PC for HDV editing - Intel or AMD?

Marcus Marchesseault · July 18th, 2007, 10:57 PM

Although the AMD X2 6000+ is a good bang for the buck, it is the end of the line. AMD has lately been doing what I hated about Intel. They are switching socket types for little reason while my Intel E6600 can be upgraded to the Quadcore Q6700 without a motherboard or RAM change. When those (or similar) processors are cheap next year, I will be doubling the speed of my current machine for probably $300.

That is where Intel is providing better support at this time and for the next year. AMD is getting ready for yet another socket with the introduction of Phenom. The X2 is at the end of it's life and Core2 is just getting good. X2 processors have made upgrades difficult with the switch from Socket 939 to AM2 for no apparent reason. I won't even go into the seemingly insane Socket F.

Drop-in replacement of my dual core chip to a quad core is the kind of thing that will get me to buy two processors for my one machine. That's good sense. I don't need the speed yet, but when I do it will be affordable.

Thomas Smet · July 19th, 2007, 08:00 AM

Forget about speed. The speed difference between the two is so small you will hardly ever notice it. The thing you should be looking at is how well the system will work. You could have the fastest system on the planet but if it causes glitches or crashes all the time who cares?

I happen to like both chips and I think AMD make some very good CPU's but sadly like what was said above in the video world Intel has always had a little bit better support. What I mean is that usually a NLE is optimized for Intel cpu's. This doesn't mean AMD wouldn't work, just that you are kind of taking a chance.

It also comes down to chipsets and the type of components used on MB's. I know very few people who use AMD for editing so I couldn't tell you which chipsets and so forth work glitch free. Intel on the other hand has thousands of editors out there who know what systems work well. The AMD cpu is fast but a lot of times it is the rest of the hardware that can bog it down. This is why I wish AMD would go back to making their own chipsets and MB's.

I would love to build a AMD NLE but as of right now I would have to suggest against it unless you know which components are tried and true and you stick to high quality parts. It can be done but the risk factor is so much higher by doing so that I'm not sure why somebody would want to. At least for me editing is more about stability and not so much about raw speed.

If you have a good pair of stones and you want to take a chance with your deadlines then I would at least suggest paying good money for an expensive MB. Get the best one you can and you will be glad that you did. While at it buy everything the best that you can. When it comes to a NLE cheap is not the way to go.

Sam Ren · July 22nd, 2007, 11:05 AM

I have both AMD x2's and Intel's Core 2 Duo's... my favorite chip is the E4300 i can get it running at 3.47GHZ on air cooling very easilly "i keep it at 3GHZ @ stock voltage" and outperforms my AMD X2 4200+4600+Intel C2D E6420... the *E6420* for some reason wont overclock like the E4300 "i dont know if its just mine". it has 4mb l2 cache and still runs slower then my E4300 when OC'ing for video editing.. but if your running at stock speeds its actually a good bang for the buck & i would go with the E6420 or X2 6000+ for around the same price.. if you have a little more dough go for the E6600 like everyone else said & you will be more then happy... i have the Gigabyte DS3 rev 1.3 motherboard and its one of the best boards for overclocking + supports Quadcore CPU's...

-Sam~!

Marcus Marchesseault · July 22nd, 2007, 05:43 PM

As of today, AMD is officially blown out of the water. The price of the quad core Q6600 is now $300 at newegg.com and AMD has nothing to compete anywhere near that price. I think Intel is releasing new quad core chips so there may even be faster models soon.

Sam Ren · July 22nd, 2007, 07:08 PM

wow!! i hadn't even looked at the quads yet... last time i checked it was a few hundred more then that.. thats a really good deal..

Jon McGuffin · July 22nd, 2007, 08:21 PM

Yes, if you read my post on page one, I warned of the price slashing that was do out and now both Newegg.com and Mwave.com have the new CPU's listed with their new prices. I also expect these to drop by about 10-15% over the next 30 days.

None the less, the argument is frankly moot.. Intel CPU's are absolutely the only way to go right now. This has nothing to do with any subjective opinion on AMD vs Intel. I have been recommending AMD cpu's for literally YEARS now since Intel has not really had anything to compete against AMD since the release of the AMD 64+ CPU's, the X2's just made the Intel chips look so much worse when they came out. Now, the pengilum (sp?) has definately swung and anybody recommending any type of AMD CPU for anything other than some sort of extreme budget system is out of their mind.

We now have a new question though... Which CPU to buy...

Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 - 2.40Ghz - 1066Mhz FSB - $290
Intel Core 2 Duo E6850 - 3.00Ghz - 1333Mhz FSB - $270

Most NLE software (vegas aside in the rendering stage) aren't yet capable of taking full advantage of 4 full cores. The 600Mhz advantage of the E6850 along with a faster BUS speed and a slightly cheaper price make that an awful compelling CPU. I'd be very willing to be that anywhere other than pure rendering performance that chip will outperform the Quad Core and even while rendering, I bet the difference isn't that significant.

I think I'd probably go with the E6850 myself...

Jon

Stephen Armour · July 23rd, 2007, 07:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jon McGuffin

Yes, if you read my post on page one, I warned of the price slashing that was do out and now both Newegg.com and Mwave.com have the new CPU's listed with their new prices. I also expect these to drop by about 10-15% over the next 30 days.

None the less, the argument is frankly moot.. Intel CPU's are absolutely the only way to go right now. This has nothing to do with any subjective opinion on AMD vs Intel. I have been recommending AMD cpu's for literally YEARS now since Intel has not really had anything to compete against AMD since the release of the AMD 64+ CPU's, the X2's just made the Intel chips look so much worse when they came out. Now, the pengilum (sp?) has definately swung and anybody recommending any type of AMD CPU for anything other than some sort of extreme budget system is out of their mind.

We now have a new question though... Which CPU to buy...

Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 - 2.40Ghz - 1066Mhz FSB - $290
Intel Core 2 Duo E6850 - 3.00Ghz - 1333Mhz FSB - $270

Most NLE software (vegas aside in the rendering stage) aren't yet capable of taking full advantage of 4 full cores. The 600Mhz advantage of the E6850 along with a faster BUS speed and a slightly cheaper price make that an awful compelling CPU. I'd be very willing to be that anywhere other than pure rendering performance that chip will outperform the Quad Core and even while rendering, I bet the difference isn't that significant.

I think I'd probably go with the E6850 myself...

Jon

You forget one thing...yes, some of the software DOES take advantage of those quad cores...

...and one more thing: that's at default speeds and the quadcore 6600's overclock very nicely! You overclock a quad to 4 GHZ speeds and then find me a dualcore that even appears on the same chart! Why buy a dual when you get four cores for the same money and the software WILL catch up?

Sounds a little short-sighted to me.

Jon McGuffin · July 23rd, 2007, 03:06 PM

Well... It all depends in which way the software is utilizaing all 4 core's. From what I understand, Vegas is the only application out there that is truly taking advantage of all 4 cores and I think it's only really kicking in during the rendering phases of work.

So I'm looking at what, to me, is more important and that is timeline editing. Adding color correcting, effects, transitions whatever and seeing real time preview and playback. Not so sure multiple cores helps out in this area.

Jon

July 22nd, 2007, 11:05 AM	#18
Sam Ren Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Houston, TX Posts: 40	I have both AMD x2's and Intel's Core 2 Duo's... my favorite chip is the E4300 i can get it running at 3.47GHZ on air cooling very easilly "i keep it at 3GHZ @ stock voltage" and outperforms my AMD X2 4200+4600+Intel C2D E6420... the E6420 for some reason wont overclock like the E4300 "i dont know if its just mine". it has 4mb l2 cache and still runs slower then my E4300 when OC'ing for video editing.. but if your running at stock speeds its actually a good bang for the buck & i would go with the E6420 or X2 6000+ for around the same price.. if you have a little more dough go for the E6600 like everyone else said & you will be more then happy... i have the Gigabyte DS3 rev 1.3 motherboard and its one of the best boards for overclocking + supports Quadcore CPU's... -Sam~! __________________ Canon XHA1, HV10, Bogen 3058+3066, 680B, Lowel dp4 Kit, Sennheiser G2 Lav+K6+ME64+ME66, PPro2, Vegas 7, AE 7, Maya 6.

July 22nd, 2007, 07:08 PM	#20
Sam Ren Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Houston, TX Posts: 40	wow!! i hadn't even looked at the quads yet... last time i checked it was a few hundred more then that.. thats a really good deal.. __________________ Canon XHA1, HV10, Bogen 3058+3066, 680B, Lowel dp4 Kit, Sennheiser G2 Lav+K6+ME64+ME66, PPro2, Vegas 7, AE 7, Maya 6.

July 18th, 2007, 10:57 PM	#16
Marcus Marchesseault Trustee Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Honolulu, HI Posts: 1,961	Although the AMD X2 6000+ is a good bang for the buck, it is the end of the line. AMD has lately been doing what I hated about Intel. They are switching socket types for little reason while my Intel E6600 can be upgraded to the Quadcore Q6700 without a motherboard or RAM change. When those (or similar) processors are cheap next year, I will be doubling the speed of my current machine for probably $300. That is where Intel is providing better support at this time and for the next year. AMD is getting ready for yet another socket with the introduction of Phenom. The X2 is at the end of it's life and Core2 is just getting good. X2 processors have made upgrades difficult with the switch from Socket 939 to AM2 for no apparent reason. I won't even go into the seemingly insane Socket F. Drop-in replacement of my dual core chip to a quad core is the kind of thing that will get me to buy two processors for my one machine. That's good sense. I don't need the speed yet, but when I do it will be affordable.

July 19th, 2007, 08:00 AM	#17
Thomas Smet Trustee Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Milwaukee, WI Posts: 1,719	Forget about speed. The speed difference between the two is so small you will hardly ever notice it. The thing you should be looking at is how well the system will work. You could have the fastest system on the planet but if it causes glitches or crashes all the time who cares? I happen to like both chips and I think AMD make some very good CPU's but sadly like what was said above in the video world Intel has always had a little bit better support. What I mean is that usually a NLE is optimized for Intel cpu's. This doesn't mean AMD wouldn't work, just that you are kind of taking a chance. It also comes down to chipsets and the type of components used on MB's. I know very few people who use AMD for editing so I couldn't tell you which chipsets and so forth work glitch free. Intel on the other hand has thousands of editors out there who know what systems work well. The AMD cpu is fast but a lot of times it is the rest of the hardware that can bog it down. This is why I wish AMD would go back to making their own chipsets and MB's. I would love to build a AMD NLE but as of right now I would have to suggest against it unless you know which components are tried and true and you stick to high quality parts. It can be done but the risk factor is so much higher by doing so that I'm not sure why somebody would want to. At least for me editing is more about stability and not so much about raw speed. If you have a good pair of stones and you want to take a chance with your deadlines then I would at least suggest paying good money for an expensive MB. Get the best one you can and you will be glad that you did. While at it buy everything the best that you can. When it comes to a NLE cheap is not the way to go.

July 22nd, 2007, 05:43 PM	#19
Marcus Marchesseault Trustee Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Honolulu, HI Posts: 1,961	As of today, AMD is officially blown out of the water. The price of the quad core Q6600 is now $300 at newegg.com and AMD has nothing to compete anywhere near that price. I think Intel is releasing new quad core chips so there may even be faster models soon.

July 22nd, 2007, 08:21 PM	#21
Jon McGuffin Major Player Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Carlsbad, CA Posts: 634	Yes, if you read my post on page one, I warned of the price slashing that was do out and now both Newegg.com and Mwave.com have the new CPU's listed with their new prices. I also expect these to drop by about 10-15% over the next 30 days. None the less, the argument is frankly moot.. Intel CPU's are absolutely the only way to go right now. This has nothing to do with any subjective opinion on AMD vs Intel. I have been recommending AMD cpu's for literally YEARS now since Intel has not really had anything to compete against AMD since the release of the AMD 64+ CPU's, the X2's just made the Intel chips look so much worse when they came out. Now, the pengilum (sp?) has definately swung and anybody recommending any type of AMD CPU for anything other than some sort of extreme budget system is out of their mind. We now have a new question though... Which CPU to buy... Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 - 2.40Ghz - 1066Mhz FSB - $290 Intel Core 2 Duo E6850 - 3.00Ghz - 1333Mhz FSB - $270 Most NLE software (vegas aside in the rendering stage) aren't yet capable of taking full advantage of 4 full cores. The 600Mhz advantage of the E6850 along with a faster BUS speed and a slightly cheaper price make that an awful compelling CPU. I'd be very willing to be that anywhere other than pure rendering performance that chip will outperform the Quad Core and even while rendering, I bet the difference isn't that significant. I think I'd probably go with the E6850 myself... Jon

July 23rd, 2007, 03:06 PM	#23
Jon McGuffin Major Player Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Carlsbad, CA Posts: 634	Well... It all depends in which way the software is utilizaing all 4 core's. From what I understand, Vegas is the only application out there that is truly taking advantage of all 4 cores and I think it's only really kicking in during the rendering phases of work. So I'm looking at what, to me, is more important and that is timeline editing. Adding color correcting, effects, transitions whatever and seeing real time preview and playback. Not so sure multiple cores helps out in this area. Jon