Hello all! I'd like your input, if possible on whether I should upgrade the CPU in my computer system or the GPU? I can't do both at once, so right now, it's one or the other.
I run a Windows 10 system with an ASUS X99 Deluxe mobo, 64GB of RAM, and SSD for the system drive, a separate SSD for rendering and a RAID for the video.
The current CPU is an Intel i7-5930K (6-core, 3.5GHz)
The current GPU is a GeForce GTX 980Ti.

So, for faster playback or rendering should I replace the GPU with a GTX1080 or RTX2080 (Ti?) or should I upgrade the CPU to something like the i7-5960X (8-core) or i7-6950X (10-core)? From y'all's experience what's the best route to take and why do you say that? Thanks!

It would be helpful to know what you edit in.

It really depends on the software. It’s hard to believe but a lot of them dont take advantage of the gpu or the gpu will only be utilized for very specific processes. You would either have to test it yourself or find someone else who has.

Tested: Best CPU and GPU Configuration for Video Editors - YouTube

I edit using Adobe Premiere CC

Cpu ! Cpu ! Cpu !

I'm definitely leaning toward the CPU upgrade, but probably have to go with a mobo upgrade as well. I dn't know that spending about $500.00 for two extra cores is worth it, though maybe getting an X299 mobo with a newer i7 might work as well. Gotta look at what's out there first. Research is the key and that's one reason I ask here!

AMD has leap frogged over Intel with their ThreadRipper 1950x has 16 cores

Does that translate into actual performance gains for playback/render in Premiere, or is that just marketing hype?

Good Question! What are the specs/tests out there from AMD vs. Intel? If I need to seriously upgrade the CPU (and mobo), then Threadripper may be a direction to take.

I take back what I said about ThreadRipper. Just like the gpu Premiere doesn't seem to be designed to take advantage of the additional cores of AMD Ryzen. Instead it benefits from a higher clock speed of an Intel 8700k especially if it’s overclock to 5ghz. Adobe seems poorly designed not taking advantage of hardware advances.

Don't Buy AMD Threadripper For Adobe Premiere Pro.. - YouTube

I've decided to begin by upgrading the CPU and motherboard. A simple CPU replacement wouldn't give me enough of an "umph" to make it worthwhile... so... motherboard gets replaced, too!
I've decided to go with the i9-9900K and a Gigabyte Z390 Designare mobo. I can use my existing RAM, GPU, SSD's etc in the new system. I'll let you now how it goes.

I've recently wandered through this minefield on deciding which CPU to use. The i9 9900k was my targeted CPU build. After much research I dropped that idea for a number of reasons. One of the reasons was the 9900k even with it's soldered heat sink is running extremely hot.

Anything over 81 degrees starts to be an issue. Running at 5.1GHz there was a failure with the best air cooling, the Noctua NH-D15. Running at 5.1GHz with Corsair liquid cooling it also failed. At its base clock speed of 3.6GHz it was running as high as 77 degrees with 360mm Custom Liquid Cooling which is pretty bad. At 5.1GHz clock speed it is running at 98 degrees. At those temps you will get power throttling and CPU throttling and eventually shorten the life of your CPU. Not a good start for the i9 9900k CPU. More info here:

https://www.techspot.com/article/1732-solder-vs-paste-core-i9/#commentsOffset

In the end I completely switched my plans and built an i7 8700k system with an Asus GTX-1080Ti. With a delidded CPU, Liquid Metal and a Noctua NH-D15. I have this system running with bedrock like stability at 5.0GHz on ALL cores all day. When rendering with Handbrake or Vidcoder which will push all cores to 98-100% it doesn't overheat. The system will barely top 65-70 degrees which is a really good temp range to run a CPU when rendering AVX instruction set software such as Handbrake that is going to extract the max from your CPU. It also renders at quite an amazing rate. SD rendering at around 200 FPS plus, HD rendering at around 100 FPS plus and QHD at just a little faster than real time frame rates.

As far as editing goes I can run 4K DCI and UHD at full size full res with LUTs and grades at the full frame rates of 24 and 50p without any hesitation. Smooth as butter.

Some of the research that ended up guiding my decision was based on the following links. Basically the system I'm running is based of this der8auer video:

ASUS MAXIMUS X HERO - Overclocking Test and Guide 8700K (en)
ASUS MAXIMUS X HERO - Overclocking Test and Guide 8700K (en) - YouTube

with some tweaks from:

How to Overclock an 8700K & 8086K - ASUS Maximus X and Others
How to Overclock an 8700K & 8086K - ASUS Maximus X and Others - YouTube

A couple of the other vids that swayed my decision to forgo the 9900k:

Bad sTIM? Why is the 9900K so hot?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=921&v=r5Doo-zgyQs

9900k vs 8700k - When is the 9900k Relevent?
9900k vs 8700k - When is the 9900k Relevent? - YouTube

Attached are some screen grabs of the tests run on the 8700k box. Incidentally the 8700k also worked out a cheaper build than the 9900k option not that price was a driving consideration.

Your results on the 9900k will be of great interest to those who build our own systems so yes please post back your results. It's good to keep abreast of the latest builds.

Chris Young
Sydney

Thanks Christopher, I wasn't sure what CPU to buy either but leaning towards the 8700K even more now.
Thanks for all the great info.

No problems Anthony.

If my wandering around in the minefield helps anyone else heading down the upgrade path that's all good in my book.

Chris Young
Sydney

No problems Anthony.

If my wandering around in the minefield helps anyone else heading down the upgrade path that's all good in my book.

Chris Young
Sydney

:) well it helps me for sure.

Dang it! Y'all got me questioning my thought processes... again!
Which is actually, okay. I want to make sure I have everything right before I pull the trigger.

No shame in that, you don't want to go spending the time and money only to find out that it barely registers much of a difference. For my own use, I am Mac based, and while I was very tempted by the iMac Pro offerings (with 8 cores, 64GB of RAM, and, most importantly, the VEGA 64 GPU option), in the end I went with a steal of a deal off of B&H for last year's iMac, a quad-core i7 (instead of XEON), 64GB of RAM and a 580 GPU. My reasoning was that, with the deal I was getting (under $4k), could I justify nearly double that for a system that, while powerful, might not make 2x difference in responsiveness and rendering? I couldn't justify that to myself, so that's why I went the direction that I did.

Roger that! I'm going to stay the Windows route, though I may create a Hackintosh install to see how that might work. I'm still reviewing the different possibilities and the "boss" hasn't released the funds yet. That will come presently. Researching the different possibilities is a fun thing!