on an Intel system, again it plays any file forwards/backwards without a problem. Unless your workflow includes tasks that will be able to utilize the higher core count, RAM capacity, or PCI-E lane count of the X-series, you may want to go with a Core i9 10900K instead.

No board or brand is flawless, so how quickly we can report a problem and get a resolution is almost more important to us then whether or not it had a problem in the first place (within reason, of course). Currently I have: I7 5820K - 32 Gb RAM - Nvidia 1070 - NVe 1 tB - 5x SSD HD for projects, data, cache. I have an external RAID to connect via Thunderbolt through motherboard I/O and while I don't edit in Premiere from this external drive, I do plan to edit in Lightroom, Photoshop, Illustrator, and other applications from it. Using big.LITTLE technology, a chip can switch between two sets of processor cores to maximize performance and battery life. For us, the most common reason why we may push a customer towards an Intel platform is if they require Thunderbolt as we have found it to be significantly more reliable on Intel platforms at the moment. Thanks. In this comparison, we would not consider the Intel Core i7 or i9 CPUs as they are pretty much way more high end than the overall AMD APU lineup. I edit only XAVC-S H264 25 p 100 Mbit 4k video. It is used when is it essential to avoid corruption, such as scientific computing or when running a server. If you are set on trying to use Thunderbolt on AMD (or even Intel on non-Gigabyte boards), I would just recommend that you have a good return policy from wherever you purchase the parts or system from so that if you have problems, you can return it. I have another question regarding hardware acceleration within Premiere Pro: The minimum hardware requirement to enable hardware acceleration is a 6th gen intel CPU or higher, and I currently have a 5th gen 5820k. This benchmark measures the performance of the CPU using multiple threads. So upgrading to a higher CPU would definitely give you more performance - up to around 40% or so. Next, relative to the new Intel Core i9 10900K, the only Intel X-series processor that is going to be significantly faster is the Intel Core i9 10980XE - and only by about 10% overall. It all depends on what you are looking for, and what your budget is. With integrated graphics you don’t need to buy a separate graphics card. Chipsets with a higher number of transistors, semiconductor components of electronic devices, offer more computational power. I realize encoding/decoding HEVC footage requires a 7th gen CPU or higher, but I don't work with HEVC often. More memory channels increases the speed of data transfer between the memory and the CPU. For example, when playing a game the more powerful cores will be used to increase performance, whereas checking email will use the less powerful cores to maximize battery life. For that, Premiere Pro still only uses Intel Quicksync to accelerate H.264/5 decoding so Intel CPUs with Quicksync do have an advantage over AMD for live playback and (to a lesser extent) exporting of H.264/5 media.

This isn't anything new, but now that Intel is being more aggressive about adding cores and pushing the frequency, this is resulting in much higher power draw (and heat) than you would expect from a 125W processor - often resulting in 100c temperatures after only a few seconds of load. If you already have the CPU, I would stick with it and try it out for a while. Would you make any adjustments to the components, if yes - why?