Be building a new workstation looking at either an i9-13900K or a Ryzen 7950X anyone know if one performs significantly better in Video AI? Most the other software I use (Premier Pro, TMPGEnc Video Mastering Works 7) they seem to be about even give or take.
Thanks!
Hi Josh,
Almost all tasks in Video AI run on the system’s GPU, so either of these CPUs will not be a bottleneck for processing speeds in the app. Which graphics card do you plan to use in this system?
Nvidia RTX 4080.
Good choice, you should see great performance in Video AI.
The only tasks that would run on the CPU are file exports to codecs other than H.264, H.265, and AV1. Those three will make use of the NVENC encoder on the 4080 for hardware acceleration.
Thanks! I usually export to Pro Res it gets it to a nice 4:4:4 10 Bit color then pull into premier make an edits etc, and then off to TMPEG to encode then off to DVD Lab Pro2 to make the DVD Master.
if you running your TVAI process on your GPU, I don’t think either matters.
Yep seems like it, wanted to ask incase it was gonna make an impact, thank you!
You can check the benchmark here 
Here are the benchmark you might found interesting. 
CPU clock speed and RAM speed does make a big difference in processing speed. TVAI use lots of CPU processing power even exporting with NVENC encoder. Espeically, when you are processing with Proteus Auto / Iris Auto.
In my personal opinion, if you use Premiere Pro, I would choose the i9-13900K over the Ryzen 7950X, because it support iGPU + discrete GPU working at the same time.
Here is the benchmark from PCWorld
Here is the benchmark from Tech Notice
*Note: GN and HUB disable iGPU during their benchmark, that is why GN and HUB benchmark may not represent the real world situation for creators.
Thanks for the graphs and data. Yeah that has me leaning to the 13900k, then TMPEG Masterworks 7 uses AVX-512 which the i9 lacks and that boosts that one. I’m like ughhh >.<
Then add to that being without a PC at the moment is adding frustration, appreciate the info tyvm!
Thank you for that info, it does really look like they are super close in performance. I think it’s gonna end up with what i can find a better deal on.
Much appreciated, thank you!
Cooling! Not too off topic I hope. I’m looking to an i9-13900K for my next upgrade. But don’t want the complexity of water cooling if I can avoid it. Anyone successfully running an i9-13900K flat out (though not overclocking) with an air cooler like e.g. the big Noctuas? I’ve read the ads, but would like to hear from someone who has managed it without melting the CPU!
I am looking at a 360mm AIO for either, specifically the The DeepCool LT720 its really good performance and not dripping in RGB.
My apartment got broken into and they stole a ton of stuff including my PC. So i got the renter’s insurance check on Monday. So ordering everything today after work.
Don’t forget the i9-13900K is designed to keep drawing more nd more power until it hits 100c and will stay there. It is designed to run at the absolute limit of your cooling.
If you look it will default power on PL1 and PL2 to Unlimited (Some BIOS might show it as a huge number like 4096 Wats) if you set those to something within the limits of your cooling like say 250W then you can reel it in. You will lose some performance however.
I know this is almost a thread necro, but as I figure new users will be interested in the topic as well, and the conversation in the thread has been informative, I just want to add my experience having gone through this conundrum as well.
Decided to go with the AMD solution due to precisely power draw, heat and noise concerns, plus the high electricity prices. My 7950X draws as little as 70W at full load, and mostly idles around 15-20W. Runs super cool @ ~60-70 degrees at full load. I have the Noctua DH-15 CPU fan as has been mentioned in the thread, and it keeps the CPU at this “freezing” temperature in an inaudible manner.
Would I have chosen the AMD option if I’d had to choose today?
Heck No!
Why not?
Because getting the machine in a functioning state took weeks. And time is money.
The AM5 platform, with its DDR5 memory requirement is a complete sh*t-show. I went through 3 kits of RAM and two motherboards before the machine would even “Post” (show the bios). And the best I’ve been able to get is the machine running the RAM at half the rated speed (DDR5 4-DIMM debacle). Had AMD instead chosen like Intel, to support DDR4, I’d have heartily recommended the AMD option, but since they didn’t, and DDR5 being years away from being something that should be sold to the general public, I would strongly caution anyone considering pursuing the AMD route.
Still, if your time has zero value, and you love tinkering, then sure. Go ahead with AMD. I have a rock steady machine now that is very cool and energy efficient, so it is possible to get a decent AMD machine up and running. But for a professional, my advice is simple: Stay clear of AMD!
Interesting. I bought the cheapest Crucial RAM sticks I could find and had no issues. Did I just get lucky? Either way, maybe I won’t try and get some higher clock speed RAM sticks for it. That does seem to be the biggest pain point in that machine.
Do you have 4 sticks or just 2?
Just two. I have not needed more than 32GB ever.
