Overclock.net › Forums › General Hardware › General Processor Discussions › Open Source Media Editing Rig: Intel or AMD
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Open Source Media Editing Rig: Intel or AMD

post #1 of 13
Thread Starter 
Alright folks, I'm going to thank you in advance for your help. Here is the project, for something different, I would like to create a completely open source media editing rig. Now my question is which is better for the following programs, Intel or AMD?

Cinelarra http://cinelerra.org/

GIMP http://www.gimp.org/

blender http://www.blender.org/

Audacity http://audacity.sourceforge.net/

The CPUs I'm looking at are the i7 930 or the 1090T. I've heard Intel holds the lead for media editing [I've mostly seen Adobe benchmarks] but is the lead noticeable in these programs as well?
post #2 of 13
Not looked through the links, but the i7's usually beat even the 6 core AMD's when it comes to any media editing/encoding. If that is your main purpose of the build, I'd say go with the i7. This, coming from an AMD fanatic.
post #3 of 13
Thread Starter 
That's pretty much what i thought. Thx .
post #4 of 13
Superior architecture is superior architecture, period. Unless, of course, AMD pulled an nVidia and paid the Open Source Developers to optimize for the Phenom II architecture.

Unlikely.

An i7, for all intents and purposes, is 8 cores, while the AMD is 6. The i7 is also marginally faster clock for clock on each core, meaning even if it was 3 cores, and the same clock speed, it'd still be marginally faster. It is certainly the better CPU, if it's worth the price difference is up to your discretion, though.
post #5 of 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by pow3rtr1p View Post
Superior architecture is superior architecture, period. Unless, of course, AMD pulled an nVidia and paid the Open Source Developers to optimize for the Phenom II architecture.
LOL is that even possible(optimize for AMD)? I think they would have to pay the developers to create a bloated set of algorithms that run if an Intel processor is detected.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pow3rtr1p View Post
. The i7 is also marginally faster clock for clock on each core.
wut... I wanted a 965BE but when I compared them clock-for-clock the 965 was like 30% slower. Unless you qualify that as "marginally" lol
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 930 #3951A687 @ 4.1 GIGGLEHERTZ GIGABYTE GA-EX58-UD3R EVGA GTX 470 mushkin 3GB DDR3 1600 7-8-7-20 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
3x Caviar Black 640GB, 2TB, HM160HI, 7200.7 etc. old 52x CD-R I found x64 Windows 7 Ultimate RTM HP w2207h 22" LCD 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Rocketfish Bluetooth Seasonic X-750 Antec Nine Hundred M$ Bluetooth Mouse 5000 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 930 #3951A687 @ 4.1 GIGGLEHERTZ GIGABYTE GA-EX58-UD3R EVGA GTX 470 mushkin 3GB DDR3 1600 7-8-7-20 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
3x Caviar Black 640GB, 2TB, HM160HI, 7200.7 etc. old 52x CD-R I found x64 Windows 7 Ultimate RTM HP w2207h 22" LCD 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Rocketfish Bluetooth Seasonic X-750 Antec Nine Hundred M$ Bluetooth Mouse 5000 
  hide details  
Reply
post #6 of 13
For everyday use, the i7's advantages are small. Gaming, general use, even some forms of encoding. Synthetic benchmarks have always favored Intel. Real world performance Intel is slightly ahead. It boils down to the difference between 7 seconds and 5 seconds to do a task. Ya, 5 seconds is ~30% faster than 7 seconds, but the difference is hardly noticeable unless it's on a much much larger scale.

Which is why I said for encoding video, audio, etc, Intel will be slightly faster. However, it's like the difference between a Viper and a Ferrari. Ya, the Ferrari is faster, but man that Viper can fly too.
post #7 of 13
If you are using Linux, I think the AMD is superior... go on phoronix.com and check some reviews there.
Cool Runnin'
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD Phenom 955 C3 - 3840/2640 @ 1.39 Gigabyte 790XTA-UD4 Powercolor HD5850 with 9800GT for Physx 4GB GSkill 12800CL8 Ripjaws 
Hard DriveOSMonitorPower
60 GB OCZ Vertex 2, 500GB Seagate, 1.5 TB WD Green Windows 7 Ultimate Benq 22' Seasonic M12D 750W 
Case
SilverStone Raven 2 
  hide details  
Reply
Cool Runnin'
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD Phenom 955 C3 - 3840/2640 @ 1.39 Gigabyte 790XTA-UD4 Powercolor HD5850 with 9800GT for Physx 4GB GSkill 12800CL8 Ripjaws 
Hard DriveOSMonitorPower
60 GB OCZ Vertex 2, 500GB Seagate, 1.5 TB WD Green Windows 7 Ultimate Benq 22' Seasonic M12D 750W 
Case
SilverStone Raven 2 
  hide details  
Reply
post #8 of 13
If you can afford the i7 980x get it. If not get the 1055T.
My System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardRAMOS
Phenom II 1055t 4ghz/3.1ghz nb 790xt ud4p 1333 Windows 7 64Bit 
Power
700watts 
  hide details  
Reply
My System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardRAMOS
Phenom II 1055t 4ghz/3.1ghz nb 790xt ud4p 1333 Windows 7 64Bit 
Power
700watts 
  hide details  
Reply
post #9 of 13
Thread Starter 
Hmmm AMD faster on Linux? I will have to check out that site phoronix. Thank you for that.
post #10 of 13
Go AMD 6-core. I heard from a very reputable friend in the video industry that when an i7 is used to render, the HyperThreading and the two virtualized threads going through one core, despite being able to render videos faster, can cause artifacts - in the professional video scenario, this means the entire video must be re-rendered until artifacts disappear. I cannot confirm this as I do not have an i7, but since he works in the industry I believe him. This is why CPU's with true instead of logical cores are better; and what better CPU for that is there than the AMD 6-core 1055T or 1090T?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Processor Discussions
Overclock.net › Forums › General Hardware › General Processor Discussions › Open Source Media Editing Rig: Intel or AMD