AMD processors for video editing

R

rellyrale

Active member
I know people say AMD is a no no for video editing Intel is so much better. How many of you all use AMD processors anyways? I purchased a HP 3 quad core years ago and stuck a GTX in it and here I am 200 projects later its still ticking like when I first purchased it. Im thinking about filling my empty computer case with a FX 8320 and ASUS M5A97 LE MOBO

What non intel processers are you all using out there and have great results?
 
Unfortunately, what they say is true. You will not get the performance out of an AMD processor that you will out of an i7, or even i5.

I have a machine right now with an AMD FX 8320 and an ASUS M5A97, and the difference is palpable. It grinds. It putters. It complains. It is not a proper editing machine. It is inexpensive, but you get what you pay for. Sure, it'll get the job done. But it's like driving on a gravel road.

You want Intel. ASUS is great. But you want an i7.
 
Out of these I7 Processors, which one would you recommend for editing 4K footage.
Footage from cameras such as red epic, BM, GH4, Sony Z100 etc.

4770K
3960
5960

And what Graphics card?
GTX Titan 6gb
GTX 980
Or is there another one that would work fine?
Cheers Pete.
 
rellyrale said:
How many of you all use AMD processors anyways?

What non intel processers are you all using out there and have great results?
Click to expand...

1) I'm cutting my stuff using a Phenom II x4 965 Black Edition, an ASUS M3A78-EM motherboard with 8gb DDR2 RAM, and using a simple ZOTAC GT430 GPU. Works well, despite the fact it's not new.

David Jimerson said:
It is not a proper editing machine. It is inexpensive, but you get what you pay for.
Click to expand...
Comparing both machines, the difference is palpable, just as the price tag. I can live with it.
 
Everyone has to decide how best to allocate their own resources. But if someone is hoping to hear that AMD processors are just as good as Intel for editing, it's simply not so. If you can live with the performance hit for the price, then great. But that hit will be there.

Another thing to consider -- AMD stock fans are notoriously loud (the fan with the FX 8320 is no exception). You'll want to consider replacing it with something quieter, and that, of course, figures into the cost/benefit equation.
 
well that's good insight... I have lot to think about... I do understand the intel is much better then AMD but my cpu with GTX 650 2GB works great but the computer has now turned into the family computer so I need something just for my editing with all my drives and no bloatware... I can render a 4 min music video with 11 layers, full of mattes effects and transitions in 12 mins. if I can do better then that and stay with AMD that would be great but intel seems like just the way to go. I guess I was looking for more success stories and people are just not going with AMD for CPUs
 
I have to say, I edit HD on an off-the-shelf HP PC with a 6-core 3.50GHz AMD FX processor, running 16GB of RAM, and I have no problems. Windows 7 Home Premium (64-bit).

I do wish I had a better video card, but otherwise no complaints.
 
rellyrale said:
well that's good insight... I have lot to think about... I do understand the intel is much better then AMD but my cpu with GTX 650 2GB works great but the computer has now turned into the family computer so I need something just for my editing with all my drives and no bloatware... I can render a 4 min music video with 11 layers, full of mattes effects and transitions in 12 mins. if I can do better then that and stay with AMD that would be great but intel seems like just the way to go. I guess I was looking for more success stories and people are just not going with AMD for CPUs
Click to expand...

Comparison: the FX 8320 renders at a speed slightly slower than the first-generation i7 960 (the 960 had a slower clock speed) that it replaced in the box (and with a lot of fan whirring). A current-generation i7 will SMOKE it.
 
Avid and Adobe only certify their software on Intel processors. That doesn't mean that the software wont' run on AMD, but it does mean you won't be supported.
 
What kills me about this whole topic is people act like premiere just will catch fire and melt soon as you launch premiere on and AMD system. Yes Intel is faster for it but can AMD be still fast too though. I can render a full music video with special effect graphics frm AE and many layers and effects and 12 minutes so you saying if I had a newer faster AMD CPU I cannot process better.
 
David Jimerson said:
Comparison: the FX 8320 renders at a speed slightly slower than the first-generation i7 960 (the 960 had a slower clock speed) that it replaced in the box (and with a lot of fan whirring). A current-generation i7 will SMOKE it.
Click to expand...

But is that a fair comparison?

You can buy an AMD FX-9590 8-core 4.7GHz processor on Amazon for just under $250. An 8-core Intel i7-5960X Haswell E 3.0GHz is over $1,000.

I realize it's not all about GHz. But what is an Intel i7 that's comparable (speed-wise) to the AMD FX-9590 going to cost?
 
Yes, that's a totally fair comparison. The FX 8320 is what the OP asked about. The i7 960 is a first-generation i7, with a slower clock speed, and the 8320 still rendered slightly (though only slightly) slower. The 8320 doesn't have a prayer of competing with a newer, or current-gen, i7. I can't imagine the 9590 does, either. It'll probably perform better than the i7 960, but again, that's a first-generation i7.

The listed clock speed for the AMD doesn't matter; I say again, the i7 960 had a slightly slower clock speed, and is considerably older (in computer terms) than the 8320, yet it still outperformed the 8320. The i7 architecture is simply superior, and the i7 has hyperthreading, which makes a huge difference for video.

Like I said above, you can take the hit in performance if the price is good for you, but make no mistake -- you will not be getting the performance you would be with an i7. AMD processors do not stack up to Intel for video work.
 
David Jimerson said:
Yes, that's a totally fair comparison. The FX 8320 is what the OP asked about. The i7 960 is a first-generation i7, with a slower clock speed, and the 8320 still rendered slightly (though only slightly) slower. The 8320 doesn't have a prayer of competing with a newer, or current-gen, i7. I can't imagine the 9590 does, either. It'll probably perform better than the i7 960, but again, that's a first-generation i7.

The listed clock speed for the AMD doesn't matter; I say again, the i7 960 had a slightly slower clock speed, and is considerably older (in computer terms) than the 8320, yet it still outperformed the 8320. The i7 architecture is simply superior, and the i7 has hyperthreading, which makes a huge difference for video.

Like I said above, you can take the hit in performance if the price is good for you, but make no mistake -- you will not be getting the performance you would be with an i7. AMD processors do not stack up to Intel for video work.
Click to expand...

I'd like to see a good side-by-side comparison. I'm not sure it's fair to say that i7's of today would smoke AMD's of today just because in the past they have done so. It may be true, of course. But somewhere along the way there has to be a cost-vs-benefit analysis in there as well.

In other words, how would the best AMD fare against a similarly PRICED Intel?
 
David Jimerson said:
Like I said above, you can take the hit in performance if the price is good for you, but make no mistake -- you will not be getting the performance you would be with an i7. AMD processors do not stack up to Intel for video work.
Click to expand...

I understand that. But if a Honda gets me where I need to go satisfactorily for my needs, then I don't need to buy a Ferrari.

It's all about "bang for the buck". If people can afford the cream of the crop in processors, all well and good. But people like me can't. So for me, and others like me, the question is something more to the effect of "I've got X amount of dollars to spend on a processor. For that amount of money, which processor will give me the best performance -- an AMD or an Intel i5 or i7?"
 
David W. Richardson said:
I understand that. But if a Honda gets me where I need to go satisfactorily for my needs, then I don't need to buy a Ferrari.

It's all about "bang for the buck". If people can afford the cream of the crop in processors, all well and good. But people like me can't. So for me, and others like me, the question is something more to the effect of "I've got X amount of dollars to spend on a processor. For that amount of money, which processor will give me the best performance -- an AMD or an Intel i5 or i7?"
Click to expand...

I acknowledged "bang for the buck" several times.

But in all likelihood, a used i7 at the same price as a new AMD will be your better bet any day of the week.
 
David Jimerson said:
I acknowledged "bang for the buck" several times.

But in all likelihood, a used i7 at the same price as a new AMD will be your better bet any day of the week.
Click to expand...

I know you have. And I've said I'd like to see some test results to confirm that. Not trying to be argumentative. It's just that I have years of good experience editing using AMD processors. If Intel, for the same money, is better, then that's fine. But I'd like some corroboration via actual testing.

I should say that I don't buy used processors. You never know when used electronics are going to die on you. You also don't know if whoever removed and handled it did so using appropriate static-grounding gear. A processor handled without proper grounding might work just fine for a month or two, and then die. The static weakens the internal components of the processor, but such weakness won't show up immediately. So I prefer to compare new processors.

I haven't had time to do much online searching on the subject, but I did find this video on YouTube testing the rendering speed of an AMD FX 8350 vs. an Intel i5 3570K.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXP6b9wlBCg

Now there is also this video, which tests an Intel i7-3770K against an AMD A8 5600K. The Intel processor renders about twice as fast as the AMD -- but it is 4 times the price, so that's not really a surprise.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqdeaifQZU4

And here we have a new-model (at the time) Intel i7-3770K pitted against a 2 year old AMD Phenom II X6 1045T. Interestingly, the AMD was only 10% slower than the Intel i7.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCrOAng0kdQ
 
Last edited:
I went ahead with the FX-8320 on a Asrock 970 Extreme R2.0 board with 16g of ram and a silicon power 120G SSD for OS and Adobe CC. I already have a 520w PSU and a gtx 650 ill hook everything up in within the week the last part to come in is the SSD. I cant wait to see what kind of power I can get out of this setup for my D7100 footage
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top