Question CPU for video editing (Intel Quick Sync vs Ryzen)

[FreeRunEggs]

Does video editing software prefer Intel CPUs with quick sync (integrated graphics such as 770) vs the new Ryzen CPUs? I am using Corel Video Studio Ultimate and there is an option to select Intel Quick Sync, Nvidia CUDA or AMD but I want to know what real world performance is like. I’ve read tons of forums and some seem to think that Intel CPUs with Quick Sync have an edge on similar Ryzen CPUs with the same amount of cores. On the other hand some people say that the more cores the better. Does anyone have experience with Quick Sync being a clear choice over Ryzen for video editing?

I’m using VideoStudio Ultimate 2021 and currently using an i5-3570K which is starting to show it's age...

 

[Darkbreeze]

Are you talking Intel integrated graphics vs Ryzen integrated graphics? And if so, EXACTLY which models, because all of the 7000 series Ryzen CPUs have integrated graphics but the non-APU models have VERY limited capabilities and shouldn't be intended for anything other than basic video usage such as getting a display onscreen, basic software usage and things like browsing or watching HD video. Otherwise, you'd want either a Ryzen APU of some flavor or an Intel CPU with graphics, which not all of them have so be sure of the model.

Or, are you intending to use a discreet graphics card with this system, because even if you go with a lower end model, this would be by far your best bet for anything requiring the use of GPU compute capabilities, 3D rendering, encoding or streaming, gaming or just about anything else video related. Trying to do any kind of editing, encoding or streaming with only an iGPU is going to be a frustrating situation unless what you are doing is EXTREMELY basic in nature.

 

[FreeRunEggs]

Are you talking Intel integrated graphics vs Ryzen integrated graphics? And if so, EXACTLY which models, because all of the 7000 series Ryzen CPUs have integrated graphics but the non-APU models have VERY limited capabilities and shouldn't be intended for anything other than basic video usage such as getting a display onscreen, basic software usage and things like browsing or watching HD video. Otherwise, you'd want either a Ryzen APU of some flavor or an Intel CPU with graphics, which not all of them have so be sure of the model.

Or, are you intending to use a discreet graphics card with this system, because even if you go with a lower end model, this would be by far your best bet for anything requiring the use of GPU compute capabilities, 3D rendering, encoding or streaming, gaming or just about anything else video related. Trying to do any kind of editing, encoding or streaming with only an iGPU is going to be a frustrating situation unless what you are doing is EXTREMELY basic in nature.

I am debating between an Intel i5-12600 with UHD Graphics 770 and an AMD Ryzen 5 7600 with Radeon integrated graphics. I would consider an i5-13500 as well if it’s a good price.

Currently I have a GTX 1060 6GB GPU that I could use with the new build. However, my understanding was that a new CPU would be way more efficient at video encoding and decoding than the GPU. Maybe I’m wrong? Would I be better off just getting a new GPU (something like a Radeon RX 6600)? Even with a new GPU I thought that integrated graphics on the CPU was still beneficial. Am I wrong?

My use case for this PC is home video editing from a GoPro 11. It would be 4K footage filmed primarily in H.265 (a mix of 30, 60 and 120 fps).

 

[hotaru.hino]

For the actual part of editing, it depends on what the tools support. If you're scrubbing through a time line, maybe it might do GPU decoding for faster "response" time.

However for the final export, software based ecndoers like x264 or x265 are generally considered superior in terms of quality over GPU based encoders. The issues with GPU based encoders include things like more visible blockiness or missing finer details of things that are in motion. Plus the output size may be larger if a GPU was used to encode the video.

 

[Deleted member 2838871]

I don’t have any problems editing 4K/6k drone footage with my PC… and I also rip my own blu rays with MakeMKV and then encode them with Handbrake… the older discs that don’t come with a digital copy I’m talking about…. so I make my own.

Never had a performance issue.

 

[Darkbreeze]

For the actual part of editing, it depends on what the tools support. If you're scrubbing through a time line, maybe it might do GPU decoding for faster "response" time.

However for the final export, software based ecndoers like x264 or x265 are generally considered superior in terms of quality over GPU based encoders.

In which case then, of course, it doesn't matter at all which type of graphics the CPU has. My point was only that for anything REQUIRING GPU compute, a discreet card is going to be faster. I wasn't trying to indicate that it was the best way of doing anything.

As you say, it totally depends on what you are using to do what you need to do and in the end if you simply have a capable enough CPU you can do any of it at a high level and by comparison to that 3570k, pretty much ANY CPU from the last two generations of Intel or AMD with at least six cores is going to be like going from night to day.

 

[FreeRunEggs]

Based on the responses it doesn't seem like the Intel Quick Sync is a clear advantage over a Ryzen CPU. Too many choices for CPUs I suppose! I realize anything new will be better than my i5-3570K but I was really looking for some guidance on whether Intel integrated graphics would be beneficial compared to AMD integrated.

 

[Darkbreeze]

Honestly, I don't think it's really a factor. In fact, your CPU has it. Every Intel CPU since Sandy bridge has Intel quick sync.