Good PC Config for quality ripping in less time?

[th3obr0]

Hey guys,

I am wanting to buy a desktop exclusively for video encoding and gaming. I am most probably planning to go for a Core i7. I just wanted to discuss good specs possible to do quality encoding in less time.

I currently use my Dual Core 1.6 GHz laptop to do it, and it takes a day or so to encode one movie with a bunch of filters. Please guide me to get the best configs.

Thanks! :)

[Blue_MiSfit]

Well - what kind of budget do you have, and what all do you require? I.E. do you have a monitor, speakers, keyborad, mouse etc... already?

A Core i7 is the fastest desktop platform for x264 encoding. So - I'd certainly suggest that route. It's also no slouch when it comes to gaming, though it doesn't really offer any compelling advantages over a Core 2 Quad in these areas.

I'd suggest getting a decent motherboard with good reviews, and 6GB of basic, stable DDR3 1333. On that note, Vista x64 is the only good way to make usage of all that RAM. If you're scared of Vista - don't be. It's a very good Operating System once you get the hang of it, and disable annoying UAC and a few other things.

Get a good quality case, since this is something you may carry over into future builds. I really like most of Antec's offerings. The Antec 300 for example is very ruggedly built, quiet, and is pretty inexpensive. On that note, get a good quality Power Supply as well, that has more power than you need. I am personally a big fan of Corsair, as their PSUs are overbuilt if anything, and tend to under-rate their power output capabilities. The HX520 model is perfect for most applications, save heavy overclocking and/or multiple GPUs. For more extreme configurations, Corsair, Thermaltake, Seasonic, and PC Power & Cooling are all good places to look for 800w+ PSUs.

I would also suggest lots of hard drive space (at least 1TB, preferably 2 or more), a BluRay reader and DVD+/-RW.

As far as the GPU goes - this is where the money comes into play :) Don't go with anything less than a Radeon 4830, but I would suggest something like a Radeon 4850 or a GeForce GTX260 (Core 216 version). If you have lots of money, and are really into gaming, something like a GeForce GTX285 or a Radeon 4870x2 may be a good investment.

If you don't have an LCD monitor (or just have an old, basic one) - do consider investing in a good one. The display is the single most important part of a computer in my opinion. A good 24" seems to be the ideal size for me. There are lots of panels out there to choose from. Look for one with an IPS panel, as opposed to a TN panel.

If you're talking about encoding SD DVDs, then you will be in for a nice surprise ;) I have a Q6600 overclocked to 3GHz, and as far as BluRay discs go I usually get ~ 4fps with my typical settings (close to maxed out) and almost no filtering (fft3dgpu is usually there, but it's basically free).

Anyway, those are lots of suggestions. If you're on a budget, then a Core 2 Quad system isn't a bad idea either. That being said, the i7 simply wipes the floor with everything short of 8-core Xeon servers when it comes to x264 encoding...

~MiSfit

[DJ Bobo]

I can't imagine that money is no concern for you, that's why I would strongly recommend the AMD Phenom II 940 (3GHz). Much cheaper than the slowest Core i7, much less heat dissipation and less consumption. It is slightly slower than the slowest Core i7 for x264-encoding, but on par with it for Gaming.
The money I would spare by buying a Phenom II system can be invested in a faster graphics card (an ATi Radeon HD4870 instead of a 4830 for example), since this is more important for gaming than the CPU.

[nurbs]

Much cheaper than the slowest Core i7, much less heat dissipation and less consumption. It is slightly slower than the slowest Core i7 for x264-encoding, but on par with it for Gaming.

Well the core i7 920 would cost about 50€ more then the Phenom II 940, but it's also ~50% faster when encoding with x264. For gaming it won't make much difference I guess. The two processors themselves have practically the same power consumption (phenom needs slightly more power) and even if they didn't it's not like a couple of watts make much difference on your power bill, even if you keep the thing running 24/7. It depends on where your priorities lie, but if you do a lot of encoding, especially if you do HD the core i7 is the way to go.

edit:
Power Consumption (http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3512&p=10)
Encoding Speed (http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3512&p=5)

[th3obr0]

Thanks for the suggestions. I currently encode on my laptop lol. I have browsed a few refurbished 19" ACER screens for 99 USD. I don't really need a high-tech keyboard and mouse. I need good processing, good GPU, and RAM. Money won't be a concern as I started earning next week. I would be capable of buying those high-end PC's by this summer :P.

Like most. I too prefer Intel over AMD. I heard i7 is fastest for x264, and so have you. I saw this Gateway dekstop for 1200 USD with a 2.6 GHz i7 and 4 GB RAM. Then there is this HP desktop with Quad 2 Core with a 22" 1080i HD Screen and 3 GB RAM.

Now which one is most likely to be chosen by you? I am even ready to get separate parts and assemble them by myself or a friend's help. So what configs? My budget is ermm.. 1000 USD. It can go up to 1200, if it's really worth spending :).

[DJ Bobo]

See... everyone has a budget constraint ;)
1000 USD is not that big a budget, and I'm ready to bet with you, that the PCs you mentionned aren't very good for gaming.
You will see that you can get a Phenom II for the same price, but with a much better graphics card, and I think you know better than anyone that nowadays, the best graphics card is barely enough ;)
Btw, x264 is not fully optimized for the Phenom II yet, I'm sure that the gap with the Core i7 will be reduced once optimizations have been done.

[Blue_MiSfit]

Don't get anything less than a 22" widescreen, if you plan on encoding any HD. You won't be able to view 1080p video at anything close to 1:1 (even 1680x1050 on a 22" is iffy).

If you all your encoding, and quality comparison tests on a 19" LCD, you are seriously limiting your ability to do a good comparison. It will bite you in the ass a few years from now, if you ever watch your encodes on a large screen.

If your budget doesn't allow for an i7+ decent LCD, then get a Core 2 Quad. Seriously.

I used to all my SD encoding on a busted up 19" CRT, and then on a slightly less busted up 21" CRT. I thought my encodes weren't half bad.

Now, when I watch them on the 24" LCD, or my friend's 46" HDTV, I am appalled by how BAD they look!!!

Invest in a decent LCD. It's a decision you will never regret :) I guarantee it!

~MiSfit

[IgorC]

Btw, x264 is not fully optimized for the Phenom II yet, I'm sure that the gap with the Core i7 will be reduced once optimizations have been done.
Do you try to replace the reality by your opinion?
You even don't know plans of x264 developers.
Phenom II hasn't SMT as i7 (virtual 8 cores) and it won't be magically optimized to cover a huge performance gap. http://www.fcenter.ru/img/article/CPU/Phenom_II_X4/130975.png
Even overclock to 3.7-4 Ghz doesn't help to Pheom II to compete with slowest i7 processor. http://www.fcenter.ru/img/article/CPU/AMD_Phenom_II_X4_920/132165.png

[Shinigami-Sama]

your starting budget for an i7 should be 1500USD
by the time summer rolls around that should get you...
i7 920
nvidia gtx 260 (216)
6gb corsair 3x 2gb DDR3 1600
WD veliciraptor 10k 300gb
and 1-1.5 TB

[th3obr0]

i7 920 is what I can afford as of now. How's GEForce as a graphic card for encoding and gaming?

[nurbs]

There are h.264 encoders for both nvidia and ati cards, but nobody here would recommend using them since quality is bad and they aren't much faster then encoding with the cpu, if at all. Nvidia cards also have CUDA, which means you can use Neuron2's hardware accelerated decoding software for Mpeg2, AVC and VC1, if you want to buy that. Although if you don't do complicated scripts that need frame accurate seeking it's not really necesarry. ATI cards currently have some issues with correctly displaying the levels (~colors) when you play back videos with certain resolutions, but that can be worked around easily if you use a good player like MPC-HC. I've stopped gaming a couple of years ago, so I can't tell you about that. You should maybe go to anandtech.com and look for recent graphics card reviews. They always have comparisons with other cards and other manufacturers.

[DJ Bobo]

@ IgorC
Dark Shikari said something about willing to optimize if he gets a sample. So I'm not replacing anything ;)

@ th3obr0
Guess I was wrong about you knowing your stuff about gaming. There are many GeForce cards out there. The one can be very slow, the other very fast.
For example, when playing Crysis at 1280x1024 with maximum details, using the same quad core machine, you'll get about 28 frames per second using a GeForce GTX260 (or a Radeon HD4870), but only 13 frames per second if you use a GeForce 9600GSO (or a Radeon HD4670).
So you really want to get the fastest card you can get if you want to play right!

[Blue_MiSfit]

GPU encoders are crap. End of discussion. The only useful thing you do with your GPU when it comes to encoding are using neuron2's CUDA tools, and running fft3dgpu. Any modern GPU can handle these tasks very well (nVidia only for CUDA obviously)

It all depends on how much gaming you plan to do, and what size your LCD is. For anything up to and including a 22" LCD (1680x1050), a basic "midrange" GPU will be more than enough. Think Radeon 4830 or a GeForce 9800GT (~$100).

This is even strong enough to do a 24" LCD (1920x1200) without much trouble. I have a 24" LCD and a 4830 and am totally happy with its performance in almost every game (except Crysis, but who cares lol)

If you're a hardcore gamer, or really want to play 1920x1200 or 2560x1600 (30" LCD) with all details maxed, and some AA, you need to think more powerful GPU. The GeForce GTX260 or the Radeon 4870 1gb ($200)would be your best bet in this market - the GTX285 or a Radeon 4870x2 if you can afford it (~$400).

The $100 card is about as low as I'd go. It would be a shame to pair up a Core i7 with something really basic. Both options at this price point will give you hardware acceleration for video decoding (not that it matters much with a Core i7). I would lean towards the Radeon, as it's definitely faster in games, and has a native HDMI port with 7.1ch LPCM output. However, if you plan on using neuron2's CUDA tools (awesome), you have to go with nVidia.

But honestly, invest in the LCD!!! Match the GPU to the LCD and your gaming habits. That's how you do it :)

~MiSfit

[th3obr0]

I left the backend when I left High School. I am more of a frontend user now, so don't keep much knowledge on hardware. I know about Video cards in negligible amounts. I know more about RAMs and Processors lol. I had a talk with a friend who assembles desktops for his friends and he suggested me GEFORCE. He doesn't have much knowledge about encoding so probably that's why he suggested a GEFORCE for gaming and enhanced visuals.

I don't know much about the speed and processing of GPUs. It would be great if you talk in specific brands and exact model numbers which would be easier to interest me. I need everything which one should have to learn proper encoding in high quality and speed. Also, what would be a good place to bu these parts? I just know of TigerDirect and Newegg.

[Blue_MiSfit]

Newegg is a good bet. They're getting stingy, but are still decent.

I would suggest an ATi Radeon HD 4830, like this guy:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814102803

~MiSfit

[th3obr0]

Thanks for the advice(s). Is Dual VGA or DVI useful in any way? I have a few friends purchase it. Looks cool, but haven't been able to figure out it's real use lol.

[DJ Bobo]

Dual output can be helpful if you want to expand your viewing surface. Should be useful if you want to do video editing: the input can then be shown on the primary monitor and output on the secondary.

And unlike Blue, I would strongly recommend the HD4870, especially if you want to get a 22" LCD. The 4870 is about 50% faster than the 4830 (see what a small number variation does!). Believe me, one is always tempted to push quality settings, and with recent games, you'll see that even the best graphics card is barely fast enough to cope with the huge amount of data to process!

[Sagekilla]

But if he's doing this for video encoding, he doesn't really need a 4870. Yes, the 4870 is faster by a nice margin but that's meaningless for ripping + encoding to something like x264 (or any other format for that matter).

[DJ Bobo]

Sagekilla, he said he needs it for gaming too.

EDIT:
On a second thought, it will be hard for him to get a HD4870, since 1000USD is a pretty tight budget.
Based on average prices, this is what you can get for less than 1000$ if you go for the Phenom II 3GHz:
Mainboard: Asus M3N78 SE
RAM: 4GB DDR2-1066
HDD: 500GB
Graphics: Radeon HD4830
Blu-Ray combo-drive: Pioneer (read blu-ray, write DVD)
Chassis: Cooler Master Centurion 5
Power supply unit: Antec 650W

If you go for the i7, you'll have to pay at least 300$ more to keep the same configuration, since i7 mainboards are very expensive (besides from the i7 being more expensive by itself)

And we didn't even talk about the monitor yet ;)

[th3obr0]

Ohh... man! Things are getting really expensive here lol. See the budget of 1000 USD is the not really the maximum. It's a figure I just had in mind. I am not in a hurry to get this stuff in. I can wait to increase my budget and get a good configuration so that it doesn't get outdated with the advancements in technology.

I usually do XviD and x264 encodings. I want configurations which will fair well for both. I heard i7 gives 30 fps on x264, but isn't good for XviD. Is that true? I am not a professional so I don't really need high end hardware. I need hardware for optimum performance so that if needed, I can always upgrade later on ;). For the screen, I need something which would be able to handle(play and encode) 1080p videos smoothly. Graphic Card should be compatible with the screen to render high graphics. RAM around 4 GB should be sufficient, I guess. What else do I need? Ermm...??

[DJ Bobo]

*lol*
Things will always get outdated, no matter how "late" you buy. So it's a waste of money to buy the very best equipment, since you have to change it every 2 to 3 years anyway. Better go for the mid-range: current technology to affordable prices. 1000$ is indeed a very reasonable budget for a PC. Getting a little bit tight since you want to encode AND play, but ok, the HD4830 is not tha~t bad after all :devil:
I personally would have combined an X3 @ 2.8GHz with an HD4870 though in order to stay under 1000$, since I encode over night anyway, and games seem to not get enough these days (lazy programmers?)

For the monitor, I don't know if you really want Full-HD models. The limiting factor being the graphics card when playing games, since LCDs don't show lower resolutions well (rather blurry), which can pretty much ruin your gaming experience. I don't know if Blue will concur, but I personally would go for those newer 18.5" monitors with 16:9 aspect ratio. They have a resolution of 1366x768, so they won't suffocate your graphics card when gaming (the HD4830 will then be sufficient), and they have the perfect AR for movies (no black bars with 16:9 movies like with usual 16:10 monitors). They're not expensive either (130$+)

[Blue_MiSfit]

I'd disagree about the LCD. That's simply too small and lacks resolution to adequately study 1080p encodes.

My main point in this discussion is simple:

Your encodes take a lot of time, and it's a real pitty to generate something you think is really good, then 2 years down the road on a 50" screen you say "man... I wish I had done a better job on these"

You need to be able to see 1080p without any scaling, or as little scaling as possible. To me, the 16x10 aspect ratio is not a big deal. I really appreciate the extra vertical resolution for doing general desktop work. 16x9 is just a little *too* wide for that IMO. Especially at 1366x768! That's hardly any real-estate at all!

Again, the very smallest LCD I would recommend is a 22". If you can afford it, a 24" is really the perfect size IMO.

Here's a great LCD: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824014173

It's a TN panel, but very high quality. It's ~$350 from Newegg.com, but benqshopper.com (an official refurbished outlet from Benq) has it for $215 - an amazing deal. I've used this service and it's totally legit - their stuff just comes with a 30 day warranty.

A 4830 is definitely enough for a 24" LCD. Maybe for not max details and AA in all games, but it can quite competently run anything out there.

GRID for example, I run maxed out at 1920x1200 with 4x AA and 16x AF. Perfect.
COD4 / COD5 both run at the same settings - 1920x1200, 4xAA, 16xAF.
Far Cry 2 wasn't so good, medium-ish details, 1680x1050 or 1920x1200. That game sucked anyway :P
WoW I max out of course... 12x Q ADAA
Prince of Persia also 1920x1200 4xAA, 16xAF

I don't really play any other games ATM :P

I did a little newegg shopping spree and here's what I came up with, for $1137 shipped (not including the LCD):

Antec 300 Case (love it, used it in 4 builds recently)
Corsair 650w PSU
Gigabyte x58 motherboard
Core i7 920
3x2GB DDR3 1333 from SuperTalent
Sapphire Radeon HD 4830 512mb
1TB Samsung F1
LiteOn 6x BD-ROM / 16x DVD+/-RW

Booyah! It's a nice system if I do say so myself! Add ~$250 shipped for the BenQ 24" LCD from Benqshopper.com, and you're looking at ~$1400 total for basically the best reasonable computer for x264 encoding you can buy! Of course, you can always have a faster GPU, but the 4830 should be fine!

~MiSfit

[DJ Bobo]

I knew Blue will be against it :)
Could you be misinterpreting the quality level of your encodes with the renderer settings or the LCD quality? I mean, I bought a new notebook a few weeks ago with a 1366x768 glare display, and my DVDs never looked this bad! It's the viewing angle that can ruin everything! the display has to be set a little bit backward (not on a 90° angle to the table) to get "CRT-quality". Color fidelity is a real issue with typical LCDs (with TN-panels)
I also read a lot about many LCDs not having deep enough blacks, that's why you see companies boasting "true black" panels like Pioneer and their "Kuro" (=Black in japanese) series for example (Plasma always have been better than LCD anyway :p)
So I don't think a higher resolution monitor will save the day, it's more about the panel quality: the best encode will look bad on a bad panel indeed.

By the way, here a few games where a 4830 would choke at 1680x1050, the typical 22" resolution:

Call of Juarez
Crysis (Warhead)
Far Cry 2
Lost Planet Colonies
Stalker Clear Sky

So, depending on the games you'll be playing, the graphics card and/or the monitor choice will be crucial.

I hope we didn't confuse you much :D

[Shinigami-Sama]

I'd go for a benq v2400w, its price is comparible and 2ms, which is much better for gaming

[Blue_MiSfit]

Could you be misinterpreting the quality level of your encodes with the renderer settings or the LCD quality?


If anything, I was misinterpreting the quality level of my encodes due to the utter incapability of my CRTs to show me what was really going on. Admittedly, I was still something of a novice at video encoding then.

Regardless, I have a BenQ 24" IPS panel, and it's very highly regarded (I forget the model number). It's calibrated, and I only use Haali renderer. I've had the panel for almost two years and it totally changed how I do encoding... :)

My laptop on the other hand has a standard-issue TN panel, and it's frankly unimpressive unless perfectly angled (almost impossible). It suffers from extreme color / brightness distortion if viewed more than ~15 degrees off axis. Ugh..

Finally, the display I recommended to the OP is a good quality display, albeit with a TN panel. It has good reviews, and I think it's safe to assume it's nothing like my laptop display ;)

Now, about those games. I'd agree that not all of them will be nice and smooth at 1680x1050 or 1920x1200 with all details up.

Call of Juarez
--Never played it, I know it's a benchmark game but do people actually play it? Not sure :)
Crysis (Warhead)
--Not true. I played the whole game at 1680x1050 on an 8800gt with settings on a mixture of high and medium and was perfectly happy. Sure, it wasn't butter smooth - but it was playable. The 4830 is better than the 8800gt, so...
Far Cry 2
--Granted
Lost Planet Colonies
--Another benchmark game..
Stalker Clear Sky
--Granted. I probably would have checked this game out by now if I wasn't so scared of the system requirements ;)

~MiSfit

[DJ Bobo]

You have an IPS panel?? ni~ce! Then you must really have sucked at encoding back then *lol*
'cause I have some 384x288 encodes lying around, they still look damn good (relatively of course!), even though they were done 7 years ago! Can't seem to see a difference between the CRT and the LCD (unless bad angle of course :D)

Still, is the Haali Renderer really good? I can't seem to get good quality with it. EVR looks better for me (Radeon HD3200).

[Blue_MiSfit]

Hali renderer looks fantastic to my eyes. You need to configure it, by adjusting the Luma Range and the color matrix. I also bump up the sharpness to .75 and the buffer size a bit.

~MiSfit

[th3obr0]

Wo~w! That is some discussion *lol*. I liked Blue's config, but then you guys were debating on the GPU so I am still confused which one to go for. These days there is so much to chose from, but which to chose is the main issue. So now... should I really stick with Blue's specs or what?

Thanks!

[Blue_MiSfit]

My suggestion is still for the 4830. You'll be happy with it.

~MiSfit

[Sharktooth]

the new 40nm 47x0 series could be an option too.
for instance the 4770 performs almost in between the 4830 and the 4850 and is runs much cooler.

[mr soft]

the new 40nm 47x0 series could be an option too.

Those are slated for release on April 6th, filtering down to actual suppliers is another story. However they do look nice.

[_DW_]

@th3obr0

I skipped most of the flame war about parts and cpu and monitors... and cases... So forgive me if this as already been ask an answered.

Are you buying off the shelf or you going to build it yourself? I've never seen a off the shelf rig that can compete with a proper home brew for power and performance. I though my brother was going to cry when my last home build POS smoked his new dell.

Another option you could chase is getting it a step at a time. Spread the cost over several paychecks or whatever. In time you can build you a smoking rig with less pain.

[th3obr0]

@th3obr0

I skipped most of the flame war about parts and cpu and monitors... and cases... So forgive me if this as already been ask an answered.

Are you buying off the shelf or you going to build it yourself? I've never seen a off the shelf rig that can compete with a proper home brew for power and performance. I though my brother was going to cry when my last home build POS smoked his new dell.

Another option you could chase is getting it a step at a time. Spread the cost over several paychecks or whatever. In time you can build you a smoking rig with less pain.

Yes, I am planning to build it myself for the first time with some help from a friend. Yes again, I am wanting to buy the parts one-by-one.

Is the GTX 295 better or Radeom HD 4807? According to MAXIMUM PC, GTX 295 wins. GTX is high on performance, but HD 4870 wins on cooling and price. What now? lol

[prOnorama]

Don't get anything less than a 22" widescreen, if you plan on encoding any HD. You won't be able to view 1080p video at anything close to 1:1 (even 1680x1050 on a 22" is iffy).

If you all your encoding, and quality comparison tests on a 19" LCD, you are seriously limiting your ability to do a good comparison. It will bite you in the ass a few years from now, if you ever watch your encodes on a large screen.

If your budget doesn't allow for an i7+ decent LCD, then get a Core 2 Quad. Seriously.

I used to all my SD encoding on a busted up 19" CRT, and then on a slightly less busted up 21" CRT. I thought my encodes weren't half bad.

Now, when I watch them on the 24" LCD, or my friend's 46" HDTV, I am appalled by how BAD they look!!!

Invest in a decent LCD. It's a decision you will never regret :) I guarantee it!

~MiSfit

I'm currently in the process of looking for a new PC and I'm kind of stuck on the LCD choice: do I get a full HD 1920 x 1080 screen (which means I need a beefier GPU with all the disadvantages like heat and noise, because I want to play a few games like Fallout 3, Oblivion, The Witcher and Empire Total War) or do I get a 19" or 18.5" LCD so I can use a lower end GPU?

Also I'm concerned about image quality on 1920 x 1080 for DVD and 720p sources. That's the stuff I watch the most, I hardly watch 1080p content. I'm kind of concerned they won't look so great when upscaled to 1080p yet they would look better on somewhat smaller LCD's like 19". Also I'd imagine Xvid will look like crap on 1080p screens. What are your experiences with DVD/720p content on your 24" screen?

[burfadel]

I wouldn't bother with the i7, simply because triple channel memory is more of a marketing thing than providing actual benefit over the equivalent dual channel. The i7 isn't even meant to be the mainstream CPU, the i5 is which is going to be available fairly soon (well I don't know if thats changed). It should represent a much better value for money system, especially considerably cheaper motherboards. By then ddr3 will be more common and the higher speeds should be cheaper as well...

[Shinigami-Sama]

http://ncix.com/products/?sku=30183&vpn=V2400W&manufacture=BenQ

well worth it, I'm considering getting a second when my budget allows

[Blue_MiSfit]

Quality DVDs and DVD backups look just fine on a 1920x1200 screen. It's no biggie.

Crappy old backups on the other hand - not so good :)

I have a huge collection of stuff I ripped years ago, and it all looks laughably bad on my LCD now. I'm in process of re-encoding most of my DVDs to CRF18-20 x264, most of them using MDegrain2.

With a BluRay drive, I can assure you that 1080p content will become a bigger fraction of your viewing :)

~MiSfit

~MiSfit

[th3obr0]

I am thinking of not buying a 24" 'cause the normal 700 MB movies look so noisey and stretched on full screen. I would prefer to go for a 22" LCD. Also can anyone comment on this: http://forum.doom9.org/showpost.php?p=1263688&postcount=33

[Blue_MiSfit]

So you want to get a smaller LCD so you don't have to think about how bad your 700mb encodes are? :)

Seems a bit off to me, but whatever floats your boat. My vote is still for a 24".

~MiSfit