[Peter Derek]

Thanks for presenting these real-world examples of AE rendering performance with an Intel CPU and AMD’s Threadripper. Most of the YouTube video reviews of Threadripper showcase it as the chip for all seasons. Including content creation. But all they really offer are raw benchmark outputs, no real-world experiences and very little to no AE experience. The attitude seems to be the more cores the merrier, gaming or editing videos in PPro.

Not so.

I was still headed in the direction of Threadripper after I posted the question, but kept on coming back to the Puget System research. Then I did more research, asked more questions in various communities, and got one of two responses: 1) TR is fast, lots more cores for less money , it’s not Intel, you can’t go wrong, it’s not Intel, it’s blazing fast, it’s not Intel. 2) Programs like AE do better on a single core, load up on RAM (64-128GB), and use the fastest separate disk cache you can get (think fastest M.2 you can get for separate cache disk, 250-500GB).

Yesterday my CPU arrived, the i7-8700K. The top-performing chip from the Puget research. And half the cost of the Threadripper. For 2D rendering performance, it’s the right decision. But not for all. If you primarily work in 3D animation, Cinema 4D…the Puget research would say Threadripper may be a better solution.