16 cores won't buy you any rendering advantage over 8 cores.

I agree with Musicvid concerning core count.

And since you have Vegas Pro 15, and plan to get the RTX 2070, rendering using the NVENC encoding in Magix AVC, will gain more (less time that is) rendering with the GPU then expecting "leaps and bounds" with the CPU.

Again, if you watch, or peruse, the YouTube sites that do any sort of tutorial with Vegas, DaVinci, Adobe, Avid, CyberLink, etc. (and even Apple's FCP X), they typically "Render Out" using the GPU. That way, they can keep the cost down using "Mainstream" boards and CPU's, not the "High End Desktops (HEDT)" platforms of either Intel or AMD.

Again, it all comes down to what you expect of your final output/render, and how fast. If you are looking for really high quality, just make sure you account for the storage (both ingest and output); if it is more "looks good enough to me" type of quality, your stated GPU is fine (though don't overlook the RX 570/580 or Vega 56/64 cards by AMD - price wise that is). Again, you determine if the quality is what you like.

I agree with Musicvid concerning core count.

And since you have Vegas Pro 15, and plan to get the RTX 2070, rendering using the NVENC encoding in Magix AVC, will gain more (less time that is) rendering with the GPU then expecting "leaps and bounds" with the CPU.

Again, if you watch, or peruse, the YouTube sites that do any sort of tutorial with Vegas, DaVinci, Adobe, Avid, CyberLink, etc. (and even Apple's FCP X), they typically "Render Out" using the GPU. That way, they can keep the cost down using "Mainstream" boards and CPU's, not the "High End Desktops (HEDT)" platforms of either Intel or AMD.

Again, it all comes down to what you expect of your final output/render, and how fast. If you are looking for really high quality, just make sure you account for the storage (both ingest and output); if it is more "looks good enough to me" type of quality, your stated GPU is fine (though don't overlook the RX 570/580 or Vega 56/64 cards by AMD - price wise that is). Again, you determine if the quality is what you like.

Hi Chief,

Thank you for your detailed response.

Firstly yes I do build my own PCs, have done since I was 13 and have decided to get nVidia RTX 2070 Super (which performs close to an RTX 2080) because I hear it is a good card for video editing and I like my games as well.

Very interesting that I had always heard more cpu cores/threads is better for video editing like Apple's new Mac Pro can have up to 28 cores, seems very impressive.

The AMD 3950x comes out in September with 16 core 32 thread for an amazingly competitive price which is why I thought should I invest in the AMD?

So gpu rendering is the way to go, so a 2070 super would cut down my rendering time significantly I suppose?

And if you don't mind me asking what is the difference between cpu and gpu rendering? CPU is traditionally seen as the higher quality option?

Here in the U.S. Micro Center is selling the Threadripper 1950X for just $329...

So gpu rendering is the way to go, so a 2070 super would cut down my rendering time significantly I suppose?

I don't think you need that card for it.
GPU is not only for rendering( a little help) but also for a lot of effects to help them decode and encode through hardware accelleration.
What Vegas Pro 17 will bring we don't know yet, but for VPro 16 I'm sure you have enough on the specs for that program.

Very interesting that I had always heard more cpu cores/threads is better for video editing

You didn't hear that from a video producer, gamers maybe.

If you divide a pizza into 8 pieces and serve them, they will be gone less time than dividing it into 16 pieces and serving those. That's a crude explanation. Modern encoders are in their zone at 4-8 cores, and many filter processes are still single threaded. In this case, "hyperoptimal" means slower, not better.

Sadly I haven't received my Ryzen 3900x and x570 motherboard yet, but I did, to prepare for it, re-do my benchmarks from 2017 again in 2019 with Windows 10 build 1903 to see what performance was optimized since Ryzen coming out.

In that test I have also included a Vegas Pro 14 render using various methods (with and without GPU, exporting formats (Hardware Accelerated or not, etc.). I also did a comparison for the same project but then rendering it in Vegas Pro 16. The longest this project took was a little bit over an hour and the quickest was 11 minutes.

I will be doing these tests again using my Ryzen 3000 setup but that will have to wait until I have it. For anyone interested . The video I'm rendering is one from my original "Road to Ryzen" series , if you are interested in the video that was rendered.

I was planning on making a post on the forum when I had the benchmarks for the 3900x in, but no harm in sharing it here now I think.

My thoughts, Vegas Pro isn't very good at core scaling. Having tested it on everything from a Quad-Core to a 16 Core Threadripper before, it doesn't scale well with cores and resolution. Rendering projects in 4K will give me 20% CPU utilization while rendering in 720p I see up to 90%. That means there are threads blocking each other in the 4K render which are not doing so in the 720p export, the compositing engine and protitle overlays or dimensional layering with glow or shadows are good examples of this.

There are certain processes within Vegas Pro which either have fixed thread counts (which are too low for current many core CPUs) or are even single threaded (although I don't seem to encounter many of those). For now, as is evident by lower resolution footage using more CPU horsepower, CPU Frequency will give you more benefit then a giant amount of cores.

With that said though, Ryzen implements certain interesting core clock auto regulation where it will always give you the highest frequency possible at that moment, especially if not all cores are being hit. It will be interesting to see what it does when I get it. I actually expect it to be quite a bit faster for some parts during rendering and just a bit for others but the IPC and clock improvements should still be noticable.

Let's see if we can get that render time under 11 minutes. ;)

p.s. Really excited for Vegas Pro 17, I really hope they've been able to port certain parts to the GPU which cause so much slow down right now!

Again, Musicvid "beat me to the punch"!

Again, YOU determine if the quality generated is what YOU want. No one else can determine that for you.

But here is a question: In your original post, you stated that you currently have an Intel i7-4790 (didn't list if it was the "k" version or not, but I do know that that processor was referred to as "Devil's Canyon"); is it editing and rendering fine for you now? If it is, then why change? There are quite a few members here that are using processors and GPU's older than that, and editing/rendering fine. The reason I ask is, I have been following the "HYPE TRAIN" for the new Ryzen 3000 launch, and got tired of watching basically the same reviews, different channel, and same results. If you really look close, yes, they caught up in GAMING some, and do all-right in productivity. But you have to set aside all the "...Higher Percentage over...." or "....lower cost this....", and realize, once an ACTUAL WORKLOAD is being done, not some 30 second timeline, or game benchmark, the REAL performance is not quite as high as you (consumers) are being led to believe. As Musicvid said, it is GAMERS that always seem to claim "More Cores are better". If you notice, most reviewers who also game are using i7-6700/7700/8700 (k), or AMD equivalents. Not these big monster CPU's that really are designed for more Computational Computing, AI Learning, Scientific Discovery, etc. Though, even now, look at the Super Video Cards from AMD and nVidia, and you will see them being programmed and utilized more for these tasks, due to the parallel nature of the workload..

I know I am pretty much in the Minority when it comes to editing and/or rendering speed, but I still wholeheartedly believe that CONTENT Trumps Speed! I have the AMD 1950X in one machine, and an Intel i7-6800K in the other. Which is faster? Don't care. Once I start rendering, I go to the other machine, do the dishes, wash clothes, mow the lawn (sucks having a "Honey-Do" list when you are single!), etc. Worst case, go visit my Brothers or Sister, or Heaven forbid, watch something on the TV (actually it would be a DVD or Blu-Ray movie, as I won't even access any TV via cable, internet, wireless, etc.). Heck, if need be, I fire up one of the Mass Effect Trilogy games!

as mentioned there's lots of YT reviews out there, but haven't found one for vegas yet. This review for premiere is a good comparison between the new and old generation & in comparison with intel & talking about how higher frequencies are more beneficial than amount of cores in Premiere & that has been said for Vegas as well. Having said that the AMD 3900 still wins.

(if video doesn't start at time stamp go to 10m17s

Here is a link comparing rendering time in Vegas with new ryzen and intel.

It's in french but numbers should speak by themselves.

Test with Vegas is far from being complete but that's still give an idea on the cpu performance.

http://www.comptoir-hardware.com/articles/cpu-mobo-ram/39273-test-amd-zen-2-x570-a-ryzen-7-3700x-ryzen-9-3900x.html?start=8

Here's another vegas benchmark https://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/amd-ryzen-7-3700x-ryzen-9-3900x-review,18.html

https://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_ryzen_7_3700x_ryzen_9_3900x_review,17.html

Vegas render test ...

https://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_ryzen_7_3700x_ryzen_9_3900x_review,18.html

Again, Musicvid "beat me to the punch"!

Again, YOU determine if the quality generated is what YOU want. No one else can determine that for you.

But here is a question: In your original post, you stated that you currently have an Intel i7-4790 (didn't list if it was the "k" version or not, but I do know that that processor was referred to as "Devil's Canyon"); is it editing and rendering fine for you now? If it is, then why change? There are quite a few members here that are using processors and GPU's older than that, and editing/rendering fine. The reason I ask is, I have been following the "HYPE TRAIN" for the new Ryzen 3000 launch, and got tired of watching basically the same reviews, different channel, and same results. If you really look close, yes, they caught up in GAMING some, and do all-right in productivity. But you have to set aside all the "...Higher Percentage over...." or "....lower cost this....", and realize, once an ACTUAL WORKLOAD is being done, not some 30 second timeline, or game benchmark, the REAL performance is not quite as high as you (consumers) are being led to believe. As Musicvid said, it is GAMERS that always seem to claim "More Cores are better". If you notice, most reviewers who also game are using i7-6700/7700/8700 (k), or AMD equivalents. Not these big monster CPU's that really are designed for more Computational Computing, AI Learning, Scientific Discovery, etc. Though, even now, look at the Super Video Cards from AMD and nVidia, and you will see them being programmed and utilized more for these tasks, due to the parallel nature of the workload..

I know I am pretty much in the Minority when it comes to editing and/or rendering speed, but I still wholeheartedly believe that CONTENT Trumps Speed! I have the AMD 1950X in one machine, and an Intel i7-6800K in the other. Which is faster? Don't care. Once I start rendering, I go to the other machine, do the dishes, wash clothes, mow the lawn (sucks having a "Honey-Do" list when you are single!), etc. Worst case, go visit my Brothers or Sister, or Heaven forbid, watch something on the TV (actually it would be a DVD or Blu-Ray movie, as I won't even access any TV via cable, internet, wireless, etc.). Heck, if need be, I fire up one of the Mass Effect Trilogy games!

Yeah I need to upgrade because when I use OBS to record, it stutters very slightly, probably unnoticeable to most but I can see it and I sometimes get the message on OBS saying high CPU usage.

I was told to always use software x264 for recording with OBS because it offers better quality. Would you agree with this?

I currently have an old AMD r9 card which was great in 2014 but now now.

The editing and rendering is fine apart from the long videos which take many hours to render. I also need more RAM, I have a lot of work open at the same time and I chose a stupid motherboard with 2 dimms and max 16gb ddr3 support and I regularly go up to about 14-15gb usage and that's without Vegas Pro which takes about 5gb for me.

Gaming wise 2070 super will deliver great performance at 1080p, but I would consider 2080 super if it benefits the video editing.

Vegas render test ...

https://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_ryzen_7_3700x_ryzen_9_3900x_review,18.html

Very intrigued to see how the 3950x will perform.

Seems such incredible value for money, 16 core Intel cpus cost thousands.

Very intrigued to see how the 3950x will perform.

So, you are going to render to this template?

Thats what this test was doing.
Not my choise anyhow to render my OBS footage to.

Very intrigued to see how the 3950x will perform.

So, you are going to render to this template?

Thats what this test was doing.
Not my choise anyhow to render my OBS footage to.

No, 1080p 60fps for my stuff.

Modern encoders are in their zone at 4-8 cores, and many filter processes are still single threaded. In this case, "hyperoptimal" means slower, not better.

This is why the 8-core 9900K @ 5.0 ghz is very competitive against AMD CPUs with 12-16 cores that run at slower clocks... It's also trickier to overclock CPUs with more cores... That said, the 16-core Zen2 3950X may overclock to 4.8-5.0 ghz which would make it the best bang/buck when it is released in September. Intel will likely drop their prices before AMD gets too much momentum so late 2019/early 2020 will be a good season to upgrade for those that can hold-out. I upgraded one workstation to a 9900K but I have 2 more to go....

It's totally not worth overclocking the Ryzens as the built in precision boost (auto overclocking) does a better job.

If you over clock the Ryzens run at that frequency ALL THE TIME. Sitting idle or full load it will be locked at that speed. Which is a lot of electricity to be using. It also means heat so your max overclock is usually so so.

Leave it on auto and it will boost as needed when needed. So sits nice and cool when doing not much and when you need it then it will go pretty high in the overclocks and back down when not.

The benchmarks show us AMD users in a good light but!!!! It depends on what you are doing. Some effects and tasks work better with higher clock speeds and less cores. Some use the multi cores and GPU so it really does vary. But the bottom line is spend a decent sum and you can get a decent rig.

I personally went down the Ryzen 7 2700x route and saved a fortune over a similar performing i9 9900k rig. Very happy with the build and a 3700 or 3900 would be only better.

Effect Trilogy games!

Yeah I need to upgrade because when I use OBS to record, it stutters very slightly, probably unnoticeable to most but I can see it and I sometimes get the message on OBS saying high CPU usage.

I was told to always use software x264 for recording with OBS because it offers better quality. Would you agree with this?

There's some problems with obs currently & yes x264 Fast at streaming bitrates is best for quality

https://techgage.com/article/amd-ryzen-7-3700x-ryzen-9-3900x-workstation-performance/3/

Ryzen is the way to go... the current intel chips just can't keep up with the new Ryzens at just about anything that we do, and this is especially true if you do motion graphics design or CG animation of any sort.

"I still can't find the proper settings using the AMD Radeon VII to record anything in OBS without the resulting video file being some nasty green overlay!"

I can report that OBS works fine on my Ryzen 7 1800x/Radeon 7 setup, I didn't have to do any tweaking to get it that way, either.