[SOLVED] CPU comparison by Price $

[drlafon]

I see so many cpu comparisons but they end up extremely confusing because they don’t always discuss the performance in terms of use and price.
I would like to build a high end pc spending up to about $1400 on the processor. I don’t game often and most of the comparisons are on gaming. I use lots of programs at the same time, graphics, video editing, browser windows, etc. The Threadripper chips like the 2950x seems to have great specs but tests are showing i9 7960x doing a better job in many cases. From my experience intel seems to work better with audio/video/photo, adobe, multi-task situations for some reason. It doesn’t really make a lot sense to me as many of the better spec processors don’t perform as well.
So, I’m looking for some suggestions. 9th gen higher core intel, 8th gen, Threadripper?
9900k, x-series? 10 cores, 16 cores, 24 cores, 32 cores,Threads? $550, $899, $1100, $1300, $1500?
The more I listen and learn, the more confusing it gets..
It would be great to have comparison videos similar to “if you have $1000 to spend on a cpu and you plan to multitask and create with adobe then these are the choices and here are the benchmarks” etc.
Any help would be appreciated.
Thanks

 

[dontlistentome]

Intel owns a large chunk of the market. For this reason many software developers of every kind of software will design their programs to work well with Intel. AMD has a smaller chunk of the market so not all developers will optimize their software for AMD. That, in short, is why some things run better on Intel.

AMD often offers better 'bang for the buck', in that they might not be the fastest but might be the best price/performance choice. Also, one CPU might be faster in synthetic testing but not noticeably faster in real world use. For example, if you are rendering a video and one CPU takes 40 minutes and 50 seconds and another CPU takes 40 minutes and 5 seconds, that second CPU is faster. But both take 40 minutes and change, so does it matter?

The reason no one does a video like you describe is there are too many variables. Which version of Premiere? What kind of video? How much system ram do you have? SSD or mechanical hard drive? Windows version? How many browser tabs open?

The way I do it is examine my needs, then see how many cores/threads I'll need to meet those needs. Then see which company, Intel or AMD, offers choices within my budget that meet those needs.

 

[drlafon]

Intel owns a large chunk of the market. For this reason many software developers of every kind of software will design their programs to work well with Intel. AMD has a smaller chunk of the market so not all developers will optimize their software for AMD. That, in short, is why some things run better on Intel.

AMD often offers better 'bang for the buck', in that they might not be the fastest but might be the best price/performance choice. Also, one CPU might be faster in synthetic testing but not noticeably faster in real world use. For example, if you are rendering a video and one CPU takes 40 minutes and 50 seconds and another CPU takes 40 minutes and 5 seconds, that second CPU is faster. But both take 40 minutes and change, so does it matter?

The reason no one does a video like you describe is there are too many variables. Which version of Premiere? What kind of video? How much system ram do you have? SSD or mechanical hard drive? Windows version? How many browser tabs open?

The way I do it is examine my needs, then see how many cores/threads I'll need to meet those needs. Then see which company, Intel or AMD, offers choices within my budget that meet those needs.

Thanks for the info. It does help. I guess you bring up a point. The question is really this. Does the programming that software manufacturers make to work better with Intel make enough of a difference where I'm better off paying more $ for less Cores/Threads because the end result will be faster multitasking due to the software compatibility rather than spending a little less $ for more Cores/Threads even though the cost per Core is way less. Will the performance suffer due to the software which makes the hardware irrelevant with the quality of both hardware choices. For instance would an intel i9-7960X $1,517.49 with only 16 cores, 32 Threads and only 2.80 GHz base frequency that shows very well in all the tests I've seen, be better for multitasking and many browser windows open than a newer AMD Ryzen™ Threadripper™ 2970WX $1,269.99 Processor with 24-cores and 48-threads and a base frequency of 3 GHz? Do you get what you pay for with the Intel due to the compatibility or is it just over priced with less features? but then the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2950X $899.99 16 Cores and 32 Processing Threads and 3.5 GHz Base frequency seems to perform better in many of the tests than the 2970WX. This is the confusing part. The one with the worst specs and highest price tag does better in all the tests? I'm leaning towards the Intel although I'd rather not spend quite that much $. Thanks again for your help.

 

[dontlistentome]

Only you can answer the question of is it worth it? I can tell you how I decide.
1. What kind of performance do I need? For example, if I'm into video editing and worst case I'll be editing and rendering 4k video clips, just how fast of a render time do I need? Of course faster is always better, but what's the cutoff, the point where I can't accept slower performance?
2. Compare AMD and Intel's offerings as they relate to video editing and rendering, for the CPU that meets or exceeds my needs. Which one costs less?
3. If I spent a bit more, what kind of boost can I get? Is it worth it to me?

What I'm not concerned with is which CPU is X percentage points faster than the other in generic tests. What does that have to do with my needs? Nothing. Think of it like comparing trucks you might buy. One truck might have a motor generating more torque than the other truck but so what? Do you need that torque? Chances are you need a certain amount of torque and as long as the truck you pick has it then you're set.

 

[LordVile]

Intel DESKTOP chips not high end are great at Adobe due to the iGPU.

Anything that uses loads of threads will benifit from TR.

Any chance an iMac Pro would be of use to you?

 

[drlafon]

Only you can answer the question of is it worth it? I can tell you how I decide.
1. What kind of performance do I need? For example, if I'm into video editing and worst case I'll be editing and rendering 4k video clips, just how fast of a render time do I need? Of course faster is always better, but what's the cutoff, the point where I can't accept slower performance?
2. Compare AMD and Intel's offerings as they relate to video editing and rendering, for the CPU that meets or exceeds my needs. Which one costs less?
3. If I spent a bit more, what kind of boost can I get? Is it worth it to me?

What I'm not concerned with is which CPU is X percentage points faster than the other in generic tests. What does that have to do with my needs? Nothing. Think of it like comparing trucks you might buy. One truck might have a motor generating more torque than the other truck but so what? Do you need that torque? Chances are you need a certain amount of torque and as long as the truck you pick has it then you're set.

Excellent Advice. Thanks again

 

[drlafon]

Intel DESKTOP chips not high end are great at Adobe due to the iGPU.

Anything that uses loads of threads will benifit from TR.

Any chance an iMac Pro would be of use to you?

No, not looking for a Mac but thanks

 

[LordVile]

Just offered it as a solution cos they’re great for creative programs