Decent PC configuration for running: AviSynth + script and then encoding

[dadix]

Hi.Which is the minimum required configuration for a PC to run decent in AviSynth, a complete restoration video-audio script, and after that coding direct output in x264 qhigh-profile quality?

[Guest]

That can't be answered because "decent" is so vague.

[dadix]

Processing + encoding a 10-minutes video clip restoration to be less or equal to 20 minutes.
Script must to have (deshaker,denoise-dfttest,smoother,dither,debanding,sharpener,advanced color corection ) 720p output.

[Groucho2004]

Originally Posted by dadix

Processing + encoding a 10-minutes video clip restoration to be less or equal to 20 minutes.
Script must to have (deshaker,denoise-dfttest,smoother,dither,debanding,sharpener,advanced color corection ) 720p output.

With this kind of filter chain, the script is most likely going to be your bottleneck (unless you are using some insane settings for x264).

You could use one of the hacked Avisynth MT versions but there is no guarantee that this works.

Either way, you should get a fast CPU, at least an Intel i5-2500K.

[diogen]

Originally Posted by dadix

Processing + encoding a 10-minutes video clip restoration to be less or equal to 20 minutes.
Script must to have (deshaker,denoise-dfttest,smoother,dither,debanding,sharpener,advanced color corection ) 720p output.

Encoding hidef with half the playback speed and all those filters in the chain?
Considering x264 can't be much accelerated on multicore CPUs?

I don't think this is possible.
Start with the fastest (in GHz metric) Intel CPU you can afford...

Diogen.

[Traps]

x264 scales extemely well with multiple cores.

[diogen]

Originally Posted by Traps

x264 scales extemely well with multiple cores.

I didn't know that.

In this case a 16-core Buldozer might do it...

Diogen.

[QuantumRand]

Unless you can get the multithreaded version to work adequately, I'd recommend a Core 2 Duo and OC that bitch to 4+GHz.

I've got a Tri-core AMD A6 @2100Mhz, a quad-core (8 with hyperthreading) Core i7m @1.6GHz-2.8GHz, and my trusty old Core 2 Duo E6600 @4.8GHz. In Handbrake (which is multithreaded), my C2D is actually the fastest. I imagine an i5-2500k would probably be faster, though (but also a lot more expensive).

The AMD FX-6100 could also be a good choice. It's affordable (About $150), has six cores, and is fairly overclockable. You could probably get it up to ~4.3GHz with a decent heatsink fan. Even with the stock cooler, you should be able to hit 3.9GHz. All-in-all, it's one of the best bang per buck processors on the market right now.

[dadix]

Originally Posted by QuantumRand

Unless you can get the multithreaded version to work adequately, I'd recommend a Core 2 Duo and OC that bitch to 4+GHz.

I've got a Tri-core AMD A6 @2100Mhz, a quad-core (8 with hyperthreading) Core i7m @1.6GHz-2.8GHz, and my trusty old Core 2 Duo E6600 @4.8GHz. In Handbrake (which is multithreaded), my C2D is actually the fastest. I imagine an i5-2500k would probably be faster, though (but also a lot more expensive).

The AMD FX-6100 could also be a good choice. It's affordable (About $150), has six cores, and is fairly overclockable. You could probably get it up to ~4.3GHz with a decent heatsink fan. Even with the stock cooler, you should be able to hit 3.9GHz. All-in-all, it's one of the best bang per buck processors on the market right now.

AMD FX-8120 Zambezi 3.1GHz Socket AM3+ 95W/125W Eight-Core Desktop Processor FD8120FRGUBOX, must be good for this job ?

[diogen]

Here is a good comparison of the Intel and AMD CPUs doing x264 encoding
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4083/t...2100-tested/16

Diogen.

[dadix]

Originally Posted by diogen

Here is a good comparison of the Intel and AMD CPUs doing x264 encoding
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4083/t...2100-tested/16

Diogen.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qD3ScERWx5I

This is true or false?

[diogen]

It shows a decoding job where AMD uses its Radeon mobile component of the APU.
I don't think this directly translates into encoding superiority. See this for example
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4476/amd-a83850-review/8

When "transcoding a 15Mbps H.264 encoded 1080p Quantum of Solace rip to a 4Mbps 720p iPhone 4 compatible file"
the i3 Intel beats AMD by a factor of 2.6.

Diogen.

[QuantumRand]

Originally Posted by dadix

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qD3ScERWx5I

This is true or false?

Yes, that is true, but also somewhat misleading. AMD's Llano (aka A-series) CPUs have an entry level gaming GPU integrated into the chip.

What the video is showing is AMD's integrated graphics superiority (essentially pitting the HD6550 against the Intel HD 3000 graphics). Honestly, there's no comparison. AMD's GPU destroy's Intel's.

But x.264 encoding doesn't really give you much option in terms of GPU accelerated encoding, so all that matters is the raw processing power. In that case, an Intel i7 2600k would wipe the floor with the A8.

An AMD FX-8120 would perform very nearly as well as the i7-2600k, especially if you overclocked it a bit. If that's what you already have, you're absolutely fine.

[dadix]

The problem has two parts. Real-time processing ,view and transcoding,encoding.
But when we have a script with (deshaker,denoise-dfttest,smoother,dither,debanding,sharpener,advanced color corection ) 720p output, is more convenient to have AMD multiple core for in real time processing and view?

[QuantumRand]

Originally Posted by dadix

The problem has two parts. Real-time processing ,view and transcoding,encoding.
But when we have a script with (deshaker,denoise-dfttest,smoother,dither,debanding,sharpener,advanced color corection ) 720p output, is more convenient to have AMD multiple core for in real time processing and view?

Only the AMD A-series CPUs (AMD calls them APUs) have the gaming level integrated GPUs, but there are only a few transcoding applications that allow for GPU assisted encodes (and most of these don't support the HD6550D anyway). What's more, you could just as easily add a PCI-e video card to either and AMD or Intel system, making the point moot.

As far as raw CPU performance, the upper end A-series is roughly on par with the mid-range Core i5s.

From a cost standpoint, AMD has the better offerings. In terms of raw performance, Intel has the edge.

Yes, the Core i7s are only quad-core (except for the few expensive six-core models), but they also have hyperthreading. Hyperthready allows each core to process two threads at once, essentially turning a quad-core i7 into an 8-core CPU. Hyperthreading does have a negative effect on floating point performance, but transcoding doesn't deal much with floating points. On top of that, Intel has a more efficient clock-for-clock architecture than AMD right now.

The result is that the i7-2600k will be faster than the FX-8120, even though the 8120 is a true 8-core CPU. I can't quote you any hard numbers, but I don't think the i7-2600k would be that much faster than the FX-8120.

If you're looking to build a new system, the six-core (12 thread) Core i7-3930k will probably be your fastest choice, but at $600 it probably won't fit your budget. The i7-2600k would probably be the next fastest, but again, it's a little pricey. Those are the only two i7s I'd consider.

Considerably cheaper, is the six-core FX-8120 (or slightly more expensive 8150). It's a small step down in terms of performance compared to the i7s, but the cost difference is really worth it.

My recommendation, however, would be the six-core FX-6100. It'll get you better performance than the i5-2500k, but actually cost you less. It really is the best bang-for-buck option right now.

Now, this is all assuming you'll be using a multithreaded transcoder (which most are). If you're you're doing single-threaded transcodes, you should probably look into the multithreaded options.

[nibus]

The Athlon II X4 631 Quad-Core is also really good for the money - http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?...+631+Quad-Core

Not sure how it overclocks though.

[QuantumRand]

Originally Posted by nibus

The Athlon II X4 631 Quad-Core is also really good for the money - http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?...+631+Quad-Core

Not sure how it overclocks though.

The Athlon II X4 631 is essentially an A-3650 without the integrated GPU, so it should overclock quite well (the GPU clock in the A-3650 is really what hinders overclockers).

The biggest downside is that its on the FM1 socket, which right now doesn't have any high-end choices if you ever wanted to upgrade down the line. For the time being, the only reason for going with FM1 would be for the A-series processors and mostly ideal for a compact light-gaming rig or media server.

At ~$85 it's a pretty damn sweet deal in terms of price/performance though. As long as you don't mind limited choices in upgrades in the future, it's a good choice for a tight budget.

If you can afford the extra $60, the FX-6100 will get you about the same price/performance, but uses the AM3+ socket, so you have a very wide array of options to upgrade to in the future (although the FX-6100 is currently pretty close to the top of AMD's CPU line up, bested only by the FX-8XXX series).

[ewanqbl]

How about and older X6 Phenom? Will it work better? And it's still pretty competitive compared to how appalling Bulldozer goes in some applications.

Though I'd still go for an Intel for the demanded workload. Also, the newer i7 3820 on the 2011 socket is available, though you end up sinking a lot more money on the motherboard. Yet, the quad channel memory controller should more than pay for itself.

[QuantumRand]

Originally Posted by ewanqbl

How about and older X6 Phenom? Will it work better? And it's still pretty competitive compared to how appalling Bulldozer goes in some applications.

Assuming you mean the Phenom II X6 1090T Black Edition, yes, it'll give you similar performance to the FX-6100. But unless you already have the X6 and just want to build a system with it, the FX-6100 is the better choice. The FX is cheaper, faster, and actually even compatible with the same socket as the X6. Also, the FX's 32nm design will mean it'll be more overclockable (though the X6 Black Edition has an unlocked multiplier) and the FX will use less power (90W TDP vs 125W).

[nibus]

Originally Posted by QuantumRand

The biggest downside is that its on the FM1 socket, which right now doesn't have any high-end choices if you ever wanted to upgrade down the line.

Ahh yes - in my haste I failed to realize this... I would spend the extra for the AM3+ socket for sure.