• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

Intel i9-10X processor availablity?

LePhuronn said:
Not really. Premier Pro doesn't scale well past 10 cores and still very much likes clock speed. Threadripper 3 in tests doesn't outperform Desperation Lake X enough to warrant the significant price jump. So if you're working solely with Premier Pro then Threadripper 3 might not be the best bang for buck.

Work with the full Adobe CC suite however, especially Dynamic Link, and then Threadripper comes into its own: Premiere may only use 10 cores, After Effects may only use 10 cores, when they can have 10 cores each and Threadripper still has a minimum of 4 left over.

And don't forget there's a big shift towards Davinci Resolve for video now, and that's a much more modern piece of software which Threadripper will eat alive.
Click to expand...

It seems ~16, maybe 18. the 12 core 3900X is some way behind the 16 core + CPU's which in turn is faster than the much higher clocked 9900K, beyond that its just clock speed, the 4.9Ghz 10980XE tops the cart but only by 0.01, good luck running that at 4.9Ghz in the real world. :D

For Premiere Pro the best value is actually the 3950X.

PS: Davincy Resolve is awesome :)

kRIgoaT.png
 
Last edited:
4K8KW10 said:
AMD Radeon has loyal customers, and for example I wouldn't consider an nvidia card unless they change their image quality policy towards texture quality with higher resolution, update their ancient control panel, and reduce the pricing in the process.

Beating nvidia is more important for AMD than beating intel, because there are billions of US dollars in the graphics cards business, as well, and it is easier to steal market share from nvidia than it is from intel.

Plus, AMD needs to heavily invest in GPU technology, because they include it in their APUs. Which is again markets where to compete for OEMs' attention!
Click to expand...

AMD seem to be doing reasonably well in the graphics card market. AMD don’t need to beat Nvidia at the £1000s of pounds bracket as it’s such a small segment.
 
jigger said:
AMD seem to be doing reasonably well in the graphics card market. AMD don’t need to beat Nvidia at the £1000s of pounds bracket as it’s such a small segment.
Click to expand...

Huh, most gaming and also large part of the ordinary notebooks are all intel+nvidia. There is none £1000s single-component price in them, though.
 
humbug said:
It seems ~16, maybe 18. the 12 core 3900X is some way behind the 16 core + CPU's which in turn is faster than the much higher clocked 9900K, beyond that its just clock speed, the 4.9Ghz 10980XE tops the cart but only by 0.01, good luck running that at 4.9Ghz in the real world. :D

For Premiere Pro the best value is actually the 3950X.

PS: Davincy Resolve is awesome :)
Click to expand...

Your chart shows rendering speeds. Rendering speed is really easy to test, but for me & I think most users, Live playback is the most important performance test. It's there where Intel is either the same as AMD or a bit better for half the price. Really, as long as it doesn't take all day, I don't care about rendering speeds.

Puget:
On the other hand, if you hate proxies and just want to get the best live playback performance possible, the new Intel Core X-10000 series processors are just as fast as the more expensive AMD Threadripper 3rd Gen CPUs for live playback. In fact, the 10920X, 10940X, and 10980XE all perform about the same for this, which gives you some flexibility when deciding which model to use. The higher-end models give better exporting performance, but you may opt for a less expensive model in exchange for larger/faster storage, more RAM, or other system upgrades instead if export performance is not your primary concern.
Click to expand...
 
Coojeekitten said:
Your chart shows rendering speeds. Rendering speed is really easy to test, but for me & I think most users, Live playback is the most important performance test. It's there where Intel is either the same as AMD or a bit better for half the price. Really, as long as it doesn't take all day, I don't care about rendering speeds.

Puget:
Click to expand...

Is this Intel's Windows Media Player "real world performance benchmarking" ?

No one gives a crap about any of that, Puget say it themselves in your quote, you can get a much cheaper system that will give you the same result. On that, since when has the yard stick for High End Desktop performance been for what a Ryzen APU can do just as well? This is utterly ridiculous and shows just how desperate Intel are.

Intel Used to push Cinebench as the yardstick for desktop performance, now that AMD wins in that type of workload Intel now says its Google Chrome and Windows Media Player. Oh and i beg you to stop using Cinebench!!!!

You know what that is? Its a Monty Python sketch!
 
I read what they wrote and you quoted, which was...

On the other hand, if you hate proxies and just want to get the best live playback performance possible, the new Intel Core X-10000 series processors are just as fast as the more expensive AMD Threadripper 3rd Gen CPUs for live playback. In fact, the 10920X, 10940X, and 10980XE all perform about the same for this, which gives you some flexibility when deciding which model to use. The higher-end models give better exporting performance, but you may opt for a less expensive model in exchange for larger/faster storage, more RAM, or other system upgrades instead if export performance is not your primary concern.
Click to expand...

Exporting and live playback (Or Scratching) depends largely on IO throughput, if you're using the same drives and memory the performance will be largely the same, which is what they said.

Put a PCIe 4 Drive on that system, then you will see a difference, only Intel don't have PCIe 4, they are still stuck on PCIe 3.
 
Surely it is all irrelevant? If someones needs are met with a 10900x, then why spend more?

Yes x299 is effectively dead end, and only really required if you need more than 24 PCI-E 3.0 lanes. However it does offer quad channel RAM, and providing you don't over spend on one of the newer X299 boards, actual works out a reasonably priced platform, even if there is a defect against the AM4 3900x in certain tasks, its not the end of the world.

Personally I wouldn't be using an Intel build for HEDT, but the fact is unless a 16c/32t sTRX40 based CPU comes out at <£800, the PCI-E sides of things makes it a hard choice, given the amount you have to spend to access the new sTRX40 platform.
 
Journey said:
Surely it is all irrelevant? If someones needs are met with a 10900x, then why spend more?

Yes x299 is effectively dead end, and only really required if you need more than 24 PCI-E 3.0 lanes. However it does offer quad channel RAM, and providing you don't over spend on one of the newer X299 boards, actual works out a reasonably priced platform, even if there is a defect against the AM4 3900x in certain tasks, its not the end of the world.

Personally I wouldn't be using an Intel build for HEDT, but the fact is unless a 16c/32t sTRX40 based CPU comes out at <£800, the PCI-E sides of things makes it a hard choice, given the amount you have to spend to access the new sTRX40 platform.
Click to expand...


You have to make a video before you export it, a 16 core will encode that video much faster than a 10 core, the fact that the 10 core will export or scratch through the video during the editing process just as well or as fast as the 16 core is neither here nor there really, unless you're just a hobbyist and your videos don't take more than 30 minutes to encode on an 8 core, in which case you wouldn't need a HEDT CPU. If however your time is money...... then you want the best encoding performance.
 
Journey said:
Surely it is all irrelevant? If someones needs are met with a 10900x, then why spend more?

Yes x299 is effectively dead end, and only really required if you need more than 24 PCI-E 3.0 lanes. However it does offer quad channel RAM, and providing you don't over spend on one of the newer X299 boards, actual works out a reasonably priced platform, even if there is a defect against the AM4 3900x in certain tasks, its not the end of the world.

Personally I wouldn't be using an Intel build for HEDT, but the fact is unless a 16c/32t sTRX40 based CPU comes out at <£800, the PCI-E sides of things makes it a hard choice, given the amount you have to spend to access the new sTRX40 platform.
Click to expand...

Around me the 10900x is priced around the same as the 3950x. That makes the 10900x an incredibly tough sell
 
humbug said:
You have to make a video before you export it, a 16 core will encode that video much faster than a 10 core, the fact that the 10 core will export or scratch through the video during the editing process just as well or as fast as the 16 core is neither here nor there really, unless you're just a hobbyist and your videos don't take more than 30 minutes to encode on an 8 core, in which case you wouldn't need a HEDT CPU. If however your time is money...... then you want the best encoding performance.
Click to expand...

Yes, but I said it all in my first sentence.

Journey said:
Surely it is all irrelevant? If someones needs are met with a 10900x, then why spend more?
Click to expand...

All of what you said can be true, but the fact remains, if that CPU fits that users needs then why go higher?

You also missed the point of having more than 24 PCI-E lanes. :)
 
If you need more lanes and so much memory you're spending so much money already, that surely some extra cores wouldn't hurt and then you're into threadripper territory.

Can you name one type of professional who needs lots of lanes, lots of RAM but can't benefit from more than 10 cores?
 
Grim5 said:
If you need more lanes and so much memory you're spending so much money already, that surely some extra cores wouldn't hurt and then you're into threadripper territory.

Can you name one type of professional who needs lots of lanes, lots of RAM but can't benefit from more than 10 cores?
Click to expand...

Yes, one of my clients needs lots of lanes for GPU processing and storage, and only a small amount of cores at high speed for the rest of the work. He uses Metashape (formerly Photoscan).
 
Coojeekitten said:
*Snip*
Click to expand...

You are free to spend your money on whatever you please mate, just remember a lot on here are very knowledgable people who understand the hardware and software better than most. Most importantly though, they are not earning any money from you so have no reason to try and 'trick' or 'fool' you into buying something wrongly.

People are here to help (most of the time).

Also I can tell you from personal experience of using Intel/AMD cpus and AMD/Nvidia gpus none are more unreliable than others and none are any harder to work with. Pick what gives you best performance for your money, you will be happier at the end of it :).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom