Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Best 4 core CPU

Tags:
Last response: in CPUs
Share
June 16, 2012 11:43:20 AM

I am thinking about buying the Intel Core i7-2600K Processor (quad core) and it costs $300. I am wondering about if i could get a better CPU, performance wise, that is around the same price or cheaper.

Also i am puzzled as to why you can get 8 Core CPU's for alot cheaper like the AMD FX-8150 FX 8-Core ($200) is there much of a difference?

I am going to be mostly video editing HD videos and i want the best performance. So i guess what im trying to ask is what is the most powerful CPU for video editing? and my budget is $300.

thnks

More about : core cpu

a b à CPUs
June 16, 2012 12:02:24 PM

The difference is that the architecture used on the 2600k is better than the one used on the AMD FX. If you search for benchmarks and comparisons you will notice that despite having more cores it performs worse. However you will also notice that when the work is heavy (like video encoding) the extra cores can make a difference.
m
0
l
June 16, 2012 12:06:24 PM

The i7 is more powerful than any AMD CPU, especially for video editing (the high clock speeds of the AMD FX can be good for gaming).

You might want to consider a i7 2500k, however. A slight overclock will bring its performance up to tjat of the 2600k, and will save you some money.
m
0
l
Related resources
a c 352 à CPUs
June 16, 2012 10:01:05 PM

...and, hyper threading on the i7 effectively turns it into an 8 core.
m
0
l
a c 186 à CPUs
June 16, 2012 10:06:35 PM

^+1

As well, sandybridge and ivybridge cores are roughly 15-25% respectively faster. You also want to consider the i7-3770K.
m
0
l
a c 147 à CPUs
June 16, 2012 10:25:50 PM

The hyperthreaded cores of the i7 dont play a huge role in video editing imo, depends on the software & version you use. I remeber sony vegas used to run worse with HT for example.

The i5-2500k is right on the heals of the i7-2600k performance wise, and the fx-8150 is no slouch either (again alot depends on the software being used)
m
0
l
June 20, 2012 11:16:37 AM

popatim said:
The hyperthreaded cores of the i7 dont play a huge role in video editing imo, depends on the software & version you use. I remeber sony vegas used to run worse with HT for example.

The i5-2500k is right on the heals of the i7-2600k performance wise, and the fx-8150 is no slouch either (again alot depends on the software being used)


Hi, i will be using mostly adobe after effects, premiere and photoshop...

thnks
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
June 20, 2012 1:19:14 PM

jebbo said:
Hi, i will be using mostly adobe after effects, premiere and photoshop...

thnks


In that case i think u can save $100 by going with the FX 8150, if u don't mind a slight slow down :) 
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8150-zambezi-bul...

Anyway, if u can wait till Nov, the FX 8350 promises to be atleast 15-20% faster than the current FX 8150.

If however, absolute performance is the only requirement, then the Core i7 is the way to go :)  It also draws upto 30W less power than the FX at full load :) 
m
0
l
June 22, 2012 1:30:07 AM

$hawn said:
In that case i think u can save $100 by going with the FX 8150, if u don't mind a slight slow down :) 
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8150-zambezi-bul...

Anyway, if u can wait till Nov, the FX 8350 promises to be atleast 15-20% faster than the current FX 8150.

If however, absolute performance is the only requirement, then the Core i7 is the way to go :)  It also draws upto 30W less power than the FX at full load :) 


Thanks for the help but i think im gonna stay with the i7
m
0
l
a c 146 à CPUs
June 22, 2012 4:49:46 PM

15-20% increase in performance, I highly doubt it. It will probably be more like 10% in the end the Piledriver isn't going to be much better than Bulldozer. It sounds like you made your decision and I think for what you want to do you would be better off with the I7. Yes the Bulldozer can beat out the I7 in highly threaded programs but only in highly threaded programs and just barley. The I7 with hyper threading enabled isn't that far behind. The I7 is the better all around CPU it can handle both lightly threaded programs and heavily threaded programs.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
June 23, 2012 4:48:23 AM

Not sure if you live in the US or not, but you can get a 3770k at Micro Center for $289--if you can find one. Or if not, you can get the 3770, not unlocked and limits OC, for $259. Either will give you better performance if both are at stock clocks.
m
0
l
June 23, 2012 6:44:33 AM

Keanu Reeves said:
Not sure if you live in the US or not, but you can get a 3770k at Micro Center for $289--if you can find one. Or if not, you can get the 3770, not unlocked and limits OC, for $259. Either will give you better performance if both are at stock clocks.


i live australia and i am ordering everything on amazon... any way the 3770k (i want to OC) is $40 more than the 2600k... is it worth the extra $40?
m
0
l
June 23, 2012 6:49:03 AM

sorry for the off-topic question but is there a well trusted internet site to buy PC components off? so far im using amazon which have a pretty good range of products but does anyone know a internet site mainly for ordering PC components? (that ship to australia) I cant seem to find many... thnks
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
June 23, 2012 6:59:16 AM

rds1220 said:
15-20% increase in performance, I highly doubt it.


Well, desktop trinity is already 15% faster than BD on an average....and that's without L3 cache....keeping the same 125W envelope, i guess 20% seems quite easy to achieve. 15% from IPC and 10% from higher clocks using cyclos technology:) 

Anyway i just suggested the FX from a price point of view.....if u want all round performance, then like u said, the i7's the way to go :) 
m
0
l
June 24, 2012 2:24:51 AM

A Solid State Drive (SSD) will be what spreads it up, if you don't know what they are then google.

They offer very high speads for loading programs and such, basically an upgrade from a hard drive for programs and to boot the os 50% faster on.
m
0
l
June 24, 2012 3:28:36 AM

deathrune said:
A Solid State Drive (SSD) will be what spreads it up, if you don't know what they are then google.

They offer very high speads for loading programs and such, basically an upgrade from a hard drive for programs and to boot the os 50% faster on.


I was considering an SSD but they are so expensive! ive already maxed out my budget as it is and yes the performance is amazing but they hold so little space and i need space and i could have a HDD for the space and the SSD as the operating system but again my budget... but thanks anyway
m
0
l
!