Puget Systems print logo

https://www.pugetsystems.com

Read this article at https://www.pugetsystems.com/guides/1055
Article Thumbnail

After Effects CC 2017.2 CPU Performance: Core i7 8700K, i5 8600K, i3 8350K

Written on October 5, 2017 by Matt Bach
Share:

Introduction

While higher CPU core counts have been an ongoing theme this year, this really has not affected most After Effects users. Ever since version 2015 when the "render multiple frames simultaneously" feature was removed, performance in After Effects has been more about CPU frequency rather than core count. Because of this, a quad core CPU like the Core i7 7700K is almost always faster than a higher core count CPU that is many times more expensive. What is interesting with the new Intel "Coffee Lake" 8th Gen CPUs is that while we are getting an increase in core count, the operating frequencies have not been significantly reduced, In fact, most of the Turbo Boost 2.0 speeds are actually a bit higher! The end result should - hopefully - be a significant increase in After Effects performance but the only way to know for sure is to simply benchmark the new CPUs to find out.

While Intel is releasing a number of "Coffee Lake" 8th Generation CPUs, in this article we are primarily going to focus on the Core i7 8700K, Core i5 8600K, and Core i3 8350K to see how they perform in After Effects. If you wish to read one of our other articles looking at how these CPUs do in applications like Photoshop, Lightroom, and After Effects, you can view a full list here.

There are a wide variety of tasks we could test in After Effects, but in this article we will specifically be looking at RAM Preview, Final Render,and 3D Rendering performance. Since Adobe has been adding more and more support for GPU acceleration since AE 2015.3, we are going to be testing both standard projects as well as projects that make heavy use of accelerated effects including Lumetri Color, Sharpen, and Gaussian Blur. If you would like to skip over our test setup and analysis of the individual benchmarks, feel free to jump right to the conclusion section.

Test Setup

For After Effects, there is a pretty wide range of CPUs that can be great depending on what exactly you do. For general AE tasks, a lower core count CPU like the Core i7 7700K or the new Core i7 8700K should give you the best possible performance. Depending on how much you use the "Cinema 4D" 3D renderer, however, you might see massive performance increases with a CPU like the AMD Ryzen or Threadripper CPUs. The AMD Threadripper CPUs are also a good choice if you need a higher amount of system RAM for more complex projects, although the Intel Core i7/i9 X-series CPUs are even better as they allow up to 512GB of RAM on motherboards that support Registered memory.

Because of the wide range of useful CPUs, we actually opted to include every CPU that we felt might be a good choice for After Effects. This is more than we typically like to include in an article since it is getting into information overload, but in this case we feel it is important to look at the whole picture.

On thing we want to note is that we are technically overclocking the Ryzen platform by using DDR4-2666 memory since we are using four sticks of dual rank RAM. According to this blog post - which we have confirmation from AMD that it is still accurate even with the new AGESA BIOS - the highest RAM speed that is officially supported with our four sticks of dual rank RAM is just DDR4-1866. Our previous Ryzen testing was performed with DDR4-2400 RAM, but even then we received a lot of comments about how we were artificially limiting the performance of Ryzen even though we were actually overclocking the platform. Using DDR4-2666 RAM doesn't really change the results too much, however, so we opted to go ahead and use the faster RAM. We're sure some will say we should use even faster DDR4-3200 RAM, but there is a limit to what we are willing to use considering our testing is first and foremost to help ensure we are offering the right hardware to our customers. Since DDR4-3200 is well beyond what we consider to be acceptably stable for most end-users, it is extremely unlikely to be a part of our testing in the near future.

We also want to point out that while our test platforms are using a single hard drive, that is not actually what we would typically recommend to our customers. A two (or more) drive configuration - with the cache files on a secondary drive - can make a big impact when scrubbing through complex timelines. But since we will not be testing anything that would benefit from multiple drives in this article, we opted to use a single drive to cut down on the number of variables.

In order to accurately benchmark the different CPUs, we tested the performance when rendering and playing 2D animation projects as well as when working with 4K ProRes 4444 video files using a number of popular GPU accelerated effects. Lastly, we benchmarked the CPUs with Cinebench R15 which should be a great indicator of performance when using the "Cinema 4D" 3D renderer. This won't test everything you could possibly do in After Effects, but by testing a variety of projects from different sources we hope to find a number of trends that will help us decide what CPU is the best for AE.

The projects we used (along with their source) are:

Standard Projects Length Source
The People's Template
(1920x1080)
~12 seconds
(30 FPS - 383 frames)
BlueFX
Grunge Frames
(1920x1080)
~30 seconds
(24 FPS - 469 frames)
Free AE Templates
Fiber Particles
(960x360)
10 seconds
(24 FPS - 190 frames)
Video CoPilot
Simple Rings
(1920x1080)
~10 seconds
(24 FPS - 150 frames)
Free AE Templates
5K Subscribers
(1920x1080)
~11 seconds
(30 FPS - 307 frames)
FX Channel House
Heavy GPU Projects Length Source Tested Effects
4K ProRes 4444 ~16 seconds
(23.976 FPS - 394 frames)

Transcoded from:
EPIC DRAGON
4K HD (3840x2160)
REDCODE 11:1
R3D Sample Files

-Lumetri Color Correction

-Gaussian Blur

-Sharpen

RAM Preview

The first task in After Effects we want to look at is performance during RAM Preview. More than almost anything else, the faster you are able to play through your projects, the more productive you can be. Due to this, high performance for RAM Preview is one of the most important parts of an After Effects workstation.

After Effects Coffee Lake i7-8700K i5-8600K i3-8350K RAM Preview Benchmark

[+] Show Raw Results

Since we are comparing 12 different CPUs across 8 different projects, it would take us a long time to go through the results one by one. Because of this, we decided to compile all the results into an overall average for each CPU compared to the Intel Core i7 7700K. As the highest-end CPU from the previous 7th Gen CPU line, it should be a great comparison point to judge the new CPUs against. If you wish to examine the raw results yourself, you can do so by clicking on the "Show Raw Results" link under the chart.

Although the new Coffee Lake CPUs saw a significant increase in core counts, After Effects is only marginally effective at utilizing the additional cores. However, even without terrific core scaling the RAM Preview performance with the Core i7 8700K is still a very respectable 8.5% faster than the Core i7 7700K. In fact, even the Core i5 8600K ended up being faster than the Core i7 7700K which is a very nice surprise.

Final Render

After Effects Coffee Lake i7-8700K i5-8600K i3-8350K Final Render Benchmark

[+] Show Raw Results

Just like in the previous section, since we are comparing 12 different CPUs across a range of projects, we decided to compile all the results into an overall average for each CPU compared to the Intel Core i7 7700K. If you have the time and will, feel free to examine the raw results yourself by clicking on the "Show Raw Results" link below the chart.

Overall, the results here are pretty similar to the previous section although the Coffee Lake CPUs were actually a few percent faster relative to the Core i7 7700K.

Cinema 4D Rendering

After Effects Coffee Lake i7-8700K i5-8600K i3-8350K Cinema 4D Benchmark Results

When doing a 3D render with the Cinema 4D engine, the new Core i7 8700K is a huge 45% faster than the Core i7 7700K. This is an absolutely massive performance gain that will noticeably reduce the amount of time it takes to complete a render. Even with this improvement, however, if 3D rendering is something you do a lot of you may want to consider one of the higher core count CPUs from AMD or Intel. The question of exactly which one would be best we will leave for the next section as the performance in general AE tasks is something that also needs to be taken into account.

Conclusion

After Effects Coffee Lake i7-8700K i5-8600K i3-8350K Overall Benchmark Results

Averaging our results from both the RAM Preview and Final Render sections - but keeping the Cinema 4D rendering results separate - we get a clear look at how the new Core i7 8700K, Core i5 8600K, and Core i3 8350K perform in After Effects.

For general AE usage, these CPUs are terrific. The performance gains are not as large as we've seen in some other applications since AE isn't terribly effective at utilizing more than a handful of CPU cores, but the Core i7 8700K was a solid 9% faster than the Core i7 7700K. Even the Core i5 8600K did very respectably, coming in at 5% faster than the Core i7 7700K while also being $80 cheaper.

For 3D rendering, the new Core i3 and i5 CPUs are not that impressive but the Core i7 8700K did a fantastic job. This makes the Core i7 8700K a great CPU if you occasionally or rarely use the Cinema 4D renderer, although there are a number of other choices if you need even more 3D rendering performance. Our go-to recommendation for this type of workload is currently the AMD Threadripper 1920X or 1950X as you get terrific 3D rendering performance for your dollar with only a relatively modest drop in general AE performance.

Whether a Core i7 8700K, an AMD Threadripper CPU, or even an Intel X-series CPU is right for you is going to entirely depend on both your budget, where you need more performance, and how much system RAM you need. Overall, however, the Core i7 8700K in particular is an excellent CPU for After Effects.

Tags: After Effects, Coffee Lake, 8th Gen, i7 8700K, i5 8600K, i3 8350K
Jacob Pawloski

After seeing this I'm DYING to know how the 8700k does in premiere! After effects seems to rely heavily on single core speed. Thanks for the write up Matt Bach!! In depth and amazing as always.

Posted on 2017-10-06 02:44:33

I'm still finishing up the meat of the Premiere Pro article, but if you simply can't wait here is the summary chart: https://www.pugetsystems.co... - the full article should be up sometime around noon tomorrow. In short, these CPUs still trail behind many of the X-series CPUs, but for the price they do extremely good. I mean, what's not to like about a 36% increase in export performance compared to the i7 7700K?

Posted on 2017-10-06 05:16:31
Jacob Pawloski

You rock Matt!! I love seeing your in depth reviews of the Adobe products! I seriously read them like 5 times hahaha

Posted on 2017-10-06 06:29:42
Jakub Badełek

Thanks a lot! this actually clarifies all my doubts about what to buy next year. Now, we only need to wait for more reasonable prices of motherboards and RAM...

Posted on 2017-10-06 06:58:12
Ondrej Hanel

amd zen+ should come out feb2018 so you may be presented with nice options :)

Posted on 2017-10-06 10:42:31
Jakub Badełek

Maybe, but it's not here yet ;) when it's released CL will be on the market for several months, prices will get more stable, any bugs will be well known. Zen+ will be again something new and a little risky... we'll see. Maybe Adobe finally does something about using more than 4 cores in more applications and 8-core processors will get a boost?

Posted on 2017-10-06 10:55:16
Ondrej Hanel

actually zen was new and risky, zen+ should give us higher ipc, clocks and memory stability. Since youre planning on upgrading next year it may be relevant.

Posted on 2017-10-06 11:48:16
Ondrej Hanel

8700k seems like the best cpu for photoshop - ae combo while still delivering reasonably well in 3D tasks. I assume that in premiere we are gonna see mixed bag results due to different effects. If only the temps were lower :D but I read that undervolting cpu a bit migt help a lot with that.

Now lets see what amd comes out with in feb2018... exciting times! :)

Posted on 2017-10-06 10:44:41
Henry King

Great articles!
I don't think Puget does any overclocking but could you speak to the performance in Adobe PS/AE/PP of a decently overclocked Ryzen 7 CPU (3.8-3.9GHz) vs a decently clocked 8700k? (4.7-4.8GHz)
I'm trying to figure out which CPU to buy as I use my computer for a variety of tasks with adobe and light coding projects as I'm a computer science student...gaming isn't really important since I use a 1440p ultrawide monitor and not a 1080p display.
I figure it'll be fairly similar but I'd love to have the opinion of someone who's worked with both systems.

Thank you so much!

Posted on 2017-10-07 12:54:45
Spider

Wow Cinema 4D rendering results are great for AMD 1950x. Amd really made huge impact on cpu world. Even Intel scared a lot even thoght they tell like otherwise, lol. Already, Amd sales are more than Intel at Germany. It's impossible for Intel to not see that. I hoped Intel might stop producing new gens with only %10+ But still same. Prices are still same. My 3770K cpus is equal to i5 7600. There are 4 gens between them. I'll probably use Amd first time in my life.

Posted on 2017-10-08 07:15:58
neeks

Just wondering - How many cores are loaded in AE&Premiere? Can I
work on Ryzen 1700/1800 in Photoshop (during After Effects exporting)
without lagging? Or I need something like1920x?

Posted on 2017-10-08 18:54:28

That's really hard to say since it depends on what you are doing. Most things you would probably be fine, although the system will definitely feel much slower. One way you can get around this to make sure you have some CPU cores always free is to use Windows Affinity to manually assign which CPU cores AE is allowed to use. This is a pretty decent guide for how to do so: https://www.windowscentral.... .

Higher core counts will almost always get you better multitasking performance, although you do have to be a little careful since higher core counts also tends to mean lower operating frequency. A 1920X should be better than a Ryzen 1800X for what you are talking about in most situations, but it is also more expensive so it is really a cost/benefit question. Unfortunately, multi tasking isn't something we've added to our testing (there are a ton of variables in that kind of testing) so I can't say for sure what your exact experience would be like with either CPU.

Posted on 2017-10-09 18:10:11
neeks

very helpful link... thank you.

Posted on 2017-10-09 20:39:20
neeks

can I work in photoshop on 8700k system (during rendering) without lagging? Or I need more than 8 cores?

Posted on 2017-10-09 20:14:43
neeks

lol just noticed answer on my prev question:)

After your last tests I am thinking about 8700K for work in AE with 4K + drawing in photoshop while exporting. I have I5 3750 at present and i can't do more than 1 job.

That's an interesting question - how many cores of 1920x can be utilized during final render? How many calculating power can be available in different processors? It's very interesting to compare 1920x with 1700/1800 or Intel. I am not expert really and I am stuck with different options

Posted on 2017-10-09 20:29:15
Scott Duty

Matt, I'm primarily an After Effects user-and a light Premier Pro user. I was very close to pulling the trigger on a 7700k system when Coffee Lake was released last week. In your opinion, should I continue building a 7700k system or scrap that and build a 8700k system?

Posted on 2017-10-09 21:15:10

If it's possible to scrap the 7700K system without too much financial difficulty, I definitely would. If you haven't actually purchased anything, then absolutely you should! A 10% gain in AE is pretty good, but the fact that Premiere should see a 30+% performance bump in many things is a really big deal.

The motherboard and CPU are the only two things you really should need to change. RAM you could go from DDR4-2400 to DDR4-2666 (if you are sticking to officially supported RAM), but going up in RAM speed on Intel CPUs will only going to give a tiny difference in performance. CPU cooler, power supply, storage, etc. should all be just fine between the two platforms.

Posted on 2017-10-09 23:05:16
Scott Duty

Thanks Matt. Would you recommend the 8700 or 8700k? Is there a need to overclock?

Posted on 2017-10-11 03:23:03
Ondrej Hanel

Was the test done with stock 8700k or enhanced boost 8700k (so basically overclocked)? It seems many reviewers missed this feature of many z370 mobos and effectively reviewed overclocked 8700k state.

Differences between cinebench scores on "stock" is staggering.

https://www.youtube.com/wat...

Posted on 2017-10-12 08:24:26

We always run our CPUs at Intel's official specs. We actually have a post on the same subject as the video you linked at https://www.pugetsystems.co...

We've been aware and fighting against this kind of auto overclock for years, so it is great to see it getting attention on YouTube and other social media platforms.

Posted on 2017-10-12 15:47:24
Ondrej Hanel

thanks for the info :)

Posted on 2017-10-13 15:11:51
aaaariel

So just to be clear, the i7 8700k beats all of its higher-end competitors hands down (AE general use) using only 64gb while they're using 128gb??
(great article BTW 😁)

Posted on 2017-11-28 21:37:14

In terms of raw performance, yes the 8700K is by far the best CPU currently available regardless of price. Being limited to 64GB of RAM is a factor to consider, however. The thing with RAM usage in AE is that having more or less generally doesn't impact the kinds of things we test. What more RAM gets you is more frames that can be cached in RAM preview. Depending on your project, that could be the difference between haveing to re-render frames when scrubbing through your project versus having those frames already available in cache (assuming you have rendered that frame already of course).

So more RAM doesn't impact exporting, rendering, or live playback performance, but it can have a pretty dramatic impact on your workflow as a whole. How much completely depends on your project and whether it needs/wants more RAM or not.

Posted on 2017-11-28 22:06:39
aaaariel

Well first of all -Wow! pfff Wow. It just blows my mind when someone manages to explain something to me that my Adhd can actually understand : ) thanks Matt !
Whats the equivalent in the premiere tests (if any) where the i7 8700k doesn't out perform the others but stays just a little behind (seems like 0%-10% less than the i7 7820x/TR 1950x and about 0%-15% less than the i7 7900x in all tested sectors) are there any "hidden" factors one should consider ? I've been busting my brains trying to decide between the Tr 1950x and the i7 7820x to replace my good ol' i7 2700k machine, didn't even think of this guy as an option but and I feel it has become a table for three... My main usage is Premiere, editing 4K clips, some Photoshop and some AE (no 3d rendering/Vray/Cinema4d etc.). and in all of these aspects, especially Live Playback in premiere (which to me is THE most important factor) - this processor seems to fall in line with the bigger "higher end" products.

(Full disclosure, since I live outside the US I'm not actually a potential costumer but rather a very grateful bystander which believes this discussion can also benefit others) .
Again, many thanks

Posted on 2017-11-29 08:50:57

For Premiere, it is a bit more straight-forward than AE. Since Premiere doesn't have RAM Preview, you simply need to have enough RAM for the type of footage you are working with. With 4K footage, we usually recommend 64GB of RAM which is the max the Core i7 8700K can use. However, that is just for Premiere Pro. If you also have AE running (or Photoshop or just a ton of Chrome tabs open), you may find that you need more RAM than that to get optimal performance. With something like the i7 7820X/TR 1950X you could either jump right up to 128GB of RAM or start with 64GB at first, watch your RAM usage for a few weeks, then decide on whether you should upgrade to 128GB of RAM or not.

Between the i7 7820X and TR 1950X, if you aren't doing any 3D rendering I would stick with Intel over AMD. 3D rendering is really the only time TR would really be faster so if you aren't doing that then you will get better overall performance for your dollar with Intel. Especially for live playback performance, the i7 7820X will be better than the TR 1950X (check out this article if you haven't already: https://www.pugetsystems.co... ). The 7820X is also quite a bit cheaper than the TR 1950X which leaves you more budget for RAM or more/faster storage.

No worries about not being a potential customer! Like you said, this kind of discussion is very beneficial to other readers who may find themselves reading this article so we're happy to answer questions like this.

Posted on 2017-11-29 18:31:36
Peter Derek

Matt, thanks for doing all the heavy lifting on this report. My BIGGEST pain point in AE is RAM Preview as I am building complex projects with video, music and sound effects -- even with 32GB memory and all cache on a separate, dedicated SSD. (Final render not as much pain, as that's an excuse for a coffee break.) My CPU, an i7-3770K is long overdue for upgrade. So I was thinking go to the top at a good price point, and switch to either the 8-core Ryzen 1800x or the 16-core Threadripper 1950x, starting with 32GB DDR4 3600 with the option to go to 64GB or 128GB (depending on R7 or TR selection). Now it sounds like the optimal solution for performance and price is the 8700. All those cores and threads in an AMD build would be wasted. Once clear exception, 3D. I get it, Threadripper commands 3D. But for now I am 2D-focused. Also, my GPU, a GTX 970, also is not current.

So do you think my RAM Preview angst would be mitigated from an 8700 build, 32GB memory (to start), dedicated SSD for cache? Would I see a real-world speed improvement over what I experience now, painfully slow or start-stop-catch up RAM previews? I know they are adding GPU acceleration with certain effects, but would spending the green on a 1080ti also help in the RAM Preview department?

The bottom line: instead of spending mega dollars on a Threadripper build without a GPU upgrade, I could put those same dollars that would have been spent on the higher cost 1950x plus pricey TS4 motherboard into an i8700 plus a new 1080ti GPU. So even stuffing a 1950x build with 128GB of RAM -- you'd still opt for the Intel 8700?

Posted on 2017-11-30 18:26:27

The 8700K will definitely give you the best performance for what you are doing, and with the cost savings you can invest in a M.2 NVME drive for your cache (like the Samsung 960 Pro). If won't let you play through RAM Previews any faster, but the faster write speed does allow AE to write the RAM Preview to your disk cache faster. What that does is free up your normal RAM faster (since those frames are now cached on the drive) and allows you to close AE quicker without losing cached frames (since any frames that are just cached in RAM get lost when you close AE). See this article if you haven't already: https://www.pugetsystems.co...

For GPU, I wouldn't go overboard with it. We haven't done a full articles worth of testing for a bit, but everything I've seen indicates that you won't get much faster performance above a GTX 1070 or so. This should change over time, but even compared to your current GTX 970 I don't think you'll see more than a few percent performance difference even if all you use are GPU accelerated effects. The CPU is simply still too much of a bottleneck until Adobe gets even more things accelerated.

I would go one of two ways:

A Core i7 8700K with 64GB of RAM - very cost effective which lets you get more/faster storage or a higher-end GPU. GPU is more for future proofing, however, so I would lean towards a GTX 1070/1080 and get better storage first.

A Core i7 7820X with 128GB of RAM - Higher RAM capacity which will help if your RAM Preview needs more space. However, the CPU/motherboard is more expensive and rendering those frames in the first place can be up to 20% slower than with a Core i7 7820X. Threadripper I just don't think is quite right unless you are doing a lot of CPU-based 3D rendering.

Personally, with what you have described about your workflow, I would go with the i7 8700K system. 6 cores sounds less impressive on paper but it should give you the best overall performance. Slap a nice heatsink on there (we like Noctua) and use quiet chassis fans and you will have a quiet, fast system that has plenty of budget left over for quality of life additions.

Posted on 2017-11-30 18:46:19
Peter Derek

Thanks Matt! Great feedback on where I need to focus resources. I actually had been looking at the 7820X after reading other reports on this site. I already picked up 32GB (4x8GB) of quad memory on a Black Friday sale in anticipation of a Threadripper build. So for an 8700K, that's a costly new memory purchase to get to 64GB. With the 7820X and 8 memory slots, I would have room to add more RAM. I was planning to get an M.2 drive and use that as a boot drive, with a 1TB SSD dedicated to AE cache. Sounds like you would favor M.2 for cache, regular SSD as boot, as the performance sweet spot.

Additional cost of 7820X aside, which Intel CPU would solve my RAM Preview pain better, assuming optimized cache with an M.2? I thought the 8700 was king for After Effects.

Posted on 2017-11-30 19:35:47

8700K is king for performance, but the 7820X is the best f you need more than 4 sticks of RAM. As far as how to arrange your drives, that's a hard one. Using the M.2 drive as your primary will allow Windows/applications to launcha bit faster. although not as much as you would expect since you will likely be CPU limited most of the time. Personally, I think I would go with the M.2 drive as the cache drive since RAM Preview is such a big concern for you. Hard choice though - you could easily argue either way and be correct.

Posted on 2017-11-30 19:46:38
Peter Derek

If the 8700K trumps the 7820X in terms of AE preview/render performance, then perhaps the solution is two M.2 drives, one for boot, the other cache. When memory prices drop, upgrade the 32GB for 64GB. And with the 7820X as a consideration, I checked your research and looks like the lower cost AMD 1800X still not a contender.

Posted on 2017-11-30 19:53:43
Josh Silver

Matt, what about the 8700 as a somewhat lower cost alternative to the 8700K? Have you tested it? For users who don't plan to overclock, the specs of the two processors are very similar.

Posted on 2018-01-05 21:16:14

The max Turbo Boost frequency is only .1GHz lower, so for most things in AE it should be pretty similar in terms of performance. Rendering with the C4D engine is likely going to be a good amount slower due to the lower base clock (which in turn means a lower all core Turbo) but if you don't use that then you probably wouldn't notice much of a difference between the two CPUs in AE.

Posted on 2018-01-05 21:54:39
Josh Silver

Thanks Matt. I actually meant to post this in your Lightroom article. Any guesses on performance difference in LR classic? Sorry for the confusion.

Posted on 2018-01-05 22:30:03

I actually got digging into our benchmark logs from systems that went through our production department right after I wrote my reply, and it actually looks like the difference in real-world performance between the 8700 and 8700K is actually very minor. Like 2% minor. So I don't think you would notice very much of a difference between those two CPUs in Lightroom (or AE for that matter). I was actually a bit surprised at how similar they are in benchmarks - I'm definitely going to have to include both the 8700 and 8700K in my next round of testing to see if there really is no difference or if there is something I'm missing.

Posted on 2018-01-05 22:41:27
Josh Silver

That's very helpful info Matt, thank you. I'm shopping for a future proof photography system and researching diligently. I would have happily bought one of your systems but unfortunately I'm in Canada. The work you do is much appreciated!

Posted on 2018-01-06 00:44:26
Andy Xie

It'll be cool to revist Adobe AE 2014 CC with these modern processors and see how much faster with the render simulateous frames option enabled. I feel like the performance of the 2018 versoin will be similar to the 2017..

Posted on 2018-01-30 05:01:35
James

Have you guys checked out RenderGarden? It enables multi core rendering in after effects. I'd love to know how it performs on some of the higher core count i7/i9s, and whether it has the potential to change any of your recommendations!

Posted on 2018-03-08 01:31:59
Bartek

Is it possible that my overcloked 2700k@4.6Ghz is slower than i3 8350k@4Ghz?
I did a quick benchmark using "The People’s Template" and it rendered in 736 sec. while in your test i3 rendered in 390 sec.

Posted on 2018-03-13 22:01:32
Nico (Memories By Nico)

Hey, Ive got an 8700 rig with a d15.
While rendering videos I get 68-72 degrees and the fans ramp up alot due to my agressive fan profile, Is this normal?
I dont see any temp analysis for the 8700 or 8700k here so maybe you could shed light.

Posted on 2018-04-29 12:50:08

That is completely fine temperatures. We generally tune our fan profiles so the CPU hits around 80-85C under maximum load. That is a higher load than what AE can produce, however, so in AE anything around 70-75C I would call acceptable. Honestly, you will get full Turbo performance all the way up to 99-100C so anything below that is simply being done to lengthen the longevity of the system.

Posted on 2018-04-30 17:32:05
israel

awesome article ,

is there something better then the 8700k???
something like the i9 7940X but that doesn't downgrade (compare to the 8700k) for AE

Posted on 2018-05-08 02:30:01

This article is the most up to date with the best selection of CPUs for AE: https://www.pugetsystems.co.... Pretty much though, for most things in AE the 8700K is simply the best. If you use the C4D renderer a lot, the higher core count i9 CPU can give pretty good performance gains, but that is really the only time they make sense for AE alone.

Posted on 2018-05-08 02:34:35
Kevin Han

Wouldn't a Intel® Core™ i7-8086K Processor be better since it can be OC'd to 5.0GHZ?

Posted on 2018-09-25 07:10:47

If you are going to overclock, then the 8086K should end up giving you a bit more than the 8700K. At stock however, we found that those two CPUs really perform exactly the same since they run at the same frequency once more than a single core is being used. The big thing with the 8086K is that it is supposedly binned better so you are getting higher quality silicon. That is what lets you (usually) get a higher overclock out of those chips.

Posted on 2018-09-25 16:35:55