How is this system for Shotcut

Help/How To
1

I am buying a new system for Shotcut. I will edit 4k video seriously. How is this system:

9th Gen Core i5
16gb RAM
GTX 1660 Supere
128gb SSD

I will use this system for the next 8 years to edit my 4k video, and I expect it to hold up for 8 years

2

Two thoughts:

  • Eight years of 4K video would require a lot of storage. Do you already own hard drives that will hold all this footage? What is the retention plan? Very little video will fit on a 128 GB SSD especially if sharing it with the OS, so this will force projects to be on the small side too.

  • I have mixed feelings on the GTX card. Shotcut doesn’t use GPU very much for effects processing, so a discrete GPU kinda only helps if it has a great hardware encoder. GTX is “okay” but far from great at hardware encoding. If the budget is really tight, I would use integrated graphics (if the i5 supports it) and put the money towards hard drives. Or if the budget allows, I’d upgrade to RTX 2060 just to get the better hardware encoder. But that’s based on my personal quality preferences.

1 Like
3

My answers:

Yes, I already own multiple empty hard drives to store my final projects on. I have about 5TB of free hard drive space, so I think I’m good with storing my final videos.

As of now, my budget doesn’t allow me to get the RTX 2060. I like your idea of using integrated graphics, but I’ve heard that having a discrete GPU is better. The i5 comes with the Intel UHD 630 integrated graphics, so you know. So my question to you is, is the GTX 1660 or Intel UHD 630 better for Shotcut?

4

I recommend a larger SSD - not for Shotcut but just for the OS, apps, temp files, etc. Obviously, the more the better, and obviously you have a budget, but try to get at least 256 GB.

5

Ok. Will get a 240gb ssd. What do you think about the rest of my system? For editing 4k?

6

During the edit phase, especially if using proxies, the GTX and the UHD 630 are on a pretty equal level in the sense that Shotcut will hardly use either of them, and both would be sufficient. The GTX would sit there with like 90% untapped potential.

So the question comes down to export time. The following are mere opinions about what I would do if I were in your shoes. Take from it what you will.

If I was exporting one video per week or less than 30 minutes of finished video per week:
I would remove the GTX from the build list and use the integrated graphics. I would save the GTX money and continue saving until I could get an RTX 2060. I would use the libx264 software encoder in the meantime. It won’t kill the production schedule if projects are this short.

If I was exporting three videos per week or more than two hours of finished video per week:
This is the scenario where reduced export time thanks to hardware encoding could be make or break for the production schedule. Before RTX came around, I would have considered getting the GTX out of necessity in this case. However, these days, I would be more inclined to do hardware encoding with the Quick Sync encoder built into the i5 (Shotcut calls it h264_qsv), and again save my money for an RTX card later. To me, the quality difference of the RTX is worth it. The GTX won’t look significantly better than Quick Sync, hence my preference to save for an RTX.

Hope that helps.

EDIT: Also, I assume this build includes a beefy 650W+ power supply that can handle these graphics cards and hard drives?

7

Yes, this build has a 650 watt EVGA PSU. You are saying either use the intel integrated graphics and save up for the RTX? Sure, I can do that.

8

Well, I’m saying that’s what I would do, but everybody has their preferences. :smile: If you were using other programs that made use of the GPU, like any 3D modelers or games, then it may be worth it to get the GTX now for those benefits then get the RTX later down the line. It all depends on your goals.

9

This topic was automatically closed after 90 days. New replies are no longer allowed.