is i7 7700(nonk) a good choice?

[Hydra453]

I have finally decided to put some cash aside for the processor.

I currently use an i5 6400 and the main reason for the upgrade is that editing in Vegas 15 is a terrible experience.

Once i add some effects and multiple clips the program lags so much it's pretty much unusable.

Before i go ahead and buy it is there a way to bypass this?

[Herman Mcpootis]

if it's the same price or cheaper get a ryzen 1600 +pro4/prime plus instead, the extra cores will help for vegas.

[Hydra453]

Just now, Herman Mcpootis said:

if it's the same price or cheaper get a ryzen 1600 +pro4/prime plus instead, the extra cores will help for vegas.

then i need to take out my custom water cooling loop and things it'll be a huge pain

[Princess Luna]

13 minutes ago, Herman Mcpootis said:

if it's the same price or cheaper get a ryzen 1600 +pro4/prime plus instead, the extra cores will help for vegas.

Do you even have or have used Sony Vegas? it is a 4c/8t optimized software having in mind old standard for the i7's throwing more cores at it just like with Adobe Photoshop and other 4c/8t optimized applications scales rather poorly, the best is faster cores before more cores by every mean meaning the i7 7700 is a much superior alternative than the Ryzen 5 1600.

 

OP Your experience will be a lot superior with the i7 7700 and you'll get to keep your platform reducing costs, if you can go for it go for it, even with the current 6 cores mainstream the 7700 is no slug and should be meaningful until you can do a bigger upgrade with 10nm upcoming processors in the future when the software will then finally take all the proper use from it.

 

Something like a Ryzen 2700x would only make more meaningful sense if you multi-task a lot with other many side programs running at the same time as Sony Vegas.

 

As we can see it is not unusual to people believe raw core count is all that matters for rendering but the truth is the single thread performance is as important, Ryzen is not the answer to all workstation necessities: the 4cores holds strong against the 8 cores ones:

It is a shame you can't get the i7 8700 boy this one is a dream on Sony Vegas Pro, I use it myself :3

Spoiler

 

 

[Herman Mcpootis]

9 minutes ago, Princess Cadence said:

Do you even have or have used Sony Vegas? it is a 4c/8t optimized software having in mind old standard for the i7's throwing more cores at it just like with Adobe Photoshop and other 4c/8t optimized applications scales rather poorly, the best is faster cores before more cores by every mean meaning the i7 7700 is a much superior alternative than the Ryzen 5 1600.

 

OP Your experience will be a lot superior with the i7 7700 and you'll get to keep your platform reducing costs, if you can go for it go for it, even with the current 6 cores mainstream the 7700 is no slug and should be meaningful until you can do a bigger upgrade with 10nm upcoming processors in the future when the software will then finally take all the proper use from it.

 

Something like a Ryzen 2700x would only make more meaningful sense if you multi-task a lot with other many side programs running at the same time as Sony Vegas.

 

As we can see it is not unusual to people believe raw core count is all that matters for rendering but the truth is the single thread performance is as important, Ryzen is not the answer to all workstation necessities: the 4cores holds strong against the 8 cores ones:

It is a shame you can't get the i7 8700 boy this one is a dream on Sony Vegas Pro, I use it myself :3

 

 

i recommend ryzen for that one time and immediately i get crap about how i believe core count > IPC...

i'm basing it off this, there's no 7700/k but the 4790k is there and the IPC isn't very far apart, and the 1600 rendered it faster than the 4790k.

[Princess Luna]

9 minutes ago, Herman Mcpootis said:

i'm basing it off this, there's no 7700/k but the 4790k is there and the IPC isn't very far apart, and the 1600 rendered it faster than the 4790k.

Oh yes and I suppose DDR4 makes no difference as well.

OP asked if the i7 7700 is a worth investment over the i5 6400, short answer is that it is, and it'll be much cheaper specially with second hand deals poping up than migrate to a new platform... that's all.

[Drak3]

1 minute ago, Princess Cadence said:

Oh yes and I suppose DDR4 makes no difference as well.

Chief, the 1600 came out ahead of the 7700K, by almost 2 minutes.

The 1700X also came out ahead by quite a bit.

[Herman Mcpootis]

13 minutes ago, Princess Cadence said:

OP asked if the i7 7700 is a worth investment over the i5 6400, short answer is that it is, and it'll be much cheaper specially with second hand deals poping up than migrate to a new platform... that's all.

with how much the i7s cost used, he could have gotten the 1600 and a decent B350 board at a similar price, which would have done better.