Advice needed to upgrade

[IGBT]

Hi all I am thinking updating my old 4770 to a new cpu (obviously for a complete new system) but I have been disconnected from this world for a long time so not sure what I should go for.

I want top performance for photo and video editing (common known software).

I am set to put 64GB ram in the new system.

What would you recommend?

 

[turbot1984]

What would you recommend?

what kinda budget we looking at?

 

[Tetras]

I'd suggest 7700 non-X (w/B650) or 13700 non-K (w/B760, especially if you have DDDR4 already), assuming you mean Adobe type software and you're mainly CPU-bound. i5-13500 is a strong option for a lower budget productivity build.

 

[lsg1r]

Yeah, you might want to name the software as well... davinci resolve is better balanced between gpu and cpu, while premiere is more towards cpu (it does use gpu too though). Cuda is better supported on the gpu side for both though.

But realistically budget is far more important at this point.

 

[IGBT]

Hi all, thanks for your feedback. I forgot actually to put the budget.

I just would like to remind you that I haven’t got anything recent as I haven’t updated my PC for 12y (cpu, mb, mem).

Budget-wise, I would like to stay below £1300. I did a bit of research meanwhile and I am inclined towards the i9-13900k, a gigabyte board with B760 and WiFi, Kingston fury 64GB RAM DDR4, a 850W PSU.

Software-wise, DaVinci resolve for now as It os free, but mainly for now LR+PS along with Topaz bundle.

 

[Tetras]

I did a bit of research meanwhile and I am inclined towards the i9-13900k, a gigabyte board with B760 and WiFi, Kingston fury 64GB RAM DDR4, a 850W PSU.

You might want to have a read of this, since there's no way I'd be running a 13900K power unlimited for productivity work. Personally I'd be going for the 7900 non-X (review), especially if I was paying the power bill.

Budget-wise, I would like to stay below £1300. I did a bit of research meanwhile and I am inclined towards the i9-13900k, a gigabyte board with B760 and WiFi, Kingston fury 64GB RAM DDR4, a 850W PSU.

What are you doing about the GPU?

 

[lsg1r]

Yeah I'd drop the cpu down a touch and put the money toward an nvidia gpu, you'll see far more gain utilising cuda than adding in some extra cores.

 

[IGBT]

You might want to have a read of this, since there's no way I'd be running a 13900K power unlimited for productivity work. Personally I'd be going for the 7900 non-X (review), especially if I was paying the power bill.



What are you doing about the GPU?

I was thinking using the built-in GPU in the CPU.

The 7900 is AMD?

 

[lsg1r]

I was thinking using the built-in GPU in the CPU.

The 7900 is AMD?

You might want to read up the required specs for the software you're using because that will basically define what you need in some cases...

Direct from davinci (premiere isn't much different)-
As of Version 18 of Resolve, these are Blackmagic Design’s recommendations for your machine’s
minimum graphics handling capabilities.
Minimum Requirements which will just about cope with 1080p single stream
Mac 2 GB VRAM with OpenCL 1.2 or Metal support
Win 2 GB VRAM with OpenCL 1.2 or CUDA 11 support

Resolution Recommended Capability
Win HD 4 GB VRAM with OpenCL 1.2 or CUDA 11 support
4K 8 GB VRAM with OpenCL 1.2 or CUDA 11 support
6-8K 20 GB VRAM with OpenCL 1.2 or CUDA 11 support

 

[Tetras]

I was thinking using the built-in GPU in the CPU.

The 7900 is AMD?

Have you done much investigating on if that's going to be the most performant option for you? If not, I'd suggest starting with the content creation articles @ Puget.

"For our first look at the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 40 Series cards, we will examine performance in DaVinci Resolve Studio. More so than any other NLE (Non-Linear Editor) currently on the market, Resolve can make terrific use of high-end GPUs and even multi-GPU setups. The four main areas the GPU is used for are processing GPU effects, H.264/HEVC decoding/encoding, and debayering (and optionally decoding) RAW media."

NVIDIA GeForce 40 Series vs AMD Radeon 7000 for Content Creation

With the RTX 4070 Ti joining the RTX 4080 and 4090, NVIDIA has now completed the launch of the initial trio of their GeForce RTX 40 series of GPUs. How do these cards compare for various content creation workflows versus the previous generation RTX cards, and their competition from AMD?

www.pugetsystems.com

"Topaz AI is fairly new to our testing, and we highly recommend checking out our in-depth article for information on what, and how, we are testing each of the applications in the Topaz AI suite. One of the big things to know about Topaz AI is that GPU performance is highly dependent on which application you are looking at. Video AI, Gigapixel AI, Sharpen AI, and DeNoise AI are the four we are focusing our testing on at the moment, and each behaves very differently."

NVIDIA GeForce 40 Series vs AMD Radeon 7000 for Content Creation

With the RTX 4070 Ti joining the RTX 4080 and 4090, NVIDIA has now completed the launch of the initial trio of their GeForce RTX 40 series of GPUs. How do these cards compare for various content creation workflows versus the previous generation RTX cards, and their competition from AMD?

www.pugetsystems.com

 

[IGBT]

I did a bit more research and following that YouTube video above and the 7900 non-x seems to be a good choice. I guess I will not see a huge difference rising the software.

Software requirements are always a bit off because I have seen benchmarks of people seeing improvements of 5min exporting in premiere pro just by upgrading from 16GB to 64GB.

I am now strongly considering the 7900 because that power consumption is like 3.6x less compared to the i9 13900K. I didn’t consider the power consumption so it was an eye opener the help I found here.

However I just wonder if that kind of power consumption that the NG shows isn’t like continuous peak power? I wonder if I would be around those values?

I like to leave the PC on the whole night because I don’t feel like closing all softwares and opening them again in the morning. Will the power consumption be much different between the machines?

 

[IGBT]

Just watched another video on YouTube where the op said that intel is best for everyday work using these softwares I meantimes because the idle power consumption of the amd is higher. We never utilise the cpus at full power which makes sense.

 

[Tetras]

Just watched another video on YouTube where the op said that intel is best for everyday work using these softwares I meantimes because the idle power consumption of the amd is higher. We never utilise the cpus at full power which makes sense.

Idle power is a complicated topic and there are huge threads on internet forums about the best option. In your case, if you will be using the CPU at 100% for long periods (e.g. 5-8 hours a day), I think the saving from running an efficient CPU like the 7900 (at least, against the Intel -K CPUs in a stock configuration) would far, far outweigh the approx 20-30 watts increase in idle power consumption with unoptimised Ryzen systems. But, I have only seen comprehensive idle benchmarks for Zen 3 (Ryzen 5000), not Zen 4. I've also never seen an idle benchmark with the Ryzen IGP (with Zen 3, AMD CPUs with IGPs were idle competitive with Intel).

TLDR: If the YouTuber was referring to every day work (like Microsoft Office and surfing), that conclusion is not valid for a heavy-use productivity PC.

As you can see in the anandtech article I linked earlier, you can also run Intel CPUs power-limited (or buy a non-K CPU), so you can easily achieve more efficiency at 100% load than the benchmarks show.

 

[IGBT]

Idle power is a complicated topic and there are huge threads on internet forums about the best option. In your case, if you will be using the CPU at 100% for long periods (e.g. 5-8 hours a day), I think the saving from running an efficient CPU like the 7900 (at least, against the Intel -K CPUs in a stock configuration) would far, far outweigh the approx 20-30 watts increase in idle power consumption with unoptimised Ryzen systems. But, I have only seen comprehensive idle benchmarks for Zen 3 (Ryzen 5000), not Zen 4. I've also never seen an idle benchmark with the Ryzen IGP (with Zen 3, AMD CPUs with IGPs were idle competitive with Intel).

TLDR: If the YouTuber was referring to every day work (like Microsoft Office and surfing), that conclusion is not valid for a heavy-use productivity PC.

As you can see in the anandtech article I linked earlier, you can also run Intel CPUs power-limited (or buy a non-K CPU), so you can easily achieve more efficiency at 100% load than the benchmarks show.

Thanks for your prompt reply. I would say that the cou will most of the times in idle.

100% utilisation is only when export or doing some more heavy work.

Here’s the YouTuber:

INTEL & AMD both lied! REAL WORLD power consumption is MESSED UP

Intel & AMD have both 'lied' about their real world power consumption. Here's the Truth:Sponsored Message:Whokeys 25% discount code : TN20 Windows 10 Pro O...

youtu.be

He’s a creator. Please let me know your thoughts.

 

[lsg1r]

Thanks for your prompt reply. I would say that the cou will most of the times in idle.

100% utilisation is only when export or doing some more heavy work.

Here’s the YouTuber:

INTEL & AMD both lied! REAL WORLD power consumption is MESSED UP

Intel & AMD have both 'lied' about their real world power consumption. Here's the Truth:Sponsored Message:Whokeys 25% discount code : TN20 Windows 10 Pro O...

youtu.be

He’s a creator. Please let me know your thoughts.

I'm a creator too, albeit in 3D design and spend a LOT of time going between 100% and idle essentially...I'm also not on youtube trying to get clicks from baited headlines.

He's cherry picked testing where intel is going to come out on top (adobe has a history of being very intel/nvidia biased) and the testing is flawed anyways, it's not like for like hardware (ignoring the motherboard/cpu obviously.. although 7900x is not competing with a 13900k) and he also hasn't said what sort of changes he'd done in the bios or software for that matter, they can make a difference to both systems.

Lightroom only looks to use 6 cores, premiere last I checked seems to cap at around 8 cores, funnily enough the main program, after effects, that can use up to 32 cores wasn't tested....

Puget that tetras linked to is far less biased site for testing results.

 

[IGBT]

I see. But I will not be using the software for 8H everyday. I might use LR, PS and Topaz maybe 2 or 3 times a weeks for 8H maybe 10H. I also leave the computer turned on so that all software being used stay open.

I will then of course use the PC for normal work.

Is the AMD still the best choice?

By the way, what cooler do you guys recommend?

 

[lsg1r]

I see. But I will not be using the software for 8H everyday. I might use LR, PS and Topaz maybe 2 or 3 times a weeks for 8H maybe 10H. I also leave the computer turned on so that all software being used stay open.

I will then of course use the PC for normal work.

Is the AMD still the best choice?

By the way, what cooler do you guys recommend?

I'm running a 5950x, 1060 (changing it to 4000 'soon'), 8 ssd's (2nvme), 10 fans and a EK 360mm basic AIO (with noctua fans) and I idle around 75w, under 100w with the screen on, at the socket (plug in meter). Minimum system load isn't an easy variable to consider though as Tetras says.

It doesn't bother me because I've got solar panels which covers that with ease.

 

[Tetras]

Here’s the YouTuber:

INTEL & AMD both lied! REAL WORLD power consumption is MESSED UP

Intel & AMD have both 'lied' about their real world power consumption. Here's the Truth:Sponsored Message:Whokeys 25% discount code : TN20 Windows 10 Pro O...

youtu.be

He’s a creator. Please let me know your thoughts.

Yikes, looks like that needs a lot of digesting. I haven't watched it all yet, but a few thoughts (I think lsg1r covers most of these):
- BIOS settings are super important to efficiency for both CPUs, especially if they're being run power limited (or not). X and K CPUs are generally not ideal from this perspective, for either AMD & Intel. AMD usually optimises their non-X CPUs much better for power efficiency out of the box (a trend that goes right back to Ryzen's first gen and continued with e.g. 2700 non-X, 3900 non-X, 7900 non-X), but the settings motherboards use vary quite a bit. Gamers Nexus in their testing, will usually use the manufacturer's recommended settings and turn off any automatic overclocking (like exceeding the stock power limits).
- With Zen 3, Intel was often more efficient at light/low loads when a Ryzen system isn't optimised, primarily because of their excessive boost behaviour, but I don't know if that's still the case and it could be changed in the BIOS.
- I think it is fairly well known and accepted that the lower-end AMD CPUs (like 7600/7600X) are less competitive than Intel CPUs (like i5-13500) in productivity work.
- Anandtech and Gamers Nexus (the articles & videos I linked) show different results to him, though Gamers Nexus were using a non-X CPU and Anandtech were deliberately tuning the CPUs for efficiency.
- In GN's eco mode testing, the stock 7900X beat the 13900K by quite a long way and a power tuned 7950X smashed it out of the park. So, I'm surprised his results are so different.
- Adobe apps are (as far as I know) regarded as being primarily single-core / single-thread dependent and I suspect that like Zen 3, Zen 4's out of the box boost behaviour is what is letting it down in these results.
- GN and Anandtech have used heavier multi-thread apps in their testing, like Blender, which is more likely to turn out in AMD's favour.

Regardless of which one you buy, I'd recommend setting the power limits and boost behaviour to best suit your usage profile (K and X CPUs are optimised to win benchmarks, not constrain your power bill) and I'd choose a more power optimised model because they're partly configured that way out of the box (e.g. 13700 non-K or 7900 non-X).

 

[IGBT]

Thank you for your input. All this stuff of eco and pbo are new terms to me.

I was watching again GN and I am thinking, should I go with the 7900X and maybe use it in eco mode since the price difference to the 7900 is just £30? Then I need more power in the future I can bring it to stock.

If not worth it maybe will go with the 7900.

 

[Tetras]

Thank you for your input. All this stuff of eco and pbo are new terms to me.

I was watching again GN and I am thinking, should I go with the 7900X and maybe use it in eco mode since the price difference to the 7900 is just £30? Then I need more power in the future I can bring it to stock.

If not worth it maybe will go with the 7900.

Personally I'd go with the non-X or non-K models, they even include a (fairly crappy, but adequate) cooler, which the X and K CPUs don't.