Blue Iris still doesn't support any kind of hardware acceleration from AMD products (and the new Ryzen CPUs don't have this capability anyway).
Ryzen 9 3900X / 3950X should both be good for extremely high-end Blue Iris builds, though for anything around 1200 MP/s or lower I would still recommend Intel.
Hi BP. Thank you for your post So I am thinking of getting a PC possibly next year so in couple of months possibly.. I know I will be pushing 1500 + MP/s load soon
So I should consider AMD ? And possibly even like thread ripper or stick to Ryzen 9 3950x ?
I first wanted to wait until new intel processor for a year but after reading your post It sounds like it maybe even worth to go with AMD
I have most of a 3950x build gathering dust waiting for the CPU to be sold. Although it is not for Blue Iris, I do intend to give Blue Iris a try on it so I can get a feel for the limits and power consumption. I should know more in a month, but right now I would certainly consider a Ryzen 9 3950x for 1500+ MP/s. A similarly performing Threadripper build is likely to cost significantly more, so I probably wouldn't recommend that, but we'll see.
Interesting. So You need more RAM ? To do more MP/s ? like 1900 or above ? Seem like at 1919 it was around 35 % which is good right ? I am guessing ? Or is there any other CPU limit that We need to be aware of. Once again thank you so much @bp2008 for testing this really appricieate it. I will need to build a new PC soon so Want to see if I Should go with AMD Or stick with intel or wait a while.. Like I can probaly stick another couple of months or may be more.. if something better is on horizon since I will be pushing 1500 + mp/s load.
Not exactly @tech101 , @bp2008 was unable to exceed 1919 MP/s in his testing, on that overkill Ryzen CPU, so his best guess is that memory BANDWIDTH was the limitation he was hitting. If you search "your_processor memory bandwidth", you can usually find that regular desktop CPU's typically have dual-memory controllers (i7-9700k , 3950x) but the Intel Extreme Edition, and AMD Threadripper chips have quad with ultra-high-end (AMD Epyc & Intel Xeon) have (4-8) memory channels.
Right now I think its mostly an "educated guess" because there just aren't a lot of data points at that extremely high end that don't also include high end graphics cards..
My 1919 MP/s test that reached 35% CPU load was with the GUI open on a 4K monitor, with the live preview frame rate unrestricted. It was actually 19% CPU with the GUI closed.
So at this point I am pretty sure you could get to the same MP/s load on a 3700X or similar CPU with only 8 cores (If using the same or better memory speed/configuration). An i9-9900K from Intel should also do fine, and offer Quick Sync, but it would cost more and might not end up actually being more energy-efficient.
My 1919 MP/s test that reached 35% CPU load was with the GUI open on a 4K monitor, with the live preview frame rate unrestricted. It was actually 19% CPU with the GUI closed.
So at this point I am pretty sure you could get to the same MP/s load on a 3700X or similar CPU with only 8 cores (If using the same or better memory speed/configuration). An i9-9900K from Intel should also do fine, and offer Quick Sync, but it would cost more and might not end up actually being more energy-efficient.
Thank you @bp2008 so with this said. You think i9 9900k is still better but will cost more ? Where AMD 3700x or similar will cost less.. and will still be okay under this kind of load ? Thank you !!
I know 990KS is also out but it is only slightly faster..