Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Intel quad core vs amd 8 core is it worth it?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
February 6, 2012 9:12:15 PM

Hello,
I am looking for any kind of comparison between a intel quad core Q6600 overclocked to 2.88 and a new amd 8 core overclocked to 4ghz. Would there be enough of a difference to justify a new purchase? I just do movie conversion and bluray burning mostly. Thanks
a b à CPUs
February 6, 2012 9:40:26 PM

your cpu should be about as powerful as the phenom x4 840
OC on the 8150 will scale with clock rate so the 4gh OC will see 10% increase in performance.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
February 6, 2012 9:43:37 PM

The blu ray burning is going to depend on your drive and has very little cpu dependencies.
m
0
l
Related resources
a b à CPUs
February 6, 2012 11:15:50 PM


You could check Anandtechs CPU benchmark.

While none of these are overclocked, it will give you an idea of what to expect.
m
0
l
a c 479 à CPUs
a c 118 å Intel
February 7, 2012 3:02:33 AM

Generally, it is recommended you do a "slow burn" rather than a "fast burn". The faster you burn a CD / DVD / Blu-Ray, the more errors there will be on the disc. That can affect the longevity of the burnt disc and also playback compatibility mostly with standalone Blu-Ray players.

For example, if you burn a dual layer DVD movie at 4x speed on a blank dual layer DVD disc that is rated a 2x write speed, then sometime the DVD player will have trouble reading the burnt data on the 2nd layer. I assume something similar will occur with Blu-Ray discs & standalone players. This is something you should research.
m
0
l
February 7, 2012 6:05:32 AM

If the files you are converting are already on your HDD then your bottleneck should be the CPU. From benches I've seen the FX-8150 is quicker than the 2600K (both at stock speeds) by a fair margin. That being said, how time critical is video conversion?
m
0
l
February 7, 2012 6:23:16 AM

opalarrow said:
If the files you are converting are already on your HDD then your bottleneck should be the CPU. From benches I've seen the FX-8150 is quicker than the 2600K (both at stock speeds) by a fair margin. That being said, how time critical is video conversion?

Do you have some links to where this is the case?

From what I have seen, when the FX-8150 beats the 2600K at video conversion, the margin is very small.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
February 7, 2012 11:25:22 AM

opalarrow said:
If the files you are converting are already on your HDD then your bottleneck should be the CPU. From benches I've seen the FX-8150 is quicker than the 2600K (both at stock speeds) by a fair margin. That being said, how time critical is video conversion?

friend, do not ans blindly fx 8150 isn't quicker than 2600k however 2500k is better then fx 8150 they aren't too powerful cpu's.
m
0
l
a c 119 à CPUs
February 7, 2012 11:48:29 AM

its another troll post except there now trying to troll on the old intels.... the new fx is better at 1 thing only and thats photoshop render it will give a good 5 percent extra. on video conversion theres little to no difference and on everything else the fx gets beaten to a pulp by as much as 50% or more... so please stop with these new accounts asking silly questions and making false claims...

the fx is a cheap server part end of story... amd will eol it as soon as they can replace it...
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
February 7, 2012 2:05:17 PM

If you want to upgrade for that kind of budget = FX 8150 price class
Another similar cost option is the i7-2600k IF you live near a microcenter (since through newegg it should cost 50 bucks more than FX-8150)
AMD FX-8150 vs Intel Core i5 2600K

If you a want cheaper, but overall better CPU, you should check the i5-2500k.
As per this link: AMD FX-8150 vs Intel Core i5 2500K
If you check carefully the i5-2500k is faster in almost all aspects than the FX-8150, except x264 HD Encond Test - 2nd pass (i5-2500k is faster in the 1st pass), and some of the rendering options

All this without mentioning the huge difference in power consumption, if you OC both CPUs the difference go way deeper yet (the Intel ones are more power friendly)

Power consumption:
The Bulldozer Review: AMD FX-8150 Tested - Power Consumption
AMD FX-8150 Power Consumption
Power Consumption: FX 8150 v i5 2500k v i7 2600k

As example: If you OC both CPUs (2600k and FX-8150) to 5ghz levels, to speed up video encoding, let's say it's your primary usage, and you does this about 4 hours a day.
Let's assume an average power consumption based in these OC test, power difference = 224W, 4 hours/day, 30 days/month equals almost 27kWh
Here in Brazil a 1kWh costs about USD0,30 -> roughly power bill will be USD 8 a month expensive if you stick with FX-8150 OC, than i7-2600k (without mentioning the i7-2600k realistic would spend less time doing it, since it's faster)
In 6 months you would save enough to pay the i7-2600k difference :) 
m
0
l
August 4, 2013 2:10:38 PM

opalarrow said:
If the files you are converting are already on your HDD then your bottleneck should be the CPU. From benches I've seen the FX-8150 is quicker than the 2600K (both at stock speeds) by a fair margin. That being said, how time critical is video conversion?


they will be the same when they are ovecloecked. amd puts their clock speeds a bit closer to max overclocing than Intel
m
0
l
!