FX chips better than i5 for video editing?

[AtenRa]

But these different trade offs is what makes a product better or not. From a commercial perspective Intel is hands down a better product. It gets you to a certain level of performance without tinkering, and with tinkering to levels of performance that the FX can't touch, all that with a smaller power consumption (and consequently a smaller BoM). It's simply a value proposition that AMD can't match.

That you are willing to overlook the FX shortcomings and put some of your hours in messing with your FX processor doesn't make any better, it's just capitalism proving itself again: You get what you pay for. And you are getting just that, an inferior product that you must invest your own time in order to make it a better than when it was sold for you.

By the same token, every Intel SKU is inferior to 8-core Socket 2011-3 SKUs. No matter how much you will Overclock that 4790K, you will never reach the performance of the default Core i7 5960X in MT loads.

You always get what you pay for, an inferior product that people invest their time to make it better

 

[mrmt]

That already started when first gen core hit market. BD was not nessesary for the decline.
Add it took a few years before the k7 platform was ready for the server market. So AMD was only at the market for real for about 4-5 years or so.

There was a declining trend, but the real game changers were SNB-EP and Bulldozer. Once these two chips arrived the market changed drastically. Almost overnight most AMD server offers were replaced or crashed in price, to the point that today only in case you want the humblest webserver possible a sales representative will offer you an AMD-powered server. The reason for that is that SNB-EP was a hell of a good chip and Bulldozer a hell of a bad chip. The declining trend would be far softer if Bulldozer wasn't as bad.

I can't but laugh when someone says that FX makes sense if you *need* to work with threaded workloads, because the guys that actually *need* MT workloads and make money with it dumped AMD long time ago.

 

[SlowSpyder]

But these different trade offs is what makes a product better or not. From a commercial perspective Intel is hands down a better product. It gets you to a certain level of performance without tinkering, and with tinkering to levels of performance that the FX can't touch, all that with a smaller power consumption (and consequently a smaller BoM). It's simply a value proposition that AMD can't match.

That you are willing to overlook the FX shortcomings and put some of your hours in messing with your FX processor doesn't make any better, it's just capitalism proving itself again: You get what you pay for. And you are getting just that, an inferior product that you must invest your own time in order to make it a better than when it was sold for you.

I'm not arguing that it was a commercial success. I think AMD was screwed from the get go with this family of CPU's because BD received such poor press and generally unfavorable reviews. The damage was done, however Vishera is pretty solid. I like to overclock (or go the other direction with clocks voltage for efficiency) because I'm a hobbyist on a CPU & overclocking forum. You may be better off with a Dell, nothing wrong with that.

 

[Essence_of_War]

Yeap and by doing that you have more time your PC powered on using more energy and you spend more time to finish your work. But that is something reviews never show, they only concentrate on singly application performance.
Well sorry but we are in a age of multi-core CPU products, single core CPU era ended almost 10 years ago.:whiste:

Some reviewers actually do show this. Tom's 8350 review, for example, actually tracked:
1) Average Power usage over full suite
2) Total Power used in the suite (in Watt*hrs)
3) Total Time to complete
They found that, for example, the 8350 comes in 2nd in total time to complete the suite but it took 60% more power to do so. I think you're overstating your case about moar-corez winning the rush-to-idle when there is such a big IPC and efficiency gap.

 

[krumme]

There was a declining trend, but the real game changers were SNB-EP and Bulldozer.

No. The point is Intel had clear product superiority before BD and SB on the serverside. Far enough to move AMD from the market (vital IPC advantage and perf/watt). Amd only kept moving because they could upgrade cpu on the old platform and thereby giving customers an incentive to upgrade (btw while Meyers was lipsticking the financial results). Ofcource its not a sudden decline, but it was obvious where it was going and the market changed at that time. Johans old server reviews on AT is showing that fine.

I stand by my post. It was a meager 4-5 years. And this continuing repeating BD faildozer - is just boring now and old story. Its a strawman, when there is far more to it.

 

[mrmt]

Some reviewers actually do show this. Tom's 8350 review, for example, actually tracked:
1) Average Power usage over full suite
2) Total Power used in the suite (in Watt*hrs)
3) Total Time to complete
They found that, for example, the 8350 comes in 2nd in total time to complete the suite but it took 60% more power to do so. I think you're overstating your case about moar-corez winning the rush-to-idle when there is such a big IPC and efficiency gap.

And this why AMD got toasted on servers. Every single efficiency metric you can think of they lose *badly* to Intel. The performance per se is not that bad, but once you factor efficiency, it is a disaster.

 

[mrmt]

I'm not arguing that it was a commercial success. I think AMD was screwed from the get go with this family of CPU's because BD received such poor press and generally unfavorable reviews. The damage was done, however Vishera is pretty solid. I like to overclock (or go the other direction with clocks voltage for efficiency) because I'm a hobbyist on a CPU & overclocking forum. You may be better off with a Dell, nothing wrong with that.

Yeah, if you are looking for a toy the FX cuts it. But if you are looking for something powerful to do actual work, it doesn't.

 

[Mk pt]

I bought a couple weeks ago a old (5 years!? ) intel for $70 and it kicks AMD FX cpu's @ss in single and multithread.

So if you want single thread performance buy a good i3 or cheap i5..

If you want multithread performance pay for the best - X99 platform or if you're on a small budget buy a X58 motherboard and a Xeon X5650.

 

[AtenRa]

Some reviewers actually do show this. Tom's 8350 review, for example, actually tracked:
1) Average Power usage over full suite
2) Total Power used in the suite (in Watt*hrs)
3) Total Time to complete
They found that, for example, the 8350 comes in 2nd in total time to complete the suite but it took 60% more power to do so. I think you're overstating your case about moar-corez winning the rush-to-idle when there is such a big IPC and efficiency gap.

Nope, they measured each benchmark alone not in multitasking and then just added the total time and or power usage. That is not what we are talking about here. It will take more time and power to play the game alone and then do another job like video encoding than do both at the same time.

 

[AtenRa]

I bought a couple weeks ago a old (5 years!? ) intel for $70 and it kicks AMD FX cpu's @ss in single and multithread.

And what Intel CPU is that ??

 

[Abwx]

And what Intel CPU is that ??

Get used to it, AMD related threads are always filled with irrelevant posts, thread crapping is a lesser bad in this respect since the server debate, one more time, did invite itself in a FX thread...

 

[krumme]

I bought a couple weeks ago a old (5 years!? ) intel for $70 and it kicks AMD FX cpu's @ss in single and multithread.

I seriously advice against buying stolen stuff.

 

[Essence_of_War]

If you run all of the benches back-to-back-to-back from scripts, like it looks like they did, I actually think it's quite a good approximation.

People who can race to idle will still perform extremely well in all three of those metrics. Plus a bunch of the benchmarks are fully scalable. The real problem is, as I'm trying to point out, is that racing to idle isn't an automatic win, and it especially isn't an automatic win if you can't actually get to idle first. The 8350 does very well on the full benchmark completion time metric, but it performs disproportionately poorly on the efficiency in doing so.

 

[Enigmoid]

I don't get the discussion.

Is the 8350 the best chip for video editing? No, not buy a long shot. Is the 4790K better? Most definitely. Is the 8350/8320/8370 the best chip at its price point for this particular task? Absolutely, especially if you have a compatible motherboard.

For something like video editing GPU acceleration is going to be far more beneficial. OP should spend their money their.

 

[Erenhardt]

And this why AMD got toasted on servers. Every single efficiency metric you can think of they lose *badly* to Intel. The performance per se is not that bad, but once you factor efficiency, it is a disaster.

And here we are back to the desktop discussion. Most people don't run servers on their PC. We care very little about efficiency, perf/mm2, perf/xtor and whole lot of other metrics.

I don't think OP asks for the rendering farm that runs 24/7 crunching new pixar movie.

We want responsive systems that can handle our tasks at certain price points. I care not for anything higher than i5. Its simply useless for me. AMD officially stated that they do not aim for enthusiast market, but an average joe and offer very competitive products.

 

[krumme]

I don't get the discussion.

Is the 8350 the best chip for video editing? No, not buy a long shot. Is the 4790K better? Most definitely. Is the 8350/8320/8370 the best chip at its price point for this particular task? Absolutely, especially if you have a compatible motherboard.

For something like video editing GPU acceleration is going to be far more beneficial. OP should spend their money their.

Do we have any video editing sofware for layman that uses gpu acceleration?

 

[Abwx]

I don't get the discussion.

Is the 8350 the best chip for video editing? No, not buy a long shot. Is the 4790K better? Most definitely. Is the 8350/8320/8370 the best chip at its price point for this particular task? Absolutely, especially if you have a compatible motherboard.

For something like video editing GPU acceleration is going to be far more beneficial. OP should spend their money their.

And the question was about a FX compared to an i5, i suppose that such question was related to the prices being in the same bracket...

Besides term like " by a long shot" do mean nothing, that s why i prefer to use hard numbers if possible from relevant benches, and thoses numbers say that ther s no "long shot" in the comparisons.

Do we have any video editing sofware for layman that uses gpu acceleration?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_video_editing_software
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_video_editing_software

Ther s quite a lot of theses, on various OS.

 

[Cerb]

And what Intel CPU is that ??

The one that cost a lot more than $70 in psychoactive drugs, before being able to buy it, would be my guess. The best Intel had 5 years ago can do neither, v. a new Vishera, and those close are still going for >=$150. A fast i7 could do it against an initial BD (FX-x1xx), but the i7-960 and faster are still going for >$100, and still might not cut it in MT (an i7-930 can be had for $70, but will not kick Vishera's ass).

 

[AtenRa]

If you run all of the benches back-to-back-to-back from scripts, like it looks like they did, I actually think it's quite a good approximation.

People who can race to idle will still perform extremely well in all three of those metrics. Plus a bunch of the benchmarks are fully scalable. The real problem is, as I'm trying to point out, is that racing to idle isn't an automatic win, and it especially isn't an automatic win if you can't actually get to idle first. The 8350 does very well on the full benchmark completion time metric, but it performs disproportionately poorly on the efficiency in doing so.

Running all the benches back to back alone one at a time, is not the same thing as running two or more different application at the same time simultaneously.
For example, using a Core i3 or even i5 running simultaneously x264 and playing demanding games will under perform severely, when FX8xxx or Core i7 will not.

 

[Essence_of_War]

I acknowledged that already, and explained why I think it's still a reasonable metric. You have ignored both, so I'll leave you to your own devices.

 

[AtenRa]

I acknowledged that already, and explained why I think it's still a reasonable metric. You have ignored both, so I'll leave you to your own devices.

Well im not questioning if it is a reasonable metric, it is fine by me. But it is not the same thing as Multi-Tasking, that is all im saying

 

[mrmt]

We want responsive systems that can handle our tasks at certain price points. I care not for anything higher than i5. Its simply useless for me.

This. Some people do care about efficiency, others want more performance than i5, others need more performance than i5.

 

[Enigmoid]

And the question was about a FX compared to an i5, i suppose that such question was related to the prices being in the same bracket...

Besides term like " by a long shot" do mean nothing, that s why i prefer to use hard numbers if possible from relevant benches, and thoses numbers say that ther s no "long shot" in the comparisons.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_video_editing_software
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_video_editing_software

Ther s quite a lot of theses, on various OS.

The best would be something like a 5960X but that is obviously not in the same price or performance bracket.

Note also that you will have to look at the individual program. Some are still singlethread heavy.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Didn't the OP already state 100plus posts ago that he had decided to stick with the phenom x6?

 

[Mk pt]

I seriously advice against buying stolen stuff.

It's not stolen.
There's hundred's of them in ebay, they came from servers.

The one that cost a lot more than $70 in psychoactive drugs, before being able to buy it, would be my guess. The best Intel had 5 years ago can do neither, v. a new Vishera, and those close are still going for >=$150. A fast i7 could do it against an initial BD (FX-x1xx), but the i7-960 and faster are still going for >$100, and still might not cut it in MT (an i7-930 can be had for $70, but will not kick Vishera's ass).

Please, educate yourself in this thread.

With a 'cheap' [$30/$40] cooler you can put one of this $70 6 cores [X5650] @ 3.9/4Ghz, and at that point you'll have a cpu that can at least equal a i7 4770/4790K @ 4.5/4.6Ghz in multithread.

Or if you have a really nice cooler, you can put close to 4.2Ghz and will beat any 4770/4790K, even with more oc [acceptable for daily use].


Well, all X58 cpu's will loose against haswell in multithread, even if we compare a stock i5/i7 haswell versus a i7 990x @4.5Ghz..

But that's not what happens vs a FX cpu.

As you can see on anandtech cpu comparison a stock i7 990X will beat a FX9590 stock in single thread.
And that's a 3.5/3.7GHz x58 i7 vs a 4.7GHz FX cpu.

X5650 have a similar performance as a i7 990X @ same MHz.
So from that comparison chart you can make a educated guess how a 4Ghz X5650 will quick Fx8xxx or even the 220w FX beast.


My $70 cpu is @ 4.1Ghz. I already have a NH-D14 that I used with the good ol' i7 920, so I have nice temps.
And with this $70 purchase I have performance both in single and multithread that any AMD FX can't equal. Not even the more expensive 220w beast, FX9590.

If you dont have a x58 board, it will be cheaper a X58 board+X5650+$50 cooler compared to a AMD FX9590 + motherboard.

Get used to it, AMD related threads are always filled with irrelevant posts, thread crapping is a lesser bad in this respect since the server debate, one more time, did invite itself in a FX thread...

?!

The thread title isn't 'only nice comments about FX performance'.


This thread is about amd vs intel @ same price for video editing aka cheap multithread performance.

This and my previous post is all about cheap multithread performance, so I'm ontopic.


If you don't like to read that a $70 cpu with 4+ years beat all FX cpu's, well.. deal with it.