Separate build for video editing?

[LOLZpersonok]

I'm planning on building a new computer to play games. This build, which will have an i7-4790K processor and an R9 290 GPU, will cost about $1,550CAD. Now, what puts me at a difficult position is that I also want to do video editing, and hopefully in the future, 3D compositing for video. I'm finding out that video editing and 3D rendering benefits from more cores rather than fast cores. I want to be able to render as fast as I can without spending a ton of money on a Xeon-based system. There's the AMD FX-9590 processor which has 8 cores and is relatively inexpensive which I think may be a good idea.

What the question is, should I build a separate machine for video editing and gaming, and if so, what hardware do you suggest for the video editor?

[Arty]

I'm planning on building a new computer to play games. This build, which will have an i7-4790K processor and an R9 290 GPU, will cost about $1,550CAD. Now, what puts me at a difficult position is that I also want to do video editing, and hopefully in the future, 3D compositing for video. I'm finding out that video editing and 3D rendering benefits from more cores rather than fast cores. I want to be able to render as fast as I can without spending a ton of money on a Xeon-based system. There's the AMD FX-9590 processor which has 8 cores and is relatively inexpensive which I think may be a good idea.

What the question is, should I build a separate machine for video editing and gaming, and if so, what hardware do you suggest for the video editor?

it should be fine, it just will take longer for things to get done.

[RelentlessAF]

An i7 is better for video editing. Per core Intel is faster and hyperthreading makes the i7 a much better option than AMD's FX processors. It really depends on the kind of video you're editing. If you work for someone like Linus and work with 4K video in massive quantities you'd benefit from a Xeon processor. If you are working with 1080p video of gameplay footage. It won't be worth the premium. Also how quickly do you want them rendered? My PC renders a 1080p video with semi-high bit rate in about an hour and a half with an i5 which is reasonable.

[LOLZpersonok]

An i7 is better for video editing. Per core Intel is faster and hyperthreading makes the i7 a much better option than AMD's FX processors. It really depends on the kind of video you're editing. If you work for someone like Linus and work with 4K video in massive quantities you'd benefit from a Xeon processor. If you are working with 1080p video of gameplay footage. It won't be worth the premium. Also how quickly do you want them rendered? My PC renders a 1080p video with semi-high bit rate in about an hour and a half with an i5 which is reasonable.

 

I don't think I'll be working with 4K for a long time. I wouldn't buy a Xeon-based system unless I really needed it, but for me, 4K isn't a concern. I'm not even going to be using any 4K monitors for that matter. Xeon pricing is scary.

 

Anyhow, when I do video editing, the editing process in Sony Vegas is relatively slow (video preview, that is) on my HP Envy, and to render, it takes even longer. If I were to render a 10-15 minute 1080p video with lots of cuts and some transitions and video effects with the best quality settings available, it'd take my HP Envy at least 5 hours to do, usually more. That's probably related to its quad core AMD A10 APU and the fact that it has a measly 8GB of RAM. This is why I'd be a little worried about doing it on an i7, even if its cores are much faster and efficient. Also, I can't remember which video of Linus' that I watched, but he mentioned that 3D rendering benefited from more cores rather than fast cores, and that's what I hope to get into in the future so I can start 3D compositing for video. You know, like adding 3D models into video? I also saw a video from Austin Evans where he suggested an 8 core AMD FX processor for one of his video editing builds.

 

I'd like to have my videos rendered as quickly as I possibly can without buying a Xeon. I lose patience very quickly and because of it I've actually cancelled a lot of my YouTube videos. If I hadn't, I'd probably have something like 20 videos more on YouTube than what I do now. Plus, I want to actually make a feature film in the near future. I'm actually planning one film, and I think I'll only actually start it once I'm in college because both courses I'm planning on taking will teach video editing and even Hollywood style film production, which I'm excited about. I want to add CGI effects to video and make a film really badly.

[RelentlessAF]

-snip-

An i7 would definitely cut that down to a fifth of the time. It would take a half an hour at the most to fully render out a 10-15 minute video with an i7. It sounds like that was a CPU issue as AMD's APU's are terrible on the processing side of things. Mostly attributed to the fact that they are designed around being half CPU half GPU.

[LOLZpersonok]

An i7 would definitely cut that down to a fifth of the time. It would take a half an hour at the most to fully render out a 10-15 minute video with an i7. It sounds like that was a CPU issue as AMD's APU's are terrible on the processing side of things. Mostly attributed to the fact that they are designed around being half CPU half GPU.

 

How do you think an AMD FX-9590 would do in terms of video editing? Do you think it'd be on par with or better/slower than the i7 in terms of spitting out video?

 

As for the APU being slow for video editing, it could also be related to the fact that they do cut down on performance to save battery life or power. That's why my HP Envy is rated for 9 hours, though I have been able to get up to 10 on a single charge.

[RelentlessAF]

How do you think an AMD FX-9590 would do in terms of video editing? Do you think it'd be on par with or better/slower than the i7 in terms of spitting out video?

 

As for the APU being slow for video editing, it could also be related to the fact that they do cut down on performance to save battery life or power. That's why my HP Envy is rated for 9 hours, though I have been able to get up to 10 on a single charge.

The FX series of AMD processors aren't really that great compared to the high end i7's due to Intel having better per core performance as well as hyperthreading. 8 physical cores sounds better compared to 4 physical cores and 8 threads but it's not. i7's are much better for multi-core processing.

[LOLZpersonok]

The FX series of AMD processors aren't really that great compared to the high end i7's due to Intel having better per core performance as well as hyperthreading. 8 physical cores sounds better compared to 4 physical cores and 8 threads but it's not. i7's are much better for multi-core processing.

 

I already knew that the i7 was better, but as I said, I watched a video from Linus (but I can't remember which one) and he mentioned that 3D rendering benefits more from having more cores than having fast cores. In my very first configuration (several revisions before my current one using the i7-4790K) I had chosen the AMD FX-9590 but switched it to the i7-4930K (and later the 4790K after being suggested so) because it benchmarks higher than any AMD processor I know of.

 

I really hope I'm not coming across as rude.

[RelentlessAF]

I already knew that the i7 was better, but as I said, I watched a video from Linus (but I can't remember which one) and he mentioned that 3D rendering benefits more from having more cores than having fast cores. In my very first configuration (several revisions before my current one using the i7-4790K) I had chosen the AMD FX-9590 but switched it to the i7-4930K (and later the 4790K after being suggested so) because it benchmarks higher than any AMD processor I know of.

 

I really hope I'm not coming across as rude.

3D rendering Is more dependent on Cuda rater than just processing power. Getting into 3D rendering application you'd want a poweful Nvidia card. Depending on how professional you planned to be you COULD get a GTX card or you could shoot for something like a quadro.

[LOLZpersonok]

3D rendering Is more dependent on Cuda rater than just processing power. Getting into 3D rendering application you'd want a poweful Nvidia card. Depending on how professional you planned to be you COULD get a GTX card or you could shoot for something like a quadro.

 

Ah I see now. I was actually going to go with a GTX 780 however I discovered that the R9 290 has very comparable performance to the GTX 780 yet a lower price so I chose that. I wouldn't be too concerned about my graphics for doing 3D rendering. In high school I took a course that enabled me to get whatever Autodesk software I wanted, and AutoCAD, even with complex models doesn't run too bad on my HP Envy. I'm just mainly worried about the CPU, especially when rendering video with 3D elements added to it because I think (could be wrong) that a lot of the rendering load for video editing is placed onto the CPU. Back to a previous build of mine, it's near identical to my current one, the only differences being that my previous one uses an NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 and my current one uses an AMD Radeon R9 290. They're virtual and only theoretical right now though.

 

I don't think what I may be doing in the future will be too professional or complex. I at most want to be able to make a futuristic helicopter or whatever fly through a busy downtown core and add buildings that don't exist in real life.

 

I'd never buy an NVIDIA Quadro unless I was willing to wait a really long time to save. They're way too expensive for me, and they aren't even suited for me to begin with. But I'm sure the benefit I'd have when doing stuff like that would be very nice.

[RelentlessAF]

-snip-

I would get a GeForce card than, the Cuda cores will help a lot with that.

[Guest]

The i7 will perform better than the AMD. The fx-9590 is basically a cherry picked cpu that has a higher clock speed, but the architecture is the same as the 8320/50 and 9370. The 9590 also has very little room for overclocking, and it runs very hot compared to the i7 4790K.

[LOLZpersonok]

I would get a GeForce card than, the Cuda cores will help a lot with that.

 

I will consider the GeForce card. 

[LOLZpersonok]

The i7 will perform better than the AMD. The fx-9590 is basically a cherry picked cpu that has a higher clock speed, but the architecture is the same as the 8320/50 and 9370. The 9590 also has very little room for overclocking, and it runs very hot compared to the i7 4790K.

 

Alright, it's probably better to just have a single system for everything anyways then. Saves money, time, effort and power. I won't build an AMD FX-9590 based system.

 

Just a side note, who needs to overclock when your base speed is 4.7GHz?