Adobe CC 4770k vs. 4930k worth it?

I know this question has been asked but i feel it didnt answer my specific situation. Is the 4930 i7 worth it over the 4700 i7. I sort of know that a quad core based system would be enough for what i want to do (Ppro and AE) but I wanted to know if it was worth it for what I want to do. Is the 4930k worth the extra $500, especially since its a good base system for the long term or is the difference inconsequential.

My workload
4k footage
RED footage (4k and 5k)
AVCHD 200+ MBps
Also light work in AE (compositing but not a lot of 3d animation).

MY computer
CPU 4770k or 4930k
GPU GTX 770 4GB
RAM 16GB

Thanks for any advice!
11 answers Last reply
More about adobe 4770k 4930k worth
  1. 4770k and 4930k require different motherboard socket. Do you already have a motherboard?

    A 4930k is not worth it, but a 5820 is. The 5820 is a newer generation and supports DDR4 memory which is a nice performance boost for AE.
  2. The 4930k has significantly more power.
    I do a bit of 4k editing too on a 4790k. If you can afford it, do it.
    You know how long render times can be and even how much juice previewing 4k edits can take.
    Nothing worse than having to preview at reduced quality or frame rate cos your CPU is maxed out.
  3. Shneiky said:
    4770k and 4930k require different motherboard socket. Do you already have a motherboard?

    A 4930k is not worth it, but a 5820 is. The 5820 is a newer generation and supports DDR4 memory which is a nice performance boost for AE.


    Yeah i havent built the PC yet so I was wondering whether to start off with a quad core based system, ie quad core based mobo and other utilities. The 5820 piqued my interest but the new version of mobo scared me and the price of DDR4 memory even more, so i sort of ruled that out. I narrowed my options really to 4770k and the 4930k.
  4. http://anandtech.com/bench/product/1331?vs=1260

    The 4930k does not have significantly more power than 4790k. The productivity increase is moderate at best. The 4790k is based on Haswell, while 4930k is based on Ivy-Bridge E which is one generation behind. The 2 extra cores on 4930k have diminishing value, once you take into account the increased productivity per core per MHz of Haswell and the increased base frequency. From value standpoint of view - the 4790k wins.

    Price wise the 4790k makes more sense. And the 4790k is clocked ta 4 GHz and is cheaper than the 3.5 GHz 4770k.

    Though I would have really went with 5820 if you even considered the 4930. The 4930 is just a no go, since you can get better stuff for the price. And DDR4 is rather costly, I agree, but it is worth it if you have the wallet for it.
  5. People slagging off the 4930K are talking nonsense. Have any of them actually built
    systems for AE? Plus, they forget HW doesn't oc to the same levels, 4930K has a lot
    of utility in it, ditto 3930K and others, especially cost-wise via used sources.

    5820K is crippled for PCIe lanes, restricting multi-GPU, which is important for AE as
    CUDA acceleration matters. Ditto if one wishes to use RAID or other option cards.

    4930K is not a no-go at all, completely wrong there.

    Really the ideal is a dual-socket XEON for AE, as it needs lots of cores, but costs $$$.

    Beyond that, CUDA power for accelerated functions, SSD for cache, extra SSD
    for paging file if one can, and as much RAM as possible since AE grabs loads of it.

    In other words, a SB-E/IB-E system with 32GB RAM is a heck of a lot better for
    AE than a HW-E system with only 16GB RAM. The cost differences are enough to
    make the former viable for many users, the latter not.

    X99 does have other advantages such as newer storage tech options, more
    native Intel SATA3 ports which is a Good Thing, etc., but if you're going to go
    X99 then for grud's sake do it right, get a decent board for such a pro task
    like the X99E WS, and a 5930K, don't cripple your future PCIe/GPU expansion with
    the lame 5820K.

    GPU-wise, AE doesn't need 64bit CUDA, so the ideal if money was no object would
    be as many Titan Xs as you can shove in the system, but on a budget a bunch of
    GTX 580 3GB cards works very well (four of them have the same CUDA power as
    two Titans for AE and cost massively less). Between these two extremes other
    sensible GPUs are the 780 Ti and, though not out yet, the 980 Ti.

    Please see my numerous posts on these issues, I've been building AE systems
    for several years & have researched the issues extensively. A 4-core is a bad
    choice for CC products, and don't cripple yourself with the PCIe-restricted 5820K.
    If you're going to go with X99 then do it properly. For much more info, see my
    many posts here:

    https://forums.creativecow.net/thread/2/1019120

    and elsewhere on toms.

    My AE system is a 3930K with 64GB and four GTX 580 3GB cards:

    http://www.sgidepot.co.uk/misc/3930K_quad580_13.jpg

    I've built others with a mix of Quadro and GTX, eg. atm putting together a 3970K,
    64GB, Quadro K5000 and three 580s, plus a 3930K with 32GB, Quadro 6000 and
    three 580s (some users prefer the primary card to have better colour quality, etc.
    which other apps besides AE can exploit).

    Talking to people who use AE a lot, even those with plenty of GPU power available for
    RayTrace3D functions, etc., the most common thing holding them back is CPU power.
    4 cores is not remotely enough. Those who can will buy dual-socket XEON systems
    (two 10-core CPUs is best atm), but that's expensive, around $7K+ for anything decent.
    If one doesn't have the budget, then oc'd consumer X79/X99 is a good stepping stone,
    but anyone who says SB-E/IB-E is no use for is just utterly wrong in the context of AE.

    Ian.

    PS. An example system I supplied:

    http://www.sgidepot.co.uk/sgidepot/feedback.html#PC1
  6. Shneiky said:
    http://anandtech.com/bench/product/1331?vs=1260

    The 4930k does not have significantly more power than 4790k. The productivity increase is moderate at best. The 4790k is based on Haswell, while 4930k is based on Ivy-Bridge E which is one generation behind. The 2 extra cores on 4930k have diminishing value, once you take into account the increased productivity per core per MHz of Haswell and the increased base frequency. From value standpoint of view - the 4790k wins.

    Price wise the 4790k makes more sense. And the 4790k is clocked ta 4 GHz and is cheaper than the 3.5 GHz 4770k.

    Though I would have really went with 5820 if you even considered the 4930. The 4930 is just a no go, since you can get better stuff for the price. And DDR4 is rather costly, I agree, but it is worth it if you have the wallet for it.


    Anonymous said:
    People slagging off the 4930K are talking nonsense. Have any of them actually built
    systems for AE? Plus, they forget HW doesn't oc to the same levels, 4930K has a lot
    of utility in it, ditto 3930K and others, especially cost-wise via used sources.

    5820K is crippled for PCIe lanes, restricting multi-GPU, which is important for AE as
    CUDA acceleration matters. Ditto if one wishes to use RAID or other option cards.

    4930K is not a no-go at all, completely wrong there.

    Really the ideal is a dual-socket XEON for AE, as it needs lots of cores, but costs $$$.

    Beyond that, CUDA power for accelerated functions, SSD for cache, extra SSD
    for paging file if one can, and as much RAM as possible since AE grabs loads of it.

    In other words, a SB-E/IB-E system with 32GB RAM is a heck of a lot better for
    AE than a HW-E system with only 16GB RAM. The cost differences are enough to
    make the former viable for many users, the latter not.

    X99 does have other advantages such as newer storage tech options, more
    native Intel SATA3 ports which is a Good Thing, etc., but if you're going to go
    X99 then for grud's sake do it right, get a decent board for such a pro task
    like the X99E WS, and a 5930K, don't cripple your future PCIe/GPU expansion with
    the lame 5820K.

    GPU-wise, AE doesn't need 64bit CUDA, so the ideal if money was no object would
    be as many Titan Xs as you can shove in the system, but on a budget a bunch of
    GTX 580 3GB cards works very well (four of them have the same CUDA power as
    two Titans for AE and cost massively less). Between these two extremes other
    sensible GPUs are the 780 Ti and, though not out yet, the 980 Ti.

    Please see my numerous posts on these issues, I've been building AE systems
    for several years & have researched the issues extensively. A 4-core is a bad
    choice for CC products, and don't cripple yourself with the PCIe-restricted 5820K.
    If you're going to go with X99 then do it properly. For much more info, see my
    many posts here:

    https://forums.creativecow.net/thread/2/1019120

    and elsewhere on toms.

    My AE system is a 3930K with 64GB and four GTX 580 3GB cards:

    http://www.sgidepot.co.uk/misc/3930K_quad580_13.jpg

    I've built others with a mix of Quadro and GTX, eg. atm putting together a 3970K,
    64GB, Quadro K5000 and three 580s, plus a 3930K with 32GB, Quadro 6000 and
    three 580s (some users prefer the primary card to have better colour quality, etc.
    which other apps besides AE can exploit).

    Talking to people who use AE a lot, even those with plenty of GPU power available for
    RayTrace3D functions, etc., the most common thing holding them back is CPU power.
    4 cores is not remotely enough. Those who can will buy dual-socket XEON systems
    (two 10-core CPUs is best atm), but that's expensive, around $7K+ for anything decent.
    If one doesn't have the budget, then oc'd consumer X79/X99 is a good stepping stone,
    but anyone who says SB-E/IB-E is no use for is just utterly wrong in the context of AE.

    Ian.

    PS. An example system I supplied:

    http://www.sgidepot.co.uk/sgidepot/feedback.html#PC1


    Wow thanks for all that info, really helped. I really appreciate it!
  7. Ian,

    You come forth again with a system that is, if we take the OP's question into account, insanely out of budget. And before you start attacking people with recursive questions "People slagging off the 4930K are talking nonsense. Have any of them actually built systems for AE?" I would just share that I am a 3D/Compositing generalist with my fair share of AE (so much fare share that I switched to NUKE as a main comp. software).

    Everyone has a budget and a need. And not everybody is so much in a need of the Raytrace options in AE. As he OP said "compositing but not a lot of 3d animation" which I rather understand as no need for Raytrace in AE.

    And as we all "remember" from CS5 and CS6 and the new CC benchies, on not so very rare occasions, an I5 with 16 GBs of RAM was running ahead of 6 core I7s with the same amount of RAM, simply because AE needs at least 2 GBs of RAM per threads (in my experience 2.5 or up is optimal).

    The OP just said 16 GBs of RAM. We all know that 32 is better, but that goes out of the op's question.

    As far as the OP goes - 1 video card will e what he will have and that is it. The 5820 provides enough bandwidth for any single card in existence or even dual SLI, though that is not in the OPs budget.

    I will not turn this into a "superior theoretical maximum performance" argument, because that is just pointless.

    What the OP needs is a budget friendly workstation. And the 4790K is bigger value for the money and with only 16 GBs of RAM, it is a sounder choice than 4930k. You also threw in OC in the equation, but the OP does not express any willingness to OC. So that puts stock 4790k (4 GHz) vs stock 4930k (3.4 GHz) which, when you factor in the rather low but still existing IPC improvement in Haswell, pushes the price / performance value even higher.

    Not all people have unlimited budget, have the "ultimate workstation" needs or want to go crazy on parts.
  8. Shneiky wrote:
    > You come forth again with a system that is, if we take the OP's question into account, insanely out of budget.

    Rubbish, the OP didn't quote a budget.


    > ... "compositing but not a lot of 3d animation" which I rather understand as no need for Raytrace in AE.

    Hence why the CPU *does* matter and is well worth it beyond the 4-core.


    > least 2 GBs of RAM per threads (in my experience 2.5 or up is optimal).

    Hence why I said an older build with more RAM can be better.


    > The OP just said 16 GBs of RAM. We all know that 32 is better, but that goes out of the op's question.

    Doesn't matter, it makes sense to highlight where other factors can make a bigger
    difference. The wider picture is important here.


    > As far as the OP goes - 1 video card will e what he will have and that is it. ...

    So? Still perfectly sensible to point out the things I did.


    > The 5820 provides enough bandwidth for any single card in existence or even dual SLI,
    > though that is not in the OPs budget.

    And that budget would be what exactly? The OP has not mentioned any figure.


    > I will not turn this into a "superior theoretical maximum performance" argument,
    > because that is just pointless.

    I haven't tried to, not my problem if you're infering something in that way. What I care
    about is what makes these apps run best.


    > express any willingness to OC. ...

    Lack of mentioning it doesn't mean they're not willing to. That's your own inference at
    work. For grud's sake dude, it makes sense to ask and point it out! Sheesh, calm down
    already ok?


    > Not all people have unlimited budget, have the "ultimate workstation" needs or want
    > to go crazy on parts.

    (they're not 'crazy', what a stupid term to use!)

    I haven't suggested anything of the kind, so quit posting FUD and making up stuff
    about my intentions.

    Read my other numerous posts I've made about this subject and you'll understand
    why your reply here is total nonsense from my point of view. You've got it utterly
    wrong about where I'm coming from with this. Fine, I'm done.

    Ian.

    PS. 4-core for working with 4K/RED, etc., is just dumb.
  9. First you are amazingly rude (I do not want to use other words). Second - he is wondering between 300 and 500 bucks CPUs with their appropriate motherboards - hence how, if you had any common sense that is, you would get an outline of what budget we are talking about. Third - this is not about your point of view, it is about what is best for this specific case.

    P.S
    We have a Red Epic in the office and we use footage exclusively from that camera (with exception of some 2.7K Arri shots). We have 4 workstations with E5-2650v2 and other 4 with E5-1650v2 and we have several 4770k based PCs. The 4770k push the Red footage with rather similar comfort close to the E5-1650v2 in Premier, DaVinci, and light comps in AE and NUKE. What is just dumb is you signing off a piece software because it just has X number of cores.
  10. Sorry guys maybe I should have chimed in sooner. Firstly thanks guys for the advice. I guess to clarify my original intentions was that I dont want to end up with a system that would be sluggish or slow with 4k or 5k footage. Im not talking about seconds or even light minutes difference. I just dont want a sluggish system. I honestly dont mind spending for a 6 core based system, as I am feeling that it would be good for the long run. But like was previously mentioned is the 6 core only really useful for more advanced 3d animation or would I run into stalls or problems when compositing 4k red footage with a 4core system. Also i could always add RAM a mobo/cpu change is a little harder
  11. I would really go with a 5820 at least. It is around 400 which is 100 less than the 4930k, and that is a 100 you can use towards more DDR4 RAM. DDR4 is a rather large leap in RAM bandwidth, which is rather important when you deal with raster motion pictures.

    Will it slow down when comping 4K - ofcourse it will. Everything will. Depending on the complexity of your comps. We are comping 2k at the office and there is just no real time preview even on our 8 core 3 GHz Xeons (a bit of extended turbo to top their 2.6 basic speed). But what we are comping are 32 bit .exrs with multiple CGI inputs on top of RED footage.

    If you just want to color correct or grade 4k footage with some text - that is easy to handle even by a desktop class CPU. If you go in very large comps - not even 2 CPU systems can help you gain real-time preview.
Ask a new question

Read More

Intel i7 Adobe CPUs