Transcoding - HyperThreading vs clock speed.

[Gerr]

If you were to build a dedicated transcoding PC/Server, would you opt for an unlocked i5 that can hit 4.5Ghz or a locked Xeon at 3.5Ghz with HT?  Both are around the same price.

 

By transcoding, I mean the following...

1) Transcode Blu-Ray rips using Handbrake or similar program.

2) Plex streaming that transcodes 1080p videos to other resolutions on the fly.

3) Transcoding security camera feeds for storage.

 

Basically, the question I am asking is if a higher clock speed or HT has the larger impact on transcoding performance.

[Godlygamer23]

It depends on the Xeon. Hyper-threading will allow you to have the performance you need without overclocking - your overclock is dependent on the idea the i5 can even hit that frequency in the first place. You also get less heat output.

[Peter Vaughan Truslow]

If you were to build a dedicated transcoding PC/Server, would you opt for an unlocked i5 that can hit 4.5Ghz or a locked Xeon at 3.5Ghz with HT?  Both are around the same price.

 

By transcoding, I mean the following...

1) Transcode Blu-Ray rips using Handbrake or similar program.

2) Plex streaming that transcodes 1080p videos to other resolutions on the fly.

3) Transcoding security camera feeds for storage.

 

Basically, the question I am asking is if a higher clock speed or HT has the larger impact on transcoding performance.

I'd go with the Xeon.

[ManWithBeard1990]

The speed will probably be similar but the Xeon will do it wit a bit less drama, ie less noise and heat etc.

[Samfisher]

Well here's my own testing.

 

Compressing in Handbrake on my desktop i5-3570K vs my laptop's i7-4720HQ, both are only 2-4 minutes apart, with the i5 being slightly faster.

 

The i7 is not overclocked and runs at 3.4GHz with no throttling, but it does have 4 cores and 8 threads. Haswell.

 

i5 is at 4.4GHz with no throttling as well.  Ivy Bridge.

[Godlygamer23]

Compressing in Handbrake on my desktop i5-3570K vs my laptop's i7-4720HQ, both are only 2-4 minutes apart, with the i5 being slightly faster.

Its base frequency is also 2.6GHz.

[Samfisher]

Its base frequency is also 2.6GHz.

Oh, I monitored the laptop frequency and it stayed at max frequency the entire time with no throttling Had fans at full speed on the laptop for 1.5 hours to ensure that.

[SeanAngelo]

If you were to build a dedicated transcoding PC/Server, would you opt for an unlocked i5 that can hit 4.5Ghz or a locked Xeon at 3.5Ghz with HT?  Both are around the same price.

 

By transcoding, I mean the following...

1) Transcode Blu-Ray rips using Handbrake or similar program.

2) Plex streaming that transcodes 1080p videos to other resolutions on the fly.

3) Transcoding security camera feeds for storage.

 

Basically, the question I am asking is if a higher clock speed or HT has the larger impact on transcoding performance.

I'd go with the Xeon for HT.

[Godlygamer23]

Oh, I monitored the laptop frequency and it stayed at max frequency the entire time with no throttling Had fans at full speed on the laptop for 1.5 hours to ensure that.

You mean 3.6GHz?

[Samfisher]

You mean 3.6GHz?

3.6GHz never seems to be reached except by 1 core at a time, but it stayed at 3.4Ghz instead for all 4 cores.

[Enderman]

xeon, as long as its a recent generation, not something 5 years old

[Godlygamer23]

3.6GHz never seems to be reached except by 1 core at a time, but it stayed at 3.4Ghz instead for all 4 cores.

Because max frequency is 3.6GHz according to Intel's product page.

 

How much faster was the Core i5?

[alpenwasser]

Assuming you're intending to use x264 as your encoder (haven't been able to find any good comparisons for x265 for hyperthreading vs non-hyperthreading), TPU found that the 3770k is about 25% faster than the 3570k at the same clock speed.

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Intel/Core_i5_3570K_and_i7_3770K_Comparison/5.html

Note however that the i7 also has 8 MB cache as opposed to the i5's 6 MB, which in video encoding can make a noticeable difference as far as I know. So the difference might not merely come down to hyperthreading.

Personally I'd probably lean towards the Xeon, even if I could get the same performance out of the i5, due to power consumption and stability concerns. Just seems like less of a hassle.

EDIT:

3.6GHz never seems to be reached except by 1 core at a time, but it stayed at 3.4Ghz instead for all 4 cores.

Yeah, sounds about right. The i7-4770HQ in my Macbook Pro (2.2 GHz base, 3.4 GHz turbo according to specs and Linux's CPUinfo) usually tops out at 3.2 GHz when really pushed and will then run at about 99 deg C. Intermittently it will throttle back for a fraction of a second, but overall that frequency is sustainable from what I can tell.

[Samfisher]

Because max frequency is 3.6GHz according to Intel's product page.

 

How much faster was the Core i5?

By about 2-6 minutes on a 2 pass run that totalled about almost 3 hours..

[Coaxialgamer]

i would go for the xeon , it will produce less heat etc , and will perform better.

 

In optimized workload, hyperthreading can bring a 25% improvement.

[BrightCandle]

What is hyperthread worth? About 20% extra performance maximum, and handbrake is about a best case scenario.  So 3.5Ghz * 1.2 = 4.2Ghz compared to 4.5Ghz of an i5? I would take the i5@4.5, it'll complete the job faster and have better single thread performance for other things.

[Godlygamer23]

What is hyperthread worth? About 20% extra performance maximum, and handbrake is about a best case scenario.  So 3.5Ghz * 1.2 = 4.2Ghz compared to 4.5Ghz of an i5? I would take the i5@4.5, it'll complete the job faster and have better single thread performance for other things.

We're assuming his CPU would be able to hit and sustain 4.5GHz in the first place.