Anyone has experience with invader pc?

[kaputzzz]

Exactly I myself also cannot understand how the final price came up at $4k.
The RAM is around $400, the Seagate barracuda 4TB is around $150.
If they pick a higher tier Seagate HDD than maybe like Ironwolf or Firecuda
but Barracuda is a normal consumer grade HDD.

Anyway TS, just my opinion and shops usually won't give a breakdown of the price.

I think it's because the parts are all white... That's why more expensive than normal

 

[cheechongfun]

I think it's because the parts are all white... That's why more expensive than normal

Hmm ok I go do some research on the price of the individual part from Dynacore pricelist and Fuwell pricelist when I cannot find from Dynacore pricelist

i9-14900K + GIGABYTE Z790 AORUS PRO X $1471 (Fuwell)
CORSAIR iCUE H150I ELITE CAPELLIX XT WHITE $258 (Dynacore)
G.SKILL TRIDENT Z5 RGB DDR5 6000 64B(32GBX2) CL32 $388 (Dynacore)
MSI RTX4070Ti GAMING X TRIO WHITE $1479 (Fuwell)
WD BLACK SN850X 2TB GEN4 M.2 SSD $240 (Dynacore)
SEASONIC FOCUS GX-850 WHITE $218 (Dynacore)
ASUS TUF GAMING GT502 CASE WHITE $185 (Dynacore)
ASUS TUF GAMING TF120 ARGB WHITE CASE FAN x7 $247 (Fuwell $99 for 3 pcs $49 for 1 pc)
SEAGATE BARRACUDA 3.5'' 4TB HDD $149 (Dynacore)

Total $4635

Seem like should be around the price range given Invader PC also claim they give me some discount...

 

[NightRaven49]

2.) I wanted to choose Corsair initially but since I am going for a full white build they offer me Seasonic instead. Is there any reason why I should not choose Seasonic...?

ur pc is in a dual chamber case, the psu is going to be hidden anyway. u couldve saved a buck by going for the regular black version, or opting for cheaper but still high quality units that dont have white versions.

3.) What is wrong with i9 + 4070 Ti ...?

for 4k, u couldve gone for i7 + 4080, the latter being a big step up from 4070ti.
lets build ur build:

i9 14900k + gigabyte z790 aorus pro x	1430	tradepac
corsair h150i elite capellix xt	258	dynacore
gskill trident rgb z5 2x 32gb 6000c32 ddr5	370	tradepac
wd black sn850x 2tb	220	tradepac
msi rtx4070ti gaming x trio white	1243	bizgram
seasonic focus gx 850 white	205	tradepac
gt502 white	185	dynacore
7x tf120	71 * 7/3 = 165	dynacore
seagate barracuda 4tb	139	techdeals

total: ~4.2, so invader price is actually pretty decent considering u didnt have to run around stores. but the 4070ti in particular doesnt sit well with me at this price class, especially with only 12gb of vram.
we can optimise ur build like so:

i7 14700k + gigbayte z790 aorus pro x	1206	tradepac	14700k is at most 5% slower in adobe video editing
lian li galahad 360 white	199	tradepac	one of the best aios for a cheaper price
adata xpg lancer rgb 2x 32gb 6400c32 ddr5	330	tradepac	faster ram
lexar nm790 2tb	155	tradepac	perfomance comparable to the best gen4 drives
zotac rtx 4080 amp extreme airo white	1940	dynacore
lian li o11 air mini white	144	tradepac	still dual chamber, great airflow and clean aesthetic
adata xpg core reactor 750w	125	performance pc	enough for this tier
4x arctic p14 white	4 * 20 = 80	tradepac	great value fans and larger too, need fewer as o11 air mini already has 3 preinstalled
wd purple 4tb	118	techdeals	non smr, 1 extra year of warranty

total: ~4.3k for what is a more balanced build imo.

 

[cheechongfun]

ur pc is in a dual chamber case, the psu is going to be hidden anyway. u couldve saved a buck by going for the regular black version, or opting for cheaper but still high quality units that dont have white versions.

for 4k, u couldve gone for i7 + 4080, the latter being a big step up from 4070ti.
lets build ur build:

i9 14900k + gigabyte z790 aorus pro x	1430	tradepac
corsair h150i elite capellix xt	258	dynacore
gskill trident rgb z5 2x 32gb 6000c32 ddr5	370	tradepac
wd black sn850x 2tb	220	tradepac
msi rtx4070ti gaming x trio white	1243	bizgram
seasonic focus gx 850 white	205	tradepac
gt502 white	185	dynacore
7x tf120	71 * 7/3 = 165	dynacore
seagate barracuda 4tb	139	techdeals

total: ~4.2, so invader price is actually pretty decent considering u didnt have to run around stores. but the 4070ti in particular doesnt sit well with me at this price class, especially with only 12gb of vram.
we can optimise ur build like so:

i7 14700k + gigbayte z790 aorus pro x	1206	tradepac	14700k is at most 5% slower in adobe video editing
lian li galahad 360 white	199	tradepac	one of the best aios for a cheaper price
adata xpg lancer rgb 2x 32gb 6400c32 ddr5	330	tradepac	faster ram
lexar nm790 2tb	155	tradepac	perfomance comparable to the best gen4 drives
zotac rtx 4080 amp extreme airo white	1940	dynacore
lian li o11 air mini white	144	tradepac	still dual chamber, great airflow and clean aesthetic
adata xpg core reactor 750w	125	performance pc	enough for this tier
4x arctic p14 white	4 * 20 = 80	tradepac	great value fans and larger too, need fewer as o11 air mini already has 3 preinstalled
wd purple 4tb	118	techdeals	non smr, 1 extra year of warranty

total: ~4.3k for what is a more balanced build imo.

Thanks a lot for the detailed breakdown. I do agree with your reasoning. 4080 is definitely way better than a 4070Ti and with that amount of money I definitely can optimize and get a better performance system for my needs.

I have made an unwise choice. Lesson learnt.

 

[86technie]

Thanks a lot for the detailed breakdown. I do agree with your reasoning. 4080 is definitely way better than a 4070Ti and with that amount of money I definitely can optimize and get a better performance system for my needs.

I have made an unwise choice. Lesson learnt.

Please don't blame yourself, no one is faulting your or blaming you for making the wrong choice.
Issue is some shops like Dynacore and Bizgram they can make decision which may not be
optimal for the price/budget in mind.

Which is why I don't go to these shops, I usually go Fuwell or PCThemes.
Some say Fuwell is expensive but in fact you can ask for discount.
Whenever I buy stuff from Fuwell, PCthemes they do discount abit for me.

Dynacore and Bizgram is fixed price so they can't discount.
Like NightRaven49 mention for that specs rather go for RTX 4080 will be better than
RTX 4070 Ti to go with a i9.

Most gamers won't go with i9 but i7 and i9 is very difficult to cool so any CPU cooler
can be noisy during gaming.

 

[uni_user]

if you have change of mind on any parts.. can always try Whatsapp them.. if they haven't build yours yet, maybe still can change.

for my case, its straight forward PSU upgrade option.

 

[kaputzzz]

Well, it isn't the issue with $10.

There has been a lot of misconception that doing 4k video editing means going for the highest-end CPU.

That is actually far from the truth because most benchmarks for video editing are intentionally designed to NOT fully take advantage of hardware acceleration, which means at some parts of the tests, all the load will be placed on the CPU, and this is solely for the purpose of the test.

In reality, video editors will configure their environment to fully take advantage of GPU acceleration unless the software or codec they are using does not support it. A 4000 series GPU you are using would have most of your ground covered in terms of codecs supported, and the iGPU has some as well.

Modern video editing software often supports hardware acceleration through GPUs by using technologies like NVENC. This allows the GPU to handle specific tasks related to video processing, such as rendering effects, transitions, and encoding way more EFFICIENTLY than relying on the CPU alone which SIGNIFICANTLY frees up the CPU.

The difference in responsiveness is also very obvious during editing with GPU acceleration enabled. That's why even if you have the most powerful CPU, you still want the GPU to do it whenever possible.

Lastly, like other applications, video editing applications also favour p-cores. The intel 13700k has the same amount of p-cores as 13900k/14900k, so you are actually facing diminishing returns from this point on.

In conclusion, if you're experiencing stutters and lags during video editing, the underlying issue likely lies in the underutilization of GPU acceleration. Therefore, upgrading from a 13700k to a 14900k won't significantly improve the situation. If you're working with a large 4K60 clip, your primary concern should not be the CPU, assuming it's already decent, but whether the software and codec you're using support GPU acceleration and whether your GPU acceleration supports the codec.

Actually, CPU is way better than GPU in terms of video compression. NVENC is only good in areas where real time video processing is used like streaming or recording video footage where compression is not important. Although GPU rendering is faster than CPU, rendering videos using NVENC will result in a much larger filesize than a comparable quality from CPU. So ideally you want to use CPU to render videos instead of using GPU unless you dont care about video compression.

I have did this test many times and rendering the same video at same quality using GPU vs CPU, GPU filesize is always like at least 30% bigger than rendered using CPU. So if you are serious into video editing, you should get the best CPU you can get for the maximum power to render videos using CPU as quick as possible.

So while GPU can be an all rounder, stream videos, record videos, editing videos, rendering videos, it doesnt perform as well as what a CPU can do like video compression.

 

[kaputzzz]

Hmm ok I go do some research on the price of the individual part from Dynacore pricelist and Fuwell pricelist when I cannot find from Dynacore pricelist

i9-14900K + GIGABYTE Z790 AORUS PRO X $1471 (Fuwell)
CORSAIR iCUE H150I ELITE CAPELLIX XT WHITE $258 (Dynacore)
G.SKILL TRIDENT Z5 RGB DDR5 6000 64B(32GBX2) CL32 $388 (Dynacore)
MSI RTX4070Ti GAMING X TRIO WHITE $1479 (Fuwell)
WD BLACK SN850X 2TB GEN4 M.2 SSD $240 (Dynacore)
SEASONIC FOCUS GX-850 WHITE $218 (Dynacore)
ASUS TUF GAMING GT502 CASE WHITE $185 (Dynacore)
ASUS TUF GAMING TF120 ARGB WHITE CASE FAN x7 $247 (Fuwell $99 for 3 pcs $49 for 1 pc)
SEAGATE BARRACUDA 3.5'' 4TB HDD $149 (Dynacore)

Total $4635

Seem like should be around the price range given Invader PC also claim they give me some discount...

Well i guess if you look at it from this POV, its a decent deal. But if you look at it from a price to performance POV its not a very good deal. White parts generally cost alot more than the normal parts. But if you really want to have a all white build, then by all means go ahead as long as it makes you happy

 

[RockaRolla]

Actually, CPU is way better than GPU in terms of video compression. NVENC is only good in areas where real time video processing is used like streaming or recording video footage where compression is not important. Although GPU rendering is faster than CPU, rendering videos using NVENC will result in a much larger filesize than a comparable quality from CPU. So ideally you want to use CPU to render videos instead of using GPU unless you dont care about video compression.

I have did this test many times and rendering the same video at same quality using GPU vs CPU, GPU filesize is always like at least 30% bigger than rendered using CPU. So if you are serious into video editing, you should get the best CPU you can get for the maximum power to render videos using CPU as quick as possible.

So while GPU can be an all rounder, stream videos, record videos, editing videos, rendering videos, it doesnt perform as well as what a CPU can do like video compression.

fully agreed

alot of people dont realise that, and just blindly bomb gpu faster than cpu, just buy a cheaper cpu and use gpu power

I used alot of handbrake, GPU quality totally no fight against CPU, even a high quality preset for GPU cannot win against a fast/lower quality preset from CPU

Like what you said, for real time processing GPU is fine, but for exporting, CPU is king

 

[Phen8210]

Actually, CPU is way better than GPU in terms of video compression. NVENC is only good in areas where real time video processing is used like streaming or recording video footage where compression is not important. Although GPU rendering is faster than CPU, rendering videos using NVENC will result in a much larger filesize than a comparable quality from CPU. So ideally you want to use CPU to render videos instead of using GPU unless you dont care about video compression.

I have did this test many times and rendering the same video at same quality using GPU vs CPU, GPU filesize is always like at least 30% bigger than rendered using CPU. So if you are serious into video editing, you should get the best CPU you can get for the maximum power to render videos using CPU as quick as possible.

Configuring a computer and video editing environment to utilize GPU acceleration doesn't prevent one from selecting the CPU for export tasks. You can always select the CPU to export the video if time is not important and you want to prioritize space efficiency.

In the professional setting, where time is a genuine concern, editors could use NVENC to export much faster than any CPU could, at the trade-off of higher space usage.

Lastly, the cost increase from 14700K to 14900K is around ~37.5%, and the performance improvements aren't significant since they both have 8 p-cores. Again, even if you 'must' use the CPU for space-saving purposes, you do not need the highest-end CPU.

So while GPU can be an all rounder, stream videos, record videos, editing videos, rendering videos, it doesnt perform as well as what a CPU can do like video compression.

If you are unaware, the discussion has been about video editing because OP is a video editor. Video editing requires close to real-time processing to keep the process smooth. It's not simply waiting to encode a video to a different codec or running a benchmark.

The video editing process involves many actions, so keeping it as smooth as possible is crucial.

A rig and environment tailored for GPU acceleration in video editing can solve major complaints of lags and stutters during video editing, saving time and pain.

It doesn't seem logical to use a CPU for exporting if time is critical. Any CPU could do it if the concern were keeping file size lower. You can never have the best of both worlds, as even the best CPU wouldn't bring you close to what a GPU can achieve in terms of time saved. If you want a fast time for export with CPU, you also wouldn't necessarily need to invest in the absolute highest-end CPU because of diminishing returns.

Overall, the issues you mentioned might be more personal to you than actual video editors who perform more complex editing.

 

[kaputzzz]

Configuring a computer and video editing environment to utilize GPU acceleration doesn't prevent one from selecting the CPU for export tasks. You can always select the CPU to export the video if time is not important and you want to prioritize space efficiency.

In the professional setting, where time is a genuine concern, editors could use NVENC to export much faster than any CPU could, at the trade-off of higher space usage.

Lastly, the cost increase from 14700K to 14900K is around ~37.5%, and the performance improvements aren't significant since they both have 8 p-cores. Again, even if you 'must' use the CPU for space-saving purposes, you do not need the highest-end CPU.

View attachment 47808



If you are unaware, the discussion has been about video editing because OP is a video editor. Video editing requires close to real-time processing to keep the process smooth. It's not simply waiting to encode a video to a different codec or running a benchmark.

The video editing process involves many actions, so keeping it as smooth as possible is crucial.

A rig and environment tailored for GPU acceleration in video editing can solve major complaints of lags and stutters during video editing, saving time and pain.

It doesn't seem logical to use a CPU for exporting if time is critical. Any CPU could do it if the concern were keeping file size lower. You can never have the best of both worlds, as even the best CPU wouldn't bring you close to what a GPU can achieve in terms of time saved. If you want a fast time for export with CPU, you also wouldn't necessarily need to invest in the absolute highest-end CPU because of diminishing returns.

Overall, the issues you mentioned might be more personal to you than actual video editors who perform more complex editing.

It seems like you are implying that GPU is more important than CPU in video editing, which is clearly not the case. In fact CPU is more important than GPU during editing stage as the program utilizes CPU logic to edit videos mainly. GPU doesn't really help much at all.

GPU acceleration is just as the name suggests, acceleration. It may offer a slight performance increase but it will not turn your i3 into i9 performance during editing.

I don't understand why would you want to skimp on CPU if you are serious about video editing. GPU is mainly for games, 3d rendering or crunching numbers like crypto mining or AI. And in recent times, video rendering using NVENC. Video editing still mainly relies on CPU and like I said, video compression is way better with CPU. GPU and CPU are both very powerful hardware but they are built for different purposes and you should understand what they are built for.

 

[Phen8210]

It seems like you are implying that GPU is more important than CPU in video editing, which is clearly not the case. In fact CPU is more important than GPU during editing stage as the program utilizes CPU logic to edit videos mainly. GPU doesn't really help much at all.

GPU acceleration is just as the name suggests, acceleration. It may offer a slight performance increase but it will not turn your i3 into i9 performance during editing.

I don't understand why would you want to skimp on CPU if you are serious about video editing. GPU is mainly for games, 3d rendering or crunching numbers like crypto mining or AI. And in recent times, video rendering using NVENC. Video editing still mainly relies on CPU and like I said, video compression is way better with CPU. GPU and CPU are both very powerful hardware but they are built for different purposes and you should understand what they are built for.

If you insist that getting a good CPU is all required for a good editing experience, the above footage shows an editor using a 13900K unable to edit his 4K60 footage without GPU acceleration. Such cases are common, and this also debunks your claims that GPU acceleration in video editing is insignificant.

As emphasized, this is due to not using GPU acceleration, and there's zero chance of getting away with it when dealing with such high-bitrate 4K60 footage. You cannot smoothly edit non-raw 4K60-level videos without GPU acceleration, even with a proxy, regardless of having a CPU like the 13900K or 14900K. The main concern is the hardware, software, and codec compatibility supported by GPU acceleration, presuming that one already has a decent CPU.

Something from the 12th generation with 8 p-cores is more than enough. From this point onwards, utilizing hardware acceleration support will ultimately be the deciding factor, which is why you need a GPU with a wide compatibility of codecs in hardware acceleration for video editing. This also doesn't mean you get the most expensive GPU.

If you insist that the CPU is everything and that anything less than the 14900K is considered scrimping, it is already proven that it doesn't provide any significant benefit over the 14700K and costs much more. Thus, it is nowhere near the territory of 'scrimping,' but more of making an informed decision because nobody would want to pay more without significant benefit.

Lastly, your concern with compression has nothing to do with the editing stage. Nobody stops you from using CPU export if you have all the time and want a smaller file size, but you don't need a 14900K for that sole purpose. A 14700K doesn't have significant differences in export time. Plus, if time is such a huge concern, use GPU to export it.

Your insistence on requiring the absolute highest-end CPU isn't valid, as any high-end CPU from the past 2-3 generations can do the job just fine. At a higher level of editing, you can no longer rely solely on CPU power and must tap into GPU acceleration. Most editors are just like the one shown in the video, and only after stepping into higher levels of editing are they forced to learn the benefits and importance of hardware acceleration.

In other words, you can buy a better CPU to cure stupidity, but it only works until a certain point.

 

[GamingDiagnosis]

It seems like you are implying that GPU is more important than CPU in video editing, which is clearly not the case. In fact CPU is more important than GPU during editing stage as the program utilizes CPU logic to edit videos mainly. GPU doesn't really help much at all.

GPU acceleration is just as the name suggests, acceleration. It may offer a slight performance increase but it will not turn your i3 into i9 performance during editing.

I don't understand why would you want to skimp on CPU if you are serious about video editing. GPU is mainly for games, 3d rendering or crunching numbers like crypto mining or AI. And in recent times, video rendering using NVENC. Video editing still mainly relies on CPU and like I said, video compression is way better with CPU. GPU and CPU are both very powerful hardware but they are built for different purposes and you should understand what they are built for.

FYI, performing video editing in 4K without hardware acceleration support is practically impossible due to the significant workload difference, the CPU cannot overcome it.

As an editor who typically works in 1080p, I've found it manageable, but when attempting 4K60 editing on a codec without hardware acceleration, the editing process became extremely laggy to the point of being unworkable. It wasn't until I realized that the free version of my software didn't support the codec I was using for hwa so I purchased the paid version, which was designed for more serious work and supported more codecs for hardware acceleration including the one i used. This made a tremendous difference.

You may not have experience with projects of such scale or have relied on brute force methods like myself, but I can assure you that won't suffice for 4K editing. Hardware acceleration support for editing is far more critical than simply having the best CPU in the world. For editing, you only need a modern CPU that isn't old and performs well.

You definitely don't need to buy the 14900k. I purchased the 12900k last time to upgrade from the 12600k, thinking it was the cause based on what I read online. However, it didn't fix ANY of the problems I had. Fortunately, I was able to return the processor to Amazon and received a full refund. If a person encounters severe problems and lags in video editing, especially in 4k or higher it's most likely due to not using hardware acceleration and not a sign that you should upgrade processor especially if you already got something that is decent. Don't be foolish and use brain!!

 

[kaputzzz]

If you insist that getting a good CPU is all required for a good editing experience, the above footage shows an editor using a 13900K unable to edit his 4K60 footage without GPU acceleration. Such cases are common, and this also debunks your claims that GPU acceleration in video editing is insignificant.

As emphasized, this is due to not using GPU acceleration, and there's zero chance of getting away with it when dealing with such high-bitrate 4K60 footage. You cannot smoothly edit non-raw 4K60-level videos without GPU acceleration, even with a proxy, regardless of having a CPU like the 13900K or 14900K. The main concern is the hardware, software, and codec compatibility supported by GPU acceleration, presuming that one already has a decent CPU.

Something from the 12th generation with 8 p-cores is more than enough. From this point onwards, utilizing hardware acceleration support will ultimately be the deciding factor, which is why you need a GPU with a wide compatibility of codecs in hardware acceleration for video editing. This also doesn't mean you get the most expensive GPU.

If you insist that the CPU is everything and that anything less than the 14900K is considered scrimping, it is already proven that it doesn't provide any significant benefit over the 14700K and costs much more. Thus, it is nowhere near the territory of 'scrimping,' but more of making an informed decision because nobody would want to pay more without significant benefit.

Lastly, your concern with compression has nothing to do with the editing stage. Nobody stops you from using CPU export if you have all the time and want a smaller file size, but you don't need a 14900K for that sole purpose. A 14700K doesn't have significant differences in export time. Plus, if time is such a huge concern, use GPU to export it.

Your insistence on requiring the absolute highest-end CPU isn't valid, as any high-end CPU from the past 2-3 generations can do the job just fine. At a higher level of editing, you can no longer rely solely on CPU power and must tap into GPU acceleration. Most editors are just like the one shown in the video, and only after stepping into higher levels of editing are they forced to learn the benefits and importance of hardware acceleration.

In other words, you can buy a better CPU to cure stupidity, but it only works until a certain point.

View attachment 47828

I never said GPU is not important in video editing. I said CPU is more important than GPU in video editing. GPU helps to a certain extent but not as much as you like to think. Main workhorse of video editing is still CPU. Ie you can edit well with a high end CPU + low end GPU but you cannot edit well with a low end CPU + high end GPU, which is what you are trying to say that somehow GPU acceleration will solve your lag issues in video editing.

I didn't say 14700k is not good enough for video editing, I said if you are a serious video editor, you should go for the highest end CPU you can afford for better video editing experience. Even in your benchmark you posted, 13900k is 21% faster in rendering times compared to 13700k. That is 21% time saved. If you take 1 hour to render something with 13700k, it would save you almost 13 minutes with the 13900k. When you are dealing with large volumes of video, this can add up significantly. Moreover the 13900k/14900k is just 300 to 500 more than the 13700k/14700k.

For ppl who do alot of video editing, rendering times and video compression are both very important, hence you should buy the best CPU you can afford. If you feel 13900k/14900k is too expensive, nothing wrong with going for i7 or i5. It just takes longer to render.

The last part of your post is implying ppl who buy i9 are wasteful, unnecessary and stupid, which is not true. If I can spend $300 to $500 extra to save 21% off ALL my video rendering times, I would gladly pay if I can afford. Not everything is strictly about price to performance ratio. For some, the slight performance increase can offer benefits that far outweigh the cost in the long run.

 

[kaputzzz]

FYI, performing video editing in 4K without hardware acceleration support is practically impossible due to the significant workload difference, the CPU cannot overcome it.

As an editor who typically works in 1080p, I've found it manageable, but when attempting 4K60 editing on a codec without hardware acceleration, the editing process became extremely laggy to the point of being unworkable. It wasn't until I realized that the free version of my software didn't support the codec I was using for hwa so I purchased the paid version, which was designed for more serious work and supported more codecs for hardware acceleration including the one i used. This made a tremendous difference.

You may not have experience with projects of such scale or have relied on brute force methods like myself, but I can assure you that won't suffice for 4K editing. Hardware acceleration support for editing is far more critical than simply having the best CPU in the world. For editing, you only need a modern CPU that isn't old and performs well.

You definitely don't need to buy the 14900k. I purchased the 12900k last time to upgrade from the 12600k, thinking it was the cause based on what I read online. However, it didn't fix ANY of the problems I had. Fortunately, I was able to return the processor to Amazon and received a full refund. If a person encounters severe problems and lags in video editing, especially in 4k or higher it's most likely due to not using hardware acceleration and not a sign that you should upgrade processor especially if you already got something that is decent. Don't be foolish and use brain!!

Yes you don't need i9 to edit videos, i5 is just as capable. I'm saying if you want a better experience editing videos you should use the best CPU you can afford. Mainly is to cut down on video rendering times. And you definitely don't need a 4090 to GPU accelerate your video editing process.

 

[Phen8210]

I never said GPU is not important in video editing. I said CPU is more important than GPU in video editing. GPU helps to a certain extent but not as much as you like to think. Main workhorse of video editing is still CPU. Ie you can edit well with a high end CPU + low end GPU but you cannot edit well with a low end CPU + high end GPU, which is what you are trying to say that somehow GPU acceleration will solve your lag issues in video editing.

Yes, you didn't say that GPU is not important.

Instead, you said GPU acceleration is insignificant during editing, which is even worse and is complete misinformation because you literally cannot smoothly edit 4K60 videos without GPU acceleration, which you weren't aware of. The video linked before has proven it, I've seen it for myself more than a dozen times, and someone else mentioned it, but you still insist that GPU acceleration is not crucial.

Besides, I don't recall saying anything about having to buy a high-end GPU. If anything, I only emphasized that the support for GPU acceleration is crucial in editing, so settling for a card in the RTX 4000 series range would be a great idea. Nowhere have I stated that you should buy a high-end card.

https://forums.hardwarezone.com.sg/...rience-with-invader-pc.6973891/post-150294564



Where does this above post or any of my posts imply that you should buy a high-end GPU when I only claimed that the series of cards had good support for GPU acceleration? Also, if you want to use CPU for encoding, it's really up to you, there's nowhere where I state that you shouldn't?

I didn't say 14700k is not good enough for video editing, I said if you are a serious video editor, you should go for the highest end CPU you can afford for better video editing experience.

No, that's not what you said.

When TS mentioned that the cost of that rig was uncomfortably high, I explained that he could have gone with a lower-tier processor at a lower budget. At that time, only 13700K was available, not 14700 K.

People who want to spend less are clearly on a budget. This doesn't even need explaining because it's literally common sense. It's not like people want to skimp, they literally just can't afford it. Yet you claimed that staying within budget was skimping and unserious video editors. This goes to show the kind of toxic mentality you have.



If you are respecting another person's budget, I don't see how you would feel a problem with selecting those CPUs as a problem.

 

[Steyr69]

Chill, guys!

Nice knowledge sharing on CPU v GPU for video editing.

My colleague recently ask me to recommend her a laptop that is able to do video editing.
I assume she is just doing those very basic family travel videos as seen on youtube.

Anyway, still trying to digest everything. Lol!

 

[GamingDiagnosis]

Yes you don't need i9 to edit videos, i5 is just as capable. I'm saying if you want a better experience editing videos you should use the best CPU you can afford. Mainly is to cut down on video rendering times. And you definitely don't need a 4090 to GPU accelerate your video editing process.

Huh.. I dont remember mentioning anything about a necessity to have top end gpu 4090 to accelerate video editing. What's gotten into you lol.

Chill, guys!

Nice knowledge sharing on CPU v GPU for video editing.

My colleague recently ask me to recommend her a laptop that is able to do video editing.
I assume she is just doing those very basic family travel videos as seen on youtube.

Anyway, still trying to digest everything. Lol!

Not sure about laptop, butI edit 4k footages with 13600k and rtx 4060 on my desktop rig, very importantly you must know what you doing, otherwise it don't matter how serious you are!

Basically, I purchased davinci resolve studio for support of hardware decoding for h.264 8 bit 4:2:0 and h.evc 8/10 bit 4:2:0. These codecs are also supported by my GPU so all my editing is now smooth and fast.

Without hardware decoding, I can only can edit 1080p because 4k will be way too laggy.. its like the video shown in that reddit post but much much much worse as that's just a few second footage compared to my hour longs footage.

Usually this is not told, and no one told me because majority just does 1080p editing I guess..

 

[kaputzzz]

Yes, you didn't say that GPU is not important.

Instead, you said GPU acceleration is insignificant during editing, which is even worse and is complete misinformation because you literally cannot smoothly edit 4K60 videos without GPU acceleration, which you weren't aware of. The video linked before has proven it, I've seen it for myself more than a dozen times, and someone else mentioned it, but you still insist that GPU acceleration is not crucial.

Besides, I don't recall saying anything about having to buy a high-end GPU. If anything, I only emphasized that the support for GPU acceleration is crucial in editing, so settling for a card in the RTX 4000 series range would be a great idea. Nowhere have I stated that you should buy a high-end card.

https://forums.hardwarezone.com.sg/...rience-with-invader-pc.6973891/post-150294564

View attachment 47840

Where does this above post or any of my posts imply that you should buy a high-end GPU when I only claimed that the series of cards had good support for GPU acceleration? Also, if you want to use CPU for encoding, it's really up to you, there's nowhere where I state that you shouldn't?




No, that's not what you said.

When TS mentioned that the cost of that rig was uncomfortably high, I explained that he could have gone with a lower-tier processor at a lower budget. At that time, only 13700K was available, not 14700 K.

People who want to spend less are clearly on a budget. This doesn't even need explaining because it's literally common sense. It's not like people want to skimp, they literally just can't afford it. Yet you claimed that staying within budget was skimping and unserious video editors. This goes to show the kind of toxic mentality you have.

View attachment 47842

If you are respecting another person's budget, I don't see how you would feel a problem with selecting those CPUs as a problem.

So you are really just trying to pick a problem out of nowhere? You tell me which pc in 2024 doesn't have a graphics card or integrated graphics in their system? Your so called GPU acceleration is important is a moot point because ALL modern pc have GPU capabilities or iGPU capabilities. GPU acceleration or whatever you want to call it is not an important consideration because of this fact. You are just trying to defend your theory that GPU acceleration is more important than you make it sound like. The more important consideration is the CPU. You are the one spreading misinformation saying GPU acceleration is crucial to video editing. Do you even edit 4k videos to make such a claim or you just hearsay? Did TS say he wants to edit 4k videos? FYI if your hardware is not capable of editing 4k native smoothly, you can edit with downsized version of the 4k video and then render it in 4k. Then you won't need your so called powerful GPU acceleration to help you edit videos in 4k60fps.

You trying to be a moral justice warrior now? Saying that I recommend something beyond his budget is toxic? I'm just giving my opinion based on my knowledge and experience. It is up to him to listen to all pov and decide what he wants to do. I didn't say my opinion is the best and he should follow my opinion. Moreover, budget are not strict limits to follow and $300 to $500 extra to pay on top of it for something that is part of your job is not alot to pay. If you have troubles coming up with $300 to $500 you got bigger problems.

I'm genuinely wanting to help you understand why high end CPU is so important in professional video editing but you are just stuck in your mindset it is not important and GPU acceleration is crucial... Whatever you say la.

 

[kaputzzz]

Huh.. I dont remember mentioning anything about a necessity to have top end gpu 4090 to accelerate video editing. What's gotten into you lol.

I'm referring to the Reddit post that guy posted about using 13900k + 4090FE to edit 4k videos.