-
Intel Processor
Hello all,
I am getting a new computer edit system. I was toying with building one or getting one already built and had a question of the best processors out there for me. I will be using the Adobe suite in SD and some HD. I don’t want to deal with rendering.
What is the main difference between the Intel Core i7 Nehalem and the Intel Xeon Quad-Core processors? WHICH DO I WANT AND WHY?
Josh
-
8 Replies
-
in theory, a Dual core Xeon will give you faster rendering, since it mainly relies on CPUs, but the i7 will probably be more responsive.
If you do 3D as well, then the dual quad is the way to go.
Basically they are really so different that it’s hard to do a side by side comparison. The i7 loses the front side bus for what’s called the Quick Path link, so that’s a big advantage, and the motherboards are much more upgradeable. There are certainly plenty of benchmark out there for you to look at.
Last week I built the following system for a Premiere workstation and the performance is outstanding:
i7 920
Gigabyte EX58-UD5
12Gb DDR3 memory (G Skill)128GB SSD drive for OS (Vista 64)
(4) 1 TB Seagate 7500 in RAID 0 on 3ware 9650SE controller.
All in a Cosmos 1000 caseThe i7 is very memory hungry.
I find Premiere going over the 6GB mark during rendering, compared to 3GB on our Core2Quad machine.
Vince Becquiot
Kaptis Studios
San Francisco – Bay Area -
In terms of noticeable performance the Xeon and i7 are pretty much the same. Some will say that the i7’s are faster, but in real world terms the difference is not noticeable. I have a Mac Pro and and i7 system and the Mac Pro I have is a bit faster then the i7 system and they have nearly the same specs. I test rendered an hour long movie and My Mac Pro beat the i7 by over 9 minutes, it doesn’t sound like a lot, but it just goes to show that they both are very fast.
We also have a dual Xeon Mac Pro and it is a dream for doing video. If you are big into HD I would recommend a dual quad core Mac Pro, but if can’t get a mac a single i7 or Xeon PC would do just fine, but you might get a little stutter on the high end HD stuff.
If you want to cut down on rendering time then a dual quad core Mac is the way to go, but even the fastest computer on the market won’t get rid of render times. You can only hope to make them a bit shorter.
-
Thank you both for you input but you didn’t really compare the two. I am referring to the Xeon Quad Core that is out by Intel. When I was at NAB, Adobe was very heavily recommending the new Z800 computer line by HP as the best thing out there because of these processors and the ram possibilities. For the right $ amount, they have a dual quad core with hyperthreading available in the z800.
When talking to others like videoguys, they recommend the i7. When I spoke to them on the phone, they couldn’t really tell me the difference between the two processors. To me, it almost sounds like it is too new and people really don’t know about it leaving them to speak in general terms.
The debate I am having here at my office is about performance. One of the guys is saying go with the specs of this computer here: https://www.videoguys.com/Guide/E/Videoguys+DIY7+Intel+Core+i7+with+Vista+64/0xe07f65920351fbf3ed8f9892355dfda0.aspx
My argument was to go with this new HP Z800 series computer because all the talk at NAB. It is a good bit more expensive. I would like to know that the price difference is well worth the end product for me. If it is not, then I could buy 2 or 3 of the above link computers for the price of one super Z800. -
The difference CPU to CPU just isn’t enough to make a recommendation either way (at least not from the benchmarks I’ve seen), but cost is.
If you were to put a 1 quad core Xeon vs 1 i7, the i7 might have a slight advantage from what I’ve seen.
But the obvious difference here is that you have 2 quads with the Xeon (I don’t think there are any boards out yet with dual i7), so that’s nearly double the rendering power, and double the cost.
I think your final decision will come down the cost, and how much you care about rendering times, since that’s were you’ll have will be a big difference between the 2.
Vince Becquiot
Kaptis Studios
San Francisco – Bay Area -
I’ve been trying to compare the two chips as well. My understanding (always suspect) is that the “guts” of the i7 and Nehalem-series Xeons are pretty much the same. Very close performance at the same clock speed. The main difference is that Xeons have architecture that allows for dual-chip motherboards; the i7 will not, now or in the future.
So, i7: more cost effective for a single-CPU system.
Xeon : allows dual CPUs, better for render-intensive work. I do mostly 3D, so the Xeons are worth the extra $$.let me just add: I’m no expert on CPU architecture.
-Jeff -
I should add that one of the things that made a tremendous difference in system responsiveness was adding a SSD drive for the OS. The MLCs with buffer are down to about $300.00 for 128 GB, which is plenty for an OS.
We have two nearly identical systems running and the one running on the SSD is loading programs like Photoshop in a couple of seconds, also speeding up the system overall quite a bit.
Vince Becquiot
Kaptis Studios
San Francisco – Bay Area -
The Nehalem-series cores are very close, the first dual i7 mobos are about to hit the market, the difference between consummer and server/workstation mobos is the chipset, X58 for the single consummer, and 5000 series for the xeon/i7 duals, also the dual i7 boards will support cheaper ram, see link below for a ASUS dual i7
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/asus-nehalem-xeon-motherboard,7211.html
-
I am making this exact same decision right now, and I keep flip-flopping between the i7 and the dual Nehalem Xeon. I will primarily be editing RED 4K footage with Premeire CS4.1, but I will definitely be doing some things in After Effects as well (which falls into the “rendering power” category).
Cost isn’t the biggest factor, but I suppose I can’t just completely ignore it.
In regard to “virtual 8 cores,” I remember back when HT was first being pushed that it didn’t last too long (multiple cores made HT kind of irrelevant and quickly replaced it). I’m wondering if that may happen to the i7?
Right now, I’m leaning toward the Bloomfield 950 i7 processor on an ASUS P6T7 mobo and 16GB of 1600 DDR3 RAM. My search started with the HP z800, but it’s soooooo much more expensive than building something myself and I don’t know that it’s really worth it (I’d also prefer a rackmount case, as the rest of my equipment is all rackmount to save on floor space).
Even worse than not being able to decide between the processors, is deciding which card. I can’t decide if the Nvidia Quadro CX is worth it, if it’s better to go with a higher end Nvidia FX series, or if I even need anything that expensive for what I’m doing. Both are incredibly expensive, but I can’t really figure out which is best for my needs.
Again, I’ll definitely be doing some rendering in After Effects (and when exporting from Premiere), but primarily I will be editing RED 4k data, and I think the real speed issue there is in making sure my data storage transfer rates are as high as possible.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up