content creator Is Ryzen 3rd Gen really worth it for a content creator?

[ParanormalBanana]

Hello!

 

Content creator here and occasional gamer, I work mainly on Davinci Resolve, a bit of Adobe Premiere and After effects when needed, and Ableton Live with lots of memory hungy VSTs. Actually looking to upgrade from my old fx8320+16Go DDR3 to a new ryzen, and planning on getting at least 32 Gigs of ram, and probably upgrade to 64 at some point when I stumble upon a big project with raw 4k or 8k video.

I've got a bit confused, performance wise, though. Should I go for a 3rd gen or can I save a buck buying only a 2600 and expect good performance out of it? What are the limitations going to be?

I'm also using a single GTX 1080 8Go, so is this going to be a bottleneck for a Ryzen 3rd gen?

 

[Princess Luna]

From a FX 8320 anything is worth it lol

[XHT_001]

it depend's if the program you use a fully multithreaded, VST's arn't to memory hungry, they are CPU hog's, so the more thread's you have the better, as each VST's could have its down thread with a 3900x which will stop buffer overflow's and stuttering that normally happen's when you run more then 5, in reaper DAW or FL Studio or albeton

[Turtle Rig]

29 minutes ago, ParanormalBanana said:

Hello!

 

Content creator here and occasional gamer, I work mainly on Davinci Resolve, a bit of Adobe Premiere and After effects when needed, and Ableton Live with lots of memory hungy VSTs. Actually looking to upgrade from my old fx8320+16Go DDR3 to a new ryzen, and planning on getting at least 32 Gigs of ram, and probably upgrade to 64 at some point when I stumble upon a big project with raw 4k or 8k video.

I've got a bit confused, performance wise, though. Should I go for a 3rd gen or can I save a buck buying only a 2600 and expect good performance out of it? What are the limitations going to be?

I'm also using a single GTX 1080 8Go, so is this going to be a bottleneck for a Ryzen 3rd gen?

 

The 2700x will do the job, but if your HT apps are CPU hungry and your render times and overall process to be quick, like if it is your job or just a hardcore user I would sugest the 3900x with those apps your using and rendering 4k or 8k videos and what not.  The Intel part that competes in this is 8 core 16 threads the Ryzen 3900x is 12 cores and it destroys the 9900k pretty much.  So decide either Intel 9900k with Z390 or 3900x with a X570 motherboard.  That 500 dollar CPU will not need a upgarde for a long time.  You will upgrade video card before you even think about a CPU upgrade.  Your set for many many many years to come with the 3900x and its core thread count.  9900k is good for gaming and the apps you use, just the facts are 3900x sorta destroys it.

[Jurrunio]

It is...? Especially in work that shows clear bias to Intel CPUs, 3rd gen sits between Intel and 2nd gen. However with price considered you might see something like R7 2700 versus R5 3600, in which it will be "single core work" versus "all core work", R7 does better in the latter but R5 wins in the former. At that point I'd still say you should go 3rd gen because smooth editing is more noticeable than fast rendering (you can leave the system alone in rendering, but not during editing).

[xg32]

if u make money on your pc then no doubt a 3900x is worth it.

[ParanormalBanana]

thanks everyone for the replies

[ParanormalBanana]

1 hour ago, Princess Luna said:

From a FX 8320 anything is worth it lol

You'd be surprised how many games I manage to run on ultra settings between 40 to 120 fps in QHD and even UHD on that old guy. It's overclocked to 4600Hz rock stable and the GTX 1080 is only bottlenecked in UHD and some titles like GTA V or FFXV! I knew I had a good deal five years ago when I bought this bad boy for only 135€

[Princess Luna]

5 minutes ago, ParanormalBanana said:

You'd be surprised how many games I manage to run on ultra settings between 40 to 120 fps in QHD and even UHD on that old guy.

That is because "Ultra Settings" are in majority taxing on the GPU and why are you even talking about games? I thought this system was about serious workloads like

Quote

I work mainly on Davinci Resolve, a bit of Adobe Premiere and After effects when needed, and Ableton Live with lots of memory hungy VSTs.

Any Zen2 or Coffee Lake would sweep the floor with it.

[TempestCatto]

2 hours ago, ParanormalBanana said:

Ableton Live with lots of memory hungy VSTs

I'll be setting up an Ableton Live using Kontakt rig soon with pretty much identical parts to yours, minus the gpu. Can ask how well Ableton, and other DAWs you've used, run on that hardware? I'm a bit nervous it won't be enough, but at the same time the only thing we'll be using is a piano vst and maybe one or two other effects. It's going to be used in a live setting.

[ParanormalBanana]

39 minutes ago, Princess Luna said:

That is because "Ultra Settings" are in majority taxing on the GPU and why are you even talking about games? I thought this system was about serious workloads like

Any Zen2 or Coffee Lake would sweep the floor with it.

Why are you getting salty? This computer is my main computer and I do everything on it. From what I read on official documentation and other sources, "any" zen2 or coffee lake won't "sweep the floor" with raw, 10 bit, 4k footage on Davinci Resolve. In fact, they're far from sweeping the floor with it. When I edit a 22 minute fiction with lots of color grading and sometimes pretty heavy effects, I sometimes need to go 1/8th of the resolution on my proxies to make it work with my current CPU and I've read that a GTX 1080 is enough for 4K, but my CPU and ram are the big bottleneck.

So that's why I came here asking, hoping to find people that actually know about the kinds of workloads I am talking about, and not to get mocked.

[ParanormalBanana]

29 minutes ago, TempestCatto said:

I'll be setting up an Ableton Live using Kontakt rig soon with pretty much identical parts to yours, minus the gpu. Can ask how well Ableton, and other DAWs you've used, run on that hardware? I'm a bit nervous it won't be enough, but at the same time the only thing we'll be using is a piano vst and maybe one or two other effects. It's going to be used in a live setting.

Ableton live runs great on this system, but there are limitations. I am able to get amazing latencies in an emply project with a few tracks or using the freeze function if I need to record a guitar and be able to listen to it with effects like guitar rig in the heandphones, for example, all this in 24 or 32 bits and 192Khz.

But say I load a project with a dozen kontakts to score a film with some berlin strings, woods, brass and percs, and a few effects on that too, i'll have a hard time keeping those latencies low for recording on the midi keyboard if I don't freeze most of the tracks, cause the CPU won't handle that load and i'll need to increase the number of asio samples and thus the latency, to sometimes over 80ms to get it to work all at once.

Also, the memory has become a problem in some instances of really huge projects with, say 40+ realistic orchestral instruments loaded into kontakt, you start getting sample dropouts because 16 Gigs of ram isn't enough for all of it to fit. This can be worked around if the whole library sits on a fast SSD and everything has been batch resaved, but it's a hassle and at the time I set it up, 2To+ of SSD was a bit too expensive to my taste. I'll be switching to large SSDs for that particular issue though.

Overall, I'd say it's good enough tough, unless your client intends to get into huge orchestral mixes.

[ParanormalBanana]

42 minutes ago, TempestCatto said:

 I'm a bit nervous it won't be enough, but at the same time the only thing we'll be using is a piano vst and maybe one or two other effects. It's going to be used in a live setting.

Oh, it's for you, sorry for the misunderstanding; So yeah, what I said stands, but I don't really know about other daws, I've only used Ableton live and pro tools, but pro tools I used mainly to convert other projects from video editing software to something I can use with ableton live, or if I needed to work on video but then again, no real difference in performance compared to ableton live

[TempestCatto]

16 minutes ago, ParanormalBanana said:

Oh, it's for you, sorry for the misunderstanding; So yeah, what I said stands, but I don't really know about other daws, I've only used Ableton live and pro tools, but pro tools I used mainly to convert other projects from video editing software to something I can use with ableton live, or if I needed to work on video but then again, no real difference in performance compared to ableton live

Thanks a lot for the info! It's actually for a church that I run sound for. So it looks like we'll be okay because we're not going to be loading anything more than two or three instruments. Thanks again!