8350 VS 4770k

[Silver]

I'm planning on making a video editing computer using either a 8350 or a 4770k. I would be planing on overclocking both, just to squeeze out any extra performance. Which one do you fine gentlemen think is better?

If it helps any, the type of video editing I would be doing would mostly be somewhat effects-heavy short films. I don't know if that changes anything.

The Intel Machine: http://pcpartpicker.com/user/SilverTheWolf/saved/27NH

The AMD Machine: http://pcpartpicker.com/user/SilverTheWolf/saved/2I5C

[Sarcasm]

No contest 4770K.

[Tmh85]

not even close 4770k

[Silver]

Well great! Thanks for the advice.

[kinkywink]

I'm planning on making a video editing computer using either a 8350 or a 4770k. I would be planing on overclocking both, just to squeeze out any extra performance. Which one do you fine gentlemen think is better?

If it helps any, the type of video editing I would be doing would mostly be somewhat effects-heavy short films. I don't know if that changes anything.

The Intel Machine: http://pcpartpicker.com/user/SilverTheWolf/saved/27NH

The AMD Machine: http://pcpartpicker.com/user/SilverTheWolf/saved/2I5C

if your just editing, 4770k.

if your going to be streaming aswell, 8350.

8350 isnt as good as the 4770k but it can still keep up.

and for price to performance, the 8350 wins.

if you go for 8350 you would be able to spend 110 dollars on something else. gpu or cooling.

 

may i ask why the intel build has 2 different 120 gb ssds while the amd build has 1 ssd and 2 different types of hdd's?

 

EDIT - if your recording your own footage, i recommend a single 120 gb ssd for your boot drive and then a second 120-240gb ssd to record on. this will allow you to record higher resolutions with better fps.

on a side note, the gtx 780 will probably be better for editing, from what i heard most editing softwares (popular ones) like nvidia..

where as games it seems like its amd.

all your choice though

[CoolBeans]

In some programs a 8350 is faster

[Silver]

if your just editing, 4770k.

if your going to be streaming aswell, 8350.

8350 isnt as good as the 4770k but it can still keep up.

and for price to performance, the 8350 wins.

Streaming as in streaming games? No, I'd just be playing them alone (sigh).

I'll have to see how low things get during Black Friday sales. See how much money I have left over.

Also, I forgot to mention, the editing would be with the Adobe Creative Suite.

And the Intel has 2 different SSDs, because I was toying with getting one for my laptop. I must've left it on there. Oh well. It's off now.

[Silver]

if your just editing, 4770k.

if your going to be streaming aswell, 8350.

8350 isnt as good as the 4770k but it can still keep up.

and for price to performance, the 8350 wins.

if you go for 8350 you would be able to spend 110 dollars on something else. gpu or cooling.

 

may i ask why the intel build has 2 different 120 gb ssds while the amd build has 1 ssd and 2 different types of hdd's?

 

EDIT - if your recording your own footage, i recommend a single 120 gb ssd for your boot drive and then a second 120-240gb ssd to record on. this will allow you to record higher resolutions with better fps.

on a side note, the gtx 780 will probably be better for editing, from what i heard most editing softwares (popular ones) like nvidia..

where as games it seems like its amd.

all your choice though

In response to the edit... I've heard that OpenGL is really good with Adobe. Might this make it better with the Radeon? Because it's significantly cheaper than the 780.

[kinkywink]

In response to the edit... I've heard that OpenGL is really good with Adobe. Might this make it better with the Radeon? Because it's significantly cheaper than the 780.

it is cheaper, but you didnt say what resolution you were using either, could be a 720p monitor to 4k

if its anything over 1080p i would recommend 780, gives enough horse power for multiple screens as well

from what ive heard from other people on this forum, adobe likes cuda cores - might just be photoshop/aftereffects im not too sure

 

 

EDIT - in saying that, the r9 280x is a hell of a lot cheaper. but if you went the amd build, you would be able to afford the 780 for a lil bit extra

[Silver]

it is cheaper, but you didnt say what resolution you were using either, could be a 720p monitor to 4k

if its anything over 1080p i would recommend 780, gives enough horse power for multiple screens as well

from what ive heard from other people on this forum, adobe likes cuda cores - might just be photoshop/aftereffects im not too sure

Oh right, I forgot about the resolution thing. At the moment I have a really old monitor that is 1024xsomething, but I'll probably be getting a 1080p screen to use with that. Though I believe a 780 is out of my price range, I might look at the 770 or 760. We'll have to see what the prices are.

[kinkywink]

Oh right, I forgot about the resolution thing. At the moment I have a really old monitor that is 1024xsomething, but I'll probably be getting a 1080p screen to use with that. Though I believe a 780 is out of my price range, I might look at the 770 or 760. We'll have to see what the prices are.

i personally wouldnt recommend the 770 or 760, not because they are shit, they are really good cards, but the fact that they run a 284 bit bus with either 2 or 4 gb of Vram, for 1080p the 2gb would be enough but i dont think there would be enough if were editing a heavy-effect video at the same time as the 1080p (im not too sure how itd work)

So in theory, you would pick the 4gb model, which is fine except from what ive read, the 4gb models(of 770/760 dont have a wide enough bus to use all of the Vram. so yeah your choice is either, go op with 780 or pass on by with a nice fine r9 280x :3

nothing wrong with the r9 280x,either, just giving you some more options

[piplupgao]

Streaming as in streaming games? No, I'd just be playing them alone (sigh).

I'll have to see how low things get during Black Friday sales. See how much money I have left over.

Also, I forgot to mention, the editing would be with the Adobe Creative Suite.

And the Intel has 2 different SSDs, because I was toying with getting one for my laptop. I must've left it on there. Oh well. It's off now.

If you are heavy with after effects than I would go with the 8350 one because it has a 780

[Silver]

i personally wouldnt recommend the 770 or 760, not because they are shit, they are really good cards, but the fact that they run a 284 bit bus with either 2 or 4 gb of Vram, for 1080p the 2gb would be enough but i dont think there would be enough if were editing a heavy-effect video at the same time as the 1080p (im not too sure how itd work)

So in theory, you would pick the 4gb model, which is fine except from what ive read, the 4gb models(of 770/760 dont have a wide enough bus to use all of the Vram. so yeah your choice is either, go op with 780 or pass on by with a nice fine r9 280x :3

nothing wrong with the r9 280x,either, just giving you some more options

Well thank you for the options! I think I'm going to stick with the r9 280x, just to save some money. I do see the point with the 284 bit bus, but as of right now I'm a very small operation (read: I still shoot 720p, and effects are done in AE), but I might look into a little "future proofing" for film school. Or if I start doing bigger projects. That said, if I can get a REALLY good deal on 770 or 760, I might just get one. Or, again, I might get the 280x with an 8350 and throw another SSD in it.

[TechFan@ic]

For AdobeCC you definitely want an AMD card, OpenCL is significantly faster than CUDA in all AdobeCC applications.

So you should look at an R9 280X or an R9 290 non-reference design.

As for editing, if you're going to be editing on Adobe Premiere then most of the load will go on the GPU.
The 8350 is faster than the i7 3820 which is on par with the 3770K in H.264 encoding according to Logan.
http://youtu.be/ki8JAhdfcb8?t=1m36s

[Silver]

For AdobeCC you definitely want an AMD card, OpenCL is significantly faster than CUDA in all AdobeCC applications.

So you should look at an R9 280X or an R9 290 non-reference design.

As for editing, if you're going to be editing on Adobe Premiere then most of the load will go on the GPU.

The 8350 is faster than the i7 3820 which is on par with the 3770K in H.264 encoding according to Logan.

http://youtu.be/ki8JAhdfcb8?t=1m36s

I saw that today, and it really made me think about the 8350. I guess now the deciding factor will be if the AM3+ motherboards have the features I want or not.

[kinkywink]

For AdobeCC you definitely want an AMD card, OpenCL is significantly faster than CUDA in all AdobeCC applications.

So you should look at an R9 280X or an R9 290 non-reference design.

As for editing, if you're going to be editing on Adobe Premiere then most of the load will go on the GPU.

The 8350 is faster than the i7 3820 which is on par with the 3770K in H.264 encoding according to Logan.

http://youtu.be/ki8JAhdfcb8?t=1m36s

^ this guy knows his shit.

[kinkywink]

I saw that today, and it really made me think about the 8350. I guess now the deciding factor will be if the AM3+ motherboards have the features I want or not.

you dont need a uber expensive mobo,

the gigabyte 990fx ud3 mobo is fine, would be alright for overclocking as well.

i wouldnt recommend spending TOO much on a mobo as there are only so many bells and whistle you can get.. and such few that you will actually use

[TechFan@ic]

I saw that today, and it really made me think about the 8350. I guess now the deciding factor will be if the AM3+ motherboards have the features I want or not.

What features are you looking for ? also have you considered an FX 9370 ? it would come factory overclocked to 4.4Ghz on all cores & you get an H80i equivalent cooler with it, in the final equation you'd end up paying for the chip exactly as much as you would have payed for an 8350, only you get a better binned chip that clocks much higher & is already overclocked right out of the box.

[WoodenMarker]

EDIT - if your recording your own footage, i recommend a single 120 gb ssd for your boot drive and then a second 120-240gb ssd to record on. this will allow you to record higher resolutions with better fps.

on a side note, the gtx 780 will probably be better for editing, from what i heard most editing softwares (popular ones) like nvidia..

where as games it seems like its amd.

all your choice though

OpenCL is quite a bit better in general for video editing than CUDA, 

it is cheaper, but you didnt say what resolution you were using either, could be a 720p monitor to 4k

if its anything over 1080p i would recommend 780, gives enough horse power for multiple screens as well

from what ive heard from other people on this forum, adobe likes cuda cores - might just be photoshop/aftereffects im not too sure

 

EDIT - in saying that, the r9 280x is a hell of a lot cheaper. but if you went the amd build, you would be able to afford the 780 for a lil bit extra

All of Adobe can use OpenCL.

A 290 would be better and cheaper than the 780 for multiple screens. 

[Silver]

you dont need a uber expensive mobo,

the gigabyte 990fx ud3 mobo is fine, would be alright for overclocking as well.

i wouldnt recommend spending TOO much on a mobo as there are only so many bells and whistle you can get.. and such few that you will actually use

My main concern with a mobo is the amount of USB 3.0 I can have on it. Since my usage uses a LOT of USB and SD cards, I'm looking into putting ~ 7 USB 3.0 ports on the front. But It seems that most the mobos can do that.

Plus, I can't get a mobo if it doesn't match the red/black color scheme!

[kinkywink]

My main concern with a mobo is the amount of USB 3.0 I can have on it. Since my usage uses a LOT of USB and SD cards, I'm looking into putting ~ 7 USB 3.0 ports on the front. But It seems that most the mobos can do that.

Plus, I can't get a mobo if it doesn't match the red/black color scheme!

okay fair enough, was about to say, find one that suites aesthetically if you have narrowed your choices down.

 

OpenCL is quite a bit better in general for video editing than CUDA, 

All of Adobe can use OpenCL.

A 290 would be better and cheaper than the 780 for multiple screens. 

i personally havnt heard much about openCL, but now i have so i can inform other people making editing builds.

i didnt mention the 290/290x because they need to be a bit refined by sub manufacturers (like sapphire/asus etc.) before i can see them being worth how much they are set at. not saying the 290 isnt one of the best cards for price/performance but just that the cooler is absolutely shit.  http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-r9-290-review-benchmark,3659-19.html this is how it could be

[Silver]

OpenCL is quite a bit better in general for video editing than CUDA, 

All of Adobe can use OpenCL.

A 290 would be better and cheaper than the 780 for multiple screens. 

I was looking at that. I think I might get a 290 when the non-reference designs come out. The only problem with that, is that the 8350 doesn't have an IGPU, so I couldn't use it until I got the 290.

Although I could always throw the INSANELY old VGA graphics card I have laying around in in until I get the 290.

 

okay fair enough, was about to say, find one that suites aesthetically if you have narrowed your choices down.

 

i personally havnt heard much about openCL, but now i have so i can inform other people making editing builds.

i didnt mention the 290/290x because they need to be a bit refined by sub manufacturers (like sapphire/asus etc.) before i can see them being worth how much they are set at. not saying the 290 isnt one of the best cards for price/performance but just that the cooler is absolutely shit.  http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-r9-290-review-benchmark,3659-19.html this is how it could be

Agreed! I'm personally waiting for Asus's Direct CUII 290!

[WoodenMarker]

okay fair enough, was about to say, find one that suites aesthetically if you have narrowed your choices down.

 

i personally havnt heard much about openCL, but now i have so i can inform other people making editing builds.

i didnt mention the 290/290x because they need to be a bit refined by sub manufacturers (like sapphire/asus etc.) before i can see them being worth how much they are set at. not saying the 290 isnt one of the best cards for price/performance but just that the cooler is absolutely shit.  http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-r9-290-review-benchmark,3659-19.html this is how it could be

Well duh--don't get the reference card. 

I was looking at that. I think I might get a 290 when the non-reference designs come out. The only problem with that, is that the 8350 doesn't have an IGPU, so I couldn't use it until I got the 290.

Although I could always throw the INSANELY old VGA graphics card I have laying around in in until I get the 290.

Unless you're gaming at higher than 1080p resolutions, you should be getting a 7970/280x anyway.

[Silver]

Well duh--don't get the reference card. 

Unless you're gaming at higher than 1080p resolutions, you should be getting a 7970/280x anyway.

It's not a gaming computer per se, but I may be getting the 280x anyways. I'll have to look at the price difference between that and the 290 non-reference. Right now it looks to be about $100, and if that's it, I might be able to do that.

[KneesWeak]

I'm planning on making a video editing computer using either a 8350 or a 4770k. I would be planing on overclocking both, just to squeeze out any extra performance. Which one do you fine gentlemen think is better?

If it helps any, the type of video editing I would be doing would mostly be somewhat effects-heavy short films. I don't know if that changes anything.

The Intel Machine: http://pcpartpicker.com/user/SilverTheWolf/saved/27NH

The AMD Machine: http://pcpartpicker.com/user/SilverTheWolf/saved/2I5C

the main point of the 8350 is cost/performance, and when you get a $200+mobo its not really worth it