9900k / 9700k or something else

MartinPrince · 8 Jul 2019 at 00:13

easyrider said:

I take it you disapprove.

For my exact usage I still think Intel will edge it plus I've already got a Z370 so it's a drop in CPU which will be more cost effective.

CAT-THE-FIFTH · 8 Jul 2019 at 00:19

MartinPrince said:
I start off in DXO (isn't Prime great!) and then export into LR then finish up in PS. If I'm doing batch processing in DXO (8 photos at the same time) then I've got a 24core 48 thread machine that I will use which works out quicker but for single photos then the higher clock speed generally wins out by quite a bit. If you get a Ryzen then I'll send you my RAW file (with my preset) so you can tell me exactly how long it takes.

DxO runs very well on AMD Ryzen CPUs:
https://www.hardware.fr/articles/974-13/traitement-photos-lightroom-dxo-optics-pro.html

A Core i7 7900X is only 10% faster than a Ryzen 7 2700X processing 48 RAWs from a Canon 5D MK2.

Another one:
https://news.mynavi.jp/article/20180419-618959/6

With an A7 II.

Here is a test with a Ryzen 9 3900X:
https://news.mynavi.jp/article/20190707-854576/3

The Ryzen 7 3700X equals the Core i9 9900K and the Ryzen 9 3900K beats it.

I do batch processing in DxO myself - I have a D600 which I have batched processed pictures in batches of 50,and it hammered my old IB Xeon E3 1230 V2 with one of the Ryzen 2000 CPUs(2600) - it was twice the speed with a lower clockspeed and similar power consumption. Compared to a mates CFL 6C/6T,it does very well.My system is also mini-ITX.

I was originally going to get a Core i7 8700 non-K as I don't overclock,but after doing some research,I was not going to pay over double for it at the time.

Edit!!

Puget systems will do some Photoshop tests after the few days.

They did it with the Ryzen 5 2600X:
https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/a...AMD-Ryzen-2-vs-Intel-8th-Gen-1136/#Conclusion

So a Core i7 8700K was approximately 10% faster in CC 2018 overall.

Edit!!

This is ridculous:
https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/a...ng-1522/#DaVinciResolveStudioBenchmarkResults

Puget haven't got around to testing Ryzen 3000 properly,and only got a Ryzen 5 3600 for these launch day tests. So it scores from approximately Core i5 9600K level to Core i7 9700K and Core i7 9900K. In Neat Image video noise reduction and After Effects its Core i7 9700K~Core i9 9900K level?

easyrider · 8 Jul 2019 at 00:29

MartinPrince said:
I take it you disapprove. For my exact usage I still think Intel will edge it plus I've already got a Z370 so it's a drop in CPU which will be more cost effective.

I don't think it will...I would buy a B450 pro carbon for £119 and a £329 3700x

Apem · 8 Jul 2019 at 00:37

Think some bits gone of subject I posted about

MartinPrince · 8 Jul 2019 at 00:42

CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
I was originally going to get a Core i7 8700 non-K as I don't overclock,but after doing some research,I was not going to pay over double for it at the time.

So which will you get? As I said this is just for single photo work and the 9700K will probably being doing at least ~5.1Ghz as I'm avid overclocker. Once people start to get their systems in then I will see what the scores are for pretty much my work flow.

MartinPrince · 8 Jul 2019 at 00:43

easyrider said:
I don't think it will...I would buy a B450 pro carbon for £119 and a £329 3700x

I'd be pleasantly surprised if the 3700x will edge out a ~5.1Ghz 9700K but we will see.

Apem said:
Think some bits gone of subject I posted about

Well for strictly games then your answer is clear - Intel. 9700K will save you cash.

easyrider · 8 Jul 2019 at 00:48

MartinPrince said:
Well for strictly games then your answer is clear - Intel. 9700K will save you cash.

But its not though...Depending on resolution a 3700x will save even more cash and destroy a 9700k in everything else...

MartinPrince · 8 Jul 2019 at 00:50

easyrider said:
But its not though...

Well I've only read the Techspot review and watched the Hardware Unboxed video so it must be that everybody else disagrees with them.

easyrider · 8 Jul 2019 at 00:54

MartinPrince said:
Well I've only read the Techspot review and watched the Hardware Unboxed video so it must be that everybody else disagrees with them.

See thats the thing...If you game at 1080p then your argument stands up....But 1440p and beyond its not that clear cut...

Its getting boring reading intel are still better at games when in fact its only 1080p now....and even the 9900k compared to the 3700x in counter strike at 1080p....is no longer a point of argument

factor in cost and productivity and the Ryzen 3000 destroys the 9 series for less money....

THIS IS FACT

Apem · 8 Jul 2019 at 01:04

what you save on 3700x it seems you loose on the motherboards though

CAT-THE-FIFTH · 8 Jul 2019 at 01:06

MartinPrince said:
So which will you get? As I said this is just for single photo work and the 9700K will probably being doing at least ~5.1Ghz as I'm avid overclocker. Once people start to get their systems in then I will see what the scores are for pretty much my work flow.

I would wait if I were you,I couldn't wait until now as the old system had problems,so got a Ryzen 5 2600.The Core i7 8700 non-K was like £300+ by then and this was sub £150,so I cut my losses as I was not going to spend so much more for like 10% extra performance. I am using a mini-ITX rig,so I figured the Ryzen 7 2700X would hit thermal issues much quicker.

Looking at the DxO benchmarks the Ryzen 7 3700X is edging out the Core i9 9900K which is higher clocked,and DxO loves threads,so the Core i7 9700K probably won't be as quick. This is a CPU in a 65W TDP class too(so almost the same power as my Ryzen 5 2600),not even the higher clocked Ryzen 7 3800X. The Core i9 9900K is drawing sometimes upto 50% more power at stock doing simlar workloads.

Here is another review:
https://tweakers.net/reviews/7192/8...d-stoot-intel-van-de-troon-praktijktests.html

Lightroom CC is faster on the Ryzen 7 3700X.Panorama is roughly the same. Photoshop is a bit quicker. Photoshop(CC 2019),I think one review put an overclocked Core i7 9700K at 5GHZ was a few percent quicker than a Ryzen 7 3700X running on its stock cooler and at stock clockspeeds.

I would wait and see what Puget Systems does with its next set of testing with its Ryzen 5 3600,in its Photoshop benchmark which is comprehensive. They will probably take a few weeks to do the rest of the range. They build boutique highend PCs and I do like their tests.

The thing is Ryzen 3000 technically has higher single core IPC compared to CFL according to Anandtech,and has a ton of L3 cache,which does help. There is also the potential clockspeed bug as the reviews have found test samples not hitting rated max clockspeeds,due to some weird conflict.

I would give it a few weeks and come back - Intel is also rumoured to be dropping some prices too.

CAT-THE-FIFTH · 8 Jul 2019 at 01:09

Apem said:
what you save on 3700x it seems you loose on the motherboards though

Only if you want PCI-E 4.0,which Intel lacks. PCI-E 4.0 would be useful for more productive based stuff as you can use multiple high speed NVME SSDs.

For gaming,lots of websites tested motherboards. Hardware Unboxed tested the Ryzen 7 3700X and Ryzen 7 3900X with the MSI B450 Tomahawk and Gaming Pro Carbon AC. These are £100 to £120 motherboards and they work fine.

easyrider · 8 Jul 2019 at 01:11

Apem said:
what you save on 3700x it seems you loose on the motherboards though

eh?

You dont need a X570 mobo....The tests show no performance gain over x470 and B450..

Apem · 8 Jul 2019 at 01:17

Didnt think of that lol

jigger · 8 Jul 2019 at 01:29

X570 boards seem to start around £150 and the prices aren’t that bad if you look at some of the features on offer. My board for instance was getting close to £300 but it offers a 5Gb/s NIC that is actually running closer to 10Gb/s at that time a dual 10Gb/s network card was around £250 making the board somewhat of a bargain.

MartinPrince · 8 Jul 2019 at 09:48

easyrider said:
See thats the thing...If you game at 1080p then your argument stands up....

If it is a simple binary question. Which is the fastest for gaming overall? Then it is just a simple factual answer - it is still Intel. Don't try and obfuscate the question with bringing in value for money or productivity etc. Even if it only 1% better it is still better and the answer will be the same; Intel is faster for gaming - pretty much all the other reviews I've now read conclude the same.

If I was going to buy a gaming CPU though I would recommend AMD all day long for a variety of reasons i.e, the difference in gaming performance is almost negligle especially at higer res, better value for money especially taking the included cooler into consideration, the socket isn't dead, etc.

Though just on the precise question which is the better gamer then Intel is the truthful answer, also factor in that for avid overclockers like me then the Intel CPU overclock higher (many guys I see get 5.2Ghz-5.3Ghz). Then the margin will be slightly higher but still in Intel's favour.

Don't confuse the two gaming specific questions:

Which is the best? Intel
Which is the best to buy? AMD

MartinPrince · 8 Jul 2019 at 10:07

easyrider said:
But its not though...Depending on resolution a 3700x will save even more cash and destroy a 9700k in everything else...

I meant save you cash over a 9900K.

MartinPrince · 8 Jul 2019 at 10:32

CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
...
Here is another review:
https://tweakers.net/reviews/7192/8...d-stoot-intel-van-de-troon-praktijktests.html

Lightroom CC is faster on the Ryzen 7 3700X.Panorama is roughly the same. Photoshop is a bit quicker. Photoshop(CC 2019),I think one review put an overclocked Core i7 9700K at 5GHZ was a few percent quicker than a Ryzen 7 3700X running on its stock cooler and at stock clockspeeds. I would give it a few weeks and come back - Intel is also rumoured to be dropping some prices too.....

Good info thanks. My Lightroom exports are just a couple seconds and for anything batch related I would use my 24 core (3.4Ghz on all cores) machine but for single photo processing I use a 5Ghz 6 core 8600K and in DXO this will take ~23secs to export 1 RAW photo to LR. The 24 core machine takes ~40secs for the same photo.
Also the plugin I use like ColorEfex Pro are not really multithreaded and prefer IPS (instructions per second) for which a high clocked 9700k etc will be faster.
As you say I will wait and see and also try and get actual empirical data for my precise workflow rather than trying to extrapolate from what might be not my specific usage.

CAT-THE-FIFTH · 8 Jul 2019 at 10:55

MartinPrince said:
Good info thanks. My Lightroom exports are just a couple seconds and for anything batch related I would use my 24 core (3.4Ghz on all cores) machine but for single photo processing I use a 5Ghz 6 core 8600K and in DXO this will take ~23secs to export 1 RAW photo to LR. The 24 core machine takes ~40secs for the same photo.
Also the plugin I use like ColorEfex Pro are not really multithreaded and prefer IPS (instructions per second) for which a high clocked 9700k etc will be faster.
As you say I will wait and see and also try and get actual empirical data for my precise workflow rather than trying to extrapolate from what might be not my specific usage.

My Ryzen 5 2600 running at 3.65GHZ average boost takes about 24.5 seconds to do a single D600 RAW in DxO.IIRC it was with Silver Efex installed at the time.

MartinPrince · 8 Jul 2019 at 11:39

CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
My Ryzen 5 2600 running at 3.65GHZ average boost takes about 24.5 seconds to do a single D600 RAW in DxO.IIRC it was with Silver Efex installed at the time.

Hmm, good info. It will be very interesting to see what the new Ryzen CPU's actually do. I'd probably even consider getting a pre-built system so I can run the tests myself, but that will be in a few months time when drivers, firmware all settle down a bit.