i5 vs Phenom X6 for cheap edit system?

[David Botkin]

I need a backup video/audio workstation for CS5, but I don't have a ton of money to spend. PPBM5 has no data on i5s, so no way to compare one with an X6.

I really don't think I can afford an i7 as much as I might like one. I do part time video editing for a non-profit, so performance doesn't need to be huge and money is not in great supply. Would a cheap ($200) CPU with a better GPU provide better overall performance in CS5? I know that the i5 has better SSE support than AMD, but I don't think either have SSE4.1. I'm more concerned about realtime editing performance than render speed; I can always just stay up all night watching renders and making sure Premiere doesn't crash.

This system will also be used as an audio editing workstation if that makes a difference.

[Randall Leong]

In my opinion, neither of those CPUs is anywhere near as good as an i7-930 for video editing. Both the i5 and the Phenom II x6 have major drawbacks: Depending on the i5 CPU model, you get either a CPU that lacks HyperThreading or one that has only two physical cores. And all of the current AMD processors do not support even SSE 4.0, let alone SSE 4.1. And all of those cheaper CPUs, especially the lower-end Intel CPUs, have relatively low memory controller throughput. And as shown in the PPBM5 list, those processors would be no faster than an old Core 2 Quad unless they're overclocked to the max - and even then, a highly overclocked i5 or AMD x6 would be only about as fast as a stock-speed i7-930 in PPro CS5.

By the way, the i5 does support SSE 4.1. However, it is limited to four threads total versus eight or more threads for the i7 processors. And based on the lackluster showing of the i7-860 in the PPBM5 tests (even overclocked), don't expect the i5 to even match the i7-860 (which both use the exact same LGA1156 socket and P55 chipset), let alone the i7-930 (which uses a Socket LGA1366/X58 chipset platform).

As for the GPU, a better GPU would still be limited by the slow CPU (and yes, it is too easy to get a GPU that's much faster than the CPU - note the mismatch between a GTX 470 or 480 and a high-numbered Core 2 Quad). This is because the GPU has to wait for the CPU to catch up. In fact, on those low-end editing systems a GTX 480 would not have been meaningfully faster than a 1GB DDR3 GT 240 when both are using MPE GPU acceleration mode.

[Steve Kalle]

Microcenter has the i7-930 for $200 and the i3-530 for only $110ish (can't remember). For an audio editing workstation, there is no need for spending a lot of money. Plus, the LGA1156 motherboards are much cheaper and you can get them with HDMI & DVI built in from ASUS for $90-110, which saves even more money. I just looked into this setup for a backup file server and Cinema 4D render node. The i3's are fine for everything except heavy Premiere and AE use.

[Jarred Capellman]

I moved away from a 8 core Opteron workstation/1gb 5850 Radeon to a Phenom II X6 1090 with 16gb of ram and a 1gb GTX 480 and have had no issues with editing multiple 280mbps XDCAM files and extensive After Effects work.

[Randall Leong]

Originally Posted by Jarred Capellman

I moved away from a 8 core Opteron workstation/1gb 5850 Radeon to a Phenom II X6 1090 with 16gb of ram and a 1gb GTX 480 and have had no issues with editing multiple 280mbps XDCAM files and extensive After Effects work.

This is because you're comparing a "newer" AMD platform with an MPE-optimized card to an older one with a MPE software-only card. As "mediocre" as the X6 is for CS5, the older AMD CPUs are even worse.

And yes, stability or rendering problems are not the thing here; the overall speed of performance is. I would have been left far behind if this transcoding took two to three times longer overall than someone else's system that's roughly equal in price or slightly higher but equipped with a different company's CPU.

By the way, the GTX 480 does not have 1GB of RAM - but 1.5GB instead. This is due to its 384-bit GDDR5 bus.

[Jarred Capellman]

You're right it's not really a fair comparison, but bang for the buck I don't think you'll find a better alternative.

[Harm Millaard]

I rather doubt that. The i7-950 is cheaper than the Phenom X6 and easily outperforms it.

[Randall Leong]

Originally Posted by Jarred Capellman

You're right it's not really a fair comparison, but bang for the buck I don't think you'll find a better alternative.

Maybe for gaming. But when it comes to video production work, a higher-end Intel quad-core will easily beat the AMD X6 while costing about the same.

And as I stated earlier in this thread, an X6, even overclocked to 4.0GHz, will be at best only about as fast as a stock-speed i7-930 or i7-950 when it comes to CS5. An X6 at stock speed is slower than any of the i7-9## processors in CS5.