Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Video Editing Intel Core i5 3470 Vs Amd AMD FX-8350

Tags:
  • CPUs
  • Intel
  • AMD
Last response: in CPUs
Share
February 10, 2013 8:20:37 PM

Hi Guys:

currently, running Intel Quad 9550 with 4 GB DDR2 for last 3 years or so.... thinking to upgrade with new CPU and more ram (most likely 16 GB)... which CPU would you recommend? No game and no overclocking....I have nVidia GTX 550ti and SSD HD crucial M4.

Thanks for your opinion.

More about : video editing intel core 3470 amd amd 8350

a c 104 à CPUs
a b å Intel
a b À AMD
February 10, 2013 8:35:09 PM

for video editing which use more core, FX-8350
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
February 10, 2013 8:35:25 PM

i think fx8350 is better for video editing
m
0
l
Related resources
a b à CPUs
February 10, 2013 9:35:05 PM

I would only pick an i7 3770k over the 8350 and even then its $100+ more, so maybe not.

Therefore the 8350 would be my choice here by a long shot!
m
0
l
a c 135 à CPUs
a b å Intel
a b À AMD
February 10, 2013 9:37:01 PM

the 8350 is just as good in design and video editing. and cost 120-130 less than the 3770k.

:) 

m
0
l
February 10, 2013 9:51:52 PM

Definitely the 8350. No doubt.
m
0
l
a c 135 à CPUs
a b å Intel
a b À AMD
February 10, 2013 9:54:06 PM

yep. best bang for bucks. i reckon

m
0
l
July 3, 2013 10:08:17 PM

The fx is way better unless you get an i7
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 23, 2013 6:44:27 PM

The 3470 would be a huge mistake for a video editing build. I don't even recommend it for a gaming build given the better value of the 3570k. As other have stated, budget-wise, the FX 8350 is a better choice but don't let this mislead you. The i5 3570K can give the FX 8350 a run for its money as it is.

What Intel will get you is hyperthreading. This goes A LONG WAY when editing. You can read up on it here: http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/architecture-and-technology/hyper-threading/hyper-threading-technology.html
m
0
l
January 31, 2014 10:49:21 PM

GamerDad said:
The 3470 would be a huge mistake for a video editing build. I don't even recommend it for a gaming build given the better value of the 3570k. As other have stated, budget-wise, the FX 8350 is a better choice but don't let this mislead you. The i5 3570K can give the FX 8350 a run for its money as it is.

What Intel will get you is hyperthreading. This goes A LONG WAY when editing. You can read up on it here: http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/architecture-and-technology/hyper-threading/hyper-threading-technology.html


Well the 3570K only has 4 cores, i do video rendering, etc when i use cinema 4D and i render, each core gives you a small box to render, basically each core renders a box. More cores =Faster rendering, so the 8350 has 8 cores, which means more performance for rendering / editing , While the 3570K is a very good CPU it wouldn't be ideal for rendering comparing to a 8-core processor.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
February 1, 2014 8:32:25 AM

ROGx said:
GamerDad said:
The 3470 would be a huge mistake for a video editing build. I don't even recommend it for a gaming build given the better value of the 3570k. As other have stated, budget-wise, the FX 8350 is a better choice but don't let this mislead you. The i5 3570K can give the FX 8350 a run for its money as it is.

What Intel will get you is hyperthreading. This goes A LONG WAY when editing. You can read up on it here: http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/architecture-and-technology/hyper-threading/hyper-threading-technology.html


Well the 3570K only has 4 cores, i do video rendering, etc when i use cinema 4D and i render, each core gives you a small box to render, basically each core renders a box. More cores =Faster rendering, so the 8350 has 8 cores, which means more performance for rendering / editing , While the 3570K is a very good CPU it wouldn't be ideal for rendering comparing to a 8-core processor.


The 3570K is a better buy (rather, the 4670k at this point). More cores does not mean better rendering. Hyperthreading makes up for that a lot . Speed of the processor is another big factor as is RAM and most importantly, whether his software uses multi-core rendering and how many of those cores it will use.

Nothing is as simple as black and white my friend.

Just look at the comparison chart: http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i5-4670K-vs-AMD-FX-8...

The two are nearly identical, with the Intel chip coming in a LITTLE more expensive with an annual savings of about 70$ in electricity. It's a no-brainer.
m
0
l
February 22, 2014 5:23:03 PM

GamerDad said:
ROGx said:
GamerDad said:
The 3470 would be a huge mistake for a video editing build. I don't even recommend it for a gaming build given the better value of the 3570k. As other have stated, budget-wise, the FX 8350 is a better choice but don't let this mislead you. The i5 3570K can give the FX 8350 a run for its money as it is.

What Intel will get you is hyperthreading. This goes A LONG WAY when editing. You can read up on it here: http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/architecture-and-technology/hyper-threading/hyper-threading-technology.html


Well the 3570K only has 4 cores, i do video rendering, etc when i use cinema 4D and i render, each core gives you a small box to render, basically each core renders a box. More cores =Faster rendering, so the 8350 has 8 cores, which means more performance for rendering / editing , While the 3570K is a very good CPU it wouldn't be ideal for rendering comparing to a 8-core processor.


The 3570K is a better buy (rather, the 4670k at this point). More cores does not mean better rendering. Hyperthreading makes up for that a lot . Speed of the processor is another big factor as is RAM and most importantly, whether his software uses multi-core rendering and how many of those cores it will use.

Nothing is as simple as black and white my friend.

Just look at the comparison chart: http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i5-4670K-vs-AMD-FX-8...

The two are nearly identical, with the Intel chip coming in a LITTLE more expensive with an annual savings of about 70$ in electricity. It's a no-brainer.


Well the 4570k (i5) doesen't have hypertreading. so no your stuck with 4 cores, and i garuntee you more cores gives you better rendering performance, Each Core renders a peice of it, More cores Equals more boxes? Make sense? i hope so please do some research.

m
0
l
a b à CPUs
February 22, 2014 5:30:56 PM

I can tell you 8350 with 16 - 32 GB ram would be good , works well for me .
m
0
l
July 17, 2014 5:00:46 AM

I had a 8320 which is pretty much a 8350 with a lower clock, And trust me the 8 core thing is all hype and just advertisement. Now the 8320 is a good CPU for the price, But the problem is you have to buy a expensive 990 motherboard and a aftermarket cooler because you have to overclock it before you can get the performance you expect out of it. And after all that you have pretty much paid more money than you would have for a faster i5 setup. And with the 8320 clocked as high as it can go it performs only a little better than a stock i5. The i5 overclocked? Forget about it! The 8320 falls behind. It would be different if AMD would either lower the price of the 8320/8350 and include a proper cooler, then you could actually save and get the proper bang for buck that it is supposed to offer. I know many will say you can overclock it with a 970 board. Yeah you can, But we all know how long the VRM's last on 970 boards running a overclocked 8 core don't we? So if you want a gaming rig and think you are going to save money going AMD, Save yourself allot of time and headaches and just buy a decent Non K i5 Ivy or Haswell with a motherboard that you can set the turbo multiplier speed up on, At stock that nonK with the turbo settings set just to 3.7ghz is already faster than the 8 core AMD overclocked. And you are only using 77-88 watts and on just the stock cooler you are running at much lower temps. And you saved $70-$100 bucks.
m
0
l
July 17, 2014 5:33:27 AM

Brian Blair said:
I had a 8320 which is pretty much a 8350 with a lower clock, And trust me the 8 core thing is all hype and just advertisement. Now the 8320 is a good CPU for the price, But the problem is you have to buy a expensive 990 motherboard and a aftermarket cooler because you have to overclock it before you can get the performance you expect out of it. And after all that you have pretty much paid more money than you would have for a faster i5 setup. And with the 8320 clocked as high as it can go it performs only a little better than a stock i5. The i5 overclocked? Forget about it! The 8320 falls behind. It would be different if AMD would either lower the price of the 8320/8350 and include a proper cooler, then you could actually save and get the proper bang for buck that it is supposed to offer. I know many will say you can overclock it with a 970 board. Yeah you can, But we all know how long the VRM's last on 970 boards running a overclocked 8 core don't we? So if you want a gaming rig and think you are going to save money going AMD, Save yourself allot of time and headaches and just buy a decent Non K i5 Ivy or Haswell with a motherboard that you can set the turbo multiplier speed up on, At stock that nonK with the turbo settings set just to 3.7ghz is already faster than the 8 core AMD overclocked. And you are only using 77-88 watts and on just the stock cooler you are running at much lower temps. And you saved $70-$100 bucks.


He specifically said no gaming, and no overlock, which is 90% of your post.
m
0
l
!