The Fastest Processor for Video Editing

Logos on Intel and AMD

Comments

Budget vs performance

I went baseline Apple 21 iMac to accomplish intermmeditate video editing on then Final Cut Express, I moved from PC and Adobe Premiere which I was on for years because Windows machines crashed on me constantly.  

 

While i love the iMac 21" i clearly am pushing envelope using Final Cut Pro x now plus Motion 5.  Lesson learned for me, blow by budget if performance matters.  Waiting on renders for creactive edit combinations or flipping between applications has challenged my patience.  

More on the video card

bobjr94's picture

Your work is all done, then you wait, wait and wait some more to render your video. You just want it to go faster so you can watch,share, upload or start on the next one. They also offload the cpu to preform things like effects, transations and titles during playback while editing.

 

Using Sony Vegas Pro 12, I noticed my rending times seemed very long (13-15 minutes for a 4 minute HD video). My setup is not that bad (athlon 3.2Ghz 6 core, 8gb ram, 3tb drive with 240gb ssd working drive and radeon 7770). After some research, I saw the newest video cards are not supported by the Main Concept encoder. I swapped my 7770 for an older 5770 I had and it cut my rendering time from 13 minutes to 3, faster than real time.

 

Spending just $75 on an a supported entry level video card may help your encoding much more than more ram, faster drives or new cpu. Just make sure you check the supported gpu list, newer and faster isnt always better if it wont work with your software.

Intel Core i7-5960X Haswell-E 8-Core 3.0GHz

Ed Merritt's picture

This 8 core beast has gotten great reviews on the sites such as Newegg and Amazon. It's priced at $1,049! One issue users have pointed out is it's only running at 3GHz; however, it overclocks very nicely and some users have reported it running at 4.5GHz in a water-cooled PC.

Has anyone used or experienced this chip?

Price / Performance understanding

issac's picture

I am into computer graphics from past 12 years. As a rendering and effect artist we utilize cpu like no other people do. Our cpu runs for 4-8 hrs. on 100% is a normal thing. As per technicality, Price / Performance ratio we use AMD.
Reason : I can provide many technical papers available online by workstation builders advocating AMD because of it's architect. There are two things one should consider :
1. Why AMD is better technically (specifically for media work)
2. By paying extra what is you performance gain (percentage wise)
Refer the chart provided by the writer of this article :
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/cpu-charts-2015/benchmarks,187.html
Compare AMD FX-8350 & Core i7-3770K
Select the results useful for media people. Like Adobe Photoshop, AE, decoding etc.
Now you may say on every bench mark Core i7-3770K is either equal or leading. So you will come to the conclusion Intel is better. Now wait . . . .
As a better production company you will concentrate on Price + Time (of course faster performance).
Now to increase overall performance you won't have to invest more. Two AMD will perform better then one Intel and still costing 25% less then Intel Core i7-3770K. To achieve similar benchmark in intel, you have to invest a lot (more the Core i7-3770K) .
So actually you are paying less and getting better performance.
Don't think about two cpu, think about price / performance ratio.
It's a fight between Intel and AMD, that who is better, not between us.
Where are you getting better performance in less price ?
I don't us air conditioner but still my cpu runs for 12 -15 hrs everyday.

to CUDA or not to CUDA

Has no one heard of CUDA? Using the system processor as your main render engine is so 1990's. Do a bit of research on the CUDA technology.
It will change your editing (and rendering) life forever.