New Threadripper Build - What to Consider?

[toktik]

I'm thinking about putting together a new system this year. My current Windows 11 desktop is based on an Intel i9-12900K, RTX 3080 TI, and 64 GB of DDR4 memory.

I'm starting to move more into video editing with DaVinci Resolve Studio, and will continue using SilkyPix Developer Pro, Rawtherapee, darktable, Affinity Photo, and Topaz Photo AI for my photo-related programs. I was able to obtain a brand new RTX 5080 Founders Edition earlier this week for a very good price (under list), and this card would be part of the new build.

If I build a new system, I will probably move the current desktop to Kubuntu, but I don't think Linux is at a point where I can comfortably use it for all my video and photo post processing.

I was looking at Intel and AMD desktop processors, and while I am sure an Intel 285K or AMD 9950X3D would handle my workflow fine, I am also considering an AMD Threadripper 9960X with a TRX50 motherboard. I have never had a workstation before, and the opportunity to have lots of PCIe lanes to handle multiple graphics cards and network cards for virtualization with QEMU on Linux or via Proxmox interests me. If I go this route, I might reduce my desktops to one physical box running Windows 11 and Kubuntu.

Do you think Threadripper is a reasonable way forward, in order to consolidate systems, or would it be better to build a new system using a desktop processor/motherboard and maintain two systems (Windows 11 for photo/video and Linux for everything else)?

I like the idea of having a single powerful computer that can run multiple operating systems at the same time, but I have heard getting passthrough for PCIe cards can be tricky and somewhat unreliable.

If you don't think virtualization is worth the effort, are there other good reasons to still consider Threadripper over a more conventional desktop build?

 

[BobKnDP]

It's a 9800X3D / RX9070 build and the parts cost more than that Costco machine

yep - DIY isn't about saving money. It's, to the degree supply allows, about building with the parts you want.

I wondered about the specifics.

2.6k USD seems like an ample budget to build a respectable 9800X3D / RX 9700 PC.

I admit that if I choose premium stuff at PC PartPicker, I can go above $4k.

 

[kelpdiver]

It's a 9800X3D / RX9070 build and the parts cost more than that Costco machine

yep - DIY isn't about saving money. It's, to the degree supply allows, about building with the parts you want.

I wondered about the specifics.

2.6k USD seems like an ample budget to build a respectable 9800X3D / RX 9700 PC.

I admit that if I choose premium stuff at PC PartPicker, I can go above $4k.

The GPU is of course the big variable. The vendors may choose not to mark it up for the systems they sell.

But past that, you're likely to spend more on a great case, great PSU. You certainly are likely to spec a better SSD (or two) then the default vendor choice, though a lot of vendors are notorious for overcharging on SSD upgrades. Same with memory. And last, unless you go to one of those dodgy suppliers, a windows license is likely to cost you more than it does the system builders.

You can beat the boutiques like Puget with similar quality, but they do offer more experience than the build your own every 2-5 years type will gave. And a key advantage in buying from a system builder is you don't have to pursue warranty issues with random suppliers/manufacturers. And in contrast, the manufacturer warranty is longer than the system builder one.

So....it's complicated.

 

[BobKnDP]

It's a 9800X3D / RX9070 build and the parts cost more than that Costco machine

yep - DIY isn't about saving money. It's, to the degree supply allows, about building with the parts you want.

I wondered about the specifics.

2.6k USD seems like an ample budget to build a respectable 9800X3D / RX 9700 PC.

I admit that if I choose premium stuff at PC PartPicker, I can go above $4k.

The GPU is of course the big variable. The vendors may choose not to mark it up for the systems they sell.

But past that, you're likely to spend more on a great case, great PSU. You certainly are likely to spec a better SSD (or two) then the default vendor choice, though a lot of vendors are notorious for overcharging on SSD upgrades. Same with memory. And last, unless you go to one of those dodgy suppliers, a windows license is likely to cost you more than it does the system builders.

You can beat the boutiques like Puget with similar quality, but they do offer more experience than the build your own every 2-5 years type will gave. And a key advantage in buying from a system builder is you don't have to pursue warranty issues with random suppliers/manufacturers. And in contrast, the manufacturer warranty is longer than the system builder one.

So....it's complicated.

I always clench my jaws when looking at Dell's prices for configuring a PC with more RAM or a larger SSD than the standard setup. The prices are always much higher than the retail prices of the components would cause.

I don't think I've ever read a justification for that. There may be some additional labor/paperwork involved, but I doubt that it's significant.

Years ago, Dell shipped a PC anywhere in the continental US for $99. A family member who worked for Dell at the time told me that the dollar amount was calculated to be a net profit source for Dell.

I won't get started on Apple. :-x

 

[DMKAlex]

I always clench my jaws when looking at Dell's prices for configuring a PC with more RAM or a larger SSD than the standard setup. The prices are always much higher than the retail prices of the components would cause.

I don't think I've ever read a justification for that. There may be some additional labor/paperwork involved, but I doubt that it's significant.

Years ago, Dell shipped a PC anywhere in the continental US for $99. A family member who worked for Dell at the time told me that the dollar amount was calculated to be a net profit source for Dell.

I won't get started on Apple. :-x

Not sure if you are saying Dell's configuration is cheaper, or more expensive?

My general observation is Dell is always the cheapest priced with similar configuration. Unless you're looking for the extreme high-end custom built (that's not offered by retailers), retail configurations are generally cheaper than the cost of the parts. Also, throw in the sales by big boxes like B&H, Amazon and Costco, you can pick up a retail unit at much saving.

 

[BobKnDP]

I always clench my jaws when looking at Dell's prices for configuring a PC with more RAM or a larger SSD than the standard setup. The prices are always much higher than the retail prices of the components would cause.

I don't think I've ever read a justification for that. There may be some additional labor/paperwork involved, but I doubt that it's significant.

Years ago, Dell shipped a PC anywhere in the continental US for $99. A family member who worked for Dell at the time told me that the dollar amount was calculated to be a net profit source for Dell.

I won't get started on Apple. :-x

Not sure if you are saying Dell's configuration is cheaper, or more expensive?

My general observation is Dell is always the cheapest priced with similar configuration. Unless you're looking for the extreme high-end custom built (that's not offered by retailers), retail configurations are generally cheaper than the cost of the parts. Also, throw in the sales by big boxes like B&H, Amazon and Costco, you can pick up a retail unit at much saving.

I think you misunderstand my rant.

The standard Dell configs seem to have good value.

If you wish to configure a system with more RAM or a larger SSD, the additional charges are higher than I'd expect based on the retail prices of the components.

 

[jerry]

It's a 9800X3D / RX9070 build and the parts cost more than that Costco machine

yep - DIY isn't about saving money. It's, to the degree supply allows, about building with the parts you want.

successful weekend







--
Life is Short
Ride Hard