Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Building a PC for video editing (AMD vs Intel)

Tags:
  • CPUs
  • Video Editing
  • AMD
  • Intel
Last response: in CPUs
Share
September 7, 2012 5:32:18 PM

Hello hardware geniuses!

It is finally time for me to get a new PC. I'm a student who makes films. My basic need is good stable Adobe Premiere/After effects editing and rendering. I am working with 720P and later maybe 1080P HD video files and I need a machine which could manage it quickly and last for at least a couple of years. I also casually game but I know my way around graphic cards.

I've been looking at Intel processors (i5 and i7) and AMD (FX). The one thing that came to mind immediately is how cheap AMD processors are in comparison to Intel (btw, i am located in Germany).

AMD FX Series FX-8150 8x costs 170€ and is the most expensive for AMD's, whereas Intels go for 200€-300€. My question: is the performance that much different? will i gain that much by spending an extra 100-150€ on an Intel processor? or will the 8150/6200/4170 would be more worth it for what i need (editing and sometime a little gaming, nothing hardcore)?

any advice would be greatly appreciated.

cheers.

More about : building video editing amd intel

a c 78 à CPUs
a b À AMD
September 7, 2012 5:45:48 PM

If your software can use all 8 threads from the 8150, it's nice.

Intel is faster than AMD on a per-core, per-clock basis, though.

If you want to use hardware acceleration such as CUDA (Nvidia Graphics cards) or QuickSync (Intel internal GPU), Intel's quick sync seems to perform better in tests than CUDA.

I have not seen much difference between the two with Power Director 9 though.

If you want to keep your encoding "pure" and just use CPU renedering, the 8150 is a great value.

I would go with an 8120 because it can be overclocked to 8150 specs with ease, and costs less.
September 7, 2012 5:53:58 PM

Z1NONLY said:
If your software can use all 8 threads from the 8150, it's nice.

Intel is faster than AMD on a per-core, per-clock basis, though.

If you want to use hardware acceleration such as CUDA (Nvidia Graphics cards) or QuickSync (Intel internal GPU), Intel's quick sync seems to perform better in tests than CUDA.

I have not seen much difference between the two with Power Director 9 though.

If you want to keep your encoding "pure" and just use CPU renedering, the 8150 is a great value.

I would go with an 8120 because it can be overclocked to 8150 specs with ease, and costs less.


Thanks!

I've just found out that not many if any AMD motherboards have PCIe 3.0 as an option, and i wanted to get the 7850HD. This makes me wanna tend towards Intel but the price is pretty high for me.

Related resources
a c 283 à CPUs
a b À AMD
a b å Intel
September 7, 2012 5:56:32 PM

editordude said:
Thanks!

I've just found out that not many if any AMD motherboards have PCIe 3.0 as an option.


Try precisely 0, but that doesn't even matter. The 7850 would not be bottlenecked in a 2.0 slot. No single 3.0 card will.
September 7, 2012 10:07:42 PM

sorry for being and über noob, but does this mean that the 7850 can work on an AM+ motherboard? i thought PCIe 3.0 is a different slot physically.

Much appreciated.
a c 283 à CPUs
a b À AMD
a b å Intel
September 7, 2012 10:29:11 PM

editordude said:
sorry for being and über noob, but does this mean that the 7850 can work on an AM+ motherboard? i thought PCIe 3.0 is a different slot physically.

Much appreciated.


Oh yeah, that's no problem. 3.0 is totally backwards compatible with 2.0, so no issues there.
a c 109 à CPUs
September 7, 2012 11:14:54 PM

DJDeCiBeL said:
Oh yeah, that's no problem. 3.0 is totally backwards compatible with 2.0, so no issues there.

Adding onto what you said, PCI-E slots are all the same (size, dimensions, etc), 3.0 will work in 2.0, vice versa.
a b à CPUs
September 7, 2012 11:29:35 PM

Wait a few weeks for Piledriver. It will be for the best. If PD is a flop, then BD chips will be discounted. If it isn't, you could get a PD chip for the same price as the 8120 right now.
September 7, 2012 11:29:43 PM

Got it, thanks!

So the smart thing to do would be to buy AMD and save a 100€?
a c 109 à CPUs
September 7, 2012 11:33:07 PM

^ +1

Also, for the applications you are using, I would prefer to get something like a GTX560 and acceleration your programs with CUDA.
September 8, 2012 10:53:51 AM

thanks a lot for the answers, guys!

i've been snooping around online and AMD doesn't seem to be very lovable and there are some rumors about AMD postponing their new releases. what a weird world this CPU world is. GTX560 was my first intention, but then i saw that the 7850 costs only a tiny bit more but it's much newer and better and uses much newer technologies as far as i understood.

the FX-6100 got some really good reviews, anyone here have one?

about the few weeks, doesn't it take a little longer to reach Germany? and won't it be expensive in the beginning when it's launched?

sorry, i feel like i'm really dumbing things down here :D 
a b à CPUs
September 8, 2012 11:29:24 AM

Well, I've got a phenom II X4 965 BE, and I'm not regretting it. I do World Machine 2, Photoshop, Gaming, Maya, and a few other things, and it's just sweet. No hitches, no stutters. Ze only thing that is holding me back is my hard drive, but that is of no importance.
a b à CPUs
September 8, 2012 3:47:23 PM

Pretty much all rumors point to October for the release of PD.
September 8, 2012 4:17:27 PM

Its all about personal opinion. I just have a personal preference of AMD processors combined with NVIDIA graphics, but Intel is still great. I have an i5 sitting in my iMac and it works flawlessly. But i will admit that the cache speed of AMD is slower than those of intels.
a c 157 à CPUs
a b À AMD
a b å Intel
September 8, 2012 9:57:12 PM

AMD is based in Germany, that would be funny if Germany got their process last. <grin>
September 10, 2012 12:27:22 PM

thanks a lot for the info, guys. amd is literally *** with adobe premiere so i'm gonna forget that. probably going with the 2600K and either GTX570 or a 660TI as they both have mad Cuda cores.

Thank you!

a b à CPUs
September 10, 2012 3:51:38 PM

mocchan said:
^ +1

Also, for the applications you are using, I would prefer to get something like a GTX560 and acceleration your programs with CUDA.


Nonono!

CUDA is dead.

Adobe has adopted OpenCL now:

http://blogs.adobe.com/premiereprotraining/2012/05/open...
http://blogs.amd.com/fusion/2012/04/16/adobe-and-amd-br...

Any review that compares Intel Quick Sync to AMD Stream and nVIDIA CUDA finds that Quicksync is #2, follow by AMD Stream with nVIDIA CUDA dead last. This is in terms of both Image Quality as well as CPU usage with Performance being a mixed bag amongst the three.

Why do people continue to parrot 2-3 year old truths?


As for the nVIDIA 6x0 series (660/670/680) they tend to perform worse than their predecessors in a multitude of compute workloads. More cores does not mean better performance.

Your best bet is an Intel CPU and an AMD GPU for the workloads you're going to be doing. I should know... it's the same apps I use and why I built the rig listed bellow.


Quick Sync vs. CUDA vs. APP
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/sandy-bridge-core-i...
http://cuda-atistream-quicksync.reviews.r-tt.com/
http://www.extremetech.com/computing/128681-the-wretche...
http://www.behardware.com/articles/828-8/h-264-encoding...
September 12, 2012 8:25:55 PM

ElMoIsEviL said:
Nonono!

CUDA is dead.

Adobe has adopted OpenCL now:

http://blogs.adobe.com/premiereprotraining/2012/05/open...
http://blogs.amd.com/fusion/2012/04/16/adobe-and-amd-br...

Any review that compares Intel Quick Sync to AMD Stream and nVIDIA CUDA finds that Quicksync is #2, follow by AMD Stream with nVIDIA CUDA dead last. This is in terms of both Image Quality as well as CPU usage with Performance being a mixed bag amongst the three.

Why do people continue to parrot 2-3 year old truths?


As for the nVIDIA 6x0 series (660/670/680) they tend to perform worse than their predecessors in a multitude of compute workloads. More cores does not mean better performance.

Your best bet is an Intel CPU and an AMD GPU for the workloads you're going to be doing. I should know... it's the same apps I use and why I built the rig listed bellow.


Quick Sync vs. CUDA vs. APP
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/sandy-bridge-core-i...
http://cuda-atistream-quicksync.reviews.r-tt.com/
http://www.extremetech.com/computing/128681-the-wretche...
http://www.behardware.com/articles/828-8/h-264-encoding...



why aren't there more AMD cards in the charts? http://ppbm5.com/DB-PPBM5-2.php
i am currently contemplating between the 570 and the 660ti and leaning towards the 570 because it does so well in the Premiere benchmarks and sits perfectly within my budget. the AMD gpu's are not supported by premiere and neither is the 660ti officially (it can be hacked). i will have to purchase within the next few days, for me an AMD gpu is tempting, but it's a risk. it may or may not be supported in Premiere in the future.
a c 109 à CPUs
September 12, 2012 11:56:44 PM

Fermi GPU's are actually still the option to go when considering of GPU acceleration, and OP's temptation of a GTX570 isn't bad, that's actually one of the best cards to get for CUDA acceleration. 600 series are a no-no due to their compute lacking greatly.
a c 78 à CPUs
a b À AMD
September 13, 2012 1:19:21 AM

mocchan said:
Fermi GPU's are actually still the option to go when considering of GPU acceleration, and OP's temptation of a GTX570 isn't bad, that's actually one of the best cards to get for CUDA acceleration. 600 series are a no-no due to their compute lacking greatly.


Compute lacking?
!