Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Video making AMD PC suggestions ???

Last response: in CPUs
Share
October 14, 2011 9:13:47 PM

I have to start creating videos for work. I hear about how CPU intensive video rendering is so, I'd like hear some recommendations for an AMD system that would handle all aspects of making videos.

With the unimpressive review of the new AMD FX Bulldozer I wonder if I'd be just fine with a Phenom2, 6 or 4 core CPU? What video card / GPU would be recommended? I would go with Intel but everything Intel seems to be double the price.

I'll have to do a new system build by Xmas time but, I was really waiting until the AMD motherboards come out with PCIe 3 support. I'm not sure if that's going to happen by Xmas or not? Does Tom's have word on that?
a b à CPUs
October 14, 2011 9:17:57 PM

a phenom II x6 + any basic video card like the AMD 5450, 6450, ATI 4550 will do the job for you. you may as well get an AM3+ mobo in case AMD fixes their CPU issues with BD and the piledriver CPUs are decent.

don't worry about PCI-E 3.o, no current video cards can take advantage of that bandwidth, most can't even utilize 2.0 full bandwidth and those are top tier gaming cards (not needed if you don't game)
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 14, 2011 9:44:30 PM

^Definitely agree on the PCI 3. Skip it.
Bulldozer would work quite well for video editing. The only drawback would be that you could just go 2500K and have a better, cheaper processor. Why are you using AMD as a given?
m
0
l
Related resources
October 14, 2011 9:56:27 PM

Are you serious ... an entry level GPU would work just fine for creating videos? I would never have guessed. I was considering a 6770 or wait for the 7770.

I wanted AMD simply because that's what I'm used to. Intel sounds better and better all the time though. It used to be largely based on a price issue.

I guess I wanted PCIe 3 simply because it's part of the next, new generation platform. It makes PCIe 2 look like PCI 1 when gen 2 came out. I'm interested in it because it doubles the bandwidth:

Quote:
"A spokesperson from Nvidia was a little more forthcoming: “Nvidia is a key contributor to the industry’s development of PCI Express 3.0, which is expected to have twice the data throughput of the current generation (2.0). Whenever there is a major increase in bandwidth like that, applications emerge that take advantage of it. This will benefit consumers and professionals with increased graphics and computing performance from notebooks, desktops, workstations, and servers that have a GPU”. "

PCI Express 3.0: On Motherboards By This Time Next Year?


The PCIe 3 mobos are suppose to be out any time now and the AMD Radeon HD 7000 GPU Series to Feature PCI Express 3.0 Support will be out soon too.

My understanding is that in order to have full or true PCIe 3 support everything in the chain must all be PCIe 3 - mobo, chipset, CPU, GPU etc.

I just want a new, next generation platform - not just for GPU purposes and reasons. It won't be all that long and PCIe 3 will be the new standard platform.
m
0
l
October 15, 2011 2:45:17 AM

Ah, that quick sync is pretty sweeeeet.

What the closest thing to that from AMD? :cry: 
m
0
l
a c 900 à CPUs
a c 360 À AMD
October 15, 2011 3:05:55 AM

That's the thing they do not have it!
m
0
l
a c 83 à CPUs
a b À AMD
October 15, 2011 3:26:05 AM

amd doesn't have quick sync..
an intel 2600 or 2600k + 16 gb or more ram will serve you better than current amd processor (although 2600k costs more)
you can also use an nvidia 560 or higher with adobe's mercury engine for video editing, an ssd might help too but they will cost quite a lot.
hex-core amd phenom II's are probably the cheapest processors for video editing/encoding - they also eat more power compared to intel's. intel uses hyper-threading, high clock speed and better use of 32 nm architecture to make up for the lack of cores.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 15, 2011 5:29:15 PM

The reason PCI 3 won't be useful to you is that you don't need more data throughput. GPUs on the level you're talking about (6770) and even up to some of the best cards available today do just fine on x16; they simply can't deal with enough data to max PCI 2. All but the best cards are fine with PCI 2 x8.
m
0
l
October 15, 2011 7:16:26 PM

Yeah, I pretty much figured AMD had no 'quick sync' feature since I've never heard of it, which is why I added the crying thingy.

I did not know this info: "nvidia 560 or higher with adobe's mercury engine for video editing..."

So thanks for that ... Radeon doesn't offer anything like that? What about the new 7000 series?

I've been going through AMD vs. Intel searches ...

http://www.cpubenchmark.net

Amd vs intel
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/299632-28-intel

The top link gives AMD a decent score for value per performance, which is what I need, but currently the Intel i5 2600k is making it a tuff choice. Which specific CPU comes highly recommended? I'm getting a bit confused since there are so many with similar names.

So, if the value is nearly equal at this point in time, why would anyone chose AMD? What are AMD CPU's better at? Gaming? Is that it? What does AMD have that Intel doesn't? If I go with Intel what will I be missing ... will I regret it in the future? One thing I've always liked about AMD is the easy upgrade capabilities.

I've never had Intel before because they were always soooo much more expensive so, I hardly know anything about them.
m
0
l
October 16, 2011 9:30:02 PM

Any thoughts or answers to my questions above?

I'm wondering if Intel and NVidia aren't the best choices at this point in time. I wonder if Ivy Bridge would be worth waiting for? I's suppose to have PCIe 3.0 support.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 17, 2011 1:51:15 AM

As I said, you don't need PCI 3.
AMD generally has better value in the low-to-mid-end market, while Intel's value is better at the high end. Most builds will go up to an x4 955 and then switch over to the Intel 2500K, which is considered to be a great high-end value, as it beats the old $1000 Intel 990x in gaming at just $220.
What is your overall budget for this machine?
m
0
l
October 17, 2011 3:18:32 PM

Again, I'm not interested in PCIe 3 only for GPU purposes. There are many other reasons for PCIe 3. I already said I wanted the next, new generation platform ... at least in the motherboard in order to have room to upgrade. That just seems like common sense to me. I'm just not interested in a platform that is not far off from being the old platform and obsolete.

Quote:
"A spokesperson from Nvidia was a little more forthcoming: “Nvidia is a key contributor to the industry’s development of PCI Express 3.0, which is expected to have twice the data throughput of the current generation (2.0). Whenever there is a major increase in bandwidth like that, applications emerge that take advantage of it. This will benefit consumers and professionals with increased graphics and computing performance from notebooks, desktops, workstations, and servers that have a GPU”. "


My questions here are not about PCIe 3. My questions here are about Intel vs. AMD vs. NVidia. I would spent up to a $1000 on a new system but no more than $500 on a platform soon to be dated and not far off from being obsolete.
m
0
l
a c 83 à CPUs
a b À AMD
October 17, 2011 4:11:38 PM

problem is - the setup you'll end up buying will always be old. if you wait for newer parts to come out you'll wait forever.
as for pcie 3.0, sb-e cpus might support pcie-3.0 but when tom's previewed i7 3960x it didn't have explicit pcie 3.0 support. intel did say the cpus were 8 gt/s capable. ivy bridge will support pcie 3.0, wikipedia says.
Quote:
So, if the value is nearly equal at this point in time, why would anyone chose AMD? What are AMD CPU's better at? Gaming? Is that it? What does AMD have that Intel doesn't? If I go with Intel what will I be missing ... will I regret it in the future? One thing I've always liked about AMD is the easy upgrade capabilities.

imo amd delivers value and capabilities intel doesn''t offer at the same price (pre-bulldozer). examples might be affordable true hex-core cpus, apus with igp that can play games and videos much better and cost less than intel's, upgrading cpu without changing motherboard, more affordable overclockable cpus - 2 core, 4 core, 6 core black edition processors, so on.
m
0
l
a c 83 à CPUs
a b À AMD
October 17, 2011 4:17:29 PM

josejones said:
Again, I'm not interested in PCIe 3 only for GPU purposes. There are many other reasons for PCIe 3. I already said I wanted the next, new generation platform ... at least in the motherboard in order to have room to upgrade. That just seems like common sense to me. I'm just not interested in a platform that is not far off from being the old platform and obsolete.

Quote:
"A spokesperson from Nvidia was a little more forthcoming: “Nvidia is a key contributor to the industry’s development of PCI Express 3.0, which is expected to have twice the data throughput of the current generation (2.0). Whenever there is a major increase in bandwidth like that, applications emerge that take advantage of it. This will benefit consumers and professionals with increased graphics and computing performance from notebooks, desktops, workstations, and servers that have a GPU”. "


My questions here are not about PCIe 3. My questions here are about Intel vs. AMD vs. NVidia. I would spent up to a $1000 on a new system but no more than $500 on a platform soon to be dated and not far off from being obsolete.

...that's a tough question to answer. which specific product/platform(s) do you want to compare?
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 17, 2011 4:40:38 PM

josejones said:
Again, I'm not interested in PCIe 3 only for GPU purposes. There are many other reasons for PCIe 3. I already said I wanted the next, new generation platform ... at least in the motherboard in order to have room to upgrade. That just seems like common sense to me. I'm just not interested in a platform that is not far off from being the old platform and obsolete.


getting a PCI-E 3.0 motherboard is your decision since it is your money but I would make one comment about platform and obsolete. a motherboard running PCI-E 1.0 (or 1.1) x16 will perform just as well as if it had a 2.0 slot with a large majority of today's gaming graphic cards (of which you don't need a real powerful card to begin with). PCI-E 1.0 was introduced in 2003 so in theory (your CPU would be ancient but that is another story) you could have easily skipped 2.0 and without missing a beat. from all you have stated, you would never see a difference between the two ports as PCI-E 4.0 or later would be available before you would need to think about that port, by then you would a new mobo anyways.
m
0
l
October 18, 2011 3:06:05 PM

Have there been any recent testing comparing Intel vs. AMD benchmarks on the variety of aspects that go into creating videos?

I'd obviously be very interested in that comparison ... hint, hint to Tom's Hardware. I'd like to find out if Intel blows AMD out of the water or if the price/performance of AMD hangs in there.

m
0
l
!