e3-1246 v3 vs e3-1226 v3 for video editing system

[tortvoice v]

I want to build an editing system and considering either
single xeon e3-1246 v3 cpu(3.50 GHz, quad core, 8 threads and 8MB cache)
OR
single xeon e3-1226 v3 cpu(3.30 GHz, quad core, 8 threads and 8MB cache)
http://ark.intel.com/compare/80916,80917,80811
which will be the good enough choice for my uncompressed source footage from Panasonic lumix dmc FZ1000 ( 1" image sensor) that records 1080p @ 28 Mbps and 4K @ 100 Mbps http://www.dpreview.com/previews/panasonic-lumix-dmc-fz1000

i'll be using Adobe Premier Pro, After Effects, DaVinci Resolve Lite, Handbrake, Blender and Gimp. My editing work will require 2D/3D animation and live action compositing so i'll working with a few layers of videos and VFXs within a single frame. And i'll be downscaling 4K to 1080p. i can bear the longer rendering time but processing efficiency of the cpu is a concern?

e3-1226 v3 could save me $50 at the cost of 200 MHz of clock speed. i can bear the longer rendering time if it can handle my work with proficiency.

Please help

 

[2Be_or_Not2Be]

All other things being equal, the faster chip (E3-1246 v3) will be better. You won't notice much of a difference between the two in photo editing, though. It's the rendering that will finish sooner.

 

[tortvoice v]

All other things being equal, the faster chip (E3-1246 v3) will be better. You won't notice much of a difference between the two in photo editing, though. It's the rendering that will finish sooner.

Thank You Sir for the quick reply. None of my projects will exceed 30 mins duration. Any idea approximately how much difference 200 MHz will cause in rendering time in video editing.

 

[2Be_or_Not2Be]

Honestly, it depends on how well-threaded the app might be. If the app can use each core, then you will shave off minutes. If you use QuickSync to render, the difference will be smaller as it usually optimizes a bit more for speed than quality (not that the quality is really bad). If you're rendering in 4K, the time saved will be higher, of course.

Overall, I would say you would only save a few minutes, all other aspects being equal. I wouldn't expect anything like tens of minutes faster. So if you can save $200-400 by going 200MHz slower, then you might be able to invest that into bigger SSDs.

 

[tortvoice v]

Honestly, it depends on how well-threaded the app might be. If the app can use each core, then you will shave off minutes. If you use QuickSync to render, the difference will be smaller as it usually optimizes a bit more for speed than quality (not that the quality is really bad). If you're rendering in 4K, the time saved will be higher, of course.

Overall, I would say you would only save a few minutes, all other aspects being equal. I wouldn't expect anything like tens of minutes faster. So if you can save $200-400 by going 200MHz slower, then you might be able to invest that into bigger SSDs.

That will clear my doubts about cpu selection and it was a great help for me. Thank You Sir.

Next step is motherboard. Are all Z97 1150 socket motherboards compatible with the Xeon E3 12** v3 series processors ?

 

[2Be_or_Not2Be]

Honestly, it depends on how well-threaded the app might be. If the app can use each core, then you will shave off minutes. If you use QuickSync to render, the difference will be smaller as it usually optimizes a bit more for speed than quality (not that the quality is really bad). If you're rendering in 4K, the time saved will be higher, of course.

Overall, I would say you would only save a few minutes, all other aspects being equal. I wouldn't expect anything like tens of minutes faster. So if you can save $200-400 by going 200MHz slower, then you might be able to invest that into bigger SSDs.

That will clear my doubts about cpu selection and it was a great help for me. Thank You Sir.

Next step is motherboard. Are all Z97 1150 socket motherboards compatible with the Xeon E3 12** v3 series processors ?

That's a bit harder to say. You'll have to check the motherboard's CPU compatibility specs. Even thought they have the same pin count, the m/b has to support the Xeon processor. Server boards with a server chipset (like a C226) will support it, though they cost more.

One of the benefits of a Z-series chipset is to enable overclocking. If you really want to overclock, you should look at i7 processors. Xeons usually have a locked multiplier, so you won't be able to overclock them. If you get an i7 with the same cores+thread count and can get a stable overclock around 4.6GHz, that will beat the 3.3GHz Xeon in rendering time (again, by minutes, not likely tens of minutes). To support stable overclocking, you'll need to buy a better CPU cooler.

 

[tortvoice v]

Honestly, it depends on how well-threaded the app might be. If the app can use each core, then you will shave off minutes. If you use QuickSync to render, the difference will be smaller as it usually optimizes a bit more for speed than quality (not that the quality is really bad). If you're rendering in 4K, the time saved will be higher, of course.

Overall, I would say you would only save a few minutes, all other aspects being equal. I wouldn't expect anything like tens of minutes faster. So if you can save $200-400 by going 200MHz slower, then you might be able to invest that into bigger SSDs.

That will clear my doubts about cpu selection and it was a great help for me. Thank You Sir.

Next step is motherboard. Are all Z97 1150 socket motherboards compatible with the Xeon E3 12** v3 series processors ?

That's a bit harder to say. You'll have to check the motherboard's CPU compatibility specs. Even thought they have the same pin count, the m/b has to support the Xeon processor. Server boards with a server chipset (like a C226) will support it, though they cost more.

One of the benefits of a Z-series chipset is to enable overclocking. If you really want to overclock, you should look at i7 processors. Xeons usually have a locked multiplier, so you won't be able to overclock them. If you get an i7 with the same cores+thread count and can get a stable overclock around 4.6GHz, that will beat the 3.3GHz Xeon in rendering time (again, by minutes, not likely tens of minutes). To support stable overclocking, you'll need to buy a better CPU cooler.

That leads me to my perennial curiosity about the FX 8350 amd cpu. Despite having higher no. of cores(8 cores), L2(4*2 MB), L3(8 MB) cache and clock speed(4.00 GHz oced up to 4.2 GHz) where it lacks and not considered a good option for video editing. Higher TDP 125 W & no iGPU..but only these two factors are not significant enough? What makes Intel's Hyper Threading technology cut above the AMD cpus !! ?

Will it be like cutting the corners if i consider amd FX 8350 cpu for my editing system ??

 

[2Be_or_Not2Be]

Honestly, it depends on how well-threaded the app might be. If the app can use each core, then you will shave off minutes. If you use QuickSync to render, the difference will be smaller as it usually optimizes a bit more for speed than quality (not that the quality is really bad). If you're rendering in 4K, the time saved will be higher, of course.

Overall, I would say you would only save a few minutes, all other aspects being equal. I wouldn't expect anything like tens of minutes faster. So if you can save $200-400 by going 200MHz slower, then you might be able to invest that into bigger SSDs.

That will clear my doubts about cpu selection and it was a great help for me. Thank You Sir.

Next step is motherboard. Are all Z97 1150 socket motherboards compatible with the Xeon E3 12** v3 series processors ?

That's a bit harder to say. You'll have to check the motherboard's CPU compatibility specs. Even thought they have the same pin count, the m/b has to support the Xeon processor. Server boards with a server chipset (like a C226) will support it, though they cost more.

One of the benefits of a Z-series chipset is to enable overclocking. If you really want to overclock, you should look at i7 processors. Xeons usually have a locked multiplier, so you won't be able to overclock them. If you get an i7 with the same cores+thread count and can get a stable overclock around 4.6GHz, that will beat the 3.3GHz Xeon in rendering time (again, by minutes, not likely tens of minutes). To support stable overclocking, you'll need to buy a better CPU cooler.

That leads me to my perennial curiosity about the FX 8350 amd cpu. Despite having higher no. of cores(8 cores), L2(4*2 MB), L3(8 MB) cache and clock speed(4.00 GHz oced up to 4.2 GHz) where it lacks and not considered a good option for video editing. Higher TDP 125 W & no iGPU..but only these two factors are not significant enough? What makes Intel's Hyper Threading technology cut above the AMD cpus !! ?

Will it be like cutting the corners if i consider amd FX 8350 cpu for my editing system ??

Watt vs watt, an individual core on the AMD cpu simply is not as powerful & effective as a single core on the Intel CPU.

As a result, Intel CPUs are more thread-efficient than AMD CPUs. So when you have a video-editing app that can spin off multiple threads (rendering or other areas), then that efficiency becomes even more pronounced over the AMD solution.

Check out this article on Anandtech with the latest "Devil's Canyon" Intel CPU. It shows performance numbers in Handbrake for both Intel and AMD CPUs. As you can see, the Intel CPUs are quite a bit faster than the AMD CPU.

 

[tortvoice v]

Honestly, it depends on how well-threaded the app might be. If the app can use each core, then you will shave off minutes. If you use QuickSync to render, the difference will be smaller as it usually optimizes a bit more for speed than quality (not that the quality is really bad). If you're rendering in 4K, the time saved will be higher, of course.

Overall, I would say you would only save a few minutes, all other aspects being equal. I wouldn't expect anything like tens of minutes faster. So if you can save $200-400 by going 200MHz slower, then you might be able to invest that into bigger SSDs.

That will clear my doubts about cpu selection and it was a great help for me. Thank You Sir.

Next step is motherboard. Are all Z97 1150 socket motherboards compatible with the Xeon E3 12** v3 series processors ?

That's a bit harder to say. You'll have to check the motherboard's CPU compatibility specs. Even thought they have the same pin count, the m/b has to support the Xeon processor. Server boards with a server chipset (like a C226) will support it, though they cost more.

One of the benefits of a Z-series chipset is to enable overclocking. If you really want to overclock, you should look at i7 processors. Xeons usually have a locked multiplier, so you won't be able to overclock them. If you get an i7 with the same cores+thread count and can get a stable overclock around 4.6GHz, that will beat the 3.3GHz Xeon in rendering time (again, by minutes, not likely tens of minutes). To support stable overclocking, you'll need to buy a better CPU cooler.

That leads me to my perennial curiosity about the FX 8350 amd cpu. Despite having higher no. of cores(8 cores), L2(4*2 MB), L3(8 MB) cache and clock speed(4.00 GHz oced up to 4.2 GHz) where it lacks and not considered a good option for video editing. Higher TDP 125 W & no iGPU..but only these two factors are not significant enough? What makes Intel's Hyper Threading technology cut above the AMD cpus !! ?

Will it be like cutting the corners if i consider amd FX 8350 cpu for my editing system ??

Watt vs watt, an individual core on the AMD cpu simply is not as powerful & effective as a single core on the Intel CPU.

As a result, Intel CPUs are more thread-efficient than AMD CPUs. So when you have a video-editing app that can spin off multiple threads (rendering or other areas), then that efficiency becomes even more pronounced over the AMD solution.

Check out this article on Anandtech with the latest "Devil's Canyon" Intel CPU. It shows performance numbers in Handbrake for both Intel and AMD CPUs. As you can see, the Intel CPUs are quite a bit faster than the AMD CPU.

For sure your all those benchmarks are driving me away from Fx-8350. I guess i should go with i5-4690k build without a discrete GPU for sometime, meanwhile can assess the limitations of the integrated GPU. Then with on hand experience i will be in better position to decide about the discrete Graphics Card. Hope that it will be a better approach in comparison to buy a discrete Graphics Card straight away.