Puget Systems print logo
Read this article at https://www.pugetsystems.com/guides/1348
Article Thumbnail

After Effects CC 2019: Intel Core i9 9990XE Performance

Written on February 8, 2019 by Matt Bach


The Intel Core i9 9990XE 14-core CPU is a special, OEM-only, no warranty processor that only select system manufacturers like Puget Systems has access to via a once-per-quarter auction. While that means that availability and pricing may end up being highly fluid, the capabilities of this processor should (on paper at least) be second to none. This is not a product for the masses, but rather a niche offering for those looking to get the absolute best of the best Intel processor.

While specs alone are not a perfect representation of performance (especially across different product families), there are a few interesting things to point out about this CPU before getting into our After Effects testing. First, it has a max Turbo Boost frequency of 5.1 GHz which means that it should perform much better than any other Intel X-series CPU in lightly threaded applications. At the same time, even if you are using all the cores, the Turbo Boost frequency only drops to 5.0 GHz which theoretically puts it at about the same performance as the Intel Core i9 9980XE in highly parallel applications. These two things working together are especially important for After Effects since much of the application is single threaded, but there are some features (like the C4D 3D Renderer) that can make more effective use of higher core counts.

On paper, this makes the i9 9990XE a bit of a golden CPU that should match or beat any other Intel consumer or enthusiast processor regardless of the application. In fact, it should be especially good in applications like After Effects that contain a mix of lightly and heavily threaded tasks. In order to achieve this level of performance, however, this CPU draws about 50% more power than any other X-series CPU. While this obviously means that you need a beefy CPU cooling setup, you also need to have a motherboard and power supply that can provide said power.

  Core i9 9990XE Core i9 9980XE Core i9 9940X Core i9 9900K
# of Cores 14 18 14 8
Base clock 4.0 GHz 3.3 GHz 3.0 GHz 3.6 GHz
Max Turbo Boost 5.1 GHz 4.5 GHz 4.5 GHz 5.0 GHz
All-Core Turbo Boost 5.0 GHz 4.1 GHz 3.8 GHz 4.7 GHz
TDP 255 W 165 W 165 W 95 W
MSRP Auction $1,999 $1,399 $499

In this article, we are going to take a look at how the Intel Core i9 9990XE performs in After Effects compared to the other Intel X-series CPUs as well as the Intel Core i9 9900K which is currently the king of single-threaded performance. We also have a number of other articles available looking at the performance of the i9 9990XE in a range of other applications that you can view by filtering our recent articles to just show the ones about Processors.

If you would like to skip over our test setup and benchmark result/analysis sections, feel free to jump right to the Conclusion section.

Test Setup & Methodology

Listed below are the systems we will be using in our After Effects CC 2019 testing:

For the testing itself, we will be using After Effects CC 2019 (ver. 16.0.1) along with version 18.12.18 of our Puget Systems After Effects CC Benchmark which is currently available for public download. This benchmark tests RAM Preview, Rendering, and Tracking in a wide range of compositions. Full details on the benchmark are available on the benchmark download page.

Benchmark Results

While our benchmark presents various scores based on the performance of each type of task, we also wanted to provide the individual results in case there is a specific task someone may be interested in. Feel free to skip to the next section for our analysis of these results.

Benchmark Analysis

After Effects CC 2019 Core i9 9990XE Benchmark Performance

Our After Effects benchmark (which is available for public download) tests a range of compositions looking at performance for RAM Preview, Final Render, and Tracking. These results all combine into a single "Overall Score" that represents the overall performance of the system in After Effects.

If we sort by the overall score, you can see that the Intel Core i9 9990XE's out-performs every other CPU we tested, coming in at about 5% faster than the Intel Core i9 9900K or about 12% faster than any of the standard Intel X-series CPUs. However, what is really impressive is the fact that it is very consistently the fastest CPU for After Effects.

The reason why this is unusual is due to the fact that After Effects contains a mix of lightly threaded and highly threaded features. On the one hand, the vast majority of Ae can only utilize a handful of CPU cores which makes a processor with high single-threaded performance (like the Intel Core i9 9900K) the best choice. On the other hand, if you use the Cinema 4D rendering engine, a CPU with a higher number of CPU cores can give you a small, but sometimes very important, bump in performance.

Since the Core i9 9990XE has terrific single-threaded performance that is on par with the Core i9 9900K and terrific multi-threaded performance that is on par with the Core i9 9980XE, that makes it the best performing CPU currently available for After Effects regardless of what you are doing.

Is the Intel Core i9 9990XE good for After Effects CC 2019?

In terms of raw performance, the Intel Core i9 9990XE is definitely the fastest processor currently available for After Effects CC 2019. If you only care about certain aspects of After Effects, you can get similar performance out of other processors, but no other processor should be able to give you the kind of consistently high performance as the Core i9 9990XE.

If you don't use the C4D renderer that much, you might find it a bit hard to justify this CPU over the much more affordable Core i9 9900K. For most tasks in Ae, the i9 9990XE is only about 3% faster than the i9 9900K which really isn't all that much. However, one thing to keep in mind is that the i9 9990XE allows for 128GB of system RAM which can be extremely useful for RAM Preview. The more RAM you have, the more frames that can be stored in RAM Preview, which limits the number of frames Ae has to re-render over and over again. There are new 32GB RAM modules coming that are should allow for 128GB of system RAM even with the Core i9 9900K, but general availability for those sticks is still unknown at this time.

Another thing to keep in mind is that while the i9 9900K is an excellent CPU (and one of my personal favorites at the moment), it can fall behind the X-series processors in software that can effectively utilize higher core counts. If you are one of the people who regular uses not only After Effects, but applications like Premiere Pro as well, the i9 9990XE should be able to give you top performance no matter what application you are using.

With the very limited availability and power/cooling requirements of this CPU, there is no question that the i9 9990XE is a very niche product. The fact that only select OEMs can even get their hands on it should be an obvious indication that Intel doesn't intend for this processor to be used by mainstream users. This is intended for those that want the best of the best processor, no matter the hurdles they have to jump through in order to get it. And the fact is, this really is one of the highest performing all-around processors available right now.

While we only tested After Effects in this article, we highly recommend checking out our recent processor articles where we look at (or will be looking at) the performance of the i9 9990XE in Premiere Pro, Lightroom Classic, and Photoshop as well as a number of other applications.

After Effects Workstations

Puget Systems offers a range of poweful and reliable systems that are tailor-made for your unique workflow.

Configure a System!

Labs Consultation Service

Our Labs team is available to provide in-depth hardware recommendations based on your workflow.

Find Out More!
Tags: After Effects, Intel 9th Gen, Intel X-series, 9990XE, 9900K, 9980XE, 9960X, 9940X, 9920X, 9900X, 9980X, 9800X

Wow, this CPU seem amazing and a perfect fit for me at least, for CPU 3d rendering and AE. But the biggest drawback, which will make most users stay away (me included), I think, is the extreme power usage! Once Intel manage to make 7nm chips I would expect the power usage to drop significantly - and would make such a CPU a lot more tempting. It feels like Intel has pushed a product their own technology isn't ready for yet, but a nice taste of what we can expect in the near future.

Posted on 2019-02-09 00:11:26

Adobe is so behind in multi cores processing. For AE just take a good 4 cores and thats it.
Unbelivable it is still the most popular software... but yeah, we dont have any other practical option.
I know about the mini farm plugin but more important than rendering is the ram preview during work.

For your intention, dear AE team.

Posted on 2019-02-10 13:41:41

I really don't feel that Adobe is behind to be honest. Could AE be more efficient? Of course it could, just like every other piece of software out there. Right now, they are in the middle of transitioning more and more things to run on the GPU. That is not an essay process, but in the long term, I think it will end up being the correct decision.

Just as a comparison, Blackmagic Fusion is another motion graphics/VFX package, and it uses hardware in almost an identical way to After Effects (you can check out our recent DaVinci Resolve benchmarks to see it). Some things simply cannot be run on more than one or two CPU cores, and the things that can are typically better to be offloaded into the GPU instead.

Posted on 2019-02-10 15:26:57

AE had multi processing in the past (cc14) and im sure they have good reasonsto develop the software as they are... but really,it feels like this program dont catch up with the tech imporovements.
For example, Im not an expert but I dont understand why each frame can not be rendered in different core like it use to be. And about the GPU - yeah but still....develop is so slow and dont get anything of that yet.
Anyway - you know something is really off if a 3d programs like cinema4d and octane is almost faster. I have a lot of great things to say about AE but man.. single core is not good (: and its defennetly not the future.
And BTW - there is a pluging that use multicores for render AE so its possible.

Posted on 2019-02-10 16:51:52

Beyond very efficient takes like ray tracing and some scientific workloads, it really is industry wide that CPU core counts is outstripping software capabilities right now. To be honest, Intel/AMD seem to be adding more cores to their CPUs simply because that is the only major way they can add performance and drive sales. The issue is that anything that can use those cores really should be even better if it was on the GPU. There are some exceptions, of course, but that is one of the reason that most rending engines (octane, vray, etc.) are either using the GPU exclusively, or starting to transition from CPU rendering to GPU rendering.

The render multiple frames simultaneously feature in After Effects apparently had a lot more problems than people realize, and didn't play nicely with GPU acceleration. So my understanding is that they had to make the choice of sticking with that method (which already had issues) or planning for the future and moving to GPU acceleration. Like I said earlier, I think that is the right move but does make things awkward as they make that transition.

As for C4D, the modeling and animation in it is actually single threaded as well. The ray traced rendering is multi-core and very efficient, however. Interestingly enough, that is integrated into AE now, so you have pretty much the same functionality I either C4D or Ae. The thing people don't realize is that benchmarks like Cinebench only tests render time of a single frame. Adding all the calculations for rotation, movement, effects, etc. completely changes real world performance. Some things will be faster if you stick with C4D completely, but other things will be easier in Ae.

Also, Octane render is a GPU-based rendering engine. It doesnt use the CPU really at all for rendering.

Posted on 2019-02-10 17:04:59

Thank you Matt for your response, it really something that I wish I could understand better. I agree with you in most things - I know how things work in GPU and CPU but wont you agree that if they would have more compatition things have looks different?


Posted on 2019-02-10 17:37:31

Does ram speed has significant effect on ram previewing and rendering in After effects?

Posted on 2019-06-14 15:41:22

That is actually something we are going to be re-testing here in the next few months. Based on the testing we did a few years back and the general testing others have done on the topic, it likely depends on the CPU you are using. Intel generally doesn't care about RAM speed much, so you will only see a very minor difference. AMD, on the other hand, may get around 10% higher performance (guessing a bit here) with higher speed RAM.

Something to keep in mind is that using RAM above what the CPU officially supports can definitely lead to stability issues. It isn't a guaranteed source of problems, of course, but one of the most common reasons I see why people have system instability is due to using higher frequency RAM. Might be worth the risk with an AMD CPU, but I definitely would stick with the officially support RAM speed for Intel.

Posted on 2019-06-14 17:04:10