i9 9900K or AMD Threadripper?

[Neofilm]

Alrighty, I'm upgrading gear and trying to figure out if I should get the AMD Threadripper or the i9 9900K, what do you all think?

Also, I am thinking either the RTX 2070 or 2080 and 32 Gb RAM.

I use premiere more than anything for multi-camera editing. I'm using a 1st Gen i7 980x with a GTX 680. So, I'm very excited to make this upgrade! I was thinking i9 9900 but the benchmark is so much better on the AMD (e.g. AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X) (PassMark Intel vs AMD CPU Benchmarks - High End ). I have read that AMD sometimes doesn't work with premiere though. Also the three comparison puts the 9900K in the lead of all CPU's!: (PassMark CPU Benchmarks - Single Thread Performance )

I sometimes use photoshop, illustrator, lightroom, audition, and would love to be inspired by a better performing machine to learn some new things like maybe some animation.

One thing that I invested in was some software to do 360 tours which requires processing very high resolution photos, at least 36 per 360, and creating 360 virtual tours. This was killing my computer. So, I'm hoping to get something that will improve this workflow significantly as well as make premiere editing profoundly smoother and rendering faster.

[Stan Jones]

I like the Puget benchmarks that are specific to Adobe software. Here is one; browse their site for other options.

https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Premiere-Pro-CC-2018-Core-i7-9700K-i9-9900K-Performance-1...

[Neofilm]

It's odd how they say right off in the first paragraph

"It is unlikely that these new 9th Gen CPUs will be able to keep up with the highest-end processors from Intel and AMD, but for those on a bit more of a budget there is a chance that the i7 9700K and i9 9900K will be a great choice."

What 9th gen processors? Aren't they talking about Intel? This makes no sense to me unless they're talking about 9th gen something else.

[Stan Jones]

Neofilm  wrote

What 9th gen processors? Aren't they talking about Intel? This makes no sense to me unless they're talking about 9th gen something else.

They're referring to the i9 K series; the i9 X's are the highest-end from intel.

I am not an expert in this area; I'm also looking...

My shorthand for K vs X is that the K's often had a higher base clockspeed, but fewer cores (and cheaper).

[Neofilm]

Ah, thanks, that makes total sense now!

This kind of makes me wonder, does adobe prefer more cores? The AMD Threadripper 1950x has way more cores and threads. Or is thread performance more important because thread performance is better on Intel 9900K? Knowing this may help me resolve my main inquiry here.

[Neofilm]

I find it odd that I'm currently editing multiple 4k tracks with a first gen cpu (980x) and only 24 gigs ram and somehow 32 gigs may on a significantly newer system may not be enough, lol.

[Stan Jones]

Neofilm  wrote

I find it odd that I'm currently editing multiple 4k tracks with a first gen cpu (980x) and only 24 gigs ram and somehow 32 gigs may on a significantly newer system may not be enough, lol.

The 980x is 6 cores. The 9900K only 8. Your 24GB is 4 GB per core. 32GB is the same per core. Does that mean that is all you need?

I have seen many claims that you need X number of GB per core. I looked recently, and could not find an authoritative source to explain that. So I have no big argument with 32 for an 8 core i9 9900K. I do in the importance of plenty of RAM, however, and would not build a new system without at least 6 per core. Because of the "even" sizes of sticks and having room for expansion, I would only now look at 64GB or more. BTW, that is the amount of RAM Puget was using in their test system. I was pricing RAM at about $650 for 64 GB. For a $4,000 system, it doesn't save that much to drop to 32.

[Neofilm]

For 2K I can get the i9 9900K with an RTX 2070, 32 gig ram, on a board in a tower with OS and a drive or two ready to use. I wasn't spending 4K. But, if getting 64 gb ram makes more sense then by all means I'm getting it! Right now I'm mostly trying to figure out the CPU. I'll have to figure out if I want the RTX 2080 instead too. I'll probably bite the bullet and get 64 like you suggested and the 2080 when it's all said and done.

I still don't know about the CPU though; that is, if the i9 9900K or Threadripper 1950x is the way to go. What do you all think?

[Neofilm]

This site you suggested, it's nice and all, but from what I can tell they didn't look at what I'm inquiring about, that is, i9 9900K compared to the Threadripper 1950x. This is really odd since the 1950x is less expensive and outperforms 9900K in some tests at least.

So, is 1950x or 9900k the better CPU for adobe software (and maybe even creating high res 360 virtual tours in other software)?

I'm assuming the 9900K may be better at least because it's most likely to always work with Adobe and the thread comparison showed 9900K to be the best of all CPU's in that comparison at least.

[Neofilm]

Thanks Stan, in the meantime, if someone would like to share their specific to my situation suggestions and reason that would be very helpful. Thanks again.

[julianfr]

Just don't buy the Threadripper.

Got one myself and the performance is more than horrible. My 5 years old Laptop runs better.

As you can see here I'm not the only one...

Better Threadripper Support – Adobe video & audio apps

Adobe seems to be aware, but doesn't give a sh*t about it apparently... as always.

[Neofilm]

Thanks!!! sorry to hear about your problems, but at least you're helping others by sharing your experience! Hey, maybe it will work better with DaVinci Resolve? You should try it, it's free, however, the h.264 format may be sluggish on the free version.