Puget Systems print logo

https://www.pugetsystems.com

Read this article at https://www.pugetsystems.com/guides/1254
Article Thumbnail

Premiere Pro CC 2018: Core i7 9700K & i9 9900K Performance

Written on October 19, 2018 by Matt Bach
Share:

Introduction

Typically, for a professional Premiere Pro workstation we tend to recommend either Intel's X-series or AMD's Threadripper CPUs due to their higher performance. However, Intel's new i7 9700K and i9 9900K feature a number of improvements including an increase to 8 cores that may make them excellent for Premiere Pro. It is unlikely that these new 9th Gen CPUs will be able to keep up with the highest-end processors from Intel and AMD, but for those on a bit more of a budget there is a chance that the i7 9700K and i9 9900K will be a great choice.

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 testing:

While benchmarking the i7 9700K and i9 9900K against the i7 8700K is likely the most direct comparison we could make, we also wanted to see how these new CPUs stack up against a number of other processors. AMD vs Intel is always a popular discussion, so we included the Ryzen 7 2700X - which tends to be cheaper than either of these new CPUs - as well as the Threadripper 1920X which is similar in price to the i9 9900K. To get an idea of whether or not purchasing a more expensive Intel CPU would give you a notable increase in performance, we also include the i7 7820X and the i9 7900X.

To thoroughly benchmark each processor, we used a range of codecs across 4K, 6K, and 8K resolutions:

Codec Resolution FPS Bitrate Clip Name Source
H.264 3840x2160 29.97 FPS 80 Mbps Transcoded from RED 4K clip
H.264 LongGOP 3840x2160 29.97 FPS 150 Mbps Provided by Neil Purcell - www.neilpurcell.com
DNxHR HQ 8-bit 3840x2160 29.97 FPS 870 Mbps Transcoded from RED 4K clip
ProRes 422 HQ 3840x2160 29.97 FPS 900 Mbps Transcoded from RED 4K clip
ProRes 4444 3840x2160 29.97 FPS 1,200 Mbps Transcoded from RED 4K clip
XAVC S 3840x2160 29.97 FPS 90 Mbps Provided by Samuel Neff - www.neffvisuals.com
RED (7:1) 4096x2304 29.97 FPS 300 Mbps A004_C186_011278_001 RED Sample R3D Files
CinemaDNG 4608x2592 24 FPS 1,900 Mbps Interior Office Blackmagic Design
[Direct Download]
RED (7:1) 6144x3077 23.976 FPS 840 Mbps S005_L001_0220LI_001 RED Sample R3D Files
RED (9:1) 8192x4320 25 FPS 1,000 Mbps B001_C096_0902AP_001 RED Sample R3D Files

Rather than just timing a simple export and calling it a day, we decided to create six different timelines for each codec that represent a variety of different type of workloads. For each of these timelines we tested both Live Playback performance in the program monitor as well as exporting via AME with the "H.264 - High Quality 2160p 4K" and "DNxHR HQ UHD" (matching media FPS) presets.

Lumetri Color

Heavy Transitions

Heavy Effects

4 Track Picture in Picture

4 Track MultiCam

4 Track Heavy Trimming

Live Playback - Raw Benchmark Results

[Click Here] to skip ahead to analysis section

Live Playback - Benchmark Analysis

The "Live Playback Score" shown in the chart above is a representation of the average performance we saw with each processor for this test. In essence, a score of "80" would mean that on average that CPU was able to play our timelines at 80% of the tested media's FPS. A perfect score would be "100" which would mean that the system did not drop any frames even with the most difficult codecs and timelines.

Starting with the i7 9700K, we saw a small ~4% increase in performance over the i7 8700K across all our live playback tests. Surprisingly, the Ryzen 7 2700X is actually faster than the 9700K which isn't what we expected given that Intel is typically faster at the same core count.

The Core i9 9900K did very well, averaging about 13% higher FPS than the i7 8700K. It is worth noting, however, that the performance difference was closer to 40% when using 6K/8K RED footage. This is enough of a performance gain that the i9 9900K is actually able to slightly outperform the much more expensive Core i9 7900X.

AME Export - Raw Benchmark Results

[Click Here] to skip ahead to analysis section

AME Export - Benchmark Analysis

Exporting through Adobe Media Encoder gives us a bit larger of a performance difference between the CPUs we tested compared to the Live Playback tests, although the "rank" of each processor stayed the same.

This time, the i7 9700K was about 8% faster than the i7 8700K, but again the Ryzen 7 2700X was a touch faster than even the 9700K. The i9 9900K was terrific, coming in at 25% faster than the i7 8700K. Once again, this makes it the fastest CPU we tested in this article, beating out even the Intel Core i9 7900X.

Are the 9th Gen Intel Core Processors good for Premiere Pro?

These i7 9700K and i9 9900K CPUs are not the absolute best you can get for Premiere Pro - that crown belongs to the high-end Intel X-series and AMD Threadripper CPUs - but the i9 9900K especially is excellent for its price. Not only is it about 21% faster than the i7 8700K, it should actually outperform even the more expensive Core i9 7900X.

9th Gen Intel Core i7 9700K & i9 9900K Premiere Pro Benchmark
Overall, the new 9th Gen CPUs are a bit of a mix for Premiere Pro users. The i7 9700K is certainly not bad, but the Ryzen 7 2700X is a hair faster while being slightly cheaper. The i9 9900K, however, is terrific for Premiere Pro as it is roughly in line with the much more expensive Core i9 7900X. However, it is worth noting that these 9th Gen Intel CPUs maintain the existing 64GB RAM limitation of the Z370/Z390 platform which means that if you work with 6K/8K footage or even complex 4K timelines, you may find that you need to use an Intel X-series or AMD Threadripper CPU so you can get more system RAM. It has been reported by Anandtech that the i9 9900K may support 128GB of RAM in the future, but we will have to see if it ends up being stable or if the 32GB RAM modules will be at all cost effective.

Core i7 9700K vs Core i7 8700K for Premiere Pro

In most cases, the i7 9700K should be about 5% faster than the i7 8700K. The AMD Ryzen 7 2700X is actually a better value for Premiere Pro at this price point, but keep in mind that the i7 9700K is significantly faster than the 2700X in related applications like After Effects and Photoshop.

Core i9 9900K vs Core i7 8700K for Premiere Pro

The Core i9 9900K is about 20% more expensive than the i7 8700K, but in exchange for the higher price you can expect a 21% increase in performance. This results in better performance than even the Core i9 7900X which makes it a terrific value for Premiere Pro.

If you are interested in how the 9th Gen Intel Core Processors perform in other applications, be sure to check out our recent Processor articles as we have a number of other articles for looking at the i7 9700K and i9 9900K.

Tags: Premiere Pro, 9700K, 9900K, 8700K, 7820X, 7900X, 2700X, 1920X
Turing

Thanks Matt.

Premiere Pro sure likes the 9900K.

Can't wait to see if there's any performance Improvements in Premiere Pro 13.0 next week.

Also the 9th gen CPUs actually can support 128GB of DDR4 RAM with a UEFI BIOS update soon. Statement from Intel below.

https://www.anandtech.com/s...

"The new 9th Gen Intel Core processors memory controller
is capable of supporting DDR4 16Gb die density DIMMs which will allow
the processors to support a total system memory capacity of up to 128GB
when populating both motherboard memory channels with 2 DIMMs per
Channel (2DPC) using these DIMMs. As DDR4 16Gb die density DIMMs have
only recently become available, we are now validating them, targeting an
update in a few months’ time."

Posted on 2018-10-19 13:44:27

Yea, I saw that the other day, but didn't get a chance to update these articles. Honestly, I'm not really sure how feasible 128GB of RAM will be on this platform since it is sure to be extremely expensive. In applications like Premiere Pro, you will be better off getting something like a i9-7940X and getting 128GB of RAM with the current 16GB modules. I imagine it will be both cheaper and faster. For apps like After Effects, however, we'll have to see how the new X-series CPUs that are coming out perform - if they can match the i9 9900K in those workloads, then again going with an X-series will be all around better. If they can't, then there is definitely a use case for 128GB of RAM on Z390.

Posted on 2018-10-19 14:58:10
HAS-Tecno

Hello, excellent article just a little clarification. The 9900 thousand support up to 128 GB of memory with the new memories of 32 GB per module with the new Z390, although it is true that they only support 64 GB on the Z370 platform.

Posted on 2018-10-19 13:49:49
Salih Basoglu

all test are without intel quick sync acceleration. premiere pro cc2018 has now support h.264 and h.265 acceleration with twice the performance in render times. what the intel x series not have.

Posted on 2018-10-19 14:07:22
HAS-Tecno

I know, I have friends who are professionally engaged in the edition of video advertising and events (weddings, birthdays and other events). They usually do not use hardware acceleration for the loss of quality (I think they are too perfectionist but it is their job). I think that option is better for content creators like youtubers where quality is not the most important thing since uploading to YouTube and its processing always loses quality so you would be in it, so it's good to take advantage of hardware acceleration of the igpu. But that depends mainly on which public is destined in the case of this site goes more for professionals than youtubers.

Posted on 2018-10-19 14:39:11

Yep, you are exactly right. We even have a post up about it: https://www.pugetsystems.co... . Basically, in many ways I would consider hardware accelerated H.264 to really be a different codec entirely from software H.264 - at least on the encoding side. It really isn't a 1:1 comparison between the two on quality, and I know of a bunch of issues with bitrate inconsistencies.

However, for people that are fine with the lower quality it is great, but I personally would only use that for things like client review rather than a final export. Even exporting out to Youtube I would use software mode, however. Youtube is going to compress it, but better to give it the best starting point so that the final product (should) end up being the best it can be.

Posted on 2018-10-19 15:10:30
Salih Basoglu

And for live playback the igpu has big diffence with playback multicam. without igpu i can't edit. I have an older system now. 4790K gtx 970.
Am looking for a new system. and i do Wedding videography. is intel x a beter option then the 9900k. if price is not an issue??

Posted on 2018-10-19 15:18:14

On lower-end machines the iGPU acceleration is great, but from what I've seen a higher-end X-series is still going to be a bit faster in the end. You need to get up to at least the i9 7940X for it to be faster than the i9 9900K, however, so it is a pretty big jump in price.

Posted on 2018-10-19 15:29:55

Yep, I just heard about that as well and added a note in the article. We'll have to see if using those RAM modules makes any sense, however. In applications like Premiere Pro, you likely will be better off getting something like a i9-7940X and getting 128GB of RAM with the current 16GB modules. I imagine it will be both cheaper and faster. For apps like After Effects, however, we'll have to see how the new X-series CPUs that are coming out perform - if they can match the i9 9900K in those workloads, then again going with an X-series will be all around better. If they can't, then there is definitely a use case for 128GB of RAM on Z390.

Posted on 2018-10-19 15:04:01
DVDZeno

Amazing reviews on this website, really enjoy the truly complete testing you all do here. I am kind of sad to see that the Threadripper 2950X was not included in any of the tests, but I do realize and appreciate it's 2x the price of the i9-9900K CPU chip. That said, - I'm upgrading my system, and won't be change it for a good 3 to 4 years I'm guessing, with this in mind - I thinking of taking the plunge and changing over to AMD for the first time in my life and trying the Threadripper 2950X. It's way more expensive, but seeing that the Ryzen 2700 does do better in some tests, then I can safely assume that the Threadripper 2950X would go much better ( ? ) I'm looking for faster timeline renders and timeline exports. That's the only thing I'm interested in, I don't do any gaming at all. Would love to hear people's input on this. Thank you very much for this really nice "forum"

Posted on 2018-10-19 17:42:24

Yea, we kept the higher-end CPUs out simply to keep the data from being overwhelming. You can compare the results to our Threadripper article we published last month though: https://www.pugetsystems.co... . The scores are a bit different since we added H.264 LongGOP and XAVC S codecs this time around, but they are close enough that you can get an idea of how they would compare. Or use a CPU like the i9 7900X that we used in both articles as a reference point. I would guess the 2950X is about 10-15% faster than the i9 9900K for exporting/rendering, but the i9 9900K will be the same or faster for live playback.

The 2950X is a solid CPU for Premiere Pro so I don't think you'll regret using it at all - again, I would check out that other article I linked. AMD in general is bad for many other Adobe apps like After Effects and Photoshop, but if Premiere Pro is your primary concern then it is excellent.

Posted on 2018-10-19 17:52:39
DVDZeno

Hi Matt, ohh, I'm glad you ended off with that info about After Effects and Photoshop. I am a heavy user of Photoshop, but not so much After Effects but I am slowly starting to immerse myself into AE too. I will go and check your other article you gave me a link to. Just reading what you wrote here, I am already starting to question my AMD purchase to be honest. Faster is what everyone wants, but compatibility does beat out a bit more speed for me, and - let us not forget the 2950X is 2x the price. I'll go check out that article now, and thank you for your time Matt ! - I'm so glad I asked !

Posted on 2018-10-19 18:00:16

Photoshop isn't too bad of a performance drop if you don't do anything too difficult, but for AE Threadripper definitely falls behind. In both those applications, the i9 9900K is either the fastest or close to the fastest we've ever tested. Here are pretty much all the other articles I would at least glance at:

Photoshop:
Threadripper - https://www.pugetsystems.co...
i9 9900K - https://www.pugetsystems.co...
After Effects:
Threadripper - https://www.pugetsystems.co...
i9 9900K - https://www.pugetsystems.co...

It is definitely difficult to weigh the different options against all the software packages you use since you have to decide which is the most important while also keeping things like RAM capacity and noise level in mind. Honestly, that's one of the reasons why we never worry about our competitors using our articles - they may get the raw data, but they'll never be able to compare to our consultants who have an in-depth understanding of all this information and how it relates to people in the real world.

Posted on 2018-10-19 18:07:16
DVDZeno

Hi Matt, oh thank you for the extra article links. My son is actually the one that got me started here. He's a computer geek, and said "dad haven't you ever heard of Puget Systems ? " ... yes - that's a true story. He said that's the place to go for real info for Premiere Pro. So glad I was talking to him that day about this stuff. Matt - I do have a good question.... does the speed of new DDR4 RAM have much of an impact on your testing ? or a system in general ? When you go with a new chip like this i9-9900K, you'll need a new motherboard, and of course now you have the dilemma of what speed of RAM to go with. My son said, go midpoint... and that RAM rated at 3200 MHz, 2400 MHz, all the way up to 4000 MHz ( at very high prices for that higher speed RAM ) ... so what do you suggest ? and does this greatly change results you would get in Premiere Pro ? My son says you won't see a drastic change in speeds, so no need to buy the fastest RAM, do you agree ? is middle of the line a way to go ? or do you suggest buying a bit more faster ? - for example, he suggested I go with 2400 MHz, but for a few $ more, you can get 3200 MHz. It's rather confusing. I believe I've asked a good question, that others may benefit from, but maybe it really doesn't matter. I'll leave this in your hands for your opinion. Again amazing place for info, so thank you for making all this information available to the public.

Posted on 2018-10-19 18:21:38

We typically stick with DDR4-2666 RAM - that is what most modern CPUs are rated for (although with AMD it depends on how many sticks you use and whether it is single or dual rank). In our experience, higher frequency RAM isn't worth the small performance gain since it gets less and less stable as you go up in frequency. Unless you are the kind of person who likes tweaking your system, I would just use 2666 and call it good. You probably won't notice any difference in performance, but the system will be way less likely to have issues.

Posted on 2018-10-19 19:20:57
DVDZeno

Hi Matt ! Thank you VERY much for you input, it's greatly appreciated ! Geez.. you really know your stuff. I wish I was as well versed with computer stuff, but I'm getting older and now it's all getting away from me. Thank you for your time Matt.

Posted on 2018-10-19 19:30:17
DVDZeno

Hi Matt, hopefully you are around today, - I have a good question for you. I recently watched a video of a YouTuber who did a tour of your facility,
and the system that was built for him ( I will assume by you ) had the Core i9-7980XE. Do you have any benchmark tests available showing this cpu chip vs the i9-9900K available ? ..... I was looking at purchasing the 9900K which is on backorder everywhere right now, and now I am wondering about the Core i9-7980XE .... will the Core i9-7980XE blow the 9900K out of the water with timeline renders and exporting in Premiere Pro CC ? I hope you are around today would love to hear your thought on this, it's much appreciated !

Posted on 2018-10-29 15:28:32

We don't have a direct comparison (same thing we talked about a week or so ago about comparing scores to the CPUs in this article: https://www.pugetsystems.co... ). I would guess the 7980XE will export projects about 20% faster than the i9 9900K. It is also way more expensive, however, so that needs to be factored in as well. Most of the time, the people who use the i9 7980XE are those who need the absolute best regardless of price, or those working with 6K/8K footage where the extra performance and additional RAM capacity can really make a difference.

Posted on 2018-10-29 17:18:41
DVDZeno

Hi again Matt, thank you VERY much for that info, I'm going to go read your article now. I really appreciate your time ! :-)

Posted on 2018-10-29 23:15:58
Jacob Pawloski

im surprised one the intel extreme processors wasn't thrown in here for reference. something like the 7940

Posted on 2018-10-19 19:06:28

The X-series i7 7820X and i9 7900X are included in this testing but we opted not to go any higher simply because the pricing starts to get quite a ways off from even the Core i9 9900K and to keep the data from being overwhelming. You can compare the results to our Threadripper article we published last month though: https://www.pugetsystems.co... . The scores are a bit different since we added H.264 LongGOP and XAVC S codecs this time around, but they are close enough that you can get an idea of how these CPUs would compare to the higher end Intel/AMD CPUs. Or use a CPU like the i9 7900X that we used in both articles as a reference point.

On average, the i9 7940X is probably about 5% faster than the i9 9900K. More for exporting, less for live playback. The main reason we would point one of our customers to the 7940X or higher CPU is really only if they work with 6K/8K media since at that point the performance difference is larger and you can get 128GB of RAM which can be very important at those resolutions.

Posted on 2018-10-19 19:25:17
Mike McCarthy

First off, I just discovered your site here, and it is full of great information. I do a lot of similar tests, but with a broader and less thorough focus. (How much performance do you lose in Premiere by using a laptop, how much faster are dual Xeons, etc.) The one thing I think you overlooked on this test, which I would find to be useful information, would be to see how far up the SkyLake-X line you have to go before you find a chip that beats the 9900K. I am looking at getting a new system, and deciding between the mainstream architecture, and the -X architecture, and you need results from a faster system before you can conclude "a 9900K system cost x$ and it costs x$ more before you can get an option that is faster in Adobe apps." But all in all, you have a ton of great performance data here for Adobe users. Thank you, Mike McCarthy techwithmikefirst.com

Posted on 2018-10-25 04:30:43
Dennis L Sørensen

Is this tested with power delivery system turned to max (raised to 150-170w) or at the stock 95w? Because this seriously impacts the results and our eyes that look at it.

Have you tested with Z390? because I have seen plenti of posts already of media getting better results in the Z390 boards because of the VRMs holding the CPU back.

Posted on 2018-10-22 11:07:39

We tend to test at stock settings since that is typically what we keep our workstations at. As for Z390, we did some spot checks and didn't see any difference in performance in our testing so we opted to stick with Z370 for the moment since brand new chipsets tend to have a number of bugs that still need to be worked out.

Posted on 2018-10-22 16:49:06
Dennis L Sørensen

Oh okay.

Stock settings.. Yes that makes sense, but the problem is that MSI, Gigabyte and ASRock (that I am aware of) have the power delivery system turned to max (which is not stock per Intel design) out of the box in their BIOS. Thats why I am asking.

This video describes what I am seeing as a problem: https://www.youtube.com/wat...

Posted on 2018-10-23 08:58:04

Watching that video, and specifically looking at the Cinebench chart around 4 minutes in, I think the Z370 board we have been using is getting the most performance possible out of the 9900K (without overclocking, of course). The Cinebench score I reported in my 9900K article (https://www.pugetsystems.co... ) was 2063.3, which was the highest result out of three runs. The score in that video for the same CPU with their high performing Z390 board was 2048, but that was an average of six runs rather than the highest (so it makes sense that it would be slightly lower, but very close).

I haven't dug into the many settings available on the Gigabyte Z370 AORUS Gaming 5 that we have been using, but it must have power settings cranked up by default - since as Matt noted, we avoid changing settings from the defaults unless something is clearly wrong. We will soon be moving over to a Z390 motherboard for our testing up here, and when we do I will run Cinebench as a quick check to make sure that we are getting similar performance and don't have some sort of issue with different settings on the new board. It is still in the Gigabyte AORUS series, though, so I suspect it will behave the same.

Posted on 2018-10-23 17:54:42
Dennis L Sørensen

Okay great :-)

Just wanted to make sure that it was set to use the higher TDP it is made for, and not just the 95w.. but most importantly, that we know what it was tested woth so we can compare apples to apples :-)

Thanks.

Posted on 2018-10-23 20:10:03
mottion

Can you work with this processor at good temperatures using the Noctua NH-D15 fan?

Posted on 2018-10-29 12:45:20

I would expect so - we use the smaller, single-fan NH-U12S on these processors, and it cools sufficiently (without overclocking, and supported by airflow through the system from the chassis fans). We don't use something larger, like the D15, because of the added weight causing problems in shipping - but in a home built system, where you don't need to move it around much, they ought to be good.

Posted on 2018-10-29 16:28:53
sato masashi

Hi,
Is the AME rendering setting CUDA or CPU?

Posted on 2018-10-30 23:30:18

CUDA. Software only mode would take a looooonnggg time to test.

Posted on 2018-10-30 23:57:01
JiHoon Kim

will you ever do a benchmark with the quicksync enabled 9900k 9700k against 8700k or TR in similar price range?

Posted on 2018-11-03 16:10:39

I need to look into hardware decoding in CC 2019 to see how that works, but for hardware encoding, most likely not. Accelerated H.264 encoding is slightly lower quality than doing it through software which really makes it a tough comparison. Some people are fine with the quality loss, but for others it isn't worth it. It also misbehaves and ignores the set bitrate at times and we haven't figured out how to make it not do that.

We may end up doing two rounds of testing with CPUs that support Quicksync (once with it on, a second time with it off), but I would really like to avoid that if we can since it would greatly increase the amount of testing we would need to do. So it's not off the table, but I need to figure out exactly what we want to do.

Posted on 2018-11-03 23:42:08
JiHoon Kim

I agree with that it is not really the same quality, loss is noticeable. but more as a "one time" thing for new 9th gen 9900k as it is currently in very weird position, to expand on what i mean is that the price is located where it doesn't make much sense for general 'gaming" population but it is very appealing to content creator or semi professionals. it is still far cheaper than 10~12core HEDT CPUs. for non professional such as students in the field of game/film 9900k seemed a great as to export lots of low quality projects in quick succession. it would be perfect "game/film student build" comparing with 1st gen TR(as price has gotten so low) and other comparable systems in around 2000usd mark. also it would be interesting to see the performance difference in 1 higher up in GPU vs 1 higher up in CPU in premeire,unreal,unity and such.

Posted on 2018-11-06 19:41:58

Oh yea, definitely, the 9900K is a terrific CPU for it's price. We actually are selling it for Premiere Pro and a bunch of other video/photo editing applications: https://www.pugetsystems.co...

Unity and Unreal we have done some testing in the past and is something that we very much want to do more of in the future. We are getting there, but it takes a ton of work to get it to the point that it is really useful and real world.

Posted on 2018-11-06 21:31:40
Kyle

I do a lot of video editing (weddings in mostly HD and a little 4K) and a lot of what I'd call more advanced Photoshop work using actions and lots layers and edits.

Right now I'm running on an i7 2600K with 16GB RAM, SSD C drive, and GTX 1070.

Looking at upgrading to the i7 7820x, but the performance of the 9900K is pretty impressive, but I can't help but feel I'd be missing something if I went with a 9900K? Even though that contradicts your findings. lol It's feelings.

Posted on 2018-11-08 18:41:33

A 9900K will definitely be significantly faster than a 7820X for Photoshop, but it will be slightly slower for Premiere Pro. Either one should be able to handle HD and a bit of 4K without too much issue, however, so even for Premiere Pro I don't know if you could really tell the difference outside slightly longer export times.

I would say that the 9900K has two real limitations that may prompt you to go with the 7820X instead:
1) It is limited to 64GB of RAM whereas the 7820X can use up to 128GB. Probably not a concern if you are not thinking of moving up to 6K anytime soon, but still a consideration.
2) There is no direct upgrade path. The 9900K is the top of that platform and it is unlikely the next round of consumer CPUs from Intel will be compatible with the current Z370/Z390 platform. The 7820X, on the other hand, is really at the bottom of the stack for the X299 platform. So if you find you need an upgrade in the future, you can just toss in a higher-end X-series CPU and be done. No need for a new motherboard, CPU cooler, etc.

That said, the 9900K is amazing for it's price so if the lower cost of the CPU lets you get more system RAM, faster/more storage, etc. the overall system performance may be well worth using it over the 7820X.

Something else to keep in mind, Intel is launching their new 9000 X-series CPUs soon. So either you might be able to get a newer CPU at the same cost as the 7820X, or you may find a 7820X cheaper once the new CPUs are out.

Posted on 2018-11-08 19:18:05
Kyle

Thanks for the info. I just looked up the 9000x series and saw the blog posts here about their performance. It's amazing that the 9900K is still a chart topper in the tests.
The 7820X can be had for $499 and the 9900K can be had for around $590 based on what I saw online.
The new 9800x is also $590.
Decisions decisions.

Posted on 2018-11-13 19:43:35

We should have our Premiere Pro article up for the new X-series CPUs in a couple of days. The testing just takes a looonnggg time, so it is taking a bit longer than the other Adobe applications. Really, though, not much is different since the new CPUs are only slightly faster than the old ones. The 9900K will still be faster than the 9900X (or 9800X), so unless you need more than 64GB of RAM I would stick with the i9 9900K.

Posted on 2018-11-13 20:16:51
ekrem ekrem

Where is the export time results?

Posted on 2018-11-12 13:59:14

All of the raw benchmark data is in the "AME Export - Raw Benchmark Results" section https://www.pugetsystems.co... and the analysis is in the AME Export - Benchmark Analysis" section https://www.pugetsystems.co...

Posted on 2018-11-12 17:11:22

What is meant by "heavy trimming" and how does it factor into playback performance?

Posted on 2018-11-12 21:24:15

You can see a screenshot of the timeline here: https://www.pugetsystems.co... . It is basically a stack of four video tracks with each track only showing for 10 frames at a time. So it is forcing Premiere Pro to quickly switch between tracks (and media). It is mostly difficult for Premiere Pro if you are using LongGOP codecs like H.264.

Posted on 2018-11-12 21:30:12
Video

Is it necesary to delid 9900K cpu and replace shitty solder with liquid metal?

Posted on 2018-12-01 15:42:07

The solder is actually way better than what Intel has been using. From what I've seen when people replace it with liquid metal, you really don't get much. If you are going for a maximum overclock where getting the highest GHz possible is your goal rather than a stable and useful workstation, I guess you could do something extreme like that. But I would classify delidding as a very extreme measure only used in very, very specific circumstances.

Posted on 2018-12-03 17:30:31
yezhacker

Probably it's a little bit late to ask this but is the i9 9900k working overclocked? If so, what are its frecuency, temps and voltage? Also, how good is a Cinebench R15 score as an indicator of the CPU power? Is it relevant for video editing? Your benchmarks indicate the i9 9900k is as good as the i9 7900x. On Cinebench, an overclocked 9900k can match the score of a stock 7900x.

I recently bought the i9 9900k, but I'm horrified of the high temps and voltages needed to overclock it. My ideal CPU would be the 7900x but is way out of my budget (~$1,500 CPU plus MoBo vs the $845 I paid for the 9900k plus the Z390 Designare). I'm a college student so, working with 6K-8K is not in my mind for several years at least. I don't care of the 128 GB of RAM or the 44 PCIe lanes, but definitely need an editing machine that could manage 4K without problems, and because of it I chose the 9900k over the i7 8700k.

I will appreciate your answers. Thanks in advance =)

Posted on 2018-12-28 20:27:00

No, we do all our testing at stock speeds since that is what we sell to our customers.

Cinebench is really only good for two things: Theoretical single/multi-core performance and performance for CPU-based rendering in programs like Cinema 4D, Arnold, V-Ray, Keyshot, etc. It really has almost no bearing on performance in video editing application. The best standalone benchmark I know of for that right now is Cinescore (https://www.cinegy.com/prod..., although even that is only going to be somewhat relateable to Premiere/AME since it is using a different encoding engine.

In your budget range, I totally agree that the 9900K is the way to go.

Posted on 2019-01-02 20:01:14
yezhacker

Thank you so much for your reply, you helped me a lot. Premiere is the main focus of my build but I'm going to work with the whole CC. I was doubtful about my choice, after all is hard to believe that a stock "gaming" processor could match the performance of much more expensive CPUs. The 9900k is one of a kind for sure, for amateur/semi pro workflows at least.

I admire you guys, thank you for sharing your expertise and knowledge! =)

Posted on 2019-01-02 21:12:43
Gianluca Vignini

Hello and thanks for your great work! Are there charts for the 60FPS Live Playback actual FPS?

Thanks,
Gianluca

Posted on 2019-01-07 23:56:54

None of our test media is 60 FPS at the moment - although that is something we are planning on updating soon as hardware is reaching the point that it can be hard to see the benefit of different CPU/GPU models since we are often hitting full FPS with ~24-30FPS media. However, if you want to see the actual FPS numbers, we have all those listed in the "Live Playback - Raw Benchmark Results" section: https://www.pugetsystems.co...

Posted on 2019-01-08 17:40:13
Gianluca Vignini

Thank you for your reply Matt and I'm looking forward to the 60FPS update!

Gianluca

Posted on 2019-01-08 20:08:32

I hate so much, now I'm going to spend $200 more for the i9900k. I thought that AMD was better, but obviously not. Thank you for your effort in sharing this information but I still hate you.

Posted on 2019-01-29 02:13:29
eriq_fazzim

Thanks for this! I noticed in your codec comparison you didn't use the cineform codec... it looks based on your benchmarks that dnxhd is the best for real-time playback/editing... BUT I have an after-effects heavy short film need to do a lot of special effects on... Which codec would be better for after effects editing/compositing/vfx.... dnxhd OR cineform??

Posted on 2019-02-05 00:10:04

From what I understand, DNx and cineform are pretty close in terms of performance. Some prefer one, others prefer the other. To be honest, now that the Adobe suite supports exporting to ProRes, we are probably going to switch our benchmarks over to test exporting the H.264 and ProRes rather than H.264 and DNx. I wish we could test every combination of codecs, but it simply isn't feasible to be honest.

Right now, A single loop of our Premiere Pro benchmark is about 9 hours long. I'm probably going to end up cutting a bit out the next time I update the benchmark simply because anything longer than about 7 hours almost doubles our testing time since in an 8 hour work day, I can start a benchmark in the morning then swap hardware and let it run overnight. If it takes longer than 8 hours, I can only run one loop.

Posted on 2019-02-05 03:44:32
Prash

Hi Matt. Thank you for the wonderful insights. I have a Asus x99 WS + i7 - 9600k (3.9 ghz) + quadro p4000 + RAID SSD 860 evo + 64GB RAM. I am facing issues with realtime playback even in 4k! I checked the resources and found that CPU gets bottlenecked with 4k or 5k RED footage (native). Rest of the resources, hardly gets used up. I checked all the articles posted here but I am confused. Which CPU would you suggest if I want to upgrade? Or should I wait for next gen Intel CPU?

Posted on 2019-02-17 09:13:27

You have either your motherboard model or CPU wrong on that, the 9600K works on the Z3__ series board, not X99. I;m guessing you have the CPU model mixed up since the i7 9600K has a base frequency of 3.7GHz, not 3.9GHz. Can you double check those?

One thing to note since you brought up RED footage is that there is a major change coming up that is going to move even more of the processing of RED footage from the CPU to the GPU: https://blogs.nvidia.com/bl.... I believe they were shooting for Q1 for release, which means we might see it in Premiere Pro around NAB time (April). If that comes through, you might not need to change your CPU at all since your video card will be able to pick up the slack. So if you can, you might want to wait a few months before doing any upgrades to see how that update changes things.

Posted on 2019-02-19 00:43:40
Rosty Silverside

Hi! What about the Intel 9700k when it has Quick Sync enabled? Does that reduces tremendously export and encoding times ?

Posted on 2019-03-19 08:03:21

Quicksync definitely can improve render times, but from what we've seen things like live playback isn't helped much. As far as how much it helps encoding, from what I've seen, it seems like the more movement there is in the video, the larger the improvement. In something like an interview or webcam video, it probably won't be much faster. A recording of a fast-paced action game, however, may be a bit faster.

Be aware that the quality isn't as good as "software" encoding at the same bitrate, however. So you may need to bump up the bitrate to get the same quality of video. Again, how much lower the quality will be depends on the video itself.

One last thing to be aware of is that hardware accelerated H.264 encoding is limited to ~60mbps. So if you want a higher bitrate it won't work (it tries to encode, but does it at a really, really low bitrate instead).

Posted on 2019-03-19 18:50:35