PC Build for Video Editing - Final Suggestions?

[jamesoutofideas]

I am in the process of planning a new build. It will be primarily used for video editing, using Premiere Pro, After Effects and AVID Media Composer. 

 

My criteria:

Edit 1080p footage regularly, with the capability to do 4K as time goes on (and run a 4K monitor)

Good airflow and cooling, whilst being fairly quiet when wearing headphones

Look somewhat decent. RGB header on mobo is nice.

 

The components I have decided on so far:

 

Intel Core i7-9700K 3.6 GHz 

Cooled by Noctua NH-U12A

ASUS Prime Z390-A LGA1151

Corsair Vengeance LPX 16 GB (Might go with 32gb later)

Samsung 970 Evo NVME 500GB (for boot)

Samsung 860 Evo SATA 1TB (for media)

RTX 2060 Super (idk which OEM, might go Founders edition because I actually think it looks good?)

Fractal Design Ion+ Platinum 560W (or something like that)

Fractal Design Meshify C with TG

 

Could this be improved in any way? Or anything that is just too OTTP? In theory, the CPU may be bottle necked by GPU for gaming. However, the amount of times I will game on this is minimal. 

 

Open to suggestions. Thanks

[Dedayog]

Do those programs work better on a non-HT Intel chip vs a HT AMD chip?  Curious why you didn't go 3700X for example.

 

 

[LukeSavenije]

hm... i think you can do better than that

 

budget, country and preferences?

[jamesoutofideas]

16 minutes ago, jstudrawa said:

Do those programs work better on a non-HT Intel chip vs a HT AMD chip?  Curious why you didn't go 3700X for example.

 

 

This was typically the case. From what I have heard now, Adobe is (kind of) pushing optimisation for AMD HT chips. I don't know if it's 100% there yet.

 

Main reason why I went Intel is because it's what I've always gone for, and honestly I'm not fully up to date with what's happening on AMD's side, apart from I know you often get the same performance for cheaper since Ryzen 

 

Will look in to this

[Princess Luna]

10 minutes ago, jstudrawa said:

Curious why you didn't go 3700X for example.

Adobe Suite, simply favors Intel far too much still making it the best alternative however this build needs a lot of tweaks to be anywhere near good value.

 

First would be ditch ASUS Prime-A for the Aorus Elite.

 

Second is ditch the 9700K for the 9900K (Please recall to enable QuickSync Acceleration), it's a big jump yes but we'll make it up on Storage and GPU.

 

16GB of memory in 2x8gb is fine if OP believes 32GB max will suffice if it comes down to it, any 3000mhz~3200mhz rated kit works.

 

Storage: here is the fun part ditch all this needless overpriced Samsung stuff... get a 250gb MX500 for boot which is sufficient in every way and then a 2TB Intel 660p or Crucial P1 whichever is cheaper, this way you have far more capacity and might end up a cheaper solution.

 

GPU: If all you want is CUDA Acceleration the GTX 1660 Ti suffices, grab a cheap variant.

 

PSU: No need for 80+ Platinum... just aim for the usual high quality good value units like a Corsair TX550M.

[jamesoutofideas]

1 minute ago, LukeSavenije said:

hm... i think you can do better than that

 

budget, country and preferences?

Roughly £1500

United Kingdom

I've gone Intel and nvidia because it's what I know. But if I can get matched or better performance for cheaper, go ahead. Obviously nvidia has CUDA acceleration vs OpenCL

[LukeSavenije]

PCPartPicker Part List

Type	Item	Price
CPU	AMD Ryzen 9 3900X 3.8 GHz 12-Core Processor	£520.00 @ AWD-IT
Motherboard	MSI B450 TOMAHAWK ATX AM4 Motherboard	£104.98 @ Amazon UK
Memory	Patriot Viper Steel 16 GB (2 x 8 GB) DDR4-3600 Memory	£82.99 @ Amazon UK
Storage	Sabrent Rocket 1 TB M.2-2280 NVME Solid State Drive	£109.99 @ Amazon UK
Video Card	Asus GeForce RTX 2070 8 GB STRIX GAMING OC Video Card	£602.64 @ Amazon UK
Case	Fractal Design Focus G ATX Mid Tower Case	£46.99 @ Amazon UK
Power Supply	Corsair TXM Gold 550 W 80+ Gold Certified Semi-modular ATX Power Supply	£64.97 @ Laptops Direct
	Prices include shipping, taxes, rebates, and discounts
	Total	£1532.56
	Generated by PCPartPicker 2019-08-13 14:49 BST+0100

 

[jamesoutofideas]

5 minutes ago, Princess Luna said:

Adobe Suite, simply favors Intel far too much still making it the best alternative however this build needs a lot of tweaks to be anywhere near good value.

 

First would be ditch ASUS Prime-A for the Aorus Elite.

 

Second is ditch the 9700K for the 9900K (Please recall to enable QuickSync Acceleration), it's a big jump yes but we'll make it up on Storage and GPU.

 

16GB of memory in 2x8gb is fine if OP believes 32GB max will suffice if it comes down to it, any 3000mhz~3200mhz rated kit works.

 

Storage: here is the fun part ditch all this needless overpriced Samsung stuff... get a 250gb MX500 for boot which is sufficient in every way and then a 2TB Intel 660p or Crucial P1 whichever is cheaper, this way you have far more capacity and might end up a cheaper solution.

 

GPU: If all you want is CUDA Acceleration the GTX 1660 Ti suffices, grab a cheap variant.

 

PSU: No need for 80+ Platinum... just aim for the usual high quality good value units like a Corsair TX550M.

Nice what you've done with CPU and storage. That makes sense. 

 

Will deffo think about the GPU too. Reason I went with 2060 Super is to have flexability in the future if I wanted to start gaming on my PC again (not done in years). If I decide I don't need to, will go with cheaper option.

 

Everything else makes sense. Appreciated and will look into it.

[5x5]

16 minutes ago, jamesoutofideas said:

This was typically the case. From what I have heard now, Adobe is (kind of) pushing optimisation for AMD HT chips. I don't know if it's 100% there yet.

 

Main reason why I went Intel is because it's what I've always gone for, and honestly I'm not fully up to date with what's happening on AMD's side, apart from I know you often get the same performance for cheaper since Ryzen 

 

Will look in to this

Time to change then

 

Adobe is now a mixed bag with some applications performing MUCH better on Ryzen 3000 over Intel and vice versa. But the 9700K does not make any sense whatsoever. Considering you can fit a 12-core 3900X. @LukeSavenije's build is optimal. Just get a 2080, though, since it's almost the same price. Intel's prices are currently far too absurd to even consider them.

[Princess Luna]

4 minutes ago, LukeSavenije said:

AMD Ryzen 9 3900X 3.8 GHz 12-Core Processor

Have I not teach you enough about Adobe and Intel?

[LukeSavenije]

1 minute ago, Princess Luna said:

Have I not teach you enough about Adobe and Intel?

well... from what I've seen with adobe after effects... it has potential

[5x5]

PCPartPicker Part List

CPU: AMD Ryzen 9 3900X 3.8 GHz 12-Core Processor  (£520.00 @ AWD-IT)
CPU Cooler: ARCTIC Freezer 13 36.4 CFM CPU Cooler  (£23.99 @ AWD-IT)
Motherboard: MSI B450 TOMAHAWK ATX AM4 Motherboard  (£104.98 @ Amazon UK)
Memory: Patriot Viper Steel 16 GB (2 x 8 GB) DDR4-3600 Memory  (£82.99 @ Amazon UK)
Storage: SanDisk SSD PLUS 1 TB 2.5" Solid State Drive  (£96.20 @ Amazon UK)
Video Card: Zotac GeForce RTX 2080 8 GB GAMING AMP Video Card  (£630.79 @ Overclockers.co.uk)
Case: Fractal Design Focus G ATX Mid Tower Case  (£46.99 @ Amazon UK)
Power Supply: Corsair TXM Gold 550 W 80+ Gold Certified Semi-modular ATX Power Supply  (£64.97 @ Laptops Direct)
Total: £1570.91
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2019-08-13 14:56 BST+0100

[5x5]

1 minute ago, Princess Luna said:

Have I not teach you enough about Adobe and Intel?

Not really that cut and dry anymore - quite a few Adobe Apps prefer more cores/threads and leverage Ryzen's higher IPC now. Clockspeed is going the way of the dodo. Buying a 9900K for 500$ is a waste of money in 2019.

[LukeSavenije]

Just now, 5x5 said:

CPU Cooler: ARCTIC Freezer 13 36.4 CFM CPU Cooler  (£23.99 @ AWD-IT)

ehm... stock cooler might just be better

[5x5]

Just now, LukeSavenije said:

ehm... stock cooler might just be better

Nah, the Freezer 13 has a bigger and quieter fan with more pipes - though it's a marginal difference - I mainly put it in because the tower config will imrprove airflow somewhat.

[5x5]

[TVwazhere]

-Threads merged-

 

Please refrain from posting duplicate topics in the future.

[Princess Luna]

7 minutes ago, LukeSavenije said:

well... from what I've seen with adobe after effects... it has potential

Not really, it still favors low latency and single core, obviously there were improvements but the best performer on the matter still is the 9900K

 

Then again... sighs... I will probably give up on this argue until Intel's 10th gen given Zen 2 hype and the disparity in pricing for cores forces one to go into deeper discussion and it gets tiresome have to explain things into deeper detail every time.

 

11 minutes ago, 5x5 said:

Not really that cut and dry anymore quite a few Adobe Apps prefer more cores/threads and leverage Ryzen's higher IPC now. Clockspeed is going the way of the dodo. Buying a 9900K for 500$ is a waste of money in 2019.

With all due respect, you're wrong.

 

I don't want to make it an argue though simply because I do not have time nor patience nor will to go in depth to explain why the i9 9900K is still the superior choice for Adobe Suite, but I can tell you don't make living off Adobe Suite otherwise you'd know better.

 

My brother's a professional video editor who works for actual news channel along side other on demand video editing work for this big place that does weddings, parties, celebration footage and what not. He doesn't have an i9 9900K out of fanboyism it is simply the best solution for Adobe Suite.

 

Here's the very first problem when people think they know something in depth without working with it, both these SS you showed for encoding and exporting are biased for they have not enable QuickSync iGPU Acceleration which can function alongside CUDA Acceleration and that would put the 9900K on pair with the TR 2950X.

 

So no, the i9 9900K is not a waste in 2019, it is still best solution for plenty of workstation related loads if you know what you work with in depth.

 

But like I was saying to Luke, all this demands hard work on showing data and proving, I've done it a lot on previous threads but every time you have to do it over and over while people take you for a fanboy for not going along the automatic Zen 2 hype, I understand Intel price for core is significantly higher and it makes them look bad specially now that Zen 2 really is a viable alternative for a lot however when the matter is the "best" for specific tasks it's really not as black and white as point at the R9 3900X with some misleading benchmarks and call it a day.

[brob]

https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Premiere-Pro-CPU-Roundup-AMD-Ryzen-3-AMD-Threadripper-2-Intel-9th-Gen-Intel-X-series-1535/

https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/After-Effects-CPU-Roundup-AMD-Ryzen-3-AMD-Threadripper-2-Intel-9th-Gen-Intel-X-series-1533/

 

PCPartPicker Part List

CPU: AMD Ryzen 7 3700X 3.6 GHz 8-Core Processor  (£314.95 @ AWD-IT) 
Motherboard: Asus TUF GAMING X570-PLUS (WI-FI) ATX AM4 Motherboard  (£231.48 @ Ebuyer) 
Memory: Corsair Vengeance LPX 32 GB (2 x 16 GB) DDR4-3200 Memory  (£158.58 @ Aria PC) 
Storage: Crucial P1 1 TB M.2-2280 NVME Solid State Drive  (£101.99 @ Amazon UK) 
Storage: Crucial P1 1 TB M.2-2280 NVME Solid State Drive  (£101.99 @ Amazon UK) 
Video Card: MSI GeForce RTX 2060 SUPER 8 GB ARMOR OC Video Card  (£423.47 @ Ebuyer) 
Case: Fractal Design Meshify C ATX Mid Tower Case  (£79.99 @ Amazon UK) 
Power Supply: SeaSonic PRIME Ultra Gold 650 W 80+ Gold Certified Fully Modular ATX Power Supply  (£90.46 @ Scan.co.uk) 
Total: £1502.91
Generated by PCPartPicker 2019-08-13 15:23 BST+0100

[LukeSavenije]

4 minutes ago, Princess Luna said:

With all due respect, you're wrong.

well... does puget work without quicksync?

[5x5]

7 minutes ago, Princess Luna said:

Not really, it still favors low latency and single core, obviously there were improvements but the best performer on the matter still is the 9900K

 

Then again... sighs... I will probably give up on this argue until Intel's 10th gen given Zen 2 hype and the disparity in pricing for cores forces one to go into deeper discussion and it gets tiresome have to explain things into deeper detail every time.

 

With all due respect, you're wrong.

 

I don't want to make it an argue though simply because I do not have time nor patience nor will to go in depth to explain why the i9 9900K is still the superior choice for Adobe Suite, but I can tell you don't make living off Adobe Suite otherwise you'd know better.

 

My brother's a professional video editor who works for actual news channel along side other on demand video editing work for this big place that does weddings, parties, celebration footage and what not. He doesn't have an i9 9900K out of fanboyism it is simply the best solution for Adobe Suite.

 

Here's the very first problem when people think they know something in depth without working with it, both these SS you showed for encoding and exporting are biased for they have not enable QuickSync iGPU Acceleration which can function alongside CUDA Acceleration and that would put the 9900K on pair with the TR 2950X.

 

So no, the i9 9900K is not a waste in 2019, it is still best solution for plenty of workstation related loads if you know what you work with in depth.

 

But like I was saying to Luke, all this demands hard work on showing data and proving, I've done it a lot on previous threads but every time you have to do it over and over while people take you for a fanboy for not going along the automatic Zen 2 hype, I understand Intel price for core is significantly higher and it makes them look bad specially now that Zen 2 really is a viable alternative for a lot however when the matter is the "best" for specific tasks it's really not as black and white as point at the R9 3900X with some misleading benchmarks and call it a day.

That's all fine and dandy, but this is anecdotal evidence. Either provide numbers proving your point from a legitimate source or don't steer the user towards a worse product. QuickSync has been discussed - it gives speed at the cost of quality when encoding. It's not something I'd suggest paying more for when a faster, more efficient, less power-hungry and better alternative already exists. Not to mention, the OP also mentioned AIVD Media Composer - an application that loves cores far more and has no use for the iGPU. There, the 3900X is a MUCH better alternative. The application scales almost perfectly up till about 20-24 cores as reported by users on the AIVD forums. So the 3900X will be a whopping 40% faster. Is that not something to consider when giving a recommendation?

[brob]

10 minutes ago, LukeSavenije said:

well... does puget work without quicksync?

 

Read the provided links.

 

Deny it all you want, that will not change the hard data. Numerous respected review sites have established that Matisse has a higher IPC than Coffee Lake Refresh. Numerous respected sites have published benchmarks, including details of methodology and hardware, all of which indicate that Zen 2 is as good or better than competing Intel cpu in content creation.

 

While I'm sure one can find particular patterns that favor Intel, at the moment AMD third generation cpu tend to be the optimal choice for content and design workstations in the sub $1K cpu segment.

[hello_there_123]

15 minutes ago, LukeSavenije said:

well... does puget work without quicksync?

PRobably , they didn,t even overclock any of the CPu in their test lmao 

 

Matt Bach (Mod): "We don't offer overclocking on our systems, so we won't be testing that, but from the other reviews I've seen that definitely looks to be the case. I am very interested to see how the other Ryzen models perform in these editing applications, however. Many of them don't benefit greatly from higher core counts, and since the higher-end models don't really run at a much higher frequency, it will be really interesting to see how much faster they are than the Ryzen 5 3600." 

[5x5]

1 minute ago, hello_there_123 said:

PRobably , they didn,t even overclock any of the CPu in their test lmao 

 

Matt Bach (Mod): "We don't offer overclocking on our systems, so we won't be testing that, but from the other reviews I've seen that definitely looks to be the case. I am very interested to see how the other Ryzen models perform in these editing applications, however. Many of them don't benefit greatly from higher core counts, and since the higher-end models don't really run at a much higher frequency, it will be really interesting to see how much faster they are than the Ryzen 5 3600." 

Of course. Why and in what world would you overclock a professional system used for work? STABILITY IS THE MOST VITAL CHARACTERISTIC WHEN WORKING /caps - an overclock, even a small one, introduces a chance for errors that could end up costing you thousands in wasted time or resources in the event of a crash/freeze/data corruption. Any self-respecting professional knows that you can and will end up paying more for stability and reliability. That's why so many creative people used MacOS over Windows Vista, 7 and 8 - it was a FAR more reliable and stable working environment where you didn't have to worry that an overnight render may be met with a BSOD and data corruption in the morning. That's why ECC memory is used in every professional environment.

[LukeSavenije]

1 hour ago, brob said:

Read the provided links.

in which they don't link that they do

 

and with quicksync it is faster

 

so facts are still subjective