4K Video Editing PC Build

[elgonzo]

From the video: [...snip...]

That's not a good screenshot. Couldn't you spend a minute or two to go through the relevant video segment frame-by-frame to find one with the most typical CPU utilization?    Do i have to do this myself? Yes, i do:





Joking aside, 50%...60% seems to be indeed the average encoding load. When the encoding finishes (a few seconds later in the video), one can observe the rather miniscule CPU load caused by the screen-capturing (and other background processes), which is far less than 10%.

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

Digital Video Editing Terminology

https://www.manifest-tech.com/links/video_terms.htm

decoding (input) != rendering (timeline/effects) != encoding (output)

The GPU can (usually, but only for common in/out video formats) help in decoding and encoding, BUT "help" does not necessarily mean a GPU can do it faster than 16 or 32 cpu cores would. It depends on a variety of factors.

The GPU partially helps in rendering ("accelerated" effects).

When/if the GPU can't help, the CPU will have to do it, some tasks in some programs will spawn multiple threads, others won't and do it single threadedly. For example, vintage QuickTime could only encode using one thread, and didn't use the GPU. Idem for vintage HandBrake. Etc.

Vegas isn't Premiere nor Final Cut nor iMovie nor xxxx, that's why -I think- there's plenty of different but equally valid answers to the question of what's the best PC video editing configuration: you need to know well the editing software, and then flip the knobs in the settings to find the optimal workflow for your particular software/hardware (and input/output formats/codecs) combo.

[Fungus]

From the video: [...snip...]

That's not a good screenshot. Couldn't you spend a minute or two to go through the relevant video segment frame-by-frame to find one with the most typical CPU utilization?    Do i have to do this myself? Yes, i do:

You want me to do your homework? 

I don't know the average but it's obviously more than 50%.

Vegas isn't Premiere nor Final Cut nor iMovie nor xxxx, that's why -I think- there's plenty of different but equally valid answers to the question of what's the best PC video editing configuration.

We've been through this many times in other threads. 

Sony Vegas doesn't appear to use the hardware video encoding instructions that are built into Intel Chips.

Encoders that use them can get much faster encoding on the CPU, but... Dave likes Sony Vegas and he's told us he's not interested in changing. 

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

The encode in his video takes so long it almost seems a transcode. I've seen FC do that much much faster in lesser Macs. Also, I wonder where does Vegas put the intermediate/cache/render files? Because he's got such a tiny SSD... are these going into the RAID? If so, that's bad.

[meeder]

He stores all video files on a NAS raid array with both network interfaces connected.
A local cache would be better I guess. The 250GB M.2 is enough for Windows and applications but I would get a couple of SATA SSD's in RAID-0 to create a fast local cache.

[Fungus]

He stores all video files on a NAS raid array with both network interfaces connected.

So that's why the Ethernet usage is so high in the video. I wondered about that:

A local cache would be better I guess.

Doesn't look to me as if that's the bottleneck though, the bottleneck appears to be the graphics card.

(and probably using the NVENC unit on the card, not general CUDA)

[AmericanLocomotive]

I never said it did. In fact I believe it's a single thread operation in Vegas. Hence why Threadripper is not the best tool for the job here.

...and that's why your build makes absolutely zero sense. You went with the expensive X299 platform, who's major benefits are the ability to use high core count processors and massive amounts of IO. Then you absolutely gimp it with with a low end, but expensive 8 core processor, that doesn't even allow all of your PCI-E slots to operate at their rated speed. Finally you topped it off a low-end budget power supply and a GeForce 1050. It'd be fine if you had actually gone with a CPU to justify the x299 platform (The HCC 10+ core parts), but you didn't.

You could have moved "down" to the Intel Z370 platform, gotten an MSI Z370 A-Pro, an i7-8700 and saved $300. You would have retained 85% of the multi threaded CPU performance, with much better single threaded. That $300 could have gone towards a better power supply, and a GeForce 1060, which might actually have tangible benefits for someone using GPU acceleration.

Or, you could have gone with the AMD X370 platform, an ASRock x370 PRO4, and an AMD Ryzen 2700X. The 2700X has 95-100% of the i9-7820x's performance. This combination would have also saved you well over $300 compared to what you bought, while offering near identical CPU performance. Once again allowing you to spec out a better GPU for encoding, and a more robust power supply within the same budget.

It's not an AMD vs Intel thing, or a low vs high budget thing, or a favorite-brand-fanboy thing. You're a respected part of the electronics community, and many people take things you post very seriously. You post a video with a poorly researched, poorly planned PC build with a component configuration that just doesn't make sense given what you're trying to do. You spent way more money than you had to for your given performance. People are rightfully calling you out for it.

[Monkeh]

He stores all video files on a NAS raid array with both network interfaces connected.

Which is pointless because only one will get used without a lot of trickery.

[elgonzo]

He stores all video files on a NAS raid array with both network interfaces connected.

Which is pointless because only one will get used without a lot of trickery.

Why would getting channel-load-balanced LACP require a lot of trickery?
Are you referring to Windows 10's patented behavior of "Yesterday I did, Today I don't", or rather about some constraints with the particular NAS (Synology?) and/or network switches Dave uses?

[Monkeh]

He stores all video files on a NAS raid array with both network interfaces connected.

Which is pointless because only one will get used without a lot of trickery.

Why would getting channel-load-balanced LACP require a lot of trickery?
Are you referring to Windows 10's patented behavior of "Yesterday I did, Today I don't", or rather about some constraints with the particular NAS (Synology?) Dave uses?

Neither - just general networking constraints. Effectively, traffic from host 1 to host 2 will always take place over the same link in the bond. There are ways around this, not involving using LACP, but in most cases they will end up incuring painful penalties due to out of order packet delivery.

Switch to switch this isn't usually an issue, and I'm sure various manufacturers have proprietary hackarounds, but as a general rule, between just two hosts you're limited to the speed of a single link.

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

Is that 1 Gb ethernet in Dave's new mobo? If so, how is that better than SATA?

[Monkeh]

Is that 1 Gb ethernet in Dave's new mobo? If so, how is that better than SATA?

.. well, it's not. Except it can go outside the case. And it's a completely different thing.

[elgonzo]

Neither - just general networking constraints. Effectively, traffic from host 1 to host 2 will always take place over the same link in the bond. There are ways around this, not involving using LACP, but in most cases they will end up incuring painful penalties due to out of order packet delivery.

Switch to switch this isn't usually an issue, and I'm sure various manufacturers have proprietary hackarounds, but as a general rule, between just two hosts you're limited to the speed of a single link.

Doh! Yeah, with SMB protocol only using a single TCP port, load-balanced LACP with L4 hashing is out of the window.
SMB Multi-Channel would provide a way for making use of multiple links, but it is only available in Windows Server. Well, at least Dave's system has some failover capability if one of his kids trips over one of the network cables. 

[Monkeh]

Neither - just general networking constraints. Effectively, traffic from host 1 to host 2 will always take place over the same link in the bond. There are ways around this, not involving using LACP, but in most cases they will end up incuring painful penalties due to out of order packet delivery.

Switch to switch this isn't usually an issue, and I'm sure various manufacturers have proprietary hackarounds, but as a general rule, between just two hosts you're limited to the speed of a single link.

Doh! Yeah, with SMB protocol only using a single TCP port, load-balanced LACP with L4 hashing is out of the window.
SMB Multi-Channel would provide a way for making use of multiple links, but it is only available in Windows Server. Well, at least Dave's system has some failover capability if one of his kids trips over one of the network cables. 

And that's assuming you have a direct link or at least a layer 3 switch. Really is just easier and cheaper to go with 10GigE.

[Howardlong]

SMB Multi-Channel would provide a way for making use of multiple links, but it is only available in Windows Server.

<pedant>
...and Windows 10 Pro for Workstations.
</pedant>

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

Is that 1 Gb ethernet in Dave's new mobo? If so, how is that better than SATA?

.. well, it's not. Except it can go outside the case. And it's a completely different thing.

Perhaps it's one of those synologys that do themselves the video transcoding.

[mariush]

The recordings are something like 60-100mbps bitrate, XAVC-S or whatever, so 1 gbps network speed is perfectly fine.  The latency will suck though, i mean each time data is requested it's gonna be some time until it's read by the nas and the first bytes come... unless the nas storage is SSDs.

It sucks that DDR4 memory is expensive.  If it were cheaper, a solution would be to buy a few 8 or 16 GB memory sticks and fill that board with memory. then use ImDisk Virtual Disk driver (this one I use because it's open source) or some other software to create a RAM disk  and load all the footage into the ram disk when you start editing on a project.  Then you won't care if you use SSDs or regular mechanical drives, everything's in RAM.

For example, a 8 GB stick is 75$ and 16 GB sticks are 150$.

Dave, you have that dual xeon machine, which should have plenty of memory slots. If it accepts unregistered DDR3, you could just fill those slots with memory and set up FreeNAS with a ton of RAM caching, so once Vegas starts requesting data from a file, Freenas would cache the file to RAM and then you'd have very snappy timeline, faster rendering etc.
8 GB memory sticks are cheaper as well, something like 50$ each. And registered ecc ddr3 is cheaper on ebay, i see for example 16 GB (2x8) for 92 australian dollars on ebay , here's an example  or this one for 63$ for 2 x 8 GB DDR3 1333 mhz registered ecc

If anyone cares, here's the overkill solution LinusTechTips has ... though they record their Youtube videos and other projects for various clients in 8K 60fps with RED cameras:

[Lockon Stratos]

You can enable them on a per domain basis, and with adblock you can do it even on per script basis.... Its not convenient? Yes, but if something is more secure its always less convenient....

So many websites will be broken, it does not even matter. Websites are not controlling what ads they show, so leaving some websites with scripts enabled makes this practically meaningless.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malvertising

Not really if they calling them on a external domain(meaning even if i white-list the site the external stuff still gets blocked), and even if they dont adblock takes care of the rest.

[rx8pilot]

... though they record their Youtube videos and other projects for various clients in 8K 60fps with RED cameras:

I have been in the movie business for decades.....that may be the silliest thing yet. Here in Hollywood.... 4k is overkill for most everything. Beyond that, it is only useful for bkg plates and visual effects elements.

YouTube videos? Just plain funny to bother.

[EEVblog]

Dave, you have that dual xeon machine, which should have plenty of memory slots. If it accepts unregistered DDR3, you could just fill those slots with memory and set up FreeNAS with a ton of RAM caching, so once Vegas starts requesting data from a file, Freenas would cache the file to RAM and then you'd have very snappy timeline, faster rendering etc.

No need, it works perfectly fine from my Synology NAS.
And yes I have tested the difference between a super fast M.2 drive and the NAS, and it's practically nothing in terms of rendering speed.
Bottom line, having a fast local drive makes practically no difference. This is not speculation, I have tested it.

[EEVblog]

...and that's why your build makes absolutely zero sense. You went with the expensive X299 platform, who's major benefits are the ability to use high core count processors and massive amounts of IO. Then you absolutely gimp it with with a low end, but expensive 8 core processor, that doesn't even allow all of your PCI-E slots to operate at their rated speed.

I don't need the other PCI-E slots.

Finally you topped it off a low-end budget power supply and a GeForce 1050. It'd be fine if you had actually gone with a CPU to justify the x299 platform (The HCC 10+ core parts), but you didn't.

And a more expensive PSU would have gained me what exactly?

You could have moved "down" to the Intel Z370 platform, gotten an MSI Z370 A-Pro, an i7-8700 and saved $300. You would have retained 85% of the multi threaded CPU performance, with much better single threaded.

Before you complained my processor wasn't fast enough, now you are complaining that I bought too high end a processor. Do make up your mind.

That $300 could have gone towards a better power supply, and a GeForce 1060, which might actually have tangible benefits for someone using GPU acceleration.

1) I *already had* the GTX-1050
2) The GTX-1060 would have made no difference. The encoding is done using the NVENC hardware in the Pascal chipset which is identical on all the GTX-10xx boards.

It's not an AMD vs Intel thing, or a low vs high budget thing, or a favorite-brand-fanboy thing. You're a respected part of the electronics community, and many people take things you post very seriously. You post a video with a poorly researched, poorly planned PC build with a component configuration that just doesn't make sense given what you're trying to do. You spent way more money than you had to for your given performance. People are rightfully calling you out for it.

You can "call me out" all you want.

[EEVblog]

I have been in the movie business for decades.....that may be the silliest thing yet. Here in Hollywood.... 4k is overkill for most everything. Beyond that, it is only useful for bkg plates and visual effects elements.
YouTube videos? Just plain funny to bother.

Countless people have said it's a big improvement in video quality. Not just in 4K but in 1080p and lower.

[AmericanLocomotive]

[I don't need the other PCI-E slots.

Then why in the world would you use the X299 platform, if you don't need or want the I/O? Why would you choose a 4-channel RAM system, and then put a processor in it that doesn't even have enough cores to utilize all of that RAM bandwidth?

And a more expensive PSU would have gained me what exactly?

You bought a garbage inefficient 80 plus bronze budget PSU, with garbage no name caps, and garbage group regulation. Literally another 40 dollars would have gotten you 80 plus platinum efficiency, Japanese capacitors and excellent independent voltage regulation. You constantly complain about garbage capacitors and garbage power supplies in your videos - yet you put a garbage power supply in your own video editing system.

Before you complained my processor wasn't fast enough, now you are complaining that I bought too high end a processor. Do make up your mind.

That's not what I said at all. I said you bought a slow expensive processor, on a high-end expensive platform. You bought into an expensive processor platform (X299) and then paired it with the 2nd lowest end processor you could have put on it. As a result, your system is not any faster than a Ryzen 2700X rig that would have cost over $300 less, and is only marginally faster in multi-threaded loads compared to an i7-8700 system that would have also cost $300 less. Looking at Australian parts prices puts that difference realistically over $400 cheaper.

The X299 and Threadripper platforms only make sense with high core count processors that justify the added expensive. You bought into the X299 platform and paired it with a low end (for the platform) CPU that gimps your I/O and offers no extra performance compared to Intel and AMD's low-end "consumer" platforms.

1) I *already had* the GTX-1050
2) The GTX-1060 would have made no difference. The encoding is done using the NVENC hardware in the Pascal chipset which is identical on all the GTX-10xx boards.

The 1060 runs at a higher clock speed, so the video encoder should also run faster as well. Either way, it doesn't matter. The extra money saved could have been put towards more storage, more RAM, better PSU, etc...

You can "call me out" all you want.

I will. Someone who's in the business of educating people about electronics should probably be doing educated PC builds.

[Monkeh]

And a more expensive PSU would have gained me what exactly?

Greater reliability, lower power consumption.

Before you complained my processor wasn't fast enough, now you are complaining that I bought too high end a processor. Do make up your mind.

There is a difference between single thread performance and price tag.

[EEVblog]

Then why in the world would you use the X299 platform, if you don't need or want the I/O? Why would you choose a 4-channel RAM system, and then put a processor in it that doesn't even have enough cores to utilize all of that RAM bandwidth?

Because it was available in stock, and was one of the cheapest LGA2066 motherboards they had.

You bought a garbage inefficient 80 plus bronze budget PSU, with garbage no name caps, and garbage group regulation. Literally another 40 dollars would have gotten you 80 plus platinum efficiency, Japanese capacitors and excellent independent voltage regulation. You constantly complain about garbage capacitors and garbage power supplies in your videos - yet you put a garbage power supply in your own video editing system.

I didn't have the time nor inclination to research teardowns of a dozen different PSU's.

You seem deeply offended by this entire thing, too bad for you.