Skip navigation
HumbleShia
Currently Being Moderated

Which is the better processor?

Sep 29, 2012 5:18 PM

Hi, I've been looking at different cpu benchmarks but some are saying different things. Which is the better processor adobe premiere pro and after effects cs6? Intel core i5 3210M or AMD A8 4500M?

 
Replies
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Sep 29, 2012 5:41 PM   in reply to HumbleShia

    The best benchmark site for Premiere Pro is http://ppbm5.com/

     

    If you are going to edit HiDef you need an i7 or for standard def video at least an i5

     

    The AMD lacks some of the special firmware instructions that PPro uses, so will always be slower than Intel

     

    If you are looking at a laptop, read http://forums.adobe.com/thread/1069742

    -and http://forums.adobe.com/message/4578948

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Sep 29, 2012 8:11 PM   in reply to HumbleShia

    AMD CPU's are notably slower. When you compare core vs core AMD cores just simply aren't as efficient.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Sep 29, 2012 8:58 PM   in reply to HumbleShia

    As a general rule for the Adobe CS6 suite, you should be looking at Intel and nVidia for best performance.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Sep 29, 2012 9:08 PM   in reply to HumbleShia

    [Moved to Hardware Forum]

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Sep 30, 2012 5:48 AM   in reply to HumbleShia

    Take a look at our Premiere Pro BenchMark (PPBM) results site and you will see that AMD does not score well.  AMD processors are missing some of the SSE instructions that Intel has and Adobe uses.  If you sort on "Computer type" Laptops you will find there is only one AMD laptop and that ranks at  bottom in performance at 989 out of 1032 tested systems

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Sep 30, 2012 10:54 AM   in reply to HumbleShia

    It is a rather new processor and is only a dual core unit, You really should shoot for a quad core processor

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Sep 30, 2012 11:58 AM   in reply to HumbleShia

    >need for hd editing

     

    As I said back in reply #1 - you need an i7 to "smoothly" edit HiDef material... PLUS at least two 7200rpm hard drives (you MIGHT be able to have a 5400rpm drive for Windows and all software, but you MUST use a separate 7200rpm drive for your video files)

     

    Did you click/read the links I provided in my 1st reply?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Sep 30, 2012 1:33 PM   in reply to HumbleShia

    AMD is much slower, trust me. I sometimes get stuck on the AMD machine at my work and the performance sucks. The funny thing is that it's a 6-core AMD CPU and it's slower than our Quad-Core i5's. Not to mention way slower than the i7's.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Sep 30, 2012 4:56 PM   in reply to HumbleShia

    If you can't buy an i7 you will simply have to be ready to wait for PPro to work slowly with an i5

     

    But, you REALLY need 2 hard drives (separate drives, never a partition)

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Sep 30, 2012 6:45 PM   in reply to HumbleShia

    I'd honestly recommend buying a desktop, you'll get much more speed for the money. Then just use your current laptop for surfing the web etc. Because you can build a much faster desktop for the same amount of cash you'd spend on a laptop.

     

    I personally spent around 1700USD on one of my laptops, and about 1600USD on one of my desktops. They are both using Sandy Bridge CPU's too, however the desktop is hands down faster.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Sep 30, 2012 9:45 PM   in reply to HumbleShia

    >How long do you think this would take

     

    The benchmark site has been linked twice... go there and look at the results

     

    Your particular i5 model may not be listed... so look at other i5 models, and see if there are any i3 models, and compare overall results

     

    BUT... do be aware that what you are doing in AE or PPro will greatly affect the time it takes... some things are almost real time, other things take a LOT of time

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Oct 1, 2012 8:27 AM   in reply to HumbleShia

    For Windows, the only graphic cards that give ANY benefit to CS5 and later are nVidia cards with 1Gig or more of video ram... no other brand does anything other than put an image on the screen

     

    http://blogs.adobe.com/premiereprotraining/2011/02/red-yellow-and-gree n-render-bars.html

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Oct 1, 2012 9:47 AM   in reply to HumbleShia

    these cards are outperformed by intel hd 4000

     

    For gaming, maybe.  But not for PP.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Oct 2, 2012 4:09 AM   in reply to HumbleShia

    I think your budget is too small amount to get a laptop which runs smoothly AE CS6.

    With 6Gb Ram you will wait a lot for rendering, and RAM preview. Especially with HD formats.Except if you just cut footages with 1 video track and render them, without effects,and  and multiple layers in AE.

    I would buy these laptops for sd video editing only.Or use for very simple HD projects only.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Oct 2, 2012 8:06 AM   in reply to HumbleShia

    My final decision is between

     

    My own Laptop editing experience compels me to warn you against any Laptop that doesn't have at least a 1920 x 1080 screen.  Editing with any resolution less than that will not be fun.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Oct 2, 2012 9:13 AM   in reply to HumbleShia

    The limit for a particular CPU (and verison of Windows... Win7 Home 64bit only goes to 16Gig, you need Win7 PRO 64bit for above 16gig) is for the CPU... the actual motherboard and BIOS may be different

     

    What do the Acer and Asus sites say about the maximum ram for their specific models?

     

    >Dedicated GT 630M 1GB Graphics

     

    Have you gone to the benchmark site to see if that graphics adapter is listed?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Oct 2, 2012 1:40 PM   in reply to HumbleShia

    >Both say 8gb max... is there no way to increase?

     

    Well... if the hardware vendor says their product has a max of 8Gig, I would guess that is really the max their hardware will accept

     

    Way back in #1 I posted links about laptop video editing... at least one of which leads to a company (or two?) that specialize in laptops for video editing

     

    If you can't afford to buy a specialty laptop, you will simply have to use what you can afford

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Oct 3, 2012 10:49 AM   in reply to HumbleShia

    I only have USB2 externals, which are not fast enough for video editing... only to make SLOW TRANSFER backup copies

     

    USB3 is supposed to be fast enough for video editing... or eSata

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Oct 3, 2012 12:50 PM   in reply to HumbleShia

    USB 3.0 is fast enough to edit from. USB 3.0 has a theoretical bandwidth limit of 5.0Gbps. Most E-SATA connections are 3.0Gbps. In my experince though E-SATA is still generally slightly faster anyways though even though "theoretically" it shouldn't be. But I have edited with my RAID-5 array over USB 3.0 (when I use my laptop to edit on) quite a bit and never suffered any notable performance hit.

    USB 2.0 is only 480Mbps which is quite a bit slower than 3.0 so you'll be good as long as your system has 3.0 Ports on it.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Oct 5, 2012 6:35 AM   in reply to ComputerNovice25

    Right now USB3 has a better caching model with the right USB3 controller driver and firmware. A Single USB3 drive will perform faster than a single E-Sata drive. The Multibay E-Sata drives will perform better if you have a 6Gbs E-sata controller that is higher end. Most of those are $100 to $200. Is you are going with a laptop them USB3 is by far a better option.

     

    Eric

    ADK

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Oct 5, 2012 9:08 AM   in reply to ECBowen

    I guess my personal experince is just due to bad stuff then. I have a external enclosure on my workstation at home. That has 4 7200RPM 1TB HDD's inside of it, setup in RAID-5. However when I hook up my enclosure using USB 3.0 my benchmark scores are around 10-15 percent slower than my 3Gbps E-SATA. (The enclosure has both USB 3.0 and E-SATA) This is the enclosure I'm currently using. Can you tell me if it's just a crappy use of USB 3.0 with my enclosure? 

     

    I've tried using my USB 3.0 on both my laptop and my desktop and it loses to my 3Gbps E-SATA everytime in all benchmarks for some strange reason. I've personally never been able to make since of it.

     

    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16816111149

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Oct 5, 2012 9:41 AM   in reply to ComputerNovice25

    Often times now different USB3 controllers on Client devices to not perform well with other USB3 controllers. I have run into this as well. 1 Board with Asmedia USB3 controllers performs great with the USB3 bays and then test horrible on other boards with different USB3 controllers. It normally depends on what controller the bay is using. I can tell you the Enhanced Technology USb3 units work very well with Asmedia Controllers or NEC/Renesis.

     

    Eric

    ADK

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Oct 5, 2012 10:02 AM   in reply to ECBowen

    Yeah my home desktop uses a ETRON USB 3.0 controller. So I guess the combo just doesn't work good together for some reason. Good to hear though that some scenarios do work better, I had originally just figured it was because the 5Gbps bandwidth was theoretical and not actual, sort of like how with USB 2.0 you almost never got real 480Mbps performance. Anyways thanks for the clarification on why my setup probably doesn't work to full speed. I'm not sure which type of controller my laptop is using.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Oct 8, 2012 6:35 AM   in reply to ComputerNovice25

    ...try looking to see if a newer driver is available for your specific USB III controller....I found recently a new one for mine,and after installing it, my transfer speed to and from my external USB III dock shot up to 220MB/sec. from the original 105 MB/sec. I was getting,( using a Corsair F120 SATA II SSD in the dock).

     
    |
    Mark as:

More Like This

  • Retrieving data ...

Bookmarked By (0)

Answers + Points = Status

  • 10 points awarded for Correct Answers
  • 5 points awarded for Helpful Answers
  • 10,000+ points
  • 1,001-10,000 points
  • 501-1,000 points
  • 5-500 points