New Rendering CPU?

[SoughtVengeance]

Right, first - couple of questions...

So, at the moment I own an old Toshiba laptop with an AMD Phenom II Triple-Core processor (1.8GHz per core), but recently, I have been looking to up-grade to a desktop.

I have started up a gaming YouTube channel where I render 720p or 1080p video from my Xbox capture card, but a 15 minute video takes in the region of 2 to 3 (maybe even 4) hours to render. Now, first question: If I was to up-grade to an...

1. i7 3770 (not planning on OCing) - HT is my main pull-factor
2. i5 3570 - non-HT makes me a bit sad
3. AMD FX 8350 - 8 cores for rendering/multitasking, but no HT and weaker architecture than Intel?

...in a desktop, what sort of time improved performance would I be looking at, to render, say the same file?

Build ideas around the CPU you suggest (including decent - around £100 - for low level gaming)? My budget is from £500-£750! I'M POOR! D:

Also, is it worth getting a desktop or will a laptop processor, like the i7 3610QM/i7 3630QM suffice if I am not doing huge 3D rendering and not hardcore gaming (at most, Minecraft, but even then I don't really want any insane GPU that can run it at some ridiculous FPS)?


2 more questions to go!

When I am video rendering, I will be using Sony Vegas Movie Studio 12: Does it...

1. Support GPU + CPU dual rendering... thing - whatever you call it?

...and also, what kind of GPU - preferably around the £100 mark - would be most effective at doing this?

Ok, I think that's all for now - thanks in advance for responding and cheers for the help!

 

[L Helps]

because you're on a budget build I suggest the fx 8320, performs almost the same as the 8350 and is alot cheaper.

Recommended build:

Amd fx 8320
cooler master hyper 212 evo
gigabyte ga970a ud3
msi gtx 650ti boost
corsair vengeance 8gb 1600 cl9
western digital wd10ezex
xfx pro550 core edition
zalman z9 plus

 

[remy721]

I'm not sure HT will give you that much of a boost (if any at all, actually) in Vegas. The only place I've seen it answered (and vaguely) was with Xeon processors, and render times actually took a hit with HyperThreading turned on. From personal experience, Vegas doesn't stress more than 3 or 4 threads on my i7 laptop (but then, its an old 1st-gen i7, so take that with a grain salt).

The real boost will be the graphics card. Vegas 12 supports OpenCL acceleration, and it'll really cut down your render times. I wouldn't go with Nvidia 6XX series, though, as benchmarks show that AMDs 7XXX tend to run OpenCL better (in fact, this benchmark shows an HD7850 rendering a video twice as fast as the equally price GTX660 in Vegas 12).

As a personal preference, I'd say go with the i5 and an AMD card, but there's something to be said for the FX-8350. Those extra cores at the same price might come in handy in some other applications you might be using, or could start using in the near future, particularly if you continue with video work. But, if it comes down to being cash strapped between the i7 and a new GPU, go for the GPU. OpenCL performance far outstrips the CPU performance gain inside Vegas.

As far as choosing between a laptop and a desktop - sure,a new laptop can handle video encoding, no problem, but you'll see better gains with a discrete GPU, which is a high premium in laptops (and non-upgradable for the most part). Also, a desktop gives you a bigger screen, better resolution, and possibly more accurate colors, if you're into that, all of which will make your video editing experience much easier.

 

[L Helps]

didn't know sv 12 ran better with amd, get an amd card (7850) and an amd processor (fx 8320) because it's just the best bang for the buck.

 

[ericjohn004]

Actually HT actually helps ALOT. Usually about 35-50%. It helps in any application that uses all 8 threads. Which most rendering does indeed use all of those threads. I have an i5 3570k, and with it overclocked I'm faster than an i7 in rendering. So if you want to overclock then you can turn the tables. Plus the i5 3570k is 100$ cheaper too. I just bought the i5 because I never use 8 threads. I use 4 or less 99% of the time I'm on my PC.

Usually Intel is better than AMD in rendering and the like. But it's so close that the cost of the i7 doesn't make it better than the 8350 at all. Where Intel's real advantage is, is anything that uses 4 cores or less. Any program that uses 4 cores or less, Intel dominates the competition. So if you want an all around powerful PC, get the i7 3770k. If you want something that cheap and great for rendering or anything that uses 8 threads or more, choose an AMD8350. If you want something that's not quite as good(but still really good) at rendering and such but great at everything else, get the 3570k.

 

[remy721]

Actually, after messing around with some settings, I discovered you're correct.
At least, sometimes.
The number of threads Vegas will use for rendering is dependant on the codec. I standardly use H.264, which will only use 4 threads, as does Xvid. But MainConcept AVC can use all 8 threads. [On a sidenote, vegas 12 also supports QuickSync, available with Intel's integrated graphics, but only for H.264 and Sony AVC that I've found so far). It varies from there.
However, for standard playback (that is, the playback you see while editting) is limited to just a few threads.

Either way, though, I still stand by my advice that the GPU is your better bang-for-buck option. Sony has reproducible benchmarks showing renders 2-3 times faster with mid-range graphics cards (in this case, a GTX570 and a HD6870 - unfortunately, it seems the Nvidia has crippled openCL in 6XX series, so the 570 is much more impressive than the 670).

 

[SoughtVengeance]

Actually HT actually helps ALOT. Usually about 35-50%. It helps in any application that uses all 8 threads. Which most rendering does indeed use all of those threads. I have an i5 3570k, and with it overclocked I'm faster than an i7 in rendering. So if you want to overclock then you can turn the tables. Plus the i5 3570k is 100$ cheaper too. I just bought the i5 because I never use 8 threads. I use 4 or less 99% of the time I'm on my PC.

Usually Intel is better than AMD in rendering and the like. But it's so close that the cost of the i7 doesn't make it better than the 8350 at all. Where Intel's real advantage is, is anything that uses 4 cores or less. Any program that uses 4 cores or less, Intel dominates the competition. So if you want an all around powerful PC, get the i7 3770k. If you want something that cheap and great for rendering or anything that uses 8 threads or more, choose an AMD8350. If you want something that's not quite as good(but still really good) at rendering and such but great at everything else, get the 3570k.

So, the 8350 will be better for rendering/multitasking, whereas the 3570 would be more ideal for single core performance, less CPU intensive performance? Correct?