Some qns for gaming/video editing rig

[lunaraven]

Hello, My budget is $3k. I'll be editing 4K video clips and gaming.

Would an I7 6700k or I7 5820K be recommended?

For 4K video editing, is a monitor with 4K resolution required? Would a Benq 27inch 1080 panel be good?

 

[Allanlee82]

after you edit the 4k video, where you going to view it? another source?
wouldnt a 4k monitor makes more sense? review your 4k video straight after editing on the same monitor.
I believe ppl would recommend you the 5820K for heavy video editing but your budget 3k might not be enough if it also include monitor

 

[U2gamer]

Please get 5820k if you are doing editing. More cores means faster rendering and exporting. Since you are editing 4k videos, it is better to get a 4k monitor than a 1080p monitor.

Posted with HardwareZone Forums app

 

[kandinsky]

Without having a 6700 next to me to compare, it's hard to quantify what difference 2 additional cores will make. It really depends on the style of editing you do, the type of files you are working with (consumer 4K or like RED 4k) and whether the effects/processes/software you use is optimized to make full use of all cores.

I think you can't go wrong with either, from looking at some benchmarks, in some processes the 5820k will come out ahead, in others the 6700k, and quite closely in some.

Some benchmarks for reference:

We wanted to focus on comparable Intel mainstream CPUs but as the Intel Core i7-5820K costs about the same, we also introduced this to the 2D tests. Interestingly, the LGA2011-v3 CPU doesn't hold much of an advantage over the Core i7-6700K and was far less overclockable too. However, for rendering it can easily outperform it thanks to its extra cores, so if this is something you do a lot of, X99 rather than Z170 is the way to go. Interestingly, in the video editing test, the Core i7-6700K had the advantage both at stock speed and overclocked so in cases where the Core i7-5820K's additional threads don't count for much, the extra grunt afforded by the Core i7-6700K's higher frequency comes into play.

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2015/08/05/intel-skylake-review/9

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/core_i7_6700k_processor_review_desktop_skylake,11.html

--------

On the monitor question, I think it depends on whether you are delivering 4K. I edit consumer 4K (100Mbps h264) on a 1080p screen cos I still edit and deliver a HD timeline. Have found no need for a 4K screen at all.

 

[kandinsky]

This might be an interesting watch too:

 

[enenyi]

Hello, My budget is $3k. I'll be editing 4K video clips and gaming.

Would an I7 6700k or I7 5820K be recommended?

For 4K video editing, is a monitor with 4K resolution required? Would a Benq 27inch 1080 panel be good?

Just go for i7-5820k. While one can argue that i7-6700k has better per-core performance, i7-5820k can be overclocked to 4.5GHz to match i7-6700k. That leaves i7-5820k with 2 additional cores for much better CPU performance compared to i7-6700k at the same clock speeds. And u can get i7-5820k + MSI X99 SLI-PLUS for just a bit more than u would pay for a i7-6700k + a mid-range Z170 board, so price-to-performance wise, the i7-5820k wins hands-down here.

For monitors, my question would be whether u will be dealing with 4k raw footage. Coz if u dealing with 4k raw footage files, then best to get 4k monitor to view them accurately. 4k raw footage files get down-sampled to 1080p (amongst 4 pixels, interpolate them and combine the result into a single pixel) when viewed on a 1080p monitor. If u just need to produce 4k video output files, would suggest u work with 1080p footage on 1080p timeline, then export the final output video at 4k resolution. In this case, u can use a 1080p monitor for the video-editing, as well as save disk space since 4k raw footage files and 4k mp4 (H.264) videos take up a lot of disk space.

 

[harky]

wow 4K!
file will very big..

 

[kandinsky]

wow 4K!
file will very big..

Lol, depends what type. Very big difference.

Consumer compressed h264 4K only 40+GB/hr. Prores 4K will be about 300GB/hr, raw up to 700+GB/hr.

http://www.4kshooters.net/2014/06/25/how-much-hard-disk-space-do-you-need-shooting-4k/

 

[tmfwy]

I think you will find that having one pc for both editing and gaming, can lead to frustration.
Best case scenario will be to separate your work and gaming spaces. work is work. gaming is gaming.
coz you seriously won't want to go hunting for an elusive black frame in your final video...

Also, don't even think of alt tabbing during the render phase to do something else

The specs for editing and gaming can be similar
Just that what type of editor you are will determine the internal components.

Monitor wise, you will be wise to get 2. Both preferably with good colour gamut. Or at least 1x monitor and 1x common 4k led tv.

Lastly, hope you are editing 4k video with clients paying for 4k video.
Most are still paying DVD rates for FHD video.

4K video represents a tremendous leap in workflow expense compared to FHD. I do live and even then, we prefer not to do 4k even though our equipment can do 4k, unless the client is willing to pay for it ( most aren't )

And after all that, don't forget
UPS
NAS
You'll be eating HDDs for breakfast...

For hardware specs, it will be a min of a 4790, with the 5820K onwards a better bet for processing power alone
Load up on max ram ( you will need it )

Overclocking should be kept to the defaults or mobo passive overclock ( the money saved from overclocking negates the productivity lost ). Its cheaper to buy a faster clocked CPU than to overclock an existing CPU to match a more expensive CPU.

 

[wkweewee]

Errm just my 2 cents..

Actually base clock is not everything when it comes to video editing + encoding. For example, previously for my rig I had an overclocked i7-4790k @4.5ghz (4 cores). For a 3mins+ 1080p 60f editing, the com would need about nearly 30mins to complete encoding with all the editing parameters.

This current rig of overclocked 5820k @4.2ghz (6 cores) has already proved its worth by reducing the encoding time to slightly less than 20mins. The most expensive chip 5960x running at base 3.0ghz (8 cores).. I think would beat all other i7 systems flat when it comes to running adobe applications even though its base clock is the lowest amongst all desktop class i7 chips.

Hmm even for the latest adobe applications, they are still unable to fully utilise all my cores to run at 100% load. My 6 cores currently run at 65-80% load at most with these applications. This is a good thing because I can still alt tab and do something else like looking at after effects without lagging even when encoder cc is still running.

#happyediting

 

[tmfwy]

Errm just my 2 cents..

Actually base clock is not everything when it comes to video editing + encoding. For example, previously for my rig I had an overclocked i7-4790k @4.5ghz (4 cores). For a 3mins+ 1080p 60f editing, the com would need about nearly 30mins to complete encoding with all the editing parameters.

This current rig of overclocked 5820k @4.2ghz (6 cores) has already proved its worth by reducing the encoding time to slightly less than 20mins. The most expensive chip 5960x running at base 3.0ghz (8 cores).. I think would beat all other i7 systems flat when it comes to running adobe applications even though its base clock is the lowest amongst all desktop class i7 chips.

Hmm even for the latest adobe applications, they are still unable to fully utilise all my cores to run at 100% load. My 6 cores currently run at 65-80% load at most with these applications. This is a good thing because I can still alt tab and do something else like looking at after effects without lagging even when encoder cc is still running.

#happyediting

5820 is the best bang for buck at the moment.

Unless you're heavy into AE, which by then it'll be a more difficult choice between more titans or more CPUs.

 

[wkweewee]

5820 is the best bang for buck at the moment.

Unless you're heavy into AE, which by then it'll be a more difficult choice between more titans or more CPUs.

Haha if it's not a hobby and a bread and butter type of thing, i would definitely recommend to opt for more cores

 

[ondooy]

more corezzzzzz.....
come come selling a 18c for 1.7k ...

 

[tmfwy]

Haha if it's not a hobby and a bread and butter type of thing, i would definitely recommend to opt for more cores

Yeah manz

More cores = more energy 85W -> 140W

Swapping out my 4790 + GTX760 for a I5-4210U + GTX860M saves me about $15/mth on electricity bills. Gotta live with lag in epic battles though..

Now, i fire up the 4790 only when i need to do cpu/gpu intensive work or as a backup machine.