Upgrading...Video editing; CPU, GPU, SSD/NVMe , Memory; how important is each one?

[videobruce]

I'm going with AMD system running W10, it's up in the air if it will be a AM4 or AM5 MB, cost being somewhat a issue. I realize AM5 overall is faster. The level is 'mid-end'. I'm not talking about state of the art here and I have NO interest in Gaming.

My question is, my current system (2016) is a dog when it comes to editing. With 1080p mp4 recordings for example, It basically takes half the time of the recording length to process the edited video. (IOW's a 1 hour clip takes 30 minutes to process). I assume those 4 items in the title are important, but are they equal AFA speed?

Specifically; doesn't the Video card do most of the processing vs the CPU? I understand it also depends on the software that is used.
Also, the storage devices; I know HDD's are slow, but if I only use a SATA SSD vs using a PCIe NVMe how does that affect the choices for the Processor & Video card & memory?

The software is usually; Movavi Video Editor Plus v15

IOW's what is the weakest link in the chain? Any questions, please ask.

 

[videobruce]

BTW, none of this is BluRay material, 2GB size would probably be the largest.

 

[IceStorm]

Probably best to detail what the current system is.

 

[videobruce]

My current Tower is;
Gigabyte 970 AM3+ MB,
AMD FX-8350 &
MSI GTX 1060
16GB memory
SSD O/S drive
2 4TB HDD's

No overclocking!

 

[evan_s]

I'm no expert in this but the docs say it does support all 3 hardware acceleration options

https://img.movavi.com/online-help/photo-to-dvd-slideshow/23/hardware_acceleration.htm#

It notes the biggest improvement with Intel Quick Sync which isn't too surprising as it's been pretty good since release from my understanding.

A ballpark budget would be nice to.

I don't expect storage or memory to matter much for encoding performance as long as they are somewhat reasonable. Having only 4 or 8 gb of memory would probably impact encoding performance but 16+gb should be plenty and DDR4 vs DDR5 or OCed ram shouldn't make too much difference.

Same for storage. As long as it's not dirt slow it should be fine. If it takes several minutes to do the encoding of a 2gb file that's not really that demanding for a drive to read/write. Since you are asking about video stuff I assume bulk storage is relatively important so with a budget I'd carry over those 2 4tb HDs and maybe your O/S SSD. The price difference between a Sata SSD and an M2 drive is pretty minimal now a days so I'd go for a M2 drive if you end up buying a new boot drive. Ideally, I'd want 2 SSDs so you are reading from one and writing to the other. Probably not as important but M2 drives can still get slower when you use up the pseudo SLC cache. 2gb isn't particularly big so that shouldn't be a problem as long as the drive isn't completely full. I'd definitely stay away from QLC stuff both for the endurance and potential for really poor write performance if you happen to run out of the SLC cache.

Now is a really bad time to buy a GPU so I'd probably reuse your 1060 or just go integrated video. On the AM4 side that means strictly the G CPUs like the 5600G. The AM5 side includes a GPU in everything except a couple of F products but offhand the regular CPUs don't have the video block so you'd still want to stick to the G variants for GPU acceleration.

On the topic of GPU accelerated encoding my understanding is that while it can be a lot faster it can also impact quality and/or file size so some people stick with CPU encoding because they can get better quality at the same file size or a much smaller file at the same quality or something in the middle with both better quality and smaller size.

As a rough start I'd probably do something like this for a build. Not sure what else you will want/need to upgrade outside the base platform.

PCPartPicker Part List

CPU: AMD Ryzen 7 7700 3.6 GHz 8-Core Processor ($255.00 @ Amazon)
Motherboard: ASRock B850M Pro-A Micro ATX AM5 Motherboard ($109.99 @ Newegg)
Memory: Patriot Viper Venom 32 GB (2 x 16 GB) DDR5-6000 CL36 Memory ($74.99 @ Newegg)
Total: $439.98
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2025-04-02 11:58 EDT-0400

A 8700G would give much better on board GPU and I think includes the encoding acceleration block. Long term you could also jump up to a 16 core processor. You could also jump up to 64gb of ram for less than double the cost..

This might still be one area where Intel is worth considering. QuickSync for encoding acceleration is pretty solid and you can get something like a 14600k with 14 cores. Yeah, it's 6p 8e but still should be stronger than an 8 core AM5 system for encoding performance. You could also go DDR4 instead of DDR5 for a bit of savings too. The AM5 system has a lot more potential long term but immediate bang for the buck Intel might be better.

 

[videobruce]

I do want to stick to separate CPU & GPU. The cost difference is worth it to me. Something like not putting all your eggs in one basket.

 

[evan_s]

I do want to stick to separate CPU & GPU. The cost difference is worth it to me. Something like not putting all your eggs in one basket.

Up to you but if you aren't concerned with Gaming performance and aren't looking for something AI or CUDA specific I don't see any reason not to use integrated video. They are plenty capable of driving multiple displays, providing windows acceleration and even playable frame rates in games in some scenarios ( older games and/or lower resolutions and Quality settings). You can always carry over your 1060 if you really want a discrete GPU but it never hurts to have the integrated GPU too for troubleshooting purposes or if something happens with your GPU.

I'm not sure how putting all your eggs in one basket really applies here. It's not like you can keep using your PC with a dead CPU even if you do have a dedicated GPU and we aren't talking about some sort of Strix Halo APU you where you are paying extra for higher integrated GPU performance.

 

[Made in Hurry]

Honestly, i think any AM4 setup basically will make you happy if you are on a tight budget. That AMD series was underwhelming when it was released.
An AMD Ryzen 5 5600 will be more than 3 times faster in general purpose tasks. Did you check the used market where you live? The 8700G i would also recommend which will be quite a bit faster than the 5600.

 

[evan_s]

Honestly, i think any AM4 setup basically will make you happy if you are on a tight budget. That AMD series was underwhelming when it was released.
An AMD Ryzen 5 5600 will be more than 3 times faster in general purpose tasks. Did you check the used market where you live? The 8700G i would also recommend which will be quite a bit faster than the 5600.

If he went used, for software encoding I'd think a 3700x would end up being a bit faster than a 5600. Lower performance per core but 1/3 more cores probably swings things in favor of the 3700x. Going to a 12 or 16 core part should easily win over a 6 core part. Then again if he's relying primarily on GPU encoding the CPU probably doesn't matter much either way. Unfortunately, I'm not finding any obvious benchmarks for this app to get any actual numbers for comparison so it's just general assumptions.

I tend to think building a new AM4 system at this point isn't a great idea. It's not really EOL as AMD is still building and selling new CPUs and chipsets for MBs but it doesn't really have any upgrade potential beyond what is available today. I guess it still does serve as AMDs budget option as they have only released two APU based Ryzen 3 chips for the AM5 socket.

 

[Made in Hurry]

If he went used, for software encoding I'd think a 3700x would end up being a bit faster than a 5600. Lower performance per core but 1/3 more cores probably swings things in favor of the 3700x. Going to a 12 or 16 core part should easily win over a 6 core part.

I agree, it seems for what it is intended for, the more cores, the better. Perhaps a 5800XT at $150 is a good suggestion.

Then again if he's relying primarily on GPU encoding the CPU probably doesn't matter much either way. Unfortunately, I'm not finding any obvious benchmarks for this app to get any actual numbers for comparison so it's just general assumptions.

I cannot find any benchmarks either after some of research, the minimum requirements are not much so i am guessing the GPU is not much involved at all as it said Pentium 4 and Intel HD in system requirements from what i could find. It is Russian so perhaps not much used in the west.

I tend to think building a new AM4 system at this point isn't a great idea. It's not really EOL as AMD is still building and selling new CPUs and chipsets for MBs but it doesn't really have any upgrade potential beyond what is available today. I guess it still does serve as AMDs budget option as they have only released two APU based Ryzen 3 chips for the AM5 socket.

It depends on the budget i think, for a tight budget, the new AM4 system would be so much faster it is not even funny, but of course an AM5 system would be preferred if the budget is there. TDP will be quite much lower as well.

There are rumors that new APUs for the desktop is on the way, the 8xxxG series was not well received (mostly due to bugs, but i am not sure if AMD has fixed that) and i read somewhere that AMD wants to change that, although that might be some months away, probably June'(July)ish.

 

[Aeonsim]

For software video encoding some software has started to build in optimizations for the AVX512 that's on the AMD 7000 and 9000 AM5 CPUs, that can make a bit of a difference. If you are using GPU acceleration in the software than a modern NVIDIA card would probably be best followed by Intel and AMD. It depends on high high quality you want the output. Software encoding tends to be the highest quality then NVIDIA/INTEL and finally AMD. If you aren't going to notice minor differences then a GPU from any of them would be fine.

 

[orionquest]

I went from a Haswell i7 4790K cpu to a Alder Lake i9 12000k, and this made a big impact in transcoding with Handbrake. I've always done multi encodes at once, usually 4, but now they run in the background and my system is still pretty usable, and they don't take very long. Also much better at H256, which use to take forever. All software encodes, no quicksync or gpu, and mostly 1080p. My other system is a AMD Zen3 with 5700x, and it has similar performance, maybe slightly slower.

 

[videobruce]

I'm no expert in this but the docs say it does support all 3 hardware acceleration options
https://img.movavi.com/online-help/photo-to-dvd-slideshow/23/hardware_acceleration.htm#
It notes the biggest improvement with Intel Quick Sync which isn't too surprising as it's been pretty good since release from my understanding.

A ballpark budget would be nice to.

Here is the 'Acceleration' menu page;



I/it does have a issue with large files. That Optimize HD clips is suppose to address it, but there is a trade off. The latest version, the GUI has major changes, not for the better.
I'm also looking into OpenShot Video Editor v3.3 which I just downloaded, it's Open Source.

I have to also look into all the technicalities between these file formats (which I mostly know) and these codecs which seem to be a problem. At least more confusion when it comes to hardware & software..

AFA budget, it depends. The most bang for the buck around $150 each for the 'big 3' MB, Processor, Video card. I've seen AM4 boards under $100 and AM5 for around $150. I haven't really gotten to GPU's yet.

One Processor issue I'm not happy with. AM5 CPU's don't come with coolers which I see as another problem; what fits what?? It's a plus with AM4 which many do come w/ a cooler.

BTW, the 'eggs in 1 basket' was probably not the best phrase to use.

 

[Made in Hurry]

The lower end on the AM5 usually have a boxed version that comes with a cooler as far as i can tell, but with $150 as a limit on budget, your options seems to be limited to either the 8500G on the AM5 platform (graphics included), the 8-core 5800XT ($149.00) on AM4 and perhaps the 10-core 14400F ($129) on the Intel LGA 1700 platform. The two latter might be the fastest options for your use-case, but there is no sensible upgrade path on both of them.

The 6-core 8500G will be a lot faster than what you already have although it will be slower than both of the above due to lack of L3 cache, and it has a cooler included at $142 on Amazon currently. This will at least give you a path to something much faster later.

Buying a graphics card is currently an eyewatering experience, and older used cards will be a better option. The Intel B580 is currently your best bet if you have a Microcenter near, although expect to refresh their stock early in the morning to reserve one at around $250 if you are lucky.

 

[videobruce]

BTW, I did a short test using Movavi Video Editor v15, checking, then unchecking the acceleration checkbox. It DID make a difference, about half the time using acceleration. That was with a good quality, short 1080p H264 video as is, no tweaks or varying the default 'quality' level when 'Exporting' (as they call it) the video.

 

[videobruce]

Buying a graphics card is currently an eyewatering experience, and older used cards will be a better option. The Intel B580 is currently your best bet if you have a Microcenter near, although expect to refresh their stock early in the morning to reserve one at around $250 if you are lucky.

"an eyewatering' experience??? Are you referring to cost?
'Microcenter' ??
$200 probably tops for a video card.

 

[Made in Hurry]

"an eyewatering' experience??? Are you referring to cost?
'Microcenter' ??
$200 probably tops for a video card.

Yes. i am referring to cost. Graphics cards are very expensive these days. For your budget at max $200, only the 3050 6GB is available which is now an older card. I would try to hunt for a used one if you have that choice. I bought an AMD RX6600 for my daughter within your budget a while ago, but perhaps prices have increased also in the used market. The RX580 is also within your budget, but honestly, it is very old and i would not personally buy one unless it was less than $80 on the used market.

Microcenter is a much loved computer and electronics retailer, but they do not do online shopping, you have to physically go there to pick something up. You can reserve something online as far as i know.
They often have great bundles for a very good price. I am in Norway so my experience is none, but most geeks either shop there or wish they could
https://www.microcenter.com/

 

[Made in Hurry]

https://www.microcenter.com/product...ies-32gb-ddr5-6000-kit,-computer-build-bundle

This bundle is quite insane at $449, and the graphics card might enough as Zen 5 actually has a decent onboard, although it is more or less meant to have a display option than be used as a permanent video card with graphics. Motherboard, a very fast CPU and memory for this price is something i would jump on if you have a Microcenter near you. No cooler though, but the peerless assasin is a cheap and very good cooler.

 

[videobruce]

According to this, they do shipping;
https://www.microcenter.com/site/customer-support/shipping-options.aspx

BTW, no store anywhere near me, just outside the NYC area.

 

[Made in Hurry]

According to this, they do shipping;
https://www.microcenter.com/site/customer-support/shipping-options.aspx

BTW, no store anywhere near me, just outside the NYC area.

They do some shipping, but bundles are only available for in-store pickup as far as i can tell.

 

[evan_s]

According to this, they do shipping;
https://www.microcenter.com/site/customer-support/shipping-options.aspx

BTW, no store anywhere near me, just outside the NYC area.

They do ship some things but a lot of the highest demand stuff and best deals are in store only.

Yes. i am referring to cost. Graphics cards are very expensive these days. For your budget at max $200, only the 3050 6GB is available which is now an older card. I would try to hunt for a used one if you have that choice. I bought an AMD RX6600 for my daughter within your budget a while ago, but perhaps prices have increased also in the used market. The RX580 is also within your budget, but honestly, it is very old and i would not personally buy one unless it was less than $80 on the used market.

Not just price. Supply is really bad too. AMD's 7000 series and Nvidia's 40 series are pretty much out of production and off the market. There's maybe a little bit of supply of 4060's left but even the 4060ti only has a handful of listings at ridiculous prices. If I want a 9070XT it's basically not available unless I want to pay $1000+ to a scalper for a $600 "MSRP" card. I mean the two are related but I don't consider > 50% over MSRP scaler prices to be in stock.

Even $200 is not going to get much of anything for a GPU unfortunately. For new stuff 3050 6gb, 6660 or maybe a B570 if you can get one at MSRP. Unfortunately, I have no idea how any of those compare to the existing 1060 for encoding performance.

It normally wouldn't be my recommendation but I really do think an Intel system makes the most sense. Something like an Intel Core i5-13400 would give you 10 cores total which gives good performance for CPU encoding and has the QuickSync for Intel hardware accelerated transcoding. Even if you don't want to use the integrated video having it gives you the hardware acceleration which can be nice for this use case. Intel's stuff is supposed to be good quality and fast from what I understand. You also have the option of saving a bit by going for a DDR4 MB and memory.

 

[BigLan]

BTW, I did a short test using Movavi Video Editor v15, checking, then unchecking the acceleration checkbox. It DID make a difference, about half the time using acceleration. That was with a good quality, short 1080p H264 video as is, no tweaks or varying the default 'quality' level when 'Exporting' (as they call it) the video.

If gaming isn't needed, going Intel with an IGP is going to be good value. QuickSync does a good enough job, even on the lower-end chips.

You could also get a used quadro instead of a gaming card - the P400 is well under $100 and can handle h264, h265 and hevc encoding. If you want to spend more, the Intel ARC cards can do AV1 encoding too.

 

[Vulcan_r]

GPUs aren't used for all parts of video editing and won't give you a noticeable boost unless you're doing the parts that are processed on the GPU. The second biggest boost you can get is from the CPU. Third biggest is storage -> make sure every part of the process is on an SSD, preferably separate ones. Puget systems has a good breakdown of what should go where. While they're mainly focused on Adobe software, the principles are the same: OS and editing programs on one drive, project files on another and cache (working memory used by the program) on a third.

Now, the single biggest boost you could give yourself would be to stop working with MP4 files. Forgive me if I've misunderstood but it seems to me like you're editing directly on your MP4 source files. MP4 is what is called a delivery format - its main purpose in life is to take as little space as possible, damned be everything else. If you'd instead transcode your MP4s into an editing/intermediate format, your editing software wouldn't have to spend its resources on processing the file on the fly and could instead focus on what you're trying to get it to do.

Basically your flow should be -> record to whatever format you have the space for, transcode your video into ProRes or DNxHR and encode/export into MP4 after you're done editing.

ProRes and DNxHR are the most common formats used for editing. They'll be absolutely massive files but you'll have way fewer issues when editing. The higher quality ones, such as ProRes 422 HQ or DNxHR HQ, are virtually lossless which means there will be no quality degradation from the extra transcoding step(s).

Granted, unless you export to one of the editing formats your export times won't drastically change but everything else should be smoother. If you export to ProRes/DNx, then transcode into MP4 after the fact, you might see a benefit there as well. MP4 isn't really good for anything but making files smaller.

 

[IceStorm]

I'd go with an Intel setup for QuickSync support. Reuse your video card if you want to add nVidia encoding support. Buying a new video card right now is a $350+ cost for nVidia. You could get an Intel card, but they're power hungry when idle and the CPUs already have supported QuickSync.

Something like this:

PCPartPicker Part List

CPU: Intel Core i5-13400 2.5 GHz 10-Core Processor ($139.34 @ Amazon)
Motherboard: ASRock B760M-HDV/M.2 Micro ATX LGA1700 Motherboard ($97.98 @ Newegg)
Memory: G.Skill Ripjaws S5 48 GB (2 x 24 GB) DDR5-5200 CL40 Memory ($89.99 @ Newegg)
Storage: KingSpec XG7000 1 TB M.2-2280 PCIe 4.0 X4 NVME Solid State Drive ($57.99 @ Newegg Sellers)
Storage: KingSpec XG7000 2 TB M.2-2280 PCIe 4.0 X4 NVME Solid State Drive ($96.99 @ Newegg Sellers)
Case: Zalman T3 PLUS MicroATX Mid Tower Case ($38.90 @ Newegg Sellers)
Power Supply: be quiet! Pure Power 12 M 550 W 80+ Gold Certified Fully Modular ATX Power Supply ($64.90 @ Newegg Sellers)
Total: $586.09
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2025-04-04 08:49 EDT-0400

You will need to use Windows 11 to take advantage of the more advanced scheduler support that Windows 11 provides for Intel's 12th gen and up CPUs.

This setup will give you QuickSync, a 1TB drive for OS/application, a 2TB drive for projects, and then you can plug in SATA drives for project storage.

 

[gregorerlich]

If you're editing 1080p MP4/h264, then hardware acceleration and/or fast CPU is the only thing that's going to make any difference. You're unlikely to hit the speed limitations of a hard drive vs an SSD, and from what you've described, I don't think you need a GPU for anything.

Get a cheap Intel CPU with quick sync, no GPU, SSD for boot drive and HDD(s) for bulk storage. Doesn't even need to be recent, could get a SFF office PC with a semi-recent CPU for a few hundred bucks.

That said, 2x real-time for an export honestly doesn't sound that bad to me. How often are you even doing that? Just get a coffee and browse Ars for half an hour lol. But then I work in VFX, where render times range from minutes to hours per frame haha.

 

[videobruce]

I'm going with AMD system running W10, it's up in the air if it will be a AM4 or AM5 MB, cost being somewhat a issue

Thanks for the suggestions BUT, please re-read the OP.
Wintell is a four letter word AFAIC. It's been that way with me since W98 2nd Edition.
Also, the MB would be a ATX and I already have a case & PS.

The material I work with is already in a .mp4 container pretty much where or how I get it. I don't see how converting/ transcoding it back and forth will do much, if any. None of it is BD as I stated.

 

[evan_s]

I get preferring AMD. I've got an AM4 system now and I'd definitely be going AM5 if I upgraded everything. For your specific requirements and budget Intel QuickSync is a really good option. It's well supported in software because it's been around for a while. It's good quality and its fast. AFAIK Intel also doesn't do any real segmentation other than needing to have the iGPU for it to be present. An i3 or lower CPU will have the same basic QuickSync performance as an i9.

 

[Made in Hurry]

The uplift in performance with any upgrade no matter what platform OP is choosing will be massive.

 

[Vulcan_r]

Thanks for the suggestions BUT, please re-read the OP.
Wintell is a four letter word AFAIC. It's been that way with me since W98 2nd Edition.
Also, the MB would be a ATX and I already have a case & PS.

The material I work with is already in a .mp4 container pretty much where or how I get it. I don't see how converting/ transcoding it back and forth will do much, if any. None of it is BD as I stated.

There are entire libraries worth of reasons and explanations on why mp4 is quite literally the worst option to edit in and the size and quality of the source file has no bearing on that fact. Instead of shutting down a suggestion pointing you towards a possible benefit, why don't you ask how or why that would be the case? I (and probably a lot of others) would be happy to explain, but just throwing a well meaning post out because of a lack of information seems impolite, considering you're the one asking for help.

 

[steelghost]

If you're not a fan of Intel and Windows, put the fastest AMD CPU you can get ina new system and run Davinci Resolve under Linux?

 

[Mental Gear Reduction]

Wintell is a four letter word AFAIC.

At the moment, AMD chips are usually better for most people, most of the time, but it sure sounds like an Intel iGPU is likely to be of great benefit for your specific use case.

If you go AMD anyway, it's likely that the machine will be permanently slower for the specific task you're buying it to do. I get not liking Intel from back in that era, but you're literally holding a 27-year-old grudge. Probably most of the people that were running Intel back then are gone, and modern Intel hasn't been terribly abusive for some time. (they got complacent instead, which is why they're doing so poorly in general.)

But, right now, it sure sounds like one of their cheap CPUs will work better for what you're asking for. And I'm saying this as an AMD owner. I love their chips, but they're not best at everything, just most things.

 

[continuum]

FWIW, if dGPU is still under discussion (I won't rehash the arguments against):

https://www.zotacstore.com/us/refurbished

@IceStorm has often pointed out the Zotac refurb store as a place to save a few bucks on them. As of this posting I see a RTX 3050 6GB for $160.

 

[IceStorm]

As of this posting I see a RTX 3050 6GB for $160.

You do? I haven't seen anything in stock in the refurb section for the past two weeks or so.

Might've come into stock and then disappeared again. Those are the times we live in now.

 

[continuum]

Oops you're probably right! (and honestly I don't remember either, I posted that 8 hours ago....)

 

[videobruce]

There are entire libraries worth of reasons and explanations on why mp4 is quite literally the worst option to edit in and the size and quality of the source file has no bearing on that fact.

But, when you factor in the time to transcode out of mp4 to whatever, then reverse the process, what are you gaining? Again, I'm not doing hi-end editing or Content Creation. I know .mp4 has it's tradeoffs.

If you're not a fan of Intel and Windows, put the fastest AMD CPU you can get in a new system and run Davinci Resolve under Linux?

I've tried both, years ago w/ Linux (no drivers for one of my printers and many S/W programs that I use didn't have Linux versions). AFA Resolve, I also looked into that. Besides the ridiculous size of the program and the 6 or 7 M$ add-ons that it needs to run with, the 3GB in size is ridiculous. It's beyond complete overkill for anything I would ever do.

I have also tried OpenShot Video Editor, but that is missing two important features and there are way too many 'keyboard shorts' which are impossible to remember (for me). BTW, I'm not looking for the fastest and the newest system out there.

I will look into that link that was provided..

 

[Vulcan_r]

But, when you factor in the time to transcode out of mp4 to whatever, then reverse the process, what are you gaining? Again, I'm not doing hi-end editing or Content Creation. I know .mp4 has it's tradeoffs.

All right, fair enough. If your editing software isn't having a fit and if you're not editing to the degree that you're noticing slowdowns because of the mp4 file, I'd recommend what others have said:

Focus your money on a good CPU. AMD is great for editing and while I'd highly encourage you towards AM5 I understand that budget constraints can make that infeasible, especially considering the HW prices these days. If able, buying AM5 would cost more now but would make it cheaper to upgrade in the future.

I'd personally also recommend you get at least 2 NVMe drives, or 2 SATA SSDs if they are more in line with the budget (they cost the same here, so there's not much of a choice in my country). Don't worry about the GPU or RAM, they'll be fine mostly no matter what. I would honestly consider trying a new system with the GTX1060 because I'm not sure you'd notice much of a difference with the kind of editing it sounds like you do.

Edit:
You could of course export using hardware encoding but a new GPU these days are about the same price as a whole system, so I think you'd be better off putting that money into the MB and CPU. Does NVENC have limitations on which H.264 formats it can export to, or has that been remedied?

 

[videobruce]

I haven't ruled pout AM5, frankly that is the way I would prefer to go/ I'm thinking of just upgrading the MB, Processor & RAM, using my existing card for the time being as you mentioned, thou I'm not that crazy about that. It's just some of the price differences between the 2 choices, many are 2x plus more expensive. I haven't even looked into memory yet.
As to those NVMe drives, I have read from Puget Systems that the difference over SATA SSD's is really not that much when it comes to working w/ video due to other bottlenecks (CPU & GPU). IOW's great on paper.

 

[Mental Gear Reduction]

I haven't ruled pout AM5, frankly that is the way I would prefer to go/ I'm thinking of just upgrading the MB, Processor & RAM, using my existing card for the time being as you mentioned, thou I'm not that crazy about that. It's just some of the price differences between the 2 choices, many are 2x plus more expensive. I haven't even looked into memory yet.
As to those NVMe drives, I have read from Puget Systems that the difference over SATA SSD's is really not that much when it comes to working w/ video due to other bottlenecks (CPU & GPU). IOW's great on paper.

I'm not super up on how well the Intel video acceleration works, but I'm pretty sure it will be substantially stronger than your 1070, and will save you a lot of money. You can buy a cheapie CPU/motherboard/RAM and get a major speed boost on the cheap, where if you buy an AMD chip, you're stuck with the encoder you already have.

You're sabotaging yourself because of a very old grudge.

 

[videobruce]

Encoder where, on what?
BTW, it's far beyond a Grudge' as you put it, it's called Principals. I saw that comment the 1st time you made it.

 

[evan_s]

Encoder where, on what?
BTW, it's far beyond a Grudge' as you put it, it's called Principals. I saw that comment the 1st time you made it.

Intel CPUs with an iGPU have QuickSync built in. That's what the Enable Intel hardware acceleration check box is for in your app settings. It's generally good quality and fast. The documentation I linked earlier says

Enable Intel hardware acceleration

• Accelerates video processing by up to 400% when working with H.264 and MPEG-2 video codecs. This option is only available if your computer is equipped with an Intel processor that supports the Intel HD Graphics™ technology, or Quick Sync Video 1.0 and higher.

Enable NVIDIA hardware acceleration

• With this option enabled, your NVIDIA graphics card will be used for processing H.264 and MPEG-2 videos and they will be saved up to 50% faster.

You said you tested the NVIDIA acceleration and it was a pretty good improvement. The Intel Quick Sync hardware acceleration should be substantially better according to their documentation.

If you are seeing 2x real time encoding a 400% improvement should be 8x real time or an hour video should take 7.5 minutes.