Cinebench and similar hardware testing software are not just gaming marks. They tell you gpu and cpu rendering times etc, which you can use for cad/3d design work and so on. It's basically stupid to cal hardware just gaming motherboard, graphic card etc, since it can be used just fine for serious work, not paying ridiculous amount of money for "serious" workstations etc (clearly, mac pro is #1 example here, but big name branded win workstations are not so far away).
Threadripper with windows 10 will outright kill macs in creative studios unless Apple adopts it, and fast. They simply can't afford to put intel CPU's to compete with similarly capable Ryzens where the cost is two or even three times as much with intel. I can't believe they STILL have no touch screen productivity devices other than their tablets. I work in VFX and rarely use touch except in Photoshop, but even then I will always switch to the surface book for tasks with a pressure sensitive touchscreen stylus, rather than trying to do the same job on the PC with a graphics tablet and pen. My surface book i7 is what macbooks should have been, but instead they just keep making gimmicks like the touch bar. It's as if someone else has the rights to make touchscreens, so apple are doing their best to avoid it, which of course is not the case. Meanwhile surface pro's are on their 5th gen, surface book 2nd gen, and for those who can afford it the surface studio again destroys mac pro's in creative circles. STILL no touchscreens and styluses on macs, coupled with iOS having aged very badly due to sod all significant updates from Apple for years while Microsoft plows on with specific updates for creators and content makers hard baked into Windows. Microsoft and Ryzen are the way to go for sure, there's simply no advantage to macs whatsoever now other than for sentimental reasons. Most big studios now will have an even mix of mac and PC, I suspect the macs are already a endangered species in professional environments.
Actually, you can do even better with some more inventive techniques. You can build a dual CPU machine with Xeon e5s for around $500 using EBay. A lot of companies only use their workstation a year than sell off the chips for newer ones.
Consumer grade GTX video cards do not support 10 bit output in OpenGL applications (which is Photoshop), no matter what checkboxes you tick. They can only give you 10 bit output in full screen directx applications.
Also a 5 year old Quadro or Firepro card can be found super cheap on Ebay and still kill it in Photoshop (it does not take much) though they tend to be really hot and power hungry and are outclassed in anything 3D or game related by an equivalently priced consumer card. You also need to be careful because they could also easily be outperformed by a recently released low end pro card for slightly more but consume much less power. Homework is very much needed when considering this route.
Looking forward to it. I tested this 30-bit mode in Photoshop with 10-bit images and it resulted in 0 difference in the bit depth. Maybe there's something else I should've adjusted as well if you could get this working on a consumer card. I am pairing my 10-bit monitor with a GTX 1070 and never got a good result so far.
Did it in 17s with my 3770k (overclocked, obviously). That Ryzen is pretty sweet. Hopefully Intel will now finally release a worthy successor to the previous gen, now that they have competition again...
Thanks for the video! I run my HP Z600 with 2x xeons E5620 4c ( 2.4ghz) and 24gb ddr3 : I got 16,3s for the test ^^, the z600 cost me 300$, so for photoshop, that fit my need.
I feel like I have seen a bunch of examples in the past of Adobe apps not taking advantage of high end hardware, as least not as much as other software. I mean, they only added GPU support to their page layout app in 2015, and they don't multithread rendering of shadows and blurs in Illustrator. Is this something other people are finding as well, in Photoshop?
Of all Adobe software, Photoshop is the most multicore optimized. I talked to some guys at Adobe 3 years ago and they blamed it on a "bug" and promised it would be fixed bu CC 2015; it is not. I will look into Affinity software as alternative to Photoshop and Illustrator. On the other hand, some tasks cannot be made multithreaded.
Thanks. I will make the AE comparison next week. As for Cinema4D, I believe the Cinebench is relevant and there are other videos and articles that show the result in Cinebench. I did not look at those yet, but there should be even larger difference because C4D uses well all cores available to the system
This is an Intel against AMD comparison, not a Mac vs Windows challenge. Because if you want to compare the right way, you should compare windows on the macpro against windows on the ryzen.
Well in all this really shows the growth of processing tech in only a few years time. Meanwhile My Ryzen 1500X with a 3.8 GHZ OC managed to clock a speed of 15.4 in the benchmark (with GPU off)
Question for you @Tech Guy ... or anyone in this thread I was going to buy Mac all the way until recently I realized I can really get more bang for my buck with PC and now I'm thinking of building PC for music production with this new chip since 8 core is the sweet spot I want to have thunderbolt capability but could you recommend a solid build for me as far as parts I want to get top notch parts since I won't be building another for a few years my budget is 2000$ for tower alone and would appreciate any advice i am not up to date on the PC world at this time but have built them in the past
I am not working with sound (as you could have heard in the video), but if you need 8 cores, this Ryzen 1700 or 1800x should be good, and you can get Thunderbolt PCIe card if you need it. This case is one of the most quiet ones I worked with as it has additional sound insulation on all panels. For CPU cooler, you can see how much db each produces. You can also replace other fans with silent ones. Most power supplies will not even use fans until you push them hard. This motherboard has optical output, and decent DAC, but you can always get another sound card, but I have not purchased one in over 10 years, so I cannot make a recommendation.
Just a heads up, when looking for motherboards though make sure the board has a TB_header. It's specifically for Thunderbolt and I believe the PCI-E Thunderbolt card wont work without it. Certain Asus boards have the TB_header, don't know about other brands. Good luck!
You don't really need to go overboard. Asus X370 Pro is the best mobo, has everything the high end ones have 2x8GB DDR4 3200 and then upgrade ram when the scam prices ends Samsung 960EVO m.2 500GB Crucial MX300 2TB for data WD 6TB for archives A platinium 650W, seasonic better Coolermaster Hyper 212X as heatsink Then check Lian Li cases.
well most people agree that for audio production and gaming, intel might still be the way to go because of high clock speed. for video and multitasking ryzen is better option. I use ableton and was disappointed it does not work so well with multi core CPUs, i think it works well with 4 cores, but not more. I still got an r7 1700 which can be overclocked as high as 4.0 with right cooling. but I also use premiere, AE etc so it is worth it for multitasking. just wanted to warn you though, by now you must know this, just not in the comments here...
Would you be able to show the Ryzen performance with Adobe Lightroom? LR is probably the slowest software I've seen across any machine, I would be happy to know if the Ryzen makes any difference.
I am not a Lightroom user, but if you tell me what kind of task is usually slow and can be measured, I can do the tests on both.
7 лет назад
Tech Guy See that's just it, Lightroom it's reasonable fast at the beginning, but once your library gets to a "certain point" it just "feels slow" most of the time, But one I could think of it's exporting very large groups of large JPEGS (around 400/500 or more) at highest resolution, size and quality, the more pixels in the files the better (24 megapixels & Higher)
it may work in the future....when Apple starts supporting AMD for the first time ever since they'd be silly not to put Ryzen 7 in their new Mac Pros and Macs in general haha
I thought that the Mac Pro was designed to operate standing up for cooling purposes. I wonder if there are any thermal issues operating it horzontally?
It is not optimal to run it horizontally, especially not under the table as there is not enough air circulation. It runs much hotter than it should, and the air under the table gets pretty hot, but since office AC during summer is insane, this actually helps. We mounted it that way, but I do not recommend it
As far as I know the Xeons CPUs will not be throttled. We have PC workstations with Xeons and sometimes they run at over 95C for hours at 100% and top frequency before they shutdown (when we have broken liquid cooling). Also, withing 15s the temp could not get high enough for it to throttle, but I can check.
95c definitely isn't healthy for the cpus on the long run. Though from what i've heard the firepros suffer from the high temps even more, often failing after few years of daily use. I've even heard some people saying that the d500s perform better than the d700 on sustained high loads due to thermal throttling.
90C is definitely too high, but that happened only when liquid cooling failed. We generally have bad experience with liquid cooling, but we have learned the lesson that Xeon CPUs to not need it at all. Air cooling keeps the temperature low even with CPU usage on 100% continuously for days, and in 5 years we have not had a single malfunction on 100 machines. (At the same period we had over 30 liquid cooling systems fails)
Great video. I have been wanting to buy a new CPU for a while and now seems to be a great time, with AMD making a comeback. All over the internet I have been reading reviews that adobe photoshop generally does not use more than 2-4 cores baring certain filters and effects. I have also read that the i7-7700k is probably the best CPU right now for Photoshop/Lightroom due to its high single core clock speeds. So I would be happy to hear your take on the Ryzen performance on the Adobe suite, specially Photoshop (and Illustrator.) How much am I really losing with the slightly lesser clock speeds on the Ryzen?
It depends on filter or action. I checked and for this filder all 16 logical cores were on 100%. At work we also got new i7-7700K, and I can compare it to this Ryzen in the coming days. If you have a certain measurable actions in Photoshop and Illustrator that you would be interested in testing on Ryzen vs 7700K, please suggest. I cannot promise I can do all tests because of limited time I have for all spare-time-projects, but I will try. It could be an interesting video.
As a 3D professional, I would love to see render times in 3D apps tested. AMD has always lagged behind in this field and its heavy CPU and RAM intensive.
Probably there will be more in the coming weeks and months. It has been only a few days since the release. That will be interesting since most of people do not need features of full ATX mobo.
It is much faster. This one actually uses CPU and not the GPU. I will perhaps make a video where I will use the oldest GPU I can find for Ryzen to compare it to MacPro to show that GPU does not matter here.
Thanks a lot!!! I think the default 8 core is the wrong processor for Mac Pro 2013. 2687W v2 is the way to go. It has 8 very fast cores and I believe can compete with Ryzen 8 core.
15.1s 4690K @ 4.6GHz. Apple products are a rip off but some people are too lazy to build their own machine so they pay Apple outrageous money for a proprietary one.
Got 14,5 s with my i7-3930K(6cores) @ stock 3.20GHz, 16gb ram, win 10 64bit pc running cs6. So, my 5-year old pc same (or even litlle better) boost as apple's greatest? Made my day, hehe..
does anyone get the same result with i7 7700HQ? 18 seconds... it said 90.3 seconds the first time, but 18 seconds in second time but i used my phone and it said 11 seconds
Typical well build Ryzen: Ryzen 5 1600 or Ryzen 7 1700 (1700X if you want the guaranteed base speed) Asus X370 Pro G.Skill Flare X 2x8GB DDR4 3200 or 2x16GB Corsair Vengence DDR4 3000 Samsung 850 Evo 500GB or Crucial MX300 1TB WD Blue 6TB RX570 8GB or GTX1070 Seasonic 650w Platinum
I have planned a few more, Premiere, Maya, Max, After Effects, Video encoding, VR, Vray rendering, Keyshot... If you have any suggestions and ideas, please let me know.
This is the build from the video: pcpartpicker.com/list/yrYc7h but this one is not the best you can do for this money; some components I already had so I re-purposed them. If you can wait, I will make another video on good choices for hardware components for Photo/Video/3D work
DubQWST i make hackingtosh with ryzen 1600 at 4.1 ghz overcloking, i love OS X system, but i can’t run adobe Master collection cs6 in my new hackingtosh ryzen, This is a big trouble!!! O my god
I get a tumour everytime when I have to deal with MacOS itself, its so junk compared to Windows the fact that the wont support more than 2 - 3 releases at a time is just sad whereas Windows 7 is still main staple of operating system and for some reasons still receive security updates to this date on my laptops. If you really are a sucker for Macingarbage, you might as well just do Hackintosh, these days even AMD will run on a Hackintosh.
yes i think that would really show you how your desktop stacks up against the mac pro. also the mac pro had final cut in mind when they decided to equip the gpus with amd processors. the nvidia chipsets use cuda so there is a big difference when benchmarking stuff with premiere and ae. would still like to see the results.
Hi I am using a 12 core Mac Pro mid 2012 mainly for photoshop and painter l. I handle very large files up to 1 gig. Can I build a pc with amd that can be faster . Any recommendations .....?????
You have Ryzen 2700X that is 8-core and 17 thread at 3.7GHz, that will be higher overall performance because of higher clock, and if you want to go higher, Ryzen Threadripper 1950X has 16 cores/32 threads at 3.4GHz. But know that Photoshop does not care that much for number of cores and instead takes advantage of higher clock speeds, so 2700X might be better. The fast RAM and getting 32 or even 64GB will be the difference with huge files. Also NVMe drive is a must instead of regular SSD
Tech Guy thank you so much for your reply, FYI my Mac is dual 3.47 ghz 12 core with 64 gb of ram. Any how I am so exited about an amd build. What I found is the following. Amd 2700x Asus tuf x470 plus gaming Asus strix gtx 1070 08g Kingston 2x16g ddr4 2666 Pls feel free to modify any of the components Thanks
The easiest way to start is with pcpartpicker.com/builds/#c=162 and then select specific components to see what others have build, and from there you can pick one build and modify it
Well, not exactly. First of all it's not a gaming GPU, it's a GPU for computing and acceleration. It's a FirePro and these things go for very different prices than gaming GPUs do. It offers 3.5 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, which isn't really that impressive by todays standards (it was released in 2014), but can still give a huge boost in software that can take advantage of it. It also offers decent FP64 performance, in fact much better than the GTX 1080.
The thing is that even quadros are now reducing the FP64 performance since the first Pascal Quadro, we will see what will happen with next AMD lineup and if the software manufacturers will actually have to improve their algorithms
Those firepro d700s go for about $240 each. add 2 of them and you have a cost of $480. On a $5600 machine that's not exactly much for one of the most performance impacting parts.
But the only people who buy Mac Pros are Audio Designers and Graphic Designers. You can hardly call their workloads demanding. They are buying the Mac Pros for a different reason than it's performance.
Either way there still getting ripped off because pc does better in all the sectors the mac pro is designed before. I honestly can't think of a defensive argument for the mac pro other than the new model's coming out in 2018
Keep in mind, its running slow memory... and its the entry level Ryzen 7! He could have gotten maybe 15% more with faster memory, and the Top of the line Ryzen!
This is my home station, and I only do about 2h work at home; often lighter stuff, so I do not need to save every second. I do not actually notice much difference in speed overall, especially not 5x difference as the price would suggest. Other benefits are m.2 nvme drive support for OS which I will get soon and should speed up some things. I am also considering using GPU rendering for work, so CPU won't be needed that much.
The Ryzen chip can be purchased all over. Whether it be at a store like Fry's or Microcenter, or online at Newegg/Amazon/etc. For value, building yourself is remarkably easy to do, but for pre-built or custom built there are a plethora of options. Right now on Newegg, the cheapest 1700 based pre-built is $800. If you need more help or specifics let me know, since google might not answer everything.
if do the editions using linux... u cry... it is 1000 times faster... cuz almost any edition program in linux is better for multicored CPUs than the normal big known programs
I seriously doubt thats the case when comparing to Final Cut. Maybe for rendering, but not for raw performance in editing due to their insane real time caching and playback stuff. In my fairly uninformed opinion I wouldn't think a linux developer could have the budget to do something that polished.
dunno Final Cut... but i just bought my new PC, it is a Ryzen 1700x and it is amazing... some friends told me already that the most companies use Linux machiens for the Rendering... i barely edit pictures... im not a profi, but i got some friends that use stuff like photoshop and light room... and my rendering is sometimes 20 times faster... even that im not using any kernel 4.10+... im still working with a 4.7 kernel... sadly that is the only thing i can compare with cuz i dont know other cases and i dont really work with editing huge stuff about the budget, dunno what u mean with that :S... that someone uses linux has nothing to do with his own budget... at least not my case...
they use linux for rendering because its free you don't have to buy license for it and you can run a sever farm easily with them, customized for your needs.
i dont think that it is cuy "it is free"... that is not the whole goal behind huge companies doing business... they might spare some money... but at the end the results gotta be at least as good as they should be with no open source products...
Both had 8 cores and was running at the similar clock around 3.0Ghz. The main difference might be IPC due to Apple using outdated Xeon + lack of DDR4 support.
Why muddy the waters of how good the new Ryzen Chips perform against 4 year old Intel Xeon chips with stupid configuration BS! You custom built the cheapest possible parts for the PC and then over built the Mac from Apple Stock when the same system is sitting there for half the price. $2999. You would still make your point! The new Ryzen chips are faster than older Xeon! Meet back here next year! To see how new Intel parts stack up, or build a custom Intel PC to do the comparison.
He could've built the Ryzen system for way cheaper by getting a less expensive GPU, and on top of that the 1700 can overclock to 3.9 GHz without much issue giving an even more skewed result.
I did not play with overclocking much. I set the multiplier to 35 and it crashed after a few minutes. Most of the professionals do not overclock anyway. And yes, it can go even cheaper. This motherboard is overkill, and GPU, and you can also save with "slower" RAM, case, and performance would be within 5% of this one but much cheaper.
I am a Mac user since 2001 (iMac G3, iMac Core2Duo 24", three Macbook Pro's and my trusty 2010 27" iMac) - It was a rational decision to buy a mac for photographers up untill 2011-2012 - Switching to Windows now... for sure... It is a pain to learn everything from a new system again, but only a rich idiot would buy a mac for performance... And I am neither... One thing to add though: Adobe was not optimized for Ryzen when you made your video... it was faster with Intel Chips (don't know now)... You could see even greater performance with even less money with another configuration... It has become that ridiculous...
I know about a few photographers who also switched to Windows recently. It really has become ridiculous how bad their computers have gotten compared to the rest of the industry... and phones that cost more than this PC. I have read on a few places that they have improved Ryzen performance but I did not test it yet, and yes, there are now much better and cheaper Ryzen CPUs. Switching should not be too hard, we spend time in software that is pretty much the same except for position of the menu bar. MacOS is definitely smoother, but once you get used to both, you will prefer more flexible Windows.
For sure - The biggest Mac appeal at the time (beyond the OS which felt something 30 years in the future) was it's magnificent and well calibrated IPS 2K Screen.... It is still great, and I suppose the 5K iMac is amazing - And for that time, a quad core i5/i7 with 1Gb Radeon Video Card with that display, was actually a good deal for photographers and visual artists... Now you have amazing Dell 4K monitors for about U$500 like the DELL U2718Q... Not biting the apple this time.
@@Tech-Guy Hahahahah...that is not true though... If your environment is not hosed with natural light (which wouldn't be productive for anyone using a screen for work should) the glossy screen is a no issue... You cannot see any glare or reflexion (if it is dimly lit from above for instance), and the matte screen will diffuse that glare from whenever the light source is - taking out some contrast... In a dark to moderately dim or backlit place, it works the same though.
According to the list on that guy's website, i7 at 2.93 GHz takes about 24s to complete it, so you either missed something, or you have a magical computer
This is how ryzen should really be tested by doing what it was build to do, not on those gaming benchmarks. Great vid
Cinebench and similar hardware testing software are not just gaming marks. They tell you gpu and cpu rendering times etc, which you can use for cad/3d design work and so on. It's basically stupid to cal hardware just gaming motherboard, graphic card etc, since it can be used just fine for serious work, not paying ridiculous amount of money for "serious" workstations etc (clearly, mac pro is #1 example here, but big name branded win workstations are not so far away).
i agree , you can save thousands of $$ and get a better performance on the hand
I don't see why not, it crushes games too, but when it comes to content creation it just dominates.
Threadripper with windows 10 will outright kill macs in creative studios unless Apple adopts it, and fast. They simply can't afford to put intel CPU's to compete with similarly capable Ryzens where the cost is two or even three times as much with intel.
I can't believe they STILL have no touch screen productivity devices other than their tablets. I work in VFX and rarely use touch except in Photoshop, but even then I will always switch to the surface book for tasks with a pressure sensitive touchscreen stylus, rather than trying to do the same job on the PC with a graphics tablet and pen.
My surface book i7 is what macbooks should have been, but instead they just keep making gimmicks like the touch bar. It's as if someone else has the rights to make touchscreens, so apple are doing their best to avoid it, which of course is not the case.
Meanwhile surface pro's are on their 5th gen, surface book 2nd gen, and for those who can afford it the surface studio again destroys mac pro's in creative circles. STILL no touchscreens and styluses on macs, coupled with iOS having aged very badly due to sod all significant updates from Apple for years while Microsoft plows on with specific updates for creators and content makers hard baked into Windows.
Microsoft and Ryzen are the way to go for sure, there's simply no advantage to macs whatsoever now other than for sentimental reasons. Most big studios now will have an even mix of mac and PC, I suspect the macs are already a endangered species in professional environments.
I love how your videos stick to the topic and doesn't fool around. Appreciate ya!
So, you can build a 1000$ workstation that completely obliterates the 3000$++ Mac Pro,
Well, im not surprised...
Actually, you can do even better with some more inventive techniques. You can build a dual CPU machine with Xeon e5s for around $500 using EBay. A lot of companies only use their workstation a year than sell off the chips for newer ones.
I would love to see a Ryzen 5 1600x test. For what I've seen on other kind of tests its performance is really impressive for the price.
Consumer grade GTX video cards do not support 10 bit output in OpenGL applications (which is Photoshop), no matter what checkboxes you tick. They can only give you 10 bit output in full screen directx applications.
It is easy to see the difference with 10bit Adobe RGB monitor and a simple gradient. I might make a quick video about it next week.
Also a 5 year old Quadro or Firepro card can be found super cheap on Ebay and still kill it in Photoshop (it does not take much) though they tend to be really hot and power hungry and are outclassed in anything 3D or game related by an equivalently priced consumer card. You also need to be careful because they could also easily be outperformed by a recently released low end pro card for slightly more but consume much less power. Homework is very much needed when considering this route.
Looking forward to it. I tested this 30-bit mode in Photoshop with 10-bit images and it resulted in 0 difference in the bit depth. Maybe there's something else I should've adjusted as well if you could get this working on a consumer card. I am pairing my 10-bit monitor with a GTX 1070 and never got a good result so far.
what about titan Xp , does that support 10 bit output in OpenGL applications
No.
Did it in 17s with my 3770k (overclocked, obviously). That Ryzen is pretty sweet. Hopefully Intel will now finally release a worthy successor to the previous gen, now that they have competition again...
Thanks for the video! Straight to the point and enjoyable!
Amazing video , thanks for the 10bit setting info .
here the reason why I don't like Apple.
and apple fanboys
Thanks for the video! I run my HP Z600 with 2x xeons E5620 4c ( 2.4ghz) and 24gb ddr3 : I got 16,3s for the test ^^, the z600 cost me 300$, so for photoshop, that fit my need.
Ryzen is a monster and it will only get better.
All this video has done is make Mac owners play their positions harder... Because once you go stupid; you never grow out of it.
I feel like I have seen a bunch of examples in the past of Adobe apps not taking advantage of high end hardware, as least not as much as other software. I mean, they only added GPU support to their page layout app in 2015, and they don't multithread rendering of shadows and blurs in Illustrator. Is this something other people are finding as well, in Photoshop?
Of all Adobe software, Photoshop is the most multicore optimized. I talked to some guys at Adobe 3 years ago and they blamed it on a "bug" and promised it would be fixed bu CC 2015; it is not. I will look into Affinity software as alternative to Photoshop and Illustrator. On the other hand, some tasks cannot be made multithreaded.
Subbed, I look forward to more videos.
i7 3770k (@4ghz), 8go ram, win10, cs6: 16,1 sec
my pc was built in 2012 and cost me 1100 euros.
I don't know what is the exact model the mac pro. My I7 was launch Q2 2012 :)
14 seconds on my i7 6700k @ 4.4
Weird. I'm at 14.8 secs on my old i7 970 @4 Ghz. EDIT : 14.4 secs when I close the other applications.
*48.2s* in my ProBook Core i5 2520M @ 2.5GHz
*:okay:*
Now that's weird indeed :)
1 Minute on my AMD Athlon II X4 620.
This prove that my CPU is really shitty.
Sell it and buy a ryzen r5 1600
great vid, however can u make comparisons like this using after effects and cinema4d? Thanks
Thanks. I will make the AE comparison next week. As for Cinema4D, I believe the Cinebench is relevant and there are other videos and articles that show the result in Cinebench. I did not look at those yet, but there should be even larger difference because C4D uses well all cores available to the system
This is an Intel against AMD comparison, not a Mac vs Windows challenge. Because if you want to compare the right way, you should compare windows on the macpro against windows on the ryzen.
There would be no difference with photoshop on Windows vs on MacOS on the same hardware
Well in all this really shows the growth of processing tech in only a few years time.
Meanwhile My Ryzen 1500X with a 3.8 GHZ OC managed to clock a speed of 15.4 in the benchmark (with GPU off)
I haven't seen a comparison between a macbook and a laptop. can we see comparison between both taking money as the key factor?
Question for you @Tech Guy ... or anyone in this thread I was going to buy Mac all the way until recently I realized I can really get more bang for my buck with PC and now I'm thinking of building PC for music production with this new chip since 8 core is the sweet spot I want to have thunderbolt capability but could you recommend a solid build for me as far as parts I want to get top notch parts since I won't be building another for a few years my budget is 2000$ for tower alone and would appreciate any advice i am not up to date on the PC world at this time but have built them in the past
I am not working with sound (as you could have heard in the video), but if you need 8 cores, this Ryzen 1700 or 1800x should be good, and you can get Thunderbolt PCIe card if you need it. This case is one of the most quiet ones I worked with as it has additional sound insulation on all panels. For CPU cooler, you can see how much db each produces. You can also replace other fans with silent ones. Most power supplies will not even use fans until you push them hard. This motherboard has optical output, and decent DAC, but you can always get another sound card, but I have not purchased one in over 10 years, so I cannot make a recommendation.
Thnx for the insight
Just a heads up, when looking for motherboards though make sure the board has a TB_header. It's specifically for Thunderbolt and I believe the PCI-E Thunderbolt card wont work without it. Certain Asus boards have the TB_header, don't know about other brands. Good luck!
You don't really need to go overboard.
Asus X370 Pro is the best mobo, has everything the high end ones have
2x8GB DDR4 3200 and then upgrade ram when the scam prices ends
Samsung 960EVO m.2 500GB
Crucial MX300 2TB for data
WD 6TB for archives
A platinium 650W, seasonic better
Coolermaster Hyper 212X as heatsink
Then check Lian Li cases.
well most people agree that for audio production and gaming, intel might still be the way to go because of high clock speed. for video and multitasking ryzen is better option. I use ableton and was disappointed it does not work so well with multi core CPUs, i think it works well with 4 cores, but not more. I still got an r7 1700 which can be overclocked as high as 4.0 with right cooling. but I also use premiere, AE etc so it is worth it for multitasking. just wanted to warn you though, by now you must know this, just not in the comments here...
Would you be able to show the Ryzen performance with Adobe Lightroom? LR is probably the slowest software I've seen across any machine, I would be happy to know if the Ryzen makes any difference.
I am not a Lightroom user, but if you tell me what kind of task is usually slow and can be measured, I can do the tests on both.
Tech Guy See that's just it, Lightroom it's reasonable fast at the beginning, but once your library gets to a "certain point" it just "feels slow" most of the time, But one I could think of it's exporting very large groups of large JPEGS (around 400/500 or more) at highest resolution, size and quality, the more pixels in the files the better (24 megapixels & Higher)
I could process bunch of CR2 photos and see if there is a difference, but if it "becomes" slow, I guess the database system they use is just bad
Try running OSX on the PC and re-doing this. Would be interesting.
Won't work unfortunately, Mac OS was never programmed to deal with AMD chipsets,
Kinda sad. Would love to have hackintosh as a dual-boot option for my Ryzen PC.
it may work in the future....when Apple starts supporting AMD for the first time ever since they'd be silly not to put Ryzen 7 in their new Mac Pros and Macs in general haha
no man it works!!! see Ryzen Hackintosh videos!
I thought that the Mac Pro was designed to operate standing up for cooling purposes. I wonder if there are any thermal issues operating it horzontally?
It is not optimal to run it horizontally, especially not under the table as there is not enough air circulation. It runs much hotter than it should, and the air under the table gets pretty hot, but since office AC during summer is insane, this actually helps. We mounted it that way, but I do not recommend it
It could be thermal throttling then. I wonder if the results would be different sitting upright on the desk?
Thanks for doing this.
As far as I know the Xeons CPUs will not be throttled. We have PC workstations with Xeons and sometimes they run at over 95C for hours at 100% and top frequency before they shutdown (when we have broken liquid cooling). Also, withing 15s the temp could not get high enough for it to throttle, but I can check.
95c definitely isn't healthy for the cpus on the long run. Though from what i've heard the firepros suffer from the high temps even more, often failing after few years of daily use. I've even heard some people saying that the d500s perform better than the d700 on sustained high loads due to thermal throttling.
90C is definitely too high, but that happened only when liquid cooling failed. We generally have bad experience with liquid cooling, but we have learned the lesson that Xeon CPUs to not need it at all. Air cooling keeps the temperature low even with CPU usage on 100% continuously for days, and in 5 years we have not had a single malfunction on 100 machines. (At the same period we had over 30 liquid cooling systems fails)
Great video. I have been wanting to buy a new CPU for a while and now seems to be a great time, with AMD making a comeback.
All over the internet I have been reading reviews that adobe photoshop generally does not use more than 2-4 cores baring certain filters and effects. I have also read that the i7-7700k is probably the best CPU right now for Photoshop/Lightroom due to its high single core clock speeds. So I would be happy to hear your take on the Ryzen performance on the Adobe suite, specially Photoshop (and Illustrator.) How much am I really losing with the slightly lesser clock speeds on the Ryzen?
It depends on filter or action. I checked and for this filder all 16 logical cores were on 100%. At work we also got new i7-7700K, and I can compare it to this Ryzen in the coming days. If you have a certain measurable actions in Photoshop and Illustrator that you would be interested in testing on Ryzen vs 7700K, please suggest. I cannot promise I can do all tests because of limited time I have for all spare-time-projects, but I will try. It could be an interesting video.
With noob filters that review sites uses for fast benchmarks, yes. Real use is different.
Exactly! Real world/ everyday commercial work and design workflow will be fairly different. I haven't upgraded yet.
Um... ryzen 1700 overclock to stable 3.7/3.8Ghz with the stock cooler :D and still doesn't overheat
I see the link for the benchmark download but is there a link available to the PC Part Picker Ryzen build?
NVM, zoomed into the video once I got off tablet on to pc monitor. :D
20s on an i7 930 @ 3.8. Not that bad on an old, almost 8 year processor...
As a 3D professional, I would love to see render times in 3D apps tested. AMD has always lagged behind in this field and its heavy CPU and RAM intensive.
Look for Cinnebench comparisons. AFAIK, Cinnebench is a 3D rendering benchmark. Ryzen does quite well in that test.
I wish there was a M-ITX X370 or B350 though. Seems like only Micro-ATXs are there.
Probably there will be more in the coming weeks and months. It has been only a few days since the release. That will be interesting since most of people do not need features of full ATX mobo.
For CPU intensive tasks (that don't use GPU mostly), is Ryzen still much faster than Mac Pro or they similar in performance.
Thanks!!!
It is much faster. This one actually uses CPU and not the GPU. I will perhaps make a video where I will use the oldest GPU I can find for Ryzen to compare it to MacPro to show that GPU does not matter here.
Thanks a lot!!! I think the default 8 core is the wrong processor for Mac Pro 2013. 2687W v2 is the way to go. It has 8 very fast cores and I believe can compete with Ryzen 8 core.
13.5 sec on i7 6700k 4.0ghz + 16gb ddr4
Catalin 5 seconds slower on a CPU that's 1GHZ faster and 3 times more expensive lmao
15.1s 4690K @ 4.6GHz.
Apple products are a rip off but some people are too lazy to build their own machine so they pay Apple outrageous money for a proprietary one.
Nope, it's not about being lazy.
Anyway, Mac Pro is 2013 machine and comparing it to 2017 machine is kinda pointless.
but still price of their 2013 are 3x higher then this from 2017
8.6 on my 5960x, feeling pretty good about my 2-year-old system.
実際問題
閃きと同時に目的のファイルをさっと見つけて
開いて加工してアップするならアップし終わったところで終了
常に目的のファイルがわかるところにあってすぐ開ける状態ならRyzenが強いと思うけど
必ずしもそうじゃない
Mac historically put FAR inferior and outdated tech in their systems vs PC. OSX is nice, but you can get quadruple the power for 1/3 the price with PC
Got 14,5 s with my i7-3930K(6cores) @ stock 3.20GHz, 16gb ram, win 10 64bit pc running cs6. So, my 5-year old pc same (or even litlle better) boost as apple's greatest? Made my day, hehe..
That Mac Pro was last updated in 2014.
again, my pc is from 2012 ;)
hehe
yep, will try that maybe.
does anyone get the same result with i7 7700HQ?
18 seconds... it said 90.3 seconds the first time, but 18 seconds in second time but i used my phone and it said 11 seconds
Typical well build Ryzen:
Ryzen 5 1600 or Ryzen 7 1700 (1700X if you want the guaranteed base speed)
Asus X370 Pro
G.Skill Flare X 2x8GB DDR4 3200 or 2x16GB Corsair Vengence DDR4 3000
Samsung 850 Evo 500GB or Crucial MX300 1TB
WD Blue 6TB
RX570 8GB or GTX1070
Seasonic 650w Platinum
plis do more r7 1700 content creators videos.... theay are really great!!!! (sorry for my inglish) c:
I have planned a few more, Premiere, Maya, Max, After Effects, Video encoding, VR, Vray rendering, Keyshot... If you have any suggestions and ideas, please let me know.
Can you show us you pc build cart you showed ... too small for me to see ...would really like this for my new computer
This is the build from the video: pcpartpicker.com/list/yrYc7h but this one is not the best you can do for this money; some components I already had so I re-purposed them. If you can wait, I will make another video on good choices for hardware components for Photo/Video/3D work
Is this the old Mac Pro?
There is no "new" Mac Pro, so yes
Nice video !
Can you please make a video comparison in Photoshop between 8100 vs ryzen 2200g vs 8400 please
I don't have those CPUs, sorry. I will make i7 8700 vs Ryzen 1700 next when I have more time
Need a hackintosh with ryzen comparison.
DubQWST i make hackingtosh with ryzen 1600 at 4.1 ghz overcloking, i love OS X system, but i can’t run adobe Master collection cs6 in my new hackingtosh ryzen, This is a big trouble!!! O my god
it's great news for AMD, i hope the next mac will be AMD
apple is really good with marketing, they will promote amd
I doubt Apple will use AMD CPUs in forseable future. They are pushing Thunderbolt in everything, and that is Intel's technology, not available to AMD
Wow, I knew the result, but couldn't have thought 1500$ wins 6000$ Mac by a huge margin.
Am I the only one astonished because PS doesn't use GPU acceleration?
Did I misunderstood something & GPU isn't used for this specific benchmark?
GPU acceleration in PS is only for manipulating canvas - panning/zooming
tested on adobe photoshop 19.0 30 bit and Google Chrome open
14.2s on my 2014 pc with i7 4790K 4.4ghz, gtx 760 2gb and 12gb of RAM DDR3
I get a tumour everytime when I have to deal with MacOS itself, its so junk compared to Windows the fact that the wont support more than 2 - 3 releases at a time is just sad whereas Windows 7 is still main staple of operating system and for some reasons still receive security updates to this date on my laptops.
If you really are a sucker for Macingarbage, you might as well just do Hackintosh, these days even AMD will run on a Hackintosh.
why dont you do adobe premiere and AE benchmark?
I will make those next week
yes i think that would really show you how your desktop stacks up against the mac pro. also the mac pro had final cut in mind when they decided to equip the gpus with amd processors. the nvidia chipsets use cuda so there is a big difference when benchmarking stuff with premiere and ae. would still like to see the results.
I got 13,8s....on a i7 6700k+16Gb ram+970gtx. Not overcloked...and with a bunch of apps open(chrome, firefox, eclipse, thunderbird, winamp and skype)
Hi I am using a 12 core Mac Pro mid 2012 mainly for photoshop and painter l.
I handle very large files up to 1 gig.
Can I build a pc with amd that can be faster .
Any recommendations .....?????
You have Ryzen 2700X that is 8-core and 17 thread at 3.7GHz, that will be higher overall performance because of higher clock, and if you want to go higher, Ryzen Threadripper 1950X has 16 cores/32 threads at 3.4GHz. But know that Photoshop does not care that much for number of cores and instead takes advantage of higher clock speeds, so 2700X might be better. The fast RAM and getting 32 or even 64GB will be the difference with huge files. Also NVMe drive is a must instead of regular SSD
Tech Guy thank you so much for your reply,
FYI my Mac is dual 3.47 ghz 12 core with 64 gb of ram.
Any how I am so exited about an amd build.
What I found is the following.
Amd 2700x
Asus tuf x470 plus gaming
Asus strix gtx 1070 08g
Kingston 2x16g ddr4 2666
Pls feel free to modify any of the components
Thanks
And in fact I care more about Corel painter performance rather than photoshop
I did no see that mac in list of all their CPUs everymac.com/systems/by_processor/intel-xeon-macs.html
The easiest way to start is with pcpartpicker.com/builds/#c=162 and then select specific components to see what others have build, and from there you can pick one build and modify it
Hi!, Can give me a link for a image to do a test, pls? regards
The link is already in the video description
11.1 / 11.8 seconds on my i7 6800k 3.6ghz + GTX 1070 + 16GB 3200mhz RAM :/
I found this video through a site called PetaPixel. Just letting you know.
Hey thanks for letting me know. I have seen a lot of traffic coming in but I did not know from where. Cheers
You're welcome. 🙂
I will do exactly that in this coming week: 3ds Max, Maya, Vray, Keyshot; with single and dual Xeons, i7700K, and AMD Ryzen 1700. Stay tuned ;)
ECC RAM and the professional FirePro GPUs increase the price of that Mac a lot. However, it is outdated at this point.
1ch4lM The GPU is slow in it
Well, not exactly. First of all it's not a gaming GPU, it's a GPU for computing and acceleration. It's a FirePro and these things go for very different prices than gaming GPUs do. It offers 3.5 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, which isn't really that impressive by todays standards (it was released in 2014), but can still give a huge boost in software that can take advantage of it. It also offers decent FP64 performance, in fact much better than the GTX 1080.
The thing is that even quadros are now reducing the FP64 performance since the first Pascal Quadro, we will see what will happen with next AMD lineup and if the software manufacturers will actually have to improve their algorithms
Those firepro d700s go for about $240 each. add 2 of them and you have a cost of $480. On a $5600 machine that's not exactly much for one of the most performance impacting parts.
But the only people who buy Mac Pros are Audio Designers and Graphic Designers. You can hardly call their workloads demanding. They are buying the Mac Pros for a different reason than it's performance.
Either way there still getting ripped off because pc does better in all the sectors the mac pro is designed before. I honestly can't think of a defensive argument for the mac pro other than the new model's coming out in 2018
Run MacOS on the ryzen machine and you'll see the performance increase of 22%
When I saw "8-core", and "@3.0 GHz", I was thinking 5960x, Lol.
Not a bad vide. Thank you!
Let the fanboys pay 5times more :D dont show them this stuff
You can see that the custom build is better, BECAUSE IT'S CUSTOM.
6.7 Seconds with a 2700x ;)
Keep in mind, its running slow memory... and its the entry level Ryzen 7! He could have gotten maybe 15% more with faster memory, and the Top of the line Ryzen!
RAM on Ryzen is faster - 3200MHz
I know it is...but you could have gotten faster ram and a faster cpu.
Ryzen and Croshair VI supports up to 3200MHz
Really good
You spent 10 grand on your previous setup, why are you using a ryzen 1700?
This is my home station, and I only do about 2h work at home; often lighter stuff, so I do not need to save every second. I do not actually notice much difference in speed overall, especially not 5x difference as the price would suggest. Other benefits are m.2 nvme drive support for OS which I will get soon and should speed up some things. I am also considering using GPU rendering for work, so CPU won't be needed that much.
Where can I buy one ?
The Ryzen chip can be purchased all over. Whether it be at a store like Fry's or Microcenter, or online at Newegg/Amazon/etc. For value, building yourself is remarkably easy to do, but for pre-built or custom built there are a plethora of options. Right now on Newegg, the cheapest 1700 based pre-built is $800. If you need more help or specifics let me know, since google might not answer everything.
Anything new?
Are there any tricks to get OSX to support an AMD CPU and chipset?
This should get retested on a 1950X just to add some salt.
Intel fanboy or not we all know Mac is a joke!
Ros De
But a joke should be funny
Macs performance for that price is just pure sadness
Thank you
I think Apple should build AMD Mac finally
Ryzen is beast!
if do the editions using linux... u cry... it is 1000 times faster... cuz almost any edition program in linux is better for multicored CPUs than the normal big known programs
I seriously doubt thats the case when comparing to Final Cut. Maybe for rendering, but not for raw performance in editing due to their insane real time caching and playback stuff. In my fairly uninformed opinion I wouldn't think a linux developer could have the budget to do something that polished.
dunno Final Cut... but i just bought my new PC, it is a Ryzen 1700x and it is amazing... some friends told me already that the most companies use Linux machiens for the Rendering... i barely edit pictures... im not a profi, but i got some friends that use stuff like photoshop and light room... and my rendering is sometimes 20 times faster... even that im not using any kernel 4.10+... im still working with a 4.7 kernel... sadly that is the only thing i can compare with cuz i dont know other cases and i dont really work with editing huge stuff
about the budget, dunno what u mean with that :S... that someone uses linux has nothing to do with his own budget... at least not my case...
they use linux for rendering because its free you don't have to buy license for it and you can run a sever farm easily with them, customized for your needs.
i dont think that it is cuy "it is free"... that is not the whole goal behind huge companies doing business... they might spare some money... but at the end the results gotta be at least as good as they should be with no open source products...
Yep....had Macs in the past.....will never ever again. These are overpriced overhyped computers that underperform compared to a PC
Ryzen is also much newer.
Im still after OS.
MacPro is for noobs that don't know tech
As you'd expect the PC shits on the Mac.
Thanks
Lmao i knew you gonna run the macpro through the mud again. Honestly higher clock speed and more cores always outperform any mac products.
Both had 8 cores and was running at the similar clock around 3.0Ghz.
The main difference might be IPC due to Apple using outdated Xeon + lack of DDR4 support.
Ryzen. FTW!!!!!! Mine at 3.8ghz beeezing through life lol
Fatality ! Nice :)
i7 4770k stock = 17.4 sec
Why muddy the waters of how good the new Ryzen Chips perform against 4 year old Intel Xeon chips with stupid configuration BS! You custom built the cheapest possible parts for the PC and then over built the Mac from Apple Stock when the same system is sitting there for half the price. $2999. You would still make your point!
The new Ryzen chips are faster than older Xeon! Meet back here next year! To see how new Intel parts stack up, or build a custom Intel PC to do the comparison.
He could've built the Ryzen system for way cheaper by getting a less expensive GPU, and on top of that the 1700 can overclock to 3.9 GHz without much issue giving an even more skewed result.
I did not play with overclocking much. I set the multiplier to 35 and it crashed after a few minutes. Most of the professionals do not overclock anyway. And yes, it can go even cheaper. This motherboard is overkill, and GPU, and you can also save with "slower" RAM, case, and performance would be within 5% of this one but much cheaper.
That is just fine. My comment was not a criticism of your tests but a rebuttal to the original comment.
rysen for president....ho wait
12.7 seconds for i7 7700k 4.2 GHz
Yep, pretty close to the test I did with Ryzen 1700 vs 7700K ruclips.net/video/4b36xcv9pEc/видео.html
7.7
Intel tears!
by the way if I use this for gaming, oh my gosh!!!
great video - you just saved me thou$and$
At this time, Apple suck. And i only respect three things of them : their designs, the airpods and the optimisation of I OS
I am a Mac user since 2001 (iMac G3, iMac Core2Duo 24", three Macbook Pro's and my trusty 2010 27" iMac) - It was a rational decision to buy a mac for photographers up untill 2011-2012 - Switching to Windows now... for sure... It is a pain to learn everything from a new system again, but only a rich idiot would buy a mac for performance... And I am neither... One thing to add though: Adobe was not optimized for Ryzen when you made your video... it was faster with Intel Chips (don't know now)... You could see even greater performance with even less money with another configuration... It has become that ridiculous...
I know about a few photographers who also switched to Windows recently. It really has become ridiculous how bad their computers have gotten compared to the rest of the industry... and phones that cost more than this PC. I have read on a few places that they have improved Ryzen performance but I did not test it yet, and yes, there are now much better and cheaper Ryzen CPUs. Switching should not be too hard, we spend time in software that is pretty much the same except for position of the menu bar. MacOS is definitely smoother, but once you get used to both, you will prefer more flexible Windows.
For sure - The biggest Mac appeal at the time (beyond the OS which felt something 30 years in the future) was it's magnificent and well calibrated IPS 2K Screen.... It is still great, and I suppose the 5K iMac is amazing - And for that time, a quad core i5/i7 with 1Gb Radeon Video Card with that display, was actually a good deal for photographers and visual artists... Now you have amazing Dell 4K monitors for about U$500 like the DELL U2718Q... Not biting the apple this time.
Yes, and as someone who does not like to look at their own reflection the whole day in glossy screens, using iMac is not an option
@@Tech-Guy Hahahahah...that is not true though... If your environment is not hosed with natural light (which wouldn't be productive for anyone using a screen for work should) the glossy screen is a no issue... You cannot see any glare or reflexion (if it is dimly lit from above for instance), and the matte screen will diffuse that glare from whenever the light source is - taking out some contrast... In a dark to moderately dim or backlit place, it works the same though.
¡OMG! with overcloknig, the machine have work in 7,7 secounds.
These AMD processor, must heat up a lot.
#Monster.
Apple is the best "expensive smoke seller" in the world!
3.8s iMac, mid 2010, Processor i7, 2.93 Ghz
You did not download the full-size image, I assume. Reread the steps
ksimonian.com/Blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/PS_Test-V2.jpg
According to the list on that guy's website, i7 at 2.93 GHz takes about 24s to complete it, so you either missed something, or you have a magical computer
#01NET
Mac is like iphone...fashion
Can you give me a vr