Jump to content

AMD RYZEN brings high performance 4K video editing to the masses on a budget


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 44
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Lol. Guys, you do realise you sound like diehard Canon fanboys but in IT world?  

brought welcome return to my investment, as well. that lady is killing it as CEO. Dragging AMD back into relevance.

Maybe its time to ditch my i7 and GTX1060, going all AMD this year! (Ryzen + VEGA combo) Sick of seeing my 4core i7 is still relevant after all this years and 8 core Intel setup is still waay ove

Posted Images

Hm, does the latest incarnation of Premiere support more than 4 cores yet? I have a config based around an overclocked i7-4770K running at 4400Mhz/core, would be nice to know how does that compare to the cheapest 8 core RYZEN.

Edit: This looks informative - https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Premiere-Pro-CC-2017-AMD-Ryzen-7-1700X-1800X-Performance-909/#RenderPreviews-StandardFootage

Unless I am working with RED raw going 8 core would be pointless, ProRes does almost the same render previews on all CPUs. That's where I would need a performance increase the most.

Pff, warp stabilizer is more than 50% faster on 4 cores.

"...in a number of lightly threaded applications like Photoshop and Lightroom we found that Ryzen is quite a bit slower than the Core i7 7700K. So the choice is to pay 20-30% more for 5-10% faster export and preview generation times, but much lower performance for warp stabilize and in other applications like Photoshop."

Yep, I will just stick with what I have for now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 23-2-2017 at 8:28 PM, gsenroc said:

Do we still need Quick Sync if we have a GTX 1070/1080 anyway? I don't see much desire in that.

If you use Edius yes, rendertimes are a lot faster when using the integrated graphics on the CPU, also realtime playback of several layers of 4K video is better because of quicksync. Edius hardly benefits from a dedicated videocard, in fact I don't even have a videocard as quicksync on my i7 4790k does all the heavy lifting. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know.. I haven't been into computer tech that much lately, but seriously, if anyone has an advice, be my guest.

My Xeon 1234v2 is 22mn/4 cores/8 threads/8cache/max frequency 3.7/69w and the new  i7-7700 14nm/4 cores/8 threads/8 cache/max frequency 4.2/65w.

Considering that I have to change EVERYTHING, for a new system, I am not that confident about built one right now.

The worst part on my PC is the GTX660, will a 1060 or 1070 gives me anything, until I wholy upgrade late 2017, early 2018?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
3 hours ago, ntblowz said:

 

And this is just the beginning, with more software optimization down the road the difference will be even bigger

 

ryzen 4k editing.png

1

It will be hard to justify staying Mac after this. Ryzen-Vega-Resolve-Fusion is going to be a killer combination. Pity there aren't any laptops yet to crush the 'books. I'm ready to move to PC after 17 years of mac.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have used a good amount of AMD processors, but None of them ever was close to what they say speed wise, they can do, unless you damn near overclock them till the tits fall off, and then you would probably be safer if you had a fire extinguisher near by. Intel processors are always pretty much dead on what they say they will do out of the box.

You gets what you pay for, and hell I can't pay the big bucks often either. So it is, what it is, as they say.  :frown:

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nikkor said:

I Will Never ever touch anything from amd/ati again.

 

6 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

I have used a good amount of AMD processors, but None of them ever was close to what they say speed wise, they can do, unless you damn near overclock them till the tits fall off, and then you would probably be safer if you had a fire extinguisher near by. Intel processors are always pretty much dead on what they say they will do out of the box.

You gets what you pay for, and hell I can't pay the big bucks often either. So it is, what it is, as they say.  :frown:

Lol. Guys, you do realise you sound like diehard Canon fanboys but in IT world? ;) 

Link to post
Share on other sites

In my machines I have 3 very important factors that I value almost equally to raw power; ergonomics, heat output, and noise (that's why Sony cameras weren't my forte!), so AMD processors were a no go for me for so many years. My old Xeon is 3.7(turbo)Mhz but only 69w, that allowed me to have silent fans, and a sound proof (or the opposite, sound sealed?!) case.

If AMD is competitive in power consumption (=less heat = less noise), then I am 100% in, do not care bout brands at all, and the recent research I did I found that I am not missing a lot in processing power from my 5 years old CPU, definitely a disappointment, as Intel did not have any competition whatsoever those 5 years.

Lack of competition is bad, that's why we need as much players possible (in photo/video market also). 

Link to post
Share on other sites

So Happy AMD is back in business putting pressure on Intel....if you are a pc user only it makes sense to change to this new processor , but if you are using a Hackintosh if you don't want problems stay with Intel, unless you are pretty good fixing problems with kext and know/like to solve issues, yeah go ahead, think also when you have to upgrade to a new OS X  version....

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Shirozina said:

This is good news even though I have just upgraded to an x99 / i76850k ( OC'd to 4.4ghz) - it's not 'that' much faster than my previous  i72600k ( OC'd 4.8k) considering the time gap.

This is caused by the lack of serious competition. Finally amd is back, prepare for a step up in the game soon.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Marco Tecno said:

This is caused by the lack of serious competition. Finally amd is back, prepare for a step up in the game soon.

Also the market shifted to more efficiency rather than power for use in mobile devices - for most users the existing speeds are fast enough and gamers were catered for by improvements in GPU's. Heavy duty CPU users must make up a small % of overall chip sales so the market simply followed the money.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Shirozina said:

...more efficiency rather than power...the existing speeds are fast enough...

I think I've settled on something similar.  Not sure how long I'll be on Premiere, but utilizing the proxy function allows for a fast editing process even with a modest PC/Mac.  If one needs to crank out numerous videos non-stop under heavy deadlines, the faster render times are nice.  For others, a budget and efficient computer can be pragmatic.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Shirozina said:

Also the market shifted to more efficiency rather than power for use in mobile devices - for most users the existing speeds are fast enough and gamers were catered for by improvements in GPU's. Heavy duty CPU users must make up a small % of overall chip sales so the market simply followed the money.

This is true, but...I can't but think that if AMD hadn't beaten Intel in 2003-2005, Intel wouldn't have used the Core microarchitecture in 2006, keeping it for later (like around 2009-10). Core was such a step up that poor AMD wasn't able to follow and got severly beaten...till now. We'll now see if Intel has a new "rabbit in its hat". Otherwise, we'll all enjoy great power at low cost, thx to AMD.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...