Welcome, Unregistered.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Reply
Old 25-Mar-2012, 23:02   #1
RudeCurve
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,729
Icon Question Need advice on CPU choice for recoding h.264 on Blu-ray

I'm gonna be purchasing a new CPU and need advice on which will be better/faster for recoding h.264 used on Blu-ray movies. I just purchased a Blu-ray burner and am recoding/compressing the larger BD-50 dual layer movies down to BD-25 single layer. This process takes quite awhile on an old 2.4GHz P4 that's been used over the years for DVD's MPEG2 recoding. Since I recently made the jump to recoding Blu-rays this old dedicated workhorse needs to be replaced with a new system. My budget for the CPU is $200 and I'm thinking of getting the 8-core AMD FX-8120. Is this a good choice for the described job or should I get a quad core Intel Core i5-2400?
__________________
I'd rather have 1680x1050 at 48fps...than 1920x1080 at 30fps...
RudeCurve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-Mar-2012, 23:16   #2
tongue_of_colicab
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Japan
Posts: 2,324
Default

Can't you use the gpu for that these days? Might offer better performance for the money than a cpu.
__________________
I cut an elderly woman off and she spun out and crashed... but its alright... cause I've got a Jaaaaag
tongue_of_colicab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-Mar-2012, 23:29   #3
RudeCurve
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,729
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tongue_of_colicab View Post
Can't you use the gpu for that these days? Might offer better performance for the money than a cpu.
I'm not familiar with what kind of graphics card I could get for $200 that is as fast or faster at recoding. Do you have any suggestions? Also if I go with the AMD CPU it's gonna go into a new motherboard that has a Radeon HD 4250 onboard. If I go with the Intel it will have whatever built-in graphics that CPU offers. On the other hand if I go with a separate $200 graphics card I will still have to get a "cheap" $50 CPU just to run the PC. Then there's the other option of getting a $100 CPU and a $100 graphics card?
__________________
I'd rather have 1680x1050 at 48fps...than 1920x1080 at 30fps...
RudeCurve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-Mar-2012, 23:47   #4
Davros
Darlek ******
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 11,039
Default

some benchmarks cpu only
http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-a6-3500-apu-review/13

have a look at quicksync (its supposed to be good at transcoding, could be wrong)
__________________
Guardian of the Bodacious Three Terabytes of Gaming Goodness™
Davros is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-Mar-2012, 00:07   #5
Grall
Invisible Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: La-la land
Posts: 6,617
Default

Just a question... If your source material is a blu-ray movie, stored on a disc, and the destination is also a blu-ray disc........why on earth aren't you just playing back the original disc? Why all this extra work?
__________________
"...He laughed in a strange language."
-L.V.
Grall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-Mar-2012, 01:00   #6
RudeCurve
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,729
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Davros View Post
some benchmarks cpu only
http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-a6-3500-apu-review/13

have a look at quicksync (its supposed to be good at transcoding, could be wrong)
Cool thanks for the link!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grall View Post
Just a question... If your source material is a blu-ray movie, stored on a disc, and the destination is also a blu-ray disc........why on earth aren't you just playing back the original disc? Why all this extra work?
It's for movies I don't own eg borrowed or rented....
__________________
I'd rather have 1680x1050 at 48fps...than 1920x1080 at 30fps...

Last edited by RudeCurve; 26-Mar-2012 at 01:07.
RudeCurve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-Mar-2012, 10:06   #7
Davros
Darlek ******
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 11,039
Default

how about avivo amd gpu transcoding

speed up editing and transferring your videos to a portable video player with new Accelerated Video Transcoding (AVT) technology. Introduced with the ATI Radeon HD 4800 series, AVT leverages the parallel processing power of the GPU to achieve faster than real-time encoding and transcoding. You can convert videos to H.264 and MPEG-2 formats up to 19x faster than when using a just CPU

edit found some gpu benchmarks

blueray to ipod transcode

amd 4870 = 12 secs
badaboom gtx260 = 23 secs
xilsoft converter q9650 = 72 secs

ps: is ripping the copy protection the same as transcoding ?
__________________
Guardian of the Bodacious Three Terabytes of Gaming Goodness™
Davros is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-Mar-2012, 10:18   #8
KKRT
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,039
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Davros View Post
how about avivo amd gpu transcoding

speed up editing and transferring your videos to a portable video player with new Accelerated Video Transcoding (AVT) technology. Introduced with the ATI Radeon HD 4800 series, AVT leverages the parallel processing power of the GPU to achieve faster than real-time encoding and transcoding. You can convert videos to H.264 and MPEG-2 formats up to 19x faster than when using a just CPU
But quality isnt that good and You are limited to only few resolutions.
KKRT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-Mar-2012, 11:18   #9
Arwin
Now Officially a Top 10 Poster
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Maastricht, The Netherlands
Posts: 14,861
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KKRT View Post
But quality isnt that good and You are limited to only few resolutions.
There an increasing amount of third party applications though that support GPU accellerated encoding. I use imToo for transferring kids DVDs to PSP (and now Vita), for instance, but they have loads of different products for conversion and so on. Using GPU accelleration on that gives about the same performance on my 2009 Intel quad-core CPU as on my ATI 5570, which is convenient because just using the GPU compute keeps my system very responsive.
Arwin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-Mar-2012, 13:55   #10
Lightman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Torquay, UK
Posts: 1,150
Default

If quality is your main concern then go for fast CPU and FX8120 will get you performance of Core i7 2600K and quite a bit more than i5 2400.
If you're happy with QuickSync quality and limitations and it works with software you want to use then it will be the best option to go for now.
Once nVidia and AMD GPU transcoding hits retail they will take the lead, but you have to get at least HD7750 card to get that feature or wait month or two for Trinity APU's.

Not an easy choice ...
Lightman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-Mar-2012, 21:53   #11
Davros
Darlek ******
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 11,039
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lightman View Post
Once nVidia and AMD GPU transcoding hits retail
I thought they had that ?


does H.264
__________________
Guardian of the Bodacious Three Terabytes of Gaming Goodness™
Davros is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-Mar-2012, 09:25   #12
Lightman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Torquay, UK
Posts: 1,150
Default

Yes, but it's limited settings and medicore quality aren't suitable for transcoding to anything than portable devices in my opinion.
New VCE engine build into 28nm GPUs from AMD and nVidia should be much more flexible and a lot faster as well while offering better output quality.


Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk
Lightman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-Apr-2012, 23:59   #13
RudeCurve
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,729
Default

Completed building the PC this weekend and also rebuilt a second PC I have that recently died from a burned out onboard Nvidia GPU chipset. Under load for all 8 cores the stock CPU fan spins up to 6K rpm and gets fairly loud. I have the FX8120 overclocked to 4GHz and at 90% load during re-encoding core temp maxes out at 55C. The stock heatsink for the FX8120 has built-in heatpipes compared to the stock unit for the FX4100 which doesn't have them.

My other computer which recently died from a failed onboard Nvidia GPU chipset was rebuilt using a FX4100 also overclocked to 4GHz. It replaced a C2D E7200 which was quite fast for my needs but I decided to buy a new AMD motherboard/CPU combo. Both FX equipped PCs are running budget Biostar A880GZ uATX boards and Crucial Ballistix Tactical DDR3 sticks. Both are very stable at 4GHz.

Decode/Re-encode of dual layer Blu-ray movies takes about 5 hrs to shrink them down to a SL BD. I currently have the onboard Radeon HD4250 set to decode and the CPU for encode. Not sure if it's faster/slower and/or better quality than having the CPU do both decode/re-encode...might have to try that at a later time.

FX8120@4GHz system



FX4100@4GHz system



My favorite line of memory

__________________
I'd rather have 1680x1050 at 48fps...than 1920x1080 at 30fps...

Last edited by RudeCurve; 25-Apr-2012 at 00:38.
RudeCurve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-Apr-2012, 11:13   #14
Davros
Darlek ******
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 11,039
Default

At last another b3d member with a talent for cable management equal to my self
__________________
Guardian of the Bodacious Three Terabytes of Gaming Goodness™
Davros is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-Apr-2012, 19:36   #15
homerdog
hardly a Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: still camping with a mauler
Posts: 4,345
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Davros View Post
At last another b3d member with a talent for cable management equal to my self
Hah! Even my case which is rusted (!!) and broken in about every way it can break looks better than that on the inside

I am willing to trade my tidy E6750 system for your sloppy bulldozer. I'll even throw in a can of spraypaint to cover up the rust
__________________
Releasing a game in 2010 without AA is a completely foreign concept to me. If the technique you're using makes it impossible to use AA then you're using the wrong techniques. As simple as that. Releasing a PC game without AA options is OK only if that means you can only have it enabled
-Humus
homerdog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-Apr-2012, 11:03   #16
Davros
Darlek ******
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 11,039
Default

I dont have a bulldozer (q6600)
__________________
Guardian of the Bodacious Three Terabytes of Gaming Goodness™
Davros is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-Apr-2012, 16:06   #17
Blazkowicz
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 4,892
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RudeCurve View Post
I currently have the onboard Radeon HD4250 set to decode and the CPU for encode. Not sure if it's faster/slower and/or better quality than having the CPU do both decode/re-encode...might have to try that at a later time.
that's neat, I didn't know you could do that though there's no reason AMD would disallow it, outside of a HDCP playback chain.

we can estimate the speed up, or the slow down if done fully in software. let's say encoding is 10x slower than decoding, then switching to full software processing would be about 10% slower.

best thing in town for encoding would be either a great DSP based solution. why we aren't seeing encoding cards and decoding cards readily available on PCI and PCIe I don't know. or a many-core CPU, the only one worth mentioning for now is Intel Knights Corner but if it's released one year from now and sold at $10K it isn't very helpful.

GPGPU encoding is just software, there's no software made for AMD GCN and nvidia Kepler yet.
best would be for the x264 community to work on this but.. many man-hours needed I suppose, and it will work for a subset of users whereas generic software can run on a tablet or a pentium 2 or a 8-way sparc server if that's what you want.

btw, 5 hours, a figure I've just read from your post. it's a pretty nice number for encoding such heavyweight video with the most CPU hungry codec .

I wonder what the figure is for other encoding, and the resulting quality. I would like to do 4GB, 720p xvid with high quality stereo OGG , made from high bitrate bluray.
Blazkowicz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-Apr-2012, 20:25   #18
homerdog
hardly a Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: still camping with a mauler
Posts: 4,345
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Davros View Post
I dont have a bulldozer (q6600)
Whoops that was directed at RudeCurve.

How is that q6600 holding up for you Davros? I would like to slap a q6600 in this old P35 mobo, clock it to 3200MHz and give it to my brother so we can play BF3 together. The E6750 just barely keeps things playable in 64p matches.
__________________
Releasing a game in 2010 without AA is a completely foreign concept to me. If the technique you're using makes it impossible to use AA then you're using the wrong techniques. As simple as that. Releasing a PC game without AA options is OK only if that means you can only have it enabled
-Humus
homerdog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-Apr-2012, 22:55   #19
Davros
Darlek ******
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 11,039
Default

Its fine, sure an i7 would get me higher frame rates but with a decent gfx card it does the job
ps: mines not o/c'd (dont trust the cooler stock intel with 1 pushpin replaced with a nut and bolt)
__________________
Guardian of the Bodacious Three Terabytes of Gaming Goodness™
Davros is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-May-2012, 02:35   #20
homerdog
hardly a Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: still camping with a mauler
Posts: 4,345
Default

I bet you would see some pretty significant gains if you clocked it up to 3000MHz. Shouldn't be too hard provided you can keep it cool. Of course you would lose EIST and the associated power saving which kinda sucks but is really not a huge deal.
__________________
Releasing a game in 2010 without AA is a completely foreign concept to me. If the technique you're using makes it impossible to use AA then you're using the wrong techniques. As simple as that. Releasing a PC game without AA options is OK only if that means you can only have it enabled
-Humus
homerdog is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 16:10.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.