Looking to switch from an FX-8350 to an i7 for better After Effects performance

halomademeapc · Sep 2, 2015

I've started using After Effects for work and personal projects more recently and I'm looking to speed things along so I don't have to spend as long waiting for preview frames to render out while I'm working. I'm willing to drop $300-$500 within the next month or so on a CPU and a motherboard to go with it. My current build is as follows:

Case : Raidmax Vortex (tiny, so it'll only fit about a 9"x11" mobo)
Mobo: Asus m5a-99x evo r2.0
RAM: 24GB (8 4 8 4) DDR3 1600
CPU: AMD FX-8350@4.6GHz
Heatsink: Cooler Master Hyper 212
GPU: GTX660 (2GB GDDR5)
PSU: Antec High Current Gamer 620W
and then storage and stuff

Aside from purchase recommendations, I have a few questions:
- In ideal conditions (multi-threaded with full scaling, etc.), roughly what percent performance increase would I see from switching?
- I haven't kept up on AMD's release schedule lately. Are they releasing anything "game-changing" in the near future that I'd be better off waiting for?
- Is the CPU the right thing to upgrade here or would I be better off with a better GPU and relying on CUDA acceleration?

Thanks for any advice in advance.

Pyre · Sep 2, 2015

If you were to upgrade I think performance difference will be 15% or less. Some guys exaggerate that AMD sucks, but it does put up a show, its just intel goes a few steps above. That does not throw AMD off but it just trails meaning its still good enough for the job and its not even massively behind. So paying over 200$ or whatever for new cpu and motherboard I dont know if that investment is really worth it. You will be getting 15% difference or less i guess, for gaming or rendering going to the intel.

dudeman509 · Sep 2, 2015

Unless you go to an 6-core i7, I don't believe you'll see night-and-day gains for the money you've invested.

dudeman509 · Sep 2, 2015

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-vishera-review,3328-9.html

Looks like 10 seconds (Haswell isn't massively faster than Ivy Bridge in most rendering tests).

Get a good cooler and just OC that FX-8350 to 4.5-4.7 and close the gap a bit more.

Pyre · Sep 2, 2015

dudeman509 :

Would agree with that, it can help, rather than spenidng over 200$ for a little improvement. Instead spending 70$ or so for better cooler can be a more realistic investment hardly a waste compared to over 200$ for new motherboard and cpu.

Suzuki@1473780084@1473780163 · Sep 2, 2015

Please explain what you mean by "waiting for preview frames to render out while I'm working". I'm asking because are you sure it's caching all your RAM you have allocated to After Effects?

Basically everything while you're working is on your RAM, GPU, Drive setup (Scratch, Media, etc). You will see no performance gains WHILE WORKING, you will however see a performance increase WHILE RENDERING, meaning the final export. I suggest you enable Ray Tracing if you haven't already (AE CS6+). Also, I suggest you verify that AE is using your GPU, because even with a GTX 660, pointing the needle anywhere in your project, and it should load almost immediatly with little to no stuttering. If I remember correctly, the GTX 660 is not in the list of supported GPU's, so you're going to have to edit the file and type in your GPU on that list.

Lastly, if you're having performance issues, make sure the file you're editing is in the correct codec, you want Avid DNxHD, everything else is horrible while editing if you're using recorded footage as source. It's ProRes for Mac.

AMD does not suck, nobody said it sucks, it's just slower than an i7, it's also twice as expensive as the AMD. There are of course cheaper "i7's" such as the Xeon 1231, but what OP's got right now is good enough, a motherboard + CPU swap for small gains isn't worth it at all.

halomademeapc · Sep 2, 2015

dudeman509 :

I'm at 4.6 right now. Would it be worth investing in liquid cooling to push that further or should I probably save my money and wait to see whether Zen flops or now?

Shneiky · Sep 2, 2015

People seem to forget that Rendering and Viewport performance are two entirely different things.

After Effects rendering allows all cores to stretch their legs - so the FX do a really good job there.

Viewport however is thread limited. I7s provide up to double the preview FPS depending on the case.

Also, if you have not enabled Mercury Playback engine - do google how to enable it with your GTX 660.

Wisecracker · Sep 2, 2015

For *CUDA Stuff* your GTX 660 should be fine. If you are thinking of a video upgrade be advised that Maxwell cut the CUDA cores 2/3s of the previous arch. This dinged some GPU acceleration and left the Kepler/Fermi cards generally out-performing its newer brothers.

CS6 and above has pretty much gone all-in on Open CL/GL GPU compute. nVidia can do CL/GL compute just fine but the Radeons tend to do it a bit better. The only advantage for CUDA in AE these days is in the 3D ray-tracing effect (and probably some 3rd-party proprietary plug-ins that can only use CUDA acceleration). Even the MPE now functions via CL/GL.

As noted above, there is simply not a big gain to be found, especially in the *Preview* load. Final output using GPU compute should, however, be multiples faster than 'software rendering' on the CPU cores.

The Preview (and other Adobe BS) is one reason I jumped ship to Vegas 8 or 9 years ago. I don't know how fancy your motion graphics are in AE but Vegas works just dandy for my needs. It's not amazingly faster for Preview but it's a nice, tight integrated package for motion graphics, video editing and rendering output.

Suzuki@1473780084@1473780163 · Sep 2, 2015

I stepped away from Adobe too, but Im now using a program called HitFilm, fantastic software. I have never used Sony Vegas, but I'm assuming it's the same style of setting up and optimising your PC for the app. It's just preference though, but OP is probably not using Avid DNxHD which is designed for the sole purpose of editing, smaller files, no quality loss, easier to edit with. I don't see how it would make a difference if OP isn't using recorded footage, but I highly recommend not spending that extra money on a new CPU, please don't!

halomademeapc · Sep 2, 2015

I can't stand using premiere for normal video editing. I usually use Magix Video Pro X6 for that. I know it's not very "pro" but I've been using magix's video software since I was in the fifth grade so I'm really used to it by now.

I use after effects mostly for the motion blur on object transforms, support for vector objects, and some lens effects. I usually make vectors in flash or illustrator then import them to after effects. Here's an example of something I started on yesterday. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqJl96tYnn8 (I do use lens effects and warp adjustments and such a lot but this is a little more typical for me. If I'm going to do something more complex, I usually use 3ds max and then spread the workload across a few computers with backburner)
I was asked to make some little stings for our youtube channel at work because the current ones are really, REALLY (read: about 8 years) out of date.

I don't know much about competing software, so if there's something that would handle something like this more efficiently, do let me know

It does sound kind of absurd that working with mostly simple 2D elements in this software fills up my 24GB of RAM and maxes out my CPU for a while during renders now that it's been brought up.

halomademeapc · Sep 2, 2015

Suzuki@1473780084@1473780163 :

I meant that in the sense that when scrubbing the timeline, the adaptive res preview drops down very low, making the preview window look more like a mosaic than a picture. And if I want to play back a comp in the preview window realtime to get a feel for timing, I have to sit there and wait a while for it to generate, even at half resolution in fast preview.

Thanks for mentioning the GPU workaround thing, I'll have to look into that after classes and work tonight.

Pyre · Sep 2, 2015

halomademeapc :

No need for liquid cooler, noctua dh-14 or 15 is v.good. Quiet on load and performs well on load. By the way wat cooler did u use to get 4.6ghz??

halomademeapc · Sep 2, 2015

Pyre :

It's just a CM Hyper 212.
The guide I followed back when I overclocked it said that 4.5-4.7 is normal for aftermarket air cooling.

edit: found it
http://www.overclock.net/t/1348623/amd-bulldozer-and-piledriver-overclocking-guide-asus-motherboard

dudeman509 · Sep 2, 2015

I didn't read the original post closely enough - yeah a 212/212 Evo is fine, and that's probably about as far as you're going to get speeds on that chip anyway. The extra 100 MHz really will not make a difference.

Wisecracker · Oct 17, 2015

I was perusing some Adobe propaganda the other day :lol: and came across these little nuggets of wisdom ...

After Effects > Preferences > Memory & Multiprocessing to Render Multiple Frames Simultaneously

When this multiprocessing option is enabled, After Effects will launch additional copies of itself in the background, each processing individual frames for RAM Previews and final renders. Note that multiprocessing can only use physical processor cores, not virtual cores created by hyperthreading; you should also reserve at least two physical cores for the operating system and other software.

I now return you to your Saturday morning . . .

Search

Looking to switch from an FX-8350 to an i7 for better After Effects performance

halomademeapc

Distinguished

Pyre

Pyre

Reputable

dudeman509

Dignified

dudeman509

Dignified

Pyre

Reputable

Suzuki@1473780084@1473780163

Dignified

halomademeapc

Distinguished

Shneiky

Distinguished

Wisecracker

Splendid

Suzuki@1473780084@1473780163

Dignified

halomademeapc

Distinguished

halomademeapc

Distinguished

Pyre

Reputable

halomademeapc

Distinguished

dudeman509

Dignified

Wisecracker

Splendid

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page