Intel Quick Sync Question

Geekazoid · March 11, 2015

G'day guys,

I just have a quick question in relation to Intel's Quick Sync. I do videography as a hobby and often have to transcode my video files into different formats via Handbrake. The question that I wanna ask is as follows:

• Is Quick Sync really much faster than the just transcoding via the CPU alone?

The reason I'm asking this question is because I'm planning a videography PC build and I know I could save quite a bit if I go with an Intel Xeon E3 CPU over an i7 one. But what's been holding me back is whether or not Intel's Quick Sync is that much faster at transcoding than via the CPU itself and if I could really benefit from it or save the extra, whatever it is, and go with the Intel Xeon E3 CPU instead. I hope you get what I'm asking.

Thanks in advance for your help guys.

Geekazoid

Majestic · March 11, 2015

Yes, but afaik it degrades the image somewhat. If it's for youtube of w/e it doesn't matter. For professional use i'd go with CPU only.

SkilledRebuilds · March 11, 2015

Youtube - use anything really..

For keeping Image Quality - CPU only.

Geekazoid · March 11, 2015

Yes, but afaik it degrades the image somewhat. If it's for youtube of w/e it doesn't matter. For professional use i'd go with CPU only.

Youtube - use anything really..

For keeping Image Quality - CPU only.

Thanks guys for that info. That does trigger my memory. I do remember seeing something about that on the AnandTech site, they did a whole thing on it with some tests included. Twas quite interesting. Well, that makes my choice easier, I'll save some $$$ and go for the Xeon then.

hogger129 · March 12, 2015

G'day guys,

I just have a quick question in relation to Intel's Quick Sync. I do videography as a hobby and often have to transcode my video files into different formats via Handbrake. The question that I wanna ask is as follows:

• Is Quick Sync really much faster than the just transcoding via the CPU alone?

The reason I'm asking this question is because I'm planning a videography PC build and I know I could save quite a bit if I go with an Intel Xeon E3 CPU over an i7 one. But what's been holding me back is whether or not Intel's Quick Sync is that much faster at transcoding than via the CPU itself and if I could really benefit from it or save the extra, whatever it is, and go with the Intel Xeon E3 CPU instead. I hope you get what I'm asking.

Thanks in advance for your help guys.

Geekazoid

Yes QuickSync is much faster, but it is less efficient than CPU encoding. That is, CPU encoding is going to give smaller file size and better picture quality vs QuickSync. The disadvantage with a Xeon is then you need a graphics card as the Xeon I thought doesn't have an integrated GPU like the i3/i5/i7.

Geekazoid · March 12, 2015

Yes QuickSync is much faster, but it is less efficient than CPU encoding. That is, CPU encoding is going to give smaller file size and better picture quality vs QuickSync. The disadvantage with a Xeon is then you need a graphics card as the Xeon I thought doesn't have an integrated GPU like the i3/i5/i7.

Thanks for that mate. I'm definitely not going without a graphics card mate, so the Xeon makes perfect sense for me. This build of mine will be for videography and relying on an iGPU for my work would be rather inefficient and kinda ridiculous. So, in conclusion, the disadvantage of require a dedicated graphics card is not a disadvantage to me. Thanks for your informative help though. Greatly appreciated mate!