New PC - Video editing + some gaming (£2000?)

:)

These CPUs do up and down benchmarks like a yoyo (characteristic of the CPU at the moment), so YMMV depending on the app. Puget's content creation article illustrates that behaviour pretty well too.
Thanks you!

I forgot you already mentioned this.

I'm in a rush not to try and get my new build before Christmas so panicking a little.

Think I'm going to end up on AMD CPU and Nvidia GPU - potentially even a 4080 super as they're cheaper than 4080 which seems strange to me? At least the cheapest 4080 super are cheaper than 4080 which are all out of stock.
 
potentially even a 4080 super as they're cheaper than 4080 which seems strange to me?
Yeah, has been that way since they released, even when you could buy both.

Think I'm going to end up on AMD CPU and Nvidia GPU
It should serve you well either way, I'd be tempted by the Intel myself as I think there's more to come, but the AMD is the more mature platform at this point and a consistently good performer.
 
Yeah, has been that way since they released, even when you could buy both.


It should serve you well either way, I'd be tempted by the Intel myself as I think there's more to come, but the AMD is the more mature platform at this point and a consistently good performer.
The 4080 super is better though right? Makes no sense to me!

Looks like the 9900x is on pre-order annoyingly.

The 7950xD is in stock but more expensive than the 9900x.

This stuff is confusing :)
 
The 4080 super is better though right? Makes no sense to me!
Yup. There was speculation that nvidia just overpriced the original 4080 and this was their subtle acknowledgement, but I don't know.

Looks like the 9900x is on pre-order annoyingly.

The 7950xD is in stock but more expensive than the 9900x.

This stuff is confusing :)
Intel be callin', ring ring.

On a serious note, it is not easy, because the characteristics of these CPUs is quite different.

My take is:
- The X3D CPUs are great for a gaming-oriented build and the 7950X3D is a good choice for a mixed gaming and productivity build if you still want to retain great framerates and get the benefit of the cache in the games that love it, while still having excellent multithreaded performance when the app calls for lots of cores to munch through your long-run workload (e.g. 1+ hour of rendering, or whatever).
- The X3D CPUs are power efficient and fairly easy to cool (though they do run hot), but the 7950X3D does have the cache only one CCD which can complicate things and they can't normally push the clocks as high which makes them slower than you'd expect when running mainly single threaded or lightly threaded apps.

- The 9000 series CPUs have very good multithreaded performance, very good single threaded performance (unusually for an AMD CPU they tend to top lightly threaded benches), exceptional performance in apps that benefit from the architecture tweaks like AVX512, are fairly power efficient, cool running and have no real weaknesses except for their power efficiency sliding down the charts versus the best Zen 4 CPUs.

- The arrow lake CPUs are occasionally great performers and in some workloads competitive with or even better than Zen 5, their platform and power efficiency is greatly improved versus 13th-14th gen, but their performance is very inconsistent across different apps, they're not great for gaming and they seem to be running some way short of their potential on an immature platform that has more than a few bugs/teething problems.
 
Can you remind what you do with your PC again? Like the apps and kind of usage/workload?
Mostly video editing/rendering/streaming - but my stuff isn't overly complicated, my current PC would render a 30 minute video in about 15-18 minutes for example.

Maybe play the odd game here or there too, but not a full time gamer these days or anything.

Just want something proper decent for the £2-2.5k budget that is well and truly future proofed.
 
Mostly video editing/rendering/streaming
Rendering first (based on TPU's reviews):
- The 7950X is typically top dog against the 9900X and the 265K, it can pull out a fairly chunky lead too if all the cores are being used.
- Video editing: the 7950X wins again, though the 265K is definitely gaining ground there. In some circumstances (I assume AVX512 is used, but not certain), the 9900X does very well and beats the 7950X.

Worth noting that in single threaded/lightly threaded apps, the 9900X pulls out a lead and it is likely that for most users it will spend more time doing that kind of work than multithreaded. It is hard to say where the 265K sits right now.

Personally: I consider the 9900X/265K to be more or less equivalent outside of gaming, while the 7950X is more a CPU for a person who does frequent long-run workloads and needs all of those cores.

The all-rounder option is the 9900X, since it doesn't have any weaknesses and is the more mature platform.
The "I like a challenge/I'll play the long game" option is the 265K, since while it is the most inconsistent, there's maybe some room to grow.
The "gimme some cores in reserve" option is the 7950X, just for when you know you're going to hammer them and want to get the wait times down.
 
Rendering first (based on TPU's reviews):
- The 7950X is typically top dog against the 9900X and the 265K, it can pull out a fairly chunky lead too if all the cores are being used.
- Video editing: the 7950X wins again, though the 265K is definitely gaining ground there. In some circumstances (I assume AVX512 is used, but not certain), the 9900X does very well and beats the 7950X.

Worth noting that in single threaded/lightly threaded apps, the 9900X pulls out a lead and it is likely that for most users it will spend more time doing that kind of work than multithreaded. It is hard to say where the 265K sits right now.

Personally: I consider the 9900X/265K to be more or less equivalent outside of gaming, while the 7950X is more a CPU for a person who does frequent long-run workloads and needs all of those cores.

The all-rounder option is the 9900X, since it doesn't have any weaknesses and is the more mature platform.
The "I like a challenge/I'll play the long game" option is the 265K, since while it is the most inconsistent, there's maybe some room to grow.
The "gimme some cores in reserve" option is the 7950X, just for when you know you're going to hammer them and want to get the wait times down.

Thanks - if I'm honest I have no idea whether I would use single core or multi core more.

I'm still using an old version of Sony Vegas, but might learn a more up to date program soon.

Shame the 9900x is on pre-order - not sure when it comes out.

I'll have to try and do some research into single vs multi core and then decide if I'm prepared to wait until January I guess - would love to get the build done soon.
 
I'll have to try and do some research into single vs multi core and then decide if I'm prepared to wait until January I guess - would love to get the build done soon.
This is a rough guide as a concrete slab, but generally speaking: if you press a button and have to wait, that's multithreaded. If you press a button and expect it to respond instantly, that is single threaded.

So, for example: if you're waiting an hour for something to be produced, that's almost certainly an app that is multithreaded (it'd be dumb to code it in any other way).

Would the 7950x3d trump them all?
Not normally, no.

With the 7000 series X3D CPUs they had an issue with the 3D cache where the placement meant that they had to lower the clocks and voltage, which makes it slower for productivity than the non-X3D versions. The performance in gaming benefits greatly overall from the 3D cache, so the few circumstances where the CPU is slower nobody much cares.

The 9000 series X3D (at least, the 9800X3D, since the other CPUs aren't out yet) has overcome this problem and no longer has the weakness in productivity.
 
This is a rough guide as a concrete slab, but generally speaking: if you press a button and have to wait, that's multithreaded. If you press a button and expect it to respond instantly, that is single threaded.

So, for example: if you're waiting an hour for something to be produced, that's almost certainly an app that is multithreaded (it'd be dumb to code it in any other way).


Not normally, no.

With the 7000 series X3D CPUs they had an issue with the 3D cache where the placement meant that they had to lower the clocks and voltage, which makes it slower for productivity than the non-X3D versions. The performance in gaming benefits greatly overall from the 3D cache, so the few circumstances where the CPU is slower nobody much cares.

The 9000 series X3D (at least, the 9800X3D, since the other CPUs aren't out yet) has overcome this problem and no longer has the weakness in productivity.
Great - thanks again!

So yeah, rendering will be multicore use because it takes time so from what you said a couple of posts up the 7950x is probably better than the 9900x for me as getting render times down is something I'd like to do.

I will game at times but for the minimal times I play them - I think a 7950x will be more than enough, I'm not constantly gaming and often just use my PS5 anyway.

I think I'll look at the 4080 super as well, using nvidia tech for streaming/editing is handy too.

I might try and put together a 7950x build and then post it up here to get some tips as to what to change.
 
So yeah, rendering will be multicore use because it takes time so from what you said a couple of posts up the 7950x is probably better than the 9900x for me as getting render times down is something I'd like to do.
Do keep in mind though that many apps are using the GPU more and more and I think you said above you're thinking of switching? That could change the calculation if you're pushing the emphasis to the GPU.
 
Do keep in mind though that many apps are using the GPU more and more and I think you said above you're thinking of switching? That could change the calculation if you're pushing the emphasis to the GPU.
Looking at the prices I can't see much reason to get a 4070 TI Super when the 4080 Super is a similar price.

So I'll be putting a build together that includes a 4080 super.

Should that change the CPU that I go for?

I guess put it this way - I'm happy to pay for 4080 super and go to the 7950 x3D if needed which is £600 - so I guess is there something better to opt for for similar £££
 
Should that change the CPU that I go for?

I guess put it this way - I'm happy to pay for 4080 super and go to the 7950 x3D if needed which is £600 - so I guess is there something better to opt for for similar £££
Well, if you know that you're going to be pushing a lot of your workload to the GPU, then in the AMD camp I'd favour the 9900X over the 7950X, because it has generally higher single/lightly threaded.

I wouldn't pay that extra cash for the 7950X3D, because from what I can recall, gaming is not your priority.
 
Well, if you know that you're going to be pushing a lot of your workload to the GPU, then in the AMD camp I'd favour the 9900X over the 7950X, because it has generally higher single/lightly threaded.

I wouldn't pay that extra cash for the 7950X3D, because from what I can recall, gaming is not your priority.
Okay thanks - not sure when the 9900x is available, so I guess if I'm impatient the 7950x is the way forward.
 
Haha! Fair enough.

If AMD is going to run quieter and cooler though that's a bit of a plus.

This whole stuff is just confusing when you're aren't on top of it all :cry:
It depends on what reviews are being referred to, I guess, but my impression is that Arrow Lake is much more competitive than the 13th-14th gen CPUs were against AMD.

For example: in TPU's power efficiency numbers, the 265K is on a par with the 9900X in multithreaded and way ahead on single thread (though I think the higher single/lightly threaded efficiency would have been influenced by the lower idle numbers).

The 7950X3D smashes them all out of the park with multithreaded efficiency, but that's not new, since select Zen 4 CPUs have always been way up there (I used to really like the 7900 non-X for that reason).
 
It depends on what reviews are being referred to, I guess, but my impression is that Arrow Lake is much more competitive than the 13th-14th gen CPUs were against AMD.

For example: in TPU's power efficiency numbers, the 265K is on a par with the 9900X in multithreaded and way ahead on single thread (though I think the higher single/lightly threaded efficiency would have been influenced by the lower idle numbers).

The 7950X3D smashes them all out of the park with multithreaded efficiency, but that's not new, since select Zen 4 CPUs have always been way up there (I used to really like the 7900 non-X for that reason).

You mentioned this before for the intel CPU:

"Air cooling the Intel CPUs (or any higher-end CPU really) will likely require some management of the power limits and the fan curves to achieve the comfort you're after."

I'm not going to be the one building it, I'll be asking OCUK to do it for me - so does this matter and be something that I should take into account when picking CPU?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom