Picking CPU

[Bvance44]

Im little behind technology these days looking at updating my cpu or even building another computer and searching cpu's has me confused at the time about 6 years ago i built a comouter with amd 12 core because it was the best performance for the money compared to intel..

Well now searching all im finding is 20-24 core CPU's with intel which is much higher then the still 12 core im finding with amd at almost same price this leaves me confused what happen to amd?

 

So i need help and finding cpu and picking one out can anyone give some guidance and suggestions?

 

Thanks

[YoungBlade]

Core count generally isn't a meaningful metric comparing across architectures, especially after Intel introduced Efficiency cores. The 24 cores on the 285K only give you about the same performance as the 16 cores on the 9950X, because the 16 cores on the AMD CPU are much more powerful than the 16 E-cores on the 285K.

 

The point is that cores aren't cores. Overall performance is a more complex thing than just looking at a single spec.

 

What are you going to be doing with the computer?

[Bvance44]

Video editing looking to update my older 2060 as well small amounts of gaming but alot of web based browsing and work stuff invoicing  ... i like updating my stuff every so often just because I try to keep the most amount of performance. I can I like to keep up in my speed

[Bvance44]

Even if I went from twelve course to sixteen cores, on a m d I would think that that would help a little, i'm not finding anything more than sixteen cores on amd, though... And I know you're saying course doesn't necessarily matter, but to me, that's how i've always based picking a cpu, the most cores and threads

[YoungBlade]

15 minutes ago, Bvance44 said:

Even if I went from twelve course to sixteen cores, on a m d I would think that that would help a little, i'm not finding anything more than sixteen cores on amd, though... And I know you're saying course doesn't necessarily matter, but to me, that's how i've always based picking a cpu, the most cores and threads

What is your current CPU? I'm guessing a 3900X?

 

The 7950X or 9950X would be a huge upgrade from that. They have more than double the multicore performance.

 

If you really want to go Intel, that's fine. The 285K or 14900K are also big upgrades from a 3900X. They just aren't really faster than the AMD options - they trade blows depending on the specific workload.

 

You should not be so fixated on core count for video editing. A modern 8 core CPU like a Ryzen 7 7700X would be faster than a 3900X in everything that you said you do. Faster for video editing, faster for gaming, faster for web browsing. Because each individual core is so much faster.

[PDifolco]

1 hour ago, Bvance44 said:

Video editing looking to update my older 2060 as well small amounts of gaming but alot of web based browsing and work stuff invoicing  ... i like updating my stuff every so often just because I try to keep the most amount of performance. I can I like to keep up in my speed

You don't need a gazillion cores for that, video editing is fine on any recent CPU, and you'd rather need a better GPU

But in this case an Intel chip makes sense because of Intel iGPU helping 

The other stuff you do don't even need 6 cores...

What's your budget ? RAM needed (cause it's DDR5 now) ?

[Bvance44]

15 hours ago, YoungBlade said:

What is your current CPU? I'm guessing a 3900X?

 

The 7950X or 9950X would be a huge upgrade from that. They have more than double the multicore performance.

 

If you really want to go Intel, that's fine. The 285K or 14900K are also big upgrades from a 3900X. They just aren't really faster than the AMD options - they trade blows depending on the specific workload.

 

You should not be so fixated on core count for video editing. A modern 8 core CPU like a Ryzen 7 7700X would be faster than a 3900X in everything that you said you do. Faster for video editing, faster for gaming, faster for web browsing. Because each individual core is so much faster.

Yup your right ryzen 9 3900x

Isnt ryzen 7 going to be lower?

[Bvance44]

13 hours ago, PDifolco said:

You don't need a gazillion cores for that, video editing is fine on any recent CPU, and you'd rather need a better GPU

But in this case an Intel chip makes sense because of Intel iGPU helping 

The other stuff you do don't even need 6 cores...

What's your budget ? RAM needed (cause it's DDR5 now) ?

Well i may not need more core but i want to up my performance and upgrade all the way around... better cpu better gpu and ram so i have to also change and upgrade the motherboard as well ..

Just always been under the impression amd is better bang for buck and power to performance ratio ..but im not finding anything more then then what i have now witch is the ryzen 9 3900X 

[YoungBlade]

39 minutes ago, Bvance44 said:

Yup your right ryzen 9 3900x

Isnt ryzen 7 going to be lower?

In most cases, no. Where the old 3900X wins, it's not really significant, and when the 7700X is faster, it can be a lot faster.

 

https://www.techspot.com/review/2537-amd-ryzen-7700x/ 

 

Each individual core is so much faster, that having 50% more cores generally isn't enough for the 3900X to keep up, even in multicore loads. It sometimes is, but its best win in that testing was 5% in 7-Zip decompression, whereas the 7700X beat it in compression by 24%, won in Adobe Premiere performance by 20%, and crushed it in Photoshop by 58%.

 

Again, cores aren't cores. It's overall performance that matters, not core count.

[Bvance44]

Okay, which I understand but I'm also confused. I always thought more cores, more threads brought better performance, and that's exactly what I want. I want something that is going to outperform by 3900X by far. I was looking at the ninety nine fifty sixteen core... But if you could pick me out a processor that is going to leave the 3900X. And the dust send it to me. I'll take a look.I'm going to trust your recommendation

[Bvance44]

I'm sorry I can't get past the idea of a c p u having less cores, but faster than one that has more cores, that makes no sense to me, but please don't try to explain it to me.I'm not smart enough to understand l o.L

[YoungBlade]

9 minutes ago, Bvance44 said:

Okay, which I understand but I'm also confused. I always thought more cores, more threads brought better performance, and that's exactly what I want. I want something that is going to outperform by 3900X by far. I was looking at the ninety nine fifty sixteen core... But if you could pick me out a processor that is going to leave the 3900X. And the dust send it to me. I'll take a look.I'm going to trust your recommendation

The 7950X or 9950X would both be way faster than the 3900X across the board. You can see the benchmarks for the 7950X in the review I linked.

 

My recommendation would be to get the 9950X if the price is close, but if the 7950X is much cheaper, I'd just get that. The 9950X is faster, but generally not that much faster for tasks like video editing and gaming.

[PDifolco]

27 minutes ago, Bvance44 said:

I'm sorry I can't get past the idea of a c p u having less cores, but faster than one that has more cores, that makes no sense to me, but please don't try to explain it to me.I'm not smart enough to understand l o.L

Cores are like say jet engines, an aircraft can be faster with only 2 but powerful engines vs one with 4 old ones less efficient

[Bvance44]

2 hours ago, YoungBlade said:

The 7950X or 9950X would both be way faster than the 3900X across the board. You can see the benchmarks for the 7950X in the review I linked.

 

My recommendation would be to get the 9950X if the price is close, but if the 7950X is much cheaper, I'd just get that. The 9950X is faster, but generally not that much faster for tasks like video editing and gaming.

Ok that helps alot i saw in one place the 7950 coat more didnt make sense but ill shop around 

[Bvance44]

Ok next topic then ive always stuck with Nvidia...but this time around nvidia vs AMD GPU which one and why? Go!