A new build

idkdc wrote in post #19397150
Have you thought about waiting until Nvidia's new GPU's are announced later this year? I've been kind of dragging my feet at a Windows build even though the 3000 series GPU's are finally in stock, since I heard and am seeing prices continue to drop over time and is speculated to do so especially with the announcement and production of 4000 series GPU's

I am going to wait and see what the prices do over the next month and go from there. It would be nice to see them drop some more. If it looks like the prices may drop significantly, I might wait another month and see then. I have put this off for about a year now and I really want to get a new system. I am just amazed at just how high the prices got to.

Nascar Nut wrote in post #19397210
I am going to wait and see what the prices do over the next month and go from there. It would be nice to see them drop some more. If it looks like the prices may drop significantly, I might wait another month and see then. I have put this off for about a year now and I really want to get a new system. I am just amazed at just how high the prices got to.

I built my new system a couple months ago and reused the nearly 7 year old GPU from the earlier system. With GPU acceleration turned on in LR and PS, it's actually slower than when it's turned off. I needed a GPU because the Ryzen I have doesn't have one built in like my previous Intel chip. I plan on getting a newer GPU, but like you, will hold off and see where prices go when the new stuff comes out. In the meantime, I'm enjoying a much faster system than my old one.

What RYZEN CPU did you go with?

Hi,

Could you elaborate more on what kind of video editing you do? Like Adobe Premiere or something else? Lots of layers and effects? Lots of rendering? How crucial is video editing here to you? I ask because that's about the only place the GPU will matter, hardly at all. Most of the performance of your system is going to come from the single thread performance of the CPU and ultimately the memory handling and speed. Image editing still doesn't scale well with cores, so getting lots of cores won't do much for image editing in Photoshop. But cores are helpful when rendering video or encoding/transcoding video. GPU can have some impact on some effects in Photoshop with brushes and things, but it's not a big part of it ultimately (and entirely depends on what you actually use, Topaz for example doesn't use it). So you may not need an intense GPU like the 3060 which adds $500+ to your budget for really not much return for your use (unless again video is a big part of what you're doing).

If you want the best performance for image editing, look to a CPU with the fastest single threaded (single core) performance, latest architecture use, fastest memory you can reliably use and the fastest SSD/NVMe media to read from. And then you have to think about cost for performance. You will pay nearly double for a CPU that is only say 7% faster in single threaded performance (example i9-12900KS vs i7-12700K in single threaded performance). I would get the 2nd best or best balance between cost and performance so you get the highest value. There's no future proofing.

Currently Intel has the best single thread performance in the $300~750 range, The i9-12700K or similar in that range is a good value if you want nearly the top speed in single thread. And then going for a motherboard for that, that can take the fastest DDR4 memory you can budget for.

Alternatively, you can wait a bit for the latest releases that will include DDR5 memory options, which will matter quite a lot. Memory has been slowing things down for a long time. There's a reason GPUs and other processors and handlers have always had the faster memory and cost more because of it while systems with way more memory like desktops have always been a generate behind on memory speed due to the amount of memory (and cost).

Very best,

MalVeauX wrote in post #19400105
Hi,

Could you elaborate more on what kind of video editing you do? Like Adobe Premiere or something else? Lots of layers and effects? Lots of rendering? How crucial is video editing here to you? I ask because that's about the only place the GPU will matter, hardly at all. Most of the performance of your system is going to come from the single thread performance of the CPU and ultimately the memory handling and speed. Image editing still doesn't scale well with cores, so getting lots of cores won't do much for image editing in Photoshop. But cores are helpful when rendering video or encoding/transcoding video. GPU can have some impact on some effects in Photoshop with brushes and things, but it's not a big part of it ultimately (and entirely depends on what you actually use, Topaz for example doesn't use it). So you may not need an intense GPU like the 3060 which adds $500+ to your budget for really not much return for your use (unless again video is a big part of what you're doing).

If you want the best performance for image editing, look to a CPU with the fastest single threaded (single core) performance, latest architecture use, fastest memory you can reliably use and the fastest SSD/NVMe media to read from. And then you have to think about cost for performance. You will pay nearly double for a CPU that is only say 7% faster in single threaded performance (example i9-12900KS vs i7-12700K in single threaded performance). I would get the 2nd best or best balance between cost and performance so you get the highest value. There's no future proofing.

Currently Intel has the best single thread performance in the $300~750 range, The i9-12700K or similar in that range is a good value if you want nearly the top speed in single thread. And then going for a motherboard for that, that can take the fastest DDR4 memory you can budget for.

Alternatively, you can wait a bit for the latest releases that will include DDR5 memory options, which will matter quite a lot. Memory has been slowing things down for a long time. There's a reason GPUs and other processors and handlers have always had the faster memory and cost more because of it while systems with way more memory like desktops have always been a generate behind on memory speed due to the amount of memory (and cost).

Very best,

I don't do a lot of video editing and I use DaVinci Resolve for my editing. I am pretty sure I will go with a step down on the CPU since I don't loose to much performance and save some money. I use DXO PureRar for my noise reduction and it does use the GPU. I wouldn't mind saving money on GPU but it sounds like with PureRar it can speed things up. From what a previous poster said, ddr5 has aways to go yet. Is it possible to get a motherboard that supports both ddr5 and 4 and just add ddr4 for now until ddr5 gets it's performance issues worked out and then swap out the ddr4 for ddr5. I know that would be a lot of extra costs but it sounds like ddr4 is probably the better option right now

On the video end of things, for whatever it may be worth:

I updated from a Core-i7 3700K to a Core-i7 10700K recently,
with appropriately compatible motherboard and DDR-4 memory at double(32Gb)
the capacity I had before. This also included replacement of a dead power supply,
and transfer of SSDs, a HDD, and Radeon video card. I reused the air cooler
without any alterations or adaptation.

While pretty much everything is quicker and snappier, the biggest gain so far
has been video encoding while ripping DVDs and Blu-Rays to a NAS.
Whereas a single-layer DVD took I don't even know how long to rip & decode
(because it literally took hours, so I left it overnight usually),
it now occurs in less than an hour, maybe around 45 minutes. This involves
transcoding to reduce raw filesize, while maintaining resolution and preserving
5-channel audio.

This is all done using open-source/free software tools, which take full advantage of
all available cores & threads, made obvious with real-time CPU monitoring
on a Windows 10 Pro system.

I don't notice any significant improvement with using PS CS6, other than the UI
being faster to respond, and loading RAW images quicker.

Win 10 was a big improvement over Win 7, SSDs sped it all up,
and the hardware updates only sweetened the deal.
The processing of images itself seems unchanged to me,
but I'm a dinosaur still using CS6.

SkedAddled wrote in post #19400248
On the video end of things, for whatever it may be worth:

I updated from a Core-i7 3700K to a Core-i7 10700K recently,

I just did a similar upgrade from an old i5-3470 w/16gb DDR3 to Ryzen 7 3800x w/32gb DDR4 and it def made a huge difference with 42mp RAW files from the A7Rii. I don’t shoot video, so I can’t attest to that side, but Photoshop 2022 loads much faster, ACR loads and processes way faster, actions/presets run almost instantly, previews load/update as I move the sliders whereas before it would take a second or two for the previews to update.

On the subject of video processing, there's a big difference between transcoding a video and rendering something with effects and layers in something like Premier. A CPU will do a good job on most of it with various hardware and will be faster with latest architecture, fastest core speed and multi-core work scales well in most video software. CUDA support however is significantly faster for transcoding if your goal is just ripping a DVD/Bluray depending on the codec (like H264, H265). I use a 3060Ti to transcode DVDs to MP4 (H264) at high data rate for quality and keep AC3 audio and pre-render any non-English subtitles into the video and it takes less than 15 minutes for a 2 hour film usually (using DVDFab, not free) and that's from optical DVD disc to drive directly and then copy the final file to my NAS. That said, I wouldn't buy a GPU just for this unless you do this every single day several times a day where it would actually save you time.

In general if you're heavy into video processing, transcoding, ripping, etc, a CUDA capable nVidia GPU is worth while and the 3000 series is affordable in the $500 range now. Crazy how we used to think $200~300 was expensive for an average GPU and $500+ was high end. Now $500 is low to mid tier sigh. But if you're doing video in any serious way, a GPU can definitely help out depending on the software and depending on the codec you're working with.

If it's mostly still image processing in Photoshop or similar, you really just won't get much from GPU for cost in that setting compared to just having faster single threaded CPU, fast memory and SSD.

Very best,

I wouldn't suggest a Core-i somthing transition to a Ryzen is a direct comparison,
nor would I suggest one betters another.
After all, what does a 'benchmark' score really mean?

Ryzen does better with some calculations, while Intel's CPUs
handle a different set of calculations better.

Does this mean one is better than the other? No.
AMD excels where Intel does not, and it's vice-versa when pitting
Intel vs AMD.

Either CPU is currently a great CPU; you just need to ask yourself
which of the ecosystems you want to buy into or maintain.

I've had both in the past; I choose to stay with the Intel architecture.
Early AMD CPUs combined with lousy support for VIA chipsets
turned me sour of AMD CPUs, while AMD's rock-solid performance
of my GPUs throughout the years has me very anti-NVIDIA.
Trident was a competitor in the very early days of PCs, does anyone
remember their video cards? I do.

So even though I prefer Intel for the CPU, I still prefer AMD's graphics
for my system. It just seems to be a better fit, overall.

SkedAddled wrote in post #19400269
I wouldn't suggest a Core-i somthing transition to a Ryzen is a direct comparison,
nor would I suggest one betters another.

I was more saying that it was a similar upgrade from a 2012 Quad Core to a modern octa-core.

To each their own, and everyone has their own experience. For me, I've always sided with NVidia GPUs and have been hesitant about ATI/AMD. I've always found their drivers to have releases that could be unstable. Haven't had as much problems with the consumer ATI/AMD cards I've had....but did have a really bad experience with their professional CAD graphics card (Fire line). I bought a HP workstation laptop with a Fire card. Even though the system was marketed as being certified for Maya...it actually corrupted every single Maya file I tried opening. I was able to return the laptop and use the money for another model that was then being released with a Nvidia Quadro card. A driver that has bugs to have performance or display issues is one thing....actually having a professional line that corrupts your files? That's pretty abhorrent.

Until very recently, AMD was considered the current king for high CPU multithreaded performance for games (that they also outperformed Apple M architecture, but with more watts). Now it seems there's a lot of attention with Intel 12 gen...which is taking some queues with Apple to have high performance and high efficiency cores: and sophisticated ways of switching them.

I do sometimes edit in 4K HDR and in h.265. New architecture especially helps with faster encodes of h.265 (just because they have the capability to do a hardware encode vs a slow software encode). If emphasis is video, I'd definitely look at CPU and GPU (even though new CPU also supports h.265). Perfmance is good for photo editing just with CPU...but exporting a series of photos or various filters are actually multithreaded that does better with more cores.

goalerjones wrote in post #19400099
What RYZEN CPU did you go with?

R9 5900X