CPU vs GPU

[adithyay328]

Hi guys! So, quick question: How fast will Graphically-heavy workloads(video editing, rendering, etc.) work on CPUs compared to GPUs? I know that it will be slower, but I want to know how much slower. Thanks!

[Josephdalepi]

the gpu will work better for it, but intel cpus will work alright

[pcman365]

AMD cpus WILL NOT work well for editing

[multifrag]

the gpu will work better for it, but intel cpus will work alright

Hold on  :lol: Cpu will be used mainly. He is talking about video editing and for now gpu only assists cpu with some renderable effects, but not much. Still the main horse power is cpu

[Josephdalepi]

Hold on  :lol: Cpu will be used mainly. He is talking about video editing and for now gpu only assists cpu with some renderable effects, but not much. Still the main horse power is cpu

fair enough

[runit3]

Hi guys! So, quick question: How fast will Graphically-heavy workloads(video editing, rendering, etc.) work on CPUs compared to GPUs? I know that it will be slower, but I want to know how much slower. Thanks!

If you're working with video, encoding is entirely dependent on the CPU with most software. For example, Premiere does not use its GPU acceleration for the encoding portion of the workload.

 

If you're referencing the editing process the i7-6700k maxes out at 1.7GB of video memory. Compare that to the 4-generations old GTX 580 w/2GB VRAM and it should give you a decent idea of the capability for live scrubbing and effects only in a raw capacity sense (it's a nightmare). This also does not take into account the fact that most video production suites use some form of CUDA or OpenCL acceleration, both of which are instruction sets the iGPU cannot utilize.

 

It will be extremely hard to find benchmarks comparing an iGPU to a dedicated GPU for a task like editing or effects. There is no way to achieve quantitative results, if you max your VRAM hitching, lag, freezes, and stutters will become grossly apparent -but those aren't numbers.

 

Bottom line is that you really will want both a high core count CPU for encoding and a dedicated GPU w/at least 4GB of VRAM if you're going to be working with any content at 1080p/60fps. I had 2 GTX 580's before my 970's and they choked to death once 4k hit them (just scrubbing, I was too miserable to try any effects other than color correction filters).

[Prysin]

AMD cpus WILL NOT work well for editing

lol, that is exactly what FX is good at...

Rendering/editing, unless you use MSpaint or Blender, uses as many cores/threads as possible. Thus you want as high multi-threaded performance as possible.

NO STOCK i5 WILL BEAT A STOCK 8350 AT MULTI-THREADED PERFORMANCE.

do not even bother arguing with the above statement. Because every known benchmark in the universe will prove you wrong.

The i5 4690k, 6400, 6500 and 6600k will be damn close. But they cost more then the FX 8350 does, by good margin. So the FX is still faster and cheaper.

Editing, Rendering -> FX8 series, followed by the cheaper end Xeons then Core i7s.

for gaming you got Athlon 860k -> FX 6300 -> Core i5 -> Core i7 (i3 isnt worth it, because FX can match the performance in 9/10 games at a lower price point. in some games a FX6 series can get close to a i5 4430. It wont beat it, but it will get close)

FX is old, FX has shit IPC. But they are cheap, and have VERY respectable Multi-threaded performance for the price.

[pcman365]

lol, that is exactly what FX is good at...

Rendering/editing, unless you use MSpaint or Blender, uses as many cores/threads as possible. Thus you want as high multi-threaded performance as possible.

NO STOCK i5 WILL BEAT A STOCK 8350 AT MULTI-THREADED PERFORMANCE.

do not even bother arguing with the above statement. Because every known benchmark in the universe will prove you wrong.

The i5 4690k, 6400, 6500 and 6600k will be damn close. But they cost more then the FX 8350 does, by good margin. So the FX is still faster and cheaper.

Editing, Rendering -> FX8 series, followed by the cheaper end Xeons then Core i7s.

for gaming you got Athlon 860k -> FX 6300 -> Core i5 -> Core i7 (i3 isnt worth it, because FX can match the performance in 9/10 games at a lower price point. in some games a FX6 series can get close to a i5 4430. It wont beat it, but it will get close)

FX is old, FX has shit IPC. But they are cheap, and have VERY respectable Multi-threaded performance for the price.

they may be cheap but an i5 will work even better at it

[Prysin]

they may be cheap but an i5 will work even better at it

ehm... nope. not at rendering. Doesnt really matter which benchmark you try. If the software can use 8 threads, which almost ALL rendering software can, then FX 8350 is notably faster.

in gaming, i5's are generally better. But in professional workloads, server applications etc. FX is way better price to performance.

you must remember, Bulldozer was BORN FROM AMDs SERVER CPUS.... yes, they began as PURE PROFESSIONAL WORKSTATION/SERVER CPUs. And at the time of release, the Bulldozer based Opterons were blowing both Intel and IBM away with great performance vs price.

However, when FX came out, there was like, ONE game capable of using 8 cores, the rest used 2-4 at best. So FX never got to shine.

Fast forward to 2015, 3.5 years after FX came out. These days, FX is actually pretty good for the price. well, FX 6300/6350 IS good for the price. FX8 is a waste of money for gaming, because an i5 is still better and costs the same.

but for rendering, you want to either roll FX, XEON (budget XEON), i7, X99 or server XEON.

i owned a FX8320 before... i own a i7 4790k now. I know what FX can and cannot do. the i7 is better, but if we are talking about tasks where we use all 8 threads of the FX and i7, then the FX will keep up. It wont win, even when overclocked a FX wont beat a stock 4790k.

But considering you can get upwards of 70% of the performance, for 50% the price... well. yes, FX is a good buy.

Granted, you MUST use software that can use all 8 threads.

Also, i5 is shit for rendering. a Intel XEON E3 1241 costs 30 USD more then a 4690k, but has hyper-threading. Essentially making it a locked i7... For rendering, a XEON E3 1241 wipes the floor with haswell and even skylake based i5s...

[BrightCandle]

A 6700k is about 115gflops whereas a 980ti is 5600gflops. A task that runs well on the GPU will be 50x faster on a GPU compared to a CPU.

[adithyay328]

Ok guys, thanks!