1 person found this helpful
1st, go to the Premiere Pro CS5 Benchmark http://ppbm5.com/ and view the results
2nd, I have read that Intel is better due to the SSE (?) instructions that AMD does not have
1 person found this helpful
There are multiple roadblocks in your question.
The support of multiple CPU's in your OS of choice and the OS supported by CS5. (Multiple meaning more than two).
More than two physical CPU's mean you have to revert to a non-supported OS.
If you limit yourself to only two CPU's there is no comparison. Intel wins on all fronts. AMD is left in the dust, mainly due to their lack of SSE4.1+ extensions.
If you talk about 4, 8, or more CPU's then it gets nebulous, because there is no OS that supports CS5. I haven't heard about anyone trying it.
Whichever way you turn it, you will be spending lots of $$$ without any appreciable benefit or performance gain when you go for more than a single CPU. If you have money to burn, PM me and I can give you my bank account to transfer some of that to me. I appreciate that.
Example: In the benchmark, PPBM5 Benchmark the best AMD dual CPU Opteron with 16 cores comes out at rank 111 versus rank 1 for a dual Intel with 12 cores, more than four times slower. All the dual CPU systems score absolutely lousy on the 'Bang-for-the-Buck' test.
A prime example is the dual X5680 ADK Juggenaug(h)t in rank 2 with a score of 105.2 versus my own system, single i7-920, with a score of 114.5 in rank 8. Negligent performance gain, but at a huge cost, with a BFTB score of 1.7 versus 10.4
See Harm, this is why I am a BIG fan of your post!!! Also thank you John for responding as well. I have been wrestling with purchasing a new computer for months now looking for a CS5 CPU, trying to find the most economical purchase. The last computer I had bought was specifically for CS2 and I spent over $8500 dollars for it in 2006. A dual XEON 2.80 with Hyperthreading. Back then I thought I had a great machine, but now looking at what I paid for, i feel much wiser.
I have seen the benchmark test and studied it closely, but until this post, I didn't know how the results translated into real world results. I figured out pretty quickly AMD is no where near to Intel currently.
I am looking to edit primarily with AVCHD and will be using After Effects extensively. So of course, I want processor speed and plenty of RAM. But it gets expensive. Sandy Bridge looks like an option but there is a RAM limitation and the recent problems with it. i7 processors look like a good option but they are also 24 gig limitation. Of course dual CPU Xeon gives me unlimited RAM practically, BUT i have a limited budget.
So in looking at the Benchmark Test, (which I love, but can't equate to real world applications - i.e. Time Savings between results - because i don't know what the length of the footage is) it has been hard to gauge a cost/gain benefit when choosing my next machine.
I noticed your results are 65.0 to ADK's 35.0 under the h.264 CPU performance. I guess I am asking what is that in a real world time crunch difference?
P.S. I do realize that the ADK results aren't average. If you wish, you may reference the #1 system with the top average of 45.0 under the h.264 CPU performance to give me an idea on comparision. Also, I noticed your machine is overclocked. Does overclocking make CS5 any less stable?
Thanks for all you do Harm, I appreciate your dedication to us Adobe followers. You to John!
(sorry it has taken some time to respond)
Also, I noticed you are using Areca ARC-1680iX-12. Nice!
The Disk I/O test is 59;58;00, the MPEG2-DVD test is 2;36;04 and the H.264-BR test is 52;00
What does it mean in real life? Hard to say how your real life timelines look and how that will translate to practical comparisons, but I think that the H.264 timeline is much more demanding than 95% of the users would encounter. If you have CS5, you can download the ZIP file and have a look at all the effects and transitions used with keyframed bezier curves in many and with all the different formats used in a single timeline.
There is one thing you have to keep in mind. Both MPEG2-DVD and H.264-BR are directed to show CPU/GPU and memory performance, but in real life exporting to BRD also entails large (20+ GB) exports to disk, one of the things not measured in these two tests. This means that the good score of the Juggernaugt in the H.264 test is only part of the story. You also have to look at the Disk I/O performance when exporting large files.
My disappointing score on the H.264 test is caused by lack of cores, memory and the limited cache on the 920. OTOH, price/performance wise I know I prefer my setup to the Juggenaugt.
Again thanks for replying Harm. This is the info I was looking for.