Puget Systems print logo
Read this article at https://www.pugetsystems.com/guides/884
Article Thumbnail

Premiere Pro 2017 Intel Core i7 7700K & i5 7600K Performance

Written on January 9, 2017 by Matt Bach


When Intel launches a new set of CPUs, the main question everyone wants answered is how much faster they are compared to the old models. In this article, we will be tackling this question in terms of Premiere Pro performance by examining how the new Intel Core i7 7700K and i5 7600K perform compared to the previous generation Intel Core i7 6700K and i5 6600K. Since we are currently recommending the "High-End" Core i7 CPUs in our Premiere Pro workstations, we are also going to include the i7 6850K, i7 6900K, and i7 6950X.

There are a wide variety of tasks we could test in Premiere Pro, but in this article we will specifically be looking at:

  1. Rendering previews
  2. Exporting to H.264
  3. Exporting to DNxHD HQ and DNxHR HQ
  4. Performing a Warp Stabilize Analysis

If you would rather skip over our analysis of the benchmarks, feel free to jump right to the conclusion section.

Test Setup

To see how the new Core i7 7700K and i5 7600K perform in Premiere Pro, we used the following configurations:

These test configurations include three different platforms along with seven different CPU models. For Premiere Pro, we typically would recommend a "High-End" Core i7 CPU with 6-10 cores so while the i7 7700K and i5 7600K are the focus of this article, much of our analysis will be centered on how they compare to the higher core count CPUs.

The media files we will be using come from a variety of sources. Many of these are available for public download, while others were graciously provided for us to use in our Premiere Pro testing:

Resolution Codec FPS Source Average Bitrate
1080p H.264 59.94 Jerry Berg
Barnacules Nerdgasm
30.2 Mbps (3.8 MB/s)
1080p ProRes 422 23.976 ARRI
AMIRA Sample Footage
133 Mbps (16.6 MB/s)
1080p ProRes 4444 23.976 ARRI
AMIRA Sample Footage
281 Mbps (35.1 MB/s)
1080p DNxHD HQ 23.976 Re-encoded from ProRes 4444 181 Mbps (22.6 MB/s)
4K H.264 29.97 Jerry Berg
Barnacules Nerdgasm
60.2 Mbps (7.5 MB/s)
4K ProRes 422HQ 24 Grant Petty
Blackmagic Design Forum
712 Mbps (89 MB/s)
4K ProRes 4444 25 ARRI
AMIRA Sample Footage
941 Mbps (118 MB/s)
4K DNxHR HQ 23.976 Re-encoded from Red 4K 702 Mbps (87.8 MB/s)
4K RED 23.976 Mike Pecci
Director & Photographer
220 Mbps (27.5 MB/s)
6K RED 23.976 Neumann Films
RED Dragon Test Shot
360 Mbps (45 MB/s)

Using these files, we will be testing a variety of different tasks which should give us a good idea of how the different CPU models impact performance in Premiere Pro:​

  • Rendering previews
  • Exporting to H.264
  • Exporting to DNxHD HQ and DNxHR HQ
  • Performing a Warp Stabilize Analysis

For exporting and rendering previews, we used relatively simple timelines in order to keep them as real-world as possible. In the past, we've loaded on the effects to show the maximum difference between configurations, but we found that this was not representative of typical real-world performance and in this case might introduce CPU or GPU bottlenecks. These test timelines consisted of:

  • 4-6 clips arranged in series to make a 60 second timeline
  • A basic cross dissolve transition applied between each clip
  • Lumetri color correction effect applied to each clip
  • Vector-based logo graphic added to the bottom corner of the footage

The warp stabilization analysis was performed on 10 second clips with H.264 1080p, H.264 4K and RED 4K footage.

Render Previews

Premiere Pro 2017 Kaby Lake i7 7700K i5 7600K Preview Benchmark

[+] Show full benchmark results

Overall Average

Compared to
Intel Core i7 6700K
Compared to 
Intel Core i7 6850K
Compared to 
Intel Core i7 6950X
Intel Core i7 7700K 105.6% 94.9% 86.6%
Intel Core i5 7600K 84.2% 75.9% 69.5%

Rendering previews is a good test in and of itself, but it is also a useful indication of how complex of timelines you should be able to play through without even the need for previews to be generated in the first place. Compared to the previous generation Intel Core i7 6770K, the new i7 7700K is on average about 5.6% faster. One interesting thing to point out is that while the i7 7700K performs at about the same level as the "High-End" Core i7 CPUs when working with a 1080p composition, if you make the jump to 4K you will really start to see a benefit from having more CPU cores. While on average the i7 7700K is only 13.4% slower than the i7 6950X, for 4K alone it is actually 21.6% slower. This isn't huge (especially considering the difference in price), but for most video editing professionals that 21.6% performance improvement should be significant.

Export to H.264

Premiere Pro 2017 Kaby Lake i7 7700K i5 7600K H.264 Export Benchmark

[+] Show full benchmark results

Overall Average

Compared to
Intel Core i7 6700K
Compared to 
Intel Core i7 6850K
Compared to 
Intel Core i7 6950X
Intel Core i7 7700K 110.0% 93.3% 84.6%
Intel Core i5 7600K 82.5% 70.3% 64.4%

When exporting to H.264, we saw a very decent ~10% increase in performance with the i7 7700K compared to the i7 6700K for both 1080p and 4K. This is still about 4-11.5% slower than the i7 6850X (depending on if you export to 1080p or 4K), but it closes the gap between the normal consumer Core i7 CPUs and the High-End Core i7 CPUs quite a bit. Compared to the i7 6950X - which is the best CPU for Premiere Pro at the moment - the i7 7700K is about 15% slower on average (5.5% slower when exporting to H.264 1080p and 31.7% slower when exporting to H.264 4K).

Although the i5 7600K is about 11% faster than the i5 6600K, it is roughly 25-35% slower than the i7 6850K. Compared to the i7 6950X, it is about 27% slower for 1080p and just a hair above half the performance when exporting to 4K.

Exporting to DNxHD HQ & DNxHR HQ

Premiere Pro 2017 Kaby Lake i7 7700K i5 7600K DNxHD DNxHR Export Benchmark

[+] Show full benchmark results

Overall Average

Compared to
Intel Core i7 6700K
Compared to 
Intel Core i7 6850K
Compared to 
Intel Core i7 6950X
Intel Core i7 7700K 104.3% 86.8% 74.4%
Intel Core i5 7600K 76.2% 63.6% 54.7%

Exporting to DNxHD HQ and DNxHR HQ is more demanding than H.264, which results in more significant performance gains with higher core count CPUs. This time, we saw only a small 3.8-5.1% (or an average 4.3%) increase in performance with the i7 7700K compared to the i7 6700K. Compared to the i7 6850X, however, the i7 7700K is about 15% slower. Going all the way up to the i7 6950X, the i7 7700K is ~25.6% slower for both DNxHD HQ 1080p and DNxHR HQ 4K.

Warp Stabilize (Analyze)

Premiere Pro 2017 Kaby Lake i7 7700K i5 7600K Warp Stabilize Benchmark

[+] Show full benchmark results

Overall Average

Compared to
Intel Core i7 6700K
Compared to 
Intel Core i7 6850K
Compared to 
Intel Core i7 6950X
Intel Core i7 7700K 107.6% 131.4% 137.7%
Intel Core i5 7600K 104.2% 127.4% 133.4%

Benchmarking the analysis portion of warp stabilize is new to our Premiere Pro benchmark suite, but it gives some very interesting results. Unlike rendering and exporting, this task appears to be either single or lightly threaded - meaning it does not take advantage of a high number of CPU cores. Because of this, the "High-End" Core i7 CPUs do not actually fare very well compared to the quad core CPUs. In fact, the new i7 7700K is about 30-40% faster than the 6-10 core CPUs!

Compared to the i7 6700K, the new i7 7700K is able to complete the analysis about 7.6% faster. Surprisingly, the i5 7600K is also faster than the i7 6770K by about 4.2%. We're not quite sure why this is since the 6700K has an equal maximum Turbo Boost frequency, higher base frequency, and supports Hyperthreading, but we verified the results multiple times and they were very consistent.


Overall, while the new Core i7 7700K still isn't able to match the "High-End" Core i7 CPUs when working with 4K footage it has some decent performance gains over the old i7 6700K.

Intel Core i7 7700K
Average Performance

Compared to
Intel Core i7 6700K
Compared to 
Intel Core i7 6850K
Compared to 
Intel Core i7 6950X
Render Previews 105.6% 94.9% 86.6%
Export 107.2% 90% 79.5%
Warp Stabilize 107.6% 131.4% 137.7%

Compared to the old Core i7 6700K, the new i7 7700K should be somewhere around 7% faster for most tasks in Premiere Pro. If you work with 1080p projects, the i7 7700K will actually almost match the i7 6850K when rendering previews and only be about 10% slower when exporting. If you have already made the move to 4K, however, the i7 7700K will be about 10% slower for previews and about 14% slower when exporting. Compared to the i7 6950X, the i7 7700K lags a bit more for 4K, coming in at about 20% slower for previews and 25-30% slower for exporting.

Intel Core i5 7600K
Average Performance

Compared to
Intel Core i7 6700K
Compared to 
Intel Core i7 6850K
Compared to 
Intel Core i7 6950X
Render Previews 84.2% 75.9% 69.4%
Export 79.3% 67.0% 59.6%
Warp Stabilize 104.6% 127.4% 133.4%

It might not seem fair to compare the i5 7600K to the more expensive i7 CPUs, but considering the price difference between the i5 7600K and the i7 7700K is only around $100 it is actually a very valid comparison. While the i5 7600K certainly held it's own in our warp stabilize benchmark, when rendering previews it came in at about 26.2% slower than the i7 7700K and for exporting the difference was even larger at 35.8%. While we don't show it in the chart above, compared to the old i5 6700K the i5 7600K clocked at just under 12% faster on average.

For professional Premiere Pro users, we would highly recommend considering one of the "High-End" Core i7 CPUs like the i7 6850K, i7 6900K, or the i7 6950X instead of a more standard quad core CPU. Especially for 4K and higher, these CPUs should be noticeably faster than even the i7 7700K and they allow for much higher amounts of system RAM to be used. If you do a ton of warp stabilization or just dabble in video editing, however, the Core i7 7700K actually performs very well for it's price - especially if you mostly stick to 1080p footage.

Premiere Pro Workstations

Puget Systems offers a range of poweful and reliable systems that are tailor-made for your unique workflow.

Configure a System!

Labs Consultation Service

Our Labs team is available to provide in-depth hardware recommendations based on your workflow.

Find Out More!
Tags: Premiere Pro, CPU, Processor
Fizzy Wagon

Hey Matt
Thanks for this - I'm anxiously waiting to get my new i7-7700K system - Running Adobe Premiere to edit 4K video - my current system is a complete dog and struggles too much - editing, rendering, encoding - so slowwwww

I have a drone and gopro which take 4K - I may be away on vacation or travelling and like the idea of editing on the road - however if I have to sacrifice performance too much - I will get a desktop

with a 1060 video card and i7-7700K CPU with SSD - will a laptop be suffice or will I forever regret not getting a desktop ? I'm hoping I don't have to upgrade for many years to come and by then there will be new Tech and not worth upgrading so having an upgrade path probably isn't that important

Thoughts ?

Posted on 2017-01-28 05:32:11

You can get "laptops" with desktop CPUs like the i7-7700K and even a desktop GTX1080 video card so if you really want a system that powerful that is also mobile you could try to find one of those. We actually used to sell them, but we dropped them fairly recently due to a number of issues. They have a ton of compute power, but we found that they were just too big/bulky and the quality of the manufacturing didn't meet our standards. We looked at pretty much every manufacture that makes those units, and they all either had significant thermal issues, power issues, or were prone to breaking. We're talking the units would shut off under heavy load or the GPU would overheat to the point it would cause video corruption. So overall, they just were not a good experience for us or our customers.

If you were to go down to a more traditional laptop with a mobile CPU/GPU, you will be giving up quite a bit of power compared to a desktop. We haven't done any testing comparing mobile products, but at a guess I would think an equivalently priced laptop would be somewhere around 25-30% (ish?) slower than a desktop. You would probably still wish you had better performance if you got a laptop, but it sounds like the mobile convenience is a pretty big deal for you. So I suppose your decision is whether you would rather your videos take 25-35% longer to render, or would you rather be able to edit and render your videos while on the road.

Posted on 2017-01-30 20:02:39
Nhi Nguyen

Thanks for a very detail comparison article and the respond above Matt. I'm also searching for a laptop (and upgrade my desktop - currently i7-3770k). MSI GS73VR 4K is catching my eyes. What your take on system like this?

Also, for my desktop, I have a chance to get the i7-6950x CPU at a big discount (25-35%) realizing that it's more than a year old technology. I'm in no rush to upgrade so I'm not sure if I should wait for the next gen CPU of the X, or go ahead and get the 6950X. I'm thinking the next gen would probably only be ~10-15% faster, so with a ~30% saving on the current gen CPU I might be ahead :). Advice please?

Thanks again.

Posted on 2017-02-01 06:29:43

The MSI GS73VR uses a mobile CPU, so compared to your current 3770K it is probably just a hair slower for Premiere Pro. I've never actually seen one or done any testing, so I can't speak for quality and reliability or anything like that though.

The 6950X is an excellent CPU for Premiere - it is actually the best you can get right now. The "High-End" Core i7 line doesn't get quite as frequent of updates, so the fact that it launched a little less than a year ago isn't too bad. Intel will probably come out with an update sometime this year, but I'm guessing you are right that it will only be 10-15% faster. If you got a 6950X for a big discount I would say go for it! The savings you get you can put towards a NVMe storage drive, a faster GPU, or other things that will likely give you a nice performance bump.

Posted on 2017-02-01 19:06:32
Nhi Nguyen

Thanks Matt - for your quick respond/advice. I pulled the trigger and upgraded to the 6950x with 64GB of ram. Just done setting up and testing/bench-marking. Lots of $$$ for sure. Haha.

Posted on 2017-02-10 08:01:38

What I'd like to see someone test on CPU cooling is take extruded aluminum heat sinks and test them. Then remove the heat sink, take off the fan, brackets etc. and glass bead blast all the surfaces except where it contacts the CPU.
Clean off, reassemble and reinstall, using the same method of applying thermal paste as before.

Why? Because the bead blasting roughs up the surface and in theory should slightly increase the radiative surface area. It also rounds sharp edges of the fins which may help airflow between them. It also removes any heavy oxidation from anodizing. The aluminum will quickly re-oxidize but very thinly.

Dull surfaces radiate heat better than shiny surfaces.

Does a blasted cooler work better or not? What about sand blasting? Sand makes a surface "toothy" and much rougher than the satin finish from glass bead.

So if you get bored some day and are wanting to benchmark something, try this. If you don't have a bead/sand blasting cabinet, there's probably an auto body shop nearby that does. Or use it as an excuse to buy a cabinet, for doing custom etching on computer cases. Mask, draw on design, cut out, blast. Works on metal, glass, plastic case windows...

Posted on 2017-01-30 10:20:49
Scott Bedenbaugh

That sounds like a project for the guys at Linus Tech Tips!

Posted on 2017-06-14 20:27:59

Thanks so much for these articles. These are absolutely awesome resources that aren't available anywhere else on the internet!!

Question/Idea- have you ever considered doing an article measuring the amount of ram that's needed for different operations? That would be incredibly informative, and I think it's the only area that you guys haven't covered so far. Eg test systems with 8gb, 16gb , 32gb , 64gb , 128gb , 256gb of ram. Test for how high quality, what length and how many heavy effects are necessary to fill the ram and cause falling back to cache in After Effects & Premiere. This could maybe consist of a playback test & exporting test, with different version test projects of different resource intensity.

This is the only area where it seems that you're lacking empirical data to back up your recommendations, an article like this would be an incredible resource. Would like to thank Puget Systems again for your transparency and generosity in sharing all this information so openly & freely, you guys rock!

Posted on 2017-02-08 16:46:30

We have some information on the amount of RAM we recommend on our Hardware Recommendations page (https://www.pugetsystems.co..., but you are right that we don't have an article right now. We are basing our recommendation not only on our own testing, but also what we know our customers are seeing in terms of RAM usage in the field (some of which we can't directly talk about due to confidentiality and all that). Honestly, a lot of the time what makes RAM usage higher is things we don't actively test right now like plug-ins, running multiple applications at one, and the exact effects used so a full article like we normally do is a bit tricky. Especially for After Effects since it is extremely easy to use crazy amounts of RAM.

At the moment, all that really means is that for RAM usage it is much more of a "trust us" situation at the moment than pretty much any other hardware component. I hope to change that in the future if we can really nail down a good way to determine what amounts of RAM you should have depending on your project type (resolution, effects, length, and so on) but I'm not exactly sure when that might happen.

Posted on 2017-02-09 21:07:21

Thanks very much for this comprehensive comparison, you did a fantastic job. there is only one thing I'd like to know - and of course I don't expect the answer to be this detailed, a good estimation, a rough % value would do it:
how would the 7700k compare against the 6800k? for me it would be important to know, since it'd determine or at least narrow down my choices of motherboards.

Posted on 2017-03-02 08:39:00

The 6800K is just a slower (lower clock speed) version of the 6850K we tested, and while it also has fewer PCI-E lanes that won't directly impact video editing performance. The clock speed difference will bring it closer to the 7700K in a lot of situations where the 6850K is only 5-10% faster now, especially when working with common 1080P footage types. The 6800K would still be a little faster than the 7700K when dealing with more complex codecs or higher resolutions, but at the same time it will fall further behind the 7700K in situations where that was already faster than the higher core count processors - like Warp Stabilize.

Posted on 2017-03-02 17:39:56

Thanks a lot for your quick and informative reply, I appreciate that, big. I'll probably stick with the 7700k then. I'm still a little nervous about the switch to the PC world (from Macs), about how I'm gonna like it, but I guess it's gonna be fine. :)

Posted on 2017-03-04 08:53:23

When rendering my CPU usage is only 30%

2cpu e5 2667v3 2.9G 16 core 32 threads 96G memory

Posted on 2017-03-08 05:21:31
Arkadius Brand

Adobe... that is the answer. They are greedy losers, nothing else.

Posted on 2017-11-01 20:00:37
Jiří Chrástek

Hello Matt,
big thanks for your comparison, it is really great job.

I am wondering about testing hardware, especially about hard drives. Why you used M.2 drive (Samsung 960 Pro) for project and media files? Better option is use M.2 drive (the fastest drive in your assembly) as a Cache/Scratch disc, or am I wrong?

Posted on 2017-03-14 12:38:55

We actually recently did a big round of storage testing looking at different speeds of drives and moving the media cache, scratch files, and project files onto their own drives that you might be interested in: https://www.pugetsystems.co...

What we found is that it is actually more important in general to have a faster project drive than it is to have a faster media cache/scratch drive. The main reason is that a faster projects drive (with your media files) improves the time it takes to import files, generate peak files, and conform audio. It's true that that data is being written to the media cache/scratch drive, but in this case you get better performance with a faster source drive than a faster destination drive. Another factor is that if you are working with 4K RAW TIFF files (which we didn't test that in this article, but we are testing in our newer articles), you really need a NVMe drive for your project and media file drive. A standard SSD simply can't keep up which can give you pretty massive hits to performance.

Posted on 2017-03-14 17:53:22
Jiří Chrástek

Thank you for your answer, I didn't expect these results. Once again you did brilliant work!!!

Posted on 2017-03-15 21:05:19
Craig Ricker

Am I better getting a faster i7-6950x CPU or the slower Xeon E5-2697v4 CPU with a slower base clock (higher turbo) but 8 more cores. This will be used for video editing in premiere and AE compositions with 4k material. The Xeon is about $1000 more, but lets put that money part of the equation out of the picture. What is better?

Posted on 2017-03-15 04:20:09

i7 6950X, definitely. The addition of more cores beyond 10 isn't worth the loss of clock speed in these applications.

Posted on 2017-03-15 05:51:27

Spend the money you save on a good video card and fast drives :)

Posted on 2017-03-15 05:51:42
Craig Ricker

What sort of performance reduction can I expect with the .7% lower clock speed. The turbo speed is .1% higher, although there is no way to actually estimate what clock speed the intel turbo will allow the CPU to sit at? Assuming excellent cooling is provided to the CPU, couldn't it be assumed the XEON would turbo boost to at least very near the i7-6950 clock speeds?

Posted on 2017-03-15 05:54:23

The E5 2697 v4 has substantially lower clock speeds:


It is about 10% slower when a single core is active, and about 20% slower when all cores are in use. That is a pretty substantial amount.

Posted on 2017-03-15 06:02:40
Craig Ricker

Very interesting, thank you for the link to article! When you say all cores in use, it doesn't even have to be 100% use right, it can just be sipping on the other cores, and this would mean the maximum can't go above what is listed in the 'all core boost'?

The only factor to consider now, is when I do render out of cinema4d I will be using all cores to maximum. So I just need to weigh up whether that part of the equation (which i've always dealt with by rendering at night) is worth bringing into the math or not. As assuming I do render in the day that 20% loss, will be negated by the increase in an extra 8 cores. theoretically, leading to a 60%ish increase. I'll give it a think

Posted on 2017-03-15 06:14:19

What render engine do you use within Cinema4D? If you use Arnold or another CPU based renderer, then yes - more cores will help there. However, C4D also supports plug in render engines that are GPU accelerated - like Octane. That would let you boost performance by using powerful video cards instead of tons of CPU cores, allowing you to stick with a CPU that is more optimized for other parts of your workflow.

Posted on 2017-03-15 16:08:31

I was only just using the physical rendered as i didnt realise there were others. Just investigated in Octane and mate am I so thankful I got to read this article and get your responses! Wow octane is amaze balls! Definitely settled in the i7-6950x now. And will look at a potential SLI setup on GTX1080ti's if one doesn't do it for us with octane! Thanks so much for your help! What a win!

Posted on 2017-03-16 01:05:45
Carlos Durán

Hi, I´m working in a tie budget. And I am living in México, so, everything is more expensive here, but I could find the i5 7600k for almost the same price as the i7 6700k and the i7 7700 (non k). Wich one would you recommend for video editing? Thanks in advance.

Posted on 2017-03-16 18:49:01
Kaileen Fitzpatrick

https://uploads.disquscdn.c... Hey, thank you so much for your articles. I used these to help in our latest builds for video editing machines.

I am set up with i7 6950x and a Zotac GTX1080 with Windows 10 Legacy and Adobe CC 2017

My question is re CPU percentage displayed in Task Manager Application.
Screenshot below of my machine while rendering an 8k timelaps in Premiere CC 2017.
TechPowerUp GPU-Z, CPU-Z, and Core Temp all say that my CPU and GPU are screaming (and I recently overclocked CPU to 4Ghz).
Meanwhile Task Manager says Premiere is only using 29% of the CPU.....

Somebody's lyin....


Posted on 2017-08-10 19:45:55

I've actually never found task manager to be all that useful for finding bottlenecks unless you are doing something that is really, really heavy on one piece of hardware. The problem is that Premiere Pro uses the CPU, GPU, RAM, and storage together, but does so in short bursts where one component may be idle while another is churning out calculations.

Making up numbers here, but just as an example if Premiere Pro uses the GPU for 5ms for a calculation, then switches to the CPU for 5ms to do another calculation but Task Manager only polls every 10ms, it would show both the CPU and GPU at 50% load. They were actually at 100% load while they were performing those calculations but since Premiere Pro doesn't always use both the CPU and GPU at the exact same time it looks like you are not using each component to it's full potential.

This is actually fairly common to see in applications that use both the CPU and GPU so I wouldn't let it worry you. There is of course the possibility that you are bottlenecked with something else like RAM or storage speed, however. RAM is rarely a major issue, and storage you can check under the Performance tab in task manager. If it isn't under full load though, it is probably just a polling interval "issue" with reporting software.

Posted on 2017-08-10 20:05:24
Kaileen Fitzpatrick

Cheers Matt, that makes sense.

Posted on 2017-08-10 20:49:32
Kaileen Fitzpatrick

just FYI, i tried exporting out of Media Encoder and got a lot more CPU than GPU usage..... https://uploads.disquscdn.c...

Posted on 2017-08-10 21:25:16
Arkadius Brand

Premiere is just terribly written, amateurish quality software. Excessive memory usage, weird clip drag-drop error (unable to add clip to the timeline, not fixed since half a year or even more). I am surprised they still sell Premiere CC 2017 as it is one big software bug. They can't optimise things for multicore and GPU properly even. They charge like for Mercedes, but offer old Skoda quality.

Posted on 2017-11-01 19:59:20

Hey Matt
I am new here... I am hoping you can offer some good insight for me. I am getting into videography / video editing / ... I'm about to make a purchase between two laptops and was wondering if either is a good choice or if I am wasting money here and should look elsewhere?

I am looking at:

1) ($1490.00) Alienware AW17R5-7811BLK-PUS 17.3" laptop with Intel Core i7 8750H - 16GB Memory - NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 - 256GB Solid State Drive + 1TB Hard Drive

2) ($1350.00) Asus - ROG GU501GM 15.6" Laptop - Intel Core i7 8750H - 16GB Memory - NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 - 1TB Hybrid Drive + 128GB SSD

I dont have a desktop, this would be my main source

What are your thoughts?

thanks so much!

Posted on 2018-07-07 14:47:49

I'm not a fan of Hybrid drives and a GTX 1070 can really help with Premiere Pro depending on what you are doing. So between those two I would go with the Alienware from a specs perspective. However, I will say that I personally would prefer a 15.6" screens myself over a 17.3". Larger displays are nice on desktops, but for a laptop you are taking with you on the go I feel like a 17" unit is simply too large. But that is really just a personal preference and depends on how much travel you will be doing with it.

One other thing to consider is that 16GB of RAM really isn't that great for video editing. It can be OK if you are just working with relatively short timelines of 1080p footage and minimal effects, but even getting into things like Lumetri Color or 4K is really going to become a problem. I would look into whether you can add more RAM to either of those systems in the future and if only one will let you do that I would definitely lean in that direction.

Posted on 2018-07-09 17:12:58

Thank you Matt.

The Alienware RAM has a max of 32gb capacity... Will that be enough for 4k editing?

As far as I can tell, the Alienware is not a hybrid drive but the Asus is.

Thanks for the tip about the 15.6 and the advantage over the 17.3 in weight... I was thinking about the same thing after I originally sent the message to you.
The only negative I could find is that the 15.6 does not have a dedicated number key pad. The 17.3 does...
Do you think that matters?

I do agree that the lighter weight would definitely be easier to travel with.

Thanks for your advice... And time!

Posted on 2018-07-09 18:33:35

Btw... I can get the Alienware 15.6 with the exact same specs

Posted on 2018-07-09 19:03:17

Matt... This HP workstation is basically the same price as the Alienware... Less than $100 difference.
The machine has a max RAM of 64GB. Would this be a better buy because of the RAM?

It does have an older CPU and less of a GPU... And less hard drive but that may not matter?

Your advice?

HP 15.6" ZBook 15 G4 Mobile Workstation
Designed for the Creative Professional
2.8 GHz Intel Core i7-7700HQ Quad-Core
16GB DDR4 RAM | 512GB PCIe M.2 SSD
15.6" 1920 x 1080 SVA Display
NVIDIA Quadro M1200 Graphics Card (4GB)
SD/SDHC/SDXC Card Reader
Thunderbolt 3 | USB 3.0 | HDMI 1.4 | VGA
802.11ac Wi-Fi | Bluetooth 4.2
Gigabit Ethernet Port
Windows 10 Pro (64-bit)

Posted on 2018-07-10 01:00:12

In terms of performance, the Alienware is going to be better - mostly due to the GPU. However, HP I would consider an overall more reliable brand than Alienware for laptops, so that is a factor as well. To be completely honest, laptops aren't something we've really dealt with for quite a while so while I can look at specs, that really is just one small part of what makes a laptop good or bad. Things like screen quality, keyboard/touchpad quality, reliability, battery life, etc. I really don't know all that much about.

That said, I would lean a bit towards the Alienware myself, but I would encourage you to find some place that will let you get some hands-on time with one or both units. Even if one of them is technically faster than the other, if it doesn't feel very good to you then that is going to be a source of constant annoyance.

Posted on 2018-07-10 01:06:16

Thank you again!
I started 2nd guessing myself about the max 32GB RAM. But all the other specs are very good.
I had hands on time with the Alienware and I do like it. Its a good fit...
Thanks !!

Posted on 2018-07-10 01:41:33

32GB is usually enough for 4K as long as you aren't working with large RAW files or anything like that. That alone would lean me towards the Alienware over the Asus so then you just need to decide if having a numpad is important for you and if the larger size is a pro or a con. That is 100% personal preference, however, so I don't think I can really help you there.

Posted on 2018-07-09 19:45:09

Thank you!
I will go with the 15.6

Posted on 2018-07-09 19:52:02