Quad-Core or Hardware Encoder?
 

I'm currently editing on a 2-year-old system with a dual-core processor & 3 GB of RAM (4 GB is installed, but Windows only sees 3.25 GB), with Adobe Premiere Pro CS3. When I built the system I was shooting & editing SD only, but over the past 2 years I've moved toward mostly HD editing.

Now rendering times are getting to be just way too long for HD projects. Especially when I have to downconvert edited HD video to SD MPEG-2 for DVD authoring. On a recent project, a 2-hour video, conversion to SD MPEG-2 took almost 16 hours (with 2-pass encoding...8 hours for each pass). Fortunately, most projects are not that long, but rendering still eats a LOT of time.

I want to upgrade my hardware, but I'm not sure which route to take for the most benefit. I've thought about upgrading my motherboard and processor to a quad-core system, keeping everything else the same. But then I started reading up on hardware video encoder cards which claim to encode HD & SD video faster than real-time. So far I've been reading up on the Grass Valley Firecoder Blu and the Matrox CompressHD. Haven't really read that much on them, so I'm not sure how well either would integrate with Premiere Pro, if at all. It would be nice to have something that can speed up rendering on the timeline as well as speeding up final output.

Anyway, I thought I'd ask all you knowledgeable folks which way you think I would see the most benefit and reduction of rendering times: Quad-core processor upgrade or dedicated hardware encoder card? And what hardware would you recommend?

My system is an X48 motherboard with Q9450 Quad core, 8G RAM running Vista 64. I edit normally with Edius, multicam with 4 tracks, 2 HDV native and 2 HQ ( converted from AVCHD) on a HDV timeline. System runs realtime in this mode. IF you want a SD DV output just change project settings and output realtime to DV. I would normally render to HDV ( just less than realtime) and use TMPGenc4Xpress to create MPEG2 for SD DVD( 2 pass VBR with AC3 audio). Conversion time for this is just less than 2 times realtime. So a 2 hour program will end up with an MPEG2 file for SD DVD in less than 6 hours total time from Edius timeline. Edius will create an SD MPEG 2 file from the timeline a lot quicker but I prefer the encode from TMPGenc. IF one wishes to get an even finer quality resize and encode then use VDUB for the resize and TMPGenc for the encode. Times are not too different just that there are more steps. Getting a Bluray file is a lot quicker!!! Most of the motivation for hardware acceleration at the moment is for H264 for Bluray. Carefully look at the specs and I think you will find most do not do what you would want. I too would like a hardware accelerated high quality conversion from HD to SD for DVD.
Unless one wants to put 5 or 6 hours on a Bluray then staying with MPEG2 HD is a lot simpler and way faster.If the time is less than 3 hours just use MPEG2 HD( essentially VBR HDV!!) it will fit just fine on a 25G Bluray with just slightly reduced average bit rate. I see no real difference for a 2hour 40min program using 18Mbps min, 21Mbps ave, 30Mbps max than looking at my HDV master tape.

Ron Evans

Doug,

Take a look at the promising Nvidia based hardware accelerated solution. Works with Premiere (although CS4).

Accelerator | ELEMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES

Hope this helps,
Ty

If you have lots of money to burn AND ONLY encode to H.264, this may, just maybe, be a solution. In any other case, where you do other things than encoding to H.264, or have a budget to mind, it is an absolute waste of money. You can save around $ 1300 by buying a good video card and spend the amount saved on a better CPU, more memory and a better disk setup and EVERYTHING will be faster, not just H.264 encoding.

I wouldn't spend a ton of money on a hardware encoder, unless I absolutely needed one, and certainly not before upgrading the CPU to a quad!

You know, for the cost of that NVIDIA based "solution" (aka "wallet drain"), you could upgrade your computer to a dual (2 CPUs) quad core system...and that would get your HD to SD MPEG-2 encoding moving along nicely!

I'm not sure how Premier uses a GPU but I would suggest upgrading to an i7 processor to start.

If that's not enough I have heard good things about the Matrox CompressHD board which you can get at this sponsor.

With a two year old motherboard, it's pretty likely the OP could pop a quad in for under $200 (at least a Kentsfield or a Phenom, depending on which platform it is) and cut his times for generating SD MPEG-2 in the ballpark of in half - pretty cheap. To go to an i7 would cost considerably more (CPU, motherboard and memory - none of it cheap) - would certainly speed things noticeably more (maybe in the ballpark of cutting times by 2/3 instead of just 1/2 maybe?), but not as cost effectively as simply dropping a low cost, first generation quad in there.

Important to know is that with the Elemental Technologies product, it's a plugin that offloads the processing to the GPU. The plugin and not the card is the point of difference. You don't need the specific (and very expensive) video card that they are trying to sell it with.

Sorry that I don't have a link to the plugin product itself.

Andrew

Just another note regarding the Elemental Technologies accelerator: You can't tweak the supplied encoding presets. This one is a deal breaker for me.

Andrew

Yeah, i sometimes wonder if people looking for the latest in dual Quad core machines have researched their needs for one...

I mean....There's just so many factors for machines..
Are you rendering CGI 24/7, are you offline editing, online editing, .h264 encoding, colour correcting, working with uncompressed workflows etc....

I hear lots of suggestions about getting faster machines, but rarely do i read about a suggested machine for a specific workflow...

Doug, your initial paragraph of HD>SD workflows seem to be the real issue here..
Are you working with HDV?
Is that correct? Are you using filtering, what encoder do you use? An 8 hour encode for two hours of video his very strange.

Grass Valley Firecoder Blu and the Matrox CompressHD are used for specific reasons..This is totally another issue..

I am editing mostly HDV stuff these days, however most of that editing is done after converting the HDV to an intermediate codec. The video that took 8 hours to render was actually HDV and I did have two filters applied to it in ProCoder that undoubtedly slowed down the process a bit. I have done other similar conversions from HD to SD with the same filters but converting from an intermediate codec instead of HDV. These did not take 8 hours for a single pass, but roughly 3 1/2 or 4 hours, if I remember correctly.

It's not just HD to SD that is slow though. Rendering HD from the timeline is not terribly fast either. Just the other day I rendered a photo montage to HDV straight from the timeline and it took a little over 3 hours for a 10 minute video. Of course this is partially because it was made up entirely of high-res photos, with zooms, pans, etc. added. It would be very nice to be able to make that process happen a bit faster though, as that particular video finished rendering only about 45 minutes before it had to be shown at a church service.

From what others have said here, I think I will be going the Quad-core upgrade route. I currently have an AMD processor, so I'll probably want to step up to an AMD quad-core, unless the Intels are supposed to significantly better (without being significantly more expensive). Any specific suggestions? Or any suggestions of how to speed up rendering on my current system? Maybe there's something I should or should not be doing that I don't know about?

Thanks for all the replies so far!

Note: I'm not a pro -- take with a grain of salt.

I'm editing HDV in CS4 on an Intel quad-core 2.6 GHz machine, over-clocked to 3.0 GHz. I originally started with 4 gig of RAM. I've upgraded to 8 gig, but don't see much of a performance improvement. Rendering from the time line is pretty darn fast, even when it's a complicated sequence (filters, key frames, compositing, etc.). I use Adobe's Media Encoder for transcoding (I transcode for Blu-Ray authoring rather than to SD), so your mileage may differ, but I find it roughly 50% over real time, i.e. a 1 hour project set for highest quality, 2-pass VBR will transcode in 90+ minutes.

I'd agree with the recommendations to use an i7 CPU, but if money is an issue an over-clocked standard Intel quad-core will save you around $500.

As for your present system, I'd just give it up -- salvage the graphics card and drives if you can. I used to edit SD on a 4 GHz P4 system with 2 gigs of RAM and that was just fine. When I switched to HDV, I tried getting by on my laptop, which is a 2 GHz Core 2 Duo with 2 gigs of RAM. In CS3 it was almost hopeless. When I upgraded to CS4 it simply wasn't possible -- the program would freeze up, transitions would take the length of a cup of coffee to render, and previewing from the time line was virtually impossible. I don't have a pro's throughput, but I find the over-clocked quad-core system I described orders of magnitude faster, and editing is now a breeze to the point that I'm no longer conscious of the editing hardware and can just concentrate on the project. I added a Black Magic Intensity card, so I can preview in full resolution in real time on an HDTV.

Yeah Doug....
If i were you, i'd seriously look into improving your workflow....Your project and export settings need to be addressed..HDV exports usually are required only for spitting back to tape. Also working with HDV, usually requires a friendly push with the help of third party solutions.(ie software or hardware).

Of course, a faster machine will always help, but even a quad core will not help you if the workflow is wrong...(eg, using high rez photos aren't necessary, and bog the system down).

Just as a guide for you, I've got an older HP workstation with 2xAMD Opteron dual cores..Simple cutting of native HDV was passable. But i had two choices...Spend on a new computer, or add a hardware card..I opted for the second due to costs..

I added a Matrox card, and now cut, colour correct and monitor with ease...

I'd guess your situation is, spend on a computer, or spend on a hardware accelerator..
And if you had the money, spend on both..

I seem to be the only one to hold the view that down converting doesn't increase the quality enough to justify the huge jump in time it takes to edit, render, export, resize, and encode.

From a business perspective time is money so, is the customer paying extra for all the time you're spending? Would they know the difference between straight sd vs down converted hd? Are they even asking for you to do it or is this something you feel compelled to do for your own personal reasons?

I share the opinion that hardware acceleration is both expensive and has a very limited use. An i7 or Q6600 system would make your life easier. I've thought about an upgrade too but have decided it doesn't make good business sense in my situation and have chosen to stay with SD until customers request and adequately compensate me for HD services.

Well, pretty much everything I edit goes back out to tape eventually anyway. But I don't always export HDV from the timeline. For most projects, I do use an intermediate codec and export to that codec, then downconvert that file for DVD and so on. I sometimes export to HDV on shorter projects for various reasons. For example, on the photo montage, I knew I needed a playable video that night, and I knew that I could play the M2T file directly from the church's computer if I needed to, which I did. If I had brought a Canopus HQ file and tried to play that, it just wouldn't have happened.

I think in the case of the photo montage, it was necessary to use high res photos. I was adding zooms & pans across areas of most of the photos. If I had started with the photos already at HD resolution, I would lose quality when I zoomed into them. I probably could have reduced them to 75% of their original size and been okay, but they still would have been pretty large.

What Matrox card did you add to your system?

Oh, I totally agree that downconverting from HD does not increase the quality of the SD enough to bother doing it. In fact, to my eyes, it doesn't increase the quality of the SD output at all. But I don't edit in HD just to increase the quality of the SD. I edit in HD sometimes because the client specifically wants an HDV master along with their SD DVDs. If the client requests it, then they do pay me enough to justify the extra time. But yes, sometimes I do edit in HD for personal reasons, usually because I want to make an HD master than can be used in the future (perhaps to create a Blu-Ray version down the road). Usually, I am still paid enough that I can afford the extra time it takes to do so, but I won't do it if it's going to interfere with another project. I don't edit everything in HD, and I would never edit in HD if I didn't intend to produce an HD master that might be used later on.

sounds like we're both in agreement then.

I've priced out an i720 system for around $800. Which is a bargain compared to a Power Mac @ $2,500

I hate being behind the tech curve but I fight the urge to get a new system every couple of years.

It was the Matrox RT.X2..Fortunately, i knew in advance to buy a validated system..
You need to double check your current machine, with their approved systems....

It will avoid headaches in the long run...

It's a catch22...I cut and edit HDV with ease, yet my current clientelle aren't paying for HD delivery..The delivered SD product is quite nice, but the time for downconvert offsets any gains made..Of course, Matrox easily downconverts, but i am not impressed with the output quality..

Good luck!!

Newegg has a nice combo deal going for a 3GHz Phenom II and motherboard:

Newegg Phenom II and Motherboard Combo Deal

At 209.99, that's a lot of bang for the buck.

Ron, I use edius 5 to edit my HD ex3 footage, so to make an SD DVD just change my project settings to SD and export from that for a SD DVD.

Edius 5 will make an SD DVD from the timeline even from a HD project. The issue most have is a quality argument of which is the best way to downconvert HD to SD. Myself and others feel that there are a number of ways that produce better quality than straight from the timeline. There are lots of threads on this on the GV Edius forum. The way that produces the highest quality output is using VDub. I prefer to export a HQ file and let TMPGenc create and downconvert at the same time which produces files almost as good as the Vdub approach but is a little faster and is done in one step. Both these methods produce a file that is better than the encode from Edius timeline. However unless you are critical of the SD DVD output you may not notice the difference !!! I use DVDLab for SD authoring and DVDArchitect for Bluray so always want a file anyway so do not use the disc creation from the Edius timeline.

Ron Evans

I agree with those who recommend a processor upgrade over a hardware-accelerated card. The hardware-accelerated cards are worth it only if you have a LOT of videos (this means hundreds or thousands of hours, not just a bunch of hour-long videos) to process, IMHO.

Your two-year-old system is using an AMD processor rather than an Intel processor. If that processor is of the Socket AM2 type, depending on the make and model of your system's motherboard you may be able to update its BIOS (downloadable from the Web site of the motherboard manufacturer) to make it (Socket AM3) Phenom II-compatible. Be sure to get the correct BIOS for your make and model of motherboard (and the board revision, if applicable). Update the BIOS with the existing CPU still in place, before you install the new CPU. Otherwise, your system might not work correctly or POST at all with the new CPU installed.

After the BIOS update is performed and the new Phenom II CPU installed, you may want to think about how you attained the 4GB of RAM in your existing system. Most two-year-old systems get their 4GB of RAM by filling up all four memory slots with 1GB modules. The trouble with that is nearly all 1GB modules in existence at the time such systems were manufactured or built were double-ranked. And many dual-channel DDR2 systems running four 1GB double-ranked modules might not have been able to (or could not) run their memory modules at speeds faster than DDR2-667 speed. That was partly due to the limitations of the systems' motherboards or memory controllers and partly due to the JEDEC recommendation of limiting full DDR2-800 or DDR2-1066 speed support to one double-ranked module per channel. In fact, some motherboard BIOSes would set the default memory speed to DDR2-667 when all four memory slots were populated with double-ranked DDR2-800 or DDR2-1066 modules in order to ensure stability (although it was easy enough to manually set the memory speed to the full DDR2-800 if such a speed were desired); however, if all four slots were occupied by double-ranked DDR2-667 or slower modules, the memory would operate at their stock speeds. After the processor upgrade, I would look into replacing the four 1GB modules with two 2GB modules - if only because the latter setup will allow you to expand the memory to 8GB if you ever want to go that high.

On the other hand, if your AMD system is a Socket 939 platform (rather than a Socket AM2), you have it much worse: There had never been any CPUs with more than two cores that were ever manufactured for that socket type. Worse, these systems use DDR1 memory, which is now obsolete and any memory upgrades will cost much more money than what DDR2 memory currently costs. (And that's not to mention that 4GB is the practical maximum for the Socket 939 memory controller since the largest unbuffered DDR1 memory modules ever manufactured were 1GB modules.) In this particular circumstance, the only upgrade would be a complete CPU/motherboard/memory overhaul.

Of course, if you have to replace the motherboard and memory in addition to the CPU, perhaps it would be a good time to switch from AMD to Intel?

Thanks Ron,

I always use VDub as well and then bring it back into edius again (Anton's method) and have found it produces a very good quality SD DVD.
Just when I saw that post about changing the project settings for SD, I thought, its worth a try, even to see what it looks like compared to the VDub way.

I must experiment with TMPGenc as well, I didn't think of that.

Thanks again Ron.

Wow, can't believe it's already been eight months since I started this thread. Seems like 8 minutes. I finally got my "upgrade" done just last week. I say upgrade, but I basically replaced everything except the computer's case and the drives. I went with an Intel i7 quad-core processor (the 920 model), and moved up to Windows 7 64-bit so I could use more RAM (6 GB). I haven't really had time to put it through its paces yet, but I did one quick HD to SD encode as a test and saw a significant improvement. Where the old system did just a few frames per second (barely), this one was going along at just below real-time. Encodes to SD MPEG-2 for DVD from SD files chug along at about 3 times real-time, so I'm happy with that. I've seen some benchmarks for similar systems that are quite a bit faster, but on those the processor was overclocked, and I'm nervous about even trying that. For now, I'm satisfied.

Doug,

Congrats on the essentially new system.

When you said that SD DVD compression from SD files "chugs along at about three times real-time", did you mean that it took about three minutes of processing for every minute of video, or did it actually take about 20 seconds of encoding for every minute of video recorded?

Sorry, didn't make that clear. I should have said it chugs along at about three times FASTER than real-time, so yeah about 20 seconds to encode a minute of video.

That's still 50% to 100% faster than what my current Core2 Quad Q9450 rig with 4GB of DDR2-800 memory could muster with the same content. (Relatively speaking, if an i7-860 or 920 could encode an hour of SD-DV content to MPEG-2 in 20 minutes, my Q9450 would take 10 to 20 minutes longer than that to do the same thing.) There goes my already half-empty wallet...

My current system Q9550, 8GB Kingston HyperX 8500C5 1066MHz, Win7 Ultimate 64bit
can encode and burn a 2hr 40min project from the Edius SD Timeline to DVD in about 55mins.

This coming May, my current editing system will be 4 years old. Yikes.

It's a Dual Core 2.8 GHz with 800 MHz fsb and 2MB cache
2GB 533 MHz RAM
256MB video card
C:/ 160GB HD
D:/ 250GB HD
Running Production CS2.

Without a doubt I need to upgrade my system before moving into the HD world!

Right now I'm working very hard on getting out of debt (last thing is the house, and should have it paid off in about 15 months) and in the meantime I'm waiting for some important pieces to fall into place before I take the HD leap:

(1) Canon to release their new prosumer camera so I can compare it to the Sony NXCAMs and make a decision on camera upgrade (from GL1 and XL1s).
(2) Intel to release their 6-core processor, which may mean a decrease in quad core prices, so I can build a monster system with like 24GB RAM and a 2GB video card :)
(3) Adobe to release CS5, which hopefully with include that new GPU access architecture.

I've also held off this long in getting into HD video because of all the competing formats. On a certain level, I viewed this as a VHS BETA war, or HD DVD vs BLU RAY war with respect to HDV, AVCHD, and all the storage types P2, SxS, SD, miniDV etc.

And indeed, the Blu Ray HD DVD had a winner.

So what does the future hold for HDV vs AVCHD? Who knows, but maybe there will be a clearer picture in a few months.

I forgot, I'll also have to look into getting some sort of Grass Valley or Matrox card too.... so many choices!