i7 990X or i7980 vs i7 920 overclocked, anyone upgraded?

Jeff Harper · September 29th, 2011, 10:13 PM

Yeah, with 720p in multicam it's perfect. But you've given me an idea, that I can shoot with the GH2s in 1080i as well as with my XA10, so they would all match and it would be 1080. I usually use the GH1 as well which only shoots 1080 in 24p in a 1080 60i wrapper, not sure how that would match the other footage, what do you think? If I shot with the GH1 in 1080 24p in the 60i wrapper, would it show up as 1080i footage? I've never shot in that mode.

If I stick with three cameras instead of 4, 2 GH2s and the XA10, I could have matching 1080i footage. Interesting idea! And since I use HD link for transcoding to SD, it would all resize the same, and probably look great. I'd lose the progressive, though.

So do you think 1080i would work out and look as good as 720p? Just thought of the fact that I use Vimeo, and I'm not sure if it does 1080 or not, I think it might.

Chris Harding · September 30th, 2011, 02:24 AM

Hey Jeff

On my DuoCore I had no option but to transcode and was using Upshift (it does a good job with interlaced but doesn't handle progressive very well!!) Your Cineform files will allow great previews as they are no where as compressed as AVCHD. What bugged me was sitting waiting for maybe 100 wedding clips to transcode so I could use them..that killed a good 2 hours!!!

If you are going to shoot at double frame rate you need to decide if you would rather take the extra time to transcode and have great looking previews or save time and put up with half resolution!! On 50P mine switches within a few seconds right down to 660x370 on the 19" monitor and, of course, looks decidedly fuzzy!!! However the poor preview is only in your mind as the final render will still be pristine!!!!

It's purely the fact that IF you did happen to expose badly or were a little soft on focus it's hard to tell at half resolution!!!! You are probably better off transcoding to Cineform and at least having sharp previews so if you get a bit of soft focus you know to cut it out!!!

As far as I know the i7 980 is actually better than my i7 2600 (it costs more here!!!)

Chris

Jeff Harper · September 30th, 2011, 04:06 AM

Chris, I don't use Gearshift files for the reason you mention, too fuzzy.

2600 is a great chip, just has fewer cores. Since processor speed has more to do with previewing than cores, your preview should be excellent. I think that's why they call the 2600 a gamers's chip, it's fast, easily overclockable, and games don't benefit from extra cores.

Mike Kujbida · September 30th, 2011, 06:28 AM

Jeff, out of curiosity, what graphics card are you using?

Chris Harding · September 30th, 2011, 07:07 AM

Hi Mike

According to Sony, it doesn't matter what video card you use as the software doesn't take advantage of it. I'm just using my onboard card and it's fine. However, that's only the case up to Version 10!! The new version 11 will provide stunning previews using Nvidia's card BUT the downside is they are not exactly cheap!!!! They were talking ridiculous prices the last time I looked!!

Chris

Mike Kujbida · September 30th, 2011, 07:11 AM

Thanks Chris. I know what you mean about ridiculous prices.
I saw card prices in the 4 figure range being tossed around like we were all independently wealthy.
I don't know about you but I don't (and never will) be in that category :)

Jeff Harper · September 30th, 2011, 08:15 AM

Mike I use the GeForce GTX 460 (Fermi) 1GB 256-bit GDDR5 but don't recommend it.

Here's what happened to me. I went to Microcenter and purchased a sub $100 card (I am partial to EVGA brand cards, but it doesn't really matter, IMO).

Card worked great. I had second thoughts, and ordered a $250 card from Newegg and took the cheaper card back for a refund.

My system was more responsive with the first card, which you can imagine was quite irritating. I wasted almost $200. I was tired of messing with my PC at that point and just kept the damned thing, but it's still a sore spot.

So I'd get the best I could for under $100 if I did it all again. The larger card takes two addtional ac feeds, so it takes a lot more power, and probably sucks some of the life out of my PC, I imagine.

Unless someone is a gamer, the pricier cards, IMO, are not only a waste but a resource hog, and counterproductive. That's just my take on it.

Randall Leong · September 30th, 2011, 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff Harper

Mike I use the GeForce GTX 460 (Fermi) 1GB 256-bit GDDR5 but don't recommend it.

Here's what happened to me. I went to Microcenter and purchased a sub $100 card (I am partial to EVGA brand cards, but it doesn't really matter, IMO).

Card worked great. I had second thoughts, and ordered a $250 card from Newegg and took the cheaper card back for a refund.

My system was more responsive with the first card, which you can imagine was quite irritating. I wasted almost $200. I was tired of messing with my PC at that point and just kept the damned thing, but it's still a sore spot.

So I'd get the best I could for under $100 if I did it all again. The larger card takes two addtional ac feeds, so it takes a lot more power, and probably sucks some of the life out of my PC, I imagine.

Unless someone is a gamer, the pricier cards, IMO, are not only a waste but a resource hog, and counterproductive. That's just my take on it.

That sounds like your system has a CPU that simply cannot keep up with the demands of the higher-end cards (at least at the speed it's running at). The higher-end cards really need a faster CPU (or at least a greater overclock on your CPU) in order to be taken anywhere near their full advantage of (as far as productivity apps are concerned).

The same thing happened to me with an i7-920 and a GT 240 DDR5 versus a GTX 470: With the i7-920 clocked at anything below 3.3GHz, there is virtually zero performance difference between the GT 240 and the GTX 470. But once the CPU is overclocked beyond 3.6GHz, the difference in performance between the GT 240 and the GTX 470 started to become noticeable: The GT 240 is slower in both MPEG-2 and H.264 encoding than the GTX 470, especially on a system with a heavily overclocked CPU. Unfortunately, first-generation i7s at 3.4GHz simply aren't fast enough to show any significant performance differences between a $100 GPU and a $200 GPU.

Jeff Harper · September 30th, 2011, 09:55 AM

I was running at 3.4, but you may be right. But the same thing happened to me with a Dell OEM unit. I bought a Dell workstation that included a $3K video card, took it out sold it, put in a relatively inexpensive unit, and my system was snappier.

At any rate Randall, high end video cards seem to be of no benefit to me anyway. I'm on the internet, or I edit with Vegas. I run other programs like Dreamweaver, Fireworks so I just don't get anything from the extra GPU power anyway. I should have known better than to waste money on an $250 card, it was pretty stupid on my part. We all know Vegas doesn't care about GPU...yet.

Randall Leong · September 30th, 2011, 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff Harper

I was running at 3.4, but you may be right. But the same thing happened to me with a Dell OEM unit. I bought a Dell workstation that included a $3K video card, took it out sold it, put in a relatively inexpensive unit, and my system was snappier.

At any rate Randall, high end video cards seem to be of no benefit to me anyway. I'm on the internet, or I edit with Vegas. I run other programs like Dreamweaver, Fireworks so I just don't get anything from the extra GPU power anyway. I should have known better than to waste money on an $250 card, it was pretty stupid on my part. We all know Vegas doesn't care about GPU...yet.

In your case, a card that's priced between $100 and $150 (such as a GT 545 DDR5 and a GTX 550 Ti) would be the best value. You would not want to go really low on the GPU (GT 520, anyone?), or else you might end up with a system that's as slow as or slower than an old Core 2 Quad in video editing.

Jeff Harper · September 30th, 2011, 10:04 AM

Yes, don't go too low, but don't throw away money either, good advice.

Randall Leong · September 30th, 2011, 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff Harper

Yes, don't go too low, but don't throw away money either, good advice.

I agree. In fact, the only people who need a GTX 570 or even a GTX 560 Ti for video editing are those who run systems with heavily overclocked hexa-core i7s or heavily overclocked i7-2600K CPUs. Fortunately, my main editing system has an i7-2600K running at 4.5GHz, which does need that GTX 470.

Jeff Harper · September 30th, 2011, 10:29 AM

Well Mike there you have it for video cards!

Jeff Harper · September 30th, 2011, 10:10 PM

Mike you better wait to do your build. I had no idea these chips were so close to being released. At the price I paid, I still did good to get six cores, and I could have done worse, but still wish I had waited.

Sandy Bridge E Core i7-3960X performance revealed early - TechSpot News

I do like my processor, I'm capturing DV tapes with Vegas, and converting HD video with Cineform, and editing in another instance of Vegas, and my CPU load is staying around 90%, which I think is good. My temps are at 70F, a little high, but that is below 75 which is the highest I like to go. If you hold out for the new chip, you'll love it, I'm sure.

Mike Kujbida · October 1st, 2011, 06:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff Harper

Mike you better wait to do your build.

Good grief Jeff. Just when you think it's safe to jump back into the computer buying waters, something newer and faster comes along.
I'm not a serious user (at home anyway, work is a different story, having finally gone HD) but it's been 4 (or is it 5) years since my last machine and it's time for a new one.
I guess I can be patient a bit longer :)
Thanks for the advice on the graphics card and the new chip. It is appreciated.

September 29th, 2011, 10:13 PM	#16
Jeff Harper Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 8,425	Re: i7 990X or i7980 vs i7 920 overclocked, anyone upgraded? Yeah, with 720p in multicam it's perfect. But you've given me an idea, that I can shoot with the GH2s in 1080i as well as with my XA10, so they would all match and it would be 1080. I usually use the GH1 as well which only shoots 1080 in 24p in a 1080 60i wrapper, not sure how that would match the other footage, what do you think? If I shot with the GH1 in 1080 24p in the 60i wrapper, would it show up as 1080i footage? I've never shot in that mode. If I stick with three cameras instead of 4, 2 GH2s and the XA10, I could have matching 1080i footage. Interesting idea! And since I use HD link for transcoding to SD, it would all resize the same, and probably look great. I'd lose the progressive, though. So do you think 1080i would work out and look as good as 720p? Just thought of the fact that I use Vimeo, and I'm not sure if it does 1080 or not, I think it might. __________________ "The horror of what I saw on the timeline cannot be described."

September 30th, 2011, 02:24 AM	#17
Chris Harding Inner Circle Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Perth, Western Australia Posts: 8,441	Re: i7 990X or i7980 vs i7 920 overclocked, anyone upgraded? Hey Jeff On my DuoCore I had no option but to transcode and was using Upshift (it does a good job with interlaced but doesn't handle progressive very well!!) Your Cineform files will allow great previews as they are no where as compressed as AVCHD. What bugged me was sitting waiting for maybe 100 wedding clips to transcode so I could use them..that killed a good 2 hours!!! If you are going to shoot at double frame rate you need to decide if you would rather take the extra time to transcode and have great looking previews or save time and put up with half resolution!! On 50P mine switches within a few seconds right down to 660x370 on the 19" monitor and, of course, looks decidedly fuzzy!!! However the poor preview is only in your mind as the final render will still be pristine!!!! It's purely the fact that IF you did happen to expose badly or were a little soft on focus it's hard to tell at half resolution!!!! You are probably better off transcoding to Cineform and at least having sharp previews so if you get a bit of soft focus you know to cut it out!!! As far as I know the i7 980 is actually better than my i7 2600 (it costs more here!!!) Chris

September 30th, 2011, 04:06 AM	#18
Jeff Harper Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 8,425	Re: i7 990X or i7980 vs i7 920 overclocked, anyone upgraded? Chris, I don't use Gearshift files for the reason you mention, too fuzzy. 2600 is a great chip, just has fewer cores. Since processor speed has more to do with previewing than cores, your preview should be excellent. I think that's why they call the 2600 a gamers's chip, it's fast, easily overclockable, and games don't benefit from extra cores. __________________ "The horror of what I saw on the timeline cannot be described."

September 30th, 2011, 06:28 AM	#19
Mike Kujbida Inner Circle Join Date: May 2005 Location: Windsor, ON Canada Posts: 2,770	Re: i7 990X or i7980 vs i7 920 overclocked, anyone upgraded? Jeff, out of curiosity, what graphics card are you using?

September 30th, 2011, 07:07 AM	#20
Chris Harding Inner Circle Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Perth, Western Australia Posts: 8,441	Re: i7 990X or i7980 vs i7 920 overclocked, anyone upgraded? Hi Mike According to Sony, it doesn't matter what video card you use as the software doesn't take advantage of it. I'm just using my onboard card and it's fine. However, that's only the case up to Version 10!! The new version 11 will provide stunning previews using Nvidia's card BUT the downside is they are not exactly cheap!!!! They were talking ridiculous prices the last time I looked!! Chris

September 30th, 2011, 07:11 AM	#21
Mike Kujbida Inner Circle Join Date: May 2005 Location: Windsor, ON Canada Posts: 2,770	Re: i7 990X or i7980 vs i7 920 overclocked, anyone upgraded? Thanks Chris. I know what you mean about ridiculous prices. I saw card prices in the 4 figure range being tossed around like we were all independently wealthy. I don't know about you but I don't (and never will) be in that category :)

September 30th, 2011, 08:15 AM	#22
Jeff Harper Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 8,425	Re: i7 990X or i7980 vs i7 920 overclocked, anyone upgraded? Mike I use the GeForce GTX 460 (Fermi) 1GB 256-bit GDDR5 but don't recommend it. Here's what happened to me. I went to Microcenter and purchased a sub $100 card (I am partial to EVGA brand cards, but it doesn't really matter, IMO). Card worked great. I had second thoughts, and ordered a $250 card from Newegg and took the cheaper card back for a refund. My system was more responsive with the first card, which you can imagine was quite irritating. I wasted almost $200. I was tired of messing with my PC at that point and just kept the damned thing, but it's still a sore spot. So I'd get the best I could for under $100 if I did it all again. The larger card takes two addtional ac feeds, so it takes a lot more power, and probably sucks some of the life out of my PC, I imagine. Unless someone is a gamer, the pricier cards, IMO, are not only a waste but a resource hog, and counterproductive. That's just my take on it. __________________ "The horror of what I saw on the timeline cannot be described."

September 30th, 2011, 09:55 AM	#24
Jeff Harper Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 8,425	Re: i7 990X or i7980 vs i7 920 overclocked, anyone upgraded? I was running at 3.4, but you may be right. But the same thing happened to me with a Dell OEM unit. I bought a Dell workstation that included a $3K video card, took it out sold it, put in a relatively inexpensive unit, and my system was snappier. At any rate Randall, high end video cards seem to be of no benefit to me anyway. I'm on the internet, or I edit with Vegas. I run other programs like Dreamweaver, Fireworks so I just don't get anything from the extra GPU power anyway. I should have known better than to waste money on an $250 card, it was pretty stupid on my part. We all know Vegas doesn't care about GPU...yet. __________________ "The horror of what I saw on the timeline cannot be described."

September 30th, 2011, 10:04 AM	#26
Jeff Harper Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 8,425	Re: i7 990X or i7980 vs i7 920 overclocked, anyone upgraded? Yes, don't go too low, but don't throw away money either, good advice. __________________ "The horror of what I saw on the timeline cannot be described."

September 30th, 2011, 10:29 AM	#28
Jeff Harper Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 8,425	Re: i7 990X or i7980 vs i7 920 overclocked, anyone upgraded? Well Mike there you have it for video cards! __________________ "The horror of what I saw on the timeline cannot be described."

September 30th, 2011, 10:10 PM	#29
Jeff Harper Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 8,425	Re: i7 990X or i7980 vs i7 920 overclocked, anyone upgraded? Mike you better wait to do your build. I had no idea these chips were so close to being released. At the price I paid, I still did good to get six cores, and I could have done worse, but still wish I had waited. Sandy Bridge E Core i7-3960X performance revealed early - TechSpot News I do like my processor, I'm capturing DV tapes with Vegas, and converting HD video with Cineform, and editing in another instance of Vegas, and my CPU load is staying around 90%, which I think is good. My temps are at 70F, a little high, but that is below 75 which is the highest I like to go. If you hold out for the new chip, you'll love it, I'm sure. __________________ "The horror of what I saw on the timeline cannot be described." Last edited by Jeff Harper; September 30th, 2011 at 11:16 PM.