@Carl-Johansson, @Reyfox

Hi Carl, Tony

multi-GPU with anti-interface filter enabled = 33 minutes
multi-GPU (hence hardware acceleration) = 7 minutes

The Anti-interlace on result is an interesting one, a 470% increase in render time with the filter on.

I tested both options on my PC and Laptop, specs in my signature, with 4 projects from simple to very complex establishing a base export time with the Interlace filter off, then again with the filter on.

With the Interlace filter on, the maximum increase in the render times was 25%, the average for the 4 projects was ~22%. This was for various mixes of 4K UHD 3840 x 2160 and FullHD video files, both 8 bit and 10 bit, various resolution images, with a variety of transitions collages, picture in picture and animation effects and overall complexity.

I quoted the result as a % difference, due to of hardware and project content variability between users affecting the baseline performance profile for a given computer and project.

Ideally we should all be testing with the same project. Using the Demo project is not a good representative of what most users project composition we see in the forum. They are somewhat limited on effects etc used, and the source videos are 'optimised'.

John EB
Forum Moderator

For sure! Testing the same project with whatever has been added to it would give everyone and idea of what hardware specs will give someone. As if anyone can afford a new computer nowadays....

The project I used was my own, an older Disneyland trip from 2016, 32 minutes running time. Collection of video, picture collages and other effects. I have additional metrics, using the exact same project as in the above and below hence a relative measure but useful for comparisons between devices.

Alienware R10, 3950x CPU, 64 GB ram, 2080 Super Nvidia and 2 TB NMVe.
Render to 1920x1080 using H.265, default settings. Currently running my projects to 4K but not going to benchmark them.

• CPU only = aborted, CPU was hitting 95C, suspect a time of around 50 minutes.
• multi-GPU with anti-interface filter enabled = not tested
• multi-GPU (hence hardware acceleration) = 7 minutes

If a clock lock the Ryzen 9 3950x to max out at 3.4 GHz to avoid heating.

• CPU only = 79 minutes (noted half the logical processors unused)
• multi-GPU with anti-interface filter enabled = 45 minutes
• multi-GPU (hence hardware acceleration) = 9 minutes

I see my 5 year old Alienware cannot beat a cheap Minisforum unit.

My takeaway from this is that I can avoid purchasing a 5-7 grand unit (maybe today they're like 10 grand) and just get a sub-$1,000 unit. In 5 years, purchase another sub-$1,000 unit and get something faster. Therefore, paid less, still getting good performance and the bank account is happy. Time to sell the Alienware and almost pay for the mini PC.

A monster unit can render <5 minutes but then why? I sip coffee and surf until the render is done, good enough. If using Adobe suite and doing professional work, probably a different story. Plus I don't game with newer titles, still using a 20 year game as it never asks for more money to pay to win like World of Tanks etc.

@Carl-Johansson

Based on those 3950x numbers, Carl, I'd still get a dedicated GPU. I realise my system in Intel but my CPU (i7-13700K) isn't much faster than the 3950x. I think my export times, using CPU only, are similar... slow! Approx 3x play speed.

Throw in my RTX 3060ti and the difference is like night and day. I regularly get export speeds of 10x play speed.

As far as costs go, I think you're exaggerating; at least here in Oz, you can get a decent CPU for ~$600, a good graphics card for ~$600 and the rest of the bits and pieces would take you up to $2000 max. In other words, definitely worth getting a dedicated GPU for the extra speed (as well as timeline decoding).

Interesting comment about that Anti-Interlace setting. I wonder what it is for when we're editing and exporting progressive video?

@AAProds

Summary: mini PCs can be cheaper than towers, compete with towers and are budget friendly. Having a top CPU/GPU/Ram/NMVe is probably not a good case for spending your money.

iGPUs (onboard GPUs)are becoming rather amazing. The mini PC I have plays modern games, another fellow (from Oz) convinced I to join him playing a WWII sniper game. Plays well, not great, but good enough. I find this amazing as previous experience with iGPUs were dreadful.

The Anti-interlace switch is for older camcorders etc. that capture 1080i video, interlaced video. Interlace videos leave a distinct artifact that you'll like to remove (vertical lines that are out positional sync). I included this benchmark as I discovered it is only CPU driven, not GPU. If you take video with an iPhone, turn that setting off.

As for costs, if I look up the latest and greatest Dell or Lenovo, it's serval grand with a good warranty. Top CPU and the NVidia 5080 and 64 GB ram, not cheap. If I was building my own, one could get, as you say, a $600 CPU and GPU, 32 GB ram and 1 TB NMVe disk would be $500 and $300 respectively (just looked on Amazon). So, I agree with you, you could get a good system for $2000 bucks.

From my point of view, before the ram prices went crazy, the mini PC was $649 from Amazon. Small sneaky little system, bought one to see if it gave my Alienware competition, and it did. Bought another to manage my secondary DAS. It renders my project in 7 minutes, similar to the Alienware. Therefore, did I need to get a new Alienware, Lenovo Legion or self-built PC (old Alienware is in its 6th year and runs hot)? Na, cheap mini PC did the job. Since I always purchase 5 yr warranties with PCs (onsite with accidental damage), this adds cost.

To partly explain my reasoning is I recently retired, last year, and tossing money of computing equipment is not budget friendly. Get good rendering at a minimal cost. I probably should have mention this so my position was more clear.

To wrap this up, mini PCs can give a really good experience with Video deluxe. The system you use is up to you.

PS: I render HD (1920x1080) as this matches the TV and what videos we captured. I'll benchmark 4K once I switch to only 4K rendering (probably when the TV is replaced).

@AAProds

My quoted price, on Amazon, if you get a top system

Skytech Gaming Legacy 4 Gaming PC, AMD Ryzen 7 9850X3D 4.7GHz, NVIDIA RTX 5090 32GB VRAM, X670 Board, 2TB Gen4 NVMe SSD, 32GB DDR5 RAM 6000, 1000W Gold ATX 3 PSU, 420 ARGB AIO, WI-FI 5, Windows 11

$8,600 CND (similar to Oz dollars)

When I started looking for a new system I went looking at top systems and was a bit shocked by the price.

@Carl-Johansson, @AAProds

Hi Carl, Al

. . . . I think you're exaggerating . . . .

Al, I do not think this is exaggeration, more an assumption that the fastest gaming machine will also be the best for video editing.  The Skytech Gaming Legacy 4 Gaming PC Carl mentioned is a top end gaming machine.

The problem is when it comes to video editing real world performance expectation can be disappointing because the two 'capability' requirements are very different. 

Modern games require extreme GPU power and fast single-core CPU speeds for low-latency, performance, and in some cases, high framerate capabilies, the data flow after any CPU processing is one way to GPU .

Video editing on the other hand relies heavily on a high-core count CPU and multi-threading for data-intensive processing, with high data throughput reading and writing to CPU. GPU, Ram and storage devices. The GPU does not do it all, the heavy processing is split between the CPU and GPU with the data flowing both ways between them, RAM, and the storage drive(s) for reading, caching, and writing, the latter is the slowest part of the data transfer process.

I, like Al, can get up to 10x real-time speed rendering, on my now somewhat old PC, in projects with like for like  source video and image types and resolution, effects etc, and export formats. The differences between the GPU's rendering capabilities in our systems is small as the core decoding/encoding modules have similar performance characteristics.

However, when it comes to more complex projects with animations, collages, picture in picture and effects such as Denoising, the slowdown can be dramatic, some effects and images can only be processed on the CPU the net result can be the render rate dropping to less than 1 frame per second.

For my next computer build I will be looking for CPU performance core count Intel CPU with integrated GPU*, 32GB RAM**, series 4000 RTX GPU, 4 SSD drives of various sizes allocated to:-

1. OS
2. Data (working drive)
3. Caching
4. Receiving final output render.

* An Intel with integrated GPU or Intel discrete GPU is necessary if you intend to create standard Blu-ray discs, none of the NV or AMD (AFAIK) GPUs will hardware accelerate rendering to BD standard Interlaced video.

** There is no real benefit from going above this quantity of RAM, the extra would rarely be used.

John EB

@johnebaker

I am aware that a gaming rig might not be the best video editing rig. In my testing I was hoping to use one project, mixed media etc., and see if I could see any trend that matches published benchmarking of CPU and GPU or other factors. Didn't show me much. I also thought a 3950X 16 core Ryzen 9 would out perform a 8745H 8 core Ryzen 7, it didn't. I am amused.

What is did show was with my projects, in the simplest terms, a mini PC and an older gaming rig are about equal, and I can render < 10 minutes.

Thank you all for the discussion. I hope some others that are starting out video creation will not purchase the top tier gaming system and then discover a less costly system is just as good.

@Carl-Johansson

HI

. . . . .  I hope some others that are starting out video creation will not purchase the top tier gaming system and then discover a less costly system is just as good . . . .

I totally agree with that.

The concern I have with video editing on the small mini/nuc type computers is heat build up and dissipation.

John EB

@johnebaker
I was watching the temps. The Alienware GPU was well in to 70C, the mini PC Minisforum GPU temp was lower and so was the CPU. The rendering would be >95% GPU utilization at times, ~70C GPU temp and then when rendering collages, low and the GPU temp was 40ish C. Long renders of mostly videos, that I'll need to try to see if the GPU temps get too hot. As for the CPU, similar story.

Overall, the Alienware was hotter and this might be the complaints I read about the R10 model having poor ventilation. The mini PC was cooler. This speaks to not having top tier CPU, it is hotter. Good CPU and a great GPU is probably the best scenario.

I had the mini PC for over a year, so far, no issues. Used > 8 hours a day for various tasks, besides rendering, gaming email etc.

@Carl-Johansson when was the last time that you cleaned out the dust from everything inside your PC? Or replaced the CPU thermal paste with quality thermal paste? My computer specs are in my Signature below. I built my PC myself. I've been doing this since about 1992. Never bought a pre-built desktop.

I have a mild constant overclock on my 5950X CPU and never an issue with temperatures, and the computer is running almost all day, every day. I also have a case that is good for air flow too. But 70c isn't that bad or taxing for a CPU. The maximum safe temperature for the AMD Ryzen 3950X is 95°C. Maybe take off the side of the case to help cool things down?

I do think a good mid tier gaming PC is good enough for most users. The diminishing return on performance of a top tier system might not be enough for "casual" users to spend the now crazy prices, but power users, where "time is money" might think differently. It comes down to each one's personal use case.

@Reyfox

The Alienware, dedusted a month ago. The mini PC as well. Have not repasted the unit but the temp profile was always hot from day one. This was a compliant I read about Alienware, bad air flow design. The Alienware I have was a test unit for a faculty member (was IT mgr at a local University, now retired). The pandemic hit and could not return the unit to Dell. Since their demo unit, Dell gave us it at half the online price. Once the school reopened, it purchased the Dell and then it was excess equipment so I purchased it, up'ed the ram to 64 GB (for running text virtual machines). At over 2 grand, was a steal and didn't look at the complaints as it was a fantastic deal until I noticed it was hot and noisy.

Now retired, went with quiet mini PCs and happy that they are fast enough and work within a pension based budget.

Doing rendering today to 4K, with the mini PC, full HD to 4K of my trip videos. GPU is hanging around 50C to 55C. CPU is < 50C. I find this pretty good. 4K rendering takes a while. The same project, was 7 minutes, now 20 minutes (Full HD to 4K). Tested the Alienware, Full HD to 4K, same project and settings, 15 minutes. Alienware wins the 4K render. Ran just HD (720p) and similar to Full HD at 7-8 minutes, thus I think I hit a bottom speed and only higher resolutions can separate the systems apart. 8K renders, my project file causes a crash or freezing up.