# Which one? i5 or i7 for editing videos



## Chapapa07 (Mar 27, 2014)

Im going to start editing videos with camtasia studio, sony vegas, and videopad, I dont know if 
these programs take advantage of the extra horse power of an i7, Im on a tight budget so I really cant waste money.

Btw, how much ram should I have?.

Thank you for any help you can provide.


----------



## Durvelle27 (Mar 27, 2014)

If on a tight budget and programs you plan to use an take advantage of more cores than I recommend a FX-8320


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Mar 27, 2014)

i7 for sure, or like Durvelle said, go amd with a fx8320 or 8350. Should have 8-16GB of memory.

Sony Vegas will definitely use the extra threads/cores. Especially if you use it for the encoding/rendering too.

Pretty much any program you use these days to do video editing and then the encoding, the more cores you give it, the better.


----------



## Chapapa07 (Mar 27, 2014)

I know it sounds dumb but I just trust intel... even if that means spending more money.

Could you give me an example about how faster would i7 (i.e 4770) be vs and i5 (i.e 4670)?


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Mar 27, 2014)

Chapapa07 said:


> I know it sounds dumb but I just trust intel... even if that means spending more money.
> 
> Could you give me an example about how faster would i7 (i.e 4770) be vs and i5 (i.e 4670)?



Sure thing.







i7 is quite a bit faster in this h.264/x.264 encoding benchmark. ~25% faster for the i7.


----------



## minabasla (Mar 27, 2014)

depends on the video quality but I read so many review that the i7 is not noticeable from the i5 maybe it is from the i3 but i5 and i7 are just for the major grafix editing professionals so if your doing an easy job you might be wasting your money..

-mina


----------



## arskatb (Mar 28, 2014)




----------



## puma99dk| (Mar 28, 2014)

if u ain't planing about overclocking this machine why not get the i7-4770 non -k version or a cheaper Xeon processor with HT?

if it's not like u wanna try out AMD ofc.


----------



## doscape (Mar 28, 2014)

Actually it's a waste of money to pay for the HyperThreading tech., these virtual cores don't help much for video editing, it's usually good for CAD applications.
I would recommend to buy a fine graphics card, such as gtx660/hd7950 and a good power supply, at least 33A+ 500w, if you plan to get 2 video cards in the future, you should use a 700w + P.S.
Amount of RAM can be critical, therefor I'd recommend putting at least 8gb (16gb is highly recommended). I also recommend on using a software(windows) mechanical hard disk raid 0 configuration for working space  (2 x 500gb should be enough, you can even use old hard drives, make sure they are the same model or similar access times.
You'd better get a 2500k(2nd hand cpui) and a Z68/Z77 motherboard and OC it to 4.5Ghz(Very Easy to do) instead of wasting money over I7 just for the HT function and a 100mhz(similarly compared). In most editing software, the POWER draw goes to the VIDEO CARD, a faster CPU is always better, but I7 is not faster than the I5, HT has very unworthy effect for the 100$-120$ difference, I'd pay for the HT not more than 10$, just to show off that I have more cores and a higher number sticker.


----------



## Durvelle27 (Mar 28, 2014)

doscape said:


> Actually it's a waste of money to pay for the HyperThreading tech., these virtual cores don't help much for video editing, it's usually good for CAD applications.
> I would recommend to buy a fine graphics card, such as gtx660/hd7950 and a good power supply, at least 33A+ 500w


You can't be serious


----------



## arskatb (Mar 28, 2014)

doscape said:


> Actually it's a waste of money to pay for the HyperThreading tech., these virtual cores don't help much for video editing, it's usually good for CAD applications.
> I would recommend to buy a fine graphics card, such as gtx660/hd7950 and a good power supply, at least 33A+ 500w, if you plan to get 2 video cards in the future, you should use a 700w + P.S.
> Amount of RAM can be critical, therefor I'd recommend putting at least 8gb (16gb is highly recommended). I also recommend on using a software(windows) mechanical hard disk raid 0 configuration for working space  (2 x 500gb should be enough, you can even use old hard drives, make sure they are the same model or similar access times.



oh pls.

E5 would be perfect pick.
Even with haswell integrated HD4600 u can use Inventory pretty smoothly.


----------



## Sasqui (Mar 28, 2014)

Durvelle27 said:


> You can't be serious



AFAIK, yes, the encoding is all done using CPU.  The graphics card only does the playback.

There is a difference between the i5 and i7, but for the OP, it may not be worth the extra $


----------



## WhoDecidedThat (Mar 28, 2014)

Since you:

a) Trust only Intel
b) Won't be able to wait till 2nd half of this year
c) Are on a Tight Budget

The best solution is the i5 4670K.


----------



## doscape (Mar 28, 2014)

Sasqui said:


> AFAIK, yes, the encoding is all done using CPU.  The graphics card only does the playback.
> 
> There is a difference between the i5 and i7, but for the OP, it may not be worth the extra $


Depends the software he's using, PREMIERE mostly uses CUDA cores for example, overall memory bandwidth (the higher, the better) is the main catalyst when it comes to data processing. 

I am a highly experienced IT, you should learn than make yourself (I'm here in the forum, therefor I know), kids, I have built many gaming, music, video edition, CAD systems, and I am an enthusiast and an overclocker. Please listen to reason and don't make the guy waste his precious DOLLARS/EUROS whatever on the HT function only because you show him some unreliable benchmarks that do not replicate actual working conditions in real life scenarios.


----------



## Aquinus (Mar 28, 2014)

Durvelle27 said:


> You can't be serious



Depends on the encoder. I would imagine that anyone in the right mind would use H.264 as a codec where most encoders that support it can utilize multiple threads.

So yes, he's probably serious, but he's wrong. 

Edit: As he said, you can use CUDA or QuickSync to encode video, but CPU encoders tend to have more flexibility from my personal experience.


----------



## doscape (Mar 28, 2014)

You can see that the cpu by itself is very slow. 
http://blog.whitesites.com/Sony-Vegas-Encoding-Performance-CPU-vs-GPU__635074458277643125_blog.htm
The minor difference in performance of the I7 for such purpose is highly unreasonable since it's better to invest the 100$ price difference in a better video card.


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Mar 28, 2014)

doscape said:


> Actually it's a waste of money to pay for the HyperThreading tech., these virtual cores don't help much for video editing, it's usually good for CAD applications.
> I would recommend to buy a fine graphics card, such as gtx660/hd7950 and a good power supply, at least 33A+ 500w, if you plan to get 2 video cards in the future, you should use a 700w + P.S.
> Amount of RAM can be critical, therefor I'd recommend putting at least 8gb (16gb is highly recommended). I also recommend on using a software(windows) mechanical hard disk raid 0 configuration for working space  (2 x 500gb should be enough, you can even use old hard drives, make sure they are the same model or similar access times.
> You'd better get a 2500k(2nd hand cpui) and a Z68/Z77 motherboard and OC it to 4.5Ghz(Very Easy to do) instead of wasting money over I7 just for the HT function and a 100mhz(similarly compared). In most editing software, the POWER draw goes to the VIDEO CARD, a faster CPU is always better, but I7 is not faster than the I5, HT has very unworthy effect for the 100$-120$ difference, I'd pay for the HT not more than 10$, just to show off that I have more cores and a higher number sticker.



Every benchmark in the world disagrees with you. Even my own hours of testing as well.


----------



## Durvelle27 (Mar 28, 2014)

doscape said:


> You can see that the cpu by itself is very slow.
> http://blog.whitesites.com/Sony-Vegas-Encoding-Performance-CPU-vs-GPU__635074458277643125_blog.htm
> The minor difference in performance of the I7 for such purpose is highly unreasonable since it's better to invest the *100$* price difference in a better video card.


He doesn't have to waist an extra amount of dollars as a lot of us pointed out. He could get a FX-8320 which does exceptional at rendering/editing while still costing less than a 4770 & 4670K


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Mar 28, 2014)

doscape said:


> Depends the software he's using, PREMIERE mostly uses CUDA cores for example, overall memory bandwidth (the higher, the better) is the main catalyst when it comes to data processing.
> 
> I am a highly experienced IT, you should learn than make yourself (I'm here in the forum, therefor I know), kids, I have built many gaming, music, video edition, CAD systems, and I am an enthusiast and an overclocker. Please listen to reason and don't make the guy waste his precious DOLLARS/EUROS whatever on the HT function only because you show him some unreliable benchmarks that do not replicate actual working conditions in real life scenarios.



Anyone on the internet can say they do this and that.....


----------



## RCoon (Mar 28, 2014)

doscape said:


> I am a highly experienced IT


 
Coulda fooled me...



doscape said:


> You can see that the cpu by itself is very slow.
> http://blog.whitesites.com/Sony-Vegas-Encoding-Performance-CPU-vs-GPU__635074458277643125_blog.htm
> The minor difference in performance of the I7 for such purpose is highly unreasonable since it's better to invest the 100$ price difference in a better video card.


 
Notice how there isn't a 4 threaded vs 8 threaded comparions in that benchmark you linked?



doscape said:


> I'm here in the forum, therefor I know), kids


You are condescending in your tone, and you are also reported.


----------



## Vario (Mar 28, 2014)

Xeon E3 1230 (v1, v2 or v3) is perfect for your instance.

4 cores with hyperthreading (8 threads) at the same price as an i5...

Hard to find cheap ones online, Microcenter sells them for around $200 at the offline retail store.  eBay has a lot of them for cheap, I sold my two there for around $200 each.  I'd highly recommend the eBay option if you do not have a local Microcenter.

I found a seller of Xeon 1230v2 (ivy) on eBay for $215 each with many in stock.
Another sells Xeon 1230 (sandy) for $199. These are "New OEM".

Search term was "Xeon 1230"

Used Intel's are still very reliable, if you stumble on a good deal on a used one, I wouldn't worry about running it.

Ivy is probably 10% faster.  Both are very capable. I could clock the Ivy to 3.5ghz using my motherboard's overclocking feature (+2x multiplier bin).  This makes it comparable to an i7.  They support ECC memory if you desire, but only with certain motherboards (such as Supermicro workstation boards).  You really don't need to overclock the last 3 generations of Intel.

Xeon 1230v1 (Sandy) and v2 (Ivy) will work in almost every socket 1155 motherboard, consumer or professional.

Xeon 1230v3 (Haswell) will work in 1150 motherboards.

Xeon E3 1220's will also work fine and are also cheap on eBay.   Xeon E3 12x5's (insert 2 or 3 or 4 in the x) have video function (denoted by the 5, 0 means no onboard video).
http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/processors/xeon/xeon-processor-e3-family.html

These are also great for gaming.  I can't tell much difference between my old Xeon E3 and the i7 I have now when both are in the 3.0-4.0ghz range.

An ideal budget option would be a Xeon 1230v2 ($200) with a H61 Asus or Gigabyte Motherboard ($60), $260 total for unmatched power.  AMD 8350 will not match this performance except in WinZip/7zip.  For comparison purposes, a Xeon 1230v2 is equivalent to an i7-2600.

To answer the ram question, 2x4GB (=8GB) is the perfect amount. DDR3, Clock speed: 1333 or 1600, Voltage: 1.5v.  Latencies: between 9 and 11.

sorry for multiple edits, I have the bad habit of vomiting out information onto a post, and then cleaning it up after.

Just my opinion here:
I am not an Intel over AMD fan, I am a price to performance fan.  These are the best for the money, period.  Buying an AMD will just cost you more in the long run because they will be obsolete faster.  AMD single core performance is only slightly better than their 2009 Phenom II.  4 years from now, the FX will be completely obsolete.  The Xeon will likely be quite usable.  This is proven by the many 2008 era i7 920's that are still being used today! You also need a larger power supply, better cooling, etc for an 8350.  Its really not a budget option.

Source: i7 2600k vs FX8350
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/697?vs=287
Source: i72600 vs Xeon 1230v2 (showing identical performance, albeit gaming CPU benchmarks)
http://www.futuremark.com/hardware/cpu/Intel Xeon Processor E3-1230V2/compare
Source: 8350 thread performance on Skyrim benchmark (showing poor single thread capability)
http://techreport.com/review/23750/amd-fx-8350-processor-reviewed/5
to be fair, the reviewer shows it performs well with video encode, but not as well on average overall as current Intel. Video Encode: http://techreport.com/review/23750/amd-fx-8350-processor-reviewed/11


----------



## Tatty_One (Mar 28, 2014)

To get back to the Op's question, in premiere for example additional hyperthreaded cores will help but in my opinion, generally the performance difference between a FX 8350 and a 4770 does not warrant the additional price, i agree with most here that as a minimum you need 8GB RAM, preferably 16, large and fast drives and premiere does scream "Give me a decent grapics card with as many CUDA cores as you can afford" apart from that whats left in this thread is either petty bickering or in places (before I deleted them)..... unpleasantness......... Ohhhh by the way I am no expert so I rang my youngest daughter, she does some contract work doing video editing for the Discovery Network, so hopefully she has some idea of what she is talking about..... although if she is anything like her mother I doubt it!


----------



## Sasqui (Mar 28, 2014)

Tatty_One said:


> To get back to the Op's question, in premiere for example additional hyperthreaded cores will help but in my opinion, generally the performance difference between a FX 8350 and a 4770 does not warrant the additional price, i agree with most here that as a minimum you need 8GB RAM, preferably 16, large and fast drives and premiere does scream "Give me a decent grapics card with as many CUDA cores as you can afford" apart from that whats left in this thread is either petty bickering or in places (before I deleted them)..... unpleasantness......... Ohhhh by the way I am no expert so I rang my youngest daughter, she does some contract work doing video editing for the Discovery Network, so hopefully she has some idea of what she is talking about..... although if she is anything like her mother I doubt it!



I love pragmatism.


----------



## WhoDecidedThat (Mar 28, 2014)

How 'bout Xeon E3-1230v3? Costs the same as 4670K and has HT but you lose the iGPU and OC ability. However, you can OC the 4670K and get similar performance as the Xeon......

It's your decision. I would go with the 4670K personally because of Quick Sync which is present on 4670K but absent on the Xeon.



Tatty_One said:


> whats left in this thread is either petty bickering or in places (before I deleted them)..... unpleasantness.........



So you deleted my post. Good job. I shouldn't have replied to that troll anyway.


----------



## Tatty_One (Mar 28, 2014)

blanarahul said:


> How 'bout Xeon E3-1230v3? Costs the same as 4670K and has HT but you lose the iGPU and OC ability. However, you can OC the 4670K and get similar performance as the Xeon......
> 
> It's your decision. I would go with the 4670K personally because of Quick Sync which is present on 4670K but absent on the Xeon.
> 
> ...


Yours amongst others, I tolerate most things, insults and name calling are not in that portfolio


----------



## Chapapa07 (Mar 29, 2014)

Guys!, I decided to go for the i7 4770.


----------

