Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

AMD vs Intel for Rendering--Which is faster?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
September 28, 2013 4:53:59 AM

I use 3ds Max, Maya, Blender, and Adobe CS6 (mostly photoshop and after effects)
Would I be better off getting an AMD CPU or an Intel CPU if I wanted faster render times?

a b à CPUs
September 28, 2013 4:59:30 AM

Intel, however depends on if your rendering program can utilize 8 cores or not, more then likely intel tho since the 4 core hyperthreading is faster then the 8 cores without hypertheading. Also please remember to pick your best answer so others may learn from this thread. Thanks.
m
0
l

Best solution

September 28, 2013 5:07:35 AM

Best choice would be i7 4930K. If you can't afford it, then go for 4770K. If that is too expensive then go ahead and purchase 8350 or a used 3770K.

In Adobe software even i5 at ~3.5GHz will kick 8350s at 5Ghz ass.
In max, maya, blender, 5GHz 8350 is about as fast as 4770K at 4.5GHz but i7 will be eating ~80W less while under load.
Share
Related resources
a b à CPUs
September 28, 2013 5:10:46 AM

rmpumper said:
Best choice would be i7 4930K. If you can't afford it, then go for 4770K. If that is too expensive then go ahead and purchase 8350 or a used 3770K.

In Adobe software even i5 at ~3.5GHz will kick 8350s at 5Ghz ass.
In max, maya, blender, 5GHz 8350 is about as fast as 4770K at 4.5GHz but i7 will be eating ~80W less while under load.


Excuse me some of us are AMD fans, you could say that more politely, yes an i5 will be faster then the 8350 but only because of the hyper-threading technology, in encoding tho the i5 would get wasted by the 8350.
m
0
l
September 28, 2013 5:14:02 AM

ddbtkd456 said:
Excuse me some of us are AMD fans, you could say that more politely, yes an i5 will be faster then the 8350 but only because of the hyper-threading technology, in encoding tho the i5 would get wasted by the 8350.


What hyperthreading? i5 does not have it.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 28, 2013 5:19:55 AM

rmpumper said:
ddbtkd456 said:
Excuse me some of us are AMD fans, you could say that more politely, yes an i5 will be faster then the 8350 but only because of the hyper-threading technology, in encoding tho the i5 would get wasted by the 8350.


What hyperthreading? i5 does not have it.


Some of the newer i5 have hyper threading, besides you are comparing apples to oranges, i could say the same thing about my quad core amd a6 vision laptop vs. my fx-8350 over clocked computer. It's not the same thing, a quad core is meant for speed. An eight core is meant for power. I will always take power over speed. However the 8350 is a step below the newer i7's only cause they support hyper threading. I5's and A-series or Athlon x4 series can be compared since they are all quad cores. Nothing can be compared correctly to the 8350 since the i7 are just hyper-threaded quad cores. The FX-6300 can be compared to the i7 Extreme (6-core version) please do not compare things that do not have the same functionality as the product it is being compared to. Quad to quad, dual to dual, eight to eight, six to six, those are the only real ways to compare processors. Period.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 28, 2013 5:30:48 AM

Also the i7's are quads with hyper threading, making them 4 cores 4 threads which is why it shows up as a 8-core, these are faster, however an AMD will always have more "power" since they are 8 true cores.
m
0
l
September 28, 2013 5:33:52 AM

ddbtkd456 said:
Some of the newer i5 have hyper threading, besides you are comparing apples to oranges, i could say the same thing about my quad core amd a6 vision laptop vs. my fx-8350 over clocked computer. It's not the same thing, a quad core is meant for speed. An eight core is meant for power. I will always take power over speed. However the 8350 is a step below the newer i7's only cause they support hyper threading. I5's and A-series or Athlon x4 series can be compared since they are all quad cores. Nothing can be compared correctly to the 8350 since the i7 are just hyper-threaded quad cores. The FX-6300 can be compared to the i7 Extreme (6-core version) please do not compare things that do not have the same functionality as the product it is being compared to. Quad to quad, dual to dual, eight to eight, six to six, those are the only real ways to compare processors. Period.


Who gives a shit if a CPU is hyperthreaded or not? What matters is which one is faster. And are you implying that FX6300 is on par with 3930k/4930k just because they are both 6 core CPUs? You should really stop smoking pot.

If you want a fair comparison than compare CPUs at the same price point.
m
0
l
September 28, 2013 5:36:11 AM

ddbtkd456 said:
Also the i7's are quads with hyper threading, making them 4 cores 4 threads which is why it shows up as a 8-core, these are faster, however an AMD will always have more "power" since they are 8 true cores.


What power? If AMD has more "power" why does a 8350 always lose to 4770k? Or are you measuring performance only by power consumption - more watts = better performance?

No wonder you call yourself an "AMD fan".
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 28, 2013 5:39:24 AM

You are so far off...seriously you have no idea what you are talking about and it is pointless to argue with someone that doesn't understand the fundamentals and the proper agriculture of the processors and what they do so pointless people like you can drive them into the ground. I have watched video's upon video's from both Intel and AMD's direct websites to figure out which one i wanted in my computer. I know what i am talking about when i say a 6-core is compared with a 6-core, no i never said it was on par with it, AMD has different agriculture processors then Intel, making it more effective where it matters, on very specific programs and systems. Now if you will stop arguing and let this guy's question be answered by someone that they know what they are talking about. Compare by price point, what a joke, read what processor agriculture is and maybe you will begin to understand what I am even talking about.
m
0
l
September 28, 2013 5:51:40 AM

rmpumper said:
Best choice would be i7 4930K. If you can't afford it, then go for 4770K. If that is too expensive then go ahead and purchase 8350 or a used 3770K.

In Adobe software even i5 at ~3.5GHz will kick 8350s at 5Ghz ass.
In max, maya, blender, 5GHz 8350 is about as fast as 4770K at 4.5GHz but i7 will be eating ~80W less while under load.


Aren't the 3770K and the 4770k almost exactly the same price? Whats the difference between the two--is it just an 'update'?

m
0
l
September 28, 2013 5:52:44 AM

ddbtkd456, you are the joke. As I said, 4770k and 8350 are about the same at rendering when OC'ed, but 8350 sucks in Adobe software.

If you care about power consumption and want better overall performance in both multithreaded and singlethreaded apps, you buy 4 core i7. If you only want to render and don't care about power usage, gaming and single threaded apps, you can get 8350 and save a bit. All there is to it. Watching marketing crap on Intel's/AMD's websites does not impact CPUs performance.
m
0
l
September 28, 2013 5:56:53 AM

Archean_0 said:
[Aren't the 3770K and the 4770k almost exactly the same price? Whats the difference between the two--is it just an 'update'?



Yep. 3770K overclockes higher so that compensates for the higher IPC on Haswell. Thing is, there is no point in getting older tech if you are buying new parts. If you don't mind buying second hand CPUs, get 3770K and save some money.

m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 28, 2013 5:58:09 AM

Amd CPU's a very good at integer operations but other than that they lag behind Intel CPU's in pretty much every way. I bet you would be happy with the performance of either so get what ever you can find a good deal on.
m
0
l
September 28, 2013 7:33:22 AM

thanks for the input : )
m
0
l
!