What is the best CPU for video rendering?
literally as big and as bad as you can go, you should go?
Xeon E5-2699v3
Quad Core 3 GHz or better.
Depends. Pure x264? Go as fast and wide as you can. Avisynth filtering or some shit like VP9 where you'll be single-thread limited? i7 4790k.
>>47667458
This. Some video rendering workloads will scale to as many cores and threads as you have available. The only issue would be feeding them sufficiently fast enough, as the storage subsystem becomes one hell of a bottleneck. If you alleviate that, then memory speed becomes the limiter surprisingly enough.
As the owner of an 8c/16t Xeon, whenever I cut my raw fraps videos down to a much more sane size and bitrate (fraps does not do on the fly compression, resulting in 110,000 kbit rates) the inability of my disk drives to feed the CPU data fast enough means at most I can use 10 or so threads out of the 16 available. Breaking smaller videos down to something suitable for mobile devices however definitely maxes out the CPU, especially if I use my SSD as the read drive and one of the disk drives as the write drive.
This thing right here.
>>47667458
>>47667681
OP here, thanks for the answers. I'll be primarily rendering H.264 in AE.
Is there a particular CPU that stands out in the $250-$350 price range?
>>47667903
Just get the 4790k
If you can jump on the CUDA game then there is a lot of benefits there, depending on the software you are using.
>>47667903
i7 4790k.
Whatever the fastest non-autist tier i7 currently on the market is.
>>47667903
5820k if you live near a microcenter
As an unabashed AMD shill, I gotta say it:
Either an i7 or xeon. It really depends on whether the programs you use will be optimized for multi threading or not. If so, get a xeon, maybe two if you can. If not, i7.
>>47668279
Same. If you're strapped for cash then maybe the 8350, but other than that go i7.
the 8350 may, just may beat out an i5 xxxxk verson, but only barely.
>>47667903
FX 8320 is great if you were on a tighter budget
Xeon E3-1231V3 is basically a multiplier-locked i7 for $250
i7 5820k is the cheapest Intel 6 core, but only in your budget if you can get it from microcenter
If you won't be doing anything single threaded (gaming), you can also look into second hand Xeons/Opterons, you may be able to find many cores for cheap, especially with AMD.
>>47667250
The one you build from scratch.
>>47667681
>then memory speed becomes the limiter surprisingly enough.
memory is incredibly shit these days compared to the CPU's that use them
>>47667427
>Xeon E5-2699v3
Yeah that one. Preferably in a multisocket setup.
>>47667903
i7 4790k or equivalent i7 should do it
>>47668666
Don't modern games utilize multiple cores?
>>47668919
Not all, and in the ones that do scale up to 8 cores, Intel i5 quad cores still do better than AMD FX-8XXX models
Single-thread performance is still massively important, although it's hoped that DX12 will help with that.
>>47668919
They do, but pretty much all current titles still have a massive load difference on their threads.
Usually you'll have one or two gameplay threads that are demanding, an API thread that can be demanding, and then many lesser threads for sound processing, networking I/O, loading content, etc.
In other words, generally 2-3 threads with noticeable load. The remaining threads can be condensed to a single core though with no real harm to performance.
>>47667250
Pentium 4 Prescott
>>47668919
Well enough that you can run any game you want just fine, even on Piledriver FX, but past-generation opterons and xeons running at low frequencies may struggle.
>>47668029
>>47667955
Not op but what's the deal with recommending the 4790K? It's pretty much the same as a 4790.
>>47667250
What about a used i7 2600k + SSD and/or RAM
>>47669712
i7 4790k 4.4ghz
i7 4790 4ghz
>>47667427
\thread
All these retards recommending i7's and shit, lmao.
Most modern video editing suites use the video card to offload a lot of the processing. You could get away with having an average CPU and put more effort into a decent graphics card
>>47669855
>SSD
Wut
>>47671000
Ah, no? GPUs are only used for 3d applications and viewport processing. They have little to no bearing on 2d rendering.
>>47670932
Isn't that only with overclocking though?
>>47667250
Any i7 really.
>>47670932
Does 400mhz really make a noticeable difference?
>>47667250
quad xeons
>>47673347
>no bearing on 2d rendering
any image processing can benefit from massively parallel calculation, noobtard
>>47674159
Its 10% faster
>>47674211
needs moar jpeg
>>47667250
Fuck the Intel shills, AMD Opteron 6386 SE
>>47667250
All these shitty recommendations... 4790k? really? You need cores, not more mhz or shitty HT.
i7 5820k and after are the only i7s you should ever consider, if too much for your budget either get an i5 or fx 8320. Xeon E3-1230v3 is also great if you can find one, literally an i7 for i5 price like someone else mentioned earlier. These are also great for gaming.
Opteron and other xeons are the best ones for render farms but not suitable for gaming and I'm sure they are way over your budget.
celeron
>>47674844
yeah seriously x264 is literally one of the few instances where AMD does it right
he should be rocking an 8350 if he cant afford a 6-core intel
