I have the ProArt PA329q. It has full adobe RGB support, but I never use it! And I work with print as well. The only reason why I buy good art monitors instead of gaming monitors etc, is because they usually have better color calibration out of the box and a more even light across the screen, so they are better for artist (higher quality). If I were to buy a new monitor today I would probably get the Dell Ultrasharp UP3216Q. Though if you are working with after effects, web and things that are meant for use on a computer or TV screen - they are shown in sRGB and Adobe RGB is pointless ... and you are probably good no matter what screen you buy as long as it has ok quality and color accuracy. Nice work on your showreel. For that kind of work, you will not need Adobe RGB at all, in fact I guarantee you that you will not use it even if your screen supports it. Everything on the monitor just looks wrong in Adobe RGB and its meant for print...Not After Effects. ... View more

If you only work with video, not print, I wouldn't even consider Adobe RGB. sRGB and a screen that is well calibrated is what you need. There's even a debate if Adobe RGB is the best to use if you work with print (photoshop/illustrator/indesign), unless you really know what you are doing you are better of with sRGB there as well. Adobe RGB Versus sRGB Color Space - Which Should You Choose? ... View more

Isn't this program only useful if you have a laptop and power managment on? ... View more

I will probably get the equivalent of the current i9-7940X. so around the same core count as the threadripper, only with a turbo boost that actually works in programs. it seems the entire x family of intel processors today are scoring about the same single clock performance, no matter how many cores you buy, because of the turbo boost. Because on the chart they all have a lot lower base clock than 1950x, but still they all score much better on single core performance and they are all on average abou 10% slower than the 8700K in After Effects and other adobe programs (according to Puget Systems) - which is a lot less than Threadripper. The threadripper has about 30% slowdown compared to 8700K which is really noticeable actually, and weirdly enough it even do worse in after effects cinema 4d renders as well which are suppose to be fully multi threaded (so something is seriously wrong with AMD and adobe softwares). And since it seems Intel is really pushing those single threaded clock speeds these days, I'm expecting an even higher turbo boost on the next x serie. and best of all, then I can just swap out my current ram which didn't work with all sticks, with my old ram kit. Because I know my previous ram works with Intel, which are 128gb of 2666mhz quad channel. The current price of ram is so high, that buying this intel cpu and a new motherboard will cost me less than getting the 128 G.skill ram I considered for my threadripper....only drawback is that I need to take a day to reinstall my computer - and I will never buy AMD again, unless something groundbreaking happens with Adobes program optimizations. (as tragic as that sounds) But if you don't need all those cores or 128gb of ram, i9-9900K seems like the king to come for single threaded programs. ... View more

THank you for all this info, very useful to know. But who knows when nvidia and adobe will come around to make a fix. I'm still leaning towards putting my 1950x on the shelf and go the intel route, it seems more reliable because all the softwares and drivers are usually optimized for it. ... View more

Hmmm, go to this link: X399 Drivers & Support | AMD then click windows 10 64-bit edition the choose to download the AMD chipset Drivers. Then install them. After this, you will have the powerplan in your power options in windows under the additional power settings menu after you restart your computer, among other things installed with the chipset drivers. ... View more

its not in the bios, its drivers from amd with various stuff to optimize the threadripper cpu. See link in my post above, download and install, then you get this powerplan as well. ... View more

Btw, I have decided myself too now to ditch the x399 platform. Instead of buying the 2950x and get new mediocre results in adobe programs I will wait for the new Intel X series, because they do a lot better in light threaded tasks - and I can get a decent core count as well. It won't be as good as 8700K in single core but close, no less than 10% drop in speed, compared to 1950x which is around 30% loss in speeds, even in multithreaded tasks in AE...go figure...guess someone at adobe is asleep. So I rather go for a new proven platform than keep experimenting with a new x399 chip and more memory troubles. ... View more

Its part of the chipset drivers for 1950x X399 Drivers & Support | AMD ... View more

Hmm that article showed a bit different story than I read. Guess the difference weren’t that big. Though it seemed very acceptable to overclocking. Nonetheless both CPUs are great for single core performances and the price difference is tiny on both compared to the threadripper and such CPUs. ... View more

Actually, if you are considering purchasing the 8700K for the Adobe experience, I would buy the 8086k instead. It turboboost to 5GhZ out of the box, same cores as 8700K and can be overclocked to go even further. on default (no overclock) it scores around 210 in single core cinebench. (and overclocked up to 220-230, which is insane) I'm sure this CPU would make AE and PS and LR feel silky smooth! ... View more

Hi, Yeah ram of that speed doesn't seem very stable with AMD. I don't really know if it is the motherboard or the CPU. I heard that the new CPUs support more ram configs, but then again I also read, at least on the 1st gen CPUs that 2933Mhz is the maximum "supported" speed from AMD, which is quite low imo for a modern CPU. But people have managed to use faster ram, but it seems to be very picky. Particularly Samsung ram, which G.skill uses is more stable at higher clockrates. You can buy particular ram only for threadripper from G.skill which have XMP set for this CPU. But, I do not think faster ram will give you any noticeable speed, it's AMD and the clockspeed of the CPU that makes it slow. And yeah, I agree, it seems either Adobe is in bed with Intel or they simple don't test and optimize their software for any other CPUs than Intel. All in all Adobe is the culprit though, their software are way to reliant on clockspeed compared to any other program I am aware of. Which is why one need to plan the computer hardware accordingly. I would say, if PScc and LRcc is your main software, then 6850K (which is what I have too in my previous machine) is a lot better. I overclocked mine to 4.4ghz (just used one of the presets in the Asus Bios), and it worked like a charm. And with 4.4 ghz on a 6850K is almost as good as what you could get on the 8700K...So if you have that CPU all ready I wouldnt invest in a new machine, unless you need another one. If I were only working in After effects and photoshop, I would stick with my 6850K. But for 3d software, the threadripper works more than twice the speed. There's isn't a machine that can do everything great, from my experience. ... View more

Hi Mike, yeah long time no talk Yeah I had some issues time and time again. But everything is "ok" now. First of all I struggled a lot to get the cooling ok. Remember I bought the Enermax 360? I ditched that and went back to Noctua. Because the Enermax was way to noisy for me. Also it didn't really help with the cooling compared to the Noctua, only in the beginning. So I started investigating how I applied thermal paste. And the last thing I ended up with was a single grain, just slightly larger than on a regular CPU size. And after that cooling was much better and system got stable in the long run. I tried every other way, but I noticed once I added paste on the entire CPU, over time it degraded and temperatures were rising. I stopped using the Asus Suite and App boost, it just wasn't stable and not a very good software in my opinion. And actually I have removed all overclocking. Because Amd turbo boost turns off once you start overclock. And with the turboboost and noctua cooler, the CPU hits 4ghz on single core. SO for After Effects and Photoshop, Cinebench single core, etc it performs better without overclocking. So now my machine has the best performance for Single core I can get, its silent with Noctua and it doesn't swallow the same amount of wattage it would with overclocking.. And honestly I have no use for the slightly better all core performance. 16 cores on 3.4 is completely fine. But yeah, I had more problems with this CPU than I have ever had before, both with performance (in adobe apps particularly) and with ram. But, its an expensive motherboard and supposedly good setup. So I am actually considering upgrading to 2950x, since it has higher clock speed and turboboost to 4.4, and also a better XFR and precision boost 2. So from what I have seen so far it does a lot better on single core scores, which would be nice in AE and adobe software. If I would not have been reliant on 3d rendering, which I sadly am, I would buy the i9 8700K in an instant. It's silly fast for single core programs. And would be a wonder to work with in After Effects. It handles maximum 64 gb of ram though, just so you know...but that's enough for most people. . My other pc which I have in my office, has an overclocked Intel CPU running at 4.4 all the time with turbo boost as well. I get 190 single core score in Cinebench, compared to 160 with my 1950x,  and the difference makes a great deal in both Photoshop, After Effects and Premiere. But in general, apart for a slower performance in After Effects...Everything else is pretty smooth. And Photoshop is quite ok actually, not so much slower. Im talking about program snappyness, because the user experience and live ram preview is more important to me than if a video takes 30 seconds less to render. ... View more

Are you sure you didn't do the previous test on a previous machine? A 3.2 ghz xeon CPU is really not a good fit for Premiere. ... View more

Not really. high-end isn't best for Adobe software. Only fast ram and fast storage for scratch disks. Apart from that a fast low core CPU and a good GPU is good for adobe programs. That's not particularly high-end - it's more what gamer PCs custom builds looks like. But the good thing with PCs is that you can customize the hardware to take as good advantage of the software you use, while Apple doesn't offer builds which are perfect for Premiere or After Effects or anything like that. But instead makes machines that are optimized for FCPX and for what their vendor deals are. Apples only offer in the pro market Xeon CPUs which are all ready overpriced and outdated compared to AMDs threadripper lineup. And on the other hand Apple only offer AMD GPUs which were slower and more expensive than Nvidia cards when they got released. (amd even seem to accept their GPUs were a fail) But luckily for them, at least they have a good deal with Apple to get rid of them in Apples overpriced FCPX iMac Pro machines. If you stick with Mac OS,  I would hold on to your 2017 iMac for now, there's nothing more to gain from a iMac Pro in the Adobe software suite (quite the opposite). ... View more

Yes, it is what is is. And Adobe has been famous for not bringing their software on par with Hardware for a long time. It seems they are the only ones who thinks they have decent optimized programs. They should have some warning labels or recommendations imho, because they are SO far behind. I myself bought a 16 core threadripper CPU last year only to notice that After Effects were slower than ever before. So after this I started digging into the cause of all this. So I learned my lesson, and from now on I will read Puget system reports on any cpu before I decide to do an upgrade. I will probably go slightly down on core count next time and try to get the best inbetweeter mixing core count and high GhZ, something around 12 core probably (since Adobe softwares prefer simple low core gamer PC's). I want a fast machine for 3d rendering as well - so need the best I can get for both scenarious...Sadly Apple users don't have the luxury replacing their hardware without getting new machines - so you should do even more planning and research before paying the high price of an iMac Pro or Mac Pro. Adobe has been having this problem for a very long time so I don't expect it to change anytime soon. Premiere is slow, AE is extremely slow, and so is Photoshop as well. It's kind of ironic that you can work with high res images and use the same sophisticated tools like smudge, warp and large brushes in higher resolution images in Procreate on an iPad with more responsiveness than you can with a 16 core PC with 4 ghZ  and 128gb ram....that just says it all and why I don't believe a full fledged photoshop on the iPad (coming next year) will compete with procreate...because its made by Adobe. I can assure you that FCPX would give you a completely different experience, they actually utilize the whole machine. Rendering and working in FCPX would probably be faster on the ultrathin Macbook than Premiere is on your iMac Pro ... View more

I agree, but some times you work with programs or clients that doesn't agree with that. F.example I do a lot of stage set animations in after effects, were the client uses Mac Pros and Qlab for the simpler shows. For some strange reason Qlab doesn't like the mp4 container and you often get stutter and playback problems if the format isn't h.264 .mov. Of course Qlab is a limited program and they should not have these problems, but when you are not able to render .mov H.264 movies in After Effects or AME at all, it does create quite a bit of problems. And this is just one of the cases that I personally encounter, I'm sure others have experienced different problems. So its not a question of what you should or should not do, its what you have to do to please clients. And, a software package like Adobe should not be the FIRST to completely remove the ability - because their tools are used in a TON of different types of productions. ... View more

I think it is important to state that its not only the preview rendering that decreases significantly with lower clockrates, the entire program gets slower too. UI gets sluggish and laggy. And this emphasize the feeling of a less responsive program. Especially with HiDPI screens like the iMac has. To me it seems like Adobe should optimize/re-program their UI system, so it takes better advantage of the the GPU, because it is noticeable slower on a 16core 3.8GHz machine than a 6 core 4.4GHz for me. This in addition to the preview render makes an iMac Pro or other powerful machines a downgrade for After Effects usage. Apart from that though, I agree. Adobe had a big poll 4-5 years ago, asking what they should focus on. It was an unanimous vote for a faster program. After this, Adobe removed multi threaded rendering and said they would slowly improve the program step by step as it was a big task to undertake. Sadly, it seems they got bored, because the optimizations are getting slower and instead they are feature creeping more. Lately they seem to improve a couple of effects for every update but generally just bloating the software with more features instead (like this latest spring update, which just had multithreaded Noise!!). It's very annoying and it will take DECADES before we even reach the same speeds we had back when multithreading was supported in AE.  ... View more

I would say After Effects suffer a lot harder than Premiere due to bad code from Adobe. ANd it has actually been complained about for years. Adobe tries to catch up but the optimization updates has happened slower than technology evolves. Its just sad really. ... View more

joachim.barrum ... View more

It should be announced with BIG letters on Adobe.com that Adobe software doesn't follow common modern hardware optimization. Too many people have wasted thousands of dollars thinking they are getting the best machine for the job, without knowing that their main software package will suffer more than it gains from the investment.  I don't know how many advertisement companies I have visited over the years where the graphic designers and motion graphic artists works on Mac Pros, when they would have been better off using a Low core gaming PC or a regular iMac with high clockspeed. Everyone that are buying a new machine for Adobe usage, and specifically After Effects (which is the worst of the suite) should read up on www.pugetsystems.com - those benchmarks don't lie. And THE main culprit from my findings, is the software UI. Because lower GHz CPU and higher resolution screen just makes the After Effects UI feel completely sluggish - which the iMac Pro suffers from severely. When I overclock my pc from 3.8 to 4.0 ghz I actually notice the difference in After Effects when scrubbing an empty timeline. and turning off High res UI also speeds up the program. And also preview suffers the the same, so a better and more expensive machine makes you less effective in the world of Adobe. ... ... View more

depends what you are going to use the machine for apart from After Effects. If after Effects is the sole purpose then you will have a better experience getting the regular iMac with the highest clockspeeds.  If you are going to use the machine for many things that require quite a bit of machine power the 10 core iMac pro is ok. It has high clockspeeds while also getting a powerful multi core machine. Anything above that, you really need to know what you will use it for, because the more cores in many cases means a slower machine. ... View more

thanks for the link Mike Yeah thats interesting stuff. I use 3ds max but just recently got the same feature myself...its very cool stuff. ... View more

thanks I did not know mp3 was unstable. I almost never use it, but once in a while I get a job from a client and they provide me with a mp3 file....As not all clients care about sound quality or need proper broadcast quality. And I happened to get such a job after upgrading to 15.1, so I thought it was the update causing it... ANyway, good to know, then I will convert it to wav whenever I'm getting mp3 files. ... View more

Yes, I have these issues too. Now I keep an older AE to work on, because the new AE is completely unstable, and I would not be surprised if we won't see a hotfix update for another few months. I also have crashes scrubbing ram previews with mp3 files, program just crash and random once in a while. ..ugh! ... View more

No you need to go to the CC app (mine is windows but in your top right corner): http://prntscr.com/j1c1tf ... View more

Im not sorry either, the processor has worked wonders in 3ds max and other tools I use. But I didn't know it would make such an impact in After Effects. So I will see what AMD will offer this fall, and enjoy my 1950x meanwhile. I agree, intels new offers are less good. ... View more

Yeah I been an adobe user for many years, but I never learn ... View more

You just go into the cc app and choose the right arrow on the side of the down arrow. Then choose other versions. If you have not deleten the prefs folder for the previous version, thats all there is to it. if you have deleted it, you would need to set up keyboard shortcuts again and the application layout you want. So its not a complex process. ... View more

thanks ok yeah I don't know programming enough to know whats more complex. All I know is that this whole thing could have been handled more delicately IMO. Especially the opening of old videos, which is the only problem I have, since I don't ever render in anything else than mp4 anyway. All I personally care about though is that I suddenly couldnt import videos I could a couple ofdays ago which caused problems for me. After Codecs, yeah I get that. I assume Prores is the only codec that you cannot legally broadcast based on After Codec. THough, for those needing to use that format being forced to work on a mac is despicable if you ask me. Ironically coming from the company that shut down flash because it was a closed system... So for those needing to use Prores I personally respect them not caring....But thats another discussion.  ... View more