this post was submitted on 02 Aug 2023
19 points (100.0% liked)

PC Master Race

15052 readers
2 users here now

A community for PC Master Race.

Rules:

  1. No bigotry: Including racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia. Code of Conduct.
  2. Be respectful. Everyone should feel welcome here.
  3. No NSFW content.
  4. No Ads / Spamming.
  5. Be thoughtful and helpful: even with ‘stupid’ questions. The world won’t be made better or worse by snarky comments schooling naive newcomers on Lemmy.

Notes:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Hello, me again. I'd like help in workstations. I see all of you jump to pcpartpicker whenever someone wants techsupport, but I'm just looking for general ideas or spitballing. Like whether Amd or Nvidia or Intel.

The usecase will be to try out videoediting and maybe 2d animating. There will also be unavoidable gaming on this device. I'd describe it as a hybrid gaming and workstation.

My logic instantly went to RAM and VRAM. as that should be the focus, but I don't know whether the speed or the quantity is more important. I also don't know if Amd or Nvidia is better at videoencoding.

I'd like tips like this please. NVMe for speed, hdd for capacity, or sata ssd for a mix? recommended MT/s for ram with channels? What gpu cores does premiere use? do I even need to worry about 2d animating? does the x3d modells of amd cpus any good for this usecase? do core # metter or only the GHz?

closing point; I know how to pc, but idk how to workstation pc as I only messed with highend/mid gaming pcs. Thanks for any info in advance!

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Go for RAM size. Video editing uses a lot of it.

Don't bother with the X3D CPUs, video editors don't benefit from the extra cache, the problem with the stacked dies is that it makes moving heat out of the CPU harder, so they tend to run at lower clock speeds, so with a normal CPU, you'll get a little bit more performance on video tasks, while the hit on gaming performance will be minimal, especially if you play at higher resolutions where the GPU will be the limiting factor.

As for storage, get an NVMe that's big enough to store the games you're playing and the video project you're working at the moment, so access is quicker. for other projects and games you don't play often, put them on an HDD or NAS with 10Gb Ethernet.

As for graphics cards, Nvidia has better video encoding than AMD at the moment and great gaming performance, but don't dismiss Intel Arc, they're entry-level for gaming, but have a stellar performance in video encoding. Considering the price difference between AMD and Nvidia, you could pretty much buy an RX 7900XTX and an Arc A750 for the same price of an RTX 4080, so you could use one for gaming and the other for encoding. The advantage of this is that you could play games on the AMD card at the same time the encoding is running on the Intel.

[–] UnRelatedBurner 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Wait Intel Arc is not a complete joke? I mean I never looked into it so educate me please. What do you mean under "stellar performance"? (can I see the graph if that's your source?)

and also how much is a lot of ram? 32gb maybe 64gb or even more? While on the topic of ram what would you say the MT/s should be?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The hardware was never a joke, it's just that the drivers were pretty bad at the beginning, but they improved them to the point where it's competitive with a 3050 in gaming (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-6sHUNBxVg) and in video encoding/decoding, it matches and sometimes gets ahead of the more expensive 3060 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98KiTx4Vh7o)

[–] UnRelatedBurner 2 points 1 year ago

wow, thanks you for this information. I'd never guessed. I'll look into them. (can't watch the videos atm, im on a bus)