I personally would stick with Intel/nVidia for an Adobe edit system.
On paper, I agree. But in real world performance, the Ryzen series outperforms Intel in most categories, especially budget. The Intel 6900K, a +$1000 CPU barely beats the Ryzen 1700. So the Ryzen is going to be my CPU.
The debate comes from what to use for my GPU. Again, I know using nVidea means you can use CUDA but from the test I have seen, there is not appreciable difference. Right now, I am looking at 4 options:
Keep my 290
Upgrade to 480
Wait to see what the new 500 series offers
Get a 1070
in real world performance, the Ryzen series outperforms
It's not really about that. It's about Adobe software specifically having a history of issues with AMD hardware that just don't exist with Intel/nVidia.
Could you provide some examples? Im not trying to smart a**, just really want do my research.
I go through a LOT of posts, the specifics don't always stick.
The best I can suggest is a forum search.
Adobe's video programs especially are optimized for the Nvidia CUDA architecture. They do work with OpenCL and all, sorta mostly ... but there are a lot more issues it seems with the AMD cards. My builder used to try to make the AMD work because in most outside-of-Adobe stuff, from video players to gaming, the AMD cards give good value per buck.
However ... he couldn't get an AMD setup to work as well as "it should!" ... and as Jim notes, builds me Nvidia based rigs now.
Bill Gehrke has the hard data on the real-world working within Adobe programs. And there's several others that reply here a lot that have great knowledge and experience also.
Past that, reading through the threads on this forum will give you a lot of information.
For 4k work, you may consider 64gb of ram, 128 if you're doing a lot of AE work. I've been researching too and that advice seems to be consistent although I have no data to point to.
If 10 bit color is important to you, you'll need an Nvidia Quadro card but most people take the power of the Geforce cards in 8 bit for the price. My suggestion would be, buy the Nvidia card with a pascal processor and the most cuda cores you can afford and consider the black magic 4K intensity pro card to feed a 10 bit monitor if you need it.
Here's the deal with AMD GPUs in Premiere Pro:
Although the latest CC versions of Premiere Pro support OpenCL in it's MPE GPU acceleration renderer OpenCL feature support is less complete than that of the CUDA support. But only Nvidia GPUs support CUDA. As a result, the performance scores with GPU-accelerated renders with an AMD GPU are quite a bit slower (or longer) than they should have been.
And the AMD Ryzen platform has great potential. The limitations of only dual-channel DDR4 RAM operation and a maximum RAM limit of only 64GB are serious issues for professional video editors.
I can agree that AMD GPU may need to be avoided, I will most likely get a 1070. That will do everything I want it to do and more. As for the Ryzen, there is no debate. I can upgrade my system to a ryzen, 32 GB of ram, and get a 1070 for cheaper than just the Intel CPU the ryzen contest with.
When it comes to using Adobe Products you always get what you pay for. Cutting cost keeps you at the crash gate all the time and you will always blame the software.
If 10 bit color is important to you, you'll need an Nvidia Quadro card
That's not quite accurate. The Quadros will offer 10 bit output for monitoring, but aren't needed to import, edit or export 10 bit (or higher) video.
But I do feel that using a dedicated I/O card is the better way to go here, as they take the software, GPU driver and OS out of the signal path, ensuring a proper, unaltered signal to the monitor.
There have been issues in the past with PP not being able to run using an AMD CPU, whereas Intel CPUs didn't have the issue. Old posts will have the details.
Something to consider.