Question AMD or intel for movies and photo editing

[velocci]

Hi all, which is better for movies and photo editing, AMD threadripper or intel?

 

[Obakasama]

Broadly I would say Threadripper. But truthfully it will depend on what software you intend to use for those purposes (and perhaps even operating system), then there is always budget to consider.

 

[MrN1ce9uy]

Both AMD Ryzen and Intel are good at doing those things. AMD typically gets you more processing power for less cost.
It's all relevant to a price-point/budget as well as your actual workload.

You say movies as in watching movies and not editing videos? Just watching movies and photo editing?

 

[velocci]

watching movies and photo editing.

 

[MrN1ce9uy]

Threadripper seems a bit overkill for photo editing. I'm not 100% sure, but I think photo editing especially with Adobe is mostly single-threaded (*or at least benefits from faster single-threaded performance.) If you went Threadripper, you probably would gain little or actually lose single-threaded performance over the Ryzen 7 2700X. Ryzen 3000 is coming up soon, so maybe even wait for that. On the other hand, Intel is also very good and is faster at single-threaded tasks, which can include photo editing.

Is there are reason you need the perks of HEDT such as X399 (AMD) or X299 (Intel)? If not, I would recommend Ryzen 7 2700X (or wait for Ryzen 3000) or Intel i9-9900K at the MOST. You can do just as well for casual editing with a Ryzen 5 or Core i5.

 

[Obakasama]

With that clarification of not editing video, then an Intel build has its attractions especially when using Adobe software.

 

[InvalidError]

Playing video is trivial for remotely modern CPUs, especially when using a current-gen GPU which does nearly everything in hardware or a media players that can leverage GPGPU for decoding.

Load when playing UHD samples on my i5-3470 and GTX1050 in MPC-HD uses 2-3% CPU but 40-70% GPU, CPU isn't getting used for much beyond loading data from HDD and spitting out to the GPU for processing.