Buy XviD hardware?

[jackiz]

I want to buy hardware for xvid encoding primarily. I want to spend about $1800-$2000.
What hardware and software should i get for that?

I really appreciate answers :)
Thanks!

[kypec]

Huh? What HW you have in mind? I suggest to buy regular PC, install Xvid and use it.

[jackiz]

I was thinking what CPU, what ram, what storage device and so on?

[Przemek_Sperling]

What CPU?

I do not know but I know that the multithreading of XviD (even multithreaded XviD builds) encoding is weak. My CPU has 4 cores and I can forget 100% CPU utilization. I think that highly clocked dual core CPU can be better than a quad. Maybe unless you have some money to burn and you can afford the most expensive Intel CPUs (like i7-980) and overclock them.

[Ghitulescu]

I want to buy hardware for xvid encoding primarily. I want to spend about $1800-$2000.
What hardware and software should i get for that?

I really appreciate answers :)
Thanks!

For that money you could have hundreds of original DVDs ;)

[jackiz]

What CPU?

I do not know but I know that the multithreading of XviD (even multithreaded XviD builds) encoding is weak. My CPU has 4 cores and I can forget 100% CPU utilization. I think that highly clocked dual core CPU can be better than a quad. Maybe unless you have some money to burn and you can afford the most expensive Intel CPUs (like i7-980) and overclock them.

I was thinking about a Intel Core i7 980X, would that be the best choice?
What kind of RAM, cooling and mobo should i get?
Is SSD important? or is HDD enough?


For that money you could have hundreds of original DVDs ;)
I'm not in the market for DVD's though :)

[Przemek_Sperling]

Here you have the showdown: http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/2009-desktop-cpu-charts-update-1/XviD-1.2.1,1383.html

Maybe it is possible to run the multiple instances of XviD, otherwise IMO buying a i7-980 for XviD encoding is a waste of money (as I said, unless you have some to burn).
HDDs are fast enough, but I would go for a small SSD (system partition) and a large HDD like a Samsung F4 divided into partitions (for the rest).

[jackiz]

Here you have the showdown: http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/2009-desktop-cpu-charts-update-1/XviD-1.2.1,1383.html

Maybe it is possible to run the multiple instances of XviD, otherwise IMO buying a i7-980 for XviD encoding is a waste of money (as I said, unless you have some to burn).
HDDs are fast enough, but I would go for a small SSD (system partition) and a large HDD like a Samsung F4 divided into partitions (for the rest).

Thanks!
I do have alot of money to spend. I'm not only going to use it for XviD. But im going to optimize it for xvid encoding and also use it for other fun stuff. it's always nice to have a powerful computer.

[Blue_MiSfit]

Yeah, a 980x is about as good as it gets... :)

You should really be doing x264 encoding ;)

Derek

[Biggiesized]

If you're only compressing pre-compressed sources (i.e. DVDs), you won't need fast drives.

Is this purchase work related or merely for your pleasure?

[jackiz]

If you're only compressing pre-compressed sources (i.e. DVDs), you won't need fast drives.

Is this purchase work related or merely for your pleasure?
Just for my own pleasure


Yeah, a 980x is about as good as it gets... :)

You should really be doing x264 encoding ;)

Derek

I will try that too :)

[Przemek_Sperling]

Same came to my mind- x.264 is a better use of multicore processors: http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/desktop-cpu-charts-2010/Video-Transcode-Handbrake-MPEG-2-to-H.264,2421.html

jackiz - do you have any parts from your old computer (memory, graphic card, etc.) or do you build everything from scratch? And what the computer will be used for? Games? Photo editing? I guess not only for XviD encoding :-)

[jackiz]

Same came to my mind- x.264 is a better use of multicore processors: http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/desktop-cpu-charts-2010/Video-Transcode-Handbrake-MPEG-2-to-H.264,2421.html

jackiz - do you have any parts from your old computer (memory, graphic card, etc.) or do you build everything from scratch? And what the computer will be used for? Games? Photo editing? I guess not only for XviD encoding :-)

Photoshop, world of warcraft, watching HD movies, folding@home and stuff like that.
I hav some stuff from old computers, not ram or graphics though.

[ramicio]

I look at older XVID rips of HD movies and I look at x264 ones of today and I just wonder how I ever watched the XVID ones. If you're going to build an encoding machine, go with using x264.

[Ma-Xell]

I look at older XVID rips of HD movies and I look at x264 ones of today and I just wonder how I ever watched the XVID ones. If you're going to build an encoding machine, go with using x264.

Definitely Agreed. With XVID I can get ~80% utilization on all cores on my Core2Quad Q9550 while encoding. While x264 uses 100% of all cores.
Generally the more cores you have and the higher the Ghz is the faster the encoding will be. Although you lose a tiny bit of quality when you use multiple cores.

[ramicio]

Why would you lose quality using more than 1 thread? It's doing the same calculations, just splitting them up. That is like the argument that doing a slow first pass will make better quality. Nonsense. It's digital, not analog.

[Ma-Xell]

please read up on x264 thread settings.. http://mewiki.project357.com/wiki/X264_Settings#threads
But as I said its a tiny bit and wont be noticable

[Blue_MiSfit]

Very tiny, definitely imperceptible unless you're using like 50+ threads or something crazy.

x264 uses frame based threading by default, which is much more efficient than slice based threading - though the latter still exists for its usefulness in low latency applications.

Derek