Ryzen - AMD's - CPU- any Users?
I guess this is directed at folk that are using/familiar with AMD Ryzen...Thinking of changing MBO CPU to AMD Ryzen, probably -5, as-7 are mighty pricey.It seems you get "More-Cores" compared with Intel, for similar money . . . . I presume this means faster Movie-rendering which is my only interest in "speed" - ( I won't be"playing Movies, or Games"on this new set-up )....
Of course this means new RAM, probably 8G in one slot, if it will run, and then another 8G, a while later. Also, a "better" Graphics card, although even for 4K the on-board memory requirement is quite modest, compared with some mighty "Gamer" cards now available.
Presently I have a modest Win-7 32-bit PC with 4Gb RAM . . . . but new Editing software is 64-bit, hence the need for a new OS ( and I have a legit copy of Win-7 64b. ).
I've read there are "security-issues" with Ryzens.... but as that was nearly 1-year ago, ( Jan 2018), - are all the necessary patches included in new CPU's???- -OR- - is this still "an unfolding issue?" - does the CPU let you know if the "patches" are included - I'd hope so but have no idea how to do any checking.
Previously I always used INTEL, probably because that's "safe" and there seems to be more MBO's available.... but the present "leap" by AMD has maybe changed all that.
....Cheers.... Intel still rule the roost with CPU's IMO. Yes AMD are getting closer but my recent upgrade was keeping to an i7 Coffee Lake, but I did look closely at the AMD's.
The new i7's are now 6 core so Intel are upping the core count as well.
Searching online for the best CPU will find pages such as this How to choose a processor for video editing | HD, 4K, 8K | Punch Technology
Stating the likes of:
and Building a Photo and Video Editing PC on a Budget 2018
So it is not just a number of cores/threads that make the speed, good CPU clock speed, fast memory and a good graphics card all help. Add to that a 64bit OS and the system should offer a good improvement over your old 32bit PC.
Mark. The Spectre issue is a major new class of security vulnerability and new variants are expected to affect CPUs (Intel, AMD and ARM) for years to come. AMD CPUs weren't affected by the Meltdown security issue announced aloneside it, only Intel and one ARM model.
It doesn't make much sense to buy a high end CPU and then limit it with single channel memory and a ten year old OS with no security updates. You definitely want two sticks of memory (buy a board with four slots for future upgrades) and Microsoft do still accept Windows 7 keys for Windows 10 installs so go for that instead.
Whether a Ryzen or Core i processor will have the edge depends on the exact software you're using so you ideally want to look for benchmarks for what you use. Core count doesn't mean much across different designs.
Chances are they're close enough you won't notice a difference either way, so if you fancy Ryzen then go for it. Thank-you both....
EW - I guess then I need to move to Win10 - but I read somewhere there is to be a replacement-version ( and here it's fuzzy...), which allows users to have Win10 versions aimed at specific uses:- for example Desk-tops, Tablets, etc.which in the past MS has tried to cover . . . The scheme sounds sensible, IMHO - a healthy "core" with the "customisation" for the platform acting as the interface. Presumably this surrounding-interface could have additional updates if any vulnerabilitiesare discovered.
Win 10 had a bit of a shaky start ( July 2015), I understand... some loved it others not, but that's often the situation with any "new" interface . . . we all prefer the OS we are "used-to" . . .
However, Wikipedia entry suggests that Win10 is ALREADY like the above description.... so I'm wondering what any "new-version" might be? -OR- is this folks thinking it's about time we all bought new computers?
-anyone???
BTWon Ryzen multiple cores.... I have read that the Law of diminishing Returns applies to "Cores" - and I accept that a faster processor is probably "a good thing" - excepting the faster it is, the greater the heat produced for any given technology/manufacture.
I guess we'll never know unless running the same software and having identical RAM Graphics-card....
For the time-being I'm waiting for theany OS-changes to be released, as this may produce some CPU issues, which will need to be fixed.....
As I'm Editing HD video presently, I'm just accepting the rather-long Render times - but am curious to see what's available sub-£1K with 16G RAM. This is so I can make use of some of the "free" video packages, which require a minimum of 8G - and pref 32G !
Cheers All. Tech companies talk about possible future plans all the time, and often change them. It can be interesting to see where their current thinking is going, but it makes no sense to plan based on such things.
If there's an announced major new version coming in the next few months then maybe wait, but as far as I'm aware there's no such thing for Windows. The next major update, the October 2018 update, doesn't contain any major restructuring.
The law of diminishing returns doesn't particularly apply to cores, but more to a software's ability to use cores. Many tasks are easier to split up into a few threads than lots. Any replacement would now be a free upgrade as MS are no longer selling new versions of their OS but simply upgrading it as part of Windows 10 Updates.
So you could wait for the next best thing to be released, or buy now and get it for free later. Or better still, if you have a retail copy of Windows 7 then upgrade for free to Windows 10 once you have the new PC built and uninstalled 7 from the old one, just make sure you remember to get the 64bit version installed.
New CPU's do have more cores and run faster per core, but they are also getting more efficient so use less power and produce less heat than the older ones would with the same speed & core count. With the last few generations many that don't want to overclock their CPU have simply used the stock cooler, a few years back this was less of an option if running the CPU hard (gaming or video editing etc.).
My recent PC upgrade was everything new (except OS as I has a retail copy of Win7 upgraded to 10) and cost me around £1200. So with prices dropping all the time (especially with graphics cards) you should get something close (or maybe even better) to the level of my PC for your £1k spend.
Mark. Not long ago the Mobo of my i5-3570 system died and I built a Ryzen 3 2200G system. What I found interesting was that both were 4 cores and clocked similarly (3.4 Ghz vs 3.5 Ghz). The R3 was slightly faster but my i5 was built in 2012. Kinda showed that the old i5 was as strong as the new R3. Both has no HTT. Looks like Intel will always be better but you'll pay for it. Intel are better because AMD's £90 processor is only slightly better is better than Intel's 2012 version of a £250-300 processor?
You can't really compare core counts and clockspeed between completely different designs. You have to look at results and price. The Ryzen is $89 and the i5-3570 was $180 in 2012. The i5 had been rock solid while my R3 has some quirks. Since I also have an i3-2105 system it became an i5 system and now a Linux box. Rock solid as ever. Interesting thread.
I am going through the process of building a Photo/Video editing mini PC
After spending hours on the internet and watching YouTube videos I decided in a Ryzen 5 2600x over the Intel i5-8600.In my case the Ryzen was the better choice and cheaper.
If I was building a gaming PC then I would have gone Intel
I looked at the link about building a Photoshop/Video editing PC I did not agree with GPU choices.Certainly when it comes to Adobe products.Buying a 1080ti is simply a waste of money at the mo
Pages:
[1]
2