Why Not an AMD ??..Is going economical a compromise ?

[tortvoice v]

Hello Folks ! I am new to pc building and the hardware. I am not looking just for easy answers but very much willing to do further research once i get some directions..So Please help me out here..

I want to build my first pc for video editing so i started my research about the cpu first. Got to know that Intel dual xeon and hexa core extreme series are the top notch choices among the industry professionals below that stand i7 hexa cores K series and then comes i7 quad core cpus. Mostly people recommend at least an Intel i7 quad core cpu for a video editing system.

Its not like i am trying to defy their wisdom but genuinely curious about 'Why Not an Amd ?' Fx-8350 has 8 cores, 4.00 GHz oced up to 4.20 GHz, 4*2 MB L2 and 8 MB L3 cache. i guess higher TDPs and no iGPU can not be significant enough reasons.. I have seen the benchmark comparisons across the web but can anyone explain what makes Intel's HyperThreading technology beat the Amd cpus in popularity?

I have been doing some editing with the windows movie maker on my hp laptop (i3-3110M 2.40 GHz). That's my only practical experience with the video editing and i love it and decided for an upgrade but don't want to go all the way to xeons and hexa cores.

I am going to buy recently launched Panasonic Lumix DMC FZ1000 which records videos up to @ 100 Mbps and has 1" image sensor. I would like to dabble my hands in creative things like chroma, 2D/3D animation, live action & animation compositing with various VFXs. So i will be working with a few layers of videos and VFXs within a single frame. My source footage will be 1080p mp4 or avchd @ 28 Mbps.http://www.dpreview.com/products/panasonic/compacts/panasonic_dmcfz1000/specifications

So looking forward to build an economical video editing system capable of handling all the above mentioned creative pursuits.

In the beginning i will be using Adobe Premier, After Effects, Blender, Gimp, Handbrake and Da Vinci Resolve Lite. Using Premier and After effects because i am yet to discover their worthy Open Source substitutes and if there are any please do suggest..

Longer rendering durations are not the issue for me but EFFICIENCY IS.

Consider the same configurations and If i am running my pc for 5 hrs daily, TDP difference between Amd(125 W) and Intel(84 W) is 40 Watts, does it mean that per month an Amd system will consume (40W* 5 hrs* 30 days)/1000=6 Units more than an Intel system...Am i right or i am missing out on something here ?

Any suggestions for Graphics Card that can help me to achieve all that i am aspiring for...


All your suggestions will be a great help for me.


Thanks

 

[RobCrezz]

Its not the clockspeed, or the heat output so much, its the fact that an modern intel quad core with HT running at the same clock speed is faster - all while using less power. They are just more efficient.

Also worth bearing in mind is how much the programs can use GPU accelleration like CUDA (nvidia) or OpenCL (AMD mainly..). Generally if a program can be accellerated by a GPU, it will be considerably faster than what a CPU can do.

 

[DubbleClick]

Clockspeed doesn't matter all that much, it's about architecture and efficiency. If a cpu computes with 1ghz but each 10ns, it would be faster than a 5ghz cpu, getting new data to compute each 100ns.

 

[gamerk316]

Simple explanation: The clock speed is simply a measure of how many cycles of work a CPU can do each second. For each clock cycle, a CPU can do a certain amount of work. And Intel gets far more work done for each cycle of work, and thus, is faster despite having fewer cores and having a lower clock speed.

A rough estimate right now is two AMD cores roughly equate the performance of one Intel core.

 

[2Be_or_Not2Be]

As some of the other posters above have alluded, the Intel CPUs are just more efficient than the AMD CPUs. Watt vs watt, an individual core on the AMD cpu simply is not as powerful & effective as a single core on the Intel CPU.

As a result, Intel CPUs are more thread-efficient than AMD CPUs. So when you have a video-editing app that can spin off multiple threads (rendering or other areas), then that efficiency becomes even more pronounced over the AMD solution.

Since you use Handbrake, check out these comparisons on Anandtech with the latest "Devil's Canyon" Intel CPU. It shows performance numbers in Handbrake for both Intel and AMD CPUs. As you can see, the Intel CPUs are quite a bit faster than the AMD CPU.

 

[tortvoice v]

Its not the clockspeed, or the heat output so much, its the fact that an modern intel quad core with HT running at the same clock speed is faster - all while using less power. They are just more efficient.

Also worth bearing in mind is how much the programs can use GPU accelleration like CUDA (nvidia) or OpenCL (AMD mainly..). Generally if a program can be accellerated by a GPU, it will be considerably faster than what a CPU can do.

Beginning to realize that i should go with i5-4690k build without a discrete GPU for sometime, meanwhile can assess the limitations of the integrated GPU with my applications. With hands on experience i will be in better position to decide about the discrete Graphics Card. Hope that it will be a better approach in comparison to buy a discrete Graphics Card straight away..

 

[tortvoice v]

Simple explanation: The clock speed is simply a measure of how many cycles of work a CPU can do each second. For each clock cycle, a CPU can do a certain amount of work. And Intel gets far more work done for each cycle of work, and thus, is faster despite having fewer cores and having a lower clock speed.

A rough estimate right now is two AMD cores roughly equate the performance of one Intel core.

So Intel Team of 4 Executives(cores)+ 4 Secretaries(HT) are more efficient than AMD with 8 Executives(cores). They(Intel) accomplish 'more' and 'better' in the given period of time...

 

[tortvoice v]

Clockspeed doesn't matter all that much, it's about architecture and efficiency. If a cpu computes with 1ghz but each 10ns, it would be faster than a 5ghz cpu, getting new data to compute each 100ns.

means if equal no. of tasks are assigned between AMD and Intel... Intel cpus juggle better therefore finish the work better and earlier...

 

[2Be_or_Not2Be]

Simple explanation: The clock speed is simply a measure of how many cycles of work a CPU can do each second. For each clock cycle, a CPU can do a certain amount of work. And Intel gets far more work done for each cycle of work, and thus, is faster despite having fewer cores and having a lower clock speed.

A rough estimate right now is two AMD cores roughly equate the performance of one Intel core.

So Intel Team of 4 Executives(cores)+ 4 Secretaries(HT) are more efficient than AMD with 8 Executives(cores). They(Intel) accomplish 'more' and 'better' in the given period of time...

Haha.... that's kind of funny, considering a lot of the "assistants" I see have to do more work than the executive. You may need a different object for your analogy there!

 

[ZeroRequiem]

Simple explanation: The clock speed is simply a measure of how many cycles of work a CPU can do each second. For each clock cycle, a CPU can do a certain amount of work. And Intel gets far more work done for each cycle of work, and thus, is faster despite having fewer cores and having a lower clock speed.

A rough estimate right now is two AMD cores roughly equate the performance of one Intel core.

So Intel Team of 4 Executives(cores)+ 4 Secretaries(HT) are more efficient than AMD with 8 Executives(cores). They(Intel) accomplish 'more' and 'better' in the given period of time...

Don't forget that AMD doesnt have 8 executives, rather 4 executives + 4 part-time execs. AMD rather utilizes the phisical form of hyperthreading, if you know what i mean.

 

[tortvoice v]

Simple explanation: The clock speed is simply a measure of how many cycles of work a CPU can do each second. For each clock cycle, a CPU can do a certain amount of work. And Intel gets far more work done for each cycle of work, and thus, is faster despite having fewer cores and having a lower clock speed.

A rough estimate right now is two AMD cores roughly equate the performance of one Intel core.

So Intel Team of 4 Executives(cores)+ 4 Secretaries(HT) are more efficient than AMD with 8 Executives(cores). They(Intel) accomplish 'more' and 'better' in the given period of time...

Haha.... that's kind of funny, considering a lot of the "assistants" I see have to do more work than the executive. You may need a different object for your analogy there!

Yeah..agree with you As ZeroRequiem put it in a better way.. 4 execs +4 'part time' execs

 

[tortvoice v]

Simple explanation: The clock speed is simply a measure of how many cycles of work a CPU can do each second. For each clock cycle, a CPU can do a certain amount of work. And Intel gets far more work done for each cycle of work, and thus, is faster despite having fewer cores and having a lower clock speed.

A rough estimate right now is two AMD cores roughly equate the performance of one Intel core.

So Intel Team of 4 Executives(cores)+ 4 Secretaries(HT) are more efficient than AMD with 8 Executives(cores). They(Intel) accomplish 'more' and 'better' in the given period of time...

Don't forget that AMD doesnt have 8 executives, rather 4 executives + 4 part-time execs. AMD rather utilizes the phisical form of hyper threading, if you know what i mean.

i am confused here between AMD's physical form of Hyper Threading and Intel's Hyper Threading...would appreciate if you elaborate the difference between them...

 

[kira70591]

If you will be doing editing then go with the i7 instead of the i5. The workload can be spread out among the threads (4 more than an i5) and the workload will be accomplished in a more timely manner. Most editing programs take use of more threads at this time. Some still gain performance increases from high single core frequency but most of the time your higher tier software will utilize more threads than depending on single core performance.

It sounds like you will have this machine running quite a bit as well. You need to consider power management and consumption. Intel is just plain more efficient with their power usage which will save you money over time. If you are going to install a GPU then you can also look at using a Xeon.

 

[Iron124]

For most industry standards, Intel has been the way to go with most things related to heavy rendering and video editing. This is likely due to a higher efficiency than what AMD offers.

However, one thing to consider is that an 8350 CPU right now costs only $159 on Amazon. A comparatively priced intel CPU sits at around a Core i3 4340. The 8350 would absolutely plow that into the ground, no question. In the sake of "efficiency", price-to-performance comes into play, and you have to decide if the extra voltage is actually worth it. Home energy cost for the 8350 comes in at around $56.10 per year, with commercial energy costs coming in at around $159.62. That's basically running that chip maxed out all year in a commercial environment, and I bet it still uses less electricity than your dryer.

Many here will tell you to go intel, and it is honestly not a bad way to go, you're going to be spending more to get more at a higher price point (say $350 for a proper i7 to do what you want well) but don't count AMD out. Their architecture is inferior, but if AMD excells in one thing, it is absolute raw power. That chip isn't drawing 220W to cook an egg, it has 8 cores that most rendering software can take advantage of and utilize, something not commonly found in most other apps (such as games) causing the chip to be overlooked in favor of a hyperthreaded Intel CPU.

The choice is yours, but AMD is a contender. If not, I'd suggest something along the lines of an i7 4770k, if your budget would allow for it. (around $300)

As far as graphics cards go, if you're looking into video editing, 3d animation, and in 1080p or in the future higher resolutions, NVIDIA's CUDA technology should really help you there (or so I've been told). 2GB is enough but I would recommend 4GB, just to give that software enough room to utilize its full potential. A 4GB GTX 760 comes in at about $250. (Again, unsure of your budget.)

 

[kira70591]

If you are going to be editing professionally for a job then you time is worth its weight in gold. You will likely keep the CPU around for a couple of years and seconds that are saved add up quickly over that amount of time. If you save a substantial amount of time while waiting for things to render, then that time can be put forth onto other projects which means more money for you.

 

[2Be_or_Not2Be]

For most industry standards, Intel has been the way to go with most things related to heavy rendering and video editing. This is likely due to a higher efficiency than what AMD offers.

However, one thing to consider is that an 8350 CPU right now costs only $159 on Amazon. A comparatively priced intel CPU sits at around a Core i3 4340. The 8350 would absolutely plow that into the ground, no question. In the sake of "efficiency", price-to-performance comes into play, and you have to decide if the extra voltage is actually worth it. Home energy cost for the 8350 comes in at around $56.10 per year, with commercial energy costs coming in at around $159.62. That's basically running that chip maxed out all year in a commercial environment, and I bet it still uses less electricity than your dryer.

Many here will tell you to go intel, and it is honestly not a bad way to go, you're going to be spending more to get more at a higher price point (say $350 for a proper i7 to do what you want well) but don't count AMD out. Their architecture is inferior, but if AMD excells in one thing, it is absolute raw power. That chip isn't drawing 220W to cook an egg, it has 8 cores that most rendering software can take advantage of and utilize, something not commonly found in most other apps (such as games) causing the chip to be overlooked in favor of a hyperthreaded Intel CPU.

The choice is yours, but AMD is a contender. If not, I'd suggest something along the lines of an i7 4770k, if your budget would allow for it. (around $300)

I have to disagree with you. If you're going to spend any significant amount of time in video editing & rendering, you pretty much have to go with Intel for new builds. AMD simply is not a contender. In a recent video editing/rendering (Handbrake) benchmark in the Anandtech review of the Intel i7-4790k, virtually every Intel processor beats the AMD 8350. This 8-core processor was even beat by a dual-core i3 4360 in one Handbrake test.

So if you're doing this professionally, time is money, as kira70591 noted. The price difference would be paid back in the first rendering using the Intel chip, and that "payback" will only increase every time you work with it. Power savings definitely won't pay back; Intel chips have been miserly compared to AMD's power consumption. Even if it did, the money you saved in rendering time would easily pay for any possible power increase.

If you're worried about price, later on you can add a discrete graphics card, if you find an app that will specifically benefit from it. But make sure you get your base platform right from the beginning.

 

[tortvoice v]

I have been editing with windows movie maker which is level 1 of video editing, just like applying first few cuts in a 3 hour movie timeline(Metaphor). i am well aware of the fact that it will be long journey till i establish myself as a Professional. Initially most of the time will be spent in skill development and the rest in applying them. In the beginning earning will take the back seat for some time. Once i develop my rhythm and flow, speed factor will become crucial. Honestly these are the reasons why i am Ok with a not so fast cpu for now.
At present it doesn't matter to me if..
Mr. AMD takes half an hour more than Mr. Intel provided Mr. AMD does it AS GOOD AS Mr. Intel.
OR if..
Intel i5 takes half an hour more than Mr. i7 provided i5 does it AS GOOD AS Intel i7.

So far none of my projects exceeded 15 mins duration.
Video editing also generated my interest in PC building so i decided to learn and Do It Myself. Won't go for a locked cpu as i am looking forward to Overclocking and try as many things as i can.

My budget is $1200 including the monitor & peripherals. It doesn't mean that i am AMD bound, if i choose the Intel, i can leave the graphics card for later as 2Be_or_Not2Be suggested earlier..

 

[Iron124]

I have been editing with windows movie maker which is level 1 of video editing, a first cut in a 3 hour movie timeline(Metaphor). i am well aware of the fact that it will be long journey till i establish myself as a Professional. Initially most of the time will be spent in skill development and the rest in applying them. In the beginning earning will take the back seat for some time. Once i develop my rhythm and flow, speed factor will become crucial. Honestly these are the reasons why i am Ok with a not so fast cpu.
For now it doesn't matter to me if..
Mr. AMD takes half an hour more than Mr. Intel provided Mr. AMD does it AS GOOD AS Mr. Intel.
OR if..
Intel i5 takes half an hour more than Mr. i7 provided i5 does it AS GOOD AS Intel i7.

So far none of my projects exceeded 15 mins duration.
Video editing also generated my interest in PC building so i decided to learn and Do It Myself. Won't go for a locked cpu as i am looking forward to Overclocking and try as many things as i can.

My budget is $1200 including the monitor & peripherals. It doesn't mean that i am AMD bound, if i choose the Intel, i can leave the graphics card for later as 2Be_or_Not2Be suggested earlier..

There really isn't such a thing as "as good as" in video rendering, that time is usually measured in speed, which equals efficiency, which means more work that gets done. You could essentially render anything you need with any CPU given you have the patience for it. A Celeron could render a 3-hour 1080p movie given you let it have 10 hours to miserably hack away at it.

With a budget of $1200, you can build a perfectly adequate higher-end PC capable of doing everything you need. And because it is a slightly higher price point, I would recommend Intel over AMD. This also leaves you with room for more of an upgrade path. Have a look at this as an example:

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel Core i5-4690K 3.5GHz Quad-Core Processor ($219.99 @ Newegg)
CPU Cooler: Zalman CNPS5X Performa CPU Cooler ($14.99 @ Newegg)
Motherboard: MSI Z97 PC MATE ATX LGA1150 Motherboard ($89.99 @ Newegg)
Memory: PNY XLR8 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR3-1600 Memory ($139.00 @ Amazon)
Storage: PNY Optima 240GB 2.5" Solid State Drive ($92.98 @ Newegg)
Storage: Seagate Barracuda 2TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($69.99 @ NCIX US)
Video Card: Zotac GeForce GTX 760 4GB Video Card ($250.98 @ SuperBiiz)
Case: Corsair SPEC-01 RED ATX Mid Tower Case ($33.99 @ NCIX US)
Power Supply: EVGA SuperNOVA NEX 750W 80+ Bronze Certified Semi-Modular ATX Power Supply ($59.99 @ Newegg)
Optical Drive: LG GH24NSB0 DVD/CD Writer ($13.99 @ Newegg)
Operating System: Microsoft Windows 7 Home Premium SP1 (OEM) (64-bit) ($84.98 @ OutletPC)
Monitor: Gateway KX2153 Abd 60Hz 21.5" Monitor ($89.99 @ Newegg)
Keyboard: Cooler Master CM Storm Devastator Gaming Bundle Wired Gaming Keyboard w/Optical Mouse ($29.99 @ Amazon)
Total: $1190.85
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-07-22 18:18 EDT-0400

Even got the peripherals in there, and all under budget. This will also give you the option to try your hand at overclocking.

 

[kira70591]

For another $15 or so you could get a Cooler Master Hyper 212 Evo. This is one of the best coolers when it comes to price / performance ratio and it would only put a couple of dollars over budget if you decided to go with something such as the above build.

 

[ZeroRequiem]

Simple explanation: The clock speed is simply a measure of how many cycles of work a CPU can do each second. For each clock cycle, a CPU can do a certain amount of work. And Intel gets far more work done for each cycle of work, and thus, is faster despite having fewer cores and having a lower clock speed.

A rough estimate right now is two AMD cores roughly equate the performance of one Intel core.

So Intel Team of 4 Executives(cores)+ 4 Secretaries(HT) are more efficient than AMD with 8 Executives(cores). They(Intel) accomplish 'more' and 'better' in the given period of time...

Don't forget that AMD doesnt have 8 executives, rather 4 executives + 4 part-time execs. AMD rather utilizes the phisical form of hyper threading, if you know what i mean.

i am confused here between AMD's physical form of Hyper Threading and Intel's Hyper Threading...would appreciate if you elaborate the difference between them...

Stick to the office example:
Let's say an AMD 8 core CPU is an office. Normally (in intels case for example) each core would be an executive right? Well not here, since there are 4 "true" phisical cores and 4 "other" cores, 1-1 of them shares the same cache and so on.
Translating this to our office example, that means our AMD CPU office has 4 executives working with computers for example, and 4 high school graduates helping the executives out (1 graduate for each exec. of course). But the high schoolers cant use the computers BUT they can help the execs. out by bringing them paper clips, using the copier, making coffee etc.
While this is a rough example it kinda looks like this, use your imagination

 

[tortvoice v]

For another $15 or so you could get a Cooler Master Hyper 212 Evo. This is one of the best coolers when it comes to price / performance ratio and it would only put a couple of dollars over budget if you decided to go with something such as the above build.

Since i'll be overclocking, guess 212 Evo is the way to go.

 

[tortvoice v]

I have been editing with windows movie maker which is level 1 of video editing, a first cut in a 3 hour movie timeline(Metaphor). i am well aware of the fact that it will be long journey till i establish myself as a Professional. Initially most of the time will be spent in skill development and the rest in applying them. In the beginning earning will take the back seat for some time. Once i develop my rhythm and flow, speed factor will become crucial. Honestly these are the reasons why i am Ok with a not so fast cpu.
For now it doesn't matter to me if..
Mr. AMD takes half an hour more than Mr. Intel provided Mr. AMD does it AS GOOD AS Mr. Intel.
OR if..
Intel i5 takes half an hour more than Mr. i7 provided i5 does it AS GOOD AS Intel i7.

So far none of my projects exceeded 15 mins duration.
Video editing also generated my interest in PC building so i decided to learn and Do It Myself. Won't go for a locked cpu as i am looking forward to Overclocking and try as many things as i can.

My budget is $1200 including the monitor & peripherals. It doesn't mean that i am AMD bound, if i choose the Intel, i can leave the graphics card for later as 2Be_or_Not2Be suggested earlier..

There really isn't such a thing as "as good as" in video rendering, that time is usually measured in speed, which equals efficiency, which means more work that gets done. You could essentially render anything you need with any CPU given you have the patience for it. A Celeron could render a 3-hour 1080p movie given you let it have 10 hours to miserably hack away at it.

With a budget of $1200, you can build a perfectly adequate higher-end PC capable of doing everything you need. And because it is a slightly higher price point, I would recommend Intel over AMD. This also leaves you with room for more of an upgrade path. Have a look at this as an example:

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel Core i5-4690K 3.5GHz Quad-Core Processor ($219.99 @ Newegg)
CPU Cooler: Zalman CNPS5X Performa CPU Cooler ($14.99 @ Newegg)
Motherboard: MSI Z97 PC MATE ATX LGA1150 Motherboard ($89.99 @ Newegg)
Memory: PNY XLR8 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR3-1600 Memory ($139.00 @ Amazon)
Storage: PNY Optima 240GB 2.5" Solid State Drive ($92.98 @ Newegg)
Storage: Seagate Barracuda 2TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($69.99 @ NCIX US)
Video Card: Zotac GeForce GTX 760 4GB Video Card ($250.98 @ SuperBiiz)
Case: Corsair SPEC-01 RED ATX Mid Tower Case ($33.99 @ NCIX US)
Power Supply: EVGA SuperNOVA NEX 750W 80+ Bronze Certified Semi-Modular ATX Power Supply ($59.99 @ Newegg)
Optical Drive: LG GH24NSB0 DVD/CD Writer ($13.99 @ Newegg)
Operating System: Microsoft Windows 7 Home Premium SP1 (OEM) (64-bit) ($84.98 @ OutletPC)
Monitor: Gateway KX2153 Abd 60Hz 21.5" Monitor ($89.99 @ Newegg)
Keyboard: Cooler Master CM Storm Devastator Gaming Bundle Wired Gaming Keyboard w/Optical Mouse ($29.99 @ Amazon)
Total: $1190.85
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-07-22 18:18 EDT-0400

Even got the peripherals in there, and all under budget. This will also give you the option to try your hand at overclocking.

Its a big relief realising that i can pull it off within $1200. Actually i heard about cpu bottleneck, stuttering and frame drop issues with systems those are not upto the task, that's what i wary about...

 

[DubbleClick]

I have been editing with windows movie maker which is level 1 of video editing, a first cut in a 3 hour movie timeline(Metaphor). i am well aware of the fact that it will be long journey till i establish myself as a Professional. Initially most of the time will be spent in skill development and the rest in applying them. In the beginning earning will take the back seat for some time. Once i develop my rhythm and flow, speed factor will become crucial. Honestly these are the reasons why i am Ok with a not so fast cpu.
For now it doesn't matter to me if..
Mr. AMD takes half an hour more than Mr. Intel provided Mr. AMD does it AS GOOD AS Mr. Intel.
OR if..
Intel i5 takes half an hour more than Mr. i7 provided i5 does it AS GOOD AS Intel i7.

So far none of my projects exceeded 15 mins duration.
Video editing also generated my interest in PC building so i decided to learn and Do It Myself. Won't go for a locked cpu as i am looking forward to Overclocking and try as many things as i can.

My budget is $1200 including the monitor & peripherals. It doesn't mean that i am AMD bound, if i choose the Intel, i can leave the graphics card for later as 2Be_or_Not2Be suggested earlier..

There really isn't such a thing as "as good as" in video rendering, that time is usually measured in speed, which equals efficiency, which means more work that gets done. You could essentially render anything you need with any CPU given you have the patience for it. A Celeron could render a 3-hour 1080p movie given you let it have 10 hours to miserably hack away at it.

With a budget of $1200, you can build a perfectly adequate higher-end PC capable of doing everything you need. And because it is a slightly higher price point, I would recommend Intel over AMD. This also leaves you with room for more of an upgrade path. Have a look at this as an example:

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel Core i5-4690K 3.5GHz Quad-Core Processor ($219.99 @ Newegg)
CPU Cooler: Zalman CNPS5X Performa CPU Cooler ($14.99 @ Newegg)
Motherboard: MSI Z97 PC MATE ATX LGA1150 Motherboard ($89.99 @ Newegg)
Memory: PNY XLR8 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR3-1600 Memory ($139.00 @ Amazon)
Storage: PNY Optima 240GB 2.5" Solid State Drive ($92.98 @ Newegg)
Storage: Seagate Barracuda 2TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($69.99 @ NCIX US)
Video Card: Zotac GeForce GTX 760 4GB Video Card ($250.98 @ SuperBiiz)
Case: Corsair SPEC-01 RED ATX Mid Tower Case ($33.99 @ NCIX US)
Power Supply: EVGA SuperNOVA NEX 750W 80+ Bronze Certified Semi-Modular ATX Power Supply ($59.99 @ Newegg)
Optical Drive: LG GH24NSB0 DVD/CD Writer ($13.99 @ Newegg)
Operating System: Microsoft Windows 7 Home Premium SP1 (OEM) (64-bit) ($84.98 @ OutletPC)
Monitor: Gateway KX2153 Abd 60Hz 21.5" Monitor ($89.99 @ Newegg)
Keyboard: Cooler Master CM Storm Devastator Gaming Bundle Wired Gaming Keyboard w/Optical Mouse ($29.99 @ Amazon)
Total: $1190.85
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-07-22 18:18 EDT-0400

Even got the peripherals in there, and all under budget. This will also give you the option to try your hand at overclocking.

Its a big relief to know that i can pull it off within $1200. Actually i was wary about stuttering and frame drop issues..

No worries about that, that rig isn't just perfectly fine for rendering, it's also a beast for a gaming computer.
Just not sure about the RAM suggested, never heard of that brand. I'd personally go with 16gb of some 1866mhz+ ram.
The jump from 1333 to 2400 mhz is definitely noticeable in sony vegas.

 

[tortvoice v]

Simple explanation: The clock speed is simply a measure of how many cycles of work a CPU can do each second. For each clock cycle, a CPU can do a certain amount of work. And Intel gets far more work done for each cycle of work, and thus, is faster despite having fewer cores and having a lower clock speed.

A rough estimate right now is two AMD cores roughly equate the performance of one Intel core.

So Intel Team of 4 Executives(cores)+ 4 Secretaries(HT) are more efficient than AMD with 8 Executives(cores). They(Intel) accomplish 'more' and 'better' in the given period of time...

Don't forget that AMD doesnt have 8 executives, rather 4 executives + 4 part-time execs. AMD rather utilizes the phisical form of hyper threading, if you know what i mean.

i am confused here between AMD's physical form of Hyper Threading and Intel's Hyper Threading...would appreciate if you elaborate the difference between them...

Stick to the office example:
Let's say an AMD 8 core CPU is an office. Normally (in intels case for example) each core would be an executive right? Well not here, since there are 4 "true" phisical cores and 4 "other" cores, 1-1 of them shares the same cache and so on.
Translating this to our office example, that means our AMD CPU office has 4 executives working with computers for example, and 4 high school graduates helping the executives out (1 graduate for each exec. of course). But the high schoolers cant use the computers BUT they can help the execs. out by bringing them paper clips, using the copier, making coffee etc.
While this is a rough example it kinda looks like this, use your imagination

and i guess at Intel their secretaries(HT) can use the computers efficiently right...

 

[ZeroRequiem]

Simple explanation: The clock speed is simply a measure of how many cycles of work a CPU can do each second. For each clock cycle, a CPU can do a certain amount of work. And Intel gets far more work done for each cycle of work, and thus, is faster despite having fewer cores and having a lower clock speed.

A rough estimate right now is two AMD cores roughly equate the performance of one Intel core.

So Intel Team of 4 Executives(cores)+ 4 Secretaries(HT) are more efficient than AMD with 8 Executives(cores). They(Intel) accomplish 'more' and 'better' in the given period of time...

Don't forget that AMD doesnt have 8 executives, rather 4 executives + 4 part-time execs. AMD rather utilizes the phisical form of hyper threading, if you know what i mean.

i am confused here between AMD's physical form of Hyper Threading and Intel's Hyper Threading...would appreciate if you elaborate the difference between them...

Stick to the office example:
Let's say an AMD 8 core CPU is an office. Normally (in intels case for example) each core would be an executive right? Well not here, since there are 4 "true" phisical cores and 4 "other" cores, 1-1 of them shares the same cache and so on.
Translating this to our office example, that means our AMD CPU office has 4 executives working with computers for example, and 4 high school graduates helping the executives out (1 graduate for each exec. of course). But the high schoolers cant use the computers BUT they can help the execs. out by bringing them paper clips, using the copier, making coffee etc.
While this is a rough example it kinda looks like this, use your imagination

and i guess at Intel their secretaries(HT) can use the computers efficiently right...

No no at intel the "secretaries" are phisically not there, they are helping from their home remotely when needed