AMD or Intel

[Tezza]

10 hours ago, hockeyjx said:

I have built many of both AMD and Intel systems over the years, but always seemed to have weird Gremlins in a DAW system with AMD. That was a while ago, but when you get something that works well (as in my case, Intel-based systems), you stick with it.

However, I know the bakers have had a relationship with Intel over the years. I'm not sure they do currently, but knowing they were working with them made my decision easy on which to go with.

This is what worries me, my continued research is bringing up complaints about using Ryzen integrated graphics with Cubase. Not that I use integrated graphics but a sign that things may not be compatible. A few other moans and groans about compatibility with Abode products etc. When I submit questions on the other DAW and Video editing forums I'm on, it seems there is still a preference for Intel amongst the professionals. It may be just that old habits die hard but I've never had a problem with Intel compatibility and as you say, if it works well stick with it. My personal not so good experiences with AMD were also a long time ago though.

Edited May 11, 2020 by Tezza

[Robert Bone]

I have 2 DAW desktops and 1 laptop.  Both destops use  AMD, and the laptop uses Intel. and work great.  
AMD can produce more heat/noise, but  I use liquid coolers, and temps are fine.  

[Mark Morgon-Shaw]

19 hours ago, Tezza said:

This is what worries me, my continued research is bringing up complaints about using Ryzen integrated graphics with Cubase. 

The Ryzen line up doesn't really have many desktop chips with integrated graphics , it's just on a couple of APU's at the low end for budget PC's . They are in the £ 80 -£130 range. Not the sort of thing you would build a DAW around.

 

[Brian Walton]

On 5/4/2020 at 9:14 PM, Tezza said:

Thanks for that, this is the same for me in terms of using my computer for video editing work as well as music. I can do 25fps 1080p at around 50mbs/s either Canon DSLR or Panasonic GH4 type footage but with some strain on my current system. With my current camera, I can move to 10Bit 4:2:2 which I would like to try. If I'm going to get better performance with video editing and DAW from AMD simply because I can afford a more powerful processor from them then that is looking good at the moment.

Heat might be an issue though, from what I'm reading the AMD processors run hot, heat means noise and I don't like noise. My computer is pretty silent at the moment and I would like to keep it that way.

Your problem likley lies with your Graphics Card and the Software you are using for editing and has nothing to do with your computer processor (unless you don't have an external GPU and that would be the mistake right there).

 

Or your machine is like 10+ years old (or has a pathetic amount of RAM)

[Tezza]

I've got the 3 SSD's and a 6gb 1060 gtx card so that should be fine. I'm using Vegas 16 with Hitfilm 14 bridged and they are fine with the transcoded footage if necessary. But yes the motherboard, CPU and RAM are a bit ancient which is why all I need to do now is update those and all should be OK. I'm running a 3rd generation i5 with 8gig ram.

The system can cope with 8 bit 4:2:0 1080p 25fps footage straight out of the camera's but it's a bit slow when you start proper editing. I used to have a video editing business many years ago and when you have worked with 10 bit 4:2:2 or 4:4:4 footage it's a different experience. Here, I am aiming for 10 bit 4:2:2 1080p 25fps (Avid DNxHD) recorded footage which the GH4 can record externally to an Atomos Ninja, I don't need 4k and the older Aotmos Ninja's that record to 1080p in this format are as cheap as chips right now.

At the moment, I am "bouncing up" 8 bit footage to 10 bit to test the system because I don't have the external recorder yet.

If all I am doing is youtube talking head shots in 8 bit 4:2:0 then the system can handle that easily. It's when you want to start adding more sophisticated editing elements like chromakey, lower thirds or graphical overlays, color balancing and using LUT's, V-Log and filters and projecting in real time on to a second monitor etc. This is where 10 bit 4:2:2 video starts to shine because you don't get the video color degradation and banding you get with 8 bit 4:2:0 footage, you end up with a more polished final product. If you want a good experience with this then you need grunt from the CPU, especially with Vegas.

I think I can get away with a 9th generation i5 upgrade because that processor is so much more powerful than mine. Sure, I could shoot 4k but then I would need a 4K recorder to get to 10 bit 4:2:2 and then an i9 processor and then those NV hard drives or whatever, also a motorized gimbal and slider because 4k is hard to shoot properly from a micro four thirds camera etc all adding another $4000.00 to everything. Even then, judging by what I've read, I would probably have to use proxy files. Not really necessary for what I'm doing. I think all I need is the CPU, Ram and motherboard upgrade and then the Atomos 1080p external recorder and then I'm set. I might chuck in the extra cash to get it to an i7.

Vegas users are reporting the higher clock speed of Intel is more important for that software, same as what Jim is saying so I'm leaning more towards Intel.

 

Edited May 12, 2020 by Tezza

[Brian Walton]

14 minutes ago, Tezza said:

I've got the 3 SSD's and a 6gb 1060 gtx card so that should be fine. I'm using Vegas 16 with Hitfilm 14 bridged and they are fine with the transcoded footage if necessary. But yes the motherboard, CPU and RAM are a bit ancient which is why all I need to do now is update those and all should be OK. I'm running a 3rd generation i5 with 8gig ram.

The system can cope with 8 bit 4:2:0 1080p 25fps footage straight out of the camera's but it's a bit slow when you start proper editing. I used to have a video editing business many years ago and when you have worked with 10 bit 4:2:2 or 4:4:4 footage it's a different experience. Here, I am aiming for 10 bit 4:2:2 1080p 25fps (Avid DNxHD) recorded footage which the GH4 can record externally to an Atomos Ninja, I don't need 4k and the older Aotmos Ninja's that record to 1080p in this format are as cheap as chips right now.

At the moment, I am "bouncing up" 8 bit footage to 10 bit to test the system because I don't have the external recorder yet.

If all I am doing is youtube talking head shots in 8 bit 4:2:0 then the system can handle that easily. It's when you want to start adding more sophisticated editing elements like chromakey, lower thirds or graphical overlays, color balancing and using LUT's, V-Log and filters and projecting in real time on to a second monitor etc. This is where 10 bit 4:2:2 video starts to shine because you don't get the video color degradation and banding you get with 8 bit 4:2:0 footage, you end up with a more polished final product. If you want a good experience with this then you need grunt from the CPU, especially with Vegas.

I think I can get away with a 9th generation i5 upgrade because that processor is so much more powerful than mine. Sure, I could shoot 4k but then I would need a 4K recorder to get to 10 bit 4:2:2 and then an i9 processor and then those NV hard drives or whatever, also a motorized gimbal and slider because 4k is hard to shoot properly from a micro four thirds camera etc all adding another $4000.00 to everything. Even then, judging by what I've read, I would probably have to use proxy files. Not really necessary for what I'm doing. I think all I need is the CPU, Ram and motherboard upgrade and then the Atomos 1080p external recorder and then I'm set. I might chuck in the extra cash to get it to an i7.

 

 

Yeah, sounds like your software and RAM then.     8 gigs of ram is bare bones considering Win10 can eat up almost 4 of that.

 

Vegas and Hitfilm are not that efficient.

 

One of my machines is a 3rd gen i3, with external graphics card adn 16 gigs of RAM.   I can run 4 1080P multicams without much issue, at a medium bit rate.    Of course I also have a better machine.  But giving a point of reference using a 7+ year old computer.  

If you are doing a bunch of advanced color grading , etc that certainly can bog things down.  On old machines sometimes you have to do the grade/effect part render that into something to actually edit on.  

4K is also a nightmare from a processing standpoint...and yes, proxy is a must, which is super annoying.   Only reason to do it in my mind is if the footage is required to be in that for submission to NexFlix or similar.    

50MBPS is also a pretty high bit rate.  Since most Blurays are going to be in the 30ish range (and literally max out at 40), the question also becomes does your camera offer a more modest bit rate, to help lessen the load?    If hundreds of millions of dollar projects can release on 25-30MBPS , I'm a firm believer that working well above  that isn't really necessary.  If you have quality glass, it isn't going to really matter.   And if the release format is Youtube Talking Heads, all the more true.  It just gets annoying seeing the work get dumbed down so low anyway.  

[Starise]

FYI Vegas is very problematic on my system. This is just my experience. 1080p video processed on a decent outboard card . My 48 audio has pops in it. Focusrite interface.Updated drivers. All setting match. Only in Vegas. No problems with this setup on anything else.  This has been my experience. 

I don't build computers for a living so pardon me if I'm a little behind on this, but I seem to remember that Intel effectively uses hyperthreading while AMD deals with multiple cores in a  different way. So my 5820K 6 core chip shows up as 12 cores in Cakewalk. Possibly new setups don't rely on hyper threading as it concerns AMD?  How would this affect the multiple cores? Does AMD have their own system in place for this or does Windows deal with AMD multi core differently? The way it once was and maybe still is, hyper threading is maximized for Intel chips. Not sure if this is still applicable. If so, this is a disadvantage to AMD.  Is 8 cores really 8 cores in AMD or is it 16 cores hyper threaded as in Intel chips?

As someone who once serviced electronics equipment at the component level I can vouch for the heat issue being a concern no matter who has it. One thing Intel has managed to do well is make their chips very heat efficient and in electronics heat is the enemy over time.  Since I first put my system together I have had the 5820K O.C. @4ghz. Heat has NEVER been an issue. Runs quiet and cool O.C. It  seems to be idling while overclocked.

Frequent  AMD based MOBO bios resets would  concern me. Hot potato.Red flag. Call it whatever you will. It isn't good and it has been confirmed by a pro builder. JMHO YMMV.

Pics of the last build. Nothing fancy but it works well.

 

 

Edited May 12, 2020 by Starise

[Tezza]

I like the big fan/radiator on the CPU. Slow turning big fans don't make much noise, it's the little ones running fast that make that chorus of whines, horrid noise.

I have to confess to being a bit of a Vegas fanboi, mainly because that program made me a lot of money over time. I would not see it as inefficient at all and would not be moving away from it as my primary video editing software. When it comes to cutting, Vegas is the fastest at that out of all NLE's. It is well known that Vegas is all about CPU power, in fact all NLE's benefit from CPU grunt, so I also can't agree with claims that the CPU is of not much concern. Video editing isn't that much different to Audio editing on DAW's, same rules apply. 

Namely, having a powerful CPU, decent multiple hard drive set up and making sure you are editing in the most efficient codec for the software. Final cut pro has Prores, Avid has it's DNxHD codec but what most people don't realize about Vegas is that it also has it's own native codec which is Sony MXF. You can also use Cineform or the Avid code quite well. I can use mov,  with the canon and GH4 footage and that works quite well but if I were cutting something important I would use Sony MXF or Cineform. It all depends on how much editing you are going to do on the footage, whether you want or need large file sizes for multiple generation lossless editing etc. I just looked around and apparently there is another codec out now called MagicYUV which people are using in Vegas, which seems to be amazing but is still new.

In the film group we ran, we had Avid (media composer), Final Cut, Premiere, Lightworks and Vegas systems that were around then, but more important than that was the editor. People were less concerned about the system used and much more concerned about the experience and skills of the editor. Generally, for major shorts and features, Avid, Final Cut and Lightworks were preferred. Vegas and Premiere were seen as documentary, short indie films or events on a budget etc I used a Vegas system because it was what I grew up with. I wouldn't cut a feature film with it but then I wouldn't cut a feature, I'd give that job to a more experienced editor. Vegas is fine for shorter projects or one hour long wedding videos and great for event videos with multiple cams or documentaries with multiple cams, it's probably the best for those tasks, for fast editing and turn around.

Hitfilm is a bit dodgy because what it is trying to do is difficult, it's like a poor man's Adobe Premiere and After Effects  rolled into one. It's getting better and the quality of effects are excellent but the power requirements are immense. They are saying i9, 32gb (preferably 64gb or more) ram for 4k.

I think at this stage I will stick with Intel and just cough up a bit more for an i7 and 16gb (possibly 32gb) ram since I will only be using 1080p, can always add another stick if necessary. That should also be more than fine for DAW side of things. People trying to use Hitfilm at 4k with complex composites are asking too much I think. I don't really like using proxies either.

Thanks for everyone's input on this, I've decided on Intel, based on input from this thread, searching around and compatibility/heat/what has worked for me in the past issues.  I've moved from an i5 to an i7 and possibly 16 to 32 gig ram. Nothing spectacular considering some of the DAW's getting around here but I think it will allow me to do what I want without constraints and without paying out more than I need to achieve that.

[Starise]

To be fair I think Vegas is a pretty good program overall and since I'm not into the big video productions it works well for me. It was mainly the audio part of it that I am having issues with. Vegas is supposed to accept vst plugins but I often have issues in trying to use anything but their own "track optimized" plugins.

In a nutshell, I think they have some more work to do with the audio portion of that program. Since Magix bought it as an orphan that needed work I understand it might take awhile for them to get it up to speed in the audio department.

The cooler I used is a Noctura. I'll post a few more pics of it. My case has a push fan on the rear and a pull fan on the front. My video card has it's own fan. All fans are so quiet I never hear the computer running and it sits right under my desk. If you want pics of the entire build I have them and will share if you want to PM. These builds are not difficult to assemble. Everything is labled. Plugs only fit in one way. The main thing is to make sure the heat sink material is well distributed on the cpu before you put the cooling fan on.

[abacab]

24 minutes ago, Starise said:

To be fair I think Vegas is a pretty good program overall and since I'm not into the big video productions it works well for me. It was mainly the audio part of it that I am having issues with. Vegas is supposed to accept vst plugins but I often have issues in trying to use anything but their own "track optimized" plugins.

In a nutshell, I think they have some more work to do with the audio portion of that program. Since Magix bought it as an orphan that needed work I understand it might take awhile for them to get it up to speed in the audio department.

I am surprised by that, considering that Vegas Pro is the offspring of Vegas 1.0, originally developed by Sonic Foundry as audio editing software. I have a copy, and there are many similarities to Acid. But Vegas was way more of a dedicated linear DAW. Video was added in version 2, and sold to Sony around version 4 (2003?).

I have a copy of Vegas Pro 14, but haven't messed with the audio. Leave the audio track as is. Just use it to edit together video clips from my digital camera.

[chuckebaby]

Was a huge AMD fanboy for many years. My very first build was an AMD. I've had many debates with @Jim Roseberry about AMD vs Intel.  Nothing would change my mind... Until.. I bought an Intel I7. Then i finally realized some things that he had been saying that i didn't quite understand from an AMD point of view.

Really glad we had those respectful debates, he made me want to try Intel to see what all the "Hoopla" was about. Needless to say, i'm still using Intel to this day.

I will say though, AMD has made some great strides as of late and i am interested in trying some of their newer processors but for now, ive been extremely happy with Intel.

 

 

[Starise]

I did some investigation into the way that AMD and Intel process thread information. Hyper Threading was a term coined before multi core chips were all the rage and since it was a proprietary technology AMD couldn't use it, so they use something called  multi threading instead . It is important to note that the two don't work exactly the same. Otherwise it would have been an infringement on  the Intel patents.  To be clear, this idea focuses more on the way physical cores are dealt with and not so much the the physical cores themselves. 

The fact that a cpu has lots of cores doesn't mean much if the way they are used is less efficient. Hyper threading works with a firm connection between the hardware and the software. The software has to be written to take advantage of it. While multi threading  has a similar outcome the two don't work the same from the inside.  The OS and software must be written to take advantage of whatever hardware chip /MOBO configurations are there. In the case of Intel Hyper threading I think this is a MOBO /cpu dependent thing from the get go. I'm not sure about multi threading as used in AMD architecture. It isn't the same thing.

An article I found on it HERE

 

I 

[Robert Bone]

6 hours ago, Starise said:

To be fair I think Vegas is a pretty good program overall and since I'm not into the big video productions it works well for me. It was mainly the audio part of it that I am having issues with. Vegas is supposed to accept vst plugins but I often have issues in trying to use anything but their own "track optimized" plugins.

 

I never use the inherent audio within Vegas - I have Vegas Pro 15, I always work up any audio inside Cakewalk, including any of the original audio track from the original video, along with any additional tracks I want to add, such as backing tracks of music, using the video display in Cakewalk, to make sure everything lines up properly, and then I export the completed audio composite so it can be pulled into the Vegas project.  That avoids having to deal with any particular weirdness or shortcomings within Vegas' audio processing.  By doing it this way, I let Vegas excel at its video processing, and I also get to leverage Cakewalk's excellent audio processing.  It is a good combo.

(Not trying to hijack this thread - just a quick reply to the quote excerpt from above)

Bob Bone

[Xoo]

13 hours ago, Starise said:

I did some investigation into the way that AMD and Intel process thread information. Hyper Threading was a term coined before multi core chips were all the rage and since it was a proprietary technology AMD couldn't use it, so they use something called  multi threading instead . It is important to note that the two don't work exactly the same. Otherwise it would have been an infringement on  the Intel patents.  To be clear, this idea focuses more on the way physical cores are dealt with and not so much the the physical cores themselves. 

The fact that a cpu has lots of cores doesn't mean much if the way they are used is less efficient. Hyper threading works with a firm connection between the hardware and the software. The software has to be written to take advantage of it. While multi threading  has a similar outcome the two don't work the same from the inside.  The OS and software must be written to take advantage of whatever hardware chip /MOBO configurations are there. In the case of Intel Hyper threading I think this is a MOBO /cpu dependent thing from the get go. I'm not sure about multi threading as used in AMD architecture. It isn't the same thing.

An article I found on it HERE

 

I 

Both AMD and Intel (as do other CPU vendors like IBM) now use a form of Simultaneous Multithreading (SMT).  Hyperthreading is just an Intel trademark, hence why AMD couldn't  use it explicitly.  The silicon implementation will be different, but from the OS' point of view, they are essentially identical.

That article is somewhat confused (the comments are much more accurate!).

[Mark Morgon-Shaw]

On 5/13/2020 at 4:28 AM, Tezza said:

I think at this stage I will stick with Intel and just cough up a bit more for an i7 and 16gb (possibly 32gb) ram since I will only be using 1080p, can always add another stick if necessary. That should also be more than fine for DAW side of things. People trying to use Hitfilm at 4k with complex composites are asking too much I think. I don't really like using proxies either.

https://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/cpu_mainboard/amd_ryzen_5_3600_review/11

[Starise]

On 5/14/2020 at 4:33 AM, Kevin Perry said:

That article is somewhat confused (the comments are much more accurate!).

These were my thoughts on this too. Intel no longer uses hyper threading?

I would question that the two are "essentially identical". There seem to be some very big differences. Admittedly maybe It's just the way I'm looking at it. One technology seems to be more catered to the purpose while the other technology seems to be a more generic approach which to my thinking could be a less effective approach in some situations?  It would be similar to comparing a wankle engine to a fuel injected  internal combustion engine. They might both show an equal horsepower spec, but they wouldn't both behave the same way under a load. In computer speak, I think it might come down to cpu cycles and how efficient each method really is in the same situations. One thing is for sure. One of the "engines" needs more coolant.

On 5/13/2020 at 3:48 PM, Robert Bone said:

I never use the inherent audio within Vegas - I have Vegas Pro 15, I always work up any audio inside Cakewalk, including any of the original audio track from the original video, along with any additional tracks I want to add, such as backing tracks of music, using the video display in Cakewalk, to make sure everything lines up properly, and then I export the completed audio composite so it can be pulled into the Vegas project.  That avoids having to deal with any particular weirdness or shortcomings within Vegas' audio processing.  By doing it this way, I let Vegas excel at its video processing, and I also get to leverage Cakewalk's excellent audio processing.  It is a good combo.

This is a great way to deal with it IMO. I would have done the same but I am tracking using the built in screen capture in Vegas 16. Mono track 16bit/48 audio. The audio has pops in it from the get go. The only way around it is to track with two programs ( cumbersome to do). Screen capture is a new addition to that program and I love the way it works. I just wish I could get clean audio from it. I'm using a nice mic. Not the one on my camera. Thanks!

 

[abacab]

1 hour ago, Starise said:

These were my thoughts on this too. Intel no longer uses hyper threading?

Intel uses hyper-threading in addition to multi-threading on certain processors.

The way I see it is like this:

Say you have four cores. If your software can run on all 4 cores simultaneously, that is done by using 4 threads. In other words, this is multi-threading. It is on by default in  multi core Intel CPUs, but your application software has to be written to support it.

Hyper-threading is when Intel enables 2 threads per core, resulting in  extra "virtual" cores. So a 4 core Intel processor can run 8 threads when hyper-threading is enabled. So a quad core processor, with hyper-threading enabled, will appear to have 8 "virtual" cores.

I cannot speak for AMD in this regard, as I have never used their processors.

 

Edited May 15, 2020 by abacab

[Xoo]

AMD's implementation is essentially the same.  My 6 core Ryzen can run 12 threads (and appears as 12 in Windows task manager).  From Windows' perspective, AMD' and Intel's CPUs are in this respect indistinguishable.