Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

Is overclocking and higher processor frequency required for 3D Rendering & HD Video Editing and Which of these is better?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
October 31, 2013 12:15:50 PM

Note: This is Mainly for 3D and HD works and Not about Gaming with High FPS or Settings.
1. AMD FX 8350 (8 cores, 8 threads & 4.0 Ghz)
2. AMD FX 8320 (8 cores, 8 threads & 3.5 Ghz)
3. Any Intel i5 3rd generation processor of similar performance.


Also, if i do not overclock and turn off the turbo mode, do i need any aftermarket cooler? even if i do extreme 3D rendering and HD video editing? And is the thermal paste and heat sink that comes in the box good enough?

Please Clarify all the questions.
Thank You all in Advance :) 
a b à CPUs
October 31, 2013 12:23:04 PM

Intel I7 is for rendering.
I5 is mostly for gaming.
If you are broke then go for FX 8xxx

You want either hyperthreading or multi-cores for rendering.

Higher clocks means faster rendering. You can render with core 2 duo but it will take a day or 2.
m
0
l

Best solution

a b à CPUs
October 31, 2013 12:24:55 PM

The FX 8350 would be the fastest option out of those three choices. (Basically the same as the 8320, but clocked higher.) It has more available threads to run multi-threaded applications than the i5 3rd Gen series.

Overclocking isn't required for 3D rendering and HD video encoding, but it generally helps to make things a little faster. (Not in every application but many can benefit.)

What is the third question?
Share
Related resources
a c 175 à CPUs
a b À AMD
October 31, 2013 12:33:27 PM

WarWolverineWarrior said:
Intel I7 is for rendering.
I5 is mostly for gaming.
If you are broke then go for FX 8xxx

You want either hyperthreading or multi-cores for rendering.

Higher clocks means faster rendering. You can render with core 2 duo but it will take a day or 2.



you missed what the OP is using it for. in 3d editing and most rendering the FX8350/8350 will beat an i7 every day of the week. it's one of the very few things the fx lineup matches up well with and even trounces intel at.

And yes... overclocking will help speed up the process.

But now that i've sung the praises of the FX cpus... i'm gonna toss some cold water on the praise. We're talking about seconds. not minutes or hours. It's the same in most tasks an intel will beat an FX. Generally speaking we're talking about seconds of difference which you would need a stopwatch to measure. If a task takes 30 seconds on an octocored fx and 40 on an i7, does anyone care? if it takes 25 seconds on an intel and 40 on an amd does anyone care or notice?

see the issue here? these top of the line chips are so stupid fast that even in tasks one is 80% faster then the other you'd need a stopwatch to tell the difference.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 31, 2013 12:40:10 PM

ingtar33 said:
WarWolverineWarrior said:
Intel I7 is for rendering.
I5 is mostly for gaming.
If you are broke then go for FX 8xxx

You want either hyperthreading or multi-cores for rendering.

Higher clocks means faster rendering. You can render with core 2 duo but it will take a day or 2.



you missed what the OP is using it for. in 3d editing and most rendering the FX8350/8350 will beat an i7 every day of the week. it's one of the very few things the fx lineup matches up well with and even trounces intel at.

And yes... overclocking will help speed up the process.

But now that i've sung the praises of the FX cpus... i'm gonna toss some cold water on the praise. We're talking about seconds. not minutes or hours. It's the same in most tasks an intel will beat an FX. Generally speaking we're talking about seconds of difference which you would need a stopwatch to measure. If a task takes 30 seconds on an octocored fx and 40 on an i7, does anyone care? if it takes 25 seconds on an intel and 40 on an amd does anyone care or notice?

see the issue here? these top of the line chips are so stupid fast that even in tasks one is 80% faster then the other you'd need a stopwatch to tell the difference.


Negative. I7 beats any AMD 8xxxx
Check the benchmarks
http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/451/AMD_FX-Series_FX-8...

If you are rendering a 20 min video in full HD, it'll take about 40-50 min on I7-3770k. I know that cuz I have that. It's a pain to wait any longer. I7 is faster at rending per second. Seconds add up.
m
0
l
October 31, 2013 12:45:33 PM

Sorry, my bad. There is no 3rd question. Now i have updated the question correctly.
thank you for the response.
How much does 0.5 ghz of extra frequency really matters?
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 31, 2013 12:49:42 PM

ingtar33 said:
WarWolverineWarrior said:
Intel I7 is for rendering.
I5 is mostly for gaming.
If you are broke then go for FX 8xxx

You want either hyperthreading or multi-cores for rendering.

Higher clocks means faster rendering. You can render with core 2 duo but it will take a day or 2.



you missed what the OP is using it for. in 3d editing and most rendering the FX8350/8350 will beat an i7 every day of the week. it's one of the very few things the fx lineup matches up well with and even trounces intel at.

And yes... overclocking will help speed up the process.

But now that i've sung the praises of the FX cpus... i'm gonna toss some cold water on the praise. We're talking about seconds. not minutes or hours. It's the same in most tasks an intel will beat an FX. Generally speaking we're talking about seconds of difference which you would need a stopwatch to measure. If a task takes 30 seconds on an octocored fx and 40 on an i7, does anyone care? if it takes 25 seconds on an intel and 40 on an amd does anyone care or notice?

see the issue here? these top of the line chips are so stupid fast that even in tasks one is 80% faster then the other you'd need a stopwatch to tell the difference.


An i7, especially the 4770k will beat the 8350 in almost every case in rendering. And rendering generally takes a long time. 10% faster on a 10 hour render means you are done 1 hour earlier.
m
0
l
October 31, 2013 12:51:35 PM

whyso said:
ingtar33 said:
WarWolverineWarrior said:
Intel I7 is for rendering.
I5 is mostly for gaming.
If you are broke then go for FX 8xxx

You want either hyperthreading or multi-cores for rendering.

Higher clocks means faster rendering. You can render with core 2 duo but it will take a day or 2.



you missed what the OP is using it for. in 3d editing and most rendering the FX8350/8350 will beat an i7 every day of the week. it's one of the very few things the fx lineup matches up well with and even trounces intel at.

And yes... overclocking will help speed up the process.

But now that i've sung the praises of the FX cpus... i'm gonna toss some cold water on the praise. We're talking about seconds. not minutes or hours. It's the same in most tasks an intel will beat an FX. Generally speaking we're talking about seconds of difference which you would need a stopwatch to measure. If a task takes 30 seconds on an octocored fx and 40 on an i7, does anyone care? if it takes 25 seconds on an intel and 40 on an amd does anyone care or notice?

see the issue here? these top of the line chips are so stupid fast that even in tasks one is 80% faster then the other you'd need a stopwatch to tell the difference.


An i7, especially the 4770k will beat the 8350 in almost every case in rendering. And rendering generally takes a long time. 10% faster on a 10 hour render means you are done 1 hour earlier.


Thank you for the response but im not considering any 4th generation processor. so please tell only about the above mentioned processors.
m
0
l
October 31, 2013 12:53:21 PM

PyjamasCat said:
The FX 8350 would be the fastest option out of those three choices. (Basically the same as the 8320, but clocked higher.) It has more available threads to run multi-threaded applications than the i5 3rd Gen series.

Overclocking isn't required for 3D rendering and HD video encoding, but it generally helps to make things a little faster. (Not in every application but many can benefit.)

What is the third question?


This is the 3rd question: How much does 0.5 ghz raise in frequency really matters?
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 31, 2013 12:54:14 PM

SNAR said:
Sorry, my bad. There is no 3rd question. Now i have updated the question correctly.
thank you for the response.
How much does 0.5 ghz of extra frequency really matters?


Depending on the application, between nothing and a few seconds. Extra power is always nice to have though.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 31, 2013 12:56:11 PM

SNAR said:


Thank you for the response.
In the link provided, Under AMD drawbacks, it says "No one chip GPU"
What does it mean?


It doesn't have an iGPU. (Intergrated graphics processing unit, like Intel's HD4000.)
m
0
l
October 31, 2013 12:59:33 PM

PyjamasCat said:
SNAR said:
Sorry, my bad. There is no 3rd question. Now i have updated the question correctly.
thank you for the response.
How much does 0.5 ghz of extra frequency really matters?


Depending on the application, between nothing and a few seconds. Extra power is always nice to have though.


OK. Thank You for all the responses so far.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 31, 2013 1:00:18 PM

SNAR said:


Thank you for the response.
In the link provided, Under AMD drawbacks, it says "No one chip GPU"
What does it mean?


Intel has Intel HD 3000, 4000 GPU included on the CPU. It doesn't come with AMD unless you get A-10 processor.

FX 8xxx beats I5 in performance and I recommend buying a separate GPU for gaming. You will not need one for rendering.
m
0
l
October 31, 2013 1:06:28 PM

PyjamasCat said:
SNAR said:


Thank you for the response.
In the link provided, Under AMD drawbacks, it says "No one chip GPU"
What does it mean?


It doesn't have an iGPU. (Intergrated graphics processing unit, like Intel's HD4000.)


When added GPU (Nvidia/Radeon) does the iGPU of intel gets considered or will it be neglected/discarded by the main GPU?
m
0
l
October 31, 2013 1:14:36 PM

WarWolverineWarrior said:
SNAR said:


Thank you for the response.
In the link provided, Under AMD drawbacks, it says "No one chip GPU"
What does it mean?


Intel has Intel HD 3000, 4000 GPU included on the CPU. It doesn't come with AMD unless you get A-10 processor.

FX 8xxx beats I5 in performance and I recommend buying a separate GPU for gaming. You will not need one for rendering.


Thank You. When added GPU (Nvidia/Radeon) does the iGPU of intel (integrated HD graphics) gets considered or will it be neglected/discarded by the main GPU?
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 31, 2013 1:26:22 PM

SNAR said:

Thank You. When added GPU (Nvidia/Radeon) does the iGPU of intel (integrated HD graphics) gets considered or will it be neglected/discarded by the main GPU?


Usually disabled, but there are programs (Lucid Virtue is something I tried, but ruined my GPU drivers somehow when I tried to remove it haha) which allow you to use both. The dedicated (Nvidia/Radeon) when it needs high performance and Intel HD for lower requirements. I would not suggest it though, due to dedicated card naturally scaling to the application anyway.
m
0
l
a c 175 à CPUs
a b À AMD
October 31, 2013 1:34:37 PM

WarWolverineWarrior said:

Negative. I7 beats any AMD 8xxxx
Check the benchmarks
http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/451/AMD_FX-Series_FX-8...

If you are rendering a 20 min video in full HD, it'll take about 40-50 min on I7-3770k. I know that cuz I have that. It's a pain to wait any longer. I7 is faster at rending per second. Seconds add up.


whyso said:

An i7, especially the 4770k will beat the 8350 in almost every case in rendering. And rendering generally takes a long time. 10% faster on a 10 hour render means you are done 1 hour earlier.


depends folks. in 3d rendering an fx cpu generally will kill an i7... on the editing and encoding side it depends on the program, top it all off it comes down to your video card too since there are a lot of ways to encode including gpu aided cuda or opencl.

my bad for not noticing the rest of his question, you're right it's not that cut and dry. i focused on the 3d rendering/editing. which is clearly something an fx cpu excels at.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 31, 2013 1:58:58 PM

ingtar33 said:


depends folks. in 3d rendering an fx cpu generally will kill an i7... on the editing and encoding side it depends on the program, top it all off it comes down to your video card too since there are a lot of ways to encode including gpu aided cuda or opencl.

my bad for not noticing the rest of his question, you're right it's not that cut and dry. i focused on the 3d rendering/editing. which is clearly something an fx cpu excels at.


Yep, that is a good point.

SNAR, do you have the rest of your build sorted? Or would you like some suggestions as to what to get for that too?

I think it is apparent that the 8350 is the fastest option from what SNAR wanted to pick from. The i7's show up stronger due to their stronger single threaded performance, tied into the lesser multi-threaded abilities. (Because HT isn't truely running two threads at once, instead scheduling one to take over for the other very momentarily while the the other is awaiting a response or resources or something like that.)
m
0
l
October 31, 2013 2:10:35 PM

PyjamasCat said:
ingtar33 said:


depends folks. in 3d rendering an fx cpu generally will kill an i7... on the editing and encoding side it depends on the program, top it all off it comes down to your video card too since there are a lot of ways to encode including gpu aided cuda or opencl.

my bad for not noticing the rest of his question, you're right it's not that cut and dry. i focused on the 3d rendering/editing. which is clearly something an fx cpu excels at.


Yep, that is a good point.

SNAR, do you have the rest of your build sorted? Or would you like some suggestions as to what to get for that too?

I think it is apparent that the 8350 is the fastest option from what SNAR wanted to pick from. The i7's show up stronger due to their stronger single threaded performance, tied into the lesser multi-threaded abilities. (Because HT isn't truely running two threads at once, instead scheduling one to take over for the other very momentarily while the the other is awaiting a response or resources or something like that.)


I'm thinking to go with Nvidia for gpu because of its CUDA thing. But is it REALLY bad to cross AMD and Nvidea as i have heard? or is it just a myth? And i want to know how much aftermarket cooler is necessary.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 31, 2013 3:29:10 PM

SNAR said:
PyjamasCat said:
ingtar33 said:


depends folks. in 3d rendering an fx cpu generally will kill an i7... on the editing and encoding side it depends on the program, top it all off it comes down to your video card too since there are a lot of ways to encode including gpu aided cuda or opencl.

my bad for not noticing the rest of his question, you're right it's not that cut and dry. i focused on the 3d rendering/editing. which is clearly something an fx cpu excels at.


Yep, that is a good point.

SNAR, do you have the rest of your build sorted? Or would you like some suggestions as to what to get for that too?

I think it is apparent that the 8350 is the fastest option from what SNAR wanted to pick from. The i7's show up stronger due to their stronger single threaded performance, tied into the lesser multi-threaded abilities. (Because HT isn't truely running two threads at once, instead scheduling one to take over for the other very momentarily while the the other is awaiting a response or resources or something like that.)


I'm thinking to go with Nvidia for gpu because of its CUDA thing. But is it REALLY bad to cross AMD and Nvidea as i have heard? or is it just a myth? And i want to know how much aftermarket cooler is necessary.

It's a myth. Either will support the other just fine. If you intend to overclock, then the aftermarket cooler is necessary to have.
m
0
l
November 1, 2013 1:46:52 AM

PyjamasCat said:
Yep, that is a good point.

SNAR, do you have the rest of your build sorted? Or would you like some suggestions as to what to get for that too?

I think it is apparent that the 8350 is the fastest option from what SNAR wanted to pick from. The i7's show up stronger due to their stronger single threaded performance, tied into the lesser multi-threaded abilities. (Because HT isn't truely running two threads at once, instead scheduling one to take over for the other very momentarily while the the other is awaiting a response or resources or something like that.)


SNAR said:
I'm thinking to go with Nvidia for gpu because of its CUDA thing. But is it REALLY bad to cross AMD and Nvidea as i have heard? or is it just a myth? And i want to know how much aftermarket cooler is necessary.

PyjamasCat said:
It's a myth. Either will support the other just fine. If you intend to overclock, then the aftermarket cooler is necessary to have.


So, if i do not overclock and turn off the turbo mode, i do not need any aftermarket cooler huh? even if i do extreme rendering and hd video editing? And is the thermal paste and heatsink that comes in the box good enough?
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 3, 2013 12:00:31 PM

SNAR said:


So, if i do not overclock and turn off the turbo mode, i do not need any aftermarket cooler huh? even if i do extreme rendering and hd video editing? And is the thermal paste and heatsink that comes in the box good enough?


Leave it on stock settings if your staying with the stock cooler and paste. It should all be good enough, but if your really worried, download a CPU temp monitor. Most people I have seen get around 65°C doing intense tasks.
m
0
l
!