Video editing rig: AMD FX-9590 5.0 Ghz for $850 or an overclocked Intel Core i7 4770K for $350

AMD Fx-9590 vs. Intel Core i7 4770K

  • Fx-9590

    Votes: 11 34.4%
  • i7-4770K

    Votes: 21 65.6%

  • Total voters
    32

Jacky791

Honorable
Sep 20, 2012
22
0
10,510
I was wondering which would be the better option for a video editing rig? The AMD computer gives me 8 full cores, while the Intel option only gives 8 HT and 4 cores but I can save about $500 which I could put towards maxing out the RAM to 32 GB on an 1150 z78 board. The AMD is also clocked faster at 5 Ghz but I think I can get close to that via overclocking with a 4770K with a good cooler and sufficient voltages.

Which would you go for?
 

dottorrent

Honorable
I would not recommend the 9590, unless you have the cooler and motherboard to go with. The Core i7 is a better choice. Uses much, much less energy, requires just a standard 1150 pin set motherboard with a 120w TDP limit than a gaming board and is faster at stock.
 

ggrussell

Distinguished
Mar 28, 2010
8
0
18,510
Nov 6 -- AMD FX-9590 is only $350 if you can find it. FX9370 is only $270 on Amazon. There are several real 64bit consumer video editors that are highly threaded and would perform just as well on AMD.

I'm comparing the same two CPUs and have read many posts that the Intel 4770k doesn't overclock well at all. Nothing stable over 4.1Ghz and uses 220watts when OC'ed , too. So no power saving at all.

The only difference I can see is that the Intel Z87 usually have more features than the AMD 990FX mobos. I'll go with AMD and save enough money for 16GB more RAM.
 

popatim

Titan
Moderator
Wow those have certainly dropped in price and certainly would make a good editing rig comparable to an i7-4770. I've been considering a i7-4930k build for my next editing rig but couldnt find a motherbd I liked that also go good reviews. But now will have to reconsider. Thanks!
 

logainofhades

Titan
Moderator


$350 is still too much for a factory overclock FX 8350.
 

kcrow11

Honorable
Jan 11, 2014
2
0
10,510
The AMD FX-9590 is the way to go! it's price is less than $300 now and it has double the cores of the i7. Oh and for those that think it is an overclocked 8350....you are wrong and should not hypothesize on things you know nothing about, the 9590 is a completely different processor in its self. Visit AMD's website and read about their 8 year plan for the FX processors if you would like to know more. Each year the processors get smaller, more energy efficient, faster, more L2 & L3 cache, and the prices continue to drop. They are always less than half if not 75% less than the newest i7, with equal performance if not better. This can clearly be seen when running them side by side on benchmark tests. Do your research before you provide an opinion, it makes you look smarter in the end ;)!
 

CooLWoLF

Distinguished

Wut...

Seriously, your just wrong.

 

CTurbo

Pizza Monster
Moderator
The AMD FX-9590 is the way to go! it's price is less than $300 now and it has double the cores of the i7. Oh and for those that think it is an overclocked 8350....you are wrong and should not hypothesize on things you know nothing about, the 9590 is a completely different processor in its self. Visit AMD's website and read about their 8 year plan for the FX processors if you would like to know more. Each year the processors get smaller, more energy efficient, faster, more L2 & L3 cache, and the prices continue to drop. They are always less than half if not 75% less than the newest i7, with equal performance if not better. This can clearly be seen when running them side by side on benchmark tests. Do your research before you provide an opinion, it makes you look smarter in the end ;) !

lol
 


http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/62166-amd-fx-9590-review-piledriver-5ghz.html

At its heart, the FX-9590 isn’t all that much different from previous FX-series CPUs. Like the FX-8350, it uses AMD’s 32nm Piledriver architecture, comes with 8MB of L2 cache and eight cores, supports DDR3 speeds of up to 1866MHz and can be used in conjunction with any supporting AM3+ motherboard. The 5GHz core frequency has been attained through the use of AMD’s Turbo Core 3.0 which allows a base clock of 4.7GHz to hit higher levels when the right conditions present themselves. Unfortunately, that doesn’t happen very often as our processor remained at 4.7GHz in most workloads.

As one might expect, actually getting a lower clocked architecture to hit such high levels requires some heavy-duty muscle alongside stringent binning. In this case, a massive amount of voltage -1.5V- has been applied and this has a secondary, nasty side effect: a substantial increase in heat production and power requirements. While the FX-8350’s TDP of 125W was deemed inefficient, the FX-9590 brings things to a whole new level with an estimated thermal output of 200W-220W. That’s an important number to remember when choosing a cooler since only the very best air-based solutions will be able to keep temperatures under control.


FX-9590:
FX-9590-3.png


FX-8350:
73967d1377007188-overclcok-amd-fx-8350-cpu-z.png
 

jed

Distinguished
May 21, 2004
314
0
18,780




Thank you Sir, for clearing up that barrage of misinformation, it's pretty ironic coming from a person
who made this statement "you are wrong and should not hypothesize on things you know nothing about"
while doing exactly that.
 

Praise_Gaben

Honorable
Dec 1, 2013
345
0
10,860


It has 8 cores to even come close to competing with the 4770k which has 4 cores.

AMD makes nice processors for low/midend (760k, fx6300, fx-8320) but especially for high end intel is the way to go.
 

logainofhades

Titan
Moderator


You necro a thread that hadn't seen a post in 2 months, then post a bunch of BS. Way to go! :pfff: There really needs to be a time limit for automatic closure of a thread unless the OP wants to continue the discussion. This thread has been brought back from the dead twice. :lol: