It works, but fine is another thing. The stuff that prevents it to run fine are the AMD components. AMD CPU's are not suited for editing and AMD video cards are around two times slower than similarly priced nVidia cards.
The amount of VRAM is not relevant, the amount of memory is very relevant for performance And 16 GB is bare minimum.
But why are they not suitable? are they slower at rendering? Ive read a bit online and found that my 8350 renders videos faster than similarly priced intel cpu's aka i5's, if anyone could provide a link to a unbiased test if available, please, thank you all for your replies I appreciate it a lot
EDIT 1: I found this review from 2012 and it was from CS6, as far as I know CC is better at multithreading than CS6, this is the text from toms hardware article:
We move back over to workloads that isolate processor performance and AMD’s FX-8350 shows us what it’s working with once more. The FX-8150 didn’t do poorly in this test previously, so its position right behind the Core i5-3570K isn’t altogether surprising. But the -8350 soundly bests the Core i5 and pulls right up behind the Core i7. We’ve told this story before, and we know how it ends: when you’re dealing with a threaded application, AMD’s modular architecture does well.
As a general rule of thumb, AMD CPU's are not worth considering at all, since they suffer severely from the very limited and badly implemented support of SSE 4.x instructions, which are widely used in PR. That makes these processors very slow, even in the 8-core versions. You get what you pay for, and with AMD that holds very much. Even though Adobe claims AMD processors can be used, that is intended more to make PR look attractive, but it really means you can install the program on an AMD machine, however you can't edit effectively with such a CPU. Even the latest octo-core AMD's are significantly slower than middle-of-the-road Intel quad cores. If you have an AMD processor, do not expect to edit comfortably any codec more demanding than DV. All phone or action camera formats are way beyond what an AMD can handle.
If you look at the benchmark results, you will find all AMD systems very far down the list with the best AMD system more than 8 times slower than the best Intel system.
like the others here have pointed out, its possible for some projects, but some media and projects will require a more powerful system. that benchmark is comparing against intel cpu's of 3 generations/models ago, and the amd's are getting closer to i5's in general benchmarks.
premiere and almost all of adobe's apps are primarily cpu based, and with 4k editing taking off, fast cpu's are recommended. since amd currently has no similar performing cpu to the high end intel's, intel is recommended as the only option. even intel i5's and entry level i7's aren't recommended... by the time amd releases zen, its major speed improvements will become minor compared to intel's lineup, and it may be stuck in the same place as the bulldozers are now. zen's only hope may be to increase its core count for desktop systems.
amd did add cpu instructions like SSE 4.2 to bulldozer chips, but there are several other factors like lower IPC keeping the amd's down vs intel. the 8 cores aren't exactly 8 isolated cores, so multi-threading random processes like from an nle, can make for unbalanced workloads. amd also doesn't have single thread boost design like the intel's, which also helps with adobe's poor software coding, along with the unbalanced workloads. this is where intel really shines, intel knows that the future is more cores and has been focusing on addressing the issues from software not designed/written properly. skylake was suppose to advance single thread performance even further, but the benchmarks i've seen suggest those reports are not true. at this point with adobe's software problems, we may be rescued from poor performance with high cpu core counts by a new cpu design using a virtual core, before adobe fixes their software.
if we compare the amd's on the ppbm7 benchmarks vs the top performers, they are in systems with slower video cards, slower memory, slower storage, etc etc. so its not just a simple amd to intel cpu comparison, but entire system vs system. there are even several submitted results with faster intel i7's being slower than an amd. according to the usual amd talk here, they would say those i7's are several times faster than the amd's in premiere. these aren't old i7's, but haswell 4 core i7's. that means its possible to directly compare those results against the current top dogs on those benchmarks with haswell-E. those top dogs with 8 cores should be at most 2x faster than 4 core haswell, but with some of the i7 4 core results being just as bad or worse than the amd, they are over 8x slower/longer times. this also shows its not simply an intel vs amd problem, but the entire system's components contributing to faster results.
amd gpu's have gone back and forth with nvidia for who has the faster and more powerful gpu, but as of late nvidia has the faster cards. when it comes to video software, like adobe's, most prefer and are optimized for cuda (nvidia) since it has been around longer. any benchmarks of amd gpu's performing alot slower than nvidia, speaks to limitations of software like premiere+openCL, not a true reflection of the amd gpu's power.
Thank you very much, so im not DOA, I understand it might be slower and while I don't plan to edit 4k, 1080 with some stripes here and there and a few logos, I've also read that having separate disks for media files, cache and having premiere on an ssd would balance things a lot, thank you very much.
"AMD video cards are around two times slower than similarly priced nVidia cards."
Yeah, no. I think you are incorrect in that statement, especially when it comes to the 380, which is what the original poster said he has....
The 380 beats the 960 in every test, and the 390 beats the 970 in every test as well, despite the fact they are slightly cheaper than their nvidia couterparts.
i believe he made that statement only for premiere, not for other software or a direct hardware comparison. while that statement may have been true at one time, that may no longer be true as adobe has worked on making opencl perform better. a recent benchmark test done by a forum member shows a slower and older amd card performing inline against faster next gen nvidia cards. except for mpeg2, which i doubt many people need. Re: new PC - nvidia 970 or r9 390? it actually shows a weakness in maxwell architecture with the gtx 970. it should be alot closer to the gtx 780. nvidia did several things to the maxwell architecture to get high fps in games, but this benchmark shows its weakness in true raw power with cuda.
drivers are another concern that keep amd down. however amd has shown new commitment to their drivers and software with crimson. nvidia has of recent, actually released a driver for their cards that have a bug with adobe software. so amd drivers may escape the bad wrap.
cuda support vs opencl is still a problem, as there are still a few programs that only support cuda, but the list is shrinking fast.
with dx12, amd's solid hardware architecture has really gotten to shine over nvidia's corner cutting to get high fps. amd also shows forward thinking with its work on hbm. going forward this starts looking better and better for amd gpu's. if nvidia doesn't get its act together on pascal, they could be left behind by amd polaris in the next gen cards. if amd zen cpu's are as good as amd claims, they may be an acceptable alternative to some intel cpu's as well.