Intel Core i5-10400F good for 4K?

[extra22]

Would like to know if the new Intel Core i5-10400F would meet the needs for 4K (HD- und UHD-Videos) in CorelStudio?

Website says: Intel Core i7 oder AMD Athlon A10 für HD- und UHD-Videos

While the Intel Core i5-10400F* is not a i7 it is way better than AMD Athlon A10 !

(* i5-10400F is a six-core hyperthreaded CPU from Intel’s latest Comet Lake series = 6x2.9GHz )

Thanks

[tletter]

Would like to know if the new Intel Core i5-10400F would meet the needs for 4K (HD- und UHD-Videos) in CorelStudio?

Yes this CPU will render 4K but it's just a middling performer given the performance available in the AMD Ryzen 3000 series of CPUs. As well, currently Ryzen tends to offer the best bang for buck.

tletter
https://www.youtube.com/user/tletter

[extra22]

Thanks a lot for your reply tletter

Yes, after much searching and comparing I too had come up with the Ryzen 3000 range, and in particular the Ryzen 5 3600 (or maybe the 3600X or 3800X).

The i5-10400F is a Desktop-PC HP Pavilion TP01- model on offer at the local supermarket at a reasonable price and HP are usually good quality.

But for a slightly higher price I can buy a put-together-build Ryzen 5 3600 (or maybe 3600X or 3800) with better graphic card GeForce GTX 1660Ti 6GB (i5-10400F has GTX 1650 - 4 GB GDDR5) - although the overall quality will be less good, but manageable (I hope).


On UserBenchmark the i5 does better (but for gamers?):

https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/A ... 4040vs4079

https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/A ... 4047vs4079

but on versus.com it is ryzen:

https://versus.com/en/amd-ryzen-5-3600- ... -i5-10400f

[extra22]

Well after hours of searching with a lot of dithering about what is best, I finally found by Amazon (reduced): Intel Core i7-9700, 16 GB RAM, 1TB HDD + 512GB SSD, Nvidia GeForce GTX 1660Ti 6GB GDDR6 also an HP Computer, and only slightly more expensive than the i5-10400F (although the performance points difference between the two is not that much = but the i7 has a better graphic card = well hoping I have made the right decision)

Thanks again tletter

[asik1]

Just don't expect lightning fast 4K work flow.
it might be a bit slower than how you feel with your current FHD system.

[tletter]

well hoping I have made the right decision)

This seems like a good computer but it'd be worthwhile to check out the warranty. As well, IMHO 16GB is the minimum amount of RAM that is comfortable so if the motherboard has 4 memory slots then memory expansion would be more economical.

As large 4K projects can be quite demanding on hardware, you'll want to want make full use of the SSD for active projects and mainly use the HDD for archiving.

Finally, your profile lists "processor: Intel i5" which covers a wide range of CPUs. I assume that an i7-9700 represents a significant performance improvement over your current "Intel i5".

tletter
https://www.youtube.com/user/tletter

[extra22]

Thanks tletter

Motherboard only has two Memory modules but says:

Supports up to 32 GB (unbuffered) with two 16 GB DIMMs on 64-bit computers

Warranty = not sure but 2 years at least (maybe 3?)

Yes, an upgrade, my present PC is only i5-6400 (but still works great, just a problem with video)

I know the Core i7-9700K is not brilliant and an older version now, but money is limited, so I think it will do.

I checked it out on UserBenchmark it was 5% better than the i5-10400F (and has a better graphic card). And 11% better than Ryzen 5 3600 (although the i5-10400F has just recently come out!)

On versus.com I checked the i7 out against:

Ryzen 3600 (i7 = 68 points and 3600 = 63 points)
Ryzen 3600X (i7 = 68 points and 3600X = 64 points)
Ryzen 7 3800X (i7 = 68 points and 3800X = 66 points)

I could have gone for the Ryzen 5 3600 together with 32 GB RAM, but slightly less performance

(I think I still can = at this moment before I get notice it has been sent later today?)

I need the best option for an all-round Computer = Corel Painter + Paintshop + VideoStudio, Cartoon Animator 4 + CrazyTalk, Affinity software, Magix Music Maker, and more

[extra22]

Just don't expect lightning fast 4K work flow.
it might be a bit slower than how you feel with your current FHD system.

Thanks asik1

Okay, but it won't be slower than my present computer I think

Not sure if any the other options (I selected) would be any faster, not so easy when you are limited by what you can pay.

[tletter]

I could have gone for the Ryzen 5 3600 together with 32 GB RAM, but slightly less performance

Of course when buying a computer the CPU and amount of RAM are very important but there are other factors as well when comparing specs, e.g. storage (SSD), OS (Home vs. Pro), screen resolution, warranty, price, etc. That being said, you have done your homework so hopefully your chosen computer will serve you well.

tletter
https://www.youtube.com/user/tletter

[extra22]

Well although I ordered the i7-9700 and it will arrive tomorrow I have been doing a little more homework nevertheless.

I found an article: Best Eight-Core CPU Battle: AMD Ryzen 7 3800X vs Intel Core i7-9700K https://www.tomshardware.com/features/b ... e-i7-9700k

It basically says the AMD Ryzen 7 3800X is the better option for general computer (unless you are concentrating only on games = which I am not)

I quote:" As we've seen, gaming remains an advantage for Intel, so if squeezing out every last frame is all you care about, Intel's processors are a good choice. Much of that performance advantage will be less noticeable when gaming at higher resolutions, or if you pair the processors with a lesser graphics card..........But, like most humans, if you do things other than gaming, the Ryzen 7 3800X offers a better mixture of performance in single- and multi-threaded applications. The 3800X offers twice the threads of the price-comparable Core i7-9700K, and it wields them to great effect in threaded workloads. As such, rendering and encoding remain a strong suit of the Ryzen chips, and AMD's improvements to AVX throughput have yielded impressive results...."

So as I had already discovered the Ryzen 7 3800X is a better buy = especially for the video editing I think.

However, it does push the price up a bit to get a similar setup as the i7-9700 = so will have to sleep on this and decide tomorrow = maybe I reject the i7-9700 tomorrow and go for the extra costs 7 3800X = or just keep the i7-9700!

BUT many thanks for your time and advice and help = really appreciate it

Probably would have been better if I had never seen the Intel Core i5-10400F supermarkt offer (which is still the cheapest option) = oh well too late now, will just have to decide one way or the other.

[tletter]

I found an article: Best Eight-Core CPU Battle: AMD Ryzen 7 3800X vs Intel Core i7-9700K https://www.tomshardware.com/features/b ... e-i7-9700k

If you go through the Productivity Performance results, the i7-9700K generally betters the 3800X if it can be overclocked to 5.1 GHz. However, that requires sufficient cooling which may require some additional hardware.

it does push the price up a bit to get a similar setup as the i7-9700 = so will have to sleep on this and decide tomorrow

For most people the is an important consideration when purchasing a new computer. Hope that you get a good night's sleep and arrive at a decision that you can live with

tletter
https://www.youtube.com/user/tletter

[TonyP]

My computer specs are to the right.
In productivity, Ryzen CPU's do perform better than Intel. If you overclock you have to invest in a cooling solution (more money) to gain a few percentage points in performance over a less costly AMD CPU. You can also overclock Ryzen CPU's. Not to the extent of Intel, but the results will be equal or better with computing tasks that require more cores, which are productivity tasks for the most part.
There are plenty of Youtube videos (Gamers Nexus, Hardware Unboxed, Paul's Hardware, Linus Tech Tips, etc...) that compare "comparable" CPU's from both. AMD does have a price/performance edge also.
IF you consider going with AMD, find out if the motherboard is a X570 or B550. A 450 series motherboard is not the latest, not will not have an upgrade path for the future if you decide.
I built my computer with the idea that this will last me for many years to come. If I want to upgrade to a Ryzen 9 3950X (16cores/32threads) in the future, I can. Especially when prices drop. Or the 4000 series CPU's when they are released.

But honestly, only software "I" use (several video editors, Boris FX Continuum 2020.5, Sapphire, NBFX, Ignite Pro 4.1), make use of the hardware. You might save a few dollars getting Ryzen 3600 6core/12thread. And since a lot of rendering/share/exporting can be done with the GPU, that too is an important consider because it will do these tasks way faster than a CPU.

[Davidk]

I came to this discussion late but my 10cents FWIW:
- in any discussion about computers good for editing, your local computer store staff will generally know zip. An ex-student of mine went thru this process recently and the specs of a PC the computer store said was "great for video" sold to her were about one-quarter the capacity/capability of her old one when looked at in detail. So be wary. However computer store staff are usually fairly 'full bottle' on gaming machines. And since both games and video editing are about fast changing imagery, I'd start with the specs for a good gaming PC, the best you can afford, and modify it from there.
- An add-in video card is essential for modern games, but I've found that having an add-on video card as opposed to using the on-chip video processor was not a great improvement in the editing performance race. They are often as expensive, maybe more so, than the host PC, and chew up power like crazy. Which means you need a good, maybe extra, power supply in the PC to manage it, and that costs more too. Acceleration options generally rely on using, or trying to use, that extra video card. Until recently, the acceleration options in VS seemed to be more of a hindrance a than a help (quite a few forum posts about that), and even the posts about the options in 2019 and 2020 seem very inconclusive about just how good they are.
- VS has a long history of not using multiple cores in a cpu or hyper-threading to improve performance. There are voluminous posts on the forum about that. So whilst you would find a video game very much better with a multiple core cpu, doing video editing on one is likely to leave you with a dissatisfied result - for the extra expense on cores, not much if any better result. Rather than spend more on extra cores, the price difference - eg between a core i5 and an i12 - spent on a lot more RAM and an SSD for the C drive into the machine instead would get you a better editing result.
- bear in mind that performance in editing - loosely translated as a shorter time to do a task - is really only evident when the machine is working hard for a period of time: such as rendering a project. Other tasks that might seem like that - eg editing a 4K file or project - should be done with smart proxy selected and you won't notice any difference in performance between mpg and 4k when just editing a vsp.
- with these factors in mind, a fast cpu clock is really essential in any platform you choose. For example, the difference between 2.4ghz and 4.1ghz is a nearly 200% improvement in whatever task the cpu is doing: between pedestrian,and gee-whiz.

This question comes up so often that a benchmark program that could be run from a usb stick to test the features of a PC for video editing and give a result in terms of poor, good, better, best would be handy. Can't see it happening tho . . .

[tletter]

I came to this discussion late but my 10cents

When you're building/buying a new system, the basic question to answer is whether you want to merely cater to VS's current inability to significantly leverage the modern CPU/GPU, or do you want a system capable satisfactorily running other editing software that does fully leverage the modern CPU/GPU? Although it's unlikely, perhaps Corel will surprise us and actually leverage the modern CPU/GPU in VS2045, and as well, if you decide to move on from VS then you don't want to have purchased a margin VS speced system.

bear in mind that performance in editing - loosely translated as a shorter time to do a task - is really only evident when the machine is working hard for a period of time: such as rendering a project

Be aware that making proxy files benefits from processor power as do some filters in the editing stage before rendering, e.g. Mercalli, 3D Title Editor.

tletter
https://www.youtube.com/user/tletter

[excalibur1814]

Late to the topic but here goes anyway.

I've thrown a lot at Corel VS and... you can waste SO MUCH cash on this application and it's simply not worth it. An i5-10400F is a mighty find cpu and will run CVS with ease. I edit 4k media on my Surface pro 7, i5, without issue, as well as my 9700k. I couldn't honestly, realistically, tell you the differences between systems until creating the video at the end of the project. As soon as the proxy is created, you're away and editing.

I have a separate server, to store the media, which leaves the editing machine (9700k) with 3x m.2 drives.
-M.2 - System drive
-M.2 - Working drive (Project drive)
-M.2 - Scratch drive (Proxy is saved here and so is the finished video until moved to the server)

I've tried raid with sata ssds, along with a dedicated raid card, as well as a raid M.2. setup with 3x M.2 drives. Pointless. Corel is sleeping at the wheel. More ram? Nope. it's almost stuck in a 32bit daze, ignoring ram. If anything, you could focus on the fastest single core speed to gather that extra little bit of speed when creating the final video. More cores? Bit pointless as, again, Corel is asleep.

You could also try Davinci Resolve (You will need a heavy spec for this application!). I really like using Video Studio as it's super easy, but for once I'd LOVE Corel to focus on performance instead of the latest bullet point to sell people the latest version (which usually crashes).