Grass Valley Forums

Grass Valley Forums (http://forum.grassvalley.com/forum/index.php)
-   EDIUS: Compatible Hardware and Accessories (http://forum.grassvalley.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=38)
-   -   AMD or Intel? (http://forum.grassvalley.com/forum/showthread.php?t=43046)

Cobra427 02-12-2019 09:02 AM

AMD or Intel?
 
The AMD processors seem to have a slight advantage for video editing. Intel has Quicksink. Which one to choose? Is Quicksink that important?

My present processor does not have quicksink and is struggling with 4K. One track is fine, one track with filters sometimes becomes a problem (depends on the filter), two tracks are usually a problem. My footage is 4k xavc 100Mb/s. At this moment setting the preview to 1/2 does the trick (most of the time).

Chris

BernH 02-12-2019 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cobra427 (Post 318255)
The AMD processors seem to have a slight advantage for video editing. Intel has Quicksink. Which one to choose? Is Quicksink that important?

My present processor does not have quicksink and is struggling with 4K. One track is fine, one track with filters sometimes becomes a problem (depends on the filter), two tracks are usually a problem. My footage is 4k xavc 100Mb/s. At this moment setting the preview to 1/2 does the trick (most of the time).

Chris

Most video edit softwares are written around Intel CPU's. That is not to say they will not work on AMD processors, just that they use intel in the programming and testing stages.

Quicksync is not vital, but can help with faster H264 and H265 exports by using the quicksync functions in the Intel GPU core, and newer versions of Edius have also started to make use the power of Quicksync for decoding video files that have been encoded with H264.

Many have reported that using Quicksync decode does allow for easier playback of 4K if the quicksync version is 4K capable, or allows for more layers to play without problem. 4K is taxing on any system since it is essentially 4 times the data processing and bandwidth requirements of HD, meaning that 1 layer of 4K is similar to playing 4 HD layers at the same time. If the source file is heavily compressed H264 or H265, it is a lot of decoding calculation that needs to be done, so you can't expect a system to work as efficiently with 4K as it does with HD, especially when adding effects, since it requires the heavy decode and then processing of the effects, regardless of if it is a multicore threadripper or an Intel/Quicksync CPU.

Transcoding the 4K to HQX before editing can also help a lot by reducing a lot of the "live" decoding math, but it does require conversion time and a lot more disc space. Additionally, using a proxy workflow can help a lot, but once again will require conversion time, and the visual quality of the proxy is a lot less. (a high quality proxy setting results in a proxy that is around an HD frame size, but at a low bitrate so visibly less quality than a regular HD file)

That said, Noa and Ron here on the forum have built systems using AMD threadrippers and have been using them with 4K, so no Quicksync isn't necessary if the CPU can keep up with the decoding.

As far as I am aware though, if you want to produce h265 directly from Edius, you have to use quicksync, as there is no software only encoder for it currently in Edius.

Cobra427 02-13-2019 08:16 AM

Thanks for this explanation.
Basically the choice is either Intel with Quicksink or AMD. Funtionality will be the same, aside exporting h.265. For the same price I might get a faster AMD system, but no quicksink and therefor the same editing experience. More or less.
Is that a correct conclusion?

Chris

BernH 02-13-2019 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cobra427 (Post 318272)
Thanks for this explanation.
Basically the choice is either Intel with Quicksink or AMD. Funtionality will be the same, aside exporting h.265. For the same price I might get a faster AMD system, but no quicksink and therefor the same editing experience. More or less.
Is that a correct conclusion?

Chris

There is a third choice, Intel without quicksync (ie. most xeon cpus), but this is, in my opinion, the worst of the three options, as you have no quicksync and Xeons in general do not perform as well with Edius as an i7 or a Thredripper, and are generally much more expensive, (unless of course you want to pay more to get less).

Personally, if I were building a new system, I would stay with an intel/quicksync platform, just because, in addition to the Edius quicksync encode and decode options, I use quicksync in some other applications also, like the TMPGEnc AVC plugin, Handbrake and xmedia recode. Also because it is the platform that Edius is written and tested on, so there is less chance of running into an issue that is amd related due to different instruction sets in the chip as it may relate to Edius.

Threadrippers are generally faster with more cores, but they may or may not be a better choice, depending on the software you use and how you use the system.

You are correct though in saying that the general editing experience should be the same, since Edius is mostly CPU based in it's functions, relying on GPU for only a few things that may or may not be important to you.

You should try to have a look through the threads here by Ron and Noa to see what they have been reporting, or maybe even PM them to get some direct feedback.

It is a pretty big financial commitment to build a new system, so doing the research and getting some feedback is a good step.


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:30 AM.


Copyright 2014 Belden Inc. All rights reserved.