VideoHelp Forum

Try DVDFab and download streaming video, copy, convert or make Blu-rays,DVDs! Download free trial !
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 25 of 25
Thread
  1. I will buy a new computer. So, which one of these processors is better? Performance vs. Price

    AMD FX-6100 or Intel Quad-Core ?
    Quote Quote  
  2. Depends on your applications. And how important speed is to you. And which Intel Quad core?

    Suppose the faster one costs $50 more and you will be able to make $10 a day more using it in your business. There's no question which you should buy in that case. The faster one will pay for itself in a week. In a year you'll be $2550 ahead.

    For x264 video encoding you'll get a little more out of the six core AMD, compared to say, a $200 quad core Intel Ivy Bridge CPU. But for many other applications the Intel CPU will deliver better performance.

    http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/cpu-charts-2012/benchmarks,140.html
    Last edited by jagabo; 22nd Nov 2012 at 19:06.
    Quote Quote  
  3. I'm a Super Moderator johns0's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    canada
    Search Comp PM
    Performante-in the future please use a more descriptive subject title in your posts to allow others to search for similar topics. I will change yours this time.
    I think,therefore i am a hamster.
    Quote Quote  
  4. Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Nova Scotia, Canada
    Search Comp PM
    The amd may have 6 cores but it has 6 threads whereas the 4 core i7 has 8 threads.

    Look at some benchmarks on hardware geek sites. The i7 outperforms it generally I think.
    Quote Quote  
  5. Originally Posted by Hoser Rob View Post
    The amd may have 6 cores but it has 6 threads whereas the 4 core i7 has 8 threads.

    Look at some benchmarks on hardware geek sites. The i7 outperforms it generally I think.
    And a quad core i7 CPU costs 3 times more. For 5 times more you can get a 6 core, 12 thread i7. The 6c/12t i7 will crush the FX-6100 in almost everything.
    Last edited by jagabo; 23rd Nov 2012 at 12:13.
    Quote Quote  
  6. Can hyper-threading still be disabled in the BIOS? I don't have a hyper-threaded CPU at the moment (I'm well and truly due for an upgrade) so I can't try it myself, but has anyone run comparison encodes with it enabled and disabled to see how much difference it does make? I'm just curious how much hyper-threading would reduce conversion time when using one of the popular GUIs such as Ripbot or Vidcoder or MeGUI etc.
    Quote Quote  
  7. Running x264 hyperthreading adds about 20 percent to an i7:
    http://forum.doom9.org/archive/index.php/t-162103.html
    Quote Quote  
  8. It seems odd comparing an FX-6100 with an i7 given the vast difference in price between the two.

    The cheapest current Intel quad core CPU I could find was a i5 3450 (which still costs almost twice as much as the FX-6100), and benchmarks seem to suggest that the Intel is only around 8% faster than the AMD when using x264.

    If money allows, then Intel is the better choice, but if you are on a budget then buying AMD is certainly not a bad idea.
    Quote Quote  
  9. Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by jagabo View Post
    For x264 video encoding you'll get a little more out of the six core AMD, compared to say, a $200 quad core Intel Ivy Bridge CPU. But for many other applications the Intel CPU will deliver better performance.
    that is so not true it's not even funny. as you know i had both a x6 1045t and an i5 2400, i was running the x6 1045t under the mistaken impression that it was faster than the i5 2400 and so i decided to run some tests, i used a dvd source, 720x480 4:3 dar, 4mb/s mpeg2, 256kb/s ac3, interlaced, i used tmpg video mastering works 5 and i cut a 32 min 4 sec clip, used a deinterlace filter, and set the output as mkv with x264, trellis=1, subme=7, umh, range=24, weighted p=2 and weighted b=1, b frames and reference frames both 3, and a few other settings enabled, with 256 kb/s aac and 720x540 square pixel.

    the 1045t did the encode in 15 minutes and 58 seconds, the i5 2400 did it in 12 minutes 24 seconds, with quick sync it did it in 4 minutes 21 seconds. over the weekend i also picked up a i7 3770k to replace the i5 with and reran the same test, the i7 did the test in 7 minutes 47 seconds and with quick sync it did it in 3 minutes 55 seconds. in order to ensure all the tests were done fairly, i first saved a project file within mastering works and then loaded that project file and ran the test encode each time.

    the x6 1045t originally cost me $100, can be had now for $90 at microcenter, the i5 originally cost $150 and the i7 3770k sells for $230 at microcenter (that's not a black friday special, that's the price they always have it), microcenter also has the i7 2700k for $200 (was $220, dropped it to 2 bills for black friday weekend and left it at that price).

    to the op, if you can swing it and if your motherboard supports it and you live near a microcenter, pick up an i7 3770k for $230, this processor is a beast, in my tests it's consistently almost twice as fast as the x6 1045t (it's also over twice the cost), if you can't afford it or your motherboard doesn't support it then pick up an i7 2700k for $200 or an i5 3570k for $170 (note all these prices are for cpu's sold by microcenter, all the online sellers price gouge and charge up to $100 more).
    Quote Quote  
  10. Originally Posted by deadrats View Post
    Originally Posted by jagabo View Post
    For x264 video encoding you'll get a little more out of the six core AMD, compared to say, a $200 quad core Intel Ivy Bridge CPU. But for many other applications the Intel CPU will deliver better performance.
    that is so not true it's not even funny. as you know i had both a x6 1045t and an i5 2400, i was running the x6 1045t under the mistaken impression that it was faster than the i5 2400 and so i decided to run some tests, i used a dvd source, 720x480 4:3 dar, 4mb/s mpeg2, 256kb/s ac3, interlaced, i used tmpg video mastering works 5 and i cut a 32 min 4 sec clip, used a deinterlace filter, and set the output as mkv with x264, trellis=1, subme=7, umh, range=24, weighted p=2 and weighted b=1, b frames and reference frames both 3, and a few other settings enabled, with 256 kb/s aac and 720x540 square pixel.
    I said x264 encoding. Not deinterlacing, resizing, audio encoding, and x264 encoding with Tmpg.
    Quote Quote  
  11. Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by jagabo View Post
    I said x264 encoding. Not deinterlacing, resizing, audio encoding, and x264 encoding with Tmpg.
    show me a single benchmark from any reputable site that has any 6 core amd cpu beating a $200 quad core ivy bridge.
    Quote Quote  
  12. It's somewhat unfair to compare a Phenom II X6 1045T to an i5 or i7, even though it is a six core CPU it's still a bottom end X6 that runs at a lower clock than even the i5 you mention. Until AMD released the FX8350, they didn't really have anything that could compete with core i7, the best they could do is keep up with core i5. If you want to compare Intel and AMD, you should do it for AMD's top part. Just take a look at the Handbrake bench (Tom's hardware link at the top); the top Intel i7 ($1000) is 25% faster than the top AMD ($225), but it's 500% more expensive.
    Quote Quote  
  13. Originally Posted by deadrats View Post
    show me a single benchmark from any reputable site that has any 6 core amd cpu beating a $200 quad core ivy bridge.
    Same bench, i7 3770 ($300) vs FX8350 ($225), the i7 is 9.3% faster and 33% more expensive (BTW this is fair, both CPU's are 8 threaded). Fast is nice, but at what price and when is faster really that fast (we're talking about 11 secs here)?
    Quote Quote  
  14. Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by nic2k4 View Post
    Same bench, i7 3770 ($300) vs FX8350 ($225), the i7 is 9.3% faster and 33% more expensive (BTW this is fair, both CPU's are 8 threaded). Fast is nice, but at what price and when is faster really that fast (we're talking about 11 secs here)?
    the i7 3770 is not $300, as i noted you can pick up the i7 3770k for $230 at microcenter:

    http://microcenter.com/product/388575/Core_i7_3770K_35GHz_LGA_1155_Processor

    in the interest of fairness while they don't have the 8350 they do have the 8320 for $170:

    http://microcenter.com/product/401796/FX_8320_Black_Edition_35GHz_AM3_Boxed_Processor

    the other thing to consider is that the amd is a 125w part while the IB is a 77w part, even if they encoded at exactly the same rate you would be using less juice with the intel part, when you factor in the speed difference and calculate how much less juice you'll use over the course of a year the intel is the much better buy.

    from tom's charts, the i7 3770k versus the 8350:

    http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/cpu-charts-2012/compare,3167.html?prod[5754]=on&prod[5877]=on

    encoding with adobe from mpeg-2 to h264, using a 2 min 21 sec source, the i7 does it in 197 sec, the 8350 does it in 218, extrapolate that to a full 90 minute movie and you see the discrepancy is significant.

    yes, there are some benchmarks where the 8350 is competitive somewhat but if you can afford to buy the i7 you have to be out of your mind to buy the amd. it's like being able to afford a lexus or infiniti or m-b and instead buying a chrysler or a buick and telling yourself it's just as good.

    if you can afford prime steak, why settle for choice?
    Quote Quote  
  15. Originally Posted by deadrats View Post
    yes, there are some benchmarks where the 8350 is competitive somewhat but if you can afford to buy the i7 you have to be out of your mind to buy the amd. it's like being able to afford a lexus or infiniti or m-b and instead buying a chrysler or a buick and telling yourself it's just as good.

    if you can afford prime steak, why settle for choice?
    Isn't that the whole point? Not everyone is encoding video on an industrial scale, and are not looking to build a dedicated encoding rig. Maybe they want a cheap personal or family PC which can handle a bit of video encoding now and again.

    If your CPU budget is over $500 then Intel is the clear choice, but what if your budget is only $120?
    Quote Quote  
  16. Originally Posted by deadrats View Post
    Originally Posted by jagabo View Post
    I said x264 encoding. Not deinterlacing, resizing, audio encoding, and x264 encoding with Tmpg.
    show me a single benchmark from any reputable site that has any 6 core amd cpu beating a $200 quad core ivy bridge.
    The 3470 in the x264 second pass benchmark:

    http://www.anandtech.com/show/5871/intel-core-i5-3470-review-hd-2500-graphics-tested

    Well, ok, it's only $150 at Microcenter. NewEgg and most other retailers sell it for $200 though. And the FX-6100 is only about $110 to $120.

    In any case, the point is that different programs perform differently on different processors. You need to look at your own workloads to decide what's best for you. Personally, I'd go for the i5. It's in the affordable price range, has more balanced performance, and runs cooler.
    Last edited by jagabo; 26th Nov 2012 at 23:29.
    Quote Quote  
  17. Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by mh2360 View Post
    If your CPU budget is over $500 then Intel is the clear choice, but what if your budget is only $120?
    for $120 i would pick up the i3 3225 over any $120 amd processor:

    http://microcenter.com/product/398006/Core_i3_3225_33GHz_LGA_1155_Boxed_Processor
    Quote Quote  
  18. Originally Posted by deadrats View Post
    Originally Posted by mh2360 View Post
    If your CPU budget is over $500 then Intel is the clear choice, but what if your budget is only $120?
    for $120 i would pick up the i3 3225 over any $120 amd processor:

    http://microcenter.com/product/398006/Core_i3_3225_33GHz_LGA_1155_Boxed_Processor
    Personally I would go for the AMD, the fact that it is faster is more important to me than any brand preferences.
    Quote Quote  
  19. Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by jagabo View Post
    The 3470 in the x264 second pass benchmark:
    i have to be honest with you, i've had some serious reservations with regards to that benchmark for some time now; i've downloaded the benchmark and actually looked at the source file and it's not a high quality source, it's only mpeg-2 which is very easy to decode, i've looked through the vb script that runs the show and i don't like the settings, especially with regards to the number of threads spawned, my own tests with various apps, like media coder and xmedia recode show that threads=auto is not the optimum number of threads for maximum performance, especially with hyperthreaded cpu's.

    to me a much more realistic benchmark is the premiere pro benchmark for cs6:

    http://ppbm7.com/index.php/instructions

    i can't find the results chart at the moment but the list the highest scores of the various users who have run the test and submitted their results, in the top spots it's always overclocked i7 3960's or overclocked i7 3930's, then you get the overclocked i7 3770k's, with a few overclocked 3570k's, then you start to see the overclocked 2600k's and 2700k's, then the overclocked 2500k's and somewhere near the bottom you start to see the overclocked 8150's and other amd cpu's.
    Quote Quote  
  20. Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by mh2360 View Post
    Personally I would go for the AMD, the fact that it is faster is more important to me than any brand preferences.
    it's not a brand preference, i've owned amd's in most of my computers, from back in the k6-2 days, to a 900mhz non-thunderbird athlon, to the xp 1600+ and xp 2000+ to the athlon 64 3000+ to the first dual core athlons, to the first barcelona's, to the x4 620, i've spent more money on amd processors than intel processors, easily in a 2 to 1 ratio.

    but i also can't ignore the fact that management at amd seems to have suffered a brainfart and they seem hell bent on bringing to market underperforming parts with high power consumption, hell even amd doesn't have confidence in their bulldozer family and they have cancelled steamroller and excavator parts before they even built any engineering samples.

    seriously why would you recommend to someone a lame duck architecture, that sucks down juice at 125w and not recommend a 77w part from a company that seems committed to improving their products every single generation.

    i was never an intel fanboy, i always rooted for the underdog but amd made me an intel fanboy with their bulldozer/piledriver and intel sealed the deal when i picked up the 3770k and got a chance to see for myself what a properly engineered cpu actually looks like.
    Quote Quote  
  21. Originally Posted by deadrats View Post
    for $120 i would pick up the i3 3225 over any $120 amd processor:
    You used to be so gung-ho about AMD!
    Quote Quote  
  22. Originally Posted by deadrats View Post
    Originally Posted by mh2360 View Post
    Personally I would go for the AMD, the fact that it is faster is more important to me than any brand preferences.
    it's not a brand preference, i've owned amd's in most of my computers, from back in the k6-2 days, to a 900mhz non-thunderbird athlon, to the xp 1600+ and xp 2000+ to the athlon 64 3000+ to the first dual core athlons, to the first barcelona's, to the x4 620, i've spent more money on amd processors than intel processors, easily in a 2 to 1 ratio.

    but i also can't ignore the fact that management at amd seems to have suffered a brainfart and they seem hell bent on bringing to market underperforming parts with high power consumption, hell even amd doesn't have confidence in their bulldozer family and they have cancelled steamroller and excavator parts before they even built any engineering samples.

    seriously why would you recommend to someone a lame duck architecture, that sucks down juice at 125w and not recommend a 77w part from a company that seems committed to improving their products every single generation.

    i was never an intel fanboy, i always rooted for the underdog but amd made me an intel fanboy with their bulldozer/piledriver and intel sealed the deal when i picked up the 3770k and got a chance to see for myself what a properly engineered cpu actually looks like.
    Talk about over-thinking something...

    AMD = cheap and fast enough for me: That about sums up my thinking when I made my last CPU purchase.
    Quote Quote  
  23. aBigMeanie aedipuss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    666th portal
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by deadrats View Post
    i picked up the 3770k and got a chance to see for myself what a properly engineered cpu actually looks like.
    nice. what are you running it at? you might like to update your computer specs in your profile.
    --
    "a lot of people are better dead" - prisoner KSC2-303
    Quote Quote  
  24. Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by jagabo View Post
    You used to be so gung-ho about AMD!
    i know, i've spent so much money buying amd cpu's over the years, easily 2 to 1 over intel processors, i just can't see my way to recommend amd anymore.
    Quote Quote  
  25. Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by aedipuss View Post
    nice. what are you running it at? you might like to update your computer specs in your profile.
    stock, i had a biostar h61 mlv motherboard (cheap ass board, $40 but it does support 16 gigs of ram) with an i5 2400 laying around, so i updated the bios and dropped the i7 in, runs like a dream, nice and cool, used the scythe cooler that i had on the x6, can't believe how fast this thing is. i don't own stock in microcenter nor do i work for them but they have some great prices on cpu's, they have the 3930k for $400 which is a great price for a hexacore hyperthreaded sandy bridge, too bad i can't afford it.
    Quote Quote  



Similar Threads