Another "Time to upgrade" - 12900 vs 5950 and motherboards

Started 7 months ago | Discussions thread
Morris0
Morris0 Forum Pro • Posts: 25,767
Re: Another "Time to upgrade" - 12900 vs 5950 and motherboards

dperez wrote:

Thanks a lot for the replies. It’s helped clarify some of my questions (the secret to getting useful answers) and provide useful insight.

Noctua will send you adapters for AMD AM4 or the new Intel platform so that shouldn't be an issue. If you still have the NHD15 box I'd look to see because you might have the AMD hardware already since it's been the same since 2016.

My NH-D15 is from 2014 and I just need the right adapter for EITHER the Intel or AMD CPU. Both are available at no charge, and it’ll take 10 days – 2 weeks to get either.

In both cases I'd actually give a lot of thought to the CPU's 1 level lower.

With AMD the 5900X is actually faster in some workloads. Under the articles section Puget breaks everything down in a lot of detail in their charts so if this is the case or the difference in the areas you use is small enough that could be a good place to save money. As for motherboards if you need a lot of connectivity there are ~200 dollar high quality X570 boards with good VRM's. And honestly a NHD15 is overkill for either of those CPU's so it won't be an issue.

I saw some discussions that said the same thing. The claim was that all these CPUs are pushed so high originally that there’s not as much overclocking headroom as there used to be – especially if you’re not planning to do some kind of “exotic” cooling. The 5900X was mentioned as an alternative – faster base clock and $150 cheaper…

For Intel if I was building a system I'd seriously look at the i7 over the i9. Intel is way past the peak efficiency to get to the i9's numbers so you're producing a bunch of heat/using up much more power for a difference that's not too huge in terms of performance VS the i7. The i9 will run hot even with a NHD15 while that's more than enough for the i7.

I have an acquaintance the recently upgraded to an i7-10700. His reaction was underwhelming. “It’s maybe a little faster doing some things, but I don’t see any difference in the tools, and times in Topaz and Helicon Focus changed very little. I wish I’d spent the extra $100 for the 11700. Or something even faster.”

I DON’T want to be there 3 months after I build this. I don’t want to create something that’s going to be “meh” when I’m done. I don’t need to yell “Eureka”, but I’d like to be impressed with significant improvements in things like generating a thousand 1:1 previews or creating an HDR/pano. Same for Photoshop – I’d like to see those 5 minute 12-image panoramas drop significantly, and Topaz – I’d like to see those two MINUTE sharpenings come down significantly.

For an intel motherboard if you go i9 definitely find some reviews which look into the VRM performance. And also how much DDR4 vs 5 has an impact on your workflow. The price premium is so high currently that it might not be worth it, though you are locked into whichever one you choose since motherboards only support one or the other.

I know the VRM regulates voltage to components and see numbers periodically like 14+4+1 (usually listed only on those $600+ motherboards) but I haven’t seen any comparisons or “best of” articles that say the equivalent of “this $600 board is better than that $300 board because THAT board does poor VRM”. I’ll have to look for statements about VRM quality.

From the Puget Systems review: In Photoshop, 12th Gen CPUs are anywhere from 12-17% faster than the previous 11th Gen processors, compared to similarly priced AMD Ryzen CPUs, we saw about 5-11% higher performance with the 12th Gen Intel Core processors. [me]The i9-12900 was ~8% faster than the 5950 and ~20% faster than the i7-11700.

In Lightroom, 12th Gen CPUs from Intel represent a major shift in CPU performance for Lightroom Classic. For the last few generations, AMD has been the dominant choice, but with these new CPUs, Intel has taken a commanding lead. The performance between Intel and AMD is closer at the top-end, but the i9 12900K still manages to pull ahead of the Ryzen 5900X by a small 6% with DDR4, or by 15% when using DDR5 memory.

Intel the clear choice for Lightroom Classic when it comes to performance. Even better, this is true both for active tasks like image culling, and for passive tasks like exporting. All around, the 12th Gen CPUs are simply a solid investment for photographers using Lightroom Classic.

[me]Looking at the “Overall Lightroom” score, it looks like the DDR5 memory is about 8 or so percent faster than DDR4. The 12900 is ~12% faster than a 5900X and ~21% faster than the 5950X. The I7-11700 was ~40% slower. These are from their “Overall Score” so I’m not sure how that translates to the “real” world.

I’m also trying to look at “future-proofing”. The 12900 works best with Windows 11. Again, from the Puget Systems review: While Windows 11 didn't make a big impact on performance for the new 12th Gen CPUs in most cases, when it did improve performance, it did so by a large amount. Specifically, in Photoshop we saw about a 28% improvement in performance when using Windows 11 with the Intel Core i9 12900K. They also commented that Ryzen CPU chips had some problems with Windows 11 that may or may not be fixed.

[Puget]Overall, it is probably a good idea to plan on using Windows 11 for the 12th Gen Intel Core processors. Even outside of the performance you may see in individual applications, the optimizations to Thread Director should give you an overall better experience - at least, it should according to Intel.

Also what's your time frame for building this computer? AMD is a few months away from releasing their 3D cache chips which will add a huge pool of L3 to them and that could have a big impact on some workflows.

It’s not a critical situation. I’m up and running, and could do it anytime I decide to move. If somebody has a good price on pieces that could push me, but I can definitely sit on all this ‘til after Christmas. I KNOW all the parts are there for the AMD. If I want the Intel I have to go with DDR4 memory and motherboard, which I’d rather not do if I go with the Intel.

You will be happy either way, i prefer intel because they have less issues(historically) and there are more widely used. The new cpus will crush intel 6th gen, expect like 40-50% better performance in real life.

The components are fine, i am more interested in the $300 versus $600 motherboard.

For a photo editing computer, what does a $600 motherboard do that a $300 ones doesn't?

I'm just curious. The last motherboard that i bought was a $50 "mining" mb from gigabyte with "ultradurable" technology and it works great.

Granded, for power hungry components a higher quality mobo is needed, but does it really have to be $600 worth?

That’s the crux of my question. The $600 gaming motherboard has “mystic music” and “programmable blinking, flashing, dancing lighting.” And support for multiple graphics cards, possibly multiple networks that are insanely fast, and probably at least a few other features that are valuable if you are a serious gamer but aren’t needed for a really good image processing system. And those gigabit networks aren’t much use if you live where a GOOD day provides 20 Mbps.

BUT, it ALSO may have more SATA 3 ports, multiple USB 3.2 headers for ports on the front panel, PCIe x4 or x16 sockets for extremely fast NVMe SSDs. I’d HOPE better VRM, higher quality heatsinks, easier overclocking that’s more stable and reliable (though I don’t plan on doing anything extreme), and generally higher quality components. Where the point of diminishing returns hits, I don’t know. How much of the difference between the $200 or $300 motherboard and the $600 one is actually useful?

So far, regardless of whether Intel or AMD, every review I’ve looked at for motherboards has been full of $600-800 motherboards, with the $300 “budget” option being treated like the ugly step-sister. As long as the $200 or $300 motherboard has the stuff I THINK I need, I’d be happy not to spend $600. Just have to find the good one(s).

A KF CPU is false economy especially if you're thinking about video. Don't cheap out getting the F CPU. Quick Sync is only on the IGPU and it'll do things literally nothing else (outside of some Apple machines) can do.

If you get a camera that uses those features you'll regret not having the IGPU.

I figured that out yesterday as I was reading different articles… Hadn’t thought of it ‘til then but other than a mention somewhere that the KF performed some minuscule amount better than the K BECAUSE it didn’t have the onboard graphics, everything else has recommended the K version.

I’ll take a look at the ASUS motherboards – my last 2 systems were on them and both worked well.

I am using the Lian Li Lancool ii Mesh Performance. It is highly rated among reviews. Check YT and Google search. The whole rig runs very well and cool. I am using the Noctua D15s on a 5900x. My CPU don't runs higher than 75 deg C while running Prime95. Quite superb!

Great to know. I’ve read discussions that said if you’re using the 12900 you CANNOT work it “hard” even if not overclocked, without water cooling. The NH-D15 can’t keep it cool.

All of the Puget system tests related to Windows 11 are not out of date due to updates for both Intel and AMD systems as well as addressing disk IO issues.

Morris

 Morris0's gear list:Morris0's gear list
Fujifilm X-T3 Fujifilm XF 18-135mm F3.5-5.6 R LM OIS WR XF 90mm Fujifilm 50mm F2 R WR Nikon 500mm F5.6E PF +12 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
MOD Austinian
MOD Austinian
MOD Austinian
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow