Thanks!It's 3700x or 3900x. Release date: Q3 2019. Gaming 90%. I think most people export to H.264 or 265. If it has problems; 3800X: best with a price premium. You could assign 6C/12T or 8C/16T to the games and the rest to OBS or any other streaming app. Which Mobo do you recommend?yes, I've read the same thing somewhere (god, i still have to do some research......) but everybody is recommending the 3900x, and as this is the flagship amd cpu I guess it's not bad at video editing. Performance profile from 107,740 user samples. There are some though, so it might be worth researching whether any of them are your favourites.Also, the 3800X is not much different from the 3700X. Thanks for the link, I'll give it a read.I'm not sure about Sony Vegas.I appreciate your answers! In Cinebench R20's multi-core score the 3900X and 3700X provided roughly the same performance, making them around 14% faster than the 9900K when matched clock-for-clock. Benchmark your CPU here. So in this respect Intel might be better, i hear resolve does better in multi corethanks for the advice, i'm going with the 3900x ;)The H264/265 benchmark graphic in your article is referring to playback, and not encoding, speeds.3900x will be quicker to render out. 3900X is really good if it works without problem in games. This meant when matched at the same clock speed, the 3900X was 6% faster than Intel’s i9-9900K and 13% faster than the 2700X.The 3900X was faster than the 3700X by 4% and a full 13% faster than the 2700X.The dual chiplet 3900X was again a bit faster than the single chiplet 3700X, offering a 4% bump for the average frame rate. 3600X + xfr/pbo should be way to go for average gamer. INTEL VS AMD BOTTLENECK Effective Speed +0% Real World Speed. With tools such as ProcessLasso, NotCPUCores. It performs well and isn’t too expensivetl;dr OP, unless you want to spend at least $378 more for a 14 core i9-9400x or greater, along with the higher electricity and cooling costs that come with it, the 3900x shits all over Intel for video editing (as well as video playback assuming you have a graphics card).If you’re planning to eventually go with the 3900X you will most likely be waiting for a bit. This update sees Ryzen processors perform significantly better and now the 3900X is able to roughly match the 9900K in our IPC test.The dual chiplet design of the 3900X improved performance in the V-Ray benchmark by 2% over the 3700X, not a substantial difference but it was consistently faster in this test. If it's only because of single core perfomance, the R9 3900X matched the single core performance of the 9900K in cinebench. Moreover, they were 18% faster than the previous-gen 2700X. 38 comments. Performance profile from 98,948 user samples.
Desktop … For budget the 3700x isn’t a bad chip. 88 User Benchmarks. Ersteller des Themas Sokra; Erstellungsdatum 5. INTEL VS AMD BOTTLENECK Effective Speed +1% Real World Speed. 316 User Benchmarks. But they will both perform the same when edoting/manipulating your files. Nuclear submarine. The 3900X was 14% faster than the 2700X, while the 3700X was 9% faster.Our take is they weren’t exaggerating: with cores and clock speeds at parity the 3900X provided an 18% improvement over the 2700X in Cinebench's multi-core test and 13% for the single-core test.