See this site for more info about that kind of thing: Or, you can use a free program to do that for you. That's just a matter of adding a card name to a text file used by Premiere Pro. Note that you can use unsupported Nvidia Cards with it, too (even though the officially supported cards list is much shorter). Here's one of the graphics you'll find in that article: Note that a mid range Nvidia graphics card can speed up many tasks so much that it can be 10 times as fast versus a very fast CPU. For example, Adobe Premiere Pro can use Nvidia cards for many tasks, but it doesn't make use of AMD cards yet. But, that kind of thing varies by software. Lots of software will offload work to your GPU so that the CPU isn't taxed as much. What software are you using, and what kind of video card are you using? The Intel package still cost a little bit more, but not as much as I was expecting it to be over the AMD.Īnother perk: Since I also leave my PC running 24/7, I appreciated the fact that the Intel uses less power and puts out less heat. I am now running an Core i7 3770K with 16GB RAM. So I paid more for the Intel CPU, but saved in the cost of a motherboard that offered more. Yet my heatsink is compatible with the Core i5/i7 CPUs, saving me from upgrading the heatsink. So I would either have to stick with stock cooling or pay more for a better heatsink. Unfortunately, it was not compatible with the AMD CPUs. My old box had a really nice heatsink that I had put on there (Thermalright HR-02) that I wanted to keep using. If I got the cheaper board, to offset the shortage of ports I would have had to acquire additional expansion cards or hubs, which would bring me back up in price.Īnother addition to the cost of the AMD would have been for a new heatsink. The AMD alternatives were lacking or were very expensive. There are cheap boards for both, but for my uses I needed something with several USB ports and SATA ports (I needed around 10 USB ports on the board and 8-10 SATA ports, with at least 4 SATA 3). While the AMD CPU's were cheaper, the overall package when building my own wasn't that much different due to the motherboard costs. The Intel's were overall faster, but at a price premium too. I went back and forth between the AMD and Intel options and examining what would benefit my uses more (photo editing, video transcoding, gaming). I recently was in the market to upgrade my machine (Core2Quad 9650 OC'd to 3.6GHz, 8GB RAM). If you are doing video transcoding and the software you are using can take advantage of Intel QuickSync, then it the Intel flavors will be much better hands down. The i7 series with video editing and other applications will be quite a bit faster than the AMD alternatives. But the i5 will be quite a bit faster in other applications. The i5 series with video editing will be about on par, if maybe just a tad slower, than the AMD alternatives. I'd recommend looking at the Core i5/i7 CPUs, either the i5 3470/3570 series or the i7 3770 series if you can afford to splurge just a little bit more money.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |