Are AMD Threadripper 9000 CPUs Good for Video Editing?

Introduction

Choosing the best computer for video editing can be a challenge, as editors and post-production teams navigate many options for their projects and workflows. The greatest hurdle lies in understanding what type of system and platform will deliver optimal performance for their specific environment, whether at home, on location, in an office, or studio – no one-size-fits-all solution satisfies every project’s needs.

Here at Puget Systems, one of our goals is to distill complex advancements in computer technology and show how new products affect various industries and workflows. However, understanding how these advancements apply to your workflow can be complex, so we highly recommend speaking with one of our consultants to ensure your new computer is tailored to your needs. With that in mind, this article focuses on AMD’s new Ryzen™ Threadripper™ 9000 and Ryzen™ Threadripper™ PRO 9000 WX processors, examining whether they are good for video editing.

These new processors have several improvements over the previous generation Ryzen™ Threadripper™ 7000 and Ryzen™ Threadripper™ PRO 7000 WX processors. If you want a full breakdown of what is new with these CPUs, as well as a detailed performance analysis for a range of applications (including Premiere Pro, DaVinci Resolve, and After Effects), we have in-depth articles available:

• Threadripper 9000 Content Creation Review
• Threadripper PRO 9000WX Content Creation Review
• AMD Threadripper 9000 vs Threadripper PRO 9000WX

AMD Threadripper and Threadripper PRO WX processors differ in many ways from consumer-class processors like Intel Core™ Ultra 200 series and AMD Ryzen™ 9000 series. Consumer-class CPUs typically offer around 16-24 cores with a focus on higher per-core clock speeds, while Threadripper processors offer higher core counts, ranging between 16-96 cores (product line and model dependent) for sustained performance and multi-threaded throughput, though with lower per-core clock speeds. Additionally, the Threadripper platform offers additional PCIe lanes and larger memory capacities than consumer-class processors.

Choosing the Right CPU for Video Editing

Whether the Threadripper 9000 or Threadripper PRO 9000 WX series processors are a worthwhile investment for video editing does not have a simple yes or no answer. While both are discussed in this article, we recommend the standard Threadripper line over the PRO series, which offers only nominal performance differences at a much higher price. For most video editors, the additional features of the PRO platform are not necessary, as the standard Threadripper 9000 product line provides all the performance they need at a much better value.

The suitability of any processor for video editing ultimately depends on a user’s specific workflow. For example, is the editor only cutting footage, or are they also doing tasks such as compositing, color correction, and motion graphics? Are they utilizing other applications in their workflow, such as Photoshop, After Effects, Cinema4D, or Unreal Engine? The applications used, like Adobe Premiere Pro and Blackmagic DaVinci Resolve, and the media file types imported (e.g., H.264/HEVC/ProRes) utilize hardware differently, directly impacting the best choice for a processor and platform.

For many video editors, a consumer-class CPU (Intel Core Ultra 200 series or AMD Ryzen 9000 series) offers a more cost-effective solution. These processors excel in handling LongGOP files due to their embedded media engines, which provide hardware-accelerated processing for certain flavors of H.264 and HEVC codecs. However, while Threadripper processors lack the embedded media engines of consumer CPUs, they offer a compelling cost-to-performance advantage for other media types, such as intraframe and RAW codecs. The Threadripper platform provides more PCIe lanes and greater RAM capacity, ideal for those working with high-resolution (8K+) and high frame-rate (60fps+) footage or needing additional PCIe lanes for multi-GPU configurations or video monitoring/capture cards.

Are Threadripper 9000 Processors Good for Premiere Pro?

Adobe Premiere Pro is a complex application, and determining the best processor for it is not as simple as choosing the most expensive CPU with the highest core count. While Premiere Pro utilizes multiple cores from the CPU, its performance doesn’t always scale linearly with more cores and can sometimes show a performance decrease. Additionally, specific tasks benefit from a higher clock speed. For optimal performance with Premiere Pro, an editor should consider their media’s codec and project workflow to determine the need for a CPU with faster frequencies or one with more cores for multi-threaded processing.

Threadripper 9000 vs Consumer

In our testing, we compared the Threadripper 9000 and Threadripper PRO 9000 WX series against consumer CPUs, specifically the AMD Ryzen™ 9 9950X3D (16-core) and Intel Core™ Ultra 9 285K (24-core). 

Based on our Overall score, the Threadripper PRO 9975WX (32-core) delivered the highest performance, with a 10% advantage over the Core Ultra 285K and 18% over the Ryzen 9 9950X3D. However, its non-PRO counterpart, the Threadripper 9970X, was less than 1% behind. Considering the massive price difference between these two processors, we will use the non-PRO Threadripper 9970X as the focus of our comparisons, since its price range and offerings are more relevant to the majority of video editors we serve.

Our test results reveal a different picture when focusing on specific media types like LongGOP, Intraframe, and RAW. For decoding and encoding H.264 and H.265 (HEVC), the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K performs best. This is primarily due to Intel’s Quick Sync technology, which uses a media engine in the CPU’s integrated GPU for hardware-accelerated processing. While Threadripper processors lack a media engine, they don’t trail far behind the 285K, showing a performance drop of only 3-10% depending on the specific model. Newer NVIDIA GPUs like the RTX PRO™ Blackwell or GeForce RTX™ 50-series also add additional hardware decoding capabilities, which lessen the benefits of Quick Sync in real-world scenarios.

For video editors who specifically work with demanding LongGOP codecs, including 10-bit 4:2:2 formats, we recommend pairing a Threadripper 9000 processor with one of the aforementioned RTX PRO Blackwell or GeForce RTX 50-series video cards. The media engine embedded in these cards provides the necessary hardware acceleration for these specific codecs. If you don’t have access to a Blackwell GPU, the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K is a more efficient processor for LongGOP workflows. For a detailed comparison of these processors, check out the subscores in the results table of our full content creation review.

When analyzing Intraframe codecs like ProRes or DNxHR, which are typically CPU-bound, the Threadripper PRO 9975WX (32-core), Threadripper PRO 9965WX (24-core), and Threadripper 9970X (32-core) outshine more mainstream processors. These models outperform the Core Ultra 9 285K by 25% and the Ryzen 9 9950X3D by 28%. ProRes is a common codec for recording, encoding, and transferring files to collaborators like compositors and colorists. Given these results, the Threadripper platform is an excellent option for video editors whose workflow relies on ProRes.

RAW media types like ARRIRAW, RED RAW, Blackmagic RAW, Cinema RAW (Canon), or Sony X-OCN are uncompressed or lightly compressed media formats that capture a wide breadth of detail and color information from a camera sensor. In our testing, the Threadripper 9970X processor has an 11% performance advantage over the Core Ultra 9 285K and 23% over the Ryzen 9 9950X3D.

Threadripper 9000 vs Intel Xeon W

A direct comparison between Intel Xeon® W-2500 and W-3500 series processors and Threadripper 9000 and Threadripper PRO 9000 WX processors is often complex due to their non-matching core count configurations. Only the Intel Xeon® w7-3565X 32-core processor provides a direct core count comparison with the Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX 32-core and Ryzen Threadripper 9970X 32-core. For this reason, we will compare our testing scores for these processors within the 32-core range to illustrate their performance differences.

Looking at the Overall score results for 32-core CPUs, the Threadripper PRO 9975WX showed a 25% performance advantage, and the Threadripper 9970X had a 24% lead over the Intel w7-3565X. In our LongGOP tests, that increases to 29% for the 9975WX and 27% for the 9970X. With Intraframe tests, the 9975WX and 9970X are closer with 33% and 32% gains, respectively, over the w7-3565X. Finally, when working with RAW media, the 9970X takes a slight lead with scores 18% better than the w7-3565X, while the 9975WX performed 17% better.

Threadripper 9000 vs Previous Gen

A key question remains for users who already own a previous-generation Threadripper machine: Is it worth upgrading to the latest model?

To answer this, it’s important to consider the various upgrade paths. The upgrade path to a Threadripper 9000 series processor depends on the existing system. Upgrading is more straightforward for those with a previous-generation Threadripper 7000 processor because both the 7000 and 9000 series share the same platform. This allows for a simple CPU-only upgrade, saving editors a significant amount of money, though it may mean losing out on new features like official support for DDR5-6400 memory. In contrast, editors with an older Threadripper, Xeon, or consumer-class CPU will have to invest in an entirely new computer.

As we’ve mentioned, the standard Threadripper processors offer a much more compelling value for video editors, delivering similar performance to the PRO line at a significantly lower price point. For this reason, our primary focus will be on comparing each of the new Threadripper 9000 models based on their core counts (24, 32, and 64) to their previous-generation counterparts. However, for those interested in the broader comparison, we’ve included the PRO line in our charts to see the generational and cross-product performance differences for yourself.

Results from the overall score show that the 24-core Threadripper 9960X delivered a performance increase of 18% over the 7960X and 29% over the 3960X. The 32-core Threadripper 9970X saw a bump of 12% over the 7970X and 30% over the 3970X. Comparing the 64-core models, the 9980X showed a gain of 17% over the 7980X and 30% over the 3990X.

For LongGOP scores, the 24-core Threadripper 9960X delivered a near 20% performance boost over the 7960X and 30% over the 3960X. The 32-core 9970X saw its performance climb by 11% compared to the 7970X and 31% to the 3970X. The 64-core 9980X outperformed the 7980X by 13% and 35% over the 3990X.

In Intraframe testing, the 24-core 9960X was about 21% faster than the 7960X and 34% than the 3960X. The 32-core 9970X showed an improvement of 16% over the 7970X and 36% over the 3970X. The 64-core 9980X is 27% faster than the 7980X and 35% faster than the 3990X.

For RAW scores, the 24-core 9960X saw a rise of 16% over the 7960X and 24% over the 3960X. The 32-core 9970X achieved a 12% gain over the 7970X and a 24% over the 3970X. The 64-core 9980X is faster by 17% compared to the 7980X and 22% to the 3990X.

However, our tests also reveal that more cores don’t always translate to proportional performance gains. Once the core count exceeds 32, performance improvements become limited. The 64-core 9980X processor actually scores lower than both the 9960X and 9970X in all of these tests.

Are the Threadripper 9000 series processors good for video editing in Premiere Pro, and do they provide a performance advantage? Yes! Based on our Puget Bench scores for Premiere Pro, we recommend the 32-core Threadripper 9970X. It rivals the more expensive 9975WX, but carries an MSRP of only $2500 while still providing support for RAM speeds up to DDR5-6400, faster per-core speeds compared to Intel Xeon and the previous generation Threadrippers, as well as greater total RAM and PCIe lane availability compared to consumer CPUs. Paired with powerful video cards such as NVIDIA’s RTX PRO Blackwell or GeForce RTX 50-series GPUs, this combination performs effectively with mixed media files, offering video editors the flexibility to handle a majority of LongGOP, Intraframe, and RAW codecs. As camera capabilities advance towards higher resolutions, frame rates, larger bit depths, and complex chroma subsampling formats, video editors will need increased VRAM, RAM, and storage capacities to future-proof their workflows.

Are Threadripper 9000 Processors Good for DaVinci Resolve?

Blackmagic Design’s DaVinci Resolve is an NLE application that utilizes the GPU for its processing power, giving video editors more direct control over the hardware used to process files. However, the depth of this hardware optimization is contingent on whether the user is running the free or paid DaVinci Resolve Studio version. While the free version is a robust tool, it’s limited to a single GPU and lacks hardware acceleration for many advanced codecs. In contrast, the paid Studio version unlocks a comprehensive suite of professional features, including support for multi-GPU setups, advanced hardware acceleration for various codecs, access to the full array of effects, color grading tools, and AI-driven features from the DaVinci Neural Engine.

Since DaVinci Resolve supports multi-GPU configurations, we will include results for both the Threadripper and Threadripper PRO series processors. This is because some niche use cases may need the additional PCIe lanes of a PRO platform to support multi-GPU setups and other add-in cards for professional workflows such as live broadcast and virtual production environments.

The CPU is also relevant in DaVinci Resolve, as it handles key tasks like decoding CPU-bound codecs such as ProRes and DNxHD, and processing LongGOP media like H.264 and H.265 (HEVC) when hardware acceleration is unavailable or unsupported. Furthermore, processor utilization varies across Resolve’s different tools. For instance, its motion graphics and VFX tool, Fusion, benefits most from high per-core clock speeds, while other tasks within Resolve support multi-threaded processing across many CPU cores. A separate article will cover the performance of Fusion and whether Threadripper 9000 and Threadripper PRO 9000 WX series processors are good for graphic design and motion graphics.

Threadripper 9000 vs Consumer

Comparing the Threadripper 9000 and Threadripper PRO 9000 WX series against consumer CPUs, the 24-core Threadripper 9960X delivered the highest overall results in DaVinci Resolve. The 9960X showed a 15% performance gain over AMD’s Ryzen 9 9950X3D and a 16% gain over Intel’s Core Ultra 9 285K. Since the other processors in the Threadripper series showed comparable performance, we will not break down individual percentages for every model.

In LongGOP testing, which assesses decoding and encoding for codecs like H.264 and H.265 (HEVC), the results are not a direct 1:1 comparison between CPUs. This is because many consumer-class processors with integrated graphics, such as those with Intel’s Quick Sync or AMD’s Video Core Next, have a dedicated media engine built into the chip. In contrast, Threadripper processors lack this feature and would otherwise rely on pure CPU compute for LongGOP media. However, the results shown in the charts above incorporate hardware acceleration from the NVIDIA GeForce RTX™ 5080 GPU. Because DaVinci Resolve leverages that GPU’s NVDEC and NVENC media engines, the scores for all processors in the chart reflect this combined performance. Ultimately, the Threadripper 9960X paired with the GeForce RTX 5080 outperformed the Core Ultra 285K by 12% and the Ryzen 9950X3D by 11%. This performance boost is particularly notable because the GPU’s media engines should theoretically produce similar results across the product stack. While this increase may not be justified solely for LongGOP workflows, it does illustrate that a Threadripper 9960X processor, when paired with Blackwell GPUs, can outperform consumer-class processors in LongGOP workflows.

For CPU-bound intraframe codecs like ProRes and DNxHR, our testing revealed a clear advantage for the Threadripper series. The 32-core Threadripper PRO 9975WX provided a performance increase of 56% over both the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K and the Ryzen 9 9950X3D. All three Threadripper 9000 (non-PRO) models also saw a gain of 45%. This is noteworthy because ProRes is a common codec for recording, encoding, and collaborating with other professionals. Video editors who work with DaVinci Resolve and Premiere Pro should know that the performance of these codecs is not identical between the applications due to how each program utilizes hardware to process different codecs and file types.

With RAW media types like ARRIRAW, Blackmagic RAW, RED RAW, Cinema RAW (Canon), or Sony X-OCN, the 64-core Threadripper 9980X was the top overall performer. It held a nearly 25% performance advantage over the Ryzen 9 9950X3D and a 27% advantage over the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K. The 24-core Threadripper 9960X also showed a strong performance gain, outperforming the Ryzen 9 by 18% and the Core Ultra by 21%.

Threadripper 9000 vs Intel Xeon W

Intel’s Xeon W-2500 and W-3500 series processors can be difficult to compare directly against Threadripper 9000 and PRO 9000 WX due to differences in core counts between these product lines. The only Xeon that matches Threadripper models in that respect is the w7-3565X 32-core, which lines up with AMD’s TR PRO 9975WX and TR 9970X 32-core processors. As such, we will use these three CPUs to illustrate the performance differences at the 32-core size.

Across our various benchmarks, the Threadripper processors consistently outperformed Intel’s offering. The Threadripper PRO 9975WX (32-core) had an overall lead of 20% over the Xeon w7-3565X, and the Threadripper 9970X (32-core) saw a 17% performance increase. In LongGOP tests, the PRO 9975WX was 9% faster, and the 9970X was 7% faster than the Xeon. With intraframe codecs, the PRO 9975WX delivered a 35% performance advantage, and the 9970X gained roughly 24%. Finally, in our RAW media scores, the 9970X and PRO 9975WX showed a roughly 19% performance increase over the Xeon w7-3565X.

Threadripper 9000 vs Previous Gen

The upgrade path to a Threadripper 9000 series processor depends on the editor’s existing system. For those with a previous-generation Threadripper 7000 processor who wish to remain on the platform, a CPU-only upgrade is the most cost-effective option, as both the 7000 and 9000 series utilize the same sTR5 socket on TRX50 motherboards. However, this path may not support all the new Zen 5 features, such as official support for faster DDR5-6400 memory. In contrast, users with an older Threadripper, Xeon, or consumer-class CPU will have to invest in a completely new platform, including a new motherboard and RAM.

This next section analyzes the new Threadripper 9000 models, with their 24, 32, and 64-core configurations, against their predecessors. For a more comprehensive look, our charts also include the PRO line, allowing you to see the full range of generational and cross-product performance differences.

The overall scores show that all models of the new Threadripper 9000 series delivered minor gains over the previous generation but saw more significant improvements over older models. The 24-core PRO 9965WX is nearly 8% faster than its predecessor, the PRO 7965WX, while the standard 9960X is almost 10% faster than the 7960X. For those upgrading from the older 3960X, the 9960X shows a substantial 26% performance boost. The 32-core PRO 9975WX is 4% faster than the PRO 7975WX, and the standard 9970X is 3% faster than the 7970X, but showed a performance bump of 20% over the 3970X. The 64-core models followed a similar pattern, with the PRO 9985WX seeing a 3% gain over the PRO 7985WX, and the 9980X being 6% faster than the 7980X. Against the older 3990X, the 9980X offers a 24% boost.

Video editors will see the most significant performance gains with intraframe codecs. While PRO models generally show a slight performance lead over their non-PRO counterparts, the non-PRO models often offer a better value proposition for their performance and cost. Starting with the 24-core processors, the PRO 9965WX is nearly 5% faster than the non-PRO 9960X. The 9960X, in turn, marks an improvement of 16% versus the 7960X and a more significant 40% improvement over the 3960X. The 32-core PRO 9975WX is 12% faster compared to the non-PRO 9970X. The 9970X improves by 10% compared to the 7970X and 43% to the 3970X. In the 64-core category, the PRO 9985WX surpasses the 9980X by 8%. The 9980X offers a 7% performance jump over its predecessor, the 7980X, and a substantial 44% lead over the older 3990X.

For users working with intraframe codecs, upgrading to a Threadripper 9000 series processor offers at least 40% gains compared to older generation Threadripper 3000 machines. We recommend that those who consistently work with ProRes and DNxHD files consider upgrading to the 9000 series.

Our tests reveal that more cores don’t always translate to proportionally better performance. This is particularly evident in our Intraframe scores, which provide a CPU-specific test with minimal influence from the GPU. In these results, the 24-core 9960X, 32-core 9970X, and 64-core 9980X all delivered nearly identical results, marking a point where the benefit of additional cores diminishes.

Is the Threadripper 9000 series good for video editing in DaVinci Resolve? Yes! Our Puget Bench results show that no single model is best for every task, but the 24-core Threadripper 9960X offers the best balance of performance and price at a $1,500 MSRP. Paired with powerful video cards like NVIDIA’s RTX PRO Blackwell or GeForce RTX 50-series GPUs, this setup is effective with a wide range of media types. It allows video editors to handle most LongGOP, Intraframe, and RAW codecs, whether ingested directly into Resolve or imported from another application like Adobe Premiere Pro. As camera technology advances with higher resolutions, framerates, and information-rich formats, future-proofing your workflow will require additional thought into the technical specifications and processing needs, such as VRAM, RAM, and storage, as well as the processing power of your GPU and CPU.

Conclusion

AMD’s Threadripper platform is ideal for post-production professionals looking to future-proof their workflows, providing the necessary PCIe bandwidth for multiple GPUs and larger RAM and storage capacities to handle high-resolution, high-frame-rate footage beyond 8K 60fps. For video editors, colorists, and post-production specialists using both Premiere Pro and DaVinci Resolve, the standard Threadripper 9000 series offers a better value considering the overall platform cost. While the PRO line provides features like higher memory capacities, 8-channel memory configurations, and more PCIe lanes, these benefits are often for niche use cases and come at a significantly higher price without a substantial performance gain in most applications.

Our top recommendation for Premiere Pro is the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9970X 32-core. This processor led our tests, and its high core count and strong performance make it an ideal choice. Although its MSRP is $2,500, making it a significant investment, it’s a much more cost-effective option than its PRO counterpart, the 9975WX, which carries a sticker price of $4,100!

For DaVinci Resolve, no single Threadripper processor dominates every test. In some tasks, the GPU will have a greater impact than the CPU, much like we saw in our LongGOP testing. For that reason, and to provide flexibility for various post-production workflows, we recommend the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9960X 24-core. At a retail price of just $1,500, it’s a cost-effective alternative to its PRO counterpart, the 9965WX, which has a list price of $2,900. Our testing shows the Threadripper 9960X’s well-rounded performance across different media formats makes it an excellent investment for minimizing system lag and performance bottlenecks when handling a wide range of file types.

The upgrade path to this platform varies depending on the existing system. For those with a previous-generation Threadripper 7000 processor, a cost-effective CPU-only upgrade is possible by reusing the motherboard. This path, however, requires careful consideration of the potential trade-offs, such as forgoing the performance benefits of new features like DDR5-6400 memory support. We will be conducting tests on different RAM configurations to highlight these performance differences and help users determine if a CPU-only upgrade is the right path for their needs. For users on older platforms—such as Intel Xeon W, Threadripper 3000, or a consumer-class system—will require a complete overhaul. This expense can be justified by the significant performance gains, especially for those moving from older generation Threadripper or Xeon processors. While consumer-class CPUs often include a dedicated media engine, a Threadripper 9000 series system can effectively handle these tasks when paired with a powerful video card, such as NVIDIA’s RTX PRO Blackwell or GeForce RTX 50-series GPUs.

Additionally, for small post-production teams or those needing a server for hybrid or remote workflows, a Threadripper-powered Rackstation is an excellent option to explore. These rackmount systems are uniquely suited to function as a centralized hub for shared storage, a dedicated render node, or a remote editing server.

So, is the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9000 series the best CPU for video editing? Broadly speaking, yes – but that answer is a bit nuanced, as the title of “best” is subjective and tied directly to a user’s budget and specific workflow. For a video editor working primarily with 1080p or 4K footage and a consumer-grade system, upgrading to a Threadripper would be over the top. However, for those who need to manage multi-camera projects, handle high-resolution raw footage (8K or higher), work with multiple GPUs, or run other applications simultaneously, the Threadripper 9000 series can be considered the best processors currently available on the market.