche_perc_h310.pdf (https://express.ikoula.com/sites/default/files/fiche_perc_h310.pdf)

Quote
Also, on the website, it show the included card, quadro NVS310 pretty far down the list http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/directCompute.html (http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/directCompute.html)
I'd swap it out for the 5870.

Yeah, it would likely get swapped out eventually.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: moemoe on April 09, 2013, 09:08:01 pm
Yes, it seems pretty much on par with the i7 3770 and AMD FX-8350 solutions. It's only has 8GB of 1600MHz non-eCC ram though.
8GB is imho not a real "problem", it should work real fine. And, if not, you still have the possibility to put in some more bars.

The whole point I guess be have it be a well engineered known base machine, not just some slapped together box.
After my experience, dell has also a well built cooling, so not generating to much noise.

It does come with this RAID controller:
http://www.dell.com/Learn/us/en/04/campaigns/dell-raid-controllers?c=us&l=en&s=bsd (http://www.dell.com/Learn/us/en/04/campaigns/dell-raid-controllers?c=us&l=en&s=bsd)
https://express.ikoula.com/sites/default/files/fiche_perc_h310.pdf (https://express.ikoula.com/sites/default/files/fiche_perc_h310.pdf)

Imho useless, because it has no battery backed up write cache, and this is what gives real performance.

The performance impact on raid1 with hw raid controllers is none, as it is in fact no difference with DMA these days between writing the same data to 1 or 2 hdds. So I would even disable the hw raid and use (windows) software raid. This way, the disks work on every windows pc, and you won't get any problems with plugging them in elsewhere or even a defective raid controller.

So it sounds like a reasonable offer, I would go for this system, with the option of putting more memory or an ssd (for os and applications, not video data, like samsung 840 128gb@~150$) into it.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: EEVblog on April 09, 2013, 09:09:23 pm
Ah well, what I would do when assembling a new system now:
Intel i5 3570K or i7 3770K CPU. Note the 'K'. This is an unlocked CPU, ready for overclocking, and costs about 10$ - 15$ more. Moreover, it features a Intel HD4000 GPU over a HD2500 (in the non-K edition), which is faster with Quicksync video encoding.
So even on casual systems I'd spend 10$ extra for the much faster GPU. It may come in handy some day.

Yes, it's likely I would not need an external video card in that case, saving a few hundred.
Thanks for the tip on the K, will certainly get that if I get an i7 3770

Quote
RAM: 16GB, 2 sticks of some sort. 1333/1600MHz DDR3 is good

What about 2400MHz DDR3 (and MB's that support it), better I'm assuming?
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: EEVblog on April 09, 2013, 09:11:52 pm
So it sounds like a reasonable offer, I would go for this system, with the option of putting more memory or an ssd (for os and applications, not video data, like samsung 840 128gb@~150$) into it.

I already have a 128GB Samsung 840 SSD I can use.
Someone on twitter mentioned the  E5 Xeon doesn't have Intel QuickSync Video, that could be a negative over the i7 3770K solution.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: Hobgoblin612 on April 09, 2013, 09:25:58 pm
Something else to consider is a Ram disk. With RAM being so cheap now its quite a viable option for video editing. If the editing software supports a scratch disk this can help a lot.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: moemoe on April 09, 2013, 09:31:11 pm
Quote
RAM: 16GB, 2 sticks of some sort. 1333/1600MHz DDR3 is good
What about 2400MHz DDR3 (and MB's that support it), better I'm assuming?

On the data sheet better transfer performance and Latency. But in a range of some %, so only measurable with benchmarks. And as video encoding is still CPU bound, putting the bucks in there will give probably more influence on the result.

I don't even know if it is natively supported by the CPUs, or just usefull for overclockers setting up the whole system bus speed.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: moemoe on April 09, 2013, 09:35:10 pm
Something else to consider is a Ram disk. With RAM being so cheap now its quite a viable option for video editing. If the editing software supports a scratch disk this can help a lot.

Modern OSes automatically use the free RAM as some sort of ram disk (better say: read cache, just keep the recently accessed files there as long as possible).  As I wouldn't recommend a writable RAM disk (data loss on power loss), and writing encoding video is just a data stream without seeks (hence the seperated video+system disks) that can be handled at datarates above 100 Mb/s by todays disks without any problem, I see no good reason for a dedicated RAM disk.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: ecat on April 09, 2013, 09:40:50 pm
Or for that extra 30% gain in speed and willies
http://www.scorptec.com.au/computer/47822-p9x79-le (http://www.scorptec.com.au/computer/47822-p9x79-le)
http://www.scorptec.com.au/computer/43136-bx80619i73930k (http://www.scorptec.com.au/computer/43136-bx80619i73930k)

The i7 3930 looks to be the sweet spot in price vs absolute performance, the big problem is the lack of cheaper motherboards.

Quad Channel Memory Architecture. So 4 sticks would be better than 2?

You can probably complete this for about $1500 all in, 50% extra cost for 30% extra performance.

Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: moemoe on April 09, 2013, 09:48:42 pm
The i7 3930 looks to be the sweet spot in price vs absolute performance, the big problem is the lack of cheaper motherboards.

I neither see integrated graphics nor QuickSync on http://ark.intel.com/products/63697/intel-core-i7-3930k-processor-12m-cache-up-to-3_80-ghz?q=i7-393 (http://ark.intel.com/products/63697/intel-core-i7-3930k-processor-12m-cache-up-to-3_80-ghz?q=i7-393)

QuickSync is only available on third gen i-processors.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: EEVblog on April 09, 2013, 09:49:38 pm
This mob recommend Socket 2011 for video editing.
http://www.gr-tek.com.au/ (http://www.gr-tek.com.au/)
http://www.gr-tek.com.au/proddetail.php?prod=2011Desktop (http://www.gr-tek.com.au/proddetail.php?prod=2011Desktop)

Either the i7 3820 in the base model, or i7 3930K for an extra $369
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: dr.diesel on April 09, 2013, 10:08:26 pm
Dave, how quick are you looking to build/buy?  Intel's Haswell will drop sometime this summer, offering ~15% more go while consuming less power.  This also includes integrated GPU performance that is supposed to be on par with an nvidia 650.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: dimlow on April 09, 2013, 10:11:35 pm
I didn't see how you configured it but i would start with this. Maybe go with the lower spec motherboard but then there are only 4 memory slots.

(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-ezY3MDuzwM4/UWQEFcRH_NI/AAAAAAAACJI/dIRYGyR7U5Q/s890/System+1.jpg)
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: mariush on April 09, 2013, 10:45:44 pm
Dave, the people recommending i7 3930k and socket 2011 motherboards are making systems for editing videos with lots of video and audio tracks, where it's important to have good memory bandwidth and fast disk access. Socket 2011 boards are better for memory bandwidth as they have quad channel compared to dual channel on everything else.
You don't have this pattern, you're using maybe just a handful of video tracks and special effects (like fast speed etc)

I would argue that the extra costs are not really worth the money.

Here's how CPUs compare at real h264 encoding (2nd pass at high quality): http://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU/28 (http://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU/28)

Is it really worth paying around 500$ more compared to an AMD system for a 10-30% encoding increase in speed?

Here's some math based on US prices:

An AMD FX-8350 is about 200$ in US.  A reasonable motherboard for it is about 110-130$. A good cpu heatsink+cooler is about 30$  so overall you're looking at 350-400$ for the base.

On the other hand, the cheapest and reasonable socket 2011 motherboard is about 210$. A good cpu heatsink + cooler is about 40-60$. 

The cheapest socket 2011 cpu, i7 3820 is around 300$, can't be overclocked and is weaker at doing HD encoding than both FX-8320 and FX-8350.

The i7 3930k is a huge jump to 570$ or more, and it does better than the AMD systems.

So you're looking at around 550$ (3820+mb+fan)  - 800$ (3930k + mb + fan)

Keep in mind that to benefit from that Intel system, you'd also have to use the quad channel system, so you'd have to buy 4 memory modules while on AMD platforms you could have only 2 modules... that's another cost.

The 3820 is by default weaker at encoding than AMDs so it's out of the race, you're left with the i7 3930k solution that's about 400$ more expensive.
You can do a lot with those money, like buying a more capable video card to speed up the process etc, buying that hardware encoder, buying a better video camera, or maybe just throwing that 400$ to your ISP for more upload bandwidth (so you could use more relaxed encoding settings and get stuff faster)

Hell, the price difference is so big it's enough for buying a SECOND AMD base system... with longer videos, you could just make a copy to the second computer, encode first half on first pc, second on the second pc, and then merge them. With CRF encodings, this is possible, no problems at all.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: EEVblog on April 09, 2013, 11:08:05 pm
From here:
http://www.scorptec.com.au/ (http://www.scorptec.com.au/)
An i7 3770K, ASROCK - Z77-PROFESSIONAL-M MB, 4 x 4GB Corsair 1600 memory, WD Black 7200 2TB drive (will use my 128GB SSD as primary), Corsair - CC500R case, Corsair - CMPSU-430CXv3 430W PSU, no video card
$1158 total

http://www.asrock.com/mb/Intel/Fatal1ty%20Z77%20Professional-M/ (http://www.asrock.com/mb/Intel/Fatal1ty%20Z77%20Professional-M/)

I figure that system should nail it.
Good value ?
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: EEVblog on April 09, 2013, 11:14:12 pm
Dave how much are you prepared to spend chasing the last 10-20% speed?
I don't know what you have now but you said you wanted 400% improvement IIRC from a prev post.

No, that was in relation to switching to a Macintosh platform with Final Cut Pro etc. That requires more, risk, and more time investment in terms of learning a new workflow. I'd be happy to get x2 increase on what I have now.
I wan't want to pay much more than $1K for that. In fact I've never paid more than that for any PC I've ever had.

Quote
Someone included a TomsHardware site graphic of a Handbrake benchmark and I noticed the AMD FX-8350 time was 2:09 and the i7-3970X was 1:44. The AMD is $209 and the i7 is literally 5 TIMES that.

Yes, and I'm not considering the 3970X at all, but the 3770K.
The 3770K has the added advantage of being at least as good or better than the FX-8350, but it crucially has Intel QuickSync video and good enough integrated graphics I will likely not have to buy a video card. I know my current Sony software supports Intel QSV and it quick using it. The FX-8350 is less known.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: EEVblog on April 09, 2013, 11:17:10 pm
Dave, the people recommending i7 3930k and socket 2011 motherboards are making systems for editing videos with lots of video and audio tracks, where it's important to have good memory bandwidth and fast disk access. Socket 2011 boards are better for memory bandwidth as they have quad channel compared to dual channel on everything else.
You don't have this pattern, you're using maybe just a handful of video tracks and special effects (like fast speed etc)

Yes, and I have dropped the idea of the socket 2011 now, I am only considering the i7 3770K or maybe the AMD (see previous post)
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: EEVblog on April 09, 2013, 11:21:32 pm
Here's how CPUs compare at real h264 encoding (2nd pass at high quality): http://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU/28 (http://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU/28)

Nice, thanks.
I have two requirement here:
1) Rendering using Sony Movie Studio (possibly my slowest process), which I know supports Intel QuickSync Video which the i7 3770K has. So the AMD is more unknown here.
2) H.264 encoding using Hanbbrake, and it looks like the AMD has the edge here, but not by much.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: dimlow on April 09, 2013, 11:25:37 pm

Yes, and I'm not considering the 3970X at all, but the 3770K.

3970X is double the price of the 3930K i would not consider it.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: Markybhoy on April 09, 2013, 11:29:21 pm
Dave my machine is a i7 3770k 3.5ghz,  let me know if you need anything bench marked unless someone has already for you.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: mariush on April 09, 2013, 11:35:47 pm
Quote
I figure that system should nail it.
Good value ?

No, not really a good value.
The power supply is enough wattage for the build but it's a cheap model, cut down on components like capacitors to keep the profit up on the brand.  Go for Antec HCG-620 for example, for 10$ more you get a rebranded Seasonic with Japanese capacitors and better quality control and all that: http://www.scorptec.com.au/computer/38328-hcg-620 (http://www.scorptec.com.au/computer/38328-hcg-620)

3770k is weaker than AMD processors at video encoding but may recover the difference if you use something that supports quicksync.
See the following test where you can see FX-83xx compared to other Intel processors:  http://www.anandtech.com/show/6396/the-vishera-review-amd-fx8350-fx8320-fx6300-and-fx4300-tested/3 (http://www.anandtech.com/show/6396/the-vishera-review-amd-fx8350-fx8320-fx6300-and-fx4300-tested/3)

Here's an AMD build:

115$ http://www.scorptec.com.au/computer/43913-970-extreme4 (http://www.scorptec.com.au/computer/43913-970-extreme4)   - Asrock Extreme 4
  99$ http://www.scorptec.com.au/computer/38328-hcg-620 (http://www.scorptec.com.au/computer/38328-hcg-620)  - Antec HCG 620w  (bronze eff./ Seasonic s12ii rebadged)
219$ http://www.scorptec.com.au/computer/48111-fd8350frhkbox (http://www.scorptec.com.au/computer/48111-fd8350frhkbox)   - AMD FX-8350
149$ http://www.scorptec.com.au/computer/49376-cml16gx3m2a1600c9 (http://www.scorptec.com.au/computer/49376-cml16gx3m2a1600c9)  - Corsair 1600mhz 2x8GB  so you have room for 2 more modules at later time, no perf. increase with 4x4gb

582$.

Add hdd, case, maybe better cpu fan (stock will work fine but it's kinda noisy)

99$ http://www.scorptec.com.au/computer/44675-st2000dm001 (http://www.scorptec.com.au/computer/44675-st2000dm001)  seagate 7200rpm 2 TB

  95$  http://www.scorptec.com.au/computer/45532-shinobi-wh-w-u3 (http://www.scorptec.com.au/computer/45532-shinobi-wh-w-u3)  bitfenix case OR
119$ http://www.scorptec.com.au/computer/42096-cc400r (http://www.scorptec.com.au/computer/42096-cc400r)  Corsair Carbide 400r
 
so add 200-210$

If you want cpu fan too, this would work great:

89$ http://www.scorptec.com.au/computer/39397-nh-c14 (http://www.scorptec.com.au/computer/39397-nh-c14) Noctua NH-C14

So 582$   + 200-210$ + 90$ = ~ 900$
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: mariush on April 09, 2013, 11:50:18 pm
And here's a 3770k with Quicksync benchmarks :

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ivy-bridge-benchmark-core-i7-3770k,3181-19.html (http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ivy-bridge-benchmark-core-i7-3770k,3181-19.html)

FX-8350 is not on the graphs there but it's faster than FX-8150 and on par or a bit slower than 2700k, so picture it around that point in graphs.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: EEVblog on April 10, 2013, 12:06:44 am
No, not really a good value.

I've reconfigured the i7 3770K build:
http://www.scorptec.com.au/product/45658 (http://www.scorptec.com.au/product/45658)
http://www.scorptec.com.au/product/45270 (http://www.scorptec.com.au/product/45270)
http://www.scorptec.com.au/product/49376 (http://www.scorptec.com.au/product/49376)
http://www.scorptec.com.au/product/44675 (http://www.scorptec.com.au/product/44675)
http://www.scorptec.com.au/product/45304 (http://www.scorptec.com.au/product/45304)
http://www.scorptec.com.au/product/38787 (http://www.scorptec.com.au/product/38787)

$962
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: peter.mitchell on April 10, 2013, 12:14:05 am
I'd switch the 2x 8gb to 4x 4gb; it's cheaper, and i don't see you needing more than 16gb, or even cheaper again to the "value" 2x 8gb set.
Also, as the case is essentially just a box, i'm not sure about the choice of the bitfenix, is there any particular reason for this over the http://www.scorptec.com.au/computer/46342-rc-371-kkn3 (http://www.scorptec.com.au/computer/46342-rc-371-kkn3) ?
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: PA0PBZ on April 10, 2013, 12:14:17 am
No SSD?

http://www.scorptec.com.au/computer/48314-mz-7td120bw (http://www.scorptec.com.au/computer/48314-mz-7td120bw)
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: peter.mitchell on April 10, 2013, 12:18:21 am
No SSD?

http://www.scorptec.com.au/computer/48314-mz-7td120bw (http://www.scorptec.com.au/computer/48314-mz-7td120bw)

No performance increase in this specific application, so it's essentially "fluff".
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: EEVblog on April 10, 2013, 12:18:38 am
No SSD?
http://www.scorptec.com.au/computer/48314-mz-7td120bw (http://www.scorptec.com.au/computer/48314-mz-7td120bw)

I already have a 128GB one.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: EEVblog on April 10, 2013, 12:19:46 am
Also, as the case is essentially just a box, i'm not sure about the choice of the bitfenix, is there any particular reason for this over the http://www.scorptec.com.au/computer/46342-rc-371-kkn3 (http://www.scorptec.com.au/computer/46342-rc-371-kkn3) ?

Yes, only one USB port on the front.  :--
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: Lightages on April 10, 2013, 12:26:32 am
Wow, lots of opinions here. I will through one more into the fray. The CPU is just one part of the equation. The motherboard can make a big difference in the ultimate performance so don't just buy something that holds the parts, make sure it has good reviews and benchmarks.

Anyone who says that you won't need more than 16GB should remember Bill Gates' quote "no one needs more than 640K". Not going to disk for swapping memory will speed up any system so don't block out the opportunity to add more RAM by filling the slots. The more RAM the better. I would get the AMD CPU and with the saved money buy more RAM.

Put 3 HDs in your machine. One for OS, one for scratch space, one for output.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: mariush on April 10, 2013, 12:26:58 am
No, not really a good value.

I've reconfigured the i7 3770K build:
http://www.scorptec.com.au/product/45658 (http://www.scorptec.com.au/product/45658)
http://www.scorptec.com.au/product/45270 (http://www.scorptec.com.au/product/45270)
http://www.scorptec.com.au/product/49376 (http://www.scorptec.com.au/product/49376)
http://www.scorptec.com.au/product/44675 (http://www.scorptec.com.au/product/44675)
http://www.scorptec.com.au/product/45304 (http://www.scorptec.com.au/product/45304)
http://www.scorptec.com.au/product/38787 (http://www.scorptec.com.au/product/38787)

$962

It looks good. I'd only change the power supply. Thermaltake is not really known for consistency, they use power supplies from different OEM manufacturers in the same series, or from revision to another, it's a mess.
That power supply is most likely a budget FSP based design from a few years ago. It's probably technologically outdated by now but it would work fine, it will be stable and work with your system, but for how long that's unknown. It's worth spending 10-25$ more for a reliable power supply, you'll be able to reuse the power supply on other systems later on.

You're also not including additional cpu cooler.

The Intel stock coolers are kind of anemic, they don't handle temperature variations well, they ramp up their fan speed quite fast the moment the cpu starts doing something and it can be annoying. In addition, the design is prone to getting full of dust real fast.

AMD stock coolers are more relaxed in this sense and they cool better and use heat pipes (intel stock coolers are just copper die in center and aluminum fins) but they're still somewhat noisy.

I don't agree with the guy that said to go for 4x4 GB memory modules. You don't get more bandwidth with 4 modules, just more heat and if you're overclocking, a tiny bit more risk of not being able to overclock as much.
The ones I recommended and the ones you linked to are LOW PROFILE, so they're work with any third party cooler, have low latency, they're very good. They're a bit more expensive but it's worth it.


 
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: peter.mitchell on April 10, 2013, 12:29:22 am
Also, as the case is essentially just a box, i'm not sure about the choice of the bitfenix, is there any particular reason for this over the http://www.scorptec.com.au/computer/46342-rc-371-kkn3 (http://www.scorptec.com.au/computer/46342-rc-371-kkn3) ?

Yes, only one USB port on the front.  :--

Ahh, thought it mighta been something like that; i'd still get the case though just throw in something like this to go with
http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/5-25-8-Port-Internal-SATA-USB-Audio-Memory-Card-Reader-/230728746181?pt=AU_Laptop_Accessories&hash=item35b88144c5&_uhb=1#ht_3670wt_1397 (http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/5-25-8-Port-Internal-SATA-USB-Audio-Memory-Card-Reader-/230728746181?pt=AU_Laptop_Accessories&hash=item35b88144c5&_uhb=1#ht_3670wt_1397)
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: EEVblog on April 10, 2013, 12:36:16 am
I would get the AMD CPU and with the saved money buy more RAM.

No one has mentioned what kind of video the AMD has got built in?
By all accounts the i7 3770K has a pretty good GPU built in that I know supports my Sony software.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: peter.mitchell on April 10, 2013, 12:38:23 am
Quote
It looks good. I'd only change the power supply. Thermaltake is not really known for consistency, they use power supplies from different OEM manufacturers in the same series, or from revision to another, it's a mess.
That power supply is most likely a budget FSP based design from a few years ago. It's probably technologically outdated by now but it would work fine, it will be stable and work with your system, but for how long that's unknown. It's worth spending 10-25$ more for a reliable power supply, you'll be able to reuse the power supply on other systems later on.

You're also not including additional cpu cooler.

The Intel stock coolers are kind of anemic, they don't handle temperature variations well, they ramp up their fan speed quite fast the moment the cpu starts doing something and it can be annoying. In addition, the design is prone to getting full of dust real fast.

AMD stock coolers are more relaxed in this sense and they cool better and use heat pipes (intel stock coolers are just copper die in center and aluminum fins) but they're still somewhat noisy.

I don't agree with the guy that said to go for 4x4 GB memory modules. You don't get more bandwidth with 4 modules, just more heat and if you're overclocking, a tiny bit more risk of not being able to overclock as much.
The ones I recommended and the ones you linked to are LOW PROFILE, so they're work with any third party cooler, have low latency, they're very good. They're a bit more expensive but it's worth it.

Yeah, a good PSU is important, cmon, we're all here for electronics, we should know this :P

As far as the intel stock cooler goes; it's fine, no need to change it unless; dont like noise or plan to overclock. Millions of computers out there use them for extended periods of time with no issues.

The amount of heat from 4x4 vs 2x8 is negligible, and if anything would be better for overclocking because more surface area to spread the heat over, latencies being equal unless you get the "value" kit, low profile or not doesn't matter if you're using the stock cooler, sure you don't get more bandwidth but you don't get less either.

Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: mariush on April 10, 2013, 12:48:24 am
I would get the AMD CPU and with the saved money buy more RAM.

No one has mentioned what kind of video the AMD has got built in?
By all accounts the i7 3770K has a pretty good GPU built in that I know supports my Sony software.

The FX-8320 or FX-8350 has no video card built in.

The 3770k has HD 4000 graphics which is a basic onboard video card, good for 2D, video playback etc and works fine with Quicksync.  It does not compare however with standalone nVidia or AMD cards.

Problem is we're getting again to the cost of the platforms.

My build was 900$, which included a 85$ third party cpu cooler,  Dave's build was 962$ without a third party cpu cooler.  So taking out the retail cooler from my build, we're looking at 815$ vs 962$ - you can get quite a good video card with Cuda or OpenCL support for those 147$ you save, and that video card may bring more performance increase than Quicksync does.

Ex. nVidia GTX650 OC... Asus GeForce GTX650 DirectCU, 1GB : http://www.scorptec.com.au/computer/47705-gtx650-dc-1gd5 (http://www.scorptec.com.au/computer/47705-gtx650-dc-1gd5) for 139$   Movie Studio supports Cuda afaik so it should work great (based on Movie Studio 10 release notes http://dspcdn.sonycreativesoftware.com/releasenotes/moviestudiope100_readme_enu.htm (http://dspcdn.sonycreativesoftware.com/releasenotes/moviestudiope100_readme_enu.htm))
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: ecat on April 10, 2013, 12:57:24 am
Well then, I didn't know Sony supported QuickSync. I have them both, so here goes...

Reconfigured BIOS to use iGPU
Installed Lucid from ASUS site. Reboot and Lucid crashed.
Installed iGPU driver from ASUS site. Reboot and Lucid crashed.
Sony made QS available but the render failed at the start.
Installed the latest Lucid. Reboot and my PC would not get passed the BIOS screen.
Removed ATi GPU.
PC freezes at the BIOS screen but continues after 5 mins or so (maybe a SSD would improve my boot time  :palm: )

Ok, Sony sees iGPU and I can render...


Numbers!
For what they are worth...

i5 2500k @ 4.2GHz (for those interested, CPU Mark = 7405 ish as I had some light stuff running in background) , ATi 6950.

In Movie Studio, Sony AVC/MVC as per (my understanding of) Dave's settings in reply #48

CPU only: 2:10 200.5MB file
GPU if available 1:58 212MB file

In Movie Studio, MainConcept AVC/AAC. No option here for 12Mbps so I tried 10Mbps and 14Mbps

CPU only 4:33 212MB file (10Mpbs I think)
OpenCL 1:27 176MB file (10Mbps)
OpenCL 1:30 246MB file (14Mbps)


Using QS:
Movie Studio, Sony AVC/MVC
QS speed 1:31, CPU activity only 40%
QS quality 1:55, CPU activity only 60%

There is no QS option for MainConcept AVC/AAC.

Conclusion.
On my system, QS does not need a faster CPU as it is only using half of my i5.
On my system, rendering via my ATi 6950 is faster than using QS. It 'may' also benefit from a faster CPU, about 90% usage.

Right, I have a PC to fix. How the hell can playing with Lucid cause a BIOS crash? Fuck, fuck, fuck. Still, it is for Science :)

Edit:
All better now, I must have half jiggled the USB cable to my optical drive. Unplug, plug and the world is a happy place again :)


Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: hans on April 10, 2013, 12:59:14 am
The intel GPU is indeed a low-end, but does feature fast hardware video encoding.
I'm pretty sure it will run stuff like 3D view in Altium , or light stuff like that very well.

I also just saw the 3770 and 3770K both feature the HD4000 graphics. Only the i5 3570k and 3570 have the HD2500 and H4000 graphics difference.
However, QuickSync would be as fast on a i5 than on the i7. But having the faster CPU can be worthwhile, if you don't end up using Quicksync in live editting.
Ah well..

Not sure about graphics card acceleration these days. I will test it tonight (in a few hours) on my HD7850, which is already a 200$ graphics card.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: EEVblog on April 10, 2013, 01:11:33 am
And I forgot to mention, all this optimising encoding speed talk is kinda moot when it takes >5 times the video length to upload to youtube  ::)
But at least fast encoding will:
a) make me feel better
b) finish a video quicker so I can start the upload before I go to bed.

If anyone can solve the Youtube upload speed throttling issue (it's not using my full upload bandwidth, common problem apparently) then that's worth it's weight in gold.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: Lightages on April 10, 2013, 01:22:05 am
I would get the AMD CPU and with the saved money buy more RAM.

No one has mentioned what kind of video the AMD has got built in?
By all accounts the i7 3770K has a pretty good GPU built in that I know supports my Sony software.

I am making the assumption that you will want a dedicated video card in the end anyway.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: Markybhoy on April 10, 2013, 02:18:05 am
The stock intel cooler for the 3770k is pants,  it hits 85c + under full load.
I use a Noctua cooler which works well.

I use a Asus P8Z77 v pro motheboard and it has been rock solid,  the Z77 Gigabyte boards had a lot of issues when the came out so I would avoid them.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: Tooms on April 10, 2013, 04:42:50 am

Hi Dave

if your not have seen it already then i think i may be an good idea to see what another video blogger Dave Dugdale has done has he has just build an video edit pc.

Part 1 - New Computer and GPU for Premiere and DaVinci Resolve
New Computer and GPU for Premiere and DaVinci Resolve (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZivvxrbqiwI#ws)

Part 2 - Generic Disk Setup for Premiere Pro and DaVinci Resolve
Generic Disk Setup for Premiere Pro and DaVinci Resolve (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ftl33M9rOjY#ws)

Part 3 - My Monster Video Editing Computer Build
My Monster Video Editing Computer Build (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2CapyMkubg#ws)

Part 4 - Dave's Monster Computer Speed Tests and Computer Recommedations for DSLR Editing
Dave's Monster Computer Speed Tests and Computer Recommedations for DSLR Editing (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=haP2aT_kpJo#ws)

Part 5 - Red Epic Raw 5k Footage on Daves Monster Computer
Red Epic Raw 5k Footage on Daves Monster Computer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xq65Mc5Ew10#ws)


I dont know dugdale but i like his video and seems like an nice guy with good videos, so it seems the name Dave is good for video blogging.


Tooms
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: Sionyn on April 10, 2013, 05:13:35 am
i alway laugh why people pay for freebsd
Title: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: ddavidebor on April 10, 2013, 05:51:28 am
And I forgot to mention, all this optimising encoding speed talk is kinda moot when it takes >5 times the video length to upload to youtube  ::)
But at least fast encoding will:
a) make me feel better
b) finish a video quicker so I can start the upload before I go to bed.

If anyone can solve the Youtube upload speed throttling issue (it's not using my full upload bandwidth, common problem apparently) then that's worth it's weight in gold.

The Youtube API allows you to upload videos, directly through API commands.
So you could upload the video to your eevblog.com server then run a script on the server which sends the video to youtube.

Tell your resident programmer to have a look here:

https://developers.google.com/youtube/2.0/developers_guide_protocol#Uploading_Videos (https://developers.google.com/youtube/2.0/developers_guide_protocol#Uploading_Videos)

Search for some open source app or php script that does this.

Example, here's a pear class that supports uploading to youtube : http://www.phpclasses.org/package/3966-PHP-Upload-and-download-video-files-from-YouTube.html (http://www.phpclasses.org/package/3966-PHP-Upload-and-download-video-files-from-YouTube.html)  (but someone that knows php must write a form or something for you, this is just a library)

other php examples : http://www.rd2inc.com/blog/2012/08/youtube-browser-based-uploader-with-php/ (http://www.rd2inc.com/blog/2012/08/youtube-browser-based-uploader-with-php/)

Or you can do a script that convert and send to youtube everything, so in this case a moderately powerful computer but energy saving that stay in 24/7 should be a good idea.

Dave, any server farm around you?
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: ecat on April 10, 2013, 05:57:20 am
Nice video links Tooms. I think everyone should watch parts 3 & 4. I love the bit where he pimps out the front of the case :)
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: EEVblog on April 10, 2013, 07:54:17 am
I am making the assumption that you will want a dedicated video card in the end anyway.

If it doesn't help with encoding speed, then no.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: ecat on April 10, 2013, 08:06:48 am
I am making the assumption that you will want a dedicated video card in the end anyway.

If it doesn't help with encoding speed, then no.

It helps more than QuickSync...


In Movie Studio, MainConcept AVC/AAC. No option here for 12Mbps so I tried 10Mbps and 14Mbps

CPU only 4:33 212MB file (10Mpbs I think)
OpenCL 1:27 176MB file (10Mbps)
OpenCL 1:30 246MB file (14Mbps)



Using QS:
Movie Studio, Sony AVC/MVC
QS speed 1:31, CPU activity only 40%
QS quality 1:55, CPU activity only 60%


There is no QS option for MainConcept AVC/AAC.

Conclusion.
On my system, QS does not need a faster CPU as it is only using half of my i5.
On my system, rendering via my ATi 6950 is faster than using QS. It 'may' also benefit from a faster CPU, about 90% usage.

Also, try video Part 4 in Tooms post just above...

Okay, my cpu is not the same as yours, my gpu is not a NVIDIA and unfortunately the Video above is not about Sony Movie Maker but we take what we can get and at the moment the results hint strongly at a fast multi core + GPU solution.

Edit:
We need a Movie Studio user with a NVIDIA GTX680 card.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: Smokey on April 10, 2013, 09:01:14 am
Question and comment... well actually 2 questions..

Q1:  Is this the fastest growing thread of all time that isn't a contest "I'm in"?  Wow.  12 pages in two days??

Q2:  (Sorry I didn't read every post first)  Is rendering video one of those tasks that high end graphics cards can do even better than a dedicated FPGA?
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: Zad on April 10, 2013, 09:49:07 am
To those people trying to push their hobby-horse of AMD processors; They make great low budget processors. Of all the people I know who produce YouTube videos for a living, none of them use AMD. They just aren't in the game when it comes to performance.

I'm sure you will say "never heard of them" but Yogscast use i5-3570K and they kick out several videos a day. John Bain (TotalBiscuit) uses i7-3930K, mainly so his recording doesn't slow down whatever software he is reviewing, and he really doesn't mess about with his tech (he uses twin Titan video cards). Xeons are robust, but intended for corporate level machines with huge up-times and high reliability. You won't get great performance for your money. They are the 9-litre diesel truck engines of the CPU world.

If you do nothing else, then please, fit a decent heatsink/fan. The standard Intel HSF that came with my i7 ramped up to 100% on a fairly modest load, and rivals a Rolls Royce Olympus for noise. With all 4 real plus 4 virtual cores running at full capacity, it got hotter than I was comfortable with using (>80C) in a typical English summer. I imagine Aus would be 10C hotter, maybe even more in a closed office. With a decent heatpipe heatsink, I can have the fan off at 45C, or have it just moving the air through and drop the CPU temp to 40C. Really hammering the CPU for long periods gets it up to 70C or so, which is reasonable.

Intel X-suffix "extreme" processors are for those with more money than they know what to do with. A tiny bit faster for exponentially more money. Equally, using performance memory will maybe reduce render times by a small number of percent. One SSD is fine, but I would suggest using two hard drives, one for source (input) video, and another for destination (output). The YouTube pros that I know, tend to FRAPS and record onto external USB3 drives.

Motherboards. Almost all use the same standard Intel chipset, and they are mostly pretty close to the reference design. The main thing that changes is fancy little heatsinks, coloured LEDs, pretty PCB solder mask colours and so on. Yes, Xeon based servers do have different chipsets.

I was going to say that the PSU specified in your quote was somewhat under-powered, but then I realised it won't have to power a GPU, so it is probably okay. I think mine is 650W or so, but I run a GTX670OC video card, which takes a fair amount of juice.

Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: mariush on April 10, 2013, 10:33:17 am
The fact that you say that "they make great low budget processors" and "they just aren't in the game when it comes to performance" tells me you're just an Intel fanboy that probably has no actual clue about where some architectures do better or worse, what's more suited for some things or for others.

You're comparing apples to oranges, Zad. 

Dave isn't doing the same thing those guys do with the computers.

Dave needs a processor that's good at one thing: combining several pieces of video together with minimal video effects (adding a subtitle, some arrows, whatever) and compressing the content.

For this, any processor that works good with x264 (the video encoder application) is good, and the latest AMD processors are very good at encoding, as they have eight good cores.  Where they lack on processing power per core, they make up on the number of cores.

Those Youtube guys have other problems.

Video games are still relatively optimized to run on few processor cores, 1 to 3-4 cores, but usually most only use 2 cores. Intel processors have more processing power per core and they do even more stuff when going in turbo boost mode (overclocking themselves), so for those Youtube guys it makes sense to use Intel processors because the games will run a bit better. 
This will change with the future consoles that will use lots of small cpu cores mixed with a good gpu, the game developers will have incentives to optimize their games for more cores.

Next, the videos those guys make are just different than Dave's videos: they often have picture in picture, transitions, fadin from a clip to another, people talking in front of green/blue screen (the green or blue being replaced by game footage), so we're talking here about layers of video one over another. This kind of stuff is usually passed to the video card because it's so easy to treat the video frames from all those clips as textures and play with them in the video card, and that's where rendering applications start to use Cuda or OpenCL.

Dave doesn't do anything of this. He just needs something that can decode input videos fast, add minimal stuff over the image, maybe resize it and then compress it.

The latest AMD processors are fast and cheap.

Intel processors are fast, but much more expensive to reach the same raw encoding power as the newest AMD processors.  They do offer Quicksync which speeds up video decoding and encoding, but on the other hand with the money you'd save by going with an AMD system, you can get a powerful video card that brings more performance improvements than Quicksync AND the extra processing power of the Intel processors.

If you're on a budget, it's all about making tradeoffs. 
Lose 10-15% brute processing power by giving up i7 3930k  but save 450$  (560$ intel cpu vs 200$ amd cpu , 180$ intel mb vs 130$ amd mb)
Lose a bit of decoding speed by dropping quicksync but gain much more by spending 150-200$ on a video card that's supported by the encoding application.
If you'd have the money, you'd go for both but maybe you don't have the money or it just doesn't make sense to throw that much money for minimal performance increases.

In addition, those Youtube guys don't have money problems.  They can very well spend 4000$ on a computer, getting parts as donation from companies, making money from Youtube and all that. As far as I know, Dave doesn't make as much money as those guys and he also has a family to take care of.

Quote
Intel X-suffix "extreme" processors are for those with more money than they know what to do with.


Those processors have a valid market. There are software programs out there from  SAP, Oracle, Enterprise CRMs, fluid dynamics, automobile stuff, document processing etc that are licensed per CPU SOCKET , or even worse, PER CPU CORE.

People that pay 20-40.000$ and more a year for a license to run that software on one CPU socket, won't care that the server costs 5000-8000$. Those guys want the most performance on each core, the most throughput, the most processing power, whatever you want to call it. Intel is just better at doing more things on each core compared to AMD, that's how the architecture is right now.
There were times in the past AMD was better than Intel at processing power on cores, now it just happens Intel does better. The guys save more money keeping the number of cores low or the number of servers low, compared with going with multiple servers or multiple cpus in a system.

There's uses and uses.. AMD server processors are for example quite popular among people doing virtualization and software testing.. grab 4x12 core AMD opterons, a quad socket G34 board, 64 ram sticks and you have tons of virtualized systems for about 2-3000$. You can't match that with Intel systems.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: EEVblog on April 10, 2013, 10:48:49 am
BTW, one thing I didn't think of. Power consumption.
This machine may stay on most of the day (overnight if it's uploading etc)
I don't really want a huge video card if it's going to take an extra 200W all the time or whatever.
My current i7 notebook takes about 37W in normal operation + an external monitor at about the same that I can switch off.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: mariush on April 10, 2013, 10:55:12 am
It's not an issue. Both processors and video cards use little power on idle nowadays.
Intel processors use less power, but the difference is something like 10-15w less when idle, 30-40w less when under load.
Video cards also use very little power when idle, they generally use 10-30w when in Windows.

The system you're targeting is generally going to be a bit over 100 watts when idle, probably 200-250w if you're encoding with video card and cpu to the maximum.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: ve7xen on April 10, 2013, 10:59:25 am
It won't be that significant when idle, but there's not much point in it either. I don't think it will substantially improve your rendering performance.

I still think you can get your 2x for free by spending some time figuring out frameserver and avisynth/megui :)
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: EEVblog on April 10, 2013, 11:03:45 am
I still think you can get your 2x for free by spending some time figuring out frameserver and avisynth/megui :)

Great, then I'll get 4 times improvement!  ;D
Title: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: ddavidebor on April 10, 2013, 03:04:25 pm


Dave, what model is your camera?
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: EEVblog on April 10, 2013, 03:39:56 pm
Dave, what model is your camera?

Canon HF G10.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: Flávio V on April 11, 2013, 06:36:23 am
I like to think of those 2 CPU manufacturers comparing to 2 famous multimeter manufacturers....

Intel is more like fluke and AMD more like agilent(more bang per $)


I know a person than acts like a intel fanboy than some days ago  said something than i was not expecting, he said that for the price of the best AMD CPU you only get a bad quad core(i5)intel CPU....and 8 cores at near 4ghz and much more cache is better than like 4 cores at 2.2ghz and something like 4mb of cache...
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: ConnorGames on April 11, 2013, 07:26:04 am
Also, do note that GPU encoding can't match x.264 in therms of quality/MB. Another option would be to get several last-gen CPUS used and stick them in a server board: I think handbrake is quite well threaded. I have a friend who got 4 2.2Gh quad core AMD processors on ebay for $10/ea, and a server board for about $80-90. Overall the machine with 16 2.2Ghz cores cost <$500. I'll see if he can run your benchmark on it!
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: mariush on April 11, 2013, 07:42:24 am
I don't know what Flavio V is smoking, he doesn't make sense. Or at least I agree with him, but I have the feeling he wanted to say something else.

As for ConnorGames, you're right that in general software using video cards exclusively to encode content produce lower quality content, those software apps are more suitable for quickly producing some SD content to upload to youtube, not something super high quality.

But you don't have to be use the video cards to ENCODE content from start to finish, video editing applications can use the video card to render the actual frames in the video (do overlays, apply subtitles etc) and do some partial encoding stuff like motion analysis then sending this data to the software encoder to further process the rendered frames.

The idea to buy a server grade motherboard and 4 server processors from eBay is nice, you can indeed get stuff relatively cheap.

But, unless you're going to keep the system in a cardboard box, you'll find out you'll pay quite a lot on a server case and for a power supply that has 2 x 8 pin connectors for processors (if not more). Also, each processor has its own memory pool so you'd have to buy at least 4 memory modules which have to be registered or unregistered+ecc ddr3 memory and some motherboards won't even boot without 2 memory modules on each cpu. That's a lot of additional costs.

Such system won't do quite as well as a current desktop system using a processor like FX-8320 or FX-8350 because of memory latency and having to coordinate the work of each thread between individual processors - the caches have to be kept in sync, data has to be moved from a processor's memory bank to another processor's memory bank and so on. x264 is using the cpu caches quite well.

x264 is also heavily optimized and uses pretty much any cpu extension it can get its hands on.. sse3, sse4, xop, avx, fma, you name it, if it brings improvements it uses it.  Those opteron server cpus don't have a lot of these extensions, they're really kind of weak in that regard.

So it's quite possible (I'm almost sure) a quad cpu , quad core opteron won't encode a 1080p as fast as the eight core  FX-8350 or the equivalent Intel processor today, or if it does it will be within 10-15%, certainly too little to be worth spending so much money and electricity.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: NiHaoMike on April 11, 2013, 11:06:14 am
It's not an issue. Both processors and video cards use little power on idle nowadays.
Intel processors use less power, but the difference is something like 10-15w less when idle, 30-40w less when under load.
Video cards also use very little power when idle, they generally use 10-30w when in Windows.

The system you're targeting is generally going to be a bit over 100 watts when idle, probably 200-250w if you're encoding with video card and cpu to the maximum.
My GTX560 TI will downclock all the way to 50MHz when idle. And all modern x86 CPUs not only downclock but also turn off unused cores. (I'm pretty sure that's also the case for GPUs but I don't know for certain.)

I read somewhere about an i7 system that only used 6W when idle. But that was with a relatively slow mobile i7, a SSD, and integrated graphics, which makes it unsuitable for video editing or gaming.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: EEVblog on April 11, 2013, 11:25:25 am
As for ConnorGames, you're right that in general software using video cards exclusively to encode content produce lower quality content, those software apps are more suitable for quickly producing some SD content to upload to youtube, not something super high quality.

Yes, I'm starting to think the only thing that matters for my use is raw CPU power and number of cores.
Come to think of it, I'd rather spend money on good silent fans and a sound damped case than some trotted up GPU.
Title: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: ddavidebor on April 11, 2013, 03:10:04 pm
Nvidia sometimes ago has a s system to parallelize a lot of video card for have more power. Anyone remember it?
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: EEVblog on April 11, 2013, 07:16:02 pm
I shot the latest video in full HD 1920x1080 at 17Mbps instead of 1440x1080 at 12Mbps
Rendering using Sony is taking about twice as long for 25% more pixels.
Don't know about Handbrake yet...
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: EEVblog on April 11, 2013, 07:53:15 pm
Handbrake is probably about the same speed, maybe a bit slower if anything. Hard to tell with the varying content.
So all the more reason to get a new tricked out machine if I'm going to keep shooting 17Mbps footage.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: M. András on April 12, 2013, 02:48:11 am
for silent fans i highly recommend the arctic cooling f pwm series or even the co (continous op duall ball bearing) im using these for years and apart from the noise of the high airflow on certain obstackles really silent moves decent amount of air 125m3/h they dont mention static pressure but it feels high
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: Nobody2 on April 12, 2013, 05:01:11 am
Yes, I'm starting to think the only thing that matters for my use is raw CPU power and number of cores.
Come to think of it, I'd rather spend money on good silent fans and a sound damped case than some trotted up GPU.
I think in that case the FX-8350 looks like a good choice:
(http://media.bestofmicro.com/Y/6/357630/original/mainconcept.png)(http://media.bestofmicro.com/Y/3/357627/original/handbrake.png)
However those were basically the only benchmarks were the AMD shined. I wouldn't recommend them for a general purpose PC. If they were affordable a 12 or 16 core Opteron should be even better.

On a side node, do you have Raspberry Pi Dave? Why not use that to upload over night and switch the power hungry computers off?

If your Youtube upload is limited, but the one to your sever not, maybe you can get your server to upload your videos to Youtube?
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: HooRide on April 12, 2013, 10:23:15 am
*this may be repeat info since I didn't read all 13 pages before this post*

What a terrible experience but I am not surprised. Most Apple store employees have no training on 'Pro' software such as Final Cut. Also, what you were told about the Mac Pro being outdated is completely true. There are very solid rumors of a new model coming within a few months time.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: firewalker on April 12, 2013, 06:23:41 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkdXJroQFms (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkdXJroQFms)
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: M. András on April 13, 2013, 06:04:09 am
ran trought your sample file on default settings in handbrake qfactor set to 28, its done in 58sec, and only hit up to 70% cpu target was my system ssd which max out at 60mb/s write
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: hans on April 13, 2013, 07:07:50 am
Yes, I'm starting to think the only thing that matters for my use is raw CPU power and number of cores.
Come to think of it, I'd rather spend money on good silent fans and a sound damped case than some trotted up GPU.
I think in that case the FX-8350 looks like a good choice:
(http://media.bestofmicro.com/Y/6/357630/original/mainconcept.png)(http://media.bestofmicro.com/Y/3/357627/original/handbrake.png)
However those were basically the only benchmarks were the AMD shined. I wouldn't recommend them for a general purpose PC. If they were affordable a 12 or 16 core Opteron should be even better.

On a side node, do you have Raspberry Pi Dave? Why not use that to upload over night and switch the power hungry computers off?

If your Youtube upload is limited, but the one to your sever not, maybe you can get your server to upload your videos to Youtube?
As test samples and methods vary, for example this test favors the Intel chips:
http://us.hardware.info/reviews/3314/13/amd-fx-8350--8320--6300-vishera-review-finally-good-enough-benchmarks-cpu-720p-mpeg-to-x264-video-encoding (http://us.hardware.info/reviews/3314/13/amd-fx-8350--8320--6300-vishera-review-finally-good-enough-benchmarks-cpu-720p-mpeg-to-x264-video-encoding)

However on pass 2 it can clearly keep up with the i7 3770K

Or:
http://us.hardware.info/reviews/3314/14/amd-fx-8350--8320--6300-vishera-review-finally-good-enough-benchmarks-cpu-cyberlink-mediashow-espresso-60 (http://us.hardware.info/reviews/3314/14/amd-fx-8350--8320--6300-vishera-review-finally-good-enough-benchmarks-cpu-cyberlink-mediashow-espresso-60)

Or in daily tasks like packaging: WinRar 317MB of data (http://us.hardware.info/reviews/3314/18/amd-fx-8350--8320--6300-vishera-review-finally-good-enough-benchmarks-cpu-winrar-393---317-mb-data); a Intel i7 3770k is 10 seconds faster in this test.. That's 30%, ouch.

Moreover: the CPU may be a lot cheaper, the motherboards with 'premium features' tend to be rarer. I searched for a top brand (in my mind Asus) motherboard with top-end chipset (intel Z77 / AMD 990FX) and4 RAM slots. The cheapest Intel board was 80 euro, the AMD's was 120 euro's. Add the cost a dedicated GPU that supports stuff like triple monitors for ~60 - 80 euro's, you're already past the price difference.

Power consumption:
http://us.hardware.info/reviews/3314/22/amd-fx-8350--8320--6300-vishera-review-finally-good-enough-energy-consumption-cpu-idle--cinebench-115 (http://us.hardware.info/reviews/3314/22/amd-fx-8350--8320--6300-vishera-review-finally-good-enough-energy-consumption-cpu-idle--cinebench-115)
The Intel chips are just a lot more power efficient. 13W difference is a lot: 13*365*24 = 113kWh per year savings@ 24/7 
The AMD chip also has a higher TDP, which means it will run hotter @ 100% load and therefore require more cooling (thus more noise).

As to respond to Dave's config (if he hasn't ordered it already..)

Intel i7 3770K seems good.
Asrock motherboard; should work I guess ;)
RAM: any 2x8GB set. I would avoid 4x4GB, even if it's a few $ cheaper. I always find that if a machine gets older a RAM upgrade is desired. With full slots it's not cheap to do because you have to buy 2 new sets instead of 1.
Power supply: 600W sounds a lot for such a system with a MB, a big CPU and a couple of hard drives.  Typically dedicated GPU's draw a lot of power (150W+) under gamign.
Case: usually a personal taste. I personally own a Fractal Design R3, which I like quite a lot. I see Scorptec has the R4:
http://www.scorptec.com.au/computer/47245-fd-r4b (http://www.scorptec.com.au/computer/47245-fd-r4b)
It does have 3+ USB ports (including USB3.0) on the front, with audio and such. More importantly it has sound dampening stuff on both sides/bottom/front and top and also on unpopulated fan slots (removable sound padding slots). However, it is quite a bit more expensive than the BitFenix one, and installation can be a bit fiddly (especially on the R3 model, believe it is improved on R4 though).
Optionally: dedicated CPU cooler. Benchmark (http://us.hardware.info/reviews/3960/11/33-cpu-cooler-group-test-cool-quiet-and-both-efficiency-socket-1155) (Efficiency = sound x temperature, lower = better)
I always hate boxed coolers. Unfortunately, Scorptec doens't seem to have much well known 3rd-party CPU cooler brands.
I have got 1 back,1 top and 2 front fans installed and connected to my Asus P8Z77-V PRO motherboard, which has temperature fan curves. This means on idle the CPU fan spins and front fans very slightly and when things get more hot extra (much louder) fans kick in for additional cooling. Result is very silent system with reasonable idle temps yet when things get more serious it keeps everything below 60C.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: mariush on April 13, 2013, 08:04:48 am

As test samples and methods vary, for example this test favors the Intel chips:
http://us.hardware.info/reviews/3314/13/amd-fx-8350--8320--6300-vishera-review-finally-good-enough-benchmarks-cpu-720p-mpeg-to-x264-video-encoding (http://us.hardware.info/reviews/3314/13/amd-fx-8350--8320--6300-vishera-review-finally-good-enough-benchmarks-cpu-720p-mpeg-to-x264-video-encoding)

However on pass 2 it can clearly keep up with the i7 3770K

The devil's in the details. First pass in x264 is a very light one where very basic math is done, generally just to determine which time intervals would require more bits during the actual compression. During first pass, x264 uses around 4 threads and generally the cpu hovers at around 40-60% ... the first pass doesn't do things that can actually be parallelized efficiently.  Intel processors win because they have more processing power per core and some instructions require less cpu cycles. The faster those cores finish job, the faster they switch to decoding the next input frame and process it...

x264 and most video encoding software is integer only, and FX processors have eight real integer cores, so once the actual encoding is started in 2nd pass, you can see the Vishera processors (fx-8320, fx-8350 etc) can keep up with 3770k that's more expensive and run at higher frequency.

And we're coming back to flawed tests ... see on the graph what they tested the processors with .. a 89 MB VOB file from a MPEG-2 video.. at 10-20mbps data rate, that's basically a 2 minute video.

x264 splits each frame in several small chunks and passes those chunks to threads for motion analysis and various things... with a 720x480 video (assuming it's a NTSC mpeg-2 video), the eight cores can't work efficiently. Basically AMD processors are dragged back because again, it's not much stuff done in parallel.  If it was about a proper test, they'd encode an 1080i mpeg-2 stream from TV and see the difference.

With a 2 minute SD video, you're kind of testing the memory latency, not the cpu, x264 won't even fill the caches and memory and take advantage of the CPUs with such a source file.

Quote
Or in daily tasks like packaging: WinRar 317MB of data (http://us.hardware.info/reviews/3314/18/amd-fx-8350--8320--6300-vishera-review-finally-good-enough-benchmarks-cpu-winrar-393---317-mb-data); a Intel i7 3770k is 10 seconds faster in this test.. That's 30%, ouch.

This is again kind of a flawed test. It just shows again the Intel's processing power per core, Intel chips just finish work faster on individual cores. Winrar 3.93 is not multithreaded -well, it kinda is, in the sense that it uses 2-3 cores - , the software basically did compression on 1 or 2 cores, with the rest sitting idle. This is especially bad for AMD because with just 1-2 cores running, the Intel processors can enable turbo mode and overclock the cores to 4Ghz+

How can you test eight core AMD processors with 4 core processors with a single threaded compressor? And more importantly, how would you consider the test valid, when the software you test with was released around March 2010, and obviously doesn't use any of the functions the modern processors use (it was probably optimized for core 2 duo / core 2 quad as that was popular around 2010)

Winrar 4 and up implemented proper threading and parallel compression but even then you have fineprint.  Unfortunately can not really reach the maximum speed with rar archives so small and can't efficiently keep 8 amd cores busy with small files (that would be present in 317 MB of data). Their test case is ridiculously small with just 300 Megs of data, for a proper test about 8 GB of data should be used and with some files larger than 2-400 MB a piece.

This is clearly written in the implementation, but nobody bothers to read it: http://www.rarlab.com/rarnew.htm (http://www.rarlab.com/rarnew.htm)

Quote
   Version 4.20
  1. Changes in RAR compression:
      a) RAR general compression algorithm is optimized for better utilization of several processor cores. While some speed gain is possible even in single processor mode, best results are achieved in multi-core environment.
         Speed gain depends on data type and average file size. Several cores are utilized more efficiently when compressing large files.
[..]    c) RAR text compression algorithm cannot utilize several CPU cores efficiently, so its performance in multiprocessor environment is much lower than for general algorithm. Also its decompression speed is much lower than in general algorithm regardless of CPU number. So we decided to disable the text algorithm by default.
         If you need maximum possible compression ratio for plain text data regardless of speed, you can enable the text compression    in "Advanced compression parameter" dialog. [...]
      d) "Fastest" (-m1) compression mode also supports several processor cores now. In 4.11 it could use only a single processor core.

If you  want to test, test with 7zip.. it's open source and uses up to 8-16 cores : http://www.anandtech.com/show/6396/the-vishera-review-amd-fx8350-fx8320-fx6300-and-fx4300-tested/2 (http://www.anandtech.com/show/6396/the-vishera-review-amd-fx8350-fx8320-fx6300-and-fx4300-tested/2)


Quote
Moreover: the CPU may be a lot cheaper, the motherboards with 'premium features' tend to be rarer. I searched for a top brand (in my mind Asus) motherboard with top-end chipset (intel Z77 / AMD 990FX) and4 RAM slots. The cheapest Intel board was 80 euro, the AMD's was 120 euro's. Add the cost a dedicated GPU that supports stuff like triple monitors for ~60 - 80 euro's, you're already past the price difference.

My Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD3 is about 140$ or about 100-110 euro, but I assure you there's really much less expensive boards with this chipset (990FX). I chose this higher end model because it has proper heatsinks on the VRM section, 8+2 vrm, pci slots etc.

The cheapest, proper AMD boards with a good chipset and good southbridge (SB950) is about 80$, for example : http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128553 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128553)  or  http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813157280 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813157280)

If you go back to your Z77 boards, and actually check the specs of those cheap motherboards, you may find out those cheap models are really bad when it comes to VRM, so little potential to overclock your CPU  (but I admit the cheaper AMD boards would also be basic when it comes to vrm)... and the cheapest Asus with z77 chipset on Newegg is 110$ : http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131965 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131965)

But basically even the Z75 based Asrock at 85$ would be reasonable, so there's really not much price difference: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813157304 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813157304)

You also mentioned :

Quote
The AMD chip also has a higher TDP, which means it will run hotter @ 100% load and therefore require more cooling (thus more noise).

The stock Intel cooler is awful, like i already said in this thread. It's just aluminum heatsink with copper core.  The AMD stock cooler is decent, with 2 heatpipes, it's less noisy. I would say with the stock coolers, the AMD would be less annoying. But I will admit both could use a third party fan if you care about noise.

Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: EEVblog on April 13, 2013, 08:30:25 am
Thanks guys, great input.
So it seems that at best, the AMD is as good as the 3770K, but essentially not any better. But the AMD is a bit cheaper, but it's higher power.
I think the Intel is probably the best bet.

Any good alternatives to Scorptec, or should I just go with them?
I like the sound of that silent case, no pun intended. My i7 notebook is really annoyingly loud when rendering.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: EEVblog on April 13, 2013, 08:48:30 am
On a side node, do you have Raspberry Pi Dave? Why not use that to upload over night and switch the power hungry computers off?

Interesting idea!
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: Zad on April 13, 2013, 02:35:19 pm
Good luck getting a Raspy to run YouTube's upload software. It would be interesting to measure the power consumption on various pieces of equipment doing an upload. I have an old Compaq Deskpro SFF that I use on equipment that needs "real" parallel and serial ports, and that takes <50W with the hard drive spun down and doing some lightweight FTP duties. I can also run remote desktop on it, so I can check the status of it and power it down remotely.

I have to say, most people that know me really wouldn't say I was an Intel fanboy!  :-DD

I just believe in horses for courses that's all, and on this particular race course I don't see any major users on AMD powered steeds.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: richcj10 on April 13, 2013, 03:30:25 pm
I have spent 6 years in video for several jobs.
I have tried: Avid - FCP - Speed Edit - Pinnical - Sony Vegas
I can assure you that they all suck at something.
But, FCP sucks to worst in the fact that it hangs, crashes,  locks up and is very picky.
It wasn't just the computer I used. I have coworkers have issues where they would have to just stop and reboot to make anything work again.
iMAC's are also not built the best. I have several accounts of hardware failure on them.
I think Speed Edit is the best. It doesn't care what file you drag onto the timeline.
It will work with it. It will also render out ANY (yes, any) video file format you would ever need.

Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: EEVblog on April 13, 2013, 03:36:02 pm
I have spent 6 years in video for several jobs.
I have tried: Avid - FCP - Speed Edit - Pinnical - Sony Vegas

I've tried them all too, and it takes me about 5 minuets of using any package to give it the thumbs or thumbs down for my use.
Yes, they all have something that sucks, but I've settled on Sony because I found it the fastest, and the one that let me do most of what I want without fuss.
I actually found the free NCH VideoPad pretty good, but had an annoying video import bug, and it hasn't been updated in two years.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: EEVblog on April 13, 2013, 06:04:55 pm
Ok, I think I've made up my mind  ;D
Intel i7 3770K
ASROCK - Z77-EXTREME4
2 x 8GB Corsair DDR3 memory
Seagate 2TB 7200 HD (+ the 128MB boot SSD I already have)
CoolerMaster Silencio 550 case ($60 cheaper than the Fractal, but still has good "silent" reviews)
Third party CPU cooler, probably a CoolerMaster or Thermaltake, maybe $80 tops.
Thermaltake Litepower 600W PSU (says it has silent fan, good enough)

Because that's 7 items instead of 6, scorptec want $105 assembly, and also $71 postage.
$1147 total, I assume that includes GST.

My local JW computer store seem to come in just over $1K even with some parts more expensive as they don't seem to charge for assembly and I can pickup down the road.
http://www.jw.com.au/order_form.php (http://www.jw.com.au/order_form.php)
They don't have the case I want though so will have to ask.

or I could just order all the parts separate on ebay and assemble myself, would be interesting to see if it's any cheaper with all the postage.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: peter.mitchell on April 13, 2013, 06:22:16 pm
IMHO, eBay is a terrible idea, at least with a real store you have someone you can abuse if something breaks, also, the price doesn't match most dedicated computer retailers, because of ebay fees.

Scorptec is more expensive but their service is second to none, and they pack stuff appropriately.
With that said, it would be stupid to buy a computer from Melbourne when you live in Sydney :P
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: GeoffS on April 13, 2013, 06:28:33 pm
My local JW computer store seem to come in just over $1K even with some parts more expensive as they don't seem to charge for assembly and I can pickup down the road.
http://www.jw.com.au/order_form.php (http://www.jw.com.au/order_form.php)
They don't have the case I want though so will have to ask.

or I could just order all the parts separate on ebay and assemble myself, would be interesting to see if it's any cheaper with all the postage.

If going the BYO route, check out the prices from EYO (http://www.eyo.com.au/). I've used them for many years and never had any problem with delivery or service. Next day delivery in Sydney (they're in Padstow)
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: EEVblog on April 13, 2013, 06:32:53 pm
With that said, it would be stupid to buy a computer from Melbourne when you live in Sydney :P

Yeah, I'll just wander down the road and see what JW can do. I'm sure it's more than just their online form allows, can likely order anything I want.
DCA computers are just down the road too, they do custom machines.
http://dcacomputers.com.au/ (http://dcacomputers.com.au/)
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: M. András on April 13, 2013, 06:40:41 pm
make sure you repaste the die and the metal cover :D:D:D you will get 10c cooler processor :)
btw performance wise its still cheaper the amd and a decent board for it, as for power consumption its goes to low power state when not used from 4ghz to 1.4ghz and 0.9volts and god knows the current so i cant say a power consumption number
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: EEVblog on April 13, 2013, 09:33:39 pm
Dave, last I checked Intel CPU's come with a heatsink and fan. Why buy another one? Sure, buy one later if you can't overclock it enough and maintain a decent temp. My standard Intel fan isn't noisy.

Most people seem to think the stock cooler is noisy.

Quote
Unless you intend to put something noisy inside the box then what is the benefit in acoustic padding? Is this audiofoolery rearing its ugly head  ;)

Not at all.
I'll have a hard drive or two, plus a video card presumably with GPU fan, plus the fans on the case (badly designed ducting noises can contribute), plus the CPU fan that will presumably scream for 30min-60min while all 8 cores are rendering at 100%. Badly designed PC cases and fans can be really noisy, as can hard.

Quote
So I presume you aren't intending to burn 600W.

No, but buying a bigger PSU than you need can mean more headroom, less heat, and hence less fan noise.

Quote
You might shave another $40-50 with the basic Asrock Z77M MB if you only intend using 2 DIMMs.

Saving $40-$50 is neither here nor there.
But I just noticed the Z77 extreme 4 does not have PCI-E 3.0 slots, only 2.0.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: M. András on April 13, 2013, 11:12:23 pm
nah stock coolers are shit performance wise, when an aftermarket cooler can do even 30celsius difference i think the chip will thank this for you :).
i bougth an arctic a30 for my 8350, this one goes up to max 50, stock cooler 75+, and i f**** up most like the paste application too so it would be even lower
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: EEVblog on April 13, 2013, 11:59:08 pm
Dave. The EXTREME-4 does support PCI-E 3.0.
http://www.asrock.com/mb/Intel/Z77%20Extreme4-M/ (http://www.asrock.com/mb/Intel/Z77%20Extreme4-M/)

That's the Extreme 4-M, I was looking at the plain Extreme-4
So many bloody options!
JW computers only have the 4 listed in their dropdown box, not the 4-M.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: EEVblog on April 14, 2013, 12:10:47 am
Dave. The EXTREME-4 does support PCI-E 3.0.
http://www.asrock.com/mb/Intel/Z77%20Extreme4-M/ (http://www.asrock.com/mb/Intel/Z77%20Extreme4-M/)

That's the Extreme 4-M, I was looking at the plain Extreme-4
So many bloody options!
JW computers only have the 4 listed in their dropdown box, not the 4-M.

They have this ASUS P8Z77V-LX for $150 though.
http://www.asus.com/Motherboards/P8Z77V_LX/ (http://www.asus.com/Motherboards/P8Z77V_LX/)
The ASUS P8H77 board is $50 cheaper.
I think the difference is that the Z88 chipset allows overclocking and some faster video interface cards.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: SparkysWidgets on April 14, 2013, 01:43:52 am
Just a couple points, I recently built a box using the p8z77-V pro mb, I went with the z77 chipset because I also dual boot into Mountain Lion and all the peripherals work out of the box on OSX with z77 MBs. thought, the z77 does have some disadvantages to the z88 chipset. You can still also overclock like hell on the z77s too, I have had my i7 3770K to just under 5ghz stable. I did tone it down some so that my radiator fans only run about 1/3rd speed and are fairly quite.

While you are considering a build I would throw all 32gigs of ram in, the stuff is pretty cheap and I have been rather impressed with performance since. You will be surprised how quickly that 16gigs gets used, I am at 9.8 right now with 3 chrome windows(and a ton of tabs), RubyMine, Eagle and steam open. Geekbench showed massive improvements over the existing 12 I had originally planned on. With the all the video editing you do, you will especially make use of all the ram.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: SteigsdB on April 14, 2013, 04:23:56 am
Dave, have you considered just recording straight to the computer and skipping the conversion process?
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: hans on April 14, 2013, 06:58:50 am
I haven't seen any Z88 motherboards.

Z77 are the most feature packed boards: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGA_1155#Ivy_Bridge_chipsets (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGA_1155#Ivy_Bridge_chipsets)
Z75/Z77 allow OC'ing. It also has the most amount of PCI-express configurations.  Some other chipsets are 'business' users only, though.
In your case, a H77 may be sufficient if you don't plan to OC/build extensive PCI-e configs. Moreover, if that's the case, a plain 3770 may be sufficient too.. (only the i5 have the GPU difference I believe)

The coolermaster case seems a reasonable choice. It has a very similar style and approach, but is cheaper. Personally I didn't like the big logo sticker on the front screaming "Look at me, I am a cooler master PC".

The problem with aftermarket coolers they often are a bit fiddly to install. The boxed cooler can be installed from the front with some clips, but for example my Mugen 2 has a backplate. Fortunately this Fractal case has a removable side panel + cutout in the motherboard tray. But even then, I find it easier to install coolers outside a case.

Ah well, generally a cooler with heatpipes + large lumps of aluminium plates is good. Some coolers can be gigantic, but feature 120mm fans that can cool the CPU at reasonable temperatures (without OC) at low-mid speeds.
On my previous Q6600 the boxed cooler was pretty horrid. It ran full speed at full load from day 1. After 2-3 years the paste dried out, which is pretty remarkable in itself.
I don't have experience with the boxed cooler on Ivy Bridge CPU's. Of course it will work, it's not essential or something.

About RAM: yes some apps use more RAM when you got it. On my old laptop I use 2GB out of 3GB with some programs open (Visual Studio, some chrome tabs, Skype, etc.). Same setup on this system runs 4GB + 2GB RAM disk (total 6GB)
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: EEVblog on April 14, 2013, 07:47:46 am
While you are considering a build I would throw all 32gigs of ram in, the stuff is pretty cheap and I have been rather impressed with performance since. You will be surprised how quickly that 16gigs gets used, I am at 9.8 right now with 3 chrome windows(and a ton of tabs), RubyMine, Eagle and steam open. Geekbench showed massive improvements over the existing 12 I had originally planned on. With the all the video editing you do, you will especially make use of all the ram.

Actually, I've never gotten close to my 16GB with Sony MS and a dozen Chrome windows open, and Handbrake running etc.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: EEVblog on April 14, 2013, 07:51:04 am
Dave, have you considered just recording straight to the computer and skipping the conversion process?

Yes, and it's simply not viable for many reasons. Mostly logistics of moving the camera around the lab for every shot.
Then I'd be in the exact same position anyway in terms of editing and rendering. The only thing that solution would save me is the minute or two to copy the files from the camera to the machine.
Fine if you are doing single take live shows all the time, but useless for a proper edited video blog .
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: EEVblog on April 14, 2013, 07:57:04 am
The coolermaster case seems a reasonable choice. It has a very similar style and approach, but is cheaper. Personally I didn't like the big logo sticker on the front screaming "Look at me, I am a cooler master PC".

What I like is the top mounted SD card slot. Given that I use SD card every day, that's just a nice touch. One less cable, or I don't have to bend down to a front mounted slot.
But I'd be happy with the Fractal R4 and an added media card interface in one of the 5 1/4 trays.
Title: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: ddavidebor on April 14, 2013, 08:24:06 am
Dave, have you considered just recording straight to the computer and skipping the conversion process?

Yes, and it's simply not viable for many reasons. Mostly logistics of moving the camera around the lab for every shot.
Then I'd be in the exact same position anyway in terms of editing and rendering. The only thing that solution would save me is the minute or two to copy the files from the camera to the machine.
Fine if you are doing single take live shows all the time, but useless for a proper edited video blog .

Well, is problably possible to encode the files when you are writing it (aka shooting the video)
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: peter.mitchell on April 14, 2013, 08:27:15 am
people always forget about how useful card readers are and how much of a pain in the ass they are too; you need to have one at every computer you use, plus one in your camera bag, if you try to get by with one card reader you inevitably will forget to put it int he camera bag or won't be able to find an open usb slot.

erm... the encoding takes place after the editing usually so unless he is shooting and editing simultaneously, this isn't very useful, and if he is, he needs to be paid more!
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: EEVblog on April 14, 2013, 08:28:56 am
Well, is problably possible to encode the files when you are writing it (aka shooting the video)

Yes, but there is no point doing that, it saves you nothing.
You still have to use a video editor to cut the dead space at the start and end of each clip.
Then you still have to transcode using Handbrake to get your correct size/quality ratio.
The exact same workflow that takes 99% of my time.
As I said, all that saves if the few minutes to copy the files.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: JDubU on April 14, 2013, 10:21:22 am
When evaluating possible CPU's, memory, video cards, and hard drives (conventional or SSD), I usually start with the PassMark web site:
http://www.passmark.com/index.html (http://www.passmark.com/index.html)

It has apples-to-apples benchmark scores for seemingly every component made in the past ten or fifteen years. 

CPU's:
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/ (http://www.cpubenchmark.net/)

Memory:
http://www.memorybenchmark.net/ (http://www.memorybenchmark.net/)

Video Cards:
http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/ (http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/)

Drives:
http://www.harddrivebenchmark.net/ (http://www.harddrivebenchmark.net/)


The CPU benchmark scores do reflect multi-threading performance on multiple core chips.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: dimlow on April 14, 2013, 04:31:01 pm
Ok, I think I've made up my mind  ;D
Intel i7 3770K
ASROCK - Z77-EXTREME4
2 x 8GB Corsair DDR3 memory
Seagate 2TB 7200 HD (+ the 128MB boot SSD I already have)
CoolerMaster Silencio 550 case ($60 cheaper than the Fractal, but still has good "silent" reviews)
Third party CPU cooler, probably a CoolerMaster or Thermaltake, maybe $80 tops.
Thermaltake Litepower 600W PSU (says it has silent fan, good enough)

Because that's 7 items instead of 6, scorptec want $105 assembly, and also $71 postage.
$1147 total, I assume that includes GST.

My local JW computer store seem to come in just over $1K even with some parts more expensive as they don't seem to charge for assembly and I can pickup down the road.
http://www.jw.com.au/order_form.php (http://www.jw.com.au/order_form.php)
They don't have the case I want though so will have to ask.

or I could just order all the parts separate on ebay and assemble myself, would be interesting to see if it's any cheaper with all the postage.

Dave thats not a bad system. I doubt you will use all that RAM but as its cheap you may as well get it. You should see a good improvement in speed over your current system. But i know if i went this route i would always be regretting that i had not spent $400 or so more and got a 3970k and quad channel memory for a much faster system even if i had to hold out buying it for a few more weeks for the money to come in.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: EEVblog on April 14, 2013, 07:34:40 pm
Dave thats not a bad system. I doubt you will use all that RAM but as its cheap you may as well get it. You should see a good improvement in speed over your current system. But i know if i went this route i would always be regretting that i had not spent $400 or so more and got a 3970k and quad channel memory for a much faster system even if i had to hold out buying it for a few more weeks for the money to come in.

(http://media.bestofmicro.com/Z/0/360252/original/handbrake.png)

Is the 3970K really worth the extra?
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: BravoV on April 14, 2013, 07:47:27 pm
Is the 3970K really worth the extra?
Looking at that chart ? I say its not worth it, think about Sagan's fund, every cents count, IMHO.  :P
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: dimlow on April 14, 2013, 07:50:34 pm
now if you looked at a chart with a linear scale it would tell the truth

Time to get more sleep
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: hans on April 14, 2013, 07:54:13 pm
Obivously not. The 3970X is a 940 euro CPU. I think your original i7 system with motherboard, RAM, PSU, HDD, case comes in at 940 euro.
Socket 2011 motherboards are more expensive.
Socket 2011 runs best with quad channel RAM (better to say; it can make use of quad channel as opposed to dual channel RAM).
Socket 2011 CPU's don't come with a boxed cooler. They figured you're such an enthusiastic user, you're going to fit a good one yourself anyway. Or , they had to admit their boxed coolers suck :-//
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: dimlow on April 14, 2013, 07:59:06 pm
Sorry guys i meant a 3930k, dont know why i wrote 3970k, the 3970k IS NOT worth the extra
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: hans on April 14, 2013, 08:09:54 pm
Then still though, a typical socket 2011 motherboard is about 180 euro.
The CPU itself is about 180 euro's more expensive.
You need a dedicated cooler..
And a dedicated Graphics Card

And in the end you win about 15 seconds in handbrake. 10%.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: EEVblog on April 14, 2013, 08:11:48 pm
now if you looked at a chart with a linear scale it would tell the truth

The 3930K is 1:50
The 3770K is 2:05
12% speed improvement. Not much.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: dimlow on April 14, 2013, 08:13:44 pm
Yes but look at this. Toms hardware does not show the big jump in speed from 3770k to 3930k. their charts are misleading.

Load of dogs.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: dimlow on April 14, 2013, 08:18:32 pm
how did you calculate 12% seems more like 26% to me

I really should check charts better next time
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: alm on April 14, 2013, 08:23:07 pm
There are 60 seconds in a minute, not 100.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: dimlow on April 14, 2013, 08:25:07 pm
lol :D

Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: EEVblog on April 14, 2013, 08:28:00 pm
how did you calculate 12% seems more like 26% to me

The graph I posted shows:
3930K is 1:50 = 110 seconds
3770K is 2:05 = 125 seconds
Do the math  ;D
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: EEVblog on April 14, 2013, 08:29:35 pm
Yes but look at this. Toms hardware does not show the big jump in speed from 3770k to 3930k. their charts are misleading.

Their chart is not misleading, it clearly shows exact times in second for both processors, for H.264 rendering in Handbrake (exactly the task I want)
What is the graph you posted referring too?, that's misleading without any context!
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: dimlow on April 14, 2013, 08:35:41 pm
In my defence I'm a Dimlow.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: SteigsdB on April 15, 2013, 12:42:24 am
Well, is problably possible to encode the files when you are writing it (aka shooting the video)

Yes, but there is no point doing that, it saves you nothing.
You still have to use a video editor to cut the dead space at the start and end of each clip.
Then you still have to transcode using Handbrake to get your correct size/quality ratio.
The exact same workflow that takes 99% of my time.
As I said, all that saves if the few minutes to copy the files.

If you were to record the file in its final format (H.264) and then edit that file for upload would it not save you from skipping the transcode step?

You could use something like this:
http://www.blackmagicdesign.com/products/h264prorecorder/ (http://www.blackmagicdesign.com/products/h264prorecorder/)
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: mariush on April 15, 2013, 12:54:22 am
The camera records already in h264 but it's a relatively constant and high bitrate format, something like 16-24 mbps. 

Dave's problem is slow upload speed, he has to optimize his videos to retain as much quality in a reasonable amount of disk space. The camera format (and camera videos in general) are not optimized for that, no matter the scene complexity the camera will use the same disk space, they have a hardware encoder inside that balance battery consumption with encoding complexity and encoding time.

Dave imports these video into the editor, makes some cuts and stuff on the videos, saves into h264 with some big file - high quality setting (hence no actual real processing work, no big cpu usage by the editor), and then the video goes to handbrake which encodes with specific settings that shrink the video file size while retaining as much quality  (constant quality factor, each frame has same quality, size varying depending on complexity)


Anyway... I was the one pushing for AMD as a good solution for the money, but I'm perfectly fine with Dave's choise for the 3770k.

Hardware wise, the only thing I don't like about that configuration is the power supply.. i personally don't trust Thermaltake like I said, and I'd recommend paying a bit more for a psu with Japanese capacitors and more modern OEM design/architecture.  I would go for a psu that has a Delta or Seasonic OEM design inside, but you'd have to search for reviews for each psu and determine that, which takes time.
But in the end, that Litepower will be OK, the system won't even use half of the maximum power it's rated for, it will be OK.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: SteigsdB on April 15, 2013, 12:59:42 am
Dave imports these video into the editor, makes some cuts and stuff on the videos, saves into h264 with some big file - high quality setting (hence no actual real processing work, no big cpu usage by the editor), and then the video goes to handbrake which encodes with specific settings that shrink the video file size while retaining as much quality  (constant quality factor, each frame has same quality, size varying depending on complexity)

What I'm suggesting is finding a way to ingest the video directly using post-handbrake settings, thereby eliminating that step.

I haven't played with Media Express so I'm not familiar with it's particular compression options, but surely there has to be some way to do it.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: EEVblog on April 15, 2013, 09:47:13 am
If you were to record the file in its final format (H.264) and then edit that file for upload would it not save you from skipping the transcode step?

No, that's not how it works.
You still need a video editor which does not magically output the samecombined H.264 file.
So you still have the exact same video editor render and final H264 transcode to do.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: EEVblog on April 15, 2013, 01:28:47 pm
VideoReDo TVSuite H.264. can edit without rendering again. It only renders the frames before and after the cut so it is really fast. See my previous post.

Then it's not possible to do anything else. Like overlays, captions, fades, crop, zoom, dual camera etc.
I do need at least a modicum of editing features.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: EEVblog on April 15, 2013, 01:34:37 pm
What I'm suggesting is finding a way to ingest the video directly using post-handbrake settings, thereby eliminating that step.

You can't. "and stuff" mariush referred to is the key. You cannot get around needing a proper video editor for this kind of stuff.
Then once you established you need that, you have limited choices. I have tried them all, and I found Sony MS is the best for my purpose.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: EEVblog on April 15, 2013, 01:43:06 pm
The deed is done.
I've ordered an i7 system from JW with Silencio 550 case, Corsair H55 water cooler, 16GB Corsair DDR3, Corsair VS650 PSU (yeah, yeah, blah, blah, best value option they had, I'll take my chances :-P) and ASUS P8Z77-V-LX MB.
I would have only saved just over $100 by going AMD, so sorry you AMD fanboys.
They wanted $99 assembly/test/burnin, so I'll do that myself.
Worth doing a boring build video? (Altzone or EEVblog?)
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: ecat on April 15, 2013, 01:58:55 pm
See, that was easy and didn't take long only took 17 pages  :-DD

Video of the build? I bloody well hope so ;) More to the point some rendering and transcoding numbers, then we can look forward to another 17 pages of 'told you so'. lol.

Glad you have things sorted.


Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: mariush on April 15, 2013, 02:10:28 pm
Make it a live show, like you did with the 3d printer.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: NiHaoMike on April 15, 2013, 02:14:02 pm
650W would be massive overkill since you aren't using a high end GPU. (Though you'll be all set for a future CUDA upgrade or a RAID array...) Water cooling would be massive overkill unless you're planning to overclock a lot. A $30 Cooler Master heatsink will handle even a 6 core i7 just fine.

Also beware that the motherboard you selected doesn't have IEEE1394, in case you still have an IEEE1394 camera you want to use. In that case, a cheap IEEE1394 card would solve your problem.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: EEVblog on April 15, 2013, 02:17:04 pm
Make it a live show, like you did with the 3d printer.

Live shows turn into shitty final videos though. Fine for the keen 100 or so who turn up, but boring for the 20,000 who watch later.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: EEVblog on April 15, 2013, 02:20:11 pm
650W would be massive overkill since you aren't using a high end GPU. (Though you'll be all set for a future CUDA upgrade or a RAID array...) Water cooling would be massive overkill unless you're planning to overclock a lot. A $30 Cooler Master heatsink will handle even a 6 core i7 just fine.

Well, I'd probably be silly not to try and overclock it at least a little with the K CPU, chipset support, and water cooler (which hardly cost much extra).
Overkill is what I want. That hopefully means lower temps, and hence lower fan noise all round.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: jmole on April 15, 2013, 05:08:47 pm
Overkill is what I want. That hopefully means lower temps, and hence lower fan noise all round.

If you want overkill, you can pick up a quad CPU server chassis, and load it up with 10 core Xeons. Of course, that be just about as useful as that 13GHz scope for day to day use. Not to mention the $20k price tag.

My research lab put together a system like this for a virtualized web server. Sure was a hell of a build.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: peter.mitchell on April 15, 2013, 06:16:10 pm
650W would be massive overkill since you aren't using a high end GPU. (Though you'll be all set for a future CUDA upgrade or a RAID array...) Water cooling would be massive overkill unless you're planning to overclock a lot. A $30 Cooler Master heatsink will handle even a 6 core i7 just fine.

Well, I'd probably be silly not to try and overclock it at least a little with the K CPU, chipset support, and water cooler (which hardly cost much extra).
Overkill is what I want. That hopefully means lower temps, and hence lower fan noise all round.

If overkill is what you want dave, what i threw in with the videocard is the definition of overkill :P
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: EEVblog on April 15, 2013, 06:42:01 pm
If overkill is what you want dave, what i threw in with the videocard is the definition of overkill :P

Ooh, ooh, ooh...
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: hans on April 16, 2013, 05:05:20 am
650W would be massive overkill since you aren't using a high end GPU. (Though you'll be all set for a future CUDA upgrade or a RAID array...) Water cooling would be massive overkill unless you're planning to overclock a lot. A $30 Cooler Master heatsink will handle even a 6 core i7 just fine.

Well, I'd probably be silly not to try and overclock it at least a little with the K CPU, chipset support, and water cooler (which hardly cost much extra).
Overkill is what I want. That hopefully means lower temps, and hence lower fan noise all round.

Congratulations on your buy! Hope you can figure out a way to make a live shoot or whatever.

Just fiddle with it. My BIOS can do an automatic overclock ("Performance" setting). It tries some stuff and reboots a couple of times. Result: 15% OC (4.2GHz) on a i5 3570K. However, I didn't like the settings very much. CPU base clock 103MHz (???), voltages were raised by 0.075V (=a ton of heat), which didn't seem necessary for me.

I reverted to stock and upped the multipliers a bit myself. 10% increase is pretty easy achieved I think. I went for core multipliers of 40 (4-core load, stock 36) to 42 (1-core load, stock 39). Found out the limits were about 43 (4-core) to 45 (1-core). Best is to let it 'burn in' for a couple of hours to a day, to see if it's completely stable.

I dunno what stock fans the Corsair cooler delivers on their water sets, I believe they have special "Static pressure optimized" series of fans that cool better on radiators and heatsinks. Atleast a radiator comes with big 120mm fans :)

I really liked your blog post too, the emphasis on 'cheap' is nice. I too aim to spend about 600-700 euro on an upgrade set (motherboard, memory, CPU and dedicated GPU).
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: EEVblog on April 16, 2013, 12:57:42 pm
Just fiddle with it. My BIOS can do an automatic overclock ("Performance" setting). It tries some stuff and reboots a couple of times. Result: 15% OC (4.2GHz) on a i5 3570K. However, I didn't like the settings very much. CPU base clock 103MHz (???), voltages were raised by 0.075V (=a ton of heat), which didn't seem necessary for me.
I reverted to stock and upped the multipliers a bit myself. 10% increase is pretty easy achieved I think.

Yes, I would want to get every last MHz out of it, I might just up by 10% and if it works, good enough.

Quote
I dunno what stock fans the Corsair cooler delivers on their water sets, I believe they have special "Static pressure optimized" series of fans that cool better on radiators and heatsinks. Atleast a radiator comes with big 120mm fans :)

Yes, won't know until I open the box.
Someone mentioned the pump is load, I hope that's not the case. The box says 6dB quieter than a stock Intel fan. But perhaps any CPU heatsink is?
Any better suggestions, I guess I can still change it.
But this test report says it's pretty quiet, blends into the room background noise
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012/12/03/new_corsair_h60_h55_cpu_liquid_coolers_review/4#.UWzDCbXDA3Q (http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012/12/03/new_corsair_h60_h55_cpu_liquid_coolers_review/4#.UWzDCbXDA3Q)
And that would not include my sound dampened case either I guess.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: EEVblog on April 16, 2013, 01:38:06 pm
The Coolermaster Hyper 212 claims 36dbA noise level. About 4dB better than the Corsair H55
http://www.coolermaster-usa.com/product.php?product_id=3053 (http://www.coolermaster-usa.com/product.php?product_id=3053)

And this list is very comprehensive!:
http://www.frostytech.com/articleview.cfm?articleid=2655&page=3 (http://www.frostytech.com/articleview.cfm?articleid=2655&page=3)

Looks like I should replace the Corsair H55 with this one.
Comments?
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: Eliminateur on April 16, 2013, 01:50:43 pm
Dave,
ont he subject of overclock, modern 3rd serie K cpus are VERY easy to overclock leaving practically everything in "auto" because they are overclocked using TURBO bins, not base multiplier, so you get the best of both world, ultra low power idle and super speed when needed)
a 3770K with water can get to 4.6GHz practically stock(i'm running a 3570K with water at 4.6).

now, depending on the motherboard there's a  very cool "trick" setting that essentially enables 4-core full turbo(as you know, intel turbo multis depend on how many cores are active, officially intel has 4/2/2/1 usually that means with 1 core active you get 400Mhz more), that trick setting essentially forces 4/4/4/4 (or whatever your top multi gets set, might be 8, 10, 20, etc) which means you get FULL speed for processor intensive tasks like video encoding ;)

the hyper 212 is THE wonder boy of coolers, it's cheap and works a treat, but you can't beat the thermal inertia of a big water cooler (granted a 2x120mm radiator one).

and a short timelapsed build video with tests would make for a nice altzone vid without running too long.

i'll post screencaps of my bios settings later(i have a msi mainboard but settings are named very similar)
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: dimlow on April 16, 2013, 02:22:54 pm
After my last feck up with the timings on the 3930k you more than welcome to ignore this, but i have had both the H55 and the H80 corsair coolers. Whilst they are ok for a standard system, once you start to overclock and generate heat they get VERY noisy. This was the main reason for my taking the customs water cooling route.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: peter.mitchell on April 16, 2013, 02:53:07 pm
I wouldn't do anything drastic with the cooling until you have the computer put together and see how it is.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: NiHaoMike on April 16, 2013, 03:35:21 pm
Dave,
ont he subject of overclock, modern 3rd serie K cpus are VERY easy to overclock leaving practically everything in "auto" because they are overclocked using TURBO bins, not base multiplier, so you get the best of both world, ultra low power idle and super speed when needed)
a 3770K with water can get to 4.6GHz practically stock(i'm running a 3570K with water at 4.6).

now, depending on the motherboard there's a  very cool "trick" setting that essentially enables 4-core full turbo(as you know, intel turbo multis depend on how many cores are active, officially intel has 4/2/2/1 usually that means with 1 core active you get 400Mhz more), that trick setting essentially forces 4/4/4/4 (or whatever your top multi gets set, might be 8, 10, 20, etc) which means you get FULL speed for processor intensive tasks like video encoding ;)

the hyper 212 is THE wonder boy of coolers, it's cheap and works a treat, but you can't beat the thermal inertia of a big water cooler (granted a 2x120mm radiator one).
Pretty much the first tweak I did on my 3930k was to turn all the Turbo multiplier limits to 38 (3.8GHz) and adjust the fan settings to be more aggressive. (And I highly recommend the Cooler Master 212, it's cheap and works great even on a 6 core.)

Really, the whole reason why Turbo Boost exists is because once the consumers stopped caring about GHz, Intel realized that they could make a chip that can do 3.8GHz, but then they could downmark it to 3.2GHz (which, of course, the consumers didn't care about anymore) and allow automatic "overclocking" back to the 3.8GHz rating. For basically no real work, there's a new marketing feature!
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: peter.mitchell on April 16, 2013, 04:36:07 pm

(And I highly recommend the Cooler Master 212, it's cheap and works great even on a 6 core.)


I wish it could handle my 6 core; almost nothing apart from extreme solutions can handle my i7-990x :(

(I run chiller on my loops as a daily comp :S)
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: firewalker on April 16, 2013, 08:33:30 pm
I got "lost". Did you ordered a new machine?

Alexander.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: EEVblog on April 16, 2013, 09:31:17 pm
I got "lost". Did you ordered a new machine?

Yes, see my blog post. I should get the parts end of this week. Assembling myself.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: ptricks on April 16, 2013, 09:33:45 pm
One of the issues many people run into with video editing is editing applications that stutter, crash, hang, etc.  The programs are not usually at fault and neither is the hardware of the pc. Something to understand about video is that codecs that are used for playback are not designed for editing, when you attempt to edit a video that is using one of those codecs it is very hard for the editing software to work correctly because codecs do funny things with the video to make it smaller.

I do video editing as a hobby and after months of playing around someone online gave me the info above and told me how to solve the problem, change codecs to one designed for editing. It can be problematic if your camera already produces compressed video because that means another conversion, but if you have raw video already, or if you don't mind the conversion, try the codec below. Warning it creates really large files for editing but smaller than just converting to sequential images.


http://lags.leetcode.net/codec.html (http://lags.leetcode.net/codec.html)
Once I used that codec I never had trouble with editing programs again.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: EEVblog on April 16, 2013, 09:46:01 pm
One of the issues many people run into with video editing is editing applications that stutter, crash, hang, etc.  The programs are not usually at fault and neither is the hardware of the pc. Something to understand about video is that codecs that are used for playback are not designed for editing, when you attempt to edit a video that is using one of those codecs it is very hard for the editing software to work correctly because codecs do funny things with the video to make it smaller.

In 4 years of doing this using the H.264 (and now AVCHD variant), I have had absolutely no issues with editing any of the files directly.
When I first started blogging and was editing on a very old machine that was slow, I asked on a specialist video forum, and they all said I was crazy, you CAN'T edit H.264 directly, it's not designed for editing, not even on the highest end machine with $10K software, blah blah.
They were wrong, as I was doing just fine (albeit a bit slowly and stuttery as you said) using $50 ULEAD Video Studio on a crap old hand-me-down Celeron machine I think it was.  And once I upgraded my machine, it was just fine, smooth as silk.
So whilst that may have been true once, it's hasn't been true for at least the last 4 years, possibly 5 years at least.
There is no need to convert your camera files before you edit them.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: grumpydoc on April 16, 2013, 09:55:11 pm
Quote
There is no need to convert your camera files before you edit them.

Probably true but I still do that for a couple of reasons.

My Canon generates 25fps progressive video but presented as a 50fps "interlaced" stream so I undo that. My Panasonic generates 50fps progressive so I filter that down to 25fps progressive  - that way  I can edit them together.

I tend to use "lossless" H.264 as an editing format.

To be fair no temporal or motion based compression scheme is ideal for editing because any "seek to frame N" might be "seek to frame N-m, work forward to frame N" in reality. Adding backwards predicted frames screws it up even further because the frames then become out of order in the stream.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: EEVblog on April 16, 2013, 10:00:08 pm
My Canon generates 25fps progressive video but presented as a 50fps "interlaced" stream so I undo that. My Panasonic generates 50fps progressive so I filter that down to 25fps progressive  - that way  I can edit them together.

Same with my two Cannons. Never had any issue with it though, although I rarely mix other video.
But yes, there are always niche reasons to do it. Most people don't have to worry about it.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: ptricks on April 16, 2013, 10:27:01 pm

There is no need to convert your camera files before you edit them.

It really depends on the source video , I have edited some video that worked great compressed and others the wouldn't . After having used the conversion process to lagarith I will never go back to editing compressed files, the improvement in speed and  editing just works too good for me.  Try it just one time and see how fluid editing is after conversion , I can select any frame or scroll through the whole thing in a second even on slow machines.

 
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: firewalker on April 16, 2013, 10:48:17 pm
I got "lost". Did you ordered a new machine?

Yes, see my blog post. I should get the parts end of this week. Assembling myself.

Live event opportunity? Live expensive magic smoke.  :P :P  :-DD :-DD

Alexander.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: EEVblog on April 16, 2013, 10:55:04 pm
Try it just one time and see how fluid editing is after conversion , I can select any frame or scroll through the whole thing in a second even on slow machines.

I can do that too, completely fluid and seamlessly, directly on the full HD AVCHD .MTS file from the video camera in Sony Movie Studio. Even while transcoding a HD video in the background that's using close to 100% of all my 8 cores!
You must have a combination of video editor and source file that does not work properly.
And like I've said, I've never had really this problem on a modern machine, with at least 3 different cameras, file formats, and many video editors.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: EEVblog on April 16, 2013, 10:56:50 pm
It really depends on the source video , I have edited some video that worked great compressed and others the wouldn't.

If you find a combination that works, why not use and stick with that and completely eliminate the conversion process?
I would go insane if I had to convert all my video files before editing, men in white coats would come and take me away...
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: EEVblog on April 16, 2013, 11:29:25 pm
Dave. I'd be interested in the comparison of the stock cooler (both noise and temperature) performance after 20mins running full on against the water cooler solution.. Standard and with varying degrees of OC.
How far can you go before the CPU temp hits the Intel spec?
Is that asking too much?

Probably!
Surely scores of people have already done this?, look at the thermal results from some of those links I posted.
I'd rather be making electronics videos than computers videos.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: Lightages on April 17, 2013, 03:00:42 am
For simple editing, like Dave does, intermediate conversion is really not worth it. If you are editing something with lots of fancy transitions and effects and overlays then it can be worth it. There is no sense using up the time and bloating the files just for a blog video.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: M. András on April 17, 2013, 06:52:41 am
http://www.overclock.net/ (http://www.overclock.net/) if you want some benchmarks done by hardcore overclockers and crazy cooling solution you can find the comparison if you google a bit
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: sonic on April 17, 2013, 07:20:33 am
The UVD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UVD) acceleration in the OpenCL build of HandBrake (https://build.handbrake.fr/view/OpenCL/) looks interesting:
My i7 3770: 75 s (125 MB)
My i7 3770 and Radeon HD 7970 by adding command line option "-U": 40 s (but only 73,5 MB? Well, all the better: faster YouTube upload ::))
see here (http://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/i-tried-a-mac-for-video-editing/msg219195/#msg219195)
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: peter.mitchell on April 17, 2013, 07:57:03 am
The UVD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UVD) acceleration in the OpenCL build of HandBrake (https://build.handbrake.fr/view/OpenCL/) looks interesting:
My i7 3770: 75 s (125 MB)
My i7 3770 and Radeon HD 7970 by adding command line option "-U": 40 s (but only 73,5 MB? Well, all the better: faster YouTube upload ::))

Code: [Select]
\HandBrake-5401svn-x86_64-Win_CLI\HandBrakeCLI.exe -U -i \EEVblogTestRender2Min22.MTS -t 1 -c 1 -o \EEVblogTestRender2Min22.mp4 -f mp4 --strict-anamorphic  -e x264 -q 22 -r 25 --cfr  -a 1 -E faac -B 192 -6 stereo -R 48 -D 0 --gain=0 --audio-copy-mask none --audio-fallback ffac3 -x ref=2:bframes=2:subq=6:mixed-refs=0:weightb=0:8

Would you mind showing an output of the console?
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: sonic on April 17, 2013, 08:02:26 am
Code: [Select]
[23:18:39] hb_init: starting libhb thread
HandBrake svn5401 (2013041601) - MinGW x86_64 - http://handbrake.fr
8 CPUs detected
Opening I:\test\eevblog\EEVblogTestRender2Min22.MTS...
[23:18:39] hb_scan: path=I:\test\eevblog\EEVblogTestRender2Min22.MTS, title_index=1
libbluray/bdnav/index_parse.c:162: indx_parse(): error opening I:\test\eevblog\EEVblogTestRender2Min22.MTS/BDMV/index.bdmv
libbluray/bdnav/index_parse.c:162: indx_parse(): error opening I:\test\eevblog\EEVblogTestRender2Min22.MTS/BDMV/BACKUP/index.bdmv
libbluray/bluray.c:1725: nav_get_title_list(I:\test\eevblog\EEVblogTestRender2Min22.MTS) failed (00000000035e9150)
[23:18:39] bd: not a bd - trying as a stream/file instead
libdvdnav: Using dvdnav version 4.1.3
libdvdread: Encrypted DVD support unavailable.
libdvdnav:DVDOpenFileUDF:UDFFindFile /VIDEO_TS/VIDEO_TS.IFO failed
libdvdnav:DVDOpenFileUDF:UDFFindFile /VIDEO_TS/VIDEO_TS.BUP failed
libdvdread: Can't open file VIDEO_TS.IFO.
libdvdnav: vm: failed to read VIDEO_TS.IFO
[23:18:39] dvd: not a dvd - trying as a stream/file instead
Input #0, mpegts, from 'I:\test\eevblog\EEVblogTestRender2Min22.MTS':
  Duration: 00:02:22.08, start: 0.473689, bitrate: 12593 kb/s
  Program 1
    Stream #0.0[0x1011]: Video: h264 (High), yuv420p, 1440x1080 [PAR 4:3 DAR 16:9], 50 fps, 50 tbr, 90k tbn, 50 tbc
    Stream #0.1[0x1100]: Audio: ac3, 48000 Hz, stereo, fltp, 256 kb/s
[23:18:40] scan: decoding previews for title 1
[23:18:40] scan: audio 0x1: AC-3, rate=48000Hz, bitrate=256000 Unknown (AC3) (2.0 ch)
Scanning title 1 of 1, preview 10, 100.00 %[23:18:40] scan: 10 previews, 1440x1080, 50.000 fps, autocrop = 0/0/0/0, aspect 16:9, PAR 4:3
[23:18:40] libhb: scan thread found 1 valid title(s)
+ title 1:
  + stream: I:\test\eevblog\EEVblogTestRender2Min22.MTS
  + duration: 00:02:22
  + size: 1440x1080, pixel aspect: 4/3, display aspect: 1.78, 50.000 fps
  + autocrop: 0/0/0/0
  + support opencl: yes
  + support hwd: yes
  + chapters:
    + 1: cells 0->0, 0 blocks, duration 00:02:22
  + audio tracks:
    + 1, Unknown (AC3) (2.0 ch) (iso639-2: und), 48000Hz, 256000bps
  + subtitle tracks:
[23:18:40] 1 job(s) to process
[23:18:40] starting job
[23:18:40] Using GPU : Yes.
[23:18:40] sync: expecting 7104 video frames
[23:18:40] job configuration:
[23:18:40]  * source
[23:18:40]    + I:\test\eevblog\EEVblogTestRender2Min22.MTS
[23:18:40]    + title 1, chapter(s) 1 to 1
[23:18:40]    + container: mpegts
[23:18:40]    + data rate: 12593 kbps
[23:18:40]  * destination
[23:18:40]    + I:\test\eevblog\EEVblogTestRender2Min22.mp4
[23:18:40]    + container: MPEG-4 (.mp4 and .m4v)
[23:18:40]  * video track
[23:18:40]    + decoder: h264
[23:18:40]    + frame rate: 50.000 fps -> constant 25.000 fps
[23:18:40]    + filters
[23:18:40]      + Framerate Shaper (1:27000000:1080000)
[23:18:40]        + frame rate: 25.000 fps -> constant 25.000 fps
[23:18:40]      + Crop and Scale (1440:1080:0:0:0:0)
[23:18:40]        + source: 1440 * 1080, crop (0/0/0/0): 1440 * 1080, scale: 1440 * 1080
[23:18:40]    + strict anamorphic
[23:18:40]      + storage dimensions: 1440 * 1080, mod 0
[23:18:40]      + pixel aspect ratio: 4 / 3
[23:18:40]      + display dimensions: 1920 * 1080
[23:18:40]    + encoder: H.264 (x264)
[23:18:40]      + options: ref=2:bframes=2:subq=6:mixed-refs=0:weightb=0:8x8dct=0:trellis=0
[23:18:40]      + quality: 22.00 (RF)
[23:18:40]  * audio track 1
[23:18:40]    + decoder: Unknown (AC3) (2.0 ch) (track 1, id 0x1)
[23:18:40]      + bitrate: 256 kbps, samplerate: 48000 Hz
[23:18:40]    + mixdown: Stereo
[23:18:40]    + encoder: AAC (faac)
[23:18:40]      + bitrate: 192 kbps, samplerate: 48000 Hz
[23:18:40] reader: first SCR 46232 id 0x1 DTS 46232
[23:18:41] dxva2:CreateSurface succeed with 17, fmt (1440x1080) surfaces (1440x1088)
[23:18:41] dxva2:we got 2 decoder configurations
[23:18:41] dxva2:configuration[0] ConfigBitstreamRaw 2
[23:18:41] dxva2:configuration[1] ConfigBitstreamRaw 2
[23:18:41] dxva2:IDirectXVideoDecoderService_CreateVideoDecoder succeed
[23:18:41] dxva2:Using DXVA2 for hardware decoding
[23:18:41] encx264: encoding with stored aspect 4/3
[23:18:41] dxva2:Available decoder output format 61 (AV_PIX_FMT_DXVA2_VLD)
[23:18:41] encx264: Encoding at constant RF 22.000000
x264 [warning]: --psnr used with psy on: results will be invalid!
x264 [warning]: --tune psnr should be used if attempting to benchmark psnr!
x264 [info]: using SAR=4/3
x264 [info]: using cpu capabilities: MMX2 SSE2Fast SSSE3 SSE4.2 AVX
x264 [info]: profile Main, level 4.0
Encoding: task 1 of 1, 49.61 % (97.99 fps, avg 91.51 fps, ETA 00h00m39s)[23:19:19] reader: done. 1 scr changes
Encoding: task 1 of 1, 49.96 % (97.99 fps, avg 91.51 fps, ETA 00h00m39s)[23:19:20] work: average encoding speed for job is 91.510208 fps
[23:19:20] sync: got 3550 frames, 7104 expected
[23:19:20] render: 1776 frames output, 1774 dropped and 0 duped for CFR/PFR
[23:19:20] render: lost time: 0 (0 frames)
[23:19:20] render: gained time: 0 (0 frames) (0 not accounted for)
Encoding: task 1 of 1, 49.96 % (97.99 fps, avg 91.51 fps, ETA 00h00m39s)[23:19:20] h264-decoder done: 3550 frames, 0 decoder errors, 0 drops
x264 [info]: frame I:14    Avg QP:22.43  size:192467  PSNR Mean Y:40.87 U:48.17 V:49.18 Avg:42.27 Global:42.18
x264 [info]: frame P:1044  Avg QP:24.21  size: 57845  PSNR Mean Y:38.55 U:45.29 V:46.79 Avg:39.92 Global:39.72
x264 [info]: frame B:718   Avg QP:26.19  size: 14797  PSNR Mean Y:37.07 U:44.74 V:46.30 Avg:38.51 Global:38.36
x264 [info]: consecutive B-frames: 23.5% 63.5% 13.0%
x264 [info]: mb I  I16..4: 17.3%  0.0% 82.7%
x264 [info]: mb P  I16..4:  5.1%  0.0%  7.8%  P16..4: 57.1% 10.3%  8.6%  0.0%  0.0%    skip:11.3%
x264 [info]: mb B  I16..4:  5.7%  0.0%  2.5%  B16..8: 18.6%  5.6%  0.6%  direct: 8.8%  skip:58.2%  L0:37.4% L1:48.3% BI:14.3%
x264 [info]: coded y,uvDC,uvAC intra: 55.4% 61.7% 18.3% inter: 25.8% 23.8% 0.7%
x264 [info]: i16 v,h,dc,p: 29% 20% 26% 26%
x264 [info]: i4 v,h,dc,ddl,ddr,vr,hd,vl,hu: 27% 20% 16%  5%  7%  7%  6%  6%  5%
x264 [info]: i8c dc,h,v,p: 53% 18% 23%  6%
x264 [info]: Weighted P-Frames: Y:12.0% UV:3.5%
x264 [info]: ref P L0: 65.7% 14.8% 17.7%  1.8%
x264 [info]: ref B L0: 78.2% 21.8%
x264 [info]: ref B L1: 97.9%  2.1%
x264 [info]: SSIM Mean Y:0.9741426 (15.874db)
x264 [info]: PSNR Mean Y:37.969 U:45.090 V:46.612 Avg:39.371 Global:39.130 kb/s:8300.58
Encoding: task 1 of 1, 49.96 % (97.99 fps, avg 91.51 fps, ETA 00h00m39s)[23:19:20] mux: track 0, 1776 frames, 73708639 bytes, 4149.09 kbps, fifo 512
[23:19:20] mux: track 1, 6661 frames, 3410116 bytes, 191.96 kbps, fifo 4096
[23:19:20] libhb: work result = 0

Encode done!

HandBrake has exited.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: sonic on April 17, 2013, 08:44:18 am
Strange: The .mts says it's 50 fps, VLC plays it with 30 fps and the .mp4 with 25 fps.

It takes 1:43 to render that clip using the Sony AVC encoder at constant 12Mbps, 1440x1080, 25fps (same as input file) 48K/192K/32bit audio with High profile.
(203MB file)

This intermediate file would clarify the test.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: EEVblog on April 17, 2013, 10:23:08 am
The UVD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UVD) acceleration in the OpenCL build of HandBrake (https://build.handbrake.fr/view/OpenCL/) looks interesting:
My i7 3770: 75 s (125 MB)
My i7 3770 and Radeon HD 7970 by adding command line option "-U": 40 s (but only 73,5 MB? Well, all the better: faster YouTube upload ::))

That implies lower quality, as has been suggested is common with using GPU's. You trade video quality for encoding speed.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: EEVblog on April 17, 2013, 10:24:25 am
Strange: The .mts says it's 50 fps, VLC plays it with 30 fps and the .mp4 with 25 fps.

Yes, the .MTS from the camera is 25p stored as 50i.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: sonic on April 17, 2013, 10:30:51 am
You trade video quality for encoding speed.

UVD (Universal Video Decoder) is only able to participate in the decoding of the .mts, not the encoding of the .mp4
Perhaps the differences dissapear when trying to transcode the output of the Sony AVC encoder?
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: NiHaoMike on April 17, 2013, 10:32:35 am

(And I highly recommend the Cooler Master 212, it's cheap and works great even on a 6 core.)


I wish it could handle my 6 core; almost nothing apart from extreme solutions can handle my i7-990x :(

(I run chiller on my loops as a daily comp :S)
Take off the weak stock fan and replace it with a good one. I'm using a 0.9A Foxconn I pulled out of an old server, but a Delta of that power level should work great. And it helps a lot to have a 3A Delta in the side panel.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: sonic on April 17, 2013, 11:27:04 am
Yes, the .MTS from the camera is 25p stored as 50i.

This seems to confuse UVD, it skipped every other frame :palm: It wasn't obvious with no one visible talking.
With one of my 2:18 long 1080p29.97 videos, the duration is 68 s without and 59 s with UVD.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: peter.mitchell on April 17, 2013, 12:41:09 pm

(And I highly recommend the Cooler Master 212, it's cheap and works great even on a 6 core.)


I wish it could handle my 6 core; almost nothing apart from extreme solutions can handle my i7-990x :(

(I run chiller on my loops as a daily comp :S)
Take off the weak stock fan and replace it with a good one. I'm using a 0.9A Foxconn I pulled out of an old server, but a Delta of that power level should work great. And it helps a lot to have a 3A Delta in the side panel.

I have a custom loop 2x 3x120mm, 2x swiftech mcp655, removed the IHS, ect, the waterblock just can't take the heat away from the die quick enough so i have to run a chiller, the 4 core nehalem chips are bad for heat, at 4ghz, most closed loop kits struggle to keep them below 70, the 6 core variants are like hot coals, at 4.5 with the above, i only can keep it at 55~ under load.

The UVD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UVD) acceleration in the OpenCL build of HandBrake (https://build.handbrake.fr/view/OpenCL/) looks interesting:
My i7 3770: 75 s (125 MB)
My i7 3770 and Radeon HD 7970 by adding command line option "-U": 40 s (but only 73,5 MB? Well, all the better: faster YouTube upload ::))

That implies lower quality, as has been suggested is common with using GPU's. You trade video quality for encoding speed.

I'm curious, how much quality is lost? and if it is say.. 20% for a 50% of the time, could you say.. bump the quality up to 20 instead of 22, get the same quality but only shave 30% of the time off?
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: EEVblog on April 17, 2013, 01:13:36 pm
I'm curious, how much quality is lost? and if it is say.. 20% for a 50% of the time, could you say.. bump the quality up to 20 instead of 22, get the same quality but only shave 30% of the time off?

No one has yet posted any data on that, so it will need testing to find out.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: ve7xen on April 17, 2013, 01:23:56 pm
I'm curious, how much quality is lost? and if it is say.. 20% for a 50% of the time, could you say.. bump the quality up to 20 instead of 22, get the same quality but only shave 30% of the time off?
The tradeoff involved is more in encoding efficiency than quality just being 'lost'. In other words, for the same size file, quality is lower. Conversely, if you want the same quality, you need a larger filesize, which is the whole point of this exercise in the first place - Dave is trying to maximize quality/byte because his Internet connection is slow. Otherwise he wouldn't use the intermediate step at all and would just upload the h.264 from Sony directly to YouTube.

There's still an entire intermediate encoding step in there that can be eliminated before thinking about sacrificing quality ;).
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: EEVblog on April 17, 2013, 02:44:19 pm
If overkill is what you want dave, what i threw in with the videocard is the definition of overkill :P

I think I got it, has a "read me first" note on the front?
Should I wait for mailbag, or open now?
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: peter.mitchell on April 17, 2013, 06:00:56 pm
Now is fine, I don't care if its in the mailbag, you can open it and decide, it isn't *that* interesting.

Shoulda' tweeted at me and i'd have gotten back to you quicker, terrible reception out here so i only use the lowest bandwidth solutions :P
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: hans on April 17, 2013, 08:38:43 pm
If overkill is what you want dave, what i threw in with the videocard is the definition of overkill :P

I think I got it, has a "read me first" note on the front?
Should I wait for mailbag, or open now?

Do a Tuesday TearUp (instead of down) video on building the PC  :scared:
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: Ed.Kloonk on April 17, 2013, 08:41:44 pm
If overkill is what you want dave, what i threw in with the videocard is the definition of overkill :P

I think I got it, has a "read me first" note on the front?
Should I wait for mailbag, or open now?

Do a Tuesday TearUp (instead of down) video on building the PC  :scared:

Aw God, no!

 :palm:
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: justanothercanuck on April 17, 2013, 09:54:49 pm
I guess I'm a little late to the party, but I wanted to throw in my 2c...  :P

I have an i7 920 and I run it with the stock cooler.  I have no problems with noise or overheating whatsoever, even after running for several hours at full tilt.  My RAID array makes more noise than the processor fan.  :-//
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: Ed.Kloonk on April 17, 2013, 10:36:54 pm
I guess I'm a little late to the party, but I wanted to throw in my 2c...  :P

I have an i7 920 and I run it with the stock cooler.  I have no problems with noise or overheating whatsoever, even after running for several hours at full tilt.  My RAID array makes more noise than the processor fan.  :-//

Are you asking for help with it or just commenting.

There are some nice silent enclosures you can buy or even make yourself.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: Pat Pending on April 18, 2013, 05:45:55 am
I guess I'm a little late to the party, but I wanted to throw in my 2c...  :P

I have an i7 920 and I run it with the stock cooler.  I have no problems with noise or overheating whatsoever, even after running for several hours at full tilt.  My RAID array makes more noise than the processor fan.  :-//

Are you asking for help with it or just commenting.

There are some nice silent enclosures you can buy or even make yourself.

On the subject of case noise, I found that Dynamat can be used to dampen the vibrations that arise from steel cases.
Dynamat is a heavy material specifically for sound control with a sticky contact surface for installation.
Its not cheap, so of course, the money is better spent on a improved case design in the first place.

A cheaper alternative is A4 (letter) sized flexible (plastic?) fridge magnets, they attach inside the steel case with ease and add sufficient
mass to large vibrating panels and help dampen out case resonances.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: EEVblog on April 18, 2013, 08:09:14 am
This thread has become all about encoding - but that's not where it started. It was about Dave getting a new machine for editing, rendering, and encoding - and that's what I've been speaking to. He already expressed a desire to save money - and benchmarks clearly show the AMD CPU as an excellent bargain in regards to encoding - so my advice for Dave would be to save money on an expensive CPU - and either invest it in an SDD RAID subsystem - or pocket it and just use a normal HDD RAID. Anyway, my final two cents.

I think it has been established that a RAID system will not really help, as that it not were the bottleneck lies. But in any case I will be running a software RAID with my existing 2 x 2TB WD (Green) drives, just for redundancy. Tossing up whether to put my 2nd RAID system in the same box (currently both external USB 3.0), and also my networked media centre hard drive as well. Less cables, power cords etc?

The AMD CPU would have only saved me just over $100, so I went for the slightly more powerful i7, which alo runs at lower power. I think it was a much better choice. My whole system still came in at under $1K which I was happy with.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: Toque on April 19, 2013, 05:04:31 pm
So what did I end up going with?
Intel i7 3770K (K is the unlocked one you can overclock, about $50 more)
ASUS P8Z77-V-LX Motherboard (cheapest one with the top line Z77 chipset)
16GB Corsair DDR3 1600 memory. 2 x 8GB, so room for extra if needed.
Corsair VS650 650W PSU
Corsair H55 liquid cooler.
CoolerMaster Silencio 550 case
Seagate 7200rpm 2TB drive

Good job, looks like a nice system, but there are two things I wanted to point out to you.. First, nothing wrong with your cooler choice, allthou pumps can fail yadayada, Noctua NH-D14 would of been a better choice, Noctua rocks period, there stuff is top notch, fans rated to last a long long time and there very very quiet.. Second, nothing wrong with tha memory, after all Corsair is number 1, but ive been using Gskill these days, Gskill is offering awesome kits Tridentx, so I would of went with 16GB DDR3 2400mhz Gskill kit..

Awesome videos btw, I watched a handful now, I will be watching more..

Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: Toque on April 19, 2013, 05:15:24 pm
Oh, and I just read your post above, u don't wanta do software raid, tha ICH inside Z77 is very very powerfull for a chipset, u can do RAID 0,1 or 10 just fine, but not RAID5.. I am running RAID0, 2x Plex M5P256 as my boot volume on Z77 ICH, and getting 1100 MB/s.. Also running some old 4x 500G WD hardrives in RAID10 as my Scratch volume, don't have to worry about losing any fresh downloads etc :), think im getting around 125 MB/s average on that volume, didn't bother to test it..
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: EEVblog on April 19, 2013, 05:19:01 pm
Corsair H55 liquid cooler.
Good job, looks like a nice system, but there are two things I wanted to point out to you.. First, nothing wrong with your cooler choice, allthou pumps can fail yadayada, Noctua NH-D14 would of been a better choice, Noctua rocks period, there stuff is top notch, fans rated to last a long long time and there very very quiet..

I swapped the H55 cooler for a Cooler Master 212 EVO. By all reports it is much quieter, like by 6dB or something, and basically the quietest cooler on a huge list I posted a few pages back.
http://www.frostytech.com/articleview.cfm?articleid=2655&page=3 (http://www.frostytech.com/articleview.cfm?articleid=2655&page=3)

Still waiting on my 3770K, won't be in until at least Tuesday now  :(
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: Ed.Kloonk on April 19, 2013, 05:24:00 pm
Nothing worse than having one (vital) piece missing.

Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: Toque on April 19, 2013, 05:31:54 pm
Corsair H55 liquid cooler.
Good job, looks like a nice system, but there are two things I wanted to point out to you.. First, nothing wrong with your cooler choice, allthou pumps can fail yadayada, Noctua NH-D14 would of been a better choice, Noctua rocks period, there stuff is top notch, fans rated to last a long long time and there very very quiet..

I swapped the H55 cooler for a Cooler Master 212 EVO. By all reports it is much quieter, like by 6dB or something, and basically the quietest cooler on a huge list I posted a few pages back.
http://www.frostytech.com/articleview.cfm?articleid=2655&page=3 (http://www.frostytech.com/articleview.cfm?articleid=2655&page=3)

Still waiting on my 3770K, won't be in until at least Tuesday now  :(

Ah, okay, looks like tha best choice on a budget, but when it comes to overclocking tha other two may of been a better choice.. Tha way tha heatspreader is attached in tha ivy bridge, isn't tha same as tha Sandybridge-E or Ivybrige-E, and hence even at 77w its not easy to cool, I am running at 4.6ghz, and my max temps are hitting around 85, and u don't want to go higher, max jun is 105c, typically at least 10c cooler then max temp for everyday use I would guess, and leave a little room for them hot days ;) I guess I should meantion, I am running a Noctua D14, generaly speaking it will be more quiet cause its fan speed is allways low, I suppose I could max out tha fans and have lower or same temps at a 5.0ghz overclock, but that's not what its about.. I think u will find if u overclock, u will need to ramp up tha fan speed on that coolermaster and no longer is it as quiet as u expected.. Same with tha closed loop liquid coolers, they don't prefrom as well as tha highest end air coolers on a noise to perform ratio, however they can prefrom slightly better with tha noise then air..

Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: peter.mitchell on April 19, 2013, 05:56:55 pm
Yeah, Noctua has some good parts, their colour scheme may not be to everyones tastes, but they perform damn well!

Damn it is getting hard to not to say what's in the box.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: Toque on April 19, 2013, 06:02:03 pm
Yeah, Noctua has some good parts, their colour scheme may not be to everyones tastes, but they perform damn well!

Yep, Nocua and ThermalRIGHT are tha best stuff out there for air cooling..
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: Toque on April 19, 2013, 06:10:42 pm
Yeah, Noctua has some good parts, their colour scheme may not be to everyones tastes, but they perform damn well!

Damn it is getting hard to not to say what's in the box.

Are u meaning, I giving examples by saying what im running? If u want benchmarks, I can post some ;).. Im sure there is someone reading this that can best mine anyways ;)
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: peter.mitchell on April 19, 2013, 06:15:07 pm
Yeah, Noctua has some good parts, their colour scheme may not be to everyones tastes, but they perform damn well!

Damn it is getting hard to not to say what's in the box.

Are u meaning, I giving examples by saying what im running? If u want benchmarks, I can post some ;).. Im sure there is someone reading this that can best mine anyways ;)
No, not what i mean at all.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: Toque on April 19, 2013, 06:18:54 pm
Yeah, Noctua has some good parts, their colour scheme may not be to everyones tastes, but they perform damn well!

Damn it is getting hard to not to say what's in the box.

Are u meaning, I giving examples by saying what im running? If u want benchmarks, I can post some ;).. Im sure there is someone reading this that can best mine anyways ;)
No, not what i mean at all.

Oh, okay, well here is a couple anyway, maybe usefull to Dave, tha PCMARK7 to see how close he can get percentage wise.. Not sure what ram speed I was running when I did that bench however.. I have tha Gskill 2666mhz kit, however my motherboard isn't good enuf to run over 2400mhz (Asus Sabertooth Z77), Only certain Ivys, I think just tha 3770K and 3570K, will hit over 2800mhz and with a higher end board..

http://www.3dmark.com/pcm7/543728 (http://www.3dmark.com/pcm7/543728)

And tha 3DMARK11
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/6329509 (http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/6329509)
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: EEVblog on April 19, 2013, 06:30:17 pm
I think u will find if u overclock, u will need to ramp up that fan speed on that coolermaster and no longer is it as quiet as u expected..

The link I posted says otherwise. Your suggestion is 0.1dB noisier than the 212 Evo when on high speed.
Yes, you can argue one might not need to switch to high when the other does etc, but the Evo is quieter on both low and high fan speed.
It's starting to split hairs I think.
The Evo was also cheap and in stock.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: Toque on April 19, 2013, 06:36:04 pm
I think u will find if u overclock, u will need to ramp up that fan speed on that coolermaster and no longer is it as quiet as u expected..

The link I posted says otherwise. Your suggestion is 0.1dB noisier than the 212 Evo when on high speed.
Yes, you can argue one might not need to switch to high when the other does etc, but the Evo is quieter on both low and high fan speed.
It's starting to split hairs I think.
The Evo was also cheap and in stock.

Well, true, unless your going for high overclock, then it might mater to ya.. But on a side note, I was just informing ya on how tha coolers fall ;) Im gathering u will be perfectly fine for what your looking to achieve, which prob isn't 4.6ghz, or a system worth twice as much either.. Are u looking to add a SSD for your boot/windows drive? It would make your overall system snappier to use to go along with tha 3770K..


Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: peter.mitchell on April 19, 2013, 06:49:28 pm
I think u will find if u overclock, u will need to ramp up that fan speed on that coolermaster and no longer is it as quiet as u expected..

The link I posted says otherwise. Your suggestion is 0.1dB noisier than the 212 Evo when on high speed.
Yes, you can argue one might not need to switch to high when the other does etc, but the Evo is quieter on both low and high fan speed.
It's starting to split hairs I think.
The Evo was also cheap and in stock.

Well, true, unless your going for high overclock, then it might mater to ya.. But on a side note, I was just informing ya on how tha coolers fall ;) Im gathering u will be perfectly fine for what your looking to achieve, which prob isn't 4.6ghz, or a system worth twice as much either.. Are u looking to add a SSD for your boot/windows drive? It would make your overall system snappier to use to go along with tha 3770K..

He has a SSD he *might* put in, but it doesn't matter to him because it doesn't affect rendering speed, this is already stated in the thread.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: Toque on April 19, 2013, 06:53:21 pm
I think u will find if u overclock, u will need to ramp up that fan speed on that coolermaster and no longer is it as quiet as u expected..

The link I posted says otherwise. Your suggestion is 0.1dB noisier than the 212 Evo when on high speed.
Yes, you can argue one might not need to switch to high when the other does etc, but the Evo is quieter on both low and high fan speed.
It's starting to split hairs I think.
The Evo was also cheap and in stock.

Well, true, unless your going for high overclock, then it might mater to ya.. But on a side note, I was just informing ya on how tha coolers fall ;) Im gathering u will be perfectly fine for what your looking to achieve, which prob isn't 4.6ghz, or a system worth twice as much either.. Are u looking to add a SSD for your boot/windows drive? It would make your overall system snappier to use to go along with tha 3770K..

He has a SSD he *might* put in, but it doesn't matter to him because it doesn't affect rendering speed, this is already stated in the thread.

Right, I understand he is going for rendering speed, but overall system general use response is worth something when he is using it to start converts/edits/etc.. Im out for now, catch u guys later..
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: EEVblog on April 19, 2013, 08:23:56 pm
Are u looking to add a SSD for your boot/windows drive? It would make your overall system snappier to use to go along with tha 3770K..

Yes, 128GB Samsung 840 for the boot disk.
I was going to run software RAID for the video hard drive, but I have WD Green drives, and I read they are not good for that due to constantly shutting down.
And the Coolermaster Silencio case has a SATA hot dock anyway, so I figure I'll just run the Segate 7200 2nd video drive, and then backup to individual hard drives kept in separate locations.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: firewalker on April 19, 2013, 08:53:28 pm
Yes, 128GB Samsung 840 for the boot disk.
I was going to run software RAID for the video hard drive, but I have WD Green drives, and I read they are not good for that due to constantly shutting down.

Actually you can change this using a utility from WD. WIDDLE3.

http://support.wdc.com/product/download.asp?groupid=609&sid=113 (http://support.wdc.com/product/download.asp?groupid=609&sid=113)

Alexander.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: Toque on April 20, 2013, 03:45:18 am
Yes, 128GB Samsung 840 for the boot disk.
I was going to run software RAID for the video hard drive, but I have WD Green drives, and I read they are not good for that due to constantly shutting down.

Actually you can change this using a utility from WD. WIDDLE3.

http://support.wdc.com/product/download.asp?groupid=609&sid=113 (http://support.wdc.com/product/download.asp?groupid=609&sid=113)

Alexander.

Yep, its a good idea to adjust head park to 300 seconds no matter what u use them for, for all your green drives, not sure if WD changed this, but first versions for sure wore themselves out just parking all tha time.. U can use tha disable switch if needed as well..
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: ecat on April 21, 2013, 02:14:01 am
In Movie Studio, MainConcept AVC/AAC. No option here for 12Mbps so I tried 10Mbps and 14Mbps

CPU only 4:33 212MB file (10Mpbs I think)
OpenCL 1:27 176MB file (10Mbps)
OpenCL 1:30 246MB file (14Mbps)


I was running a little low on disk space so as a quick fix I converted my 2 disk RAID 1 array to 2 disk RAID 0. The Passmark disk tests indicate a 73% increase in both sequential read and write speeds (R from 137 to 237MB/s, W from 143 to 247MB/s) :), also a 4% decrease in random R/W :(

Since the video processing we are testing here is mostly sequential R/W(?) I thought I'd redo the Dave file tests above and see what this significant increase in speed did for the results.
 
10Mbps 1:26
14Mbps 1:28

So, a gain of 1s and 2s. Not a scientific test by any means but it gives some indication of the role disk speed plays in video conversion, well, these conversions for this one video at least.


Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: justanothercanuck on April 21, 2013, 06:40:25 am
Two disks doesn't make much of an array.  Try a striped mirror, a mirrored stripe, or a 4-disk RAID5.  :-//
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: EEVblog on April 21, 2013, 08:07:56 am
So, a gain of 1s and 2s. Not a scientific test by any means but it gives some indication of the role disk speed plays in video conversion, well, these conversions for this one video at least.

Yep, practically zero difference. Disk speed doesn't really matter.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: Toque on April 21, 2013, 01:40:54 pm
So, a gain of 1s and 2s. Not a scientific test by any means but it gives some indication of the role disk speed plays in video conversion, well, these conversions for this one video at least.

Yep, practically zero difference. Disk speed doesn't really matter.

I know disk speed isnt a major factor in what your doing, but for times when u can use tha extra speed to move files etc it doesnt hurt, as well as a automatic second copy.. RAID10 on tha Intel ICH will make u happy, as u have a boost in speed, as well as a backup set too.. Or if u only plan on using your 2 greens, a RAID1 wouldnt hurt, no speed gain, but a automatic second copy with very next to none preformance hit..

Simply put, disk speed will be nice and kinda maters, for tha times where your cpu isnt maxed out ;)
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: Toque on April 21, 2013, 02:00:22 pm
I just decided todo a maxxmem2 bench on 2 systems here.. First one is a i7-920 no longer overclocked at 2.66ghz, 12GB triple channel 1600mhz ram.. Second is my i7-3770k overclocked to 4.6ghz, 16GB dual channel 2400mhz ram.. Tha 920 got 13.65 GB/sec score at 54.5ns latency, and tha 3770k got 23.45 GB/sec at 44.9ns latency.. Kinda funny as triple channel was tha big deal when I bought tha 920 in November 2008.. Now we are 10 GB/sec faster dual channel..
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: M. András on April 21, 2013, 08:23:53 pm
on the i7 familiy intel did a great job on their memory controller be it dual or triple channel, both over 20gb/s even on my laptop which have a first gen i7 cpu in it, on the new amd cpu-s fx 8xxx series you can get around 16gb/s read and around 12gb/s write with a little tweaking copy is 18gb/s, when you incrase the fsb or cpu speed it can get up to 18gb read/write but thats the limit of the chip with a serious overclock best stats i could find, the geil modules i have 4x8gb 1866mhz reaches 22gb/s read 20gb/s write on an intel i7 2600 cpu, i get 15gb/s read and 11-12gb/s write on my fx8350,
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: Toque on April 22, 2013, 04:34:17 am
on the i7 familiy intel did a great job on their memory controller be it dual or triple channel, both over 20gb/s even on my laptop which have a first gen i7 cpu in it, on the new amd cpu-s fx 8xxx series you can get around 16gb/s read and around 12gb/s write with a little tweaking copy is 18gb/s, when you incrase the fsb or cpu speed it can get up to 18gb read/write but thats the limit of the chip with a serious overclock best stats i could find, the geil modules i have 4x8gb 1866mhz reaches 22gb/s read 20gb/s write on an intel i7 2600 cpu, i get 15gb/s read and 11-12gb/s write on my fx8350,

Are u saying your laptop has more memory bandwith then my i7-920 triple channel as well? If so what model laptop and i7 chip? Or u talking memory read speeds instead of write, my i7-3770k came up as 27809 read speed.. None tha less these i7 cpu are nice, this memory controller tech all started with tha Athlon64, next to tha i7 cpu and of course back when things moved slower, tha Athlon64 would of been tha cpu I used tha longest, it was a great cpu for its time..


Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: firewalker on April 22, 2013, 04:42:12 am
RAID10 on tha Intel ICH will make u happy, as u have a boost in speed, as well as a backup set too..

And what will happen when, for whatever reason, some important files gets deleted and the RAID has started to sync?

Alexander.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: Toque on April 22, 2013, 04:45:04 am
RAID10 on tha Intel ICH will make u happy, as u have a boost in speed, as well as a backup set too..

And what will happen when, for whatever reason, some important files gets deleted and the RAID has started to sync?

Alexander.

Oh, its not a offsite backup, its a quicker scratch with a second copy, of course.. U never use raid as a backup, having your data in one place wont stop, fire, flood, theft, etc, or viruses, file system corruption, accidental stupidity like delete or format, etc.. RAID just covers u for hardware failure, its not normal or often that 2 devices fail at tha exact same time, as well it can give u some extra performance to work with at tha same time, or in tha case of RAID0 just performance when failure isnt as important.. I guess I shouldnt of used tha word "backup" in that case, what I really meant was "second copy" ;)

Tha idea in this case, as for scratch volume, u use it to work with your files, and if any one of tha 4 RAID10 hard drives die, u replace that drive, it will reclone from tha good drive.. U get to enjoy no downtime if needed, no reconsrut of files as per making a new volume from backup, losing what isnt backed up yet, and some extra speed..

Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: BravoV on April 22, 2013, 04:51:20 am
RAID10 on tha Intel ICH will make u happy, as u have a boost in speed, as well as a backup set too..

Raid is not and never will be a backup, you're clearly have no clue on the true meaning of the word "backup".  :palm:

What happened if you delete or overwrite superduperultra important files accidentally, or formatted the drive, though very unlikely but still possible, and other many scenarios that don't need a genius to imagine them.

No raid will able to save you for this kind of disaster.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: firewalker on April 22, 2013, 05:05:20 am
Me to a SysAdmin wannabe: What backup solution do you use?

-I use RAID 1.

We still use it as a joke with my friends.  :P :P :P

RAID. Redundancy, Redundancy, Redundancy.

Alexander.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: BravoV on April 22, 2013, 05:07:44 am
Me to a SysAdmin wannabe: What backup solution do you use?

-I use RAID 1.

We still use it as a joke with my friends.  :P :P :P

RAID. Redundancy, Redundancy, Redundancy.

Alexander.

Oldie but still good one.  :-DD
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: Toque on April 22, 2013, 05:21:42 am
I must be doing something right here when it comes to RAID and BACKUP, I still have all my data from tha two 1.28G quantums I had in my 486DX2-133 system, let alone images of any floppys back to 8088 days ;)

At one time I had tape backup, but im not sure and havent figured out any other cost effective solution to backing up a RAID5 set these days,other then to another another RAID5 set u can move offsite..
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: SeanB on April 22, 2013, 05:37:18 am
I started up 2 HDD's I had from when I started with a 286sx, and 2 of the 3 worked. Copied them over to anotherdrive then put them back in storage. Sad to say the contents of both ( 2 copies of 3) fit in a 512M SD card with room left over, though I have been having fun playing the games on them through dosbox.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: Toque on April 22, 2013, 05:44:08 am
I started up 2 HDD's I had from when I started with a 286sx, and 2 of the 3 worked. Copied them over to anotherdrive then put them back in storage. Sad to say the contents of both ( 2 copies of 3) fit in a 512M SD card with room left over, though I have been having fun playing the games on them through dosbox.

Dosbox is key, thats a awesome piece of work, I never had a gravis ultrasound, I had all tha soundblasters, pro2 8bit, 16bit, awe32, awe64, live, xifi, xifi hd, etc.. It was cool to see how well it worked, I was able to go back and watch demos and play old games with emu gravis sound, etc..
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: Toque on April 22, 2013, 05:51:06 am
We are kinda floating away from key here, we need dave to give us a update on how his system worked out?

Talking about tha heading "Re: I tried a Mac for video editing... ", which I didnt read tha first posts in tha thread yet, but I am gathering tha Mac didnt fair well for some reason, althou at least now there close to fair playing field CPU wise.. I used to laugh when people would tell me there mac did photoshop faster then a P3 1GHZ system, I would would say well maybe u just like tha interface, would it still be faster then a dual P3 1GHZ system, of course they allways thought so.. Needless to say it didnt even come close to a single P3 1GHZ system, back then they were powered by PowerPC cpus and just didnt have tha snuff..
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: firewalker on April 22, 2013, 05:55:04 am
I believe he is waiting for the CPU.

Alexander.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: Toque on April 22, 2013, 06:10:43 am
I believe he is waiting for the CPU.

Alexander.
Oh, thought his local store would of had stock on this one, pretty common CPU these days..
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: M. András on April 22, 2013, 06:52:16 am
on the i7 familiy intel did a great job on their memory controller be it dual or triple channel, both over 20gb/s even on my laptop which have a first gen i7 cpu in it, on the new amd cpu-s fx 8xxx series you can get around 16gb/s read and around 12gb/s write with a little tweaking copy is 18gb/s, when you incrase the fsb or cpu speed it can get up to 18gb read/write but thats the limit of the chip with a serious overclock best stats i could find, the geil modules i have 4x8gb 1866mhz reaches 22gb/s read 20gb/s write on an intel i7 2600 cpu, i get 15gb/s read and 11-12gb/s write on my fx8350,

Are u saying your laptop has more memory bandwith then my i7-920 triple channel as well? If so what model laptop and i7 chip? Or u talking memory read speeds instead of write, my i7-3770k came up as 27809 read speed.. None tha less these i7 cpu are nice, this memory controller tech all started with tha Athlon64, next to tha i7 cpu and of course back when things moved slower, tha Athlon64 would of been tha cpu I used tha longest, it was a great cpu for its time..

its an intel ibex peak-m hm55 chipset+i7 740qm cpu+8gigs of 1333mhz hynix rams, but its fulctuates between 15gb/s and 20 depending on the state of the os and the overall temp of the laptop, best what i measured when it was new the above stated numbers
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: Toque on April 22, 2013, 07:03:22 am
on the i7 familiy intel did a great job on their memory controller be it dual or triple channel, both over 20gb/s even on my laptop which have a first gen i7 cpu in it, on the new amd cpu-s fx 8xxx series you can get around 16gb/s read and around 12gb/s write with a little tweaking copy is 18gb/s, when you incrase the fsb or cpu speed it can get up to 18gb read/write but thats the limit of the chip with a serious overclock best stats i could find, the geil modules i have 4x8gb 1866mhz reaches 22gb/s read 20gb/s write on an intel i7 2600 cpu, i get 15gb/s read and 11-12gb/s write on my fx8350,

Are u saying your laptop has more memory bandwith then my i7-920 triple channel as well? If so what model laptop and i7 chip? Or u talking memory read speeds instead of write, my i7-3770k came up as 27809 read speed.. None tha less these i7 cpu are nice, this memory controller tech all started with tha Athlon64, next to tha i7 cpu and of course back when things moved slower, tha Athlon64 would of been tha cpu I used tha longest, it was a great cpu for its time..

its an intel ibex peak-m hm55 chipset+i7 740qm cpu+8gigs of 1333mhz hynix rams, but its fulctuates between 15gb/s and 20 depending on the state of the os and the overall temp of the laptop, best what i measured when it was new the above stated numbers

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Mobile-Processors-Benchmarklist.2436.0.html (http://www.notebookcheck.net/Mobile-Processors-Benchmarklist.2436.0.html)
So, Number 74 on tha list hey, thats not too bad for a laptop..
My Desktop, 3770k overclocked, comes in at 2.5 on that list, I guess around a 3930k not overclocked for multithread, I get Cinebench R11.5 64Bit of 9.33.. My laptop is a acer I got for cheap, I come in at 224 on that list, I dont use it much, so I havent bothered to upgrade it, prefer tha desktop..

A dual Intel Xeon E5-2680 overclocked would sure be a nice system, quite a few bucks thou ;)

Intel Xeon E5-2620 Sandy Bridge-EP 2.0GHz (2.5GHz Turbo Boost) 15MB L3 Cache LGA 2011 95W Six-Core Server Processor BX80621E52620
Wonder how high one could overclock this bad boy, there only around $400 a cpu.. I will have to look into it to see if its worth it, its only a 15mb cache instead of tha 20mb, those start around $1200.00..
Well quick search revealed what I thought, just a bclk overlcock only, not much..
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: EEVblog on April 22, 2013, 08:15:44 am
Oh, thought his local store would of had stock on this one, pretty common CPU these days..

Yes, I thought it would be their most popular CPU. Was surprised they didn't have it. Everything else they had in-stock at one of their stores, even the case which isn't listed on their website.
Still waiting, won't be in until at least tomorrow at best.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: Monkeh on April 22, 2013, 08:22:58 am
Oh, and I just read your post above, u don't wanta do software raid, tha ICH inside Z77 is very very powerfull for a chipset, u can do RAID 0,1 or 10 just fine, but not RAID5.. I am running RAID0, 2x Plex M5P256 as my boot volume on Z77 ICH, and getting 1100 MB/s.. Also running some old 4x 500G WD hardrives in RAID10 as my Scratch volume, don't have to worry about losing any fresh downloads etc :), think im getting around 125 MB/s average on that volume, didn't bother to test it..

Spoiler: You're using software RAID.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: Toque on April 22, 2013, 08:38:19 am
Oh, thought his local store would of had stock on this one, pretty common CPU these days..

Yes, I thought it would be their most popular CPU. Was surprised they didn't have it. Everything else they had in-stock at one of their stores, even the case which isn't listed on their website.
Still waiting, won't be in until at least tomorrow at best.

Dave, Im starting to think for tha tasks your doing, u should of blessed yourself with a 3960x overlcocked, knock another 5 or 10 min of processing a video, after all a few rigol scopes, some of which are pretty pricey ;) Why save tha money ;)
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: Toque on April 22, 2013, 08:41:47 am
Oh, and I just read your post above, u don't wanta do software raid, tha ICH inside Z77 is very very powerfull for a chipset, u can do RAID 0,1 or 10 just fine, but not RAID5.. I am running RAID0, 2x Plex M5P256 as my boot volume on Z77 ICH, and getting 1100 MB/s.. Also running some old 4x 500G WD hardrives in RAID10 as my Scratch volume, don't have to worry about losing any fresh downloads etc :), think im getting around 125 MB/s average on that volume, didn't bother to test it..

Spoiler: You're using software RAID.

Not really, it uses host cpu cycles yes, but its assisted, and there is no software layer u need to apply, u can boot to dos and access tha volume (of course given that its a acceptable dos filesystem and size, number of drives wont mater).. Software raid is one thing, Host based/assisted or sometimes called fakeraid is another, and a full hardware raid another.. I used to have a scsi card, a jazz drive (tha removable hd platters, which was scsi interface), and a 8x scsi cdrom burner.. THAT was a full HARDWARE solution, I could reboot tha machine (as long as I didnt do a full bus reset on tha motherboard, via tha reset switch), and my burning to tha cd, or copying files from tha cd to tha jazz drive would finish well I was playing games in dos ;)

Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: alm on April 22, 2013, 08:48:35 am
Within Windows (or whatever other OS you run), a mass storage driver is responsible for RAID operation. This is your software layer. The BIOS also implements the RAID driver, allowing the boot loader and dump OSes like DOS to access the RAID array.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: Toque on April 22, 2013, 08:59:40 am
Within Windows (or whatever other OS you run), a mass storage driver is responsible for RAID operation. This is your software layer. The BIOS also implements the RAID driver, allowing the boot loader and dump OSes like DOS to access the RAID array.
Just because u install a driver, doesnt make it software raid, take a highpoint 2320 for example, that is host based, but all raid5 parity cal are assisted by chips on tha raid card.. How else would that card write up to 300MB/s to a RAID5 using 5% of your cpu here and there?

Software raid would be when u take JBOD drives, and use windows and your cpu to control/access/calculate tha RAID.. Host based is a different idea..
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: Monkeh on April 22, 2013, 09:04:29 am
So, you want to explain why the device acts like a perfectly ordinary AHCI controller with discrete drives?
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: Toque on April 22, 2013, 09:06:42 am
So, you want to explain why the device acts like a perfectly ordinary AHCI controller with discrete drives?

Because its host based, same with some printers, there host based and without a 64 bit driver avl, u cant print to them period in a 64bit os (I suppose u could vitual machine 32bit to use tha host based driver)..
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: Monkeh on April 22, 2013, 09:08:09 am
So, you want to explain why the device acts like a perfectly ordinary AHCI controller with discrete drives?

Because its host based, same with some printers, there host based and without a 64 bit driver avl, u cant print to them period in a 64bit os (I suppose u could vitual machine 32bit to use tha host based driver)..

.. So, you want to explain how it's 'assisted' when it's just an AHCI device?
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: Toque on April 22, 2013, 09:14:20 am
So, you want to explain why the device acts like a perfectly ordinary AHCI controller with discrete drives?

Because its host based, same with some printers, there host based and without a 64 bit driver avl, u cant print to them period in a 64bit os (I suppose u could vitual machine 32bit to use tha host based driver)..

.. So, you want to explain how it's 'assisted' when it's just an AHCI device?

I could google things for you, but I will let you figure it out.. More or less once youve made some RAID5 volumes, between software raid, host based, and full hardware, u would see tha differences, ive done this myself plenty of times.. And for sake of discussion on this, even a full hardware raid card requires a driver to use it in tha system :)
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: Monkeh on April 22, 2013, 09:15:34 am
So, you want to explain why the device acts like a perfectly ordinary AHCI controller with discrete drives?

Because its host based, same with some printers, there host based and without a 64 bit driver avl, u cant print to them period in a 64bit os (I suppose u could vitual machine 32bit to use tha host based driver)..

.. So, you want to explain how it's 'assisted' when it's just an AHCI device?

I could google things for you, but I will let you figure it out.. More or less once youve made some RAID5 volumes, between software raid, host based, and full hardware, u would see tha differences, ive done this myself plenty of times..

How about you provide some evidence to back your claims?

Code would be really nice.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: Toque on April 22, 2013, 09:22:52 am
So, you want to explain why the device acts like a perfectly ordinary AHCI controller with discrete drives?

Because its host based, same with some printers, there host based and without a 64 bit driver avl, u cant print to them period in a 64bit os (I suppose u could vitual machine 32bit to use tha host based driver)..

.. So, you want to explain how it's 'assisted' when it's just an AHCI device?

I could google things for you, but I will let you figure it out.. More or less once youve made some RAID5 volumes, between software raid, host based, and full hardware, u would see tha differences, ive done this myself plenty of times..

How about you provide some evidence to back your claims?

Code would be really nice.

Maybe later, if im wrong, then im wrong, however I must have some idea on how it works, as ive done it.. U could allways explain were im wrong, and why it works how it does according to tha correct information u find..
 
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: Monkeh on April 22, 2013, 09:26:17 am
Maybe later, if im wrong, then im wrong, however I must have some idea on how it works, as ive done it..

I use 'Matrix RAID', too. And if there were any serious, useful hardware offloading done.. Intel would probably document it. But they don't.

It's just software RAID. The firmware only handles stupid things like bootloaders and DOS. Once Windows boots, the driver figures out the array from the headers on the drives and assembles it like any other software RAID solution.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: Toque on April 22, 2013, 09:29:02 am
Maybe later, if im wrong, then im wrong, however I must have some idea on how it works, as ive done it..

I use 'Matrix RAID', too. And if there were any serious, useful hardware offloading done.. Intel would probably document it. But they don't.

It's just software RAID. The firmware only handles stupid things like bootloaders and DOS. Once Windows boots, the driver figures out the array from the headers on the drives and assembles it like any other software RAID solution.

Okay, if thats tha case, and there is 0% assist, its still a layer applied at tha hardware level regardless which is kinda nice and tight, u dont have to worry about software getting messed and losing or having problems with your raid etc, and heck, u can take a drive set from ICH5 and plug it into ICH8 and they work, kinda nice..
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: Monkeh on April 22, 2013, 09:31:00 am
Okay, if thats tha case, and there is 0% assist, its still a layer applied at tha hardware level regardless which is kinda nice and tight, u dont have to worry about software getting messed and losing or having problems with your raid etc, and heck, u can take a drive set from ICH5 and plug it into ICH8 and they work, kinda nice..

Actually, the firmware has been known to go nuts and delete arrays for no reason. My OS doesn't do that. It will also pretend the array is unsupportable if you upgrade the firmware, even though it's perfectly functional. Still works once in the OS, though, funny that.

I can take any array from a Matrix RAID setup and plug it into.. ANY controller and access the array. Probably not from Windows, though.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: Toque on April 22, 2013, 09:47:36 am
Okay, if thats tha case, and there is 0% assist, its still a layer applied at tha hardware level regardless which is kinda nice and tight, u dont have to worry about software getting messed and losing or having problems with your raid etc, and heck, u can take a drive set from ICH5 and plug it into ICH8 and they work, kinda nice..

Actually, the firmware has been known to go nuts and delete arrays for no reason. My OS doesn't do that. It will also pretend the array is unsupportable if you upgrade the firmware, even though it's perfectly functional. Still works once in the OS, though, funny that.

I can take any array from a Matrix RAID setup and plug it into.. ANY controller and access the array. Probably not from Windows, though.

Well, ya, i remmber some troubles, were tha firmware version had a bug, and update a patch bug out, ya u will get undesired results.. U are saying ANY controller, ive never tried that, so I can take my Intel RAID0, and move it to a SIL3132 card in another machine? Somehow I am not gathering that should work, esp with matrix volumes and such other controllers would be confused..
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: Monkeh on April 22, 2013, 09:49:02 am
Well, ya, i remmber some troubles, were tha firmware version had a bug, and update a patch bug out, ya u will get undesired results.. U are saying ANY controller, ive never tried that, so I can take my Intel RAID0, and move it to a SIL3132 card in another machine?

Sure, but it probably won't work in Windows.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: Toque on April 22, 2013, 09:52:32 am
Well, ya, i remmber some troubles, were tha firmware version had a bug, and update a patch bug out, ya u will get undesired results.. U are saying ANY controller, ive never tried that, so I can take my Intel RAID0, and move it to a SIL3132 card in another machine?

Sure, but it probably won't work in Windows.

I havent researched it, but just kinda had tha idea in my mind that there is no header/etc standard for raid volumes, and each type of controller would have there own marks as such..
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: Monkeh on April 22, 2013, 09:58:35 am
Well, ya, i remmber some troubles, were tha firmware version had a bug, and update a patch bug out, ya u will get undesired results.. U are saying ANY controller, ive never tried that, so I can take my Intel RAID0, and move it to a SIL3132 card in another machine?

Sure, but it probably won't work in Windows.

I havent researched it, but just kinda had tha idea in my mind that there is no header/etc standard for raid volumes, and each type of controller would have there own marks as such..

Nothing to do with the controller: It's software RAID. If you run an OS which doesn't require a vendor supplied driver (ie. NOT WINDOWS) which supports the array, you can access it just fine with it plugged into any old controller. Intel use a standard, well supported header, so with a Linux or BSD system, at the very least (Can't speak for others) you can access an Intel Matrix RAID array from any controller. I'm pretty much certain it won't work from Windows, because the Intel driver will only install and run when you have a supported chipset.

There's also DDF, but I don't know who (if anyone) actually uses it.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: Toque on April 22, 2013, 10:06:10 am
Well, ya, i remmber some troubles, were tha firmware version had a bug, and update a patch bug out, ya u will get undesired results.. U are saying ANY controller, ive never tried that, so I can take my Intel RAID0, and move it to a SIL3132 card in another machine?

Sure, but it probably won't work in Windows.

I havent researched it, but just kinda had tha idea in my mind that there is no header/etc standard for raid volumes, and each type of controller would have there own marks as such..

Nothing to do with the controller: It's software RAID. If you run an OS which doesn't require a vendor supplied driver (ie. NOT WINDOWS) which supports the array, you can access it just fine with it plugged into any old controller. Intel use a standard, well supported header, so with a Linux or BSD system, at the very least (Can't speak for others) you can access an Intel Matrix RAID array from any controller. I'm pretty much certain it won't work from Windows, because the Intel driver will only install and run when you have a supported chipset.

There's also DDF, but I don't know who (if anyone) actually uses it.

Okay, I will have to try it sometime.. However with a quick search I am seeing host based and software RAID grouped into tha same cat, but to me its something different, as a card thats not a full hardware solution can still really do alot of tha work, were as a pure based software solution your left with a taxed cpu depending on tha complex of tha RAID volumes involved, and RAID5 isnt any walk in tha park, but yet a card like tha Highpoint 2320 can handle that one task of parity just fine..

For example, a RAID5 volume on Intel ICH will get ya oh somewhere in tha neighborhood of 20-30MB/s writes on ICH7 or greater, maybe 5-10MB/s writes on SIL3132 or something, but up to 300 MB/s write on Highpoint 2320.. There is a difference, yet tha Highpoint 2320 is host based, and doesnt do anything with tha raid set until tha driver is loaded ;) And its not a bus/bandwith problem, as I can get 1100 MB/s on a RAID0 volume on ICH7 ;)
Sorry, I guess I mean ICH10R or something, so many versions of tha same idea, is it ICH10R in Z77 chipset ;)
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: Monkeh on April 22, 2013, 10:11:36 am
However with a quick search I am seeing host based and software RAID grouped into tha same cat, but to me its something different

I'm sure, but the reality is that Intel 'host based' RAID does not do anything in the hardware. If it does, they haven't bother letting anyone use it on a non-Windows platform, which is both stupid and not like Intel.

Quote
For example, a RAID5 volume on Intel ICH will get ya oh somewhere in tha neighborhood of 20-30MB/s writes on ICH7 or greater

Nice low numbers, there.. I can pour >100MB/s into my software RAID-5 on this machine, and it's bottlenecked by old drives.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: Toque on April 22, 2013, 10:22:53 am
However with a quick search I am seeing host based and software RAID grouped into tha same cat, but to me its something different

I'm sure, but the reality is that Intel 'host based' RAID does not do anything in the hardware. If it does, they haven't bother letting anyone use it on a non-Windows platform, which is both stupid and not like Intel.

Quote
For example, a RAID5 volume on Intel ICH will get ya oh somewhere in tha neighborhood of 20-30MB/s writes on ICH7 or greater

Nice low numbers, there.. I can pour >100MB/s into my software RAID-5 on this machine, and it's bottlenecked by old drives.

Well im not lieing to ya, I tried, figuring dam well I was wasting my time, to make a 4 drive RAID5 set when I bought this Z77 motherboard, I didnt get no 100MB/s writes, oh ya reads are fine, but ICH just isnt powerfull enuff to cal tha parity writes.. If I remmber correctly it was like 30 MB/s or something.. OH well, my RAID5 volumes are all handled by tha Highpoint 4520 I bought, it has a 900MHZ Marvell 88RC9580 chip to handle all tha parity cal, and SAS 6G, 128 devices with expander.. Its a full hardware solution, and I can create and initialize RAID5 volumes right in its bios, and watch them happen there, go play some dos games, reboot and see were tha volumes at, no drivers needed, no os needed..
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: Toque on April 22, 2013, 10:56:20 am
There I did a quick benchmark for ya, its a 8 x 1TB seagate/wd drive mix, so RAID5 on tha Highpoint 4520, 8 drives, 7TB unformated space, more then 6TB formated..

Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: Monkeh on April 22, 2013, 10:59:56 am
You wrote 256MB to a controller with a 512MB buffer..
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: Toque on April 22, 2013, 11:03:06 am
You wrote 256MB to a controller with a 512MB buffer..
Never even thought really, okay so u want me todo twice its buffer size, or what settings? I will rerun it here..
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: Monkeh on April 22, 2013, 11:03:38 am
You wrote 256MB to a controller with a 512MB buffer..
Never even thought really, okay so u want me todo twice its buffer size, or what settings? I will rerun it here..

Try a proper sustained write, for starters. 8GB+.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: Toque on April 22, 2013, 11:16:49 am
Well, that test only had up to 2GB in tha drop box, so 2GB transfers it was, seemed to drop tha reads, not writes so much.. I also attached tha HDTach test on tha same RAID5 volume..
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: Monkeh on April 22, 2013, 11:19:40 am
I still don't think it's doing a sustained write.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: Toque on April 22, 2013, 11:28:27 am
I still don't think it's doing a sustained write.

I wouldnt see why not, there is 900mhz chip at tap.. Looks to me like its doing about 50MB/s write and 80MB/s read per drive, and these are older slower sata2 drives, with new drives should be possible to double those numbers, or at least write anyways, I think tha max bandwith available thru tha ports is 2400MB/s, not sure thru tha chip, I read somehere that its a full sata2 chip with sata3 emulation, meaning it will link to sata3 drives, but tha max bandwith over 4 drives is still sata 3Gx4, so u could only use 2 drives per port at full sata 6G speeds, but no mechanical hard drives get over 300MB/s anywayz..
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: Monkeh on April 22, 2013, 11:29:24 am
I still don't think it's doing a sustained write.

I wouldnt see why not, there is 900mhz chip at tap..

... Perhaps because it's doing overlapping I/O with varying transfer sizes?
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: Toque on April 22, 2013, 11:36:52 am
I still don't think it's doing a sustained write.

I wouldnt see why not, there is 900mhz chip at tap..

... Perhaps because it's doing overlapping I/O with varying transfer sizes?

No, its set to 512/64K, on tha RAID5 volume anywayz, unless u mean something with tha test program..
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: Monkeh on April 22, 2013, 11:37:27 am
I still don't think it's doing a sustained write.

I wouldnt see why not, there is 900mhz chip at tap..

... Perhaps because it's doing overlapping I/O with varying transfer sizes?

No, its set to 512/64K

I give up.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: Toque on April 22, 2013, 11:39:33 am
I still don't think it's doing a sustained write.

I wouldnt see why not, there is 900mhz chip at tap..

... Perhaps because it's doing overlapping I/O with varying transfer sizes?

No, its set to 512/64K

I give up.

Nothing wrong with those results anywayz, it works good, I have copied files from one RAID5 volume to another RAID5 volume at like 360MB/s before in windows, never really played that close of attention to tha speeds.. Its also going thru a intel 24port expander board, but only one channel from tha RAID card is hooked up atm..
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: Toque on April 24, 2013, 11:21:04 am
Oh great, I think I killed tha thread ;).. How long Dave until u expect to be able to bulid your beast?
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: EEVblog on April 24, 2013, 11:24:48 am
Oh great, I think I killed tha thread ;).. How long Dave until u expect to be able to bulid your beast?

About to start building it right now...
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: EEVblog on April 24, 2013, 06:05:38 pm
New machine is setup and working.
52 seconds on the Handbrake test video file I've been using here. That's at least double the speed on my old machine.
Winner!  :-+
That's the only test so far, still have to setup everything on the machine.
And that time is a stock install of everything, no tweaking, no overclocking.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: ecat on April 24, 2013, 06:41:21 pm
Yay

Typical British reserve showing through there. I'll try harder...

<trying>

Double Yay :)

Twice as fast. Nice.
I await with baited breath the times with cpu and gpu, if gpu is possible with your work flow.
 
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: firewalker on April 24, 2013, 06:47:05 pm
Noise level, power consumption?

Alexander.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: EEVblog on April 24, 2013, 06:52:25 pm
Noise level, power consumption?

Very low noise, practically background in my lab. Wouldn't be able to measure it there.
But hae not have the fans speed up yet.
Could be made lower though.

Power is about 50W idle with internal graphics, 0.4W standby.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: EEVblog on April 24, 2013, 09:45:33 pm
Some quick tests in Sony Movie Studio rendering.
Albeit while copying my entire hard drive from notebook to new desktop (HDD) in the background!
Reading and writing to my SSD, rendering a 10 minute .MTS clip from the camera to 12Mbps Sony AVC file.
- CPU only about 11min
- GPU acceleration (Intel HD4000 in the i7) about 10min (real time)
- Intel QSV (Quality) about 12min
- Intel QSV (Speed) about 10 min

So that's basically on par with my old notebook. No real major speed improvement in Sony.
Although the hard drive copying could play a part, but the CPU cores aren't being maxed out, and Handbrake is about the same as before the file copy.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: Ed.Kloonk on April 25, 2013, 12:31:46 am
Noise level, power consumption?

Very low noise, practically background in my lab. Wouldn't be able to measure it there.
But hae not have the fans speed up yet.
Could be made lower though.

Power is about 50W idle with internal graphics, 0.4W standby.

 :--

Wont keep your feet warm at all.

 %-B
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: ecat on April 25, 2013, 03:05:34 pm
Some quick tests in Sony Movie Studio rendering.
Albeit while copying my entire hard drive from notebook to new desktop (HDD) in the background!
Reading and writing to my SSD, rendering a 10 minute .MTS clip from the camera to 12Mbps Sony AVC file.
- CPU only about 11min
- GPU acceleration (Intel HD4000 in the i7) about 10min (real time)
- Intel QSV (Quality) about 12min
- Intel QSV (Speed) about 10 min

So that's basically on par with my old notebook. No real major speed improvement in Sony.
Although the hard drive copying could play a part, but the CPU cores aren't being maxed out, and Handbrake is about the same as before the file copy.

Don't suppose you could try MainConcept AVC/AAC @ 10Mbps and 14Mpbs both with and without that fancy video card that Sagan liked so much?
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: EEVblog on April 25, 2013, 03:10:50 pm
Don't suppose you could try MainConcept AVC/AAC @ 10Mbps and 14Mpbs both with and without that fancy video card that Sagan liked so much?

Yep, will be trying those again for sure.
The video card will certainly get a trial.
About to edit my (long) build video on the new machine. Have now switched over from the notebook, and have a naked machine. Feels like cleaning your workbench...
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: EEVblog on April 25, 2013, 07:22:41 pm
Damn, the new machines gives me an error a few minutes into rendering using the Sony AVC encoder. Not happy  :--
Trying the Main Concept one (which is a fair bit slower than real time) now on my latest 60min video.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: Toque on April 25, 2013, 07:26:23 pm
Damn, the new machines gives me an error a few minutes into rendering using the Sony AVC encoder. Not happy  :--
Trying the Main Concept one (which is a fair bit slower than real time) now on my latest 60min video.

Whats tha error? Software issue, or something hardware not seem right?
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: EEVblog on April 25, 2013, 07:26:35 pm
With the integrated graphics (HD 4000), power consumption is 50W in idle mode, 70W during video editing/playback, and 140W during rendering in Sony which pegs all 8 cores at about 90%

CPU temp is 45C after 8 minutes of rendering, at 1200rpm CPU fan speed. (Coolermaster EVo 212 heatsink)
Can barely hear it, almost ambient noise level.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: EEVblog on April 25, 2013, 07:31:40 pm
Whats tha error? Software issue, or something hardware not seem right?

Unknown software error in Sony.
I strongly suspect it's a video driver conflict. I've seen this before with a dodgy ATI driver.
Will have to install the Radeon card and try that.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: Toque on April 25, 2013, 07:32:11 pm
With the integrated graphics (HD 4000), power consumption is 50W in idle mode, 70W during video editing/playback, and 140W during rendering in Sony which pegs all 8 cores at about 90%

CPU temp is 45C after 8 minutes of rendering, at 1200rpm CPU fan speed. (Coolermaster EVo 212 heatsink)
Can barely hear it, almost ambient noise level.
Right on, if u dont clock over like 4.3ghz, u should be able to stay aomthing like under 60-65c I think.. 4.3ghz is pretty easy on that cpu.. Considering its turbo is 3.9ghz, tha idea is to get all cores running at 4.3ghz, which turbo doesnt do..
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: Toque on April 25, 2013, 07:37:59 pm
Whats tha error? Software issue, or something hardware not seem right?

Unknown software error in Sony.
I strongly suspect it's a video driver conflict. I've seen this before with a dodgy ATI driver.
Will have to install the Radeon card and try that.

If u want to trash it abit and see if its stable in general, try OCCT.. http://www.ocbase.com/, (http://www.ocbase.com/,) if u can run 30 minutes of each test on that without tha test stopping at all, your prob good hardware wise, any other problems would be software/driver related.. Mind u that test doesnt cover doggy storage subsystems of course, but u know what I mean..
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: EEVblog on April 25, 2013, 07:40:36 pm
Core temp varies depending upon which program I use. Teh officia ASUS one shows 47C, but CoreTemp shows over 70C
Heatsink is barely warm to the touch after 25min.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: EEVblog on April 25, 2013, 07:42:00 pm
Right on, if u dont clock over like 4.3ghz, u should be able to stay aomthing like under 60-65c I think.. 4.3ghz is pretty easy on that cpu.. Considering its turbo is 3.9ghz, tha idea is to get all cores running at 4.3ghz, which turbo doesnt do..

I am not overclocking, just stock 3.5GHz, and peaks at 4.18GHz
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: EEVblog on April 25, 2013, 09:01:54 pm
Rendering a 1hour video using the MainConcept encoder took well over an hour and a half.
Now Handbrake is only doing 36fps on that file at 90%+ on all cores. It was doing over 70fps on my 2 minute Sony codec test file yesterday.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: Toque on April 25, 2013, 10:30:53 pm
Well, I went to run a coretemp to post for ya, and it took down my machine within 3-4 minutes, bsod.. I figured at first it was because I had installed a few drivers without rebooting even thou I was asked to reboot a few times and didnt, plus tha fact I had reinstalled windows like 5 days ago and my machine had been up since, I hadnt even bothered to install tha chipset drivers, however i had installed tha xifi sound driver and was using that without rebooting, etc.. So, I restarted tha machine, installed tha chipset drivers, restarted again, round 2 of occt for a coretemp reading, this time it stopped with a error.. NOW, since I tested this last time, lots has changed, newer driver versions in system, newer bios (with same settings as tested before), etc.. So, into tha bios, decided to change tha voltage to 1.30 manual, instead of 0.140 offset.. Rebooted, ran fine for 20 min, no problems.. Set back to offset, changed it to 0.160, ran occt again, stopped within 10 min.. Set back to manual 1.30 cpu voltage, again it ran fine for 20 min.. Okay, manual instead of offset with this bios version then hey, tryed 1.25, again it stopped, didnt bother with 1.275, said okay, 1.30 it is, again occt ran fine.. With offset of 0.140, I was running under load with occt between 2.80-3.04, changing but mostly sitting at 2.88 volt, but 0.160 didnt fix tha problem.. Bios voltage setting of 1.30, under load in windows shows 1.312 did..

NOW, at 0.140 offset, my max temps where 87, at manual 1.30, they are now 93 apperantly ;) I could get lower temps, but I have asus smartfan on, and my noctura d14 fans are only running around 400 RPM when tha machine is idle, not sure what tha max they run at with this config, but there silent still under load.. 93 will have todo i guess, still leaves 12c till max..

If u take note of my ram timings, yes, there set to tha rated 1333mhz (2666mhz) timings, I choose stable over bothering to play with them to get them stable at lower timings for very little difference performance really, my ram is running at 2400mhz as per motherboard limit, tha 2400mhz kits sell with a 10-12-12-31 timing I think althou.. When I bought tha motherboard and ram, I wasnt aware that only some boards can run higher speeds, and I wanted tha headroom for my overclock anyways, now that I am tha wiser about this and see 27.809G ram thruput at 2400mhz, I would of bought a 2400mhz 32G kit for tha money I spent on a 2666mhz 16G kit ;)


Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: hans on April 26, 2013, 01:33:09 am
Core temp varies depending upon which program I use. Teh officia ASUS one shows 47C, but CoreTemp shows over 70C
Heatsink is barely warm to the touch after 25min.

It could be Asus measures socket temp, where other program read the internal diodes.

My temperature is also off. Under load it says 44C. Yeah right. But good enough for temperature controlled fans, only a bit touchy :(

Did you get that Sony error when OC'ed?
If you run an OC you should stress test (burn in) it for hours and hours to verify it's stability.
People tend to use Prime95 for that, but I believe there are newer programs, not too familiar with the latest though.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: M. András on April 26, 2013, 05:21:18 am
btw Dave that cpu has no true 8 cores, 4 are show cos of the HT of intel processors, new asus boards shows under "cputemp" the actual temp of the socket and the cores show the processor internal readings,
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: EEVblog on April 26, 2013, 03:51:42 pm
Just plugged in the AMD Radeon card from Pete, it draws 200W in idle! (150W more)
Although I have not installed the correct drivers yet, downloading now, would not autodetect. Using 640x480 mode to post this!

Ok, make that 126W in idle mode with the correct driver. Still 76W more than the integrated chipset!
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: ecat on April 26, 2013, 04:12:42 pm
That will be the extra 2.1 billion transistors all turning the kettle on :)

Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: grumpydoc on April 26, 2013, 05:11:01 pm
Quote
I am not overclocking, just stock 3.5GHz, and peaks at 4.18GHz

You might as well - in fact it's really the only reason to buy the K series processor rather than the multiplier locked version.

I think that you're right to get everything working without overclocking first but once you're happy I'd have thought that something like 4.8GHz would just be a question of dialing in the numbers to the BIOS.

Does the BIOS have an "auto overclock" mode? Might be worth trying if so, but my experience is that they are quite aggressive with the CPU voltages resulting in a hotter processor that you need.

You need an excuse to try out the water cooling anyway..........  ;)
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: M. András on April 26, 2013, 05:14:27 pm
hahh the newer 6 and 7k series goes even below that 70 watts when idle and the intresting thing the top amd card has over 8Tflops!!!! single precision computing power, while i could measure around 120-140Gflops on my 8350 at stock clocks
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: Toque on April 26, 2013, 07:01:24 pm
Just plugged in the AMD Radeon card from Pete, it draws 200W in idle! (150W more)
Although I have not installed the correct drivers yet, downloading now, would not autodetect. Using 640x480 mode to post this!

Ok, make that 126W in idle mode with the correct driver. Still 76W more than the integrated chipset!

Thats kinda funny, but makes sense allthou, Video card draw 3 times tha rest of tha whole system with a gpu at idle :)
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: peter.mitchell on April 26, 2013, 07:35:49 pm
try changing the windows "visual" mode from an aero theme to a "windows 7 basic" or "windows classic" - aero keeps the card in a higher power state, this also applies to integrated but not as much.

Right click on desktop >personalize >basic and high contrast
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: EEVblog on April 26, 2013, 08:33:28 pm
Got an ASUS GTX650 Nvidia card.
Now Moviestudio refuses to register at all, and just locks up at GPU driver initiaisation.
So I have:
an Intel HD4000 that crashes on Sony AVC codec
an AMD Radeon that crashes on startup, and draws a million watts.
an NVIDIA that crashes on startup and won't register

This is beginning to piss me off...

BTW the GTX650 only draws 60-65W total on idle, very nice.
aero makes no difference.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: notsob on April 26, 2013, 09:52:56 pm
Probably a dumb question, but as there are no pictures, have you plugged the extra power connectors into the video cards ?
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: ecat on April 26, 2013, 10:03:27 pm
Got an ASUS GTX650 Nvidia card.
Now Moviestudio refuses to register at all, and just locks up at GPU driver initiaisation.
So I have:
an Intel HD4000 that crashes on Sony AVC codec
an AMD Radeon that crashes on startup, and draws a million watts.
an NVIDIA that crashes on startup and won't register

This is beginning to piss me off...

BTW the GTX650 only draws 60-65W total on idle, very nice.
aero makes no difference.

What version of Windows? (I'll give you a clue here 8 is not a valid answer neither is any version pre-dating Vista. Final clue, Vista is not a valid answer either)

The only Render crash I've had in Movie Studio was due to an out dated driver when using i5 integrated GPU. A new driver from the Intel site made my troubles go away.

The fact that ALL forms of gpu assist are failing makes me suspicious. Maybe worth reaching a stable and up to date AMD or NVIDIA configuration and re-installing SonyMS  :-//

General things to check / be aware that they exist:
6 and/or 8 pin power connector(s) are in place on the GPU - I always forget this one.

Sony MS: Integrated only works with Sony AVC, AMD only works with OpenCL, NVIDIA may work with CUDA or OpenGL.

BIOS: "Initialise Integrated GPU or PCIe first" - the wording certainly changes between BIOS's if you see it you will know
BIOS: "Disable integrated graphics" - personally it was a long time before I trusted that Intel POS and I did not run it and a real gpu at the same time until the tests I did for this thread a week or so ago.

Does your motherboard have the Lucid chip-set? Manual or website should tell you.
1) Disable it - you may temporarily lose integrated gpu support
2) Download and install the latest Lucid Virtu driver from the Lucidlogix site. -Oh, the fun and games I've had with this + Intel pos gpu drivers.

I'm sure there are more to add to the list.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: EEVblog on April 26, 2013, 10:27:34 pm
The other suggestion I have is: Could it be a power supply issue? Do you have another PS to try or an old machine to see what happens?  I don't play in the deep end of the graphics card pool, but from what I have picked up a PCIe slot can provide 75W, a 6pin auxiliary connecter also 75W and an 8pin 150W. What does your card use?

The NVIDIA card is PCI power only.

Quote
I thought you had settled on using the chipset graphics? For power savings, and because the encoding grunt you needed was largely a CPU workload. Did I miss something?

I was going too, but MovieStudio didn't work using the AVC codec.
I thought the NVIDIA card may solve that. Nope. Now it doesn't work at all.
Just tried Sony Vegas Pro trial and it crashes on the AVC codec too.
 |O
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: EEVblog on April 26, 2013, 10:36:58 pm
The fact that ALL forms of gpu assist are failing makes me suspicious. Maybe worth reaching a stable and up to date AMD or NVIDIA configuration and re-installing SonyMS  :-//

Tried that many times, doesn't work. Non of my video card options work - Intel, Nvidia, or AMD

If there isn't a solution here, then I wasted my money. As it stand, the only working workflow (integrated, MainConcept codec) is no quicker than my older machine.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: ecat on April 26, 2013, 10:50:32 pm
Your MB is P8Z77-V LX ?

If so, it does have LucidLogix. On multi gpu configurations this is supposed to provide intelligent switching and allocation of the most suitable gpu resource for the task at hand - those words fill me with dread. There is a control panel "Virtu Control Panel", on my pc it is located in the 'Hidden Icons' list (task bar, right hand side), this control panel has a big fat OFF button, I suggest using it.

My Lucid Virtu driver is version 1.2.114.21767.
My pc ran happily for over a year with this driver uninstalled and the Intel integrated gpu disabled. I've only run with this installed for a week so no real comment to make beyond 'it looks ok'.

The only Windows version I know to be fully compatible with multi gpus is 7. Vista may be ok, it may not, same with Win 8.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: Hobgoblin612 on April 27, 2013, 01:19:05 am
This video explains how to set uo Virtu MVP properly: (its a bit fiddly)

Intel Quick Sync Video Transcoding versus CUDA & CPU Alone NCIX Tech Tips (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvf05jVbPiU#ws)
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: Markybhoy on April 27, 2013, 01:25:53 am
Have you updated all your drivers from the asus support page ?
You could also try updating the bios,  you are on 1201 from the vid and the lastest version is 1801.

http://www.asus.com/Motherboards/P8Z77V_LX/#support_Download (http://www.asus.com/Motherboards/P8Z77V_LX/#support_Download)

Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: EEVblog on April 27, 2013, 01:25:58 am
Your MB is P8Z77-V LX ?
If so, it does have LucidLogix. On multi gpu configurations this is supposed to provide intelligent switching and allocation of the most suitable gpu resource for the task at hand - those words fill me with dread. There is a control panel "Virtu Control Panel", on my pc it is located in the 'Hidden Icons' list (task bar, right hand side), this control panel has a big fat OFF button, I suggest using it.

I don't see any "Virtu Control Panel"
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: EEVblog on April 27, 2013, 01:30:53 am
Have you updated all your drivers from the asus support page ?
You could also try updating the bios,  you are on 1201 from the vid and the lastest version is 1801.
http://www.asus.com/Motherboards/P8Z77V_LX/#support_Download (http://www.asus.com/Motherboards/P8Z77V_LX/#support_Download)

Thanks. Updating now.
The auto update didn't work.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: EEVblog on April 27, 2013, 01:58:38 am
I think I have a solution!
XDCAM output at 35Mbps in Sony Movie Studio works great and is about twice the speed of real time (GPU option seems to slow it down actually).
And handbrake handles the file great.
Need to do more testing tomorrow.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: Hobgoblin612 on April 27, 2013, 02:21:38 am
There are reports that Handbrake will soon support quick sync, so when it does you'll be set.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: BravoV on April 27, 2013, 03:15:21 am
Dave,

I noticed at your latest video you're using the normal Handbrake version, maybe you should try the Hardware Acceleration version.

Fyi, its not final version and there are few warnings mentioned -> Here (https://forum.handbrake.fr/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=26063).

For Windows x64, download the latest -> Here (https://build.handbrake.fr/view/OpenCL/job/CL_Windows_GUI_64bit/)


There are two extra options for hardware decoding support that is not available at normal released version.

(http://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/i-tried-a-mac-for-video-editing/?action=dlattach;attach=45855;image)
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: ve7xen on April 27, 2013, 04:37:02 am
Sigh.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: EEVblog on April 27, 2013, 01:01:16 pm
I noticed at your latest video you're using the normal Handbrake version, maybe you should try the Hardware Acceleration version.
Fyi, its not final version and there are few warnings mentioned -> Here (https://forum.handbrake.fr/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=26063).

Yes, the reason I have not tried is because it's not a stable release. I don't want to have to watch through my entire video to make sure it has no issues.
Also, it only accelerates the pan/crop which I don't do, and the decoding, not the encoding.
But I will try it and see what happens.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: bxs on April 27, 2013, 01:01:56 pm
There are reports that Handbrake will soon support quick sync, so when it does you'll be set.

Not really, if what Dave want is quality, he can't use quick sync, the quality is simple too bad.
Even with the 2º gen of QSV set for quality, it's still a joke in quality terms.

With the Dave's i7, if x264 is set to produce the same quality of QSV, it will be faster than QSV and even produce a smaller encoded file.

QSV is good if you:
- don't want quality
- you want to save electricity
- have a weak CPU and want speed even knowing that output will be a poor
- when you need to encoded for example a stream and cant use the CPU, for example when you are playing a game and are streaming it at the same time.

So, if you have a good CPU, run from QSV  ;)


Dave,

I noticed at your latest video you're using the normal Handbrake version, maybe you should try the Hardware Acceleration version.

Probably will make no difference, it only accelerate things like resize of the video; if you are only transcoding without applying transformations it will not help anything.

Ok it also accelerate the decode of the video with the help of video card, but for what I read, for systems with good CPUs it can make the process even slower...
The thing is that sometimes the video card cant decode the video fast enough to keep feeding the CPU  :-DD , of course, the faster the CPU the worst.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: EEVblog on April 27, 2013, 01:15:16 pm
Ok, a test on my latest dumpster dive video using XDCAM codec 30Mbps full HD VBR on MovieStudio.
8:19 to render my 16:50 video, so that's double real time.
GPU acceleration switched off in Sony, and the codec doesn't have the option anyway.
3.4GB file size

Handbrake did the transcoding in 7:40
110W during that time.

Greater than real-time for my entire workflow. That's a huge increase over my old machine.
And I can't hear a thing during rendering.
Nice  :-+
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: mariush on April 27, 2013, 01:46:22 pm
The latest version of x264 (command line) has added OpenCL support :

http://www.x264.nl (http://www.x264.nl)

You need OpenCL.dll in the same folder as x264.exe and need to enable OpenCL using --opencl flag.

OpenCL lookahead
http://git.videolan.org/gitweb.cgi?p=x264.git;a=commit;h=3a5f6c0aeacfcb21e7853ab4879f23ec8ae5e042 (http://git.videolan.org/gitweb.cgi?p=x264.git;a=commit;h=3a5f6c0aeacfcb21e7853ab4879f23ec8ae5e042)

Quote

OpenCL support is compiled in by default, but must be enabled at runtime by an --opencl command line flag.

When enabled, the lookahead thread is mostly off-loaded to an OpenCL capable GPU device.  Lowres intra cost prediction, lowres motion search (including subpel) and bidir cost predictions are all done on the GPU.  MB-tree and final slice decisions are still done by the CPU.  Presets which do not use a threaded lookahead will not use OpenCL at all (superfast, ultrafast).

Because of data dependencies, the GPU must use an iterative motion search which performs more total work than the CPU would do, so this is not work efficient or power efficient. But if there are spare GPU cycles to spare, it can often speed up the encode. Output quality when OpenCL lookahead is enabled is often very slightly worse in quality than the CPU quality (because of the same data dependencies).

x264 must compile its OpenCL kernels for your device before running them, and in order to avoid doing this every run it caches the compiled kernel binary in a file named x264_lookahead.clbin (--opencl-clbin FNAME to override).  The cache file will be ignored if the device, driver, or OpenCL source are changed.

x264 will use the first GPU device which supports the required cl_image features required by its kernels. Most modern discrete GPUs and all AMD integrated GPUs will work. Intel integrated GPUs (up to IvyBridge) do not support those necessary features. Use --opencl-device N to specify a number of capable GPUs to skip during device detection.


So if you plug that radeon card, you might want to test using MeGUI (when it updates itself to use the new x264) or just straight x264

Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: EEVblog on April 27, 2013, 03:21:10 pm
I enabled XMP in the BIOS which took my DRAM speed up to 1600MHz from 1300MHz, but lowered by boosted clock rate to 3.9GHz, and Sony renders that same video above in 7:50 instead of 8:19
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: EEVblog on April 27, 2013, 03:38:46 pm
Boosted the clock rate to 4.5GHz and started to get errors in Sony and other apps. Dropped back to 4.2GHz and it runs sweet. just over 60degC core temps on all cores according to Core Temp.
Same video test is now 7:12
Same test with GPU acceleration turned on in Sony, was 7:22
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: M. András on April 27, 2013, 07:01:18 pm
you need to add some extra voltage if you boost up to that clockrate, and btw that board vrm are not meant to be used for overclocking, even with heatsinks attached to other boards some peeps manage to fry the mosfets or the driver chips
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: Toque on April 27, 2013, 10:49:28 pm
Boosted the clock rate to 4.5GHz and started to get errors in Sony and other apps. Dropped back to 4.2GHz and it runs sweet. just over 60degC core temps on all cores according to Core Temp.
Same video test is now 7:12
Same test with GPU acceleration turned on in Sony, was 7:22

Dave, did u ever hit a 30 minute run of OCCT like I suggested to check to see if its stable? Remmber in my case I posted a few pages back, I had my machine up for 5 days with no problems, but when I hit it with OCCT it wasnt actually stable.. U never did figure out what your problem before was, u just worked around it, was it really just a software problem, prob not if that same software versions worked fine on your laptop before hand, and those other two video cards should of worked I would think, so where was tha problem? :) Good to see its starting to workout and your happy with tha results allthou..
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: Toque on April 27, 2013, 11:02:08 pm
you need to add some extra voltage if you boost up to that clockrate, and btw that board vrm are not meant to be used for overclocking, even with heatsinks attached to other boards some peeps manage to fry the mosfets or the driver chips

Based on tha fact that tha i5-2500 cpu is a 95w part, I would imagine all LGA1155 boards have a vrm design of at least 100w, i7-3770k is a 77w part, should be a little overclocking headroom on all boards, and a 4.6ghz overclock on that cpu would work out right around tha 100w mark i think.. Now, if u start overvolt/current other chips/parts on tha boards u could be in trouble, if tha either tha chips cant handle it, or tha board cant provide tha power your asking for them, a more expensive board would take those things into account.. If u were going for a extreme overclock, more then 4.6ghz, like 5.2+ghz on phase change or something like that, u would then want a highend board forsure ;) I know thats not allways tha case, like tha AMD problem where tha entry level boards didnt have enuf vrm to handle tha high end cpus, but intel runs a little tighter spec and im sure all 1155 boards are 100w or more.. http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9931070-7.html (http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9931070-7.html)

Now my i7-920 overlcock on LGA1366 is a different story, I never had no problems with tha P6T-Deluxe board, and I took tha 130w chip to around 170w.. Im sure some boards where only designed with 150w in mind, and some people fried things, like pads on there chips, when some of tha sockets werent design for more then 150w current draw and/or didnt connect properly to provide more then 130w draw :)

According to this, if doing extreme, it looks like its still possible to fry your chip/socket even on LGA1155 ;) http://www.techpowerup.com/138604/Socket-Pin-Burnout-Returns-to-Haunt-LGA1155-.html?cp=3 (http://www.techpowerup.com/138604/Socket-Pin-Burnout-Returns-to-Haunt-LGA1155-.html?cp=3)

I used to keep a REALLY tight ship on hardware, its kinda my thing, but these days I miss all kinds of things, as I dont pay attention to it as much or work with it as much.. However I had x58 then I skipped x79, I am thinking of possibly building a new system when this stuff comes out soon, even thou I dont need it, thinking a 4930 on z99 with dual or triple GTX770 and my first water cooled computer not a loop cooler.. I dont even game much, but I like to have tha latest hardware, not like I even needed to go from a i7-920/GTX570 system to i7-3770k/GTX680 either to be honest ;)
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: M. András on April 27, 2013, 11:46:58 pm
based on some posts around on my current cpu, i dare to say it will be way more then 30watt incrase in power consumption if you raise enough voltage for those clocks if on stock a decent waterblock can keep that 8350 around 30 celsius, bring that up to 5ghz if the chip can be stable different batches  reaches different maximum it almost doubles the core temperature so i dare to say it doubles its power consumption too. without a good way to measure via sensors the current draw i cant write facts for sure. and i think the intel cpu behaves the same power consumption  wont be linear as you incrase the clocks
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: Toque on April 28, 2013, 12:30:34 am
based on some posts around on my current cpu, i dare to say it will be way more then 30watt incrase in power consumption if you raise enough voltage for those clocks if on stock a decent waterblock can keep that 8350 around 30 celsius, bring that up to 5ghz if the chip can be stable different batches  reaches different maximum it almost doubles the core temperature so i dare to say it doubles its power consumption too. without a good way to measure via sensors the current draw i cant write facts for sure. and i think the intel cpu behaves the same power consumption  wont be linear as you incrase the clocks

Your correct, its shouldnt really be linear as u put it, but I was just doing a rough estimate.. Clocks and juice needed arent linear.. But, I was close, this datasheet tells us intel designed all LGA1155 to have 95w min power req.. http://rhu004.sma-promail.com/SQLImages/kelmscott/Molex/PDF_Images/987650-5651.PDF (http://rhu004.sma-promail.com/SQLImages/kelmscott/Molex/PDF_Images/987650-5651.PDF)

So that being said, if u grab a $60 board and a i5-2500, overclock like tha dikkens, she might give up tha ghost.. Im out for awhile..


Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: M. András on April 28, 2013, 02:44:04 am
illustration is funny for dekstop pc and workstation in that, a logitech g15 keyboard which i highly doubt everyone will use at a workstation or server
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: l4rtt-1 on April 28, 2013, 02:54:17 am
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130787 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130787)

Buy this video card and add it to your setup. And find out more about using hardware supported encoding with your editing software and Handbrake. I think you can get better results and don't care about the money, you have lots of it, so why be a tight-arse. Hook up 2 monitors to it and you have perfect video editing machine that lasts several years. The whole point was to save time so why not try to maximize the performance to get videos uploaded easier and quicker to Youtube.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: peter.mitchell on April 28, 2013, 04:53:14 am
illustration is funny for dekstop pc and workstation in that, a logitech g15 keyboard which i highly doubt everyone will use at a workstation or server

I wouldn't be so surprised, i know quite a few servers that have obscure mice and keyboard attached as the IT people just use what they have sitting around, and being in that field, some of them are gamers, and some have the associated peripherals lying around. Eg server with a razer/logitech gaming mouse or keyboard.

On a somewhat related note, I have seen secretaries and such using gaming keyboards, and asked why, with them responding "they feel better and doesn't give as bad RSI", generally, they aren't flashy but are mechanical keyboards.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: M. András on April 28, 2013, 07:17:39 am
that g15 arent mechanical. neither of the whole g line of logitech, goddam membranes....

i dont see practical reasons for a high prices mice or keyboard for a server, for daily use i might se but there are better products for that application too
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: EEVblog on April 28, 2013, 08:19:34 am
Buy this video card and add it to your setup. And find out more about using hardware supported encoding with your editing software and Handbrake. I think you can get better results and don't care about the money, you have lots of it, so why be a tight-arse. Hook up 2 monitors to it and you have perfect video editing machine that lasts several years. The whole point was to save time so why not try to maximize the performance to get videos uploaded easier and quicker to Youtube.

I have a GTX650 card, it makes essentially no difference. Yes, I'm using two monitors, that works with the integrated graphics too.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: Toque on April 28, 2013, 10:21:46 am
Buy this video card and add it to your setup. And find out more about using hardware supported encoding with your editing software and Handbrake. I think you can get better results and don't care about the money, you have lots of it, so why be a tight-arse. Hook up 2 monitors to it and you have perfect video editing machine that lasts several years. The whole point was to save time so why not try to maximize the performance to get videos uploaded easier and quicker to Youtube.

I have a GTX650 card, it makes essentially no difference. Yes, I'm using two monitors, that works with the integrated graphics too.
I have yet to watch tha video on your build, looking forward to watching it today
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: Toque on April 28, 2013, 01:03:51 pm
Well, I watched your video, nice system, kinda like tha case ideas there for options etc, in respone to your case comments, back in tha day I used tha old inwin cases, they were most excellent build quailty will double folded 1mm specs steal or whatever they were, solid and clean however those suckers were heavy, inwin still makes great cases but there are so many companys now making better then average to great cases.. Currently im using a Fractal R4, my previous case was a Antec Sonata which I loved and went thru many builds, they dont make tha Sonata's today with tha same quailty of finish, mind u most cases are a cost factor finish these days..

On tha power supply, I found your theorys all wrong given your knowlege on these things, if u think it thru a better power supply will provide u cleaner power, more effecienty (get some of your money back over time, difference between input and output loss, nothing todo with system draw), and a higher life span.. Allthou when u opened that sucker up, I knowtized to things off tha bat, one its definitely built to cost but looks like with quality in mind (thumbs up again for corsair having it built to there awesome spec), caps are either lowest bidder period, or lowest bidder with some subsituding were needed to hopefully lengthin life span.. I have to say thou for tha price, it looks like overall develpoment is top notch, as it looked to me like tha board layout is clean, well done, and minimum component, and not just for cost factor but also reliability.. Im just not sure why u saved a few dollors on this item ;) Something like this sucker is hard to beat all around, there quiet, dependable, 30A 5v rail, etc, http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817139021, (http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817139021,) a 5 year warrenty, and they can be had for 20-30 cheaper then that asking price, not sure what tha VS series or whatever it was costed u, but not sure that was your best place to save a few dollors..
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: 4to20Milliamps on April 28, 2013, 01:12:25 pm
I'd like to see you build another one Dave and then use them as a Rendering farm cluster:

https://www.sas.upenn.edu/computing/mms/parttime/cluster (https://www.sas.upenn.edu/computing/mms/parttime/cluster)

http://cg.tutsplus.com/tutorials/autodesk-maya/an-introduction-to-backburner-and-render-farms/ (http://cg.tutsplus.com/tutorials/autodesk-maya/an-introduction-to-backburner-and-render-farms/)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynebolic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynebolic)



I know.....I'm no help, but it seems like you've reached the limits for a single computer.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: mariush on April 28, 2013, 01:28:11 pm
bla blah

Dude, Dave's in Australia.  Check their prices and be careful not to have a heart attack. He had to pick something cheap and available locally.

That PSU is a standardized OEM CWT design (CWT likes to use that dark green tape on transformers), modified at Corsair's request to save more money by using Aishi and Capxon capacitors and using lower AWG wires and so on. 
Most of the components are UNDER the PCB, what you see above is just the through hole stuff.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: Toque on April 28, 2013, 01:36:09 pm
I'd like to see you build another one Dave and then use them as a Rendering farm cluster:

https://www.sas.upenn.edu/computing/mms/parttime/cluster (https://www.sas.upenn.edu/computing/mms/parttime/cluster)

http://cg.tutsplus.com/tutorials/autodesk-maya/an-introduction-to-backburner-and-render-farms/ (http://cg.tutsplus.com/tutorials/autodesk-maya/an-introduction-to-backburner-and-render-farms/)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynebolic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynebolic)



I know.....I'm no help, but it seems like you've reached the limits for a single computer.

I kinda find it funny that Dave has meantioned he doesnt care about using gpu for rendering power and asked for no comments on tha subject, but yet everyone still meantions it ;) I havent bothered to look into to, but my off tha bad thoughts from what ive seen around are its not really worth it unless your into professional and have just tha right hardware, can someone correct me if im wrong with tha benchmarks to back it up?
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: Toque on April 28, 2013, 01:42:55 pm
bla blah

Dude, Dave's in Australia.  Check their prices and be careful not to have a heart attack. He had to pick something cheap and available locally.

That PSU is a standardized OEM CWT design (CWT likes to use that dark green tape on transformers), modified at Corsair's request to save more money by using Aishi and Capxon capacitors and using lower AWG wires and so on. 
Most of the components are UNDER the PCB, what you see above is just the through hole stuff.

Ya, I had a freind I used to talk to on tha IRC for many years, if I remmber correctly, something like a $500 electronic/computer item here was $700-750 there back in those days.. But after all, not as much a factor when thats tha price there, they must be somewhat use to it, is it still tha same idea? Oh, large amount of surface mount underneath is there? Still a top notch design for that price point/series..
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: mariush on April 28, 2013, 01:53:15 pm
A good video card matters if you edit videos which involve multiple video sequences in the "timeline" that you have to preview a lot, videos overlayed on top of another, doing color corrections (for example, if someone recorded a video in a room full of wood furniture and the lightning made the people's faces orange from the reflection in the wood you want to adjust the colors), applying logos, transitions and special effects, basically doing.

Dave only imports segments he shot with the camera, trims them where needed, at some points maybe adds some text on picture or speeds up the video, all this stuff doesn't involve the video card or using video card doesn't improve things... it's just basic source video decoding and right away back to output format encoding ...

Recommending a 400$ card to improve the encoding speed by 5-10% (from  2 minutes 20 seconds to 2 minutes 10 seconds) is just stupid. You have to know where it's no longer good value for money.
 
LOTR Digital Color Grading Part 1 of 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4zRMLbZZxw#ws)
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: Toque on April 28, 2013, 02:01:11 pm
A good video card matters if you edit videos which involve multiple video sequences in the "timeline" that you have to preview a lot, videos overlayed on top of another, doing color corrections (for example, if someone recorded a video in a room full of wood furniture and the lightning made the people's faces orange from the reflection in the wood you want to adjust the colors), applying logos, transitions and special effects, basically doing.

Dave only imports segments he shot with the camera, trims them where needed, at some points maybe adds some text on picture or speeds up the video, all this stuff doesn't involve the video card or using video card doesn't improve things... it's just basic source video decoding and right away back to output format encoding ...

Recommending a 400$ card to improve the encoding speed by 5-10% (from  2 minutes 20 seconds to 2 minutes 10 seconds) is just stupid. You have to know where it's no longer good value for money.
 
LOTR Digital Color Grading Part 1 of 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4zRMLbZZxw#ws)

Ah, thanks for clearing that up, so more so for closer to/or realtime overlay type stuff, not as healthy for overall encoding speed, makes sense..
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: Toque on April 28, 2013, 03:13:05 pm
So, I bought one of those cooler master T4 cpu coolers, as these new coolermaster seem tobe one of tha best for tha money, got it for $17 as I was paying $5 shipping to get a Netgear GS108 for $24 anyways, thought I would throw it in for a future build, like a AMD A4-5300, impressive cpu/gpu combo for tha moola, that heatsink should easly keep her cool, tha fans that come with tha lower end AMD cpu are horrible, they are coolermaster spec fans I think but at tha best price point possible to box with tha cpus, I have a A10-5800 here that as soon as u moved tha mouse tha fan would scream, horrible, I switched that to this coolermaster for $30 as its in a desktop case, http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16835103177 (http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16835103177)  I put a A4-5300 together for my sister, and used tha A10-5800 cpu cooler with it, that doubled tha amount of heatsink and set tha MSI smart fan stuff and that worked out okay..
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: T4P on April 28, 2013, 05:56:48 pm
I guess I'm a little late to the party, but I wanted to throw in my 2c...  :P

I have an i7 920 and I run it with the stock cooler.  I have no problems with noise or overheating whatsoever, even after running for several hours at full tilt.  My RAID array makes more noise than the processor fan.  :-//
Stock frequency?  ;D I'm using a L5520  :P with a MASSIVE heatsink
(http://cdn.overclock.net/7/71/680x680px-LL-71b274d9_906783_514913878584474_916864072_o.jpeg)
Most of you are using tiny heatsinks compared to mine ... i'm planning to jump in WC'ing as well. Don't know why i'm doing that on a chip that runs 3.6GHz with top 50W power consumption  :-//
Man,
No, not really a good value.

I've reconfigured the i7 3770K build:
http://www.scorptec.com.au/product/45658 (http://www.scorptec.com.au/product/45658)
http://www.scorptec.com.au/product/45270 (http://www.scorptec.com.au/product/45270)
http://www.scorptec.com.au/product/49376 (http://www.scorptec.com.au/product/49376)
http://www.scorptec.com.au/product/44675 (http://www.scorptec.com.au/product/44675)
http://www.scorptec.com.au/product/45304 (http://www.scorptec.com.au/product/45304)
http://www.scorptec.com.au/product/38787 (http://www.scorptec.com.au/product/38787)

$962

It looks good. I'd only change the power supply. Thermaltake is not really known for consistency, they use power supplies from different OEM manufacturers in the same series, or from revision to another, it's a mess.
That power supply is most likely a budget FSP based design from a few years ago. It's probably technologically outdated by now but it would work fine, it will be stable and work with your system, but for how long that's unknown. It's worth spending 10-25$ more for a reliable power supply, you'll be able to reuse the power supply on other systems later on.

You're also not including additional cpu cooler.

The Intel stock coolers are kind of anemic, they don't handle temperature variations well, they ramp up their fan speed quite fast the moment the cpu starts doing something and it can be annoying. In addition, the design is prone to getting full of dust real fast.

AMD stock coolers are more relaxed in this sense and they cool better and use heat pipes (intel stock coolers are just copper die in center and aluminum fins) but they're still somewhat noisy.

I don't agree with the guy that said to go for 4x4 GB memory modules. You don't get more bandwidth with 4 modules, just more heat and if you're overclocking, a tiny bit more risk of not being able to overclock as much.
The ones I recommended and the ones you linked to are LOW PROFILE, so they're work with any third party cooler, have low latency, they're very good. They're a bit more expensive but it's worth it.
Simple solution : BUY SEASONIC. EVERYTHING IS EPIC.
I actually use 4x4 ya know ... they don't waste much heat to begin with (<1W per DIMM)
AMD stock coolers use high RPM 70mm AVC fans that's what  :P Intel uses 92mm fans but the heatsink itself is anemic

Dave, just be careful, QS produces low quality videos but OpenCL (AMD) and CUDA (Nvidia) outputs decent quality videos
If you want a GPU to render for you choose a HD7850, it's got lots of computing horsepower being GCN and if you only have CUDA support it's time to switch to a OpenCL supported program, the speed difference from a GTX650 Ti (Priced similarly) and a 7850 is dramatic
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: peter.mitchell on April 29, 2013, 01:00:38 am
If you want a GPU to render for you choose a HD7850, it's got lots of computing horsepower being GCN and if you only have CUDA support it's time to switch to a OpenCL supported program, the speed difference from a GTX650 Ti (Priced similarly) and a 7850 is dramatic

If you're not concerned too much about power usage, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_AMD_graphics_processing_units#Evergreen_.28HD_5xxx.29_Series (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_AMD_graphics_processing_units#Evergreen_.28HD_5xxx.29_Series) the 5870 is better than the 7850 by a fair margin in rated maximum performance, however, if the GPU isn't under full load than the difference may be negligable.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: T4P on April 29, 2013, 01:07:03 am
If you want a GPU to render for you choose a HD7850, it's got lots of computing horsepower being GCN and if you only have CUDA support it's time to switch to a OpenCL supported program, the speed difference from a GTX650 Ti (Priced similarly) and a 7850 is dramatic

If you're not concerned too much about power usage, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_AMD_graphics_processing_units#Evergreen_.28HD_5xxx.29_Series (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_AMD_graphics_processing_units#Evergreen_.28HD_5xxx.29_Series) the 5870 is better than the 7850 by a fair margin in rated maximum performance, however, if the GPU isn't under full load than the difference may be negligable.
The only thing is that GCN is alot better because it's very efficient at using all the compute horsepower, VLIW5 always had 1 idling section no matter what you were pushing it at therefore it's true compute performance is 4/5
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: 4to20Milliamps on April 29, 2013, 01:41:15 am
I was curious about whether or not my video card (nvidia gtx430, 96 cuda cores, 2gigs ram) would use the cuda cores and speed up rendering.....definitely not.

I used media coder, then handbrake with x264<2 processors only,  and cuda<96 more?

Same results, cuda was a bit slower by a few seconds, so either Nvidia is blowing smoke up everyone's ass or the software isn't using it properly.

Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: T4P on April 29, 2013, 03:11:07 am
I was curious about whether or not my video card (nvidia gtx430, 96 cuda cores, 2gigs ram) would use the cuda cores and speed up rendering.....definitely not.

I used media coder, then handbrake with x264<2 processors only,  and cuda<96 more?

Same results, cuda was a bit slower by a few seconds, so either Nvidia is blowing smoke up everyone's ass or the software isn't using it properly.
I'll say i'll point to your card. What's your CPU? I won't be entirely surprised if your CPU is more powerful than your GPU  :-//
And yes nvidia might also be blowing smoke up everyone's ass
But also GT430 with it's tiny 268.8 Gflops is not possibly what anyone uses for rendering ... and also not optimized. A
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: 4to20Milliamps on April 29, 2013, 03:50:33 am
I was curious about whether or not my video card (nvidia gtx430, 96 cuda cores, 2gigs ram) would use the cuda cores and speed up rendering.....definitely not.

I used media coder, then handbrake with x264<2 processors only,  and cuda<96 more?

Same results, cuda was a bit slower by a few seconds, so either Nvidia is blowing smoke up everyone's ass or the software isn't using it properly.
I'll say i'll point to your card. What's your CPU? I won't be entirely surprised if your CPU is more powerful than your GPU  :-//
And yes nvidia might also be blowing smoke up everyone's ass
But also GT430 with it's tiny 268.8 Gflops is not possibly what anyone uses for rendering ... and also not optimized. A

You're joking right?

It doesn't matter, if I use the cuda cores.......they should help out with rendering.

The fact is I'm not the only person that doesn't see much of an improvement, and certainly not enough to justify spending 700 bucks on a video card that doesn't do what it claims to do.

I'm the patient type so I would just wait for the video to encode, but I can see where this could be a real pain with lots of videos.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: mariush on April 29, 2013, 04:04:01 am
Quote
You're joking right?

It doesn't matter, if I use the cuda cores.......they should help out with rendering.

The fact is I'm not the only person that doesn't see much of an improvement, and certainly not enough to justify spending 700 bucks on a video card that doesn't do what it claims to do.

Actually it does matter.  The gpu clock frequency, the number of cuda cores, the memory throughput, all matter. Data has to be uploaded to the video card, then code runs in parallel on cores, then data has to be retrieved from video card...
If the memory bandwidth is too small or the cuda cores are too weak, the total upload to card + download from card + process time on cores can be more than just processing everything on cpu.

And a lot of stuff that's done in Cuda/OpenCL is actually using dumber algorithms that just take a brute force approach to something but are more suitable for working with lots of cuda cores (splitting image in lots of small chunks and parallelizing stuff), so they actually do more work than the version of algorithm used on cpu.  If the cores are weak, of course it will take more time.

Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: 4to20Milliamps on April 29, 2013, 04:09:02 am
I certainly know how cuda works......what I'm saying is it doesn't work.....at all.

If I encode video with just my processor, then I try it with cuda, there is no appreciable difference.

Why would I buy a high dollar video card when I can just spread the task out to several processors? I'll just buy a top of the line xeon and a 40 dollar video card.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: hans on April 29, 2013, 07:31:07 am
you need to add some extra voltage if you boost up to that clockrate, and btw that board vrm are not meant to be used for overclocking, even with heatsinks attached to other boards some peeps manage to fry the mosfets or the driver chips

Based on tha fact that tha i5-2500 cpu is a 95w part, I would imagine all LGA1155 boards have a vrm design of at least 100w, i7-3770k is a 77w part, should be a little overclocking headroom on all boards, and a 4.6ghz overclock on that cpu would work out right around tha 100w mark i think.. Now, if u start overvolt/current other chips/parts on tha boards u could be in trouble, if tha either tha chips cant handle it, or tha board cant provide tha power your asking for them, a more expensive board would take those things into account.. If u were going for a extreme overclock, more then 4.6ghz, like 5.2+ghz on phase change or something like that, u would then want a highend board forsure ;) I know thats not allways tha case, like tha AMD problem where tha entry level boards didnt have enuf vrm to handle tha high end cpus, but intel runs a little tighter spec and im sure all 1155 boards are 100w or more.. http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9931070-7.html (http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9931070-7.html)

Now my i7-920 overlcock on LGA1366 is a different story, I never had no problems with tha P6T-Deluxe board, and I took tha 130w chip to around 170w.. Im sure some boards where only designed with 150w in mind, and some people fried things, like pads on there chips, when some of tha sockets werent design for more then 150w current draw and/or didnt connect properly to provide more then 130w draw :)

According to this, if doing extreme, it looks like its still possible to fry your chip/socket even on LGA1155 ;) http://www.techpowerup.com/138604/Socket-Pin-Burnout-Returns-to-Haunt-LGA1155-.html?cp=3 (http://www.techpowerup.com/138604/Socket-Pin-Burnout-Returns-to-Haunt-LGA1155-.html?cp=3)

I used to keep a REALLY tight ship on hardware, its kinda my thing, but these days I miss all kinds of things, as I dont pay attention to it as much or work with it as much.. However I had x58 then I skipped x79, I am thinking of possibly building a new system when this stuff comes out soon, even thou I dont need it, thinking a 4930 on z99 with dual or triple GTX770 and my first water cooled computer not a loop cooler.. I dont even game much, but I like to have tha latest hardware, not like I even needed to go from a i7-920/GTX570 system to i7-3770k/GTX680 either to be honest ;)

The Ivy Bridge CPU's run hotter than Sandy Bridge when overclocked, due to the smaller die which has less surface area to evenly spread the heat.
So in that sense, core temperatures increase faster at the same overclock..

However, with good ventilation I don't see how a small overclock can hurt. I wouldn't be jumping at raising voltages straight away. In my experience, my i5 runs 10-15% faster without raising any voltages, nor having anything extreme core temperatures on full load. But it does yield 10% performance improvement. It basically saved me buying the i7 in single core performance..

It's true though that the low-end boards, like the Asus LX version only boasts with "4+1+1" phase design. However the Sandy Bridge consume quite a bit more power , so I do believe there is a little headroom.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: EEVblog on April 29, 2013, 07:57:59 am
Dave, just be careful, QS produces low quality videos but OpenCL (AMD) and CUDA (Nvidia) outputs decent quality videos
If you want a GPU to render for you choose a HD7850, it's got lots of computing horsepower being GCN and if you only have CUDA support it's time to switch to a OpenCL supported program, the speed difference from a GTX650 Ti (Priced similarly) and a 7850 is dramatic

My current workflow is XDCAM output from Sony MovieStudio and Handbrake, neither of which support OpenCL, CUDA, or QSV for encoding acceleration.
So any arguments over GPU acceleration are not relevant at present.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: EEVblog on April 29, 2013, 08:00:14 am
If I encode video with just my processor, then I try it with cuda, there is no appreciable difference.

That has been my experience with the Sony encoders that support both CUDA and OpenCL as well. In some cases it is actually slower to enable GPU acceleration.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: ecat on April 29, 2013, 11:16:06 am
If I encode video with just my processor, then I try it with cuda, there is no appreciable difference.

Then I guess either MediaCoder's support for cuda is poor or cuda has poor support for the required algorithms or you simply have a bloody fast cpu :)

A quick test of MediaCoder - taking care to avoid accidentally installing RealMedia or whatever rubbish comes bundled in the download - gives me CPU only 1:20 on Daves test video with options set to high (1.2Mbps is as good as it gets) and 0:49 using Intel gpu. So again, there is a point where gpu acceleration is worthwhile, unfortunately I cannot test cuda :(

That has been my experience with the Sony encoders that support both CUDA and OpenCL as well. In some cases it is actually slower to enable GPU acceleration.

Just ran DaveTest through XDCAM HQ 1440x1080-24p, 35 Mbps VBR , 2:05.

If you would be so kind as to provide DaveTest numbers for XDCAM, Sony AVC/MVC with and without iGPU (high quality), and MainConcept AVC/ACC with and without OpenCL, then we can add the points to the graph, ponder our bellybuttons and get a good nights sleep :)
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: Toque on April 29, 2013, 02:03:09 pm
I decided to give it a try, I downloaded handbrake, dropped tha file in, set it to CF=22, took 40 seconds here.. Now that was tha EEVblogTestRender2Min22.MTS file, no other settings changed, no script, and I am missing a AVC step in there to have tha right source file?
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: ptricks on April 29, 2013, 10:32:00 pm

Same results, cuda was a bit slower by a few seconds, so either Nvidia is blowing smoke up everyone's ass or the software isn't using it properly.

Cuda can be faster, but for it to be faster it has to have everything in the pipeline just right. I do 3d animation as a hobby and have used the program 3d studio max since its dos version and they have added gpu rendering in the last couple versions. The rendering using the gpu can be faster but it requires compatible textures, compatible options, etc. GPU computing can be faster  but only under strict conditions where the software and hardware were well thought out, it is far from 'plug and play' computing.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: T4P on April 30, 2013, 04:27:22 am
I certainly know how cuda works......what I'm saying is it doesn't work.....at all.

If I encode video with just my processor, then I try it with cuda, there is no appreciable difference.

Why would I buy a high dollar video card when I can just spread the task out to several processors? I'll just buy a top of the line xeon and a 40 dollar video card.
I have a Nehalem Xeon and it's not what it seems ... my GPU is WAYYY faster than my Xeon ever is (even OC'd)

The Ivy Bridge CPU's run hotter than Sandy Bridge when overclocked, due to the smaller die which has less surface area to evenly spread the heat.
So in that sense, core temperatures increase faster at the same overclock..

However, with good ventilation I don't see how a small overclock can hurt. I wouldn't be jumping at raising voltages straight away. In my experience, my i5 runs 10-15% faster without raising any voltages, nor having anything extreme core temperatures on full load. But it does yield 10% performance improvement. It basically saved me buying the i7 in single core performance..

It's true though that the low-end boards, like the Asus LX version only boasts with "4+1+1" phase design. However the Sandy Bridge consume quite a bit more power , so I do believe there is a little headroom.
Nah, IVB is not soldered to the IHS but rather using X23-7783D thermal paste. NOT GOOD AT ALL.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: M. András on April 30, 2013, 06:34:07 am
I was curious about whether or not my video card (nvidia gtx430, 96 cuda cores, 2gigs ram) would use the cuda cores and speed up rendering.....definitely not.

I used media coder, then handbrake with x264<2 processors only,  and cuda<96 more?

Same results, cuda was a bit slower by a few seconds, so either Nvidia is blowing smoke up everyone's ass or the software isn't using it properly.
I'll say i'll point to your card. What's your CPU? I won't be entirely surprised if your CPU is more powerful than your GPU  :-//
And yes nvidia might also be blowing smoke up everyone's ass
But also GT430 with it's tiny 268.8 Gflops is not possibly what anyone uses for rendering ... and also not optimized. A
thats a lot of computing power it its used correctly in software, i measured my 8350 on stock settings around 120Gflops, the 6970gpu is 2.7Tflops.
im wondering what can be the new i7 processors computing power  in the same league.
i used sisoftware ansdra 2013 for this, it had a few intel processor on the results but not so far away from this amd
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: 4to20Milliamps on April 30, 2013, 12:40:34 pm
Don't get me wrong, the nvidia card is an awesome card for what I bought it for which certainly wasn't for a high end video workstation, the difference is night and day from the stock motherboard graphics, you definitely want to have a good graphics card.... no question about it.

The computer I'm on is not a video computer at all, two core 2 gig processor and 3 gigs of ram, I can encode Dave's video in 1:44 which is slightly better than real time even with this old clunker, the coreI7 should do it in seconds considering the processing power,  so the bottleneck has to be in the file transfer and not from the hard drives it almost has to be the way the software is handling it.

I had cyberlink media espresso from when I bought my bluray drive, it's "optimized" for cuda and it is about 30% faster than the other encoders, but there's no way to change the setttings or even see what's set different, it does output pretty good video though.

The rendering farm from that university said you could encode an hour of video in 14 minutes, what exactly could the difference be? especially if you are able to use the cuda cores in a similar manner. That coreI7 and the high end graphics card should match that time at least....I would think.

Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: T4P on May 01, 2013, 09:50:18 pm
OpenCL. The way forward with the massive crunching power of GCN, but be reminded that  Nvidia nerfs the cuda computing power on the desktop parts so if you want to see the true potential you would have to buy a quadro. AMD doesn't do that shit  :-DD

A easy way is to see how many hash/s your CPU can do while mining bitcoins
My L5520 does 3MH/s with -v on (Does boost from 2.2 to 3 ...) in GUIMiner and my GPU ... wait for it, 342 MH/s on my 7850 OC'd to 1170/1320 Can't do anymore RAM or i would BSOD  :scared:
Mind you if you that doesn't seem like much some of you know it's just as powerful as the 6950 at stock ... and at OC'd it is unbelievable
And as for anyone who plans to buy Kepler 1 (6xx) or 2 (700 series) for video editing, i'll tell you not. It's terrible due to the sheer lack of single compute or double compute
I don't talk about gaming performance because this is freaking eevblog not OCN  :-DD
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: M. András on May 02, 2013, 12:37:27 am
completly off topic but if you mentioned how does that bitcion mining work? always runs the stuffs at full load etc?
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: T4P on May 03, 2013, 02:44:01 am
completly off topic but if you mentioned how does that bitcion mining work? always runs the stuffs at full load etc?
Yes, it does. Just remember that to get decent mining speeds your CPU must be at least free for GPU mining but no vice versa
Decent hashrates can be gotten using latest hardware but if you want ultimate hashspeed use fedora or another linux distro
but also want to try hashing with a intel iGPU? forget it ... HD4000 still isn't anywhere near HD6550D and only netting 17-18 vs 60 for a i7-3770 @ 4.4GHz on Win7
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: peter.mitchell on May 03, 2013, 01:06:47 pm
wait for it, 342 MH/s on my 7850 OC'd to 1170/1320 Can't do anymore RAM or i would BSOD  :scared:

That's why you replace resistors with trim pots :P
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: T4P on May 03, 2013, 04:41:19 pm
Can you borrow bitcoins with nerd credits? It's like street cred but for nerds,

Example:

Daves video blog site is pretty popular with nerds thus he would have a higher nerd cred rating, so he could borrow more bit coins at a lower interest rate
Just so you know bitcoins are used for the black market ... like drugs and gambling ...

wait for it, 342 MH/s on my 7850 OC'd to 1170/1320 Can't do anymore RAM or i would BSOD  :scared:

That's why you replace resistors with trim pots :P
Voltmod?  :P But 1320 is already more than enough for a mid-range GPU because it's a 256-bit bus
1170 will crash @ max 1.225V on OCCT and 1160 won't make it through BC2 but 1160 works for other games  :-//
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: T4P on May 04, 2013, 01:28:43 am
::) Gasp.....I didn't know that, so when you borrow some and don't pay up a nerd comes and breaks your fingers? That doesn't make much sense.  ;D

Well......not everyone is using them for illegal extracurricular activities:

http://www.10news.com/news/worlds-first-bitcoin-atm-coming-to-san-diego-050213 (http://www.10news.com/news/worlds-first-bitcoin-atm-coming-to-san-diego-050213)
I don't know man ... you just convert your bitcoins to money on a "ewallet" although sometimes i find bitcoin mining ... a bit of a waste
I only earn 0.02 per day (and i have to keep on restarting whenever i find a new block ...) and that 0.02 is roughly about 2USD only
Considering i am actually drawing 150W (Or maybe more ... because it's OC'd) and electricity tariff is 0.2USD/1kwhr i will earn roughly (3.6*0.2 - 2) $1.28 per day ... and that's not counting the fact that it might draw more power actually or my CPU ... at 5W. (Idle is 0.8W though) and my motherboard TDP ... easily 20-30W ...  :palm:
Mining with a 7950 brings more bang for buck but i'm not interested ... i can earn WAY more from my part-time job or simply my allowances  :palm:
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: BravoV on May 04, 2013, 01:53:39 am
Kids, there are TONS of general PC related forums out there like TomsHardware, AnandTech, ArsTechnica, HardOCP etc to brag discuss about general PC related topic, yes, just in case you're not aware, that include GFX, PSU, mobo, cpu, overclocking, heatsink, tweaking, modding, bitcoin, warez, kewl & leet thingy bla..bla.. and etc.  :palm:

Its really annoying that one has to skip thru tons of these non related PC junk posts in this thread just to watch, follow closely or help/contribute on Dave's "related" problem.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: 4to20Milliamps on May 04, 2013, 11:39:46 am
Kids, there are TONS of general PC related forums out there like TomsHardware, AnandTech, ArsTechnica, HardOCP etc to brag discuss about general PC related topic, yes, just in case you're not aware, that include GFX, PSU, mobo, cpu, overclocking, heatsink, tweaking, modding, bitcoin, warez, kewl & leet thingy bla..bla.. and etc.  :palm:

Its really annoying that one has to skip thru tons of these non related PC junk posts in this thread just to watch, follow closely or help/contribute on Dave's "related" problem.


 ::) Somebody didn't read the description of this category "occasional off topic is o.k."

Sorry your grace......it won't happen again  ;D


anyway the bottleneck is the software in my opinion, so an option like a frame server may help out:

http://www.debugmode.com/frameserver/ (http://www.debugmode.com/frameserver/)

I used to be into video stuff years ago not so much now, so I will leave it to the experts from here  ;)
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: Zad on May 07, 2013, 01:00:10 am
For anyone looking at buying a new machine (or CPU) be aware that the next generation of Intel processors will be launched on June 3rd.

http://hexus.net/tech/news/cpu/54653-intel-haswell-cpus-officially-launched-3rd-june/ (http://hexus.net/tech/news/cpu/54653-intel-haswell-cpus-officially-launched-3rd-june/)

Even if you aren't interested in the new processors (which will inevitably be at a price premium to start with) then the prices of existing units will immediately drop to make way for the new hardware. Intel seem to be pushing the reduced power consumption aspect, but in the past this has generally meant they are very good to overclock. They are still flogging the old "no, honestly, our integrated graphics are as fast as a separate card" dead horse.

According to the graphic, it has faster QuickSync , JPEG/MPEG decode and OpenCL1.2. leveraged through the integrated graphics system.

(http://hexus.net/media/uploaded/2013/4/e2d1364c-8da6-49a4-8344-9284ba8e10ed.jpg)

ETA: Want to see some cringe-inducing audiophool stuff?

http://hexus.net/tech/news/mainboard/54905-gigabytes-haswell-motherboards-feature-amp-up-audio/ (http://hexus.net/tech/news/mainboard/54905-gigabytes-haswell-motherboards-feature-amp-up-audio/)

Quote
If you look at the motherboard layouts you will observe that the audio functionality has been “fenced off” by a vivid green line (lit up when powered up) as if to emphasise its separation, a kind of PCB quiet-zone. Gigabyte describes it as the “Audio Noise Guard – with path lighting”.

Yes, because when I want the best in audio quality, I put my expensive and sensitive analogue components right next to a wideband RF noise source, and then light it with a magic force field (what seems to be) EL cable. Expect to see a flood of fake OPA627s on Ebay in the next few months...

Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: T4P on May 07, 2013, 03:01:23 am
There has always been a flood of fake OPA627s all this while  ;) And also BIOSTAR's Puro HiFi cringe inducing stuff
they are not alone ...
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: elgonzo on May 07, 2013, 03:08:21 am
ETA: Want to see some cringe-inducing audiophool stuff?

http://hexus.net/tech/news/mainboard/54905-gigabytes-haswell-motherboards-feature-amp-up-audio/ (http://hexus.net/tech/news/mainboard/54905-gigabytes-haswell-motherboards-feature-amp-up-audio/)

I have to disappoint you. That's not audiophilool stuff, but gamer sh*t.
(I am not saying that there is much of a difference between the audiophool and gamer markets, except the lore perhaps...)
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: NiHaoMike on May 07, 2013, 10:58:09 am
ETA: Want to see some cringe-inducing audiophool stuff?

http://hexus.net/tech/news/mainboard/54905-gigabytes-haswell-motherboards-feature-amp-up-audio/ (http://hexus.net/tech/news/mainboard/54905-gigabytes-haswell-motherboards-feature-amp-up-audio/)

Quote
If you look at the motherboard layouts you will observe that the audio functionality has been “fenced off” by a vivid green line (lit up when powered up) as if to emphasise its separation, a kind of PCB quiet-zone. Gigabyte describes it as the “Audio Noise Guard – with path lighting”.

Yes, because when I want the best in audio quality, I put my expensive and sensitive analogue components right next to a wideband RF noise source, and then light it with a magic force field (what seems to be) EL cable. Expect to see a flood of fake OPA627s on Ebay in the next few months...
It makes basically no difference with digital, which is just data anyways. (It is possible for a copper cable to conduct EMI, but that's rarely a problem. And fiber eliminates that problem.) As for the analog stuff, DSOs seem to have no problem with digital logic on the same board as the input amplifiers.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: Zad on May 07, 2013, 12:10:04 pm
I'm sure you have seen all the screening, shielding and guard planes / traces that DSOs have, they also put the most sensitive parts as far as possible from the noise sources. Very little of that evident on the motherboard.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: T4P on May 11, 2013, 05:31:39 am
I'm sure you have seen all the screening, shielding and guard planes / traces that DSOs have, they also put the most sensitive parts as far as possible from the noise sources. Very little of that evident on the motherboard.
But somehow most motherboards do fine  :) It's just typical PC market bullshit to sell more ... Like painting the caps  :-// Or putting in real high-grade stuff on MSI cheap arse motherboards making them look really premium
I mean c'mon which speaker in the world will allow you to notice 100db SNR? I don't think any can do so. And 100db is easily achievable on modern soundchips like ALC892 898 and older ALC898
They really don't have a problem with wideband EMI even if their audio input output is routed all the way to the bottom  :-// (or earlier motherboards right next to the northbridge ... which is transmitting to the CPU via a 3.2GHz link)
Look at the layout of my motherboard ... it's as f'ed up as possible. And there are the super cramped ones
(http://img.techpowerup.org/090604/GA-X58%20UD5.jpg)
and look at a modern high-end motherboard
http://assets.vr-zone.net/15206/x79_extreme11.jpg (http://assets.vr-zone.net/15206/x79_extreme11.jpg)
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: EEVblog on May 12, 2013, 09:20:04 am
Look at the layout of my motherboard ... it's as f'ed up as possible. And there are the super cramped ones

You get that when you have fixed defined industry form factor but a continual change in requirements components and feature sets.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: T4P on May 14, 2013, 12:15:03 am
Look at the layout of my motherboard ... it's as f'ed up as possible. And there are the super cramped ones

You get that when you have fixed defined industry form factor but a continual change in requirements components and feature sets.

Agreed  :)
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: M. András on May 14, 2013, 07:08:50 am
they definetly need to bring out a new and much bigger form factor for pc motherboards. and pls no traces at mounting holes around 5mm radius.....
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: gnif on May 14, 2013, 10:20:40 am
Don't think so, a video of this size can be written in 1-2s by a modern HDD. So give it some additional seconds for seeks, and you're still on the safe side.

This is just a test video - I assume the videos Dave would actually be encoding would be much much larger - which is what I was referring to.

This has nothing to do with the final file size, it is to do with the write data rate. A modern decent mechanical HDD is able to write at around 110MB/s, and the transfer to the disk is handled by DMA, so it is completely offloaded from the CPU, using a SSD, or even a RAID0 SSD array would only help on the load/read stage during video editing, not encoding. What would be more beneficial here would be loads of RAM, talking 8GB+.

Also, setting up a RAID0 anything array is just asking for trouble, loose one disk and you loose everything, if you want to go down this path get an additional disk and setup RAID5 (Stripe with parity), or for better performance with redundancy go for RAID10 (that is RAID1 + RAID0, so clone & stripe). If you are using SSDs in a RAID array and really do need that kind of performance, get a real RAID card, do not use your so called 'RAID' function of your motherboard, as it is software RAID and is all done on the CPU.

Honestly though, those that need striped SSDs are just kidding themselves, I work in the hosting industry and we only every deploy these configurations to servers where they have 100GB+ databases and enormous I/O on them, which you never see in your day to day usage on your desktop computer, and even then we usually opt for more RAM first (32GB or more) so we can cache everything we can as RAM is loads faster.

Here is a cost estimation for a RAID6 array:

120GB SSD = ~$300
6Gb/s RAID Controller = ~$200
Total = ~$500

And cost estimation for a stack of RAM which is hundreds of times faster then any SSD:

32GB DDR3 RAM = ~$250-$300

But... Don't get me wrong here, I love SSDs and I use them in my Desktop and Laptop and would never go back to a mechanical HDD for my OS disk, and I would love a RAID10 SSD array, but the amount of times that I would actually use it to its full potential would be very very rare, and shaving 500ms off a disk wide search for a file just is not worth the cost.

Also, I often grep enormous directories with tens of thousands of files that contain projects such as XBMC or Openbricks which contains the linux kernel source + every source file you could need for a basic GNU system and find it only takes a few seconds on a single standard SSD, I do not see RAID giving me enough of a performance boost here to warrant the cost.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: grumpydoc on May 14, 2013, 07:55:35 pm
Quote
get an additional disk and setup RAID5

RAID5 is slightly out of favour in the enterprise space at present.

One factor is that arrays are usually set up with disks bought at the same time and all of the same manufacturer - which means a high probablility of being from the same batch (I've managed to buy a set of disks with consecutive serial numbers before now) - so it is quite likely that they will fail together.

RAID6 can survive 2 failed disks.

I've had two failures on RAID5 arrays on my home server. The first time the array ran fine in degraded mode for the week that it took the manufacturer to send me a replacement disk.

The second time the array also ran fine while I sourced a replacement for the (just out ofwarranty :( ) disk. Unfortunately I then had a SATA port fail while the array was rebuilding which corrupted one of the other disks - all data lost  |O

Fortunately I had backups but I've stopped using RAID5 and now just use mirrored pairs (or even triples) - I reckon that RAID5 is just too fragile when degraded (it basically degenerates to RAID0).
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: gnif on May 15, 2013, 12:29:52 am
Quote
get an additional disk and setup RAID5

RAID5 is slightly out of favour in the enterprise space at present.


Completely agree with you there, but here RAID0 was suggested with zero redundancy which many people do not think about how dangerous that is to your data, so for cost vs performance, IMO RAID5 is a good middle ground for a desktop PC where the data is not absolutely mission critical, and I would never deploy anything less than RAID10 in an enterprise environment.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: T4P on May 17, 2013, 07:27:30 pm
This has nothing to do with the final file size, it is to do with the write data rate. A modern decent mechanical HDD is able to write at around 110MB/s, and the transfer to the disk is handled by DMA, so it is completely offloaded from the CPU, using a SSD, or even a RAID0 SSD array would only help on the load/read stage during video editing, not encoding. What would be more beneficial here would be loads of RAM, talking 8GB+.
And cost estimation for a stack of RAM which is hundreds of times faster then any SSD:

32GB DDR3 RAM = ~$250-$300

But... Don't get me wrong here, I love SSDs and I use them in my Desktop and Laptop and would never go back to a mechanical HDD for my OS disk, and I would love a RAID10 SSD array, but the amount of times that I would actually use it to its full potential would be very very rare, and shaving 500ms off a disk wide search for a file just is not worth the cost.

Also, I often grep enormous directories with tens of thousands of files that contain projects such as XBMC or Openbricks which contains the linux kernel source + every source file you could need for a basic GNU system and find it only takes a few seconds on a single standard SSD, I do not see RAID giving me enough of a performance boost here to warrant the cost.
110MBPS ... How 2008 is that. My cheap Hitachi 1TB drives do 200mbps. YES 200MBPS! I have several of them in RAID6 on my file server (and a few 3TB drives)
Extra RAM is useless if you don't use it. If you're thinking of RAMDrives they're bloody ridiculous. Extended shutdown times and the risk of files going corrupt (No ECC!)
Okay there ... SSDs makes a significant boost in loading time unless your SSD is from 2009 :-// The time shaven is actually HUGE as on a harddisk the OS would have to wait every access time cycle before it can search for another file (and it's in the region of 20mS) and it still takes a bloody long time even with search indexing. I'm sorry i turned off my search indexing on my SSD and i still find files within split seconds
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: EEVblog on May 17, 2013, 07:32:17 pm
I still need to do a video on this, but FYI, my new machines screams.
Boot time is incredibly quick with the SSD for the Windows boot partition, and rendering in Sony to XDCAM format is about 3 times real-time. So a 30min video in 10min. A 3 fold increase in speed.
Handbrake conversion is about double, at about 2.5 times real-time.
I decided to have a 2nd internal backup drive instead of a software RAID. Set to differential update copy every night. Less chance of any accidental deletion propagating over.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: Monkeh on May 18, 2013, 01:26:50 am
110MBPS ... How 2008 is that. My cheap Hitachi 1TB drives do 200mbps. YES 200MBPS! I have several of them in RAID6 on my file server (and a few 3TB drives)

I really doubt you get that out of a single drive, and you really want to watch your capitalisation. It matters, put a little effort into it.

Quote
Extra RAM is useless if you don't use it.

You always use it.

Quote
20mS

*cough*
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: T4P on May 18, 2013, 03:00:36 pm
Oops i forget. Sometimes. But it IS in megabytes per sec. MBPS < isn't it? And yes i AM getting it out of a single drive
(http://cdn.overclock.net/4/48/500x1000px-LL-4883337e_HDTune_Benchmark_Hitachi_HDS721010DLE630.png)
Don't worry about the periodic dips, it's due to it being accessed
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: elgonzo on May 19, 2013, 05:08:03 am
110MBPS ... How 2008 is that. My cheap Hitachi 1TB drives do 200mbps. YES 200MBPS! I have several of them in RAID6 on my file server (and a few 3TB drives)

I really doubt you get that out of a single drive, and you really want to watch your capitalisation. It matters, put a little effort into it.


T4P is right with this one. Seagate specifies for the 7200rpm Barracuda consumder HDDs already a sustained data rate of 210 MB/s. Which actually sounds quite amazing, until you are reminded of access times. It's always access times that kill HDD performance.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: Monkeh on May 19, 2013, 06:26:21 am
110MBPS ... How 2008 is that. My cheap Hitachi 1TB drives do 200mbps. YES 200MBPS! I have several of them in RAID6 on my file server (and a few 3TB drives)

I really doubt you get that out of a single drive, and you really want to watch your capitalisation. It matters, put a little effort into it.


T4P is right with this one. Seagate specifies for the 7200rpm Barracuda consumder HDDs already a sustained data rate of 210 MB/s. Which actually sounds quite amazing, until you are reminded of access times. It's always access times that kill HDD performance.

Sustained data rate is totally useless in reality anyway (not to mention regularly exaggerated), so..
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: elgonzo on May 19, 2013, 06:54:51 am
Sustained data rate is totally useless in reality anyway (not to mention regularly exaggerated), so..

No, those numbers are not regularly exaggerated. Yes, this number is totally useless to judge performance of a HDD. :)
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: Monkeh on May 19, 2013, 07:00:37 am
Sustained data rate is totally useless in reality anyway (not to mention regularly exaggerated), so..

No, those numbers are not regularly exaggerated. Yes, this number is totally useless to judge performance of a HDD. :)

I have never been able to sustain the published rate for any model of HDD. Always 10-15% lower. Seagate ones I've seen 60% down (they've had some horrific firmware, there's a reason I won't buy them).
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: elgonzo on May 19, 2013, 07:40:22 am
I have never been able to sustain the published rate for any model of HDD. Always 10-15% lower.

No, usually you can't do that, unless you have a specific hardware setup that linearly read cylinder after cylinder without being concerned with whatever file system, and always promptly picking up the data offered on the SATA/SAS interface without causing further delay by either the SATA controller or the host OS. Most likely you will never achieve those numbers with ordinary PC tech,  but only in carefully set up laboratory conditions. The manufacturer can only specify what his/her HDD is capable to do. (S)He is in no condition to make precise statements about how certain hardware/chipset and software configurations will lead to a certain performance number.

Seagate ones I've seen 60% down (they've had some horrific firmware, there's a reason I won't buy them).

Indeed, consumer Seagate HDDs suck hard; not just because of shitty firmware, but also because they run so hot... :)
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: mariush on May 19, 2013, 08:43:29 am
Indeed, consumer Seagate HDDs suck hard; not just because of shitty firmware, but also because they run so hot... :)

Bull... Barracuda Green 2 TB/s ...  (datasheet here (http://www.seagate.com/files/staticfiles/docs/pdf/datasheet/disc/barracuda-green-ds1720.3-1105us.pdf)):

sustained date UP TO 144 MB/s

Average Latency (ms) 4.16
Average Seek, Typical Read (ms) 12
Average Seek, Typical Write (ms) 13

Connected on SATA 3 gbps (150 MB/s max)  even though it's a 6 gbps hdd:

(http://savedonthe.net/image/1790/19-May-2013_01-35.png)

Sounds about right considering it's on sata 2.

WD1000FAEX , again 6gbps interface on sata 2 (3gbps) ...(drops due to disk access from other stuff):

datasheet here (http://www.wdc.com/wdproducts/library/SpecSheet/ENG/2879-771434.pdf)
 up to 126 MB/s , actually does more

(http://savedonthe.net/image/1791/19-May-2013_01-40.png)
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: elgonzo on May 19, 2013, 11:24:28 am
mariush, don't look at the max transfer data rate in HD Tune. The value that comes closest in meaning of sustained data transfer rate (as often published by the manufacturers) is the average value.

The max transfer rate displayed by HD Tune is only valid for the outer tracks of the platters, and cannot be sustained at the inner tracks due to zone bit recording.

If you are lucky, you might find a datasheet for a HDD that specifies different SDTR's for different zones...
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: mariush on May 19, 2013, 11:34:49 am
I agree with you. I was just bothered by the statement:

Quote
never been able to sustain the published rate for any model of HDD. Always 10-15% lower. Seagate ones I've seen 60% down (they've had some horrific firmware, there's a reason I won't buy them).

10-15% lower at 144 MB/s would be 115-120MB/s which obviously isn't the case here. Mine is within less than 5% out, and it's possible larger drops would be caused by bad sata drive controllers/chipset implementations, not the hard drives.
60% down would be just ridiculous.

Again, they never claim throughout the disk surface, they just say "UP TO ### MB/s", just like your ISP says you have up to 100 mbps internet download speed or whatever speed they advertise.

Either way, it's totally pointless to brag about the maximum speed, because once you get multiple i/o on the disk, the transfer speeds go down.
Luckily, when doing video encoding, most stuff is sequential, so as long as you read from one drive and save to other, you can get high speeds, high enough it doesn't matter what drive you use (unless you work with lossless hd or --- damn i just can't remember the term now and I work with this stuff at least once a week --- pre- bluray mastering stuff, 200-500mbps content, RED/10bit h264 lossless etc)
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: Monkeh on May 19, 2013, 11:44:09 am
10-15% lower at 144 MB/s would be 115-120MB/s which obviously isn't the case here. Mine is within less than 5% out, and it's possible larger drops would be caused by bad sata drive controllers/chipset implementations, not the hard drives.

No stupid nVidia or VIA controllers here, so you can rule that out..

Quote
60% down would be just ridiculous.

So is 85% failure rate for different drives from different batches, in different locations on different power supplies, with different usage patterns, but that's Seagate for you. Everything from 7200.9 to 7200.12 was a complete farce. As for newer drives, not out of my wallet or reputation.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: T4P on May 19, 2013, 09:50:05 pm
Bull... Barracuda Green 2 TB/s ...  (datasheet here (http://www.seagate.com/files/staticfiles/docs/pdf/datasheet/disc/barracuda-green-ds1720.3-1105us.pdf)):
I think that's the max speed of your HDDs ... My hdds are on SATA2 and i'm pulling 200mbps  :-//

The most important thing that makes SSDs infinitely better is access time and random r/w speed.. They are a hella lot better  ;D
Windows bootup speed : None of the sequential r/w matters, only access time (DLLs) and random r/w (BIG DLLs)
Normal usage just access time ... Harddisks are fast enough to pull 150mbps average
10-15% lower at 144 MB/s would be 115-120MB/s which obviously isn't the case here. Mine is within less than 5% out, and it's possible larger drops would be caused by bad sata drive controllers/chipset implementations, not the hard drives.

No stupid nVidia or VIA controllers here, so you can rule that out..

Quote
60% down would be just ridiculous.

So is 85% failure rate for different drives from different batches, in different locations on different power supplies, with different usage patterns, but that's Seagate for you. Everything from 7200.9 to 7200.12 was a complete farce. As for newer drives, not out of my wallet or reputation.
I guess so ... Yes. Seagate = constantly failing garbage. OCN people hugs seagate like no tomorrow  :-//
I purposely bought a few 2 years ago and they all failed 2 months ago ... only 2 year warranties. SHIT DRIVES!
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: westfw on June 11, 2013, 02:20:53 pm
Well, apple has pre-announced their new Mac Pro.  http://www.apple.com/mac-pro/ (http://www.apple.com/mac-pro/)
It sounds nice and zippy, and looks pretty, but...  IMO it's not a good "desktop" machine - no internal expandability at all.  More like a super-fast Mac Mini than an adequate replacement for the Mac Pro.

Damn.

Apple has always been sort of wishy-washy on the upgrade-ability of their high-end systems, but there's been a pretty long string of pretty nice systems.  And yes, I've got all four slots of my existing Mac Pro full of disks, and no, I don't think an external disk box is a good replacement.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: M. András on June 12, 2013, 05:52:43 am
hehh it states up to 60gb of system ram, 2 ati 6970 gpu a 12 core xeon. what do you want to expand from this? 4 thunderbolt port you can hook gpu anytime to that port
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: ve7xen on June 12, 2013, 06:03:23 am
Apple has always been sort of wishy-washy on the upgrade-ability of their high-end systems, but there's been a pretty long string of pretty nice systems.  And yes, I've got all four slots of my existing Mac Pro full of disks, and no, I don't think an external disk box is a good replacement.
I've thought that they've always been totally opposed to the idea of customization, expandability and repairability. To them a computer is an appliance, you should neither need nor be able to modify its internals. As a bonus for them, that makes them cheaper to manufacture and easier to sell and support.

Which is why I'm kind of amused that their solution to the real needs people have is external dongles. This is like the antithesis of their minimalist design philosophy.

Quote
hehh it states up to 60gb of system ram, 2 ati 6970 gpu a 12 core xeon. what do you want to expand from this? 4 thunderbolt port you can hook gpu anytime to that port
Some decent storage or RAID? More RAM (most real workstations these days can support 512GB of RAM)? FibreChannel or 10GbE? One (or many) GPGPU boards? Hell even 12 core is not that impressive, you can get 16 core machines today, and once these 12 core CPUs launch, I'm sure you'll see 24 core ones too.

This device is clearly targeted at the design/photography/3D fields, though for plenty of those users I'm sure the 2xFirePros will be like $1000 down the toilet.

I guess it's good that the writing is on the wall now. People who need real workstations won't be waiting for the Mac Pro refresh any longer, they'll just buy something else.

Can't forget support either. Is Apple still not offering any onsite support options? Pretty much a showstopper for any sort of mission critical usage I'd say, unless you have a spare sitting around.
Title: Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
Post by: M. András on June 12, 2013, 06:33:59 am
yeah but not in that form factor :) apart from that i agree with you. i do not know too much apple product that can be upgraded easly