BD Rebuilder Hardware Recommendations

[DoctorM]

I'm upgrading a really old PC because of the XP EOL and BD Rebuilder.

I'm looking for hardware suggestions that will make BD-RB run faster. I'm aware there is an Intel chip that can accelerate encoding, but is that a good answer? Never been a big Intel fan.

Anyway, I'm open to GPU/CPU suggestions of good bang for my buck. 3D encoding is NOT important.

[Mark_Venture]

There is some past hardware talk here -> http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=167580

What is your PC now? Do you have a budget in mind for the new PC?

[DoctorM]

Unfortunately, most of the talk on that thread is a year old.
The confusing but useful information had a lot of people showing that multiprocess worked slower not faster.
Considering I'm leaning towards an AMD FX-6300, those extra cores may not be a benefit. (I am a bit unclear of the difference between multiprocess vs multicore.)

I was also leaning towards an ATI R7 based vid card, but I'm thinking an Nvidia and DGDecNV might be a wiser move (assuming there is any real benefit to that).

[Guest]

You asked so we are allowed to give our opinions. Stay with Intel CPUs!

[DoctorM]

I've never bought anything besides AMD since my 80486 days.
Is there really a benefit to using Intel in this case? Even something as lowly as an i3-4130 since that'd be all that would fit within the same budget?
Comments on the bug report thread were saying that the onboard graphics can be used but that's only for FRIM.
And FRIM appears to only be useful if you need 3d encoding (which I don't) or don't mind a small quality hit to 2D (which I do).

TomsHardware:
While Intel's Core i3-4130 offers more potential, you won't be able to tell the difference most of the time. On the other hand, the FX-6300 costs $10 less, sports an unlocked clock multiplier, and features six integer cores that unquestionably benefit performance in threaded desktop applications.

I'm also a bit concerned with the recently released specs for Watch Dogs. 6-8 cores are needed, which rules out anything Intel within budget.
I know that's not out yet, and I may not even care when it does, but it may suggest that newer game releases may need more cores.

That's my reasoning anyway.

[Groucho2004]

Have a look at this site (http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/); CPU section. They run a x264 bench and you can compare various CPUs. Price aside, Intel CPUs are clearly faster clock for clock (and also much more efficient) than AMD CPUs with x264 and Avisynth.

[jdobbs]

Have a look at this site (http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/); CPU section. They run a x264 bench and you can compare various CPUs. Price aside, Intel CPUs are clearly faster clock for clock (and also much more efficient) than AMD CPUs with x264 and Avisynth.Yeah, but they are also much more expensive.

[HWK]

Yeah, but they are also much more expensive.

You get what you pay for :) To help you decide consider how many you are gone be doing. If you are like me always doing encoding, then go for it.

Also for GPU go with Nvidia and then get Dgdecnv for $ 15 really help you with frame serving and output size.

[DoctorM]

I've had Nvidia before, HWK, no complaints with them, so that's a real possibility. To be honest, can take up to 24 hours on my current PC on the best settings.
Relative to that, any of these will probably be a dream.

I'm gonna have to spend a bunch of time going through the X-bit site now. Thanks for the link Groucho2004.

[DoctorM]

Another question, does the amount of RAM make any difference for re-encoding?
I was planning on 4gb until I saw that a lot of current game specs recommend 8gb. Games specs are usually a good indication of which direction the industry is going. (Interestingly, the new gen of game consoles have AMD chips and games that are cross-platform tend to require better Intel chips for the same PC performance.)

It seems like money better spent than a small CPU bump.

I'm sort of leaning towards that FX-6300 now even if it doesn't help encoding. Maybe x264 will optimize for more cores in the future(?)

[jdobbs]

I'd recommend 8GB just to meet what is typical these days -- but when I upgraded from 4GB to 8GB I didn't see any speed difference. Also -- if you want to used more than 4GB you need to use a 64 bit version of Windows.

X264 is very good with utilizing cores. But normally you won't see it until the 2nd pass.

[HWK]

Also -- if you want to used more than 4GB you need to use a 64 bit version of Windows.


If you are using Windows 7 home premium, then make sure your max memory is 16 GB or below.

[DoctorM]

If you are using Windows 7 home premium, then make sure your max memory is 16 GB or below.
Was barely considering 8gb.


X264 is very good with utilizing cores. But normally you won't see it until the 2nd pass.
So jumping from 6 to 8 cores at nearly similarly clock speeds shouldn't make much difference for ABR or CRF encoding?

[jdobbs]

Was barely considering 8gb.



So jumping from 6 to 8 cores at nearly similarly clock speeds shouldn't make much difference for ABR or CRF encoding?Yes it will. Most of the time in a two pass encoding is spent in the 2nd pass. The first pass is essentially just gathering information. But ABF or CRF does all that same work all together in a single pass.

[DoctorM]

Ah, thanks. I'm way off budget now with what I want in a PC. I need to rethink some stuff.

[DoctorM]

Are no other hardware decoders available/supported? LAV Filters or CoreAVC or something?
I see Neuron2 is working on a QuickSync decoder now. Interesting.

It's just every time I start researching vid cards, the recommendations always lean towards ATI for price and performance.
Don't get me wrong, I'll probably go Nvidia if it's the only path to BD-RB acceleration, I'd just be nice to have the option of ATI.

[HWK]

LAV supported on 64 bit OS and it is built in x264 encoder. However if filter are used then it will use avisynth and no more LAV decode. NVidia on other hand can work with both environment with filter or without filter.

[DoctorM]

Just wanted to report my final choice. I know Intel chips have their advantages for decoding, but I found a (very brief) sale on Amazon. They had the AMD FX-8320 for $130. If you live near a Micro Center you can still get that price in store.

Why? Performance comparison of CPUs for x264 Transcoding here: http://www.anandtech.com/show/6396/the-vishera-review-amd-fx8350-fx8320-fx6300-and-fx4300-tested/3

If you wanted to beat the FX chip for x264 work, you'd need an i7 and you'd pay 3x the price.
The FX-6300 I was looking at was only $20 cheaper and would have had only two thirds the performance. The similarly priced i3 probably wouldn't perform that much better.