I can't help you Trevor - I'm going to use you as the guinea pig before my next build . I'm interested in the answers though.
I'm feeling disinclined to abandon the findings of Puget Systems and Tom's Hardware for some bloke from Oz.
Puget Systems Skylake vs Threadripper with Photoshop conclusion
And the same thing but with Premiere Pro
These show 7900X with a small but still clear lead over either Threadripper with Photoshop, but unlike the Ozi guy, they show that 7900X is definitely not trounced by Threadripper with Premiere Pro. In fact it beats it. I'm going to put this down to a last minute wobble, and stay on track with i9X
ASRock X299 Professional Gaming i9
64Gb G-Skill Trident Z 3200
Cooler Master Silent Pro Gold 1000W (or maybey the 1200W)
Corsair H115i (280mm liquid cooler)
Cooler Master Cosmos II (GIANT case)
GTX970 bumped from my current system — I'll maybe look at a GTX1080 next year if nothing comes of Volta
Samsung 960PRO 512Gb M.2 — two to start with. When I see how they perform I'll decide how to use the third M.2 slot.
I'll bring an 840PRO 250Gb, 840EVO 1Tb, 4HDDs and 8 USB3 externals from this system across to the new build (which is why I wanted all the SATA and USB3 ports)
But I'd still like to hear if it is possible to stop the 7900X from melting.
I'm sure there is plenty room in one of those nearby vine fields for you to build the air-con plant
Joking aside, although most Photoshop use does not stress the CPU for long periods, a 3D render does. So I would want to be sure about the cooling. External liquid cooling?
I'm going with a 280mm AIO as an initial plan. If that doesn't cope, then its either delidding the CPU — a bit scary with a NZ$1500 component — and / or adding another radiator with a custom loop. But as you say, for the most part it is not going to stressed into getting seriously hot. If I did as much 3D as you Dave,
I would probably have gone with Threadripper, and probably the 1950X. Puget Systems is our go to place for hardware used for digital media content creation, but they also have some interesting blog articles. This entry from the 5th October, resonated with me. He makes the point that for many years he looked for a component price/performance sweet spot on an individual component basis. That's how I have also done it, and I bet most people do the same. He then argues that it would be more valid to set price differences as a percentage of the overall build cost, and I think he is right. So when you look at the US$180 differential between the 1920X and 1950X. That's a bit over 20% more cost for x increase in performance, but it would be well under 5% when set against the total build cost.
'A ha'porth of tar', and all that.