As far as intel being better than amd for video editing, that's just not the case, unless you are saying for PD, specifically. In most situations, the cpu with the most cores and threads is the fastest for encoding. I am talking about mainstream cpus, the 8700/8700k and the 2700/2700x, so yes an intel with equal cores and threads would be better than an amd, but an amd with more cores and threads will be far superior for any program optimized properly for high core and thread uses. Of course intels with many threads would be best, but I'm talking $300-$400 cpus with the amd in the comparison having more threads. And even if you go with a higeher core/thread intel, then you have amd threadripper which would outdo it.

My memory, however, is optimized for intel (as 99% is). There was a great sale on ebay today where people got the 2700x for under $250, but I was too scared to risk it, since it wouldn't be considered an authorized dealer.

As for gpu choice, I originally was going to get a 6gb 1060. But every single place I read about video editing said the more VRAM for your card, the better it will be for video editing, and the rx 480 was constantly recommended. So when I saw the 580 on sale for $250 minus $20 rebate minus $30 I saved on gift cards, I thought it was a no brainer to spend that $200 plus tax instead of $300 for a 1060.

But now I am wondering if I should have listed my 580 today while everyone went crazy on ebay, then after fees, maybe could still have gotten a 1060 without being out more... or spend more and get a 1070 or 1070 ti.

As for the broken amd acceleration... I sure hope they address that in PD1`7. as I was leaning towards waiting on that, anyway, as my assumption is it will be released in approximately 2 months. Obviosuly the most important part of my purchase is wanting it to perform well, with great quality. PD is known for being one of the fastest at encoding. I'd much rathe rit slow down if that's what it takes for the great bitrates. But I'd rather not slow it down to the point of using no gpu acceleration, just on principle due to me buyingn a good gpu.

Most of the video editing software does not even use properly the GPU, I have tested it - Corel, Vegas, Adobe. Cyberlink is an exception to that, with hardware acceleration for encoding H264 and H265 (and nothing else).
As for "more VRAM is better", that's just advertising. In my experience NLE software will not use more than 2GB or RAM, even when editing 4K videos.

Quote I've barely had experience, but I know of a program that takes only a few hours even with very outdated pc specs. All I know is that reviews have shown comparisons where PD is suppsoedly one of the fastest encoding editing software out there.

doublethr33, here's another user echoing the same experience I indicated to you which you didn't find palatable to accept. https://forum.cyberlink.com/forum/posts/list/20/63918.page#post_box_313461 6+hours for 30min H.265 production clip on a pretty capable i7-8700K. Using the GTX1060 with NVENC hardware encoding, 18min. That's pretty respectable performance benefit for those that need or desire it. So, if you know an outdated pc and another program that can do that task much better, I'd say, there’s your platform!

Quote Define "higher bitrate". I usually rely on H265 because I want to have lower bitrates than H264, that's why maybe I have missed that.
As a note, I am on the 18.6.1 driver now.

SoNic67, for my RX 560 eval with Adrenalin 18.3.4 drivers, any standard PD MP4 H.265 4K/30p 37Mbps profile yielded unsatisfactory results, often produced file was ~4-6Mbps verified by size and MediaInfo. I did not try the RX 560 with 18.6.1 drivers so I have no experience there.

Jeff

Quote

doublethr33, here's another user echoing the same experience I indicated to you which you didn't find palatable to accept. https://forum.cyberlink.com/forum/posts/list/20/63918.page#post_box_313461 6+hours for 30min H.265 production clip on a pretty capable i7-8700K. Using the GTX1060 with NVENC hardware encoding, 18min. That's pretty respectable performance benefit for those that need or desire it. So, if you know an outdated pc and another program that can do that task much better, I'd say, there’s your platform!



SoNic67, for my RX 560 eval with Adrenalin 18.3.4 drivers, any standard PD MP4 H.265 4K/30p 37Mbps profile yielded unsatisfactory results, often produced file was ~4-6Mbps verified by size and MediaInfo. I did not try the RX 560 with 18.6.1 drivers so I have no experience there.

Jeff

Not sure what you're saying I wouldn't accept. I didn't say that it cxouldn't take a long time to encode. I said if it does, then the program is not doing that great of a job, unless it includes a lot of effects. I know of programs that will burn a full disc in less time than the 6 hours with a evry, very old and bad cpu and gpu.

Also, notice your example is with an nvidia card, whereas I ahve an amd, which has been said to be broken with gpu acceleration.

Too bad, too, because someone has PD16 ultimate on sale for an amazing price right now. But I can't buy it if I'm going to ahve broken gpu acceleration. I'd have to either sell my gpu, pay a big portion of the molkney I get in fees, and buy an nvidia card.... just to get this good price on PD16, or else wait for PD17 and hope they fixed it.

My luck will be that it won't get fixed for PD17, too, so then I would have kept waiting for nothing. Seriously, how could anyone recommend this if it's going to take 6 hours because of broken gpu acceleration? And a 1060 is what I was originally planning to buy, too.

So, does anyone have an opinion on whether I should get PD16 and then buy an nvidia card vs. keep the rx 580 and then get PD17?

I saw a recent deal for a 1060 6gb for $230, so deals are popping up on it sometimes... If I sell my rx 580 when it's not on sale anywhere, I could probably get evry close to $230 after all fees, as I ahve not opened it yet. I took the UPC off to claim a rebate, but the packaging shows it's clearly unopened.

The 1060 is slkghtly beter than the 580 anyway... But just not sure if it's worth the trouble. My 580 is a highly rated 2 fan one, also, whereas the good 1060 deals are 1 fan ones.

If I KNEW they'd fix amd functionality in 17, I'd justw ait.

ps even the nvidia 10xx cards aren't listed on ehre as supported, by the way.

Quote So, does anyone have an opinion on whether I should get PD16 and then buy an nvidia card vs. keep the rx 580 and then get PD17?

Maybe this additional comparison will help you form your own opinion on what's right for you.
Based on SoNic67 comments of no issues with 18.6.1 Adrenalin drivers, I reinstalled my RX560 and used the new drivers not released when I tested previously. Below is a comparison of results. The timeline was just something I was working on and does not represent a pure transcoding head to head comparison but how a GTX1070 and a RX560 performed hardware encoding with this particular timeline. Canon, iphone, Galaxy, ipad, DSLR source footages, various bitrates and framerates, PIP photo/video insets, 4 video tracks, masks, just a common home use timeline.

As easily seen, still some issues with red numbers of H.265 and RX560 even with latest drivers, at least on my platform. Not as bad as previous drivers and H.265 which I added in the table as well for comparison. With 18.6.1 drivers, H.265 video bitrate short of profile by ~20% and echoed in overall file size as well, 6.83/5.63=1.21. Easily visible quality drop when viewing on large screen. RX560 encoding performance overall worse than GTX1070.

What's right for you from just a hardware encoding perspective, depends what profiles you plan to utilize and if you want to use GPU hardware encoding. My experience is the same basic itemized list I previously provided still applies, even with 18.6.1 drivers. If you plan to do CPU encoding, any mid range cheap card will do and put the money saved into the CPU which is beneficial for all stages of editing and producing.

Jeff

Quote

Maybe this additional comparison will help you form your own opinion on what's right for you.
Based on SoNic67 comments of no issues with 18.6.1 Adrenalin drivers, I reinstalled my RX560 and used the new drivers not released when I tested previously. Below is a comparison of results. The timeline was just something I was working on and does not represent a pure transcoding head to head comparison but how a GTX1070 and a RX560 performed hardware encoding with this particular timeline. Canon, iphone, Galaxy, ipad, DSLR source footages, various bitrates and framerates, PIP photo/video insets, 4 video tracks, masks, just a common home use timeline.

As easily seen, still some issues with red numbers of H.265 and RX560 even with latest drivers, at least on my platform. Not as bad as previous drivers and H.265 which I added in the table as well for comparison. With 18.6.1 drivers, H.265 video bitrate short of profile by ~20% and echoed in overall file size as well, 6.83/5.63=1.21. Easily visible quality drop when viewing on large screen. RX560 encoding performance overall worse than GTX1070.

What's right for you from just a hardware encoding perspective, depends what profiles you plan to utilize and if you want to use GPU hardware encoding. My experience is the same basic itemized list I previously provided still applies, even with 18.6.1 drivers. If you plan to do CPU encoding, any mid range cheap card will do and put the money saved into the CPU which is beneficial for all stages of editing and producing.

Jeff

Is video quality of cpu encoded better than even the best gpu encoded? See, I thought the main problem with amd cards was time of encoding. I didn't notice, apparently, that people were saying that bitrates were even lower.

I originally planned on just getting a 1050 ti. I figured that owuyld be "good enough". And at the time they were $140. But I never bought it and out of nowehre theyw ere well voer $200. Well, this deal popped up on the rx 580 and after tax and everything I paid only $225. A no brainer to do that over paying $200 for a 150 ti.

And an intel igpu would just be going "too" far down. There are some 1050 ti cards now occasionally going for $150, but by the time I'd sell the rx 580, pay fees, etc... I may lose on the amd purchase and it not be worth the slight savings to go all the way down to a 1050 ti.

I don't want to be having freakin 6 hour encoding times, though. With my old crappy crappy crappy cpu and gpu I could be way below that with othe rporograms.

Btw, is it correct that a good gpu still helps even when not using gpu acceleration? I assume at the very least it would help during the process of doing the editing itself, ie streaming the video. I don't want to keep this gpu and feel like i just threw the money out the window if I don't use acceleration, so I am torn as to what to do now.

One thing's for sure... you sure gained a lot on that h.265 4k by using the better firmware. that old bitrate was pathetic.

Quote Is video quality of cpu encoded better than even the best gpu encoded? See, I thought the main problem with amd cards was time of encoding. I didn't notice, apparently, that people were saying that bitrates were even lower.

When you get the specifics your ask for in the profile, I have not been able to detect a difference between CPU and Nvidia encoding during playback. Some scenes are challenging and both encoders show issues with slightly differing results. For instance, rippling water, glistening leaves, can poise issues to name a few, The poor bitrate for H.265 was mentioned several times in this thread as well as the links I had provided.

Quote I originally planned on just getting a 1050 ti. I figured that owuyld be "good enough". And at the time they were $140. But I never bought it and out of nowehre theyw ere well voer $200. Well, this deal popped up on the rx 580 and after tax and everything I paid only $225. A no brainer to do that over paying $200 for a 150 ti.

And an intel igpu would just be going "too" far down. There are some 1050 ti cards now occasionally going for $150, but by the time I'd sell the rx 580, pay fees, etc... I may lose on the amd purchase and it not be worth the slight savings to go all the way down to a 1050 ti..

As mentioned previously in this thread, I'd never uppay to purchase a "TI" model for PD, I see no significant advantage in PD16 for the cost. Lot's of other potential reasons to purchase, just not PD16.

Quote Btw, is it correct that a good gpu still helps even when not using gpu acceleration? I assume at the very least it would help during the process of doing the editing itself, ie streaming the video. I don't want to keep this gpu and feel like i just threw the money out the window if I don't use acceleration, so I am torn as to what to do now.

Your use of the word acceleration is a little unclear. If you mean the PD pref tab "Hardware Acceleration" and the two ticks for OpenCL and decode functionality. I'd never make the GPU purchase based on what PD supports for these two items:
1) I don't use enough accelerated FX in my timeline for OpenCL implementation to be of any significant value in the current product
2) As mentioned previously in supplied links, https://forum.cyberlink.com/forum/posts/list/65974.page#post_box_300990 item "c". Proper decoding support has been less than stellar. Many issues discussed in this forum over the years. Issues way to numerous to mention each discrete anomaly but such things as, hardware decoding not functional after applied transition, after applied FX, after a split, green screens.... and issues still exist for some source video formats. Multiple issues have been reported in the forums and CL has improved a few, I have NO confidence CL will ever put in the effort to have it work correctly. If my current timeline gets some benefit with decoding great, if not, I doubt it will be a CL correction focus as the CPU will just do the effort and most users appear just happy with that.

If you are asking if having a high end GPU vs mid level will be of some significant PD editing experience benefit if both options in pref are never selected/utilized and on the "Produce" tab, "Hardware video encoder" is never selected/utilized, then no from my experience. At best rather marginal differences and may even go unnoticed. For instance, my Nvidia GTX650 for all practical editing functions when no GPU features are utilized works the same as my Nvidia GTX1070 or AMD RX560. When my GTX650 hesitates and skips during timeline playback of high bitrate 4K source files with CPU decoding, so will my GTX1070. However, with say "Hardware video encoder" utilized, production time of a common supported profile between the two GPU's will be substantially different.

Quote One thing's for sure... you sure gained a lot on that h.265 4k by using the better firmware. that old bitrate was pathetic.

I never updated any GPU firmware which AMD and Nvidia both supply for special circumstances. In this case, for the RX580, I only updated the GPU software drivers, no GPU firmware update. Rather different updates.

I think you've been given more than enough info to make your own decision how to spend your money that's good for your intended use of PD, enjoy whatever you purchase.

Jeff

Thank you Jeff, for your as always detailed inputs.

I just want to mention a very specific application.

If some nut like myself wants to create UHD Blu Rays using UHD CREATOR, (Google it) then the use of a GPU like the GTX1060 would be strongly advised .

The UHD CREATOR software converts my PD14 4K edited input video from 8 bit to 10 bit and using a GPU like my previous GTX960 would take about 20 min for ea minute of video while the GTX1060 will do it in a lot less than 2. All the heavy lifting was done by the CPU not the GTX960 GPU.

Happy 4TH!

Eugene 73s, WA6JZN ex DL9GC
CYBERLINK PLEASE ADD UHD BLU RAY BURNING SOFTWARE
PD14,
Win10,64bit.CPU i7 6700,16GB ,C= 480 GB SSD ,GPU GTX1060 6GB 1 fan. Plus 3 int, 4 ext HDD's for video etc.LG WH16NS40 reads UHD.
4K 24" ViewSonic monitor.Camera Sony FDR-A

Quote

When you get the specifics your ask for in the profile, I have not been able to detect a difference between CPU and Nvidia encoding during playback. Some scenes are challenging and both encoders show issues with slightly differing results. For instance, rippling water, glistening leaves, can poise issues to name a few, The poor bitrate for H.265 was mentioned several times in this thread as well as the links I had provided.



As mentioned previously in this thread, I'd never uppay to purchase a "TI" model for PD, I see no significant advantage in PD16 for the cost. Lot's of other potential reasons to purchase, just not PD16.




Your use of the word acceleration is a little unclear. If you mean the PD pref tab "Hardware Acceleration" and the two ticks for OpenCL and decode functionality. I'd never make the GPU purchase based on what PD supports for these two items:
1) I don't use enough accelerated FX in my timeline for OpenCL implementation to be of any significant value in the current product
2) As mentioned previously in supplied links, https://forum.cyberlink.com/forum/posts/list/65974.page#post_box_300990 item "c". Proper decoding support has been less than stellar. Many issues discussed in this forum over the years. Issues way to numerous to mention each discrete anomaly but such things as, hardware decoding not functional after applied transition, after applied FX, after a split, green screens.... and issues still exist for some source video formats. Multiple issues have been reported in the forums and CL has improved a few, I have NO confidence CL will ever put in the effort to have it work correctly. If my current timeline gets some benefit with decoding great, if not, I doubt it will be a CL correction focus as the CPU will just do the effort and most users appear just happy with that.

If you are asking if having a high end GPU vs mid level will be of some significant PD editing experience benefit if both options in pref are never selected/utilized and on the "Produce" tab, "Hardware video encoder" is never selected/utilized, then no from my experience. At best rather marginal differences and may even go unnoticed. For instance, my Nvidia GTX650 for all practical editing functions when no GPU features are utilized works the same as my Nvidia GTX1070 or AMD RX560. When my GTX650 hesitates and skips during timeline playback of high bitrate 4K source files with CPU decoding, so will my GTX1070. However, with say "Hardware video encoder" utilized, production time of a common supported profile between the two GPU's will be substantially different.



I never updated any GPU firmware which AMD and Nvidia both supply for special circumstances. In this case, for the RX580, I only updated the GPU software drivers, no GPU firmware update. Rather different updates.

I think you've been given more than enough info to make your own decision how to spend your money that's good for your intended use of PD, enjoy whatever you purchase.

Jeff

I've been given a lot of info, but I would not agree with the statement that I've been given enough to make a decision based off of. Basically what it all boils down to is apparently PD is a mess. For properly optimized software, gpu does matter and that is why countless expert articles say how important it is to get a good gpu with a lot olf VRAM. The fact that you say almost every spec is worthless in a gpu with the program shows the program has issues implementing this. I assume even poor multithread implementation, too, with someone in here saying intel works better than amd.... for any properly optimized program an amd with mroe threads than an intel would work far better. the amd 2700x is 30% faster at these types of activities than an 8700k, if the program is properly set up to utilize extra threads.

There's a reason why every article recommends these things, including 32gb RAM, as well. If good specs don't matter for this program, then it clearly can't be doing as well as othe rprograms or the sugegstions by experts would be don't care about cpu, memory, or gpu.

At this point, I have spent so much on this pc build, I am tempted to spend the extra ~$200 and get a 1070 ti or 1080, just to have the option thre for good gaming, even though I've never pc gamed.

Quote Thank you Jeff, for your as always detailed inputs.

I just want to mention a very specific application.

If some nut like myself wants to create UHD Blu Rays using UHD CREATOR, (Google it) then the use of a GPU like the GTX1060 would be strongly advised .

The UHD CREATOR software converts my PD14 4K edited input video from 8 bit to 10 bit and using a GPU like my previous GTX960 would take about 20 min for ea minute of video while the GTX1060 will do it in a lot less than 2. All the heavy lifting was done by the CPU not the GTX960 GPU.

Happy 4TH!

Eugene

Yes, Eugene, that is an excellent use of a GTX1060. Maybe one will hope PD17 will bring 10bit output vs just input.

If you recall your GTX960 does not support 10-bit encoding so in order for that option to work for you, a 4th generation NVENC capable GPU was required, namely a Pascal series, GTX10xx version versus the Maxwell, GTX9XX version which is a 3rd generation NVENC GPU. That thread was here: https://forum.cyberlink.com/forum/posts/list/66070.page#post_box_311091 when your GTX960 was not suited so product "B" used CPU conversion and your elation with the GTX1060 NVENC GPU conversion performance.

Jeff

Now, I guess I have to go through all of this back and forh on yet another manufacturer's forums before I ever find a softtware. There aren't really many options, though, since I want to create BRs. I think this and videostudio are the only ones that even have the option, for under-$300 software. But I'm sure any other software, with gpu acceleration, would be faster than without acceleration in PD. And pretty much everything Jeff has said leads me to believe this software isn't set up well, especially if when he said he ahsn't seen over 2GB RAM used, he meant actual computer RAM. There's a reason why the top professioanl software uses up in the 12+GB range. Anything that works with a lot worse specs than other software has to be cutting corners somewhere. No need for much RAM, no need for a good cpu, no need for a good gpu.... that is disturbing news. The content's got to suffer in that type of situation. Nobody would even need to bother to get a half way decent pc.

"Now, I guess I have to go through all of this back and forh on yet another manufacturer's forums before I ever find a softtware."

Hi,
If I might step in here.
It appears that what is being sought is a definitive hardware and software system configuration. However, over the years, as many folk have found out, and as many experienced folk have advised, there is no definitive system configuration. If I use a simplistic scenario to illustrate the point, you may liken your search to asking the general question of "what's the best vehicle?".
Many manufactuers will advertise, promote or stretch the merits of their vehicle - but what that means for any prospective user all depends on what the user actually, realistically, in practice wants,needs or can handle. So, in the car market (ignoring the best trucks and other vehicles), in purely technical terms the Hennessey Venom F5 has 1,600 hp whereas the Koenigsegg Agera RS has only 1,160 - a significant difference - but perhaps not meaningful for the average school run (or even on the racetrack??). Again, to quote a european SUV review - "While some SUVs are as talented off the beaten track as they are on the road, a large proportion are expected to stay on tarmac, having been chosen for their desirability rather than functionality." So what price the rave reviews and marketing blurb, not to mention the technical specs and debates on off road performance in the amazon jungle?
I realise I am being mildy provocactive, but it is only to make the point that there is no point in seeking a definitive answer to such broad questions.
Jeff and others have great experience in doing practical comparisons of system and software performance, usually in typical "real world" scenarios, and the advice they offer can be extremely valuable both to existing users and prospective users. But it will never produce the definitive system decision, that must be up to the user to take the advice, marry it to their own experience, other sources and comparators and make their own decision.
As to PDR, the software is not classed as top of the range professional, nor is it marketed and priced as such - so such comparisons might be seen as less useful. However, PDR is generally held to be among the top "prosumer" NLE software on the market. As with other NLEs it is not perfect, and there are idiosyncrasies, implementation issues, bugs etc. and perhaps some of these could be better addressed, better documented and better resolved - but, for a wide range of users, it broadly does what it says on the tin.
So if, after this thread has covered quite a wide range of ground, you are still unsure then, yes, you may well have to continue your search for your definitive software and harware configuration.
C'est la vie?

Adrian

Quote "Now, I guess I have to go through all of this back and forh on yet another manufacturer's forums before I ever find a softtware."

Hi,
If I might step in here.
It appears that what is being sought is a definitive hardware and software system configuration. However, over the years, as many folk have found out, and as many experienced folk have advised, there is no definitive system configuration. If I use a simplistic scenario to illustrate the point, you may liken your search to asking the general question of "what's the best vehicle?".
Many manufactuers will advertise, promote or stretch the merits of their vehicle - but what that means for any prospective user all depends on what the user actually, realistically, in practice wants,needs or can handle. So, in the car market (ignoring the best trucks and other vehicles), in purely technical terms the Hennessey Venom F5 has 1,600 hp whereas the Koenigsegg Agera RS has only 1,160 - a significant difference - but perhaps not meaningful for the average school run (or even on the racetrack??). Again, to quote a european SUV review - "While some SUVs are as talented off the beaten track as they are on the road, a large proportion are expected to stay on tarmac, having been chosen for their desirability rather than functionality." So what price the rave reviews and marketing blurb, not to mention the technical specs and debates on off road performance in the amazon jungle?
I realise I am being mildy provocactive, but it is only to make the point that there is no point in seeking a definitive answer to such broad questions.
Jeff and others have great experience in doing practical comparisons of system and software performance, usually in typical "real world" scenarios, and the advice they offer can be extremely valuable both to existing users and prospective users. But it will never produce the definitive system decision, that must be up to the user to take the advice, marry it to their own experience, other sources and comparators and make their own decision.
As to PDR, the software is not classed as top of the range professional, nor is it marketed and priced as such - so such comparisons might be seen as less useful. However, PDR is generally held to be among the top "prosumer" NLE software on the market. As with other NLEs it is not perfect, and there are idiosyncrasies, implementation issues, bugs etc. and perhaps some of these could be better addressed, better documented and better resolved - but, for a wide range of users, it broadly does what it says on the tin.
So if, after this thread has covered quite a wide range of ground, you are still unsure then, yes, you may well have to continue your search for your definitive software and harware configuration.
C'est la vie?

Adrian

It's not that I am trying to create the perfect specs for all situations. It's that what Jeff says is conflicting with every expert article that makes recommendations on how good of spoecs you should have when building a pc for video editing. This is not manufactuers' advertising, it is supposedly neutral sites' recommendations on specs. Then, when I ask Jeff to clarify some of what he said, he clearly got offended, believing I should just accept it with no questions, and stopped responding. If it's true that he's never seen more than 2GB of memory used, then it should be easy for someone to expolain why every professional article recommends 16gb or above on RAM and says you really should get even 32 or 64. Also, saying an intel cpu is always going to be better than an amd.... that's just not the case. There's a reason why the amd ones with more cores are recommended above similarly prices, lower core intels, when doing video editing.

So what i was really trying to get to the bottom of was the reason for thoese posts conflicting with expert advice. It either means this program is not optimized in a good way, the poster was incorrect, I misunderstood his points, or.... well that's about it, because 20 professional articles wouldn't be saying otherwise for no reason. I'm thus trying to figure out if I need to be looking at different software or if he's making some point different than it seems. If most software uses 12+gb of RAM in real world encoding and this one neevr uses over 2, AND this program is faster, it's just flat impossible that the result could be as good of quality as that from software that uses all of the higher specs to do it sjob.

doublethr33, since you attribute some comments to me, I can only suggest you reread and comprehend what you've been provided.
1) In no place did I state anything about 2GB of RAM being utilized, VRAM or RAM.
2) In no place did I state a good CPU would not be beneficial, in fact I never said anything about CPU performance.
3) In no place did I state no need for a good GPU, RX580_HE_PD16.png provided clearly showed what a good GPU can do with encoding H.265. In fact I did write: https://forum.cyberlink.com/forum/posts/list/76530.page#post_box_313332 "if you are planning on creating H.265 productions for playback and your pinch point is the long H.265 encode time, a Nvidia GPU is significantly faster than any equivalent cost consumer CPU for encoding on the market"....which the table provided clearly shows. A ~17000 passmark.com score CPU is a pretty good CPU spec to be beat by nearly 5x in H.265 encoding, but that's the beauty of a dedicated hardware encode with Nvidia NVENC SIP core vs software based CPU encoder, if you need that capability.

Best of luck with your build and editing software choice, whatever direction you go.

Jeff

Quote doublethr33, since you attribute some comments to me, I can only suggest you reread and comprehend what you've been provided.
1) In no place did I state anything about 2GB of RAM being utilized, VRAM or RAM.
2) In no place did I state a good CPU would not be beneficial, in fact I never said anything about CPU performance.
3) In no place did I state no need for a good GPU, RX580_HE_PD16.png provided clearly showed what a good GPU can do with encoding H.265. In fact I did write: https://forum.cyberlink.com/forum/posts/list/76530.page#post_box_313332 "if you are planning on creating H.265 productions for playback and your pinch point is the long H.265 encode time, a Nvidia GPU is significantly faster than any equivalent cost consumer CPU for encoding on the market"....which the table provided clearly shows. A ~17000 passmark.com score CPU is a pretty good CPU spec to be beat by nearly 5x in H.265 encoding, but that's the beauty of a dedicated hardware encode with Nvidia NVENC SIP core vs software based CPU encoder, if you need that capability.

Best of luck with your build and editing software choice, whatever direction you go.

Jeff

Sorry, it was someone else who made the vram statement. I still don't understand that one, because it's not manufacturers who say more VRAM is good for editing. It's professional editors saying it. Same with the other specs I mentioned.

At this point, I just don't know what to do in so many areas. I already have RAM and I already have a gpu. I wanted to use PD and get a amd 2700x. Well, amd cards not as good for PD and my RAM is optimized for intel cpus. So then... if I decide on intel, well the 9700k and 9900k are reportedly being released this quarter. So wait on one of them, you ask? Well, then we come to the fact that I am worried about figuring out a cooler and thermal paste, whereas the amd oens already have a good coler with them.

As for the gpu situation, I could wait and see if PD17 performs better with the rx 580 or I could sell my rx 580 and buy an nvidia just to be closer to guaranteed. Then, of coruse, I could decide ona different software and maybe amd is better than nvidia for the other software. So any way I go could backfire.

I'm kind of leaning selling the card, getting an nvidia, getting an intel cpu. Then I'd have a better gaming setup, even though I'm unsure if I'd game, if I get a 1070, 1070 ti, or 1080 and I'd have the better performing card for this program... and I'd have the cpu my RAM is more guaranteed with.

Just a big hassle to do all of that. And more costly.

Quote Sorry, it was someone else who made the vram statement. I still don't understand that one, because it's not manufacturers who say more VRAM is good for editing. It's professional editors saying it. Same with the other specs I mentioned.

No problem, as I'd agree with SoNic67 statement anyhow, even though I didn't write it, so give him the credit for the right call.

Give me a specific editing scenario in PD that you think will use so much VRAM, I'll recreate as well as possible and post a plot of VRAM usage. Do you think during a 3x3 video wall with 4k video playing in the 9 small video frames during timeline playback is such a scenario? Same VRAM use scenario or something new for a "Produce" to some format, which specific format for you? Give me some exact specifics that you need in a timeline to utilize this VRAM and I'll recreate the scene as well as time permitted possible in PD. I don't want to give you my experience as I'm sure you won't like it, so I want to post the PD VRAM plot for your particular scenario.

Keep in mind, in this forum we are talking PD16 and its capability. Provide a few of your links to these professional editors with PD cases that show usage of large VRAM, I'd really love to see these PD specific cases from these professionals.

Quote So wait on one of them, you ask? Well, then we come to the fact that I am worried about figuring out a cooler and thermal paste, whereas the amd oens already have a good coler with them.

I've had good experience with Corsair Hydro series, it keeps the CPU very cool even with long duration 100% CPU utilization from PD encoding. Comes with paste already on the heat sink if you are worried about that.

If interested, older Nvidia's (10 series) may see a price drop for resale in a few months as next generation arrives and immediate adopters probably clearing out old to recover some cost of new purchase. Depending on intended PD use, one may more than suite your needs.

Jeff

Quote It's professional editors saying it. Same with the other specs I mentioned.

Intersting thread, but I think you are giving these 'professional' editors too much credence. Different software and how that software utilizes the hardware can not be compared to consumer level software. Intel i7 4770k, 16GB, GTX1060 3GB, Two 240GB SSD, 4TB HD, Sony HDR-TD20V 3D camcorder, Sony SLT-A65VK for still images, Windows 10 Pro, 64bit
Gary Russell -- TN USA

I kind of stepped back from this topic because I agree with what Jeff pointed out, plus he is more inclined to experiment. No need for me to mudd the waters.

• CPU is important, and specifically for video editing Intel CPU's have an edge in performance. Not necesarelly reflected in price, but that's another story.


• GPU encoding cuts out a lot of the time by using the integrated ASIC hardware. That hardware has nothing to do with gaming cores, so upping for a top of the line card makes no difference. I got the 580 because I do other things too on that computer. I am hot sure if the faster bus makes a difference:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_AMD_graphics_processing_units#Radeon_RX_500_Series
  


• the GPU encoding might still have some issues and nVidia is usually better in this respect. I switched from a GTX960 myself, and it served me perfectly. I don't have a 10xx series, but I know that they improved the ASIC block (called nvenc in nVidia) significantelly.


• GPU memory and even system memory in my usage doesn't get used so much. Sure, there can be scenarious that will ask for more memory (like Jeff suggested), but... are you gonna use it like that?


• With all the faults, I found out that PD makes a better use of GPU and has better performance than may editors out there, proffesional or not. That's why I have stopped here.