intel i7 8700k or ryzen 7 2700x for 4k editing?

[Sudhir12]

Which one should I get? i7 is a bit cheaper here and which will be better for Adobe dynamic link stuff? thx

[Ann Bens]

Moved from Premiere Pro CC​ to Hardware Forum​

[Sudhir12]

ok

[Bill Gehrke]

Just on a technical basis after looking at this Cinebench single threaded and multithreaded test results I would easily select the Ryzen 7 2700X processor.  We know that Puget's testing showed the i7-8700K ideal for AE with its single threaded architecture.  But this new guy the Ryzen 7 2700 X has very good single threaded performance and only slightly less that the i7-8700K, but much, much better multithreaded performance for Premiere.  So it depends on what primarily use.  Sorry, but I do not know what dynamic link software architecture uses, but as you can see even if it is single threaded technically I would still choose the Ryzen

EDIT!

I just found the Puget data for AE and the new Ryzen's.  It does not change my conclusions above for multiple Adobe CC programs, I still think I would go with the Ryzen 7 2700X 

[Sudhir12]

but a lot of ppl said intel is more optimised for adobe apps.

[gigeli82367597]

It's quite simple, the better the hardware you get the more CPU power will sit IDLE, get a 6 core and you might get 50% load on timeline, get 8 core and you might get 30%, no matter the cpu cores you will still stabilize with 1 core in several minutes, i know, other software do this in seconds with all cores.

Right now Adobe Premiere pro is the worst optimized software you could edit on, it's a joke to benchmark anything on this.

If you have something decent like a 7700k or 6700k i don't recommend an upgrade.

Best advise would be to ditch Adobe for davinci resolve or final cut.

[Bill Gehrke]

gigeli82367597  wrote

It's quite simple, the better the hardware you get the more CPU power will sit IDLE, get a 6 core and you might get 50% load on timeline, get 8 core and you might get 30%, no matter the cpu cores you will still stabilize with 1 core in several minutes, i know, other software do this in seconds with all cores.

I hate to disagree but here is my 8-core i7-5960x running at 4.5 GHz and it runs at my full overclocking speed for 250 seconds

[gigeli82367597]

What is the most important thing to an editor ? export times ? neah

The most important thing is timeline performance, i doubt that load is on timeline unless you disabled Opencl or Cuda.

No real editor cares much about a few minutes for an export, considering we put a lot of hours into a project, a few minutes on export is not a big deal, but, when we edit and we can't cut at that millisecond because the timeline playback resembles a slideshow or we can't see in real time a color grade and we clearly see the CPU sits at 30-40% and the GPU at 60-70% then we fu...ing wonder, why can't they optimize this software while others do this exceptionally ? final cut and davinci of course.

So yeah, that load is probably at export wich most of us don't care or on timeline with Opencl/Cuda disabled.

[exile1972]

gigeli82367597  wrote

What is the most important thing to an editor ? export times ? neah

Export times for me are equally important to overall editing playback. Most editors are now dumping out up to 2-3 versions of pieces each day for a remote client to look at and evaluate. I need fast play back and I most definitely need fast export times or I'm wasting valuable time.

The notion that Premiere doesn't work well on finely tuned hardware is nonsense. I have a well-tuned machine and therefore Premiere works extremely well.

You may have performance issues due to your hardware setup but you can't fairly say that everyone will have the same issues with the software.

[gigeli82367597]

I could bring arguments why this and why that but i already spent too much time here, just watch this 2017 vs 2015 5K iMac Video Editing! FCX Premiere & Resolve 14 - 2015 vs 2017 iMac - YouTube  , and this is just a small example, Premiere is so antiquated, i can't believe people benchmark or base any decision on this software.

[exile1972]

Yes, FCPX is very fast and the imac pro is fast too. However, unless you are solely creating all of your own videos in a silo environment in which you never need to collaborate with other post production facilities or other editors it's unlikely that you can work only in FCPX.

Adobe Premiere dominates many markets and if you're a freelancer you need to be able to know and work on a variety of NLE's.

And while FCPX is a fast editing system there are PC systems that can beat the imac pro in benchmark tests.

Here's a very recent test done by Puget systems:

https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Premiere-Pro-CC-2018-iMac-Pro-Mac-Pro-vs-PC-Workstation-1...

[gigeli82367597]

Again with the benchmarks of Premiere on iMac, pointless tests on a forgotten software that still uses 1 core for some tasks.

Let me help you again - iMac VS PC for Video Editing! Final Cut X vs Premiere Pro - YouTube

After you watch this tell me how ridiculous is to benchmark Premiere pro, imac has a 6700k with an rx 580 and the PC 8700k 5ghz with gtx 1070, the imac is much faster in similar tasks,

For stabilization the iMac with 6700k is probably 20-30 times faster, other tasks, 3-4 times faster.

So you can take the top of the line Pugetsystems workstation and still can't even beat  an apple laptop with final cut, hell, in a few years we might even get apple tablets to beat pugetsystems workstation with premiere pro.

How ridiculous can this get before you switch to another software ?

[RjL190365]

Your comparison is also pointless. FCPX is Mac only; it cannot run on Windows at all. Therefore, it is an apples to oranges comparison.

And PugetSystems tested systems using the same softtware on each of those systems - in other words, with cross-platform software. (And yes, there is some software that's Windows only, and cannot run on a Mac without potentially resource-hogging and/or performance-robbing emulation.)

And this response will be the only post that I will make in this discussion unless you decide not to insult other posters.

[gigeli82367597]

RjL190365  wrote

Your comparison is also pointless. FCPX is Mac only; it cannot run on Windows at all. Therefore, it is an apples to oranges comparison.

It's a perfect comparison because both NLE's do the same thing in the end but in a different way, you can cut with both of them but FCPX is significantly faster, probably all NLE's are now much faster than Premiere Pro.

[Bill Gehrke]

It just so happens that that export time is how I and you can judge the efficiency of your CPU's tuning for running Premiere.  So the lower that score is, the better the chances are that you can play a time line without loss of frames.  But it goes to show you that it all depends the media and what processing you are doing.  So your 30-40% CPU usage will only your project and media and the next guy will have more or less CPU usage

Here is a complex project with 7-layers and many different media show lots more CPU usage 40-100% on my 8-core with all cores involved.

 

[gigeli82367597]

It's pointless to try to benchmark or work with premiere pro, the faster people move on from this software the better.

Example on my system, i edit on 2 monitors so the second one is full screen preview, i get screen tearing so i enabled Vsync, fixed the tearing but now i get dropped frames even in fullhd, i disabled vsync and performance is back up again with no dropped frames but i get tearing.

So we are back to editing experience, it's really bad, as it stands right now there is no hardware recommendation that anyone can give that would work flawlessly with premiere, even 16-18 cores CPU's with Titan V can give you bad performance with simple 4k footage, this forum is a great example with numerous people with exceptional hardware complaining of just that.

[Sudhir12]

so you are saying doesnt matter which cpu you get premiere isnt optimised for any of them

[gigeli82367597]

Pretty much, i wouldn't bother to upgrade the CPU if you have a decent quad core.

I have ryzen 1800x and an old rx480 8gb, GPU is loaded 100% in 4k and CPU hovers at around 9%, so i could get by with a quad core just fine.

Ram is always welcome, 32 at least for 4k.

There is all kind of explanations here that the codec is highly compressed, long gop...all kinds of excuses why premiere or lightroom can't handle to do  some operations faster, while we are not software engineers to understand this, for us is simple, we look how final cut or vegas can stabilize a clip in seconds and premiere in minutes, 4k footage works without proxy files with davinci, final cut or vegas but it doesn't do so well with premiere, it's quite clear it's not the files, why others can do it but adobe can't ?

[Sudhir12]

well im using i3 on my laptop yeah i know so thats why im going for a high end cpu.

[gigeli82367597]

Let's put it this way, 2700x is the better CPU but for now Premiere likes faster cores rather than more cores.

If it were to compare a core i9 7980XE with 8700k, the 8700k would win in warp stabilizing or even timeline playback of some files, but this is isolated to Premiere and Adobe software in general, switch to another software like davinci resolve or sony vegas and the 2700x or 7980XE would obliterate 8700k.

Another example would be  Apple products, you know those expensive imac's with 12-18 xeon cores, 128gb ram, cost as much as a car, a lame ass youtuber benchmarks in premiere, conclusion, 7700k or 8700k is better than a 13000$ imac in Premiere.

The moment they switch to Final cut the 8700k gets obliterated even by old imac's.

Upgrading for Premiere is like gambling with your money, it's possible it might work for 4k or not and you just lost a few thousand $.

[Sudhir12]

so you prefer 2700x cuz its an all rounder cpu n its not like it wont work with premiere or any adobe software.

[anthonyr45761733]

I'm trying to make the same decision as you right now, and yeah, it's a hard one.  Here are a lot of similar comments that I've heard throughout my research:

• Adobe is better optimized for Intel/single core speed, so choose Intel.
• Don't use premier, switch to a better editing program and get Ryzen
• You can as much as halve your export time with the "hardware acceleration" option in premier, but it only works with some Intel Cpus, and not Ryzen at all.  So choose Intel.
• Some say "hardware acceleration" ruins quality of clips, others disagree.
• Even if you use Adobe, as long as you're doing a lot of multi-tasking that can use multiple cores, the Ryzen is the better choice.

As you can see, it's kind of hard to really choose "the best" CPU for Content Creation.  It seems like Intel is the best choice at the moment if you are using Adobe, *but,* what if down the line you decide to switch editing programs, or you end up doing a ton of heavy multitasking?

Yeah, I'm not helping, I know.  These are just all the questions I ask myself as I prepare to make my own choice.

[Sudhir12]

hahaha exactly i think im just gonna go with intel

[ginnjoose]

The struggle is real. I have a case/PSU, RAM, and and NVMe drive sitting at home and I can't pull the trigger on a cpu/mobo combo. Ryzen looks like a pretty sweet deal at around ~$300 WITH AN INCLUDED HEATSINK! But that Intel i9 packaging is fire .....soooo

[LTParis]

As a Mac user who has used FCPX and Premiere Pro, it really isn't comparative. FCPX is a nice application that is utterly optimized for macOS. However, it lacks a lot of pro features that Premiere Pro and other NLEs don't have.

And to get a decent baseline iMac with good specs (say a 27" non-pro, 4-core it 4.2GHz, with 32GB, a 1TB SSD and Radeon 580. That is $3700 without tax and non-upgradable. Similar spec iMac Pro at $5000.

Now, you need less horsepower if you are using FCPX, but I can tell you this. I own a 13" MBP. i7 maxed out (i7, 16GB, 1TB SSD) and it is a dog in FCPX. It can render a lot faster than Premiere can on the same platform, but still a dog.

So, since video has become more consistent in my everyday, I am considering my first desktop PC build in 8 years. I have been debating Ryzen v. Intel and I am strongly leaning towards an 8700/8700k right now.