FX chips better than i5 for video editing?

[Loser Gamer]

Good Morning fellas

I could probably google but what the hell I figured I'd ask here.

I like to play my games but right now I am sitting here waiting for a long time with my phenom2 6 core while my edited video condenses down into a nice little mp4 for me.

FX the way to go?

 

[Blain]

No need to Google... Click Here or Here

 

[Loser Gamer]

I guess I need to just upgrade and get rid of this dinosaur.

Thanks fro the link they are nice
INTEL pretty much kicks ars

 

[Abwx]

For video editing the FX is as good as intel recent chips...

 

[Rickyyy369]

Definitely wouldn't bother with AMD at this stage of the game. An FX8 might be comparable to an i5 in one or two editing or encoding applications but its going to fall behind in absolutely everything else.

 

[Loser Gamer]

I hope AMD comes around on their next chip for sure. Them were the days when they clobbered INTEL with the 64 but hey.. its a new day.

I got to goes and buy me some INTEL for 2015.

 

[Abwx]

Definitely wouldn't bother with AMD at this stage of the game. An FX8 might be comparable to an i5 in one or two editing or encoding applications but its going to fall behind in absolutely everything else.

That s blanket statement out of hearsay...

Take a look at the application chart.

http://www.hardware.fr/focus/99/amd-fx-8370e-fx-8-coeurs-95-watts-test.html

So what is this "absolutely everything else"..??

 

[Loser Gamer]

Ok now I am going back to AMD. Is this a fight for my soul? I think the devil is amongst us.

 

[Abwx]

Let say that with a i5 you ll end spending 300$ or so and get a solution, or rather lack of, that is no better and even worse than simply using the same plateform and slap a 120$ FX8xxx, if the MB is compatible, of course, some will say that it s a dead plateform but the LGA1150 is dead as well upgradability wise, while the most expensive chips will provide no subsatancial benefit for most applications.

Average of all applications in the site i linked :

 

[Phynaz]

What applications will you be using, and what other hardware?

But, if you are planning on playing games at the same time as your video encodes are running there's nothing that will beat an i7 (except the Xeons).

 

[Sweepr]

some will say that it s a dead plateform but the LGA1150 is dead as well upgradability wise

No it's not. LGA1150 users will be able to upgrade to Broadwell-K next year. What about Steamroller/Excavator FX chips for AM3+?

while the most expensive chips will provide no subsatancial benefit for most applications

They are definitely competitive in highly MT applications, but there's also one small graph you might have missed, so let me post it (overall gaming performance).

 

[Abwx]

LGA1150 users will be able to upgrade to Broadwell-K next year

Not true.

http://www.hardware.fr/news/13310/broadwell-lga-incompatible-avec-lga-1150-actuelles.html

They are definitelly competitive in highly MT applications, but there's also one small graph you might have missed, so let me post it (overall gaming performance).

I missed nothing since i posted the whole link, besides the question was about video editing but since you like games i ll add that a few month ago the FXs were even more behind the Intel in this graph, it s just that games are progressively Mthreaded so thoses positions, as well as the applications ones, are not set in stone in a few years perspective.

 

[Rickyyy369]

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1289?vs=1198

AMD FX 9590 - $260 - 220w

Intel i5 4690 - $224 - 84w

If we exclude all the gaming benchmarks, the 9590, a 4.7Ghz 220w chip wins in 10 of the tests while the 3.5Ghz 84w 4690 wins 23 of the tests. I dont know about you but i'd consider that evidence pretty damning. If you want a really inefficient chip that is slower than an i5 in 2/3 of applications then sure, go for an FX8/9, they're okay in a couple things.

edit: and if gaming is important to you then maybe its worth mentioning that the 9590 wins literally none of the gaming benchmarks. Zero.

 

[Abwx]

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1289?vs=1198

AMD FX 9590 - $260 - 220w

Intel i5 4690 - $224 - 84w

If we exclude all the gaming benchmarks, the 9590, a 4.7Ghz 220w chip wins in 10 of the tests while the 3.5Ghz 84w 4690 wins 23 of the tests. I dont know about you but i'd consider that evidence pretty damning. If you want a really inefficient chip that is slower than an i5 in 2/3 of applications then sure, go for an FX8/9, they're okay in a couple things.

You consider the numerous renderings single threaded scores as relevants..??

You do renderings using single thread.?.

You can also remove 3D particle MT since it run only X87 on AMD CPUs, and so on, on the other hand the link i prvided is all about relevant applications while you had to rely on some SYsmarking wich is an Intel bench, same for WebXPRT for thoses who dont know..

As for AT Handbrake compare with Tech report..

 

[Loser Gamer]

After all of this bickering back and forth I have decided to stay with my Phenom 6 core and disappoint each of you.

 

[Rickyyy369]

You consider the numerous renderings single threaded scores as relevants..??

You do renderings using single thread.?.

You can also remove 3D particle MT since it run only X87 on AMD CPUs, and so on, on the other hand the link i prvided is all about relevant applications while you had to rely on some SYsmarking wich is an Intel bench, same for WebXPRT for thoses who dont know..

As for AT Handbrake compare with Tech report..

Look at all the multithreaded applications. It takes the FX 4 more cores, 1.2Ghz extra clock speed, and 136 more watts just to barely eek out a win on the i5. If we were comparing the i5 4690 vs an 8350 it would be even more of an embarrassment. How can you sit there with a straight face and seriously recommend this incredibly inefficient chip when Intel is clearly the better option?

 

[Yuriman]

After all of this bickering back and forth I have decided to stay with my Phenom 6 core and disappoint each of you.

+1

Your soul is not for sale, I see.

 

[Rickyyy369]

After all of this bickering back and forth I have decided to stay with my Phenom 6 core and disappoint each of you.

If you really want a low cost upgrade someday im sure you could find some cheap FX 8's on ebay from someone who upgraded to Intel.

 

[Erenhardt]

If you really want a low cost upgrade someday im sure you could find some cheap FX 8's on ebay from someone who upgraded to Intel.

It will not be cheap, because they need a lot of $$$$ to upgrade to intel, so they charge insane amount for a used chip.

 

[Abwx]

Look at all the multithreaded applications. It takes the FX 4 more cores, 1.2Ghz extra clock speed, and 136 more watts just to barely eek out a win on the i5. If we were comparing the i5 4690 vs an 8350 it would be even more of an embarrassment. How can you sit there with a straight face and seriously recommend this incredibly inefficient chip when Intel is clearly the better option?

For a starter the numbers say that a FX8350 is notably better than a 4670K in applications, the latter has the hedge in games for the time , that s a given although in the scenario pointed by someone above, that is gaming while transcoding, the 8350 would be better since it has more integer throughput, wich is all games and transcoding are about; on integer throughput only the 4770K and 4790K are competitive performance whise, so he could get a 8320 wich can be found at low prices and wich fit the 95W envelloppe despite the official 125W rating and perform slightly better than the 8370E at comparable TDP.

http://www.hardware.fr/focus/99/amd-fx-8370e-fx-8-coeurs-95-watts-test.html

 

[Rickyyy369]

For a starter the numbers say that a FX8350 is notably better than a 4670K in applications, the latter has the hedge in games for the time , that s a given although in the scenario pointed by someone above, that is gaming while transcoding, the 8350 would be better since it has more integer throughput, wich is all games and transcoding are about; on integer throughput only the 4770K and 4790K are competitive performance whise, so he could get a 8320 wich can be found at low prices and wich fit the 95W envelloppe despite the official 125W rating and perform slightly better than the 8370E at comparable TDP.

http://www.hardware.fr/focus/99/amd-fx-8370e-fx-8-coeurs-95-watts-test.html

Its a myth that the FX is better at multitasking.

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2012/11/06/amd-fx-8350-review/5

It would make sense that it would be better. 8 cores are obviously better than 4 when you want to do a lot of stuff, right? But it doesn't work out that way. Sure the 8320 is cheap but it would be a side-grade from his Phenom X6.

The only reason I would recommend AMD is if you're on a really strict budget or really want a drop in replacement for an old AM3+ board. Otherwise id advise you go with the more modern, consistently better performing Intel CPUs and platform.

 

[Yuriman]

FX-8 would be more than a side-grade, especially if you do any overclocking, and seems a reasonable way to spend some cash on a compatible AM3+ platform. Buying new, I feel it's a bit of a no-brainer to buy an i5 if the budget permits it, but just buying a CPU is definitely more cost effective than CPU + board.

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

After all of this bickering back and forth I have decided to stay with my Phenom 6 core and disappoint each of you.

Probably the smartest move right now..... Both Intel and AMD have more or less stagnated in performance. Each new generation has only been good for maybe 5% to 10% improvement over the last generation stuff.

A Phenom is still a pretty solid CPU for Video Editing. GPU acceleration is really the way to seriously improve performance for video editing lately (Sony Vegas 11 or newer / Adobe Premiere CS5 or newer / etc).

 

[Abwx]

Its a myth that the FX is better at multitasking.

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2012/11/06/amd-fx-8350-review/5

.

They used 7zip and handbrake on their test, i wonder which version as these are task where curiously the FX is very good and yet in this review it s barely at i3 level...

Gimp is single threaded, so it s not a multitasking test since their overall scores could be such only if the tasks were performed the ones after the others, besides they dont talk at all about their methodology, that is , it s a very little, if any, bit of (pseudo) tech.

 

[chrisjames61]

Definitely wouldn't bother with AMD at this stage of the game. An FX8 might be comparable to an i5 in one or two editing or encoding applications but its going to fall behind in absolutely everything else.

The results in the graph show it neck and neck with an i7. What are you looking at?