Intel vs. AMD

[Rand]

I find myself in the market for a new computer to do HD video editing. I realize I maybe starting a religious argument here but what would you choose Intel or AMD?

Intel Core i7 920 Nehalem 2.66GHz LGA 1366 130W Quad-Core Processor -$279.00

or

AMD Phenom II X4 965 Black Edition 3.4GHz Quad-Core Processor -$245.00

[crokett]

Way back when I used to build computers, I always ran AMD. Back then they were significantly cheaper than Intel. The motherboards that used AMD were likewise cheaper. Apparently that is still true. I would go with AMD, if only on a price basis. Use the price difference to buy more RAM for it.

[sparkeyjames]

Look for encoding tests/benchmarks. I think currently Intel has the faster video encoding benchmark speeds. Seriously at the speed most modern processors run I don't think it makes much difference. What I will say is that if your into video then choose your video editing/creation software first then get the best computer that you can afford that runs that software.
As far as multiple cores go.... most software, other than operating systems and high end professional and EXPENSIVE software solutions, is just not built to take advantage of additional CPU cores.

[cgallery]

HD video editing is going to bring any machine you build to its knees. The faster, the better.

Here are some interesting general benchmarks:

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/common_cpus.html

The Phenom 965 isn't listed. But I highly doubt it would challenge an i7.

[pelligrini]

As far as multiple cores go.... most software, other than operating systems and high end professional and EXPENSIVE software solutions, is just not built to take advantage of additional CPU cores.

Yep, a lot of the lower end video software isn't multi threaded or 64bit capable. I'm not up to date on the current CPUs and software though, I would bet they are getting better. Even if the software isn't multithreaded a milti core CPU can be nice to have. You can do editing and encoding and still be able to do other tasks. Or maybe even run a couple editing sessions if you've got the memory.

[headhunter636]

These days, the Quad core CPUs make video editing much more accessible with more computer systems. What cpu brand you go with will usually depend on your preference, I have alwyas used AMD because they usually provided more bang for the buck and very often still do. I would say that you could go with either one, but if you plan on doing a lot of video editing, then try to get the fastest one you can get your hands on, get a 64 bit OS and then load up on RAM.

Dave

[jgrobler]

I did the same as David, for the same reasons. I'd put my money towards AMD, and get extra memory.

[dkerfoot]

Last I checked, the only significant advantage that Intel had was for video/audio encoding.

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/2....2.1,1383.html

So, while I generally agree that AMD is usually the better buy, for your purposes, Intel is worth serious consideration.

[Hoover]

My computer I'm using now has a triple core processor, with 4 gigs 1066 ddr2 ram, and 64 bit processing, run Vista 64. I like AMD processors, mainly because of trouble free operation. If only we could get an operating system that is good as the hardwaRE.

[headhunter636]

My computer I'm using now has a triple core processor, with 4 gigs 1066 ddr2 ram, and 64 bit processing, run Vista 64. I like AMD processors, mainly because of trouble free operation. If only we could get an operating system that is good as the hardwaRE.

That beign said, Mac may be worth a look as well. I have been using both Mac and PC for a little over a year and I think they both have thier uses. I bought my wife a Mac Pro for her photography business and that thing is never short on power. It has a quad core processsor with room on the motherboard for another one. For video editing, the Mac Pro would be a choice that it hard to beat, except that you will spend quite a bit on these things.

Dave

[Kristofor]

When you say editing are you talking about professional quality work on raw video? Doing that is probably close to a push and is more dependent on RAM and storage speed. When you want to do the final pass and kick out .264 or other encoded video the Intel i series processors will likely be faster than the AMD ones (assuming the app you're using takes advantage of the capabilities of the CPU design).

[LinuxRandal]

Check out the specs of the software you are using. I am generally an AMD man, but lately more of a Intel Atom man (power for use), but in this case I would be going for the i7. My brothers "old" new system, is a quad core, he never built a pc, and was always afraid to get in the hardware guts. Well he built his first system, after not being able to buy it (always sold out), and it is an i7. I can see a noticeable difference on the time it takes with his ray tracing software, and game loading.

[Wood_workur]

I've always seen Intel as being faster and more expensive, while AMD is a budget processor.


Go with the Intel.

[Woody]

Mac Pro

I would ditto looking at a Mac. I use Macs & PCs for video work and enjoy working on the Macs much better. They also perform better especially with the new OS 10.6 Snow Leopard. Very lean and mean OS. Sped up my computer noticeably. Imagine that, a company actually making their OS almost 1/2 as small and does more. Less code is good.
Price will definitely be an issue with a Mac.

[cgallery]

I would ditto looking at a Mac. I use Macs & PCs for video work and enjoy working on the Macs much better. They also perform better especially with the new OS 10.6 Snow Leopard. Very lean and mean OS. Sped up my computer noticeably. Imagine that, a company actually making their OS almost 1/2 as small and does more. Less code is good.
Price will definitely be an issue with a Mac.

In all fairness, that code reduction is the elimination of all the PowerPC stuff. So with that code reduction comes the fact that users with PowerPC Apple machine have no further upgrade path.