i3 6100 vs FX6300: Budget video editing possible?

[The Sun]

Hey all,

 

I'm on as shoe-string a budget as it comes, but I need something that will decently handle 1080p video editing on Premiere Pro on the cheap. Second hand isn't an option.

 

So, to my question: which would handle said task better: 

The i3 6100 which is slightly costlier, has lesser cores but a better single thread performance 

Or the FX6300 with technically more cores, bad single thread performance but better multi threaded performance (I think)

Also, should I be interested in Zen, or is it not worth considering at this budget?

 

Cheers!

[Matias_Chambers]

i3 6100.

 

[Sir Asvald]

5 minutes ago, Matias_Chambers said:

i3 6100.

 

For video editing, I'd get the fx-6300. It has more "cores" than the i3. 

[Sir Asvald]

8 minutes ago, The Sun said:

Hey all,

 

I'm on as shoe-string a budget as it comes, but I need something that will decently handle 1080p video editing on Premiere Pro on the cheap. Second hand isn't an option.

 

So, to my question: which would handle said task better: 

The i3 6100 which is slightly costlier, has lesser cores but a better single thread performance 

Or the FX6300 with technically more cores, bad single thread performance but better multi threaded performance (I think)

Also, should I be interested in Zen, or is it not worth considering at this budget?

 

Cheers!

For video editing, I'd get the fx-6300. It has more "cores" than the i3. 

 

[Matias_Chambers]

2 minutes ago, Abdul201588 said:

For video editing, I'd get the fx-6300. It has more "cores" than the i3. 

 

Well the i3 still beats it in rendering... Watch the video, I linked it at the render test part. 

[The Sun]

1 minute ago, Abdul201588 said:

video editing, I'd get the fx-6300. It has more "cores" than the i3

Which is exactly where I'm confused

I've seen the science studio video, and those more "cores"don't seem to make a difference.

[Sir Asvald]

4 minutes ago, Matias_Chambers said:

Well the i3 still beats it in rendering... Watch the video, I linked it at the render test part. 

That's a 1 minute video... Who records 1 minute? Seriously. 

[Matias_Chambers]

Just now, The Sun said:

Which is exactly where I'm confused

I've seen the science studio video, and those more "cores"don't seem to make a difference.

I would just go with the 6100. The AMD FX Series is dead. I used to edit videos in premiere pro with an i3 4150. It was fine. 

[Matias_Chambers]

Just now, Abdul201588 said:

That's a 1 minute video... Who records 1 minute? Seriously. 

And it would be different with a 10 minute video? 

[The Sun]

3 minutes ago, Matias_Chambers said:

I would just go with the 6100. 

Fair enough. Is there any way I could overclock it, squeeze out some extra performance ?

[Matias_Chambers]

Just now, The Sun said:

Fair enough. Is there any way I could overclock it, squeeze out some extra performance ?

If you get a Z170 Asrock motherboard I believe you can overclock it using the base-clock. 

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, Matias_Chambers said:

i3 6100.

 

This guy is a joke. 

 

Please link a creditable source. 

[Jury]

Waiting for zen could be worth it for you. They are adding more cores and increasing single threading performance. If you don't mind waiting a few months it could really pay off.

[Matias_Chambers]

2 minutes ago, Alexokan said:

This guy is a joke. 

 

Please link a creditable source. 

Why?

 

[Sakkura]

In Cinebench 15 multi-threaded, the FX-6300 is a little bit faster than the Core i3-6100. But it's definitely not a big difference.

 

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2015-intel-core-i3-6100-review

[The Sun]

1 minute ago, Sakkura said:

In Cinebench 15 multi-threaded, the FX-6300 is a little bit faster than the Core i3-6100. 

Price to performance wise, which is better? Ultimately that's what counts :')

[Sakkura]

Just now, The Sun said:

Price to performance wise, which is better? Ultimately that's what counts :')

Well, the FX-6300 is slightly faster (for your uses) and slightly cheaper, so in that way it's better.

 

But there are various drawbacks to the older platform, there's much less of an upgrade path for example.

[SnowyMus]

24 minutes ago, The Sun said:

Fair enough. Is there any way I could overclock it, squeeze out some extra performance ?

Not officially, though some boards may offer this option. If you want to overclock, I'd save a little bit and get an FX-8350. While you don't have an upgrade option with an FX-8350 like you would with an i3-6100, it's still quite a bit cheaper than an i5. The FX processors are getting to be pretty old, after all.

 

I wouldn't get an FX-6300 for rendering, though. You're better off with an Intel Core i3-6100 or an eight-core FX processor if you can't afford an i5.

[Sir Asvald]

2 hours ago, Matias_Chambers said:

And it would be different with a 10 minute video? 

Of course there would be a difference. 

[Matias_Chambers]

1 minute ago, Abdul201588 said:

Of course there would be a difference. 

Why, would the FX 6300 be more powerful when rendering a longer video? That doesn't make sense. 

[Sir Asvald]

Just now, Matias_Chambers said:

Why, would the FX 6300 be more powerful when rendering a longer video? That doesn't make sense. 

More cores? 

[Matias_Chambers]

Just now, Abdul201588 said:

More cores? 

Yes, but multiple videos prove that the 6100 is faster in rendering. And you are saying that that will change if the video you render is longer? I don't think so. 

[Sakkura]

4 hours ago, Matias_Chambers said:

Yes, but multiple videos prove that the 6100 is faster in rendering. And you are saying that that will change if the video you render is longer? I don't think so. 

Multiple highly unreliable videos.

 

Reliable reviews indicate the FX-6300 is a little faster than the Core i3-6100 in rendering. I posted a source earlier. Here's another test comparing with the slightly higher clocked FX-6350, and it shows the same pattern.

 

[Matias_Chambers]

Just now, Sakkura said:

Multiple highly unreliable videos.

 

Reliable reviews indicate the FX-6300 is a little faster than the Core i3-6100 in rendering. I posted a source earlier. Here's another test comparing with the slightly higher clocked FX-6350, and it shows the same pattern.

 

That is Cinebench, not Adobe Premiere Pro. 

[Guest]

OC the FX to oblivion, pray it doesn't melt your motherboard and enjoy 5% faster render times. 

 

WIN.

 

Also, dead platform, for extra win.