I have PD9 and it uses 8 threads of i7-2600K

Thank you for your response.

By chance, have you ever timed how long it takes to Render/Encode a somewhat large AV file? For example: something on the order of a 1-hour play-time video. If so, could you please let me know how long it took and any related details? Primarily, your processor (which I assume is an Intel i7-2600K), your memory (type, amount and speed), your operating system (I assume that it may be Windows 7 64-bit), and any other PC configuration details that you consider important to impacting the AV Render/Encode processing time.

My interest is that I am going to build a new PC to replace my 8-year old PC (XP Pro, SP3). My primary objective is to configure a new cost effective PC for optimum performance for Editing, Rendering, Encoding, etc. AV files using CyberLink PowerDirector 10 Ultra (64-bit). I have no practical experience processing AV files using current technology (only on my XP PC). It has become clear to me that the Processor and Memory are two critical components. I have no idea what other components are considered critical or just important to meet my objective (e.g., GPU Video Card, etc.). I want to make sure that I purchase the “key” components that will yield optimum AV processing performance. I plan on using Windows 7 Professional (64-bit) for obvious reasons.

I want to avoid spending money on components that will yield very little increase in AV processing performance. To cite a couple of examples where it may not be money-wise are: (1) purchase 32GB of memory when 16GB would be more than adequate; (2) purchase an Intel i7-3930 processor (which requires a higher-end, more expensive motherboard) when an Intel i7-2600K would be more than adequate; (3) any other important examples.

Thank you in advance for your assistance in this matter, Rick Flack.

1. If you are looking for the most accurate rendering do not use HW accel or encoding. In this mode a typical AVCHD video will render (on a win 7-64 bit, i7 PC with at least 6 Gbytes) in 50% of the time.
2. If image accuracy is not important enabling HW accel and encoding will improve the render time by approx. 5-10% on the previous stated period (depending on type of GPU graphics card).

Win7-64 bit, i7 PC, 8 Gbyte MM, fast GPU graphics card are the key factors for high quality (non-GPU) rendering HD video with PD10.
Win 10, i7

My experience with Video encoding, I use After Effects regularly, various NLE's, encoding for BluRay and DVD's, transcoding, I also have PD10 on one system here.

Many programme files are long, often with huge uncompressed master files, so I have big raid 5 esata external drives (4TB) and big raid 0 internal drives 4TB also.

I always use SSD system drives, it makes a huge difference to start up times and general stability in 64bit.

I use 16gb ram wherever possible, but 8gb is fine for PD10, both my 920DO stepping cpu and another 2600K run at 100% with 8 threads when PD10 renders, I always turn off hardware encoding/accl.

A moderate overclock will help too.

The newer 2700k processor and a cheap Gigabyte mobo will steam through these jobs, don't bother with the expensive 6 core cpu's.

I run a GTX285 and a GTX570, both appear adequate, no issues - make sure you get a supported audio card for Dolby DTS playback if you use PD11, sometimes mobo audio won't play the encoded file, whilst a BD player will.

Paul

hi rick,
try the 2700k instead the 2600k. choose the right motherboard for (one with z68 chipset that allows you to moderate overclock the cpu). a plus of the 2600k&2700k cpus is that hey have "graphicscard" built in the cpu die. so you dont really need an external graphicscard (3930K needs ext. graphics) and its powerful enough to let you use two ext. monitors on it. (hint: check that the new motherboard has two monitor connectors, so you could use one montior for editing and one for previewing).
if price of the new editing system doenst matter, okay, a new dual cpu workstationboard with 2x 3930K or w3580 or w3680, all will run fine with pd10. pd10 will use all cores/threads. there are no restrictions. ^^

my opinion is intels quick sync video does a great job. if you can get it, use it.
btw. i am using pd10 on a mac pro with win7 64bit via bootcamp and 2 intel xeon cpus on board (8cores/16 threads) and as far as i have seen it isnt that fast in encoding as it is on a 2600k using intels quick sync video. but i have to say rendering time does not really matter to me because rendering jobs running always over night here.

Rick,

If your interest is in consumer level video editing a std i7 PC will do just fine. The majority of the users on this forum are non-pros. If you are looking at commercial grade video editing PD10 should not be your choice. Win 10, i7

DHedit: Thank you for your response. I have the following questions based on your Item #1 and #2 comments:

1. Does your reference to “HW acceleration or encoding” apply to Intel’s Quick Sync (Intel® Quick Sync Video Technology accelerates encoding with built-in hardware and software)?

The following link provides an interesting discussion regarding Intel’s Quick Sync and the Z68 Motherboards with Lucid's Virtu technology (http://www.techradar.com/news/computing-components/motherboards/best-sandy-bridge-motherboard-8-reviewed-1027869).

On the surface, it appears that the following PC configuration would provide the best bang-for-the-buck to take advantage of the above attributes:

Intel i7-2600K Processor:
• 3.4 GHZ Normal, 3.8GHz Turbo (higher rates via overclocking)
• 4-Cores/8-Threads (PD10Ultra will use ALL available Threads)
• Built-In GPU chipset (850 MHz Normal, 1,350 MHz Turbo)
• Quick Sync Video Technology (PowerDirector 64-bit optimized to utilize this technology)

ASUS P8Z68-V PRO/GEN3 Motherboard:
• LucidLogix® Virtu (Universal Switchable Graphics) - Auto Switching between Integrated Graphics and NVIDIA/AMD Cards
• Integrated Graphics Processor with three (3) video ports (1 HDMI, 1 DVI, 1 VGA)
• 4 SATA III ports (which I need)

Corsair Vengeance Memory:
• 8GB [4GB X 2] DDR3-1600 Memory (or 16GB if PD10Ultra will take advantage of the additional memory)

2. Unless I do not properly understand you comment, it doesn’t seem that a 5-10% slower Render time will have a noticeable impact. Next you stated, “depending on type of GPU graphics card” and followed with “fast GPU graphics card are the key factors for high quality (non-GPU) rendering HD video”. Are you saying that a high-end Video Card will have a significant advantage over the Intel Processor/ASUS Motherboard GPU option as I detailed above? If the answer is Yes, is the significant advantage just for the Rendering process or does it speed up the Editing and/or Encoding processes as well?

Lastly, Image accuracy is very important to me as I will be Editing and Rending the following three groups of AV files that I will initially leave in their raw format. Once I have completed all Editing/Rending, then I will encode AV files into applicable formats for posting and distribution:

• 22 HD AVI Files, 298 GB, 10.75 Hours
• 20 Hi-8 video cassettes (40 hours) to be converted to digital AV files
• 81.6GB, 239 files and growing (*.MTS) video from my Sony HDR-CX550V camcorder (AVCHD)

In your follow-up posting you ask about my interest in either Consumer or Professional level AV software products. I am only interested in Consumer level products. The Professional products are way too expensive and too complicated (requiring a time consuming learning curve).

In closing, thank you for your time and assistance, Rick.

PaulTV: Thank you for your response. I have the following questions based on a couple of your comments:

You stated that SSD system drives make “a huge difference to start up times”; do you mean Operating System boot-up time only, or how fast PD10Ultra starts up and runs, or other speed considerations? Based on several reviews/articles that I have read, it appears that I should not use SSD’s to perform AV Editing, Rendering and Encoding; but instead, use fast HDD’s (minimum 7200 RPM) that are large enough to support my AV files.

You also commented that you “always turn off hardware encoding/acceleration”. Please refer to my response above to HDedit regarding the viability of using Intel’s Quick Sync and the Z68 Motherboards with Lucid's Virtu technology. I am trying to determine, “which or what is the best Video solution?” That is, does one solution have a significant performance advantage over the other?

Lastly, regarding 6 Core CPU’s, I received a response from CyberLink Technical Support stating the following:

“In regards to your concern, I would like to inform you that a 6-Core/12-Thread Processor would Render/Encode a HD AVI file (e.g., a 1-hour, 28GB file) 50% faster than a 4-Core/8-Thread Processor. More number of Cores and Threads ensures the faster rendering without any intrusion from other processes/programs running simultaneously.”

To take advantage of the 50% performance improvement, I will have to determine if it is worth the cost to pay for the higher price processor (i7-3930K versus the i7-2600K), a more expensive motherboard, and lastly, I would be forced to purchase a Video Card (which I may be required to do anyway) as the i7-3930K does not possess a built-in GPU chipset; thereby, negating Intel’s Quick Sync Video Technology facility.

In closing, thank you for your time and assistance, Rick.

Quote:
...... fast GPU graphics card are the key factors for high quality (non-GPU) rendering HD video with PD10.

Help me better understand this last part. If you are not using the GPU rendering, how does a fast or faster GPU card help?

Land of fieros, North Dakota USA

VideoFrank: Thank you for your response.

The cost of a new editing system is important to me so it is very unlikely that I would purchase a dual-CPU motherboard unless having 2x 3930K processors totally 24 Threads would mean my Render/Encode/etc processing time would be 300% or more faster than a single 2600K processor.

As you can see from my responses and comments above, I am definitely interested in determining if an Intel i7-2600K or 2700K processor with a Z68 Motherboard utilizing Intel’s Quick Sync Video Technology facility is the best way for me to go. Your comments encouraged me to pursue and research this alternative.

I will also need to determine if I should purchase a Video Card to support other applications that are graphics intensive. For example, Chief Architect – a software program similar to Auto-CAD except that it is a lot better, a lot cheaper and a lot easier to use.

In closing, thank you for your time and assistance, Rick.

Rick,

To elaborate a bit further on HA (hardware acceleration): If you scan this forum and that of PD9 for the HA feature you'll find that the serious editors have found by experience using the rendering algorithm of PD10 directly for ALL of the video process tends to produce a noticeably more accurate copy of the original. The reason is that GPU logic tends to use algorithms aimed at the display technology rather than that of rendering accuracy. This seems to introduce different pixelating to the project that many of us do not care for. The average viewer may not notice the rendering errors, but the more discerning editors will.

Because of the volume of video that you are proposing to produce it may be better for you to place rendering speed at the top of your list.

As for the choice between integrated GPU versus external : hands down the external GPU graphics card is the way to go simply because it affords one the ability to easily upgrade the GPU capability of the PC. Win 10, i7

Quote: VideoFrank: Thank you for your response.

As you can see from my responses and comments above, I am definitely interested in determining if an Intel i7-2600K or 2700K processor with a Z68 Motherboard utilizing Intel’s Quick Sync Video Technology facility is the best way for me to go. Your comments encouraged me to pursue and research this alternative.

I think you will be fine with it.

Quote: I will also need to determine if I should purchase a Video Card to support other applications that are graphics intensive. For example, Chief Architect – a software program similar to Auto-CAD except that it is a lot better, a lot cheaper and a lot easier to use.

Thats a good question. I dont know if your CAD software does need a special graphics card.
All Pro-CAD/CAM software i know, does. They mostly using Nvidia Quadro or ATI/AMD FireGL cards and there dedicated drivers.
If your software does not need such a special solution and is able to work without any problems with consumer hardware, then i think, there is no need to buy an external graphics at the moment.

Another thing i was thinking about, is your planned amount of ram. My personal opinion is: You could never have enough RAM. ^^
I would place 16GB or better 32GB of RAM on the new mainboard. I dont know if PD10 is able to use it all, but AFAIK your CAD solution will definetly take advantage of it.

Best regards.