the amd cpu chips can be great value for performance, but with the poor programing of adobe's software, you really should go intel. you can always add ram or hdd's later, but its a very big hassle to replace the cpu/mbd for an upgrade, so go for the best cpu you can afford now...
look at the i7-4790k. LGA 1150 motherboard, try to get one with Z97 chipset.
graphics card go with the newer nvidia models, either the 750TI 2gb or gtx 960 2gb.
the 750ti uses the new chips from the gtx 9xx series. the gtx 760 is in-between those for performance.
instead of using one hdd for media and the other for export, either go with one hdd or configure raid 0 on the motherboard for speed.
dont bother with a dedicated export drive in a budget system.
there are some cheap nzxt or thermaltake cases that are ok. the Define R4 if you want to spend a bit more for a silent case.
HI, thanks for the response. There seems to be a lot of conflicting information online regarding Intel vs. AMD. Is it not the case that intel is better for gaming, whilst AMD chips are better for multi-threaded tasks like video editing and rendering? Also, everything I've read says that the gtx 760 beats the 750ti hands down?!
AMD chips are not optimized with Instruction Set Extensions like SSE4.1/4.2, AVX 2.0 which Adobe uses very heavily. If you want to see the Premiere Pro Bench Marking (PPBM) results where AMD does lousy you will have to register on our site. With 184 Results published on that page and sorting on the results of the CPU intensive H.264 timeline export the best AMD score is in 64th place.
And yes the GTX 760 is faster than the GTX750 Ti but at about twice the price.
the 750ti is cheaper and may be all you need, if budget is really tight. otherwise the gtx 960 should be around the same price as the 760 but is alot faster.
amd chips do well in some multi-threaded 64-bit programs, and in alot of programs they do offer better price to performance vs intel. however there is alot of sloppy code in adobe's software and sometimes they dont multi-thread as well as they should. when this happens the intel's are able to perform better. that i7-4790k isn't on par with the amd fx-8350, its faster in general... then the added speed of intel with adobe will make it even faster than the amd when using adobe's software. if you just want a budget pc, then amd are great for the price, but if you are building a pc to work with adobe then you really should consider the intel.
CPU - Intel i7-4790k - £258
MOTHERBOARD - ???
GRAPHICS CARD - ASUS GTX 750ti GDDR5 = £106
HARD DRIVE - WESTERN DIGITAL 1TB 3.5inch CAVIAR BLUE = £42.97 (JUST ONE)
SOLID STATE HARD DRIVE - SAMSUNG 850 EVO 250GB = £80.98
PSU - CORSAIR CXM 600W MODULAR 80 = £60
RAM - HYPERX FURY CL10 16GB = £99.95
OPTICAL DRIVE - SAMSUNG 24X RETAIL SATA DVD WRITER = £12.99
CASE - ??
COOLER - COOLER MASTER HYPER 212 EVO = £24.99
TOTAL = £688 (without motherboard and case)
Does this system look more appropriate for my needs?? Thanks again for the input!
They say that about AMD processors but I have an FX 8320 and I can edit in full resolution with no problem. I can even edit 4k in half or quarter resolution. Intel maybe faster but AMD can edit and render fine I feel like its ok to save a few seconds or a minute to save a couple hundred dollars for someone who wants to edit with no problem now. And by the time my tech becomes outdated it would be time to upgrade a whole new cpu and mobo anyways. I don't like when people act like just because intel is faster that AMD does work. Here is my build and what you have up there was fine my only thing I would recommend a change is more ram and to get a 990FX board. I started with a 970 chipset and I could not keep my temps under control. Here is my build. I already had the drives besides the SSDs but I paid about $750 from smart shopping over time and it worked out for me. I started with a GTX 650 which I was satisfied with editing 1080p but playing with 4k footage I decided to go ahead and upgrade the card so I have the GTX 970 about to arrive tomorrow.
Intel is recommended but AMD can get the job done and Im 250+ professional projects in with AMD so I vouch for it.
CPU: AMD FX-8320
CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO
Motherboard: Asus Sabertooth 990FX R2.0
Memory: Kingston Fury Series 16GB 1866
Storage: Silicon Power S70 240GB SSD
Storage: Samsung 840 EVO 250GB SSD
Storage: Western Digital Caviar Green 2TB
Storage: Seagate Pipeline HD 1TB
Storage: Seagate Barracuda 500GB
Video Card: MSI GeForce GTX 970 4GB Twin Frozr V Video Card ($326.98 @ Newegg)
Case: Cooler Master HAF 932
Power Supply: EVGA SuperNOVA NEX 650W 80+ Gold Certified Fully-Modular ATX Power Supply ($64.99 @ NCIX US)
Monitor: Acer S202HLbd 20.0" Monitor
Monitor: Samsung S23C570H 23.0" Monitor
if i gave the impression amd doesn't work, then it came out wrong. amd chips are solid and i have recommended them here before. however i also like to keep computers around as long as possible and not upgrade every 6 months. so while the intel is alot more expensive than the amd in this situation, we also have to consider its faster and the other parts involved with an upgrade. ddr4 is already here, so the next upgrade wont just be cpu/mbd, it will be cpu/mbd/ram. so the intel i recommend is to be the best of the last gen hardware as it stands now, and being faster to last longer before needing to upgrade.
I don't believe Ill need to upgrade my system in 6 months. Before I build this system I used a AMD Athlon II quad core which I used for 3 years. It was a HP machine and I added a GTX 650 and it allowed me to edit in half resolution so total I spent about 650 on that setup and it worked fine. People on a budget come to these talkgroups for advice to build a machine that can edit and they are always discouraged from AMD systems simply because Intel is faster instead of recommending them to use Intel but never inform with the proper setup AMD can work. I just feel that's not fair especially to someone who is on a budget and im sorry i3 is not going to cut it. Telling me to save my money for a $1500 setup is not going to cut it when if Im ready to edit now.
if i suggested amd wont work, i didn't mean that. the reference to upgrading every 6 months was just a blanket statement of trying to get long term use out of a computer... i agree with you on budgets, and like i said before, i have listed amd's as options here before.
i looked at the OP's needs and budget, looked at the parts list, and offered an alternative. with the cheaper video card and one less hdd its still close to budget price. if this wasn't for adobe software including AE, i might have suggested the amd and different hardware, just depends on the software. i wasn't trying to suggest amd wouldn't work, just that the intel might be worth the extra money in this case.
and please this was no attack on you don't take it the wrong way. I understand your point and its very valid. I was once in his shoes researching for a build that I could edit more efficient and all the research I did most people discouraged AMD as if you hit playback and it would just sizzle the computer. It was this article that made me go ahead and go the AMD route and I am very happy with the results.
Thanks for the input relly, I'm really not sure which way to go with it! My highest goal is to be able to work with DSLR footage in real time, with effects, without slow down. Can I do that with the suggestions you make? Can I ask, why do you recommend the 990FX board over the EVO 970? And also, I see you have 5 separate drives on your setup there, what's the benefit of this, are they RAID'ed, and would you suggest I stick with 1SSD and 2 1TB HDD'S or take RoninEdits suggestion to cut down to one HDD?
As an overall question, I would like to ask, would I see better results by A) Going with the more expensive Intel chip and making cut backs elsewhere or B) Going with the AMD FX 8350 and the GTX 960?
If you can afford to go the Intel route you cannot loose I want to make that perfectly clear. Me however when I was trying to budget out my build I was working with limited funding myself and it was hard to push the go button on a $300 processor then wait a few months then a $250 mobo then a few months $125 for ram and so on. I was able to push the go button on that microcenter $130 deal for the FX8320 and Asrock 970 extreme r2.0. Once it touched down I was using the stock cooler and whenever I would render a timeline my temps was pushing 65c to 68c. It was getting the job done but the temps would throttle my CPU down until it cooled down and it drove me crazy. I picked up the Sabertooth with the 990FX chipset and the evo cooler and now my temps never get over 43c under load. I don't do the overclocking except for the turbo boost that pushes my 3.5 to 3.8. so basically the 970 chipset could not handle the heat of the FX8320 during rendering. I don't care for the Raid setups I feel like my drives are fast enough to not need it. I may do a mirroring setup just for backup but that's why I have 7TB of externals to back up my work. I have the Samsung SSD for OS and Adobe CC only. I have the Silicon power SSD for my cache and previews. I have the 2tb for my footage that's actually on the computer internally. I use the 500gb for all my mattes, plugin installs, overlays, and other footage I use for editing. The pipeline drive is for installations of everything that's not editing related like a few games and other software that I use. I have no bottlenecks and it all works good. I don't know about the gtx 960 I had a GTX 650 and it worked very well. I cannot wait to see what my GTX 970 will do when it arrives tomorrow. I would say if you going to cutback do not cutback on the RAM it is utilized with adobe in every way in fact that will be my next upgrade to get more and I should have up'd to 32g of ram instead of this GPU but its done now.
Oh wow thanks for such an in-depth response, really helpful information. Sorry to pester but just so I'm clear, what think would be the best drive setup for me on my budget, I know I should have an SSD for OS and Adobe apps, but should I then go for 1 HDD or 2? And how should they be utilised? Thanks!!
I would say 2 SSD and one large HDD for storage. having a second SSD for Cache really makes a difference with editing on the timeline especially scrubbing. If I had my way I would have done 480gb SSD for OS and Adobe, 120gb SSD for cache and video preview and 3 or 4TB 7200rpm drives for footage storage. And that's just with a limited budget. I spent $150 for my two SSD shopping around and the other drives came from my old machine so it just worked out for me. The larger HDDs are much cheaper these days so for internal footage storage go as large as you can but definitely at lease 2 SSDs
a ssd for os/apps and another for scratch is recommended, however in a budget build with limited funds you can use one fast 250gb ssd for os/apps/scratch and use a hdd for media. depending on the media, it may be ok with just one hdd. if its high-bitrate/raw media then you would want two or more hdd's in raid to meet speeds.
agree'd I started off with the 1tb in my hp machine and I saw dramatic increase in performance once I added the 2tb and stored footage only there
After even more research and opinions, I think I am leaning towards an i5, purely because it seems like the safer option, and I will be able to upgrade it to an i7. However, I just had a quote from an online refurb company who suggested 2x hex core x5650 processors? This has muddied the waters even more! Any thoughts??
A Dell T5500 workstation with the hex cores to be exact