The fact that you say that "they make great low budget processors" and "they just aren't in the game when it comes to performance" tells me you're just an Intel fanboy that probably has no actual clue about where some architectures do better or worse, what's more suited for some things or for others.
You're comparing apples to oranges, Zad.
Dave isn't doing the same thing those guys do with the computers.
Dave needs a processor that's good at one thing: combining several pieces of video together with minimal video effects (adding a subtitle, some arrows, whatever) and compressing the content.
For this, any processor that works good with x264 (the video encoder application) is good, and the latest AMD processors are very good at encoding, as they have eight good cores. Where they lack on processing power per core, they make up on the number of cores.
Those Youtube guys have other problems.
Video games are still relatively optimized to run on few processor cores, 1 to 3-4 cores, but usually most only use 2 cores. Intel processors have more processing power per core and they do even more stuff when going in turbo boost mode (overclocking themselves), so for those Youtube guys it makes sense to use Intel processors because the games will run a bit better.
This will change with the future consoles that will use lots of small cpu cores mixed with a good gpu, the game developers will have incentives to optimize their games for more cores.
Next, the videos those guys make are just different than Dave's videos: they often have picture in picture, transitions, fadin from a clip to another, people talking in front of green/blue screen (the green or blue being replaced by game footage), so we're talking here about layers of video one over another. This kind of stuff is usually passed to the video card because it's so easy to treat the video frames from all those clips as textures and play with them in the video card, and that's where rendering applications start to use Cuda or OpenCL.
Dave doesn't do anything of this. He just needs something that can decode input videos fast, add minimal stuff over the image, maybe resize it and then compress it.
The latest AMD processors are fast and cheap.
Intel processors are fast, but much more expensive to reach the same raw encoding power as the newest AMD processors. They do offer Quicksync which speeds up video decoding and encoding, but on the other hand with the money you'd save by going with an AMD system, you can get a powerful video card that brings more performance improvements than Quicksync AND the extra processing power of the Intel processors.
If you're on a budget, it's all about making tradeoffs.
Lose 10-15% brute processing power by giving up i7 3930k but save 450$ (560$ intel cpu vs 200$ amd cpu , 180$ intel mb vs 130$ amd mb)
Lose a bit of decoding speed by dropping quicksync but gain much more by spending 150-200$ on a video card that's supported by the encoding application.
If you'd have the money, you'd go for both but maybe you don't have the money or it just doesn't make sense to throw that much money for minimal performance increases.
In addition, those Youtube guys don't have money problems. They can very well spend 4000$ on a computer, getting parts as donation from companies, making money from Youtube and all that. As far as I know, Dave doesn't make as much money as those guys and he also has a family to take care of.
Intel X-suffix "extreme" processors are for those with more money than they know what to do with.
Those processors have a valid market. There are software programs out there from SAP, Oracle, Enterprise CRMs, fluid dynamics, automobile stuff, document processing etc that are licensed per CPU SOCKET , or even worse, PER CPU CORE.
People that pay 20-40.000$ and more a year for a license to run that software on one CPU socket, won't care that the server costs 5000-8000$. Those guys want the most performance on each core, the most throughput, the most processing power, whatever you want to call it. Intel is just better at doing more things on each core compared to AMD, that's how the architecture is right now.
There were times in the past AMD was better than Intel at processing power on cores, now it just happens Intel does better. The guys save more money keeping the number of cores low or the number of servers low, compared with going with multiple servers or multiple cpus in a system.
There's uses and uses.. AMD server processors are for example quite popular among people doing virtualization and software testing.. grab 4x12 core AMD opterons, a quad socket G34 board, 64 ram sticks and you have tons of virtualized systems for about 2-3000$. You can't match that with Intel systems.
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
