What is the best cpu for video editing?

[ingeborgdot]

I am looking for the best cpu that is under $300 for video editing? Which would you choose?

 

[lopri]

i7 860

 

[RussianSensation]

i7 920 / 860

 

[nyker96]

i don;t think cache is a problem for video editing, the AMD X4 620 also scored well on video applications. of course if you got the cash i7 is the best.

 

[Cogman]

Originally posted by: nyker96
i don;t think cache is a problem for video editing, the AMD X4 620 also scored well on video applications. of course if you got the cash i7 is the best.

video programs really like fast cache and memory, they deal with a lot of bit twiddling and motion which means they see some of the best benefits from a larger cache.

Games see some of the worst benefits from cache as they are all over in memory.

 

[cusideabelincoln]

Intel Core i7 is the fastest thanks in large part to Hyperthreading and improved IPC over every other chip.

Originally posted by: Cogman

Originally posted by: nyker96
i don;t think cache is a problem for video editing, the AMD X4 620 also scored well on video applications. of course if you got the cash i7 is the best.

video programs really like fast cache and memory, they deal with a lot of bit twiddling and motion which means they see some of the best benefits from a larger cache.

Games see some of the worst benefits from cache as they are all over in memory.

???

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/default.aspx?p=76&p2=51

AT's video suite shows no performance difference of chips of the same architecture with varying cache sizes. Conversely, it seems games see a nice boost in performance with more cache.

 

[MikeShunt]

TBH I'm using adobe premier on a Q6600 OC'ed to 3.2gig and 1333 bus and I'm quite suprised with the results. Spose it depends on the type of videos yoru making though.

 

[hans007]

Originally posted by: Cogman

Originally posted by: nyker96
i don;t think cache is a problem for video editing, the AMD X4 620 also scored well on video applications. of course if you got the cash i7 is the best.

video programs really like fast cache and memory, they deal with a lot of bit twiddling and motion which means they see some of the best benefits from a larger cache.

Games see some of the worst benefits from cache as they are all over in memory.

that is completely wrong. you should be banned from posting just for being so wrong.

 

[Cogman]

Originally posted by: hans007

Originally posted by: Cogman

Originally posted by: nyker96
i don;t think cache is a problem for video editing, the AMD X4 620 also scored well on video applications. of course if you got the cash i7 is the best.

video programs really like fast cache and memory, they deal with a lot of bit twiddling and motion which means they see some of the best benefits from a larger cache.

Games see some of the worst benefits from cache as they are all over in memory.

that is completely wrong. you should be banned from posting just for being so wrong.

Only if you can be banned for being an ass.

Originally posted by: cusideabelincoln
Intel Core i7 is the fastest thanks in large part to Hyperthreading and improved IPC over every other chip.

Originally posted by: Cogman

Originally posted by: nyker96
i don;t think cache is a problem for video editing, the AMD X4 620 also scored well on video applications. of course if you got the cash i7 is the best.

video programs really like fast cache and memory, they deal with a lot of bit twiddling and motion which means they see some of the best benefits from a larger cache.

Games see some of the worst benefits from cache as they are all over in memory.

???

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/default.aspx?p=76&p2=51

AT's video suite shows no performance difference of chips of the same architecture with varying cache sizes. Conversely, it seems games see a nice boost in performance with more cache.

That's really counter-intuitive to what I thought would happen. I guess its the fact that the memory is constantly moving out of cache that removes the benefit for larger caches and the fact that a large amount of memory stays in a static location that games benefit from larger caches.

Ce La vie

 

[v8envy]

That's "c'est la vie", if you are trying to sound cultured and worldly.

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: Cogman

Originally posted by: nyker96
i don;t think cache is a problem for video editing, the AMD X4 620 also scored well on video applications. of course if you got the cash i7 is the best.

video programs really like fast cache and memory, they deal with a lot of bit twiddling and motion which means they see some of the best benefits from a larger cache.

Games see some of the worst benefits from cache as they are all over in memory.

Nope. Games usually benefit from cache more so than other applications.

 

[ingeborgdot]

Is the 860 still the way to go?

 

[Indus]

i7-920

 

[Ayah]

Grab an i7 920, overclock the puppy to 3.8-4.0GHz+ and attach 6 or 12GB of memory.

 

[Arkaign]

lol is this 'beat up on Cogman' thread? Well anyway, i7 all the way for this. To add to that, if this is something extremely important to you, get the socket 1366 x58 9xx series route. That way you have access to 6 DDR3 slots and the largely confirmed future upgrade path to at the very least the 6-core i9 series.

 

[palladium]

i7 all the way.

 

[Markfw]

I7-920 all the way....

 

[ingeborgdot]

What type of temps are we talking at idle. I am looking for a low power user also along with a cooler cpu.

 

[Markfw]

OK, do you want the best cpu for video editing for under $300 or a cool low power cpu ? You can't have both.

 

[MrK6]

OK, do you want the best cpu for video editing for under $300 or a cool low power cpu ? You can't have both.

i7 860 might be a happy medium.

 

[Markfw]

i7 860 might be a happy medium.

I don't think they run cooler. I heard they were actually hotter. I will see if I can find the thread.

 

[MrK6]

I don't think they run cooler. I heard they were actually hotter. I will see if I can find the thread.

I would be interested in seeing that data. The better power saving features and lower TDP of the socket 1156 CPUs would suggest they should already have substantial power savings compared to the socket 1366 CPUs at stock clocks (which I believe has been shown in most reviews). If you're tackling the comparison using an overclocking perspective, it might be closer, I haven't seen any reviews making this comparison.

 

[KIAman]

Only if you can be banned for being an ass.
That's really counter-intuitive to what I thought would happen. I guess its the fact that the memory is constantly moving out of cache that removes the benefit for larger caches and the fact that a large amount of memory stays in a static location that games benefit from larger caches.

Ce La vie

Don't worry, I had the same impression as well until you delve into the types of data video work and games use. Video editing works off of mostly sequential data streams which a local cache will simply play a middle man if utilized. Games, on the other hand, work with a lot of sequential data but also uses a lot of random and un-ordered data access. Imagine all the integer ops the CPU must work with, which benefit a lot from local cache rather than hitting memory or disk.

Heh, Mr. Computer Scientist

 

[Markfw]

I would be interested in seeing that data. The better power saving features and lower TDP of the socket 1156 CPUs would suggest they should already have substantial power savings compared to the socket 1366 CPUs at stock clocks (which I believe has been shown in most reviews). If you're tackling the comparison using an overclocking perspective, it might be closer, I haven't seen any reviews making this comparison.

Yes, it was people here discussing OC'ed close to 4 ghz 860 vs 920. In threads here.

 

[aamsel]

I would really like to know which is better for this between the 860 or 920,
if there is any real difference? But, to do that we would have to not have
people who own 920's recommending the 920 and people who own 860's doing
the same for their chip.

Anyone have both that can comment?