i7-9850H vs i9-9980HK for 4k video editing

Hi

My current laptop can't edit 4K videos smoothly (i7-3840QM). Device Manager shows the GPU is doing almost nothing but the processor is at 100%.

I've just ordered a new one with an i7-9850H (hoping that would be enough to edit smoothly) but am wondering now if I should try to change it to the i9-9980HK (or even i9-9880H)?

I read that the i9s get so hot in a laptop chassis they don't perform much better than the i7s anyway.

What are people's thoughts?

Thanks

 

Depending on the notebook model, yeah, they do get hot. But they still give the most productivity, overall, on a mobile platform. I'm speaking specifically about the ThinkPAD P53, the P73 which you would be interested in I cannot recommend (no benefits and even a few pitfalls vs. the 15.6" workstation).

The biggest benefit will be from any workflow that can use 2 additional cores (~20% increase) and the 33% bigger/better, 16MB Cache vs. the 12MB in the i7-9850H.

See:
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compar...l-i9-9880H-vs-Intel-i7-3840QM/3478vs3456vs900

See:
https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/compare.html?productIds=192987,191047,70846


With all three CPU's being 45W, the limiting factor on the more powerful models is the chassis you put it in.

 

Thanks.

Do you think the i7-9850H should be good enough for 4k editing?

 

Good enough is relative.

If there is something else faster that I can buy, now, then it isn't good enough for me.

See my edited post above.

 

Well, by "good enough" I meant be able to play the 4k footage in the editing window without it stuttering, so it's actually physically possible to edit it.

However, I've had second thoughts and am trying to cancel my order and place it again with the i9-9980HK instead for the extra £125. Who knows what I'll want to do in the future. I won't be upgrading to another new laptop for a few years...

 

To me, I have learned to be happy with what I can afford at the time, as long as it is faster than what I had.

But no computer is ever fast enough for me, even just to reply to your message, let alone do real work with it.

I know what you meant by 'good enough', but I don't know if you can appreciate that once you get it, you're at the bleeding edge and to get slightly better, you'll need to spend even more next time... Sometimes in mere weeks or months.

Like I said, I'm happy knowing that at the time of purchase, I made the best decision possible for my budget and my needs too.

 

I can stretch another £125, so think it's probably worth it for the i9....

Yes, of course, I know it will be outdated in a short time. But as I'm going to be using this laptop for a long time, makes sense to get the best processor I can now.

 

That’s a no brainer upgrade if you’re doing tasks that heavily utilize the CPU. The extra two cores will especially cut down on rendering time.
Charles

 

Which would be the better processor in a Dell Precision 7740?

i9-9980HK

or

Xeon E2286M?

Mainly for CAD, 4k video editing, and Photoshop.

GPU is RTX 3000 if that's relevant.

Thanks

 

What do you think about upgrading from the i9-9980HK to the Xeon E2286M? Doesn't really seem worth it - both are the same number of cores and the same speed, and I don't plan on buying ECC memory...

What do you think?

Thanks

 

I work as a character TD and always go for xeon models. Keep in mind that any DCC will only use 1 core anyway so it depends really what else you will be doing but on another note remind yourself that cons will have 2 less cores to i9

 

Thanks for the reply. What does DCC mean?

What are "cons"?

 

If you needed ECC, yes you'd have to get the Xeon, otherwise I think it wouldn't be worth the extra money.

Charles

 

Great, thanks for the advice!

 

This would depend on the $$$ difference between them and the number of years the platform would be expected to be in service for.

Note: not just the cost difference between the CPU's; but rather the entire platform difference (O/S, RAM price differences and any other requirements for the Xeon system.

See:
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/Intel-i9-9980HK-vs-Intel-Xeon-E-2286M/3451vs3491

There are minor nominal performance differences in favor of the Xeon platform, but the biggest benefits may not be seen in such metrics. Rather, they may be seen in the more stable/glitch-free operations until the platform is retired (vs. a consumer platform).

Your call on whether the price difference is significant or not to you. For myself; even an additional 20% total cost would make this platform move worthwhile to me over the next 5 to 7 years... if it was still within my budget and if it was also in a chassis that wouldn't limit its performance in any way too.

In addition; for the level of CPU's you're considering, the RTX3000 is not what I would choose for long-term use. The RTX5000 or at the very minimum, the RTX4000 instead for a purchase made today.

Specifically to your question of what is the better processor? The Xeon, of course. Inside the Dell Precision 7740 specifically?

See (be sure to translate to English):
https://www.51nb.com/review/20190802/870.html

The Dell has some major quirks and very suboptimal keyboard/pointing device issues. But for 'performance', it seems to be near the top right now.

Yeah; I'm very surprised. Still I would be sticking to a TP myself.

 

Thanks. The cost increase is about £110 to go from the i9 to the xeon.

The jump in performance from the i7 to the i9 (6 cores to 8 cores and 12MB cache to 16MB cache) seems like quite a bit (based on cpubenchmark etc) but the jump from i9 to xeon seems a lot less, and on the face of it not worth the money.

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compar...on-E-2286M-vs-Intel-i7-9850H/3451vs3491vs3478

However, the point of my post was to ask if there was anything else to consider other than theoretical benchmark performance. Why would it be more worthwhile to you over the next 5-7 years? Would that apply to a laptop too?

And yes, my question was specifically in 7740 ideally...

I will have a read of https://www.51nb.com/review/20190802/870.html. Was there anything specific in there you were highlighting?

Regarding the GPU - obviously the RTX 4000 and 5000 are better than the 3000, but from what I've seen the 3000 should be fine. The 4000 is an extra £370 and the 5000 is an extra £1,100. Is there a specific reason you think the 3000 won't be good enough?

Thanks again

 

£110 is negligible for the upgraded CPU. The total cost of the platform is more important though (especially 128GB non-ECC RAM vs. 128GB ECC RAM plus any additional O/S or other licensing fees, if any). Speaking just on the CPU performance; easily worth the one time cost over the next 5 to 7 years though.

There are also these points to consider if the three main differences are important to you:

See:
https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/compare.html?productIds=192993,192990

As for that review, the touchpad/TrackPoint/keyboard weaknesses are, IMO, glaring. There is also the slightly schizophrenic nature of the M.2 Slot assignments (although I've seen that in other platforms too).

I don't know if the RTX 3000 will be good enough for you in 5 to 7 years down the road? Even if it is sufficient for your workloads today.

Again, £1,100 over the next 5 to 7 years is negligible when you also consider that you will be enjoying the top-end performance from day one to day done too.

I would rather pay for this performance increase than any 'insurance' to keep the computer going for a few more years.

 

The £110 includes the upgraded OS (£30 extra for the xeon, £80 extra for the OS). I don't need ECC RAM, so as far as I can see I'd be paying £110 for a 4% increase in performance...

I don't understand the significance of the three main differences...

Tbh, I think the RTX 3000 is way more than I need now, so I'm already factoring in possible future needs. I get by OK with my CAD and Photoshop work on my 7 year old i7-3840QM and Quadro K4000M (although some advance filters in PS run slowly). I can't edit 4k video, but from what I've read the i9 and RTX 3000 should be more than enough for that.

Who knows what I'll get into in the future? But I guess even the RTX 5000 is low spec compared to some desktop setups.

£1100 extra now exceeds my current funds, and perhaps that money would be better spent towards my next upgrade in 5-7 years time...

Regarding the touchpad - I've always had Dells so am used to them - almost never use the PC without a mouse anyway really.

It's a good article though, thanks for digging it out.

 

I'm now considering your suggestion of an RTX 4000 instead of the 3000...

Seems like the 3000 might not be so good for 4k video editing after all...

 

See:
https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/a...s-in-Enhanced-Graphics-Performance-Mode-1385/

Do any of these comparisons help sway you one way or the other?

Note that these are not the mobile RTX cards and also, the RTX 3000 is not even a runner up.

 

@jack574 Why does the image in this post seem to indicate little to no GPU usage? Is that just an isolated task that only utilizes CPU?

http://forum.notebookreview.com/threads/cpu-utilisation.831317/

That being said the Precision 7740 can definitely handle the RTX 4000 @ 115W and 9980HK @ 75W just fine.

 

"Why does the image in this post seem to indicate little to no GPU usage?"

It was rebuilding an assembly behind the scenes, so nothing on the screen was changing.

Still can't decide if the RTX 4000 is worth the extra £340 over the RTX 3000 or not...

 

Hhhmmm. They tell me that all of the RTX cards do well. The RTX 3000 obviously wasn't tested.

Doesn't help me decide whether the 4000 is worth £340 more than the 3000.....

 

Alright, I understand the bencharks @tilleroftheearth linked now. Those are done for a new feature which allows Solidworks to utilize the GPU for tasks. So in that case, you could definitely get benefit out of the more powerful GPU. It is about 33% faster than the RTX 3000 IIRC, not to mention having higher vram which may be necessary if it being utilized to render your projects. Oh, and note that this new "Enhanced Graphics Performance" mode is a beta feature in Solidworks 2019, and only considered stable in 2020.

 

Hhhmm, ok - thanks for that clarification, that's useful.

Hard to know where to draw the line. The 3000 will be hugely more powerful than my current K4000M, but obviously the 4000 will be an improvement over the 3000.

Then, the 5000 will be an improvement over the 4000...

Have to draw the line somewhere!

I don't plan to be replacing this laptop for a good few years (my current M6700 is 7 years old and still going strong apart from its startup issues), so perhaps it's worth stretching to the 4000. The 4000 is £340 more than the 3000, but to jump from the 4000 to the 5000 is another £811...

Risk is I pay the extra for the 4000 but never even hit the limits of the 3000... Better that than the other way around I guess...

Thanks

 

@jack574, I have no doubt you'll hit the limits within ownership no matter what options you configure.

The question is will you be using SW 2020 and later? If so, the RTX 5000, with double the RAM and other goodies, is the 'value' buy. I haven't seen anyone using a computer use less of its capabilities over time. Unless they totally abandon tech and go live in the jungle somewhere (that, I've seen).

Have a very clear idea about your budget. Consider planning to upgrade the RAM more slowly in two or more stages (but within the next year, max), and even the storage subsystem can be put on hold for a few months (you do still have your old system, after all).

Buy the parts you can't (easily) upgrade and know that when the platform is maxed out in every way, it will provide you with the most performance you can reasonably buy today and for the next 7+ years.

The way I see it? ~33% faster is like buying/using tech from 5 years down the road, today.

That is a nice way to have your platform keep up at least partially with the O/S, Program and filesize changes we can expect to see and to keep it relevant that much longer.

 

Hhhmmm... The additional cost to go from the 4000 to the 5000 is 1/4 of the cost of an entire new PC, so the question is would that money be put to better use upgrading the whole PC a year or so earlier, than spending on a better GPU now?

Think I'm leaning towards the 4000...

 

I think the difference between the 4000 and 5000 is not as big as it is with the desktop cards. On the Precision 7740, both cards are limited to 115W TDP so the synthetic benchmarks all show performance very close together. So unless you have a use case for the extra VRAM, its probably not worth it in my opinion.

 

Good, thanks. That's very helpful.

What about the extra £340 to go from the 3000 to the 4000? Is that money well spent do you think?

Also, do you happen to know if the 4000 in the Precision 7740 is the "RTX 4000", "RTX 4000 Mobile" or the "RTX 5000 Max-Q" when I'm looking at benchmarks?

Thanks again

 

The RTX 4000 on any current mobile platform I know of is the 'mobile/Max Q' version. Note that the comparison was for the desktop cards.

That is one reason I would be swayed to the RTX 5000, the mobile cards are power limited, but the hardware features (16GB vram, etc. ) will still be useful longer on a mobile platform.

Don't just configure this on the web and hit buy... Talk to a sales person and get the best deal you can.

If it makes you feel better, does ~100 a year more seems more worth it? For the '5000.

Can't help that your workloads/workflows need (or at least can benefit) from the extra firepower.

I'm not saying to ignore a hard budget. But if you do have the means, spending on hardware is a cost that is usually easily recouped.

 

Apparently mobile and Max Q versions are not the same thing:
https://technical.city/en/video/Quadro-RTX-4000-mobile-vs-Quadro-RTX-4000-Max-Q

I have spoken to a salesperson to get the best deal I can!

Still trying to decide...

 

Right. Rtx 4000 it is i reckon. Can't see that I'd need 16GB VRAM.

 

640MB will be the most RAM we'll ever need too...