Can I recreate Pixar (tm) in my basement?

October 21, 2009 7:31 PM

When it comes to editing and producing video, is it the CPU or the GPU the makes all the difference? I've read many different things and I work with video all the time and it seems that CPU power is what makes the difference when doing final processing and transcoding. Only GPU stuff is the GUI during editing. Rest after...

The main reason I ask is, right now I use a 2.O Ghz Core 2 Duo Think pad, works fine but not great, and if CPU is the best way to process then would I be able to use something like an old IBM xSeries say this or maybe this Both of which are a lot cheaper than a "real" desktop PC or Mac and have more processing power to boot. I can deal with the size, and make mods for fan noise. Just not sure if it would actually work. Anyone actually do this? Know of someone IRL who has, maybe a link?

posted by tropikal to technology (12 comments total)

GPU power isn't relevant unless you're using some sort of processing actually on the GPU: DXVA, CUDA, OpenCL, etc.
posted by Inspector.Gadget at 7:32 PM on October 21, 2009

It's the CPU, at least in terms of straight picture editing. I know of no standard, off-the-shelf NLE package that presently uses GPU acceleration. A GPU could come into play with effects software, and certainly anything involving 3D modeling or animation, and there are add-on boards an other outboard hardware specifically designed to accelerate real-time effects in video editing software, but you Thinkpad's built-in GPU is not doing any heavy lifting when it comes to cutting video in, say, Premiere or Avid.
posted by kid_dynamite at 7:36 PM on October 21, 2009 [1 favorite]

You do realize those old single core Xeons are effectively slower than your 2.0ghz core 2 duo CPU right? Your 2.0ghz c2d has a lower clock, but overall is a better cpu. (yes, even though those servers are dual cpu).

If you just want a rendering machine, you'd be spending your money more wisely purchasing a Quad Core Q6600 based machine (barebones?).

The GPU doesn't mean much unless your software supports it -- and even then -- its still CPU that matters.

Don't buy one of those expecting rendering times to drop at all.
posted by SirStan at 7:39 PM on October 21, 2009

Though; 8cpu's would be fun (realize Windows XP wont use more than 2 cpus). Also -- those servers need ECC ram ($$), which does help rendering, and scsi drives (which, while fast, are expensive and small).
posted by SirStan at 7:41 PM on October 21, 2009

SirStan: it is my understanding that ECC RAM is all about error correction (and it seems that bit error do happen); but how would it help rendering?
posted by Monday, stony Monday at 7:46 PM on October 21, 2009

It's going to be dependant on the application you use. Avid Media Composer is quite reliant on NVidia GPUs for some things. Straight editing won't make a difference, but for some operations the GPU does get utilised.

But counter to that, many applications don't harness the power of multiple CPU cores well at all.

Different applications will respond better to different optimisations. You'd be best to ask in forums dedicated to the applications you're keen to use.
posted by sycophant at 7:48 PM on October 21, 2009 [1 favorite]

This is also somewhat OS dependent. Modern OS can use the GPU under certain circumstances to aid in CPU intensive processes. This is something that's just starting, but probably good to keep in mind when buying new gear - the GPU power is becoming more integrated with the CPU, so there may be an incentive to spring for a better GPU... it'll get used.
posted by VikingSword at 9:07 PM on October 21, 2009

The P4 Xeons were terrible.
posted by rhizome at 9:59 PM on October 21, 2009

Do you want to do computer animation or digital video editing?

In the case of 3D animation (software like MAX, Maya, Blender, etc) your GPU will matter in that when you're editing 3d geometry, the rendering happens on the GPU. Once you start rendering to images, however, the CPU matters far more. Either way, you'll want oodles of RAM.

For digital video editing & video compression, the GPU is much less important. You're going to need CPU power, RAM, and fast/big disks.
posted by Alterscape at 11:33 PM on October 21, 2009

Be careful neglecting the GPU, especially with high-definition stations, because the GPU is in charge of the desktop/application/output rendering of the images in real-time.

If you buy a schlock GPU you will struggle with screen refresh problems and chances are you will lose out on real-time playback in your editing software. Also it affects your quicktime/other format playback capability after the video is finalized (although not even close to the CPU requirements.)
posted by Khazk at 3:29 AM on October 22, 2009

The answer: Pay attention to the specs of the editorial software.

Avid needs a specific video card. Premiere pro doesn't. I'm not sure about Vegas. CPU first, then video card....but make sure it's a decent OpenGL 256mb+ video card. While it may not be the powerhouse for your editing tool....the graphics card becomes a factor in Motion Graphics software.
posted by filmgeek at 5:06 AM on October 22, 2009

Your hard drive is probably going to make the biggest difference in your workflow. Buy the fastest drive you can afford that is big enough for your work. Use larger, cheaper, slower drives for backup, but if you can afford a solid-state drive large enough to hold your active project, I think you will notice a big difference.

After that, get as much high-performance RAM as you can, then think about your CPU performance, and as others have said, the GPU will only help inasmuch as the software you are using will support it. General-purpose GPU programming is still fairly new, but much of the next-generation graphics and video support will use it.
posted by ijoshua at 7:45 AM on October 22, 2009