Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


This user doesn't have any awards

1 Follower

About bmichaels556

  • Title

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Yeah overall then, I think I'm leaning towards the Alienware rig in this case. But that's just me. Ultimately it's up to you to decide, but when I hear "256GB SSD" on the CyberPower, my mind is perceiving that as a SATA SSD, where as "PCIe SSD" implies (in my mind) an M.2 NVMe SSD. Keep in mind though... In real world use, most people would never really notice the major difference. If you think you'll need the extra CPU horsepower of the Ryzen 7 3700X, I would 100% go with that instead. The Ryzen gains far more as a general workstation CPU, compared to the small decrease in gaming performance, and only at 1080p with high framerates. If you plan on gaming at 1440p or more, it'll never matter. Although it is the non-K version, so it still may be dead even in gaming, but you gain so much more with all those extra threads on the Ryzen 7.. Like I said, I can only help you understand the strengths and weaknesses of each system, but it'll be up to you how that fits into your plans for using the system you pick. But ultimately? If you don't cancel your order and just go with the CyberPower rig, I think you'll really like it and will have absolutely ZERO regrets once you actually use it. So for the sake of simplicity, I would probably stick with your order. Trust me, you'll dig it.
  2. Should have plenty of horsepower to fully utilize a 5700 XT, especially at 1440p and higher. Keep in mind, even a 9900K can't get 100% GPU utilization at 1080p w/ high framerates with a 2080Ti for example. You'll be doing absolutely fine with the non-K IMO. So wait, how much was the Intel system? At the same price, considering all the built in wireless stuff and presumably a better SSD, I'd mildly lean toward it. If it's cheaper, it's a no-brainer. If it's say, $200 more, then the Ryzen rig would be my choice.
  3. Eh I believe it's more than that especially on Ryzen. Not sure on Intel, but it'll probably matter less. But "~1 fps" just isn't accurate, regardless of platform. Def not with a 5700 XT.
  4. It really depends what kind of videos you're trying to make. But like others said, a decent phone camera on a chair and sitting outside or having a few lamps around is MORE than enough for a decent-looking video. The microphone obviously depends. If it's you talking at a computer desk behind a camera, in that situation, a mic will really improve audio quality. It just depends what's viable. Otherwise your phone camera may be sufficient enough. As for editing, I've used Sony Vegas since the beginning. Well, almost. I think it's great, but not free. DaVinci Resolve maybe? I know many use it and again, that should work out just fine. And again, it depends how simple (or not) the editing is. Hell, many of the videos I've made could have been done with Windows Movie Maker if I tried hard enough. Not that I'd recommend doing that. Ever. But I COULD have. Point is, don't think you need all this awesome epic equipment and software to start things. You don't!
  5. Holy crap, AV1 takes THAT LONG!? To be honest, I wouldn't care how much "better" it is, that demand for time is just way out of proportion for any benefit it might bring. Just my opinion though. Might I feel different if I had a quad Xeon rig and were doing these things professionally? Maybe. But even still, that's a lot to ask.. Not bad on those 3900X encode times though. I ran some further testing for my own curiosity. I used some video from my Galaxy Note 4, which at 1080p seems to only record at about 15mbps, which is fairly reasonable for the quality you get from it in my opinion. Using all the settings I'd busted my ass to lock down, at RF 19 it ended up at like 13.5mbps!! So all that tells me is that it radically differs depending on quality of source file. Handbrake ultimately seems to ask, "What bitrate do I need for this level of quality? I don't care what the source bitrate is, I'm worried about source output for a certain level of quality." Hence the results I guess. Very interesting. Further, cranking all the way down to RF 24 still shows relatively little difference from source but with much more reasonable bitrate. Compared to even Google Photos compression, equivalent constant bitrate ALSO is MUUUUCH better. Tons of nuance to this. It's been a fun adventure, but also frustrating.
  6. Yeah the YouTube 1080p60 preset is definitely good, although I'm not sure why it's coming with decomb as default... At least on my current version. Depends on internet speed though. I'd get the highest bitrate file I can possibly tolerate to upload because it's going to get killed with compression anyway. So I do my best to keep my source as good as possible, I think there's enough of a difference. Or at least I'd like to think so.
  7. I mean I can tell you that I somehow managed to get a large car jumper / battery bank through without them even questioning it. It's not that I'm surprised it got through. I'm surprised that they didn't ask or mention it or look at it, considering the way it looks in its case. Even I have to admit it looks a little sketchy and I'd want to check if I were them. Anyway, laptops, phones and so on have never been a major issue though. I fly about once a year on average and generally haven't had an issue, but it sounds like a lot of nonsense you guys have had to go through over nothing.
  8. "Do you have a gun in your bag?" lmao what kind of question is that? If you did, they'd probably know at that point like you said. In which case, why are they asking? I dunno, maybe I'm stupid for assuming though. I agree though, I haven't had major issues with laptops, phones and so on.
  9. The top part of this is sort of leading with my conclusions. Below the dotted line is me rambling about my results with assorted videos, and why I chose them. Looking to hear your guys' perspectives!! My ultimate standard is this: If file size is reduced significantly, and maintains quality to the point where a professional who deals with video every single day would have to sit down, take screenshots and stare at their screen from a couple inches away to really tell the difference, that's a win in my book. I'm probably at the high end of beginner or low end of intermediate and it seems like RF 20 with slow has been very nice for most, which is why I figure going down to 19 will improve a bit more and be "good enough" for almost anything. It ends up with about 1/3 to 1/4 the file size, and that's nice. RF 20 is a bit less overall, but I feel like I can tell a difference if only slightly. But that could just be placebo. Looking at them blind? I highly doubt I'd know the difference. Other misc settings... I go with 128kbps AAC for audio... And always sticking with MP4 with "web optimized" and "align A/V Start" always checked. And of course always leaving decomb and all that nonsense off unless needed. For those of you who have used handbrake extensively, what has achieved the aforementioned standard in your opinion? I know it's subjective, but I think my expectations that I just mentioned are least objective enough as to be understandable and not totally out of left field... But this doesn't even go into using something like Sony Vegas to compress video, which I've found to have similar quality at similar bitrate, but have much lower render times. Half, even. So what the hell is up with that? I thought I knew, but I just don't! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So personally, I'm always taking video, both in real life and when gaming. And that means a ton of storage space needed. It's not professional or anything, but it's just something I like to do. And so I find myself using Handbrake quite often to get my file sizes to be reasonable. For you guys, what have been your best "set and forget" settings for different resolutions for decreased file size with basically no discernible loss in quality? For all video, I've went with encoder preset "slow", no fast decode, and "auto" on profile and level. My reasoning for "slow" is that it doesn't REALLY add a ton more time to renders over Medium, but I notice almost no real difference between "slow" and "placebo". Originally I thought this was only about efficiency of file size, but I was dead wrong. It actually mattered for quality, and it surprised me. But slow seems comfortable and fast enough for my uses. I'm also doing it all h.264. My reasoning? While h.265 leads to the same quality at lower bitrate, or higher quality at the same bitrate, it also takes twice as long to process, and the difference in file size in my experience, is nowhere near half, as it should be judging by the time of completing the task. A 200 MB file in h.264 may end up at like ~150 MB for same quality but double the time to complete. I'm not so sure that's worth it with my current hardware (dual Xeon X5675 rig, 12 cores / 24 threads). For 1080p60 gameplay recordings (I pretty much record all my PC gameplay), I'm starting off with 50 mbps HEVC on Radeon ReLive. With that setting, I've noticed very little difference compared to higher bitrates. I probably could start lower and still be just fine, but I figure if my source file is higher quality, the end file even after compression will be better, even at the same quality settings. At least that's the theory. Even still, if it's all getting compressed anyway, it doesn't make a difference if the initial file is larger, at least in my opinion. I believe Handbrake recommends RF 20-23 for HD sources, but I've found RF 20 to be noticeably better than 23, at least to my eyes, all other settings being equal. At RF 20, auto settings, and preset to "slow", I'm doing about 1/3 the file size, often less, as good as 1/4 the size. It gets a little more interesting with older video from my point and shoot, especially the stuff shot at 720p, though even the 1080p stuff is pretty "soft". But RF 20 with all previous settings being the same, I do maybe notice just a slight difference between source and the handbrake compression. Not a ton, but something. Text maybe looks just ever so slightly worse. The biggest thing is that the colors do change a bit, and so that's another thing that distracts and makes it hard to tell what's changed and what hasn't when it comes to quality. It seems like the higher the bitrate and resolution of the source, the better the final result will look at equivalent setting. For example, it does appear that 720p looks worse compared to other 720p videos, even when comparing 1080p to source at a given RF. I originally started messing with just setting a constant bitrate, but like many of you will probably agree, that constant bitrate is more than needed for some scenes, and not nearly enough for other scenes. And that doesn't even go into differences between types of video (for example, high framerate gameplay recordings, live action videos/movies, animation and so on). I'm really thinking of just leaning towards leaving "slow", with profile and level always at "auto", and maybe an RF of 19 for everything. It seems like regardless of media type, if source resolution and bitrate are in the same ballpark, the decrease in file size is also fairly similar in my experience.
  10. That's fair, but I mean how would you know the same hadn't happened on Azure or AWS? It's a safe bet it won't, but not guaranteed I would think. I dunno, it would depend on the person. Maybe I'm crazy, but I don't see why a small service with say, a $1,000+ starting investment for a few cheap Sandy Bridge blade servers wouldn't work and be able to grow (starting as a side hustle). It'd be tough sure, but possible for sure. On the other hand, I wouldn't necessarily know why anyone rents VPS's in general. I wouldn't understand the major reason for it. For development alone (which I think is what many use them for?) I don't see why you wouldn't be able to get things up and running on any run of the mill cheap desktop. If you really needed virtualization support for more cores and so on, I'm sure an old Xeon rig (like mine for $250 out the door) wouldn't fit the bill for that use case. So I'm uneducated on the whole thing personally, but I wouldn't say his plan is impossible either.
  11. I... I'm an idiot, I have no idea what you're saying. lol sorry.
  12. You freakin' genius... I am absolutely going to try this later today when I have the time. THANK YOU! At least it's something to try, and that's a great start.
  13. That's a good question.. On the box yes, but I probably mixed up boxes since I had like 4 of these back in the day.. So yeah, the box's serial mismatches, but that's not really evidence in this case. Yeah, would anyone else know of other places where a serial number might be that I could actually check on in front of me?
  14. Oh, no. Just that when I used it last, it was fine. No, I only sold it like a week and a half ago.
  15. It's a Powercolor Red Devil. I think it's a very real possibility. The card worked 100% when I boxed it back up a few months ago. I'm going to pop it in later today I think, just to see what's going on.