Welcome to Doom9's Forum, THE in-place to be for everyone interested in DVD conversion.

Before you start posting please read the forum rules. By posting to this forum you agree to abide by the rules.

 

Go Back   Doom9's Forum > Capturing and Editing Video > Avisynth Usage

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 9th September 2013, 10:40   #1  |  Link
zee944
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 240
Intel or AMD processor for AviSynth?

I'm about to replace my computer. If I use it mainly for AviSynth scripting, running very slow scripts, should I prefer one or the other (for the same price), or it doesn't really matter?

I expect that it probably holds no big importance. But I want to know for sure.

Thanks in advance.
zee944 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th September 2013, 10:59   #2  |  Link
TurboPascal7
Registered User
 
TurboPascal7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 270
Intel. A lot of avisynth filters use advanced instructions sets like SSE and Intels are much better in those.
TurboPascal7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th September 2013, 13:20   #3  |  Link
byme
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Italy
Posts: 204
I am also interested at the question

we're talking about here

http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=168603
byme is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th September 2013, 15:57   #4  |  Link
aegisofrime
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 478
Also, many Avisynth filters don't work well multi-threaded... Either the gains aren't that great or they get unstable. This means you will want great single-threaded performance, and for that you should go Intel.

I'm very happy with my i7-4770 for Avisynth.
aegisofrime is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th September 2013, 20:01   #5  |  Link
burfadel
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,229
By that argument a i5-4670K would be a better choice, since you save all that money just for the privilege of hyperthreading!
burfadel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th September 2013, 20:29   #6  |  Link
SamKook
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 212
But for the filters that do work well multi-threaded, they're much much faster with hyperthreading.

I'm also very happy with my overlocked i7-2600k with hyper-threading on.
__________________
i7 2600K@4.7 watercooled and 2x EVGA GTX 760 in SLI with Corsair 16Gb 1600 (2 4x2 kit) on Asrock P67 Extreme4 Gen 3 with Intel 530 240Gb SSD running Win7 x64 on 3x ASUS VS239H-P 23"
SamKook is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th September 2013, 08:22   #7  |  Link
zee944
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 240
Thanks for the responses so far. No more opinions from the AviSynth experts?
zee944 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th September 2013, 16:30   #8  |  Link
SamKook
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 212
Intel is simply faster for all processing these days, not only for avisynth.

You'd want AMD for 3 reason:
-You need more slower cores(faster ones are much better for avisynth so in your case you don't want that).
-You don't want to pay a lot of money.
-You want better integrated graphics.
__________________
i7 2600K@4.7 watercooled and 2x EVGA GTX 760 in SLI with Corsair 16Gb 1600 (2 4x2 kit) on Asrock P67 Extreme4 Gen 3 with Intel 530 240Gb SSD running Win7 x64 on 3x ASUS VS239H-P 23"
SamKook is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th September 2013, 09:37   #9  |  Link
zee944
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 240
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamKook View Post
Intel is simply faster for all processing these days, not only for avisynth.

You'd want AMD for 3 reason:
-You need more slower cores(faster ones are much better for avisynth so in your case you don't want that).
-You don't want to pay a lot of money.
-You want better integrated graphics.
Intel and AMD for the same price should be compared, not in general sense.
zee944 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th September 2013, 13:27   #10  |  Link
SamKook
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 212
There's not that many for the same price so it's not an easy task, AMD is usually much cheaper. Something I see often on hardware forum is that 1 intel core is equivalent to about 2 AMD core in speed so check the prices by keeping this approximation in mind, check if the avisynth filter you use work well multithreaded(if they dont, then you want intel) or not and make your choice.

Personally, I'd get(and did) an unlocked i7 since I consider it the best ban for your buck for encoding with avisynth(assuming you use filters that can be multithreaded), but I'm not aware of an AMD processor that cost this much.
__________________
i7 2600K@4.7 watercooled and 2x EVGA GTX 760 in SLI with Corsair 16Gb 1600 (2 4x2 kit) on Asrock P67 Extreme4 Gen 3 with Intel 530 240Gb SSD running Win7 x64 on 3x ASUS VS239H-P 23"
SamKook is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th September 2013, 14:29   #11  |  Link
aegisofrime
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 478
When you are talking about a time sensitive thing like video encoding, I don't really see the sense in saving money by getting AMD; You pretty much get the best you can afford. The returns in terms of time saved and power consumption pay for themselves. Of course, unless it's something that you don't do very often or rarely.

For myself, I do encoding on a daily basis so getting a 4770 is a no brainer.

Last edited by aegisofrime; 18th September 2013 at 14:31.
aegisofrime is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th September 2013, 23:02   #12  |  Link
turbojet
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,840
Thing is if you are using simple avisynth filters (ivtc, deint, sharpen, denoise, resize, etc.) at HD resolutions with a multithreaded encoder like x264, amd is faster than the i7 3770, haven't been able to test 4770 and $200 cheaper for cpu+mobo. AMD under load uses about 150w more than 4770. At $0.10 kwh it would take about 30,000 hours (1250 days, 3.5 years) at full load to make up that $200 difference, by then it's about time to upgrade. At idle the difference is neglible. You could even buy 2 AMD boxes for the price of a 4770 box, split the source and encode twice as fast with a small increase in your power bill <$10 depending on price and how much it's fully loaded.

Unless you are using heavy avisynth filters, the decoder and encoder have a much larger impact on speed.

I'm not an AMD fanboy, I own more intel cpu's then amd's currently. Just did my homework on what I'd mostly be doing under full load with this box, HD x264 encodes and some qaac encoding. AMD gives me a minute advantage or so on the former and loses 5-10 seconds on the latter.
__________________
PC: FX-8320 GTS250 HTPC: G1610 GTX650
PotPlayer/MPC-BE LAVFilters MadVR-Bicubic75AR/Lanczos4AR/Lanczos4AR LumaSharpen -Strength0.9-Pattern3-Clamp0.1-OffsetBias2.0

Last edited by turbojet; 18th September 2013 at 23:14.
turbojet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th September 2013, 00:46   #13  |  Link
Sapo84
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 40
You have your math wrong (the result is 13333 hours, 555 days, less than an year and a half), and besides:
1) I don't know how you can find the FX-8320 faster than 3770, all the benches I've seen tell the exact contrary (this one is an example)
For sure it's not faster than the 4770 (and the bench is probably missing all the AVX enchancements).
2) 200$ sounds like an exaggeration, even if you meant 4770k it's 180$ more on newegg (4770 it's just 150$ more, and if you're not going to overlock it's by far the better deal of the two), H87 board are cheap (you don't have to spend 150$ for a full fledged Z87 board), 10-15$ more than an AM3+.
But then you don't need a video card (30$ saving) and you can settle for a less powerful PSU (at least another 20$ saving) and less cooling power on the case (I'm taking into account your 150W difference in full load).
150-160$ would probably be the real difference in cost.

And that is not such a bad deal, if you plan to keep the box for many years it may be worth the added cost.
Sapo84 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th September 2013, 07:18   #14  |  Link
turbojet
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,840
You are right about calculation, I first calculated 200W difference then added 33% instead of subtract.

1. By default (turbo=auto) my FX8320 was limited to 3.7ghz turbo, changing it to 20x max allows the specified 4ghz, 200mhz (5%) slower than FX8350. The TechArp benchmark isn't very comparable to real world encoding unless you are encoding fade in/out repeatedly. The 8320 is only running 60-90% about the half of the time and it really messes with turbo, most of the time it's off. I can duplicate anandtech's speed going back to turbo=auto. Changing turbo to 4ghz resulted in 13.6-13.8 fps. Forcing 4ghz, although ~5% of the time it slipped back to 2.9ghz even without cool and quiet, on a few years old Windows 7, with single channel ram (bad stick recently) resulted in:
encoded 11812 frames, 14.47 fps, 8002.09 kb/s
encoded 11812 frames, 14.43 fps, 8002.12 kb/s
encoded 11812 frames, 14.42 fps, 8002.08 kb/s
encoded 11812 frames, 14.48 fps, 8002.20 kb/s
with dual channel and a fresh windows 8 (encodes faster than 7?) it would more than likely be up around 14.8-14.9 fps but that's just speculation. It would be really nice to have a much simpler and more accurate x264 benchmark with more realistic source (parkrun looped a few times?) that's fed directly to x264 with sane settings.

2. At the time of checking early last week, newegg had $20 off the FX8320. I never considered the PSU but it's a valid argument. Although if you look at reputable brands on newegg and say the minimum for 4770 is 300W, Sparkle for $35, and AMD minimum is 400W, Sparkle at $40, its a $5 difference. I hadn't seen 4770 benchmarks until you posted that link, thanks. With that inaccurate (techarp) knowledge I'd recommend 4770. Sites were saying ~10% increase over ivy bridge with an early cpu but the consumer cpu is slower and there's a few comments around here that AVX2 optimizations had little speed increase. With that knowledge it seemed to be about equal to a FX8350. An 8320 plus aftermarket hsf which is still cheaper than 8350 itself can get 4.4-4.6ghz with little effort. When i purchased the FX8320 haswell wasn't out yet and I ended up spending $135 for the CPU and the mobo for $60 that came with a promotional 2x8GB G.Skill DDR3.
__________________
PC: FX-8320 GTS250 HTPC: G1610 GTX650
PotPlayer/MPC-BE LAVFilters MadVR-Bicubic75AR/Lanczos4AR/Lanczos4AR LumaSharpen -Strength0.9-Pattern3-Clamp0.1-OffsetBias2.0
turbojet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st October 2013, 14:12   #15  |  Link
zee944
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 240
I'm still in the dark if AMD or Intel (for the same price) looks better for AviSynth. Most people compare them in absolut terms, not counting their cost, and that can be misleading.

AMD FX 8320/8350 is in the same price category as Intel i5, but performs like Intel i7 in speed tests. Would it be true in AviSynth too?

I understand it depends on the specific filters too, but I can't tell which scripts and plugins I will be using in the next few years, so assuming some sort of average use...?
zee944 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st October 2013, 14:44   #16  |  Link
Mounir
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 758
x264 encoding chart (lower is better)



3d, frames count, Crysis 2 (higher is better)



overall performance (higher is better):


Last edited by Mounir; 1st October 2013 at 14:54.
Mounir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st October 2013, 15:22   #17  |  Link
microchip8
ffx264/ffhevc author
 
microchip8's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Belgium
Posts: 1,752
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mounir View Post
x264 encoding chart (lower is better)



3d, frames count, Crysis 2 (higher is better)



overall performance (higher is better):

I don't see any pics?
__________________
TV: Samsung 50" QE50Q60T AVR: Yamaha RX-V481 5.1 CD Player: Yamaha CD-S300 DAB+ Tuner: Yamaha T-D500 BD Player: Samsung UBD-M8500 UHD Speakers: Klipsch 5.1 Reference Phono: Audio-Technica AT-LP120XUSB
microchip8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st October 2013, 15:55   #18  |  Link
Mounir
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 758
Someone has edited my post obviously:

have a look here:
http://www.hardware.fr/articles/880-10/encodage-x264-rovi-h-264.html
Mounir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st October 2013, 19:07   #19  |  Link
ChiDragon
Registered User
 
ChiDragon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 600
It's because you hotlinked. You're only seeing the images yourself because they are in your cache.
ChiDragon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd October 2013, 13:42   #20  |  Link
SamKook
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 212
They get compared in absolute terms because they both have their strong point in different categories which may or may not be better for what you want to do. I personally picked intel because I wanted the absolute fastest I could get which none of the AMD processors offered an equivalent of so no equal comparison could be made.

Yes it would still be true in avisynth(assuming the filters used can all be multithreaded or the processing in the script is light enough that you don't need to multithread it to feed the encoder fast enough).

I'd assume most people not sure about what they need would use multithreaded encoding so for the same price, you're better off with AMD.
__________________
i7 2600K@4.7 watercooled and 2x EVGA GTX 760 in SLI with Corsair 16Gb 1600 (2 4x2 kit) on Asrock P67 Extreme4 Gen 3 with Intel 530 240Gb SSD running Win7 x64 on 3x ASUS VS239H-P 23"

Last edited by SamKook; 2nd October 2013 at 13:45.
SamKook is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
amd, architecture, intel, processor

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:59.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions Inc.