Hi to all :-)

After long time away from Pinnacle, I'm back and I'm building a new Rig

For choosing CPU:

I'm wondering if Studio benefits (optimized) from muticores/multithreads of AMD 5950X(5900X)

or NOT, so it's better to choose Intel 11900K (and save some money?)

 

For choosing GPU: Studio is more optimized with Nvidia (as was in the past) or is the same?  

Also: I'm wondering if Studio benefits strongly from a powerful GPU so to regain the investment on it? 

 Vasilis

See my specs below? AMD graphics are supported. For exporting, the graphics card does all the heavy lifting... but the CPU still does get a decent workout. 

If your requirements have a specific need for 16core 32threads, they get the AMD CPU. If not, either CPU (AMD or Intel) will work.  

In the screen shot below, 4K 10bit 422 24P export. 

I've just got a 5900x based rig, but not had a chance to put it through its paces with PS25U yet

For the CPU load, temps are well within spec and since the CPU isn't used hard... cpu temps are low.. CPU temps are relative to what cooler you have on the CPU and the cooling of the overall case. I am using a Phanteks P400a, stock AMD cooler, even though I have an Arctic Freezer 240 sitting the box. The stock cooler has never had an problem keeping the CPU from throttling, or coming close to it in my workflow. If you are going with the current 12/16 core AMD's, you will have to supply your own cooler, so my temp readings would not matter unless we had the same cooler, case and PS project.

 

Another screenshot...

If you aren't going to be doing any gaming or running heavyweight graphics applications, the Intel route would at least give you the opportunity to try working with Studio without "forking out" on a separate graphics card (add one later if you found the performance of the Intel on-chip graphics when rendering/exporting videos having complex effects/overlays to be lacking...).

Regardting CPU choice - IMO there's very little difference in performance between an i7-11700K and the i9-11900K you were considering (same number of cores/threads, graphics is identical, the i9 has a slightly higher "turbo" frequency). So an option would be to go for the i7-11700K and spend the saving on a graphics card.

Nvidia graphics support is more mature than AMD in Studio (although Nvidia do have a habit of "moving the goalposts" with driver updates, which can sometimes break things). As far as I am aware Studio will use the features of one GPU only - so SLi or CrossFire won't be uf any use. So IMO don't bother investing in two GPUs unless you have some other application that specifically needs it.

Regards,
Richard

Curious Richard, you mention that Nvidia graphics are more mature than AMD, in what way? 

Tony P:

Curious Richard, you mention that Nvidia graphics are more mature than AMD, in what way? 

Only in number of years/successive Studio versions that the support for hardware-accelerated H.264 (and H.265) encode has existed. So in theory more time to have found and got rid of bugs...

Thanks. I've had the AMD graphics card, and since PS has implemented AMD hardware acceleration, there has been no issues (like driver support that sometimes plagues Nvidia) as I've updated the drivers, so far. And with GPU acceleration, PS  exporting has been greatly improved, often making use (according to Task Manager) of 100% of the GPU. I can't ask for more than that. Of course this is dependent on effects, layering, masking, titling, etc. being optimized for GPU's. 

With AMD hardware acceleration, this opens the door for all the AMD users.

Culpanr and Tony P 

thank you very much  for your valuable answers.

Was very helpful to me in order to decide about the main components of my rig.

I think that your answers must compiled on a post and pinned on general tab.  

Vasilis 

No problem! I think when people consider computer parts, they should also consider all the software they will be using. While I do edit a lot, there are other things I do with the computer. Video editing is an important part, but not the only one.

For "me", I've found my hardware to work quite well with the other editing software I use, from consumer to professional. I had a conversation in another forum for editing, where the software "ignored" the AMD GPU. I proceeded to post images how Pinnacle used it and added how Resolve Studio 17 uses it. Pretty similar and editing 4K 422 10bit was relatively painless considering the format and bitrate.  Where the problem is... the cost of buying any GPU. This is where Intel with their iGPU might have an advantage. I don't know anyone with an AMD APU with built in graphics, so can't comment. With the Intel, you can edit now and wait for GPU prices to begin to normalize... if ever. I'd also wait a bit.... Adler is coming out and of course, AMD will have their "stuff" released soon.

Hi,

If you go with Intel, make sure that the processor has Intel integrated graphics. The i7-11700K has Intel® UHD Graphics 750, the i7-11700KF does not. Avoid any that do not have integrated Intel graphics. Salesmen will try to sell a gaming machine with a processor that has no integrated graphics. They will tell you that the fancy graphics card does everything, but they are wrong. They do not understand the requirements for video editing.

Not sure they would be wrong with selling a computer with a decent mid range card and CPU. An Intel iGPU is not a requirement for video editing as shown by my specs below. 

Also, Puget Systems recommends AMD and Nvidia for demanding video editing. A  many months back, they only recommended Intel.

And if your machine does multiple work, sorry, the Intel iGPU is no match for a real graphics card. We were talking about getting an Intel with iGPU as a stop gap until GPU prices decide to become "normal". But if you could get a "gaming" PC with a decent graphics card and fast CPU, it will serve most users better.  Unless you are getting paid as a professional editor (and you won't be using Pinnacle), most also do photo editing and get this... even gaming! So the iGPU is inferior in those use cases.