In January I compared a
first-gen Ryzen 1800x with Intel i7-8700K. The only way the Ryzen was on par with (not better than -- only equal to) the Intel was if I turned off the hardware acceleration that is available for the Intel platform. Otherwise Intel could process more video and do it with lower power consumption.
AMD Versus Intel
Now Ryzen 2700X is somewhat better than the 1800x but not enough better to outweight the benefit of hardware acceleration from Intel. Due to Intel's long-time CPU superiority and resulting popularity, that is the only platform where
Blue Iris supports hardware acceleration. It also means you can get refurbished Intel PCs for several hundred $$$ less than an equivalent-performance Ryzen build.
Choosing Hardware for Blue Iris | IP Cam Talk
Thanks this is exactly what I want, someone whose actually used both.
Is hardware acceleration/QS an issue if I am writing direct to disk? Ie no encoding?
Do you remember what kind of cpu usage you were seeing with both? With and without QS would be great if you remember.
How much of an improvement in percentage terms did you see when using QuickSynch?
This is my thought/idea:
I have an old nVidia card laying around, so no issue there. But the Ryzen 2 2600 is almost 40% cheaper than the 8400. Once I factor in the motherboards, the price differential increases even further in favour of Ryzen. Around 50-60% cheaper than the Intel equivalent. And yet in most cpu benchmarks it still matches or comes relatively (keyword relatively) close to the performance of the i7, at around 40% cheaper (!). In terms of value I'm really impressed.
*Not really interested in buying an old refurb. I enjoy building my own system and controlling what components are used. I don't mind paying to build a new system because I have fun doing it, and I have some parts that I can reuse (video card, case, power supply).
Sent from my Mi A1 using Tapatalk