your opinion.
few months ago I put together this configuration:
i5 2500k
asus p8p67
8 gb skill
xfx hd5670
now I need to get another, I'm between buying the same configuration to have some redundancy (interchange components) or an AMD FX 8 core. 20% cheaper but 16% faster according cpu benchmarks.
Go with the AMD, but switch to an nvidia graphics card for CUDA.
So AMD/ATi don't have their own version of CUDA tech?Originally Posted by Bertzie
Yes I'm leaning more towards AMD FX those 8 cores sound appealing. but there is not a whole lot of benchmarks as for the i5.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...pgpu,2335.html
"Ati stream" is the competition for Nvidia "Cuda"
They do, it's just not as well supported as CUDA.
The i5 2500k is one of the most popular cpus out there, but for video encoding, the higher physical core count of the AMD will give it a slight edge.
I you want good advice then you need to state a bit more information:
1) What type of media do you want/need to edit?
2) What editing or other software will you be using?
3) Do you intend to change media or add upgrades in any other way in the near future?
4) What ancillary equipment do you have or intend to purchase?
5) What is your budget?
6) How long do you expect this system to last?
My daily use is Autocad architecture use some 3d here. there are seasons were I use a lot 3d MAX. but last year I used it only twice.
My wife is using adobe lightroom and corel for image editing and I'm Sony vegas for video editing.
So I have some hi demands on a budget. I got the i5 last year because I finally bough the idea of stability on intel systems, but its been nothing different from my old AMD systems,
I know image editing doesn't use all the cores, 3d MAX uses every single one in its full potential at rendering, Sony Vegas is using more cores but don't know if all of them.
I'n paper the bulldozer tech looks better, I was looking in to the i7 but the price on the mobos just put it far away from my budget.
I'm looking at 500's
cpu:220
mother:55
video:70
mem:47
hdd:85
case:50
I upgrading my systems every one or two years if the component uses the same socket. if not, until it dies on me
Indeed. These softwares are designed to optimize any system.
Just so you're aware that these are mid range CPUs. Anything 3d is best mated with high range (i7) CPU and above for optimal performance.I'n paper the bulldozer tech looks better, I was looking in to the i7 but the price on the mobos just put it far away from my budget.
I'm looking at 500's
You can use your system for more than two years, but the ones with the greatest flexibility will typically be at the high end. The lesser ones come with the built in obsolescence.cpu:220
mother:55
video:70
mem:47
hdd:85
case:50
I upgrading my systems every one or two years if the component uses the same socket. if not, until it dies on me
It should work as you've configured as long as your expectation are within reason.
I'd simply get the same configuration as the first computer, if it suits your needs. Or, invest a little more and get something up-to-date.
I second that. One of my friend have a quadcore AMD and he can encode HD content up to 20fps using MeGui. So I'd say go with AMD too.
And according to the benchmarks he sent me, an Athlon II quadcore is still faster than their new 8core with GPU integrated.
And about the Nvidia, CUDA is still faster in encoding than ATI. I had ATI cards for years and when I switched for the lower-end Nvidia, I've been sold at that moment! CUDA vs ATI is like Day & Night. I vouch for CUDA.
Yes they do, but simply not as great as Nvidia. Period.
I second that. My friend is my PC-GURU and he said that AMD quad-core was faster than Intel CPUs. AMD is more video-based while Intel is more "office-based".
I know the applications I use take advantage of the hi-end cpu's, but I'm happy with the i5. I did a lot of research before buying the i5, and it was the most cost effective. I'b been using 3dmax, autocad, corel, and video editor for as long time, my first computer was a cyrix 686MX 66Mhz, and I had all those programs installed, so I feel the difference on performance on each upgrade, the last one was from an athlon 4800+ single core 2GB in ram to the i5. so I feel it, I don't care for a 30% - 50% boost in performance for a $1000 i7.
FXs where not available at the time I bought the i5,
About nvidia and CUDA, if you take a look to the charts on tomshardware, almost all o the recommended vcards are ATI, that is why I got one. I though ATI finally was better than Nvidia.
The cards that are best for stuff like Autocad are different from the general purpose cards. For the 3d programs, go with an nvidia Quadro card. They're designed specifically for that kind of application. The ATI/AMD Radeon HD series and Nvidia's GTX series are consumer graphics cards, made for the general use computer, so they're going to be much slower than the number-crunching professional workstation cards.
a $150 gaming/consumer card will outperform an entry level $600 Quadro, only the $3000+ Quadros will make a difference. there is a lot of research on it.
Well if you're using it for professional purposes, why would you cheap out on the card?
I'm on the construction industry, I'm lucky I still have income. I don't think I will ever spend $1k for a video card just to find out that only improves 30% compared to a $150 card, hehe.
What I've always seen on hi-end stuff, is that you are paying a premium to be using the top notch tech and not for the real performance.
Check this out , paying $700 for 20% performance may be worth for some people. not for me. my income is not there.
score winzip 7zip winrar 3d 3d adobe photoshop total cost
i7 2600k 190 32 45 124 39 55 66 551 $318.00
i7 3960x 198 41 52 166 49 55 94 655 19.0% $1,049.00
sorry, table is not showing.. those numbers are scores, the 551 and 655 are the totals.
Is this for a heavy-duty every day beat machine? Or something that's more of a side use type thing?
Autocad every day, most is 2d, picture editing and video editing is 1/8th of the time, 3d Rendering could be 2 to 3 times a year.
Oh, that shouldn't take much of anything then. 3d is where all the real power is needed.
yep.. so that is why I'm down to two options, i5 or FX-8120, well I was, now I'm back thinking on Nvidia or ATI., this is endless, I'm going to flip a coin. haha, I lose few hours of my life every time I upgrade hardware.. its always changing..
What does your software require? OpenCL or CUDA?
"It is dark the other side. Very dark!" - "Oh, shut up and eat your toast!"
This ^^
You get performance: you can pay $9.00 for a hammer or you can pay $100 for one. They both will performance the same until you start putting real pressure on them. Then the difference will show in how you use it. But most of all you get much better stability and reliability with the pro tools.
When you're in business time is money; and you need your equipment to be the best and not let you down when you need it most. Thats mostly what you're paying for.Knowing that will make the decision simpler: ATI uses the former. Nvidia specializes in the latter.
Last edited by Krane; 2012 April 6th at 19:48.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote