I am a PC - INTEL vs AMD? (100% for Video Editing/Rendering)

Started Dec 2, 2012 | Discussions thread
Scott Eaton
Senior MemberPosts: 1,989
Like?
No, they don't
In reply to Barry Fitzgerald, Dec 24, 2012

Enter the typical delusional AMD defense because obviously Wall Street and pretty much every PC vendor and data center engineer in the universe along with video gurus disagree.

AMD is only still in the game because they throw a lot of cores per dollar in the equation - that's it. They've got nothing else left under the fig leaf. Per core they get smoked by Intel, they get smoked in virtualization, and they get smoked with ATI because Nvidia murders them with Cuda. It takes eight cores of AMD to compete with half the cores of equivelant Intel. While video encoding and processing is heavily multithreaded it's not 100% efficient in such tasks. I'll take the fewer, more efficient cores anyday and not care what the brand of the chip is.

The 3.4ghz i7 machine I got from Dell's scratch and Dent a year ago cost less than $600. I'm now doing some benchmark look-ups on the various test sites and not seeing anything in AMD land close to the price point unless I opt for the absolute top end FX chip. That's assuming the comparison apps are 100% multi-threaded, which is never the case.

If the OP can get a screaming deal on high end FX box with an Nvidia card, then go for it. Chances are he won't given the only remaining market for AMD are budget end boxes that make compromises in other areas as well.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow