 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / Digital Photo / April 2005AMD vs Pentium 4 for Photoshop work.
Slightly off topic, I know, but since this will be used in conjunction with my digital camera, I thought what the heck! :-) It is computer upgrade time at the Grumpy household and I am tossing up between a Pentium 4 640 3.2GHz system or an AMD 64 3200+ based system. 2 gig memory will be fitted to whichever system I buy, XP Pro will be the O/S. My main use is playing with my photographs with Photoshop and transferring video to DVD. Gaming ability is unimportant. Does one stand out over the other for my uses? > Slightly off topic, I know, but since this will be used in conjunction with my digital camera, I thought what > the heck! :-) [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Does one stand out over the other for my uses? Choose Intel for compatibility and stability. For your purposes AMD may regain a performance advantage at some point, but as it stands right now a P4 system is the way to go. >> Slightly off topic, I know, but since this will be used in >> conjunction with my digital camera, I thought what the heck! :-) [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Choose Intel for compatibility and stability. IOW, choose FUD as a way of life. Feh. > > Choose Intel for compatibility and stability. > > IOW, choose FUD as a way of life. I use dual G4s. >>> Slightly off topic, I know, but since this will be used in >>> conjunction with my digital camera, I thought what the heck! :-) [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > >Feh. Not that you need more input at this point as most is just personal opinions, but... I agree to wait for the dual core processors and go AMD 64 with a dual processor MB with the highest onboard cache (what are they up to? 8mb on-board?). next most important is to get at least one 10,000 RPM hard drive (for the C: drive and decently sized for storage) with at least an 8 meg buffer. and of course a second drive for the PS swap file/scratch disk. (You could optionally use the smaller drive for windows itself, then put all your software on a second drive, the 10,000 rpm also used for storage) you may also want a third smaller drive for the windows swap file, but of course if you put 2-4 gigs of ram in it then you could probably turn off the swap file. also make sure to get a decent video card pref a 256mb 256 bit pci-express card (not entirely necessary, however I'll 95% guarantee that your video display won't hinder you. I'd Also recommend a 20 inch flat panel monitor with a DVI connector (good name brand, you should actually research the differences in a couple before buying). All that might put you around a $2500 - $3200 (USD) system BEFORE software, and more than likely will require you to put it together yourself. that's my 2 cents... >>>>Slightly off topic, I know, but since this will be used in >>>>conjunction with my digital camera, I thought what the heck! :-) [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > that's my 2 cents... No matter HOW much RAM you have, DON'T turn off the swap file on a Windows machine. It isn't worth the grief. Windows uses the swap file to allow the memory manager to avoid fragmentation, for one thing. Let the OS worry about that issue. I agree with your other statements. BTW, when you get that built up, send me one, gratis, of course. Grin. You do realize that by the time you turn it on, it will already be obsolete...  SignatureRon Hunter rphunter@charter.net >No matter HOW much RAM you have, DON'T turn off the swap file on a >Windows machine. It isn't worth the grief. Windows uses the swap file >to allow the memory manager to avoid fragmentation, for one thing. Let >the OS worry about that issue. Yea, and if your into games keep in mind that a few games will refuse to run if you turn off the swap file. >> Slightly off topic, I know, but since this will be used in conjunction >> with my digital camera, I thought what [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > advantage at some point, but as it stands right now a > P4 system is the way to go. Intel has nothing over AMD for stability and compatability. Your repeating old wives' tales when you state the Intel is more stable. >>>Slightly off topic, I know, but since this will be used in conjunction >>>with my digital camera, I thought what [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Intel has nothing over AMD for stability and compatability. Your repeating > old wives' tales when you state the Intel is more stable. Well, young wives tales, maybe. AMD isn't THAT old. Grin. But I have found them to be completely reliable, and stable, and compatible. SignatureRon Hunter rphunter@charter.net > >> Slightly off topic, I know, but since this will be used in conjunction > >> with my digital camera, I thought what [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Intel has nothing over AMD for stability and compatability. Bullshit. Current AMD offerings run much hotter (not to mention slower) than top-end P4's. > Bullshit. Current AMD offerings run much hotter (not to > mention slower) than top-end P4's. LOL! <Please do not feed the troll!> >>>>Slightly off topic, I know, but since this will be used in conjunction >>>>with my digital camera, I thought what [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > Bullshit. Current AMD offerings run much hotter (not to > mention slower) than top-end P4's. Sigh. You work for Intel, or something? The temperature at which a computer chip runs is immaterial as long as it operates properly, and the AMD processors at any given clock rate outperform Intel's chips, significantly. Check ANY tests. SignatureRon Hunter rphunter@charter.net >> >> Slightly off topic, I know, but since this will be used in conjunction >> >> with my digital camera, I thought what [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > Bullshit. Current AMD offerings run much hotter (not to > mention slower) than top-end P4's. AMD chips run at slower clock speeds than Intel chips yet they perform better. Clock speed is no longer a measurement between the two. Fact is that AMD outperforms Intel. The fact that they may run hotter has no bearing on reliablility and stability at all. > Bullshit. Current AMD offerings run much hotter (not to > mention slower) than top-end P4's. Another know it all (actually knows nothing) prick for plonking. > Slightly off topic, I know, but since this will be used in conjunction with my digital camera, I thought what > the heck! :-) [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Does one stand out over the other for my uses? At the end of an eight hour day, you'd hardly notice a difference between the two in the amount of work accomplished. > Slightly off topic, I know, but since this will be used in conjunction > with my digital camera, I thought what the heck! :-) [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Does one stand out over the other for my uses? Let's see: Both are fast and reliable. I'd personally go with the AMD and get Windows XP-Pro 64-bit. But either CPU + 2GB RAM will run fine. SignatureMark Heyes (New Zealand) See my pics at www.gigatech.co.nz (last updated 16-Apr-05) "There are 10 types of people, those that understand binary and those that don't" >>Slightly off topic, I know, but since this will be used in conjunction >>with my digital camera, I thought what the heck! :-) [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > But either CPU + 2GB RAM will run fine. Definitely Athlon 64 but be very caution about Windows XP Pro x64. I want it very much but the device driver support is scare and some programs won't run because it is based on Windows 2003 (different core from Windows XP, so the name is actually misleading) and has no 16-bit subsystem, so even 32-bit programs with 16-bit installer (they are very rare though) won't work (e.g. Adobe Streamline 4). All devices need new 64-bit support. I think for majority of the people, we have to wait for longhorn to see wide third party supports. It's like going from Windows NT 5 to XP. If I tell you that both is an overkill, will you consider me off my head?I am doing perfectly well with a celeron 2.4, 512 MB, geforce 4 mx 440,QDI 848 and hitachi 80 GB IDE.There is no operating system yet for 64 bit, and my computer runs doom 3 fast as hell (and demanding autocad applications, too). -- Tzortzakakis Dimitrios major in electrical engineering, freelance electrician FH von Iraklion-Kreta, freiberuflicher Elektriker dimtzort AT otenet DOT gr > Slightly off topic, I know, but since this will be used in conjunction with my digital camera, I thought what > the heck! :-) [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Does one stand out over the other for my uses? > If I tell you that both is an overkill, will you consider me off my head?I > am doing perfectly well with a celeron 2.4, 512 MB, geforce 4 mx 440,QDI 848 > and hitachi 80 GB IDE.There is no operating system yet for 64 bit, and my WinXP64 seems to be out... ...Tiger is released tomorrow... ...and I'm running a Gentoo Linux system on AMD64, which is also a 64 bit OS. -peter I didn't know that, but a Pentium 4 is still 60 degrees hotter and 120 euro more expensive than a comparable celeron... -- Tzortzakakis Dimitrios major in electrical engineering, freelance electrician FH von Iraklion-Kreta, freiberuflicher Elektriker dimtzort AT otenet DOT gr > > If I tell you that both is an overkill, will you consider me off my head?I > > am doing perfectly well with a celeron 2.4, 512 MB, geforce 4 mx 440,QDI 848 [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > -peter > Slightly off topic, I know, but since this will be used in conjunction with my digital camera, I thought what > the heck! :-) [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Does one stand out over the other for my uses? I would go with the 64 bit AMD, clearly the next step. Note that MS now has a 64bit OS to support the processor better. You can trade the Pro XP version in for it. Then you will be well-positioned for the future. SignatureRon Hunter rphunter@charter.net On 4/28/05 6:22 AM, in article 0bh171pnuckvqb1vkr3o8rpf1rmr00np8g@4ax.com, > Slightly off topic, I know, but since this will be used in conjunction with my > digital camera, I thought what [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Does one stand out over the other for my uses? You have already made the correct decision on the most important thing and that is choosing 2 gig of memory. Even 2 gig is not enough for 1 gig plus Photoshop files, but 2 gig is fine for most Photoshop work. Other than that AMD, Pentium 4, or Mac G5 - it doesn't matter much for Photoshop. Chuck The message <0bh171pnuckvqb1vkr3o8rpf1rmr00np8g@4ax.com> from Old Bugger <grumpy@mailinator.com> contains these words: > Does one stand out over the other for my uses? No. SignatureSkipweasel. Ivor Cutler - "Never knowingly understood." To be honest there's not a lot in it... either will do. Choice of motherboard, RAM and hard drive will make more difference than processor type. You can build a fast, stable system with both AMD and Intel CPUs, or build an unstable slug ;-) Personally I feel you get more bang for your bucks with AMD... My system is an AMD64 3700+ with 2GB Corsair RAM and it runs PS CS very nicely. Guy > Slightly off topic, I know, but since this will be used in > conjunction with my digital camera, I thought what the heck! :-) [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Does one stand out over the other for my uses? > Slightly off topic, I know, but since this will be used in conjunction with my digital camera, I thought what > the heck! :-) [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Does one stand out over the other for my uses? Photoshop doesn't use much horsepower. Unless you are making a poster size photos daily, any current systems would be sufficient. I have Athlon 64 2.0GHz (3200+) and it takes CaptureOne 20secs to convert each Canon 20D RAW to 16bit TIFF (46.8MB). That is the longest operation I have ever need to endure. Opening up the converted TIFF in Photoshop takes a little over a second. Many operations take a second or two. You get the picture? (OT) Only video editing consumes lots of processing power, and mainly in real time preview. I'd still want a 64bit Athlon 64, not the current 32bit P4. And Vegas 6 is lightly fast. If I had money and can wait till next year, I'd want a dual core Athlon 64!!! DO NOT BUY ANYTHING NOW. WAIT IF AT ALL POSSIBLE. In a few months, and more economically in a year, it will not matter all that much to decide between AMT and Intel. Both are coming out with a DUAL CORE 64 bit CPU and supporting chip sets. By that time ASUS (I think they are best) will have a system board that will support it and Microsoft will have a 64 bit OS that will also support it. Then get 1 to 2 GIG of RAM and a couple of fast SATA2 Hard Drives. That is why I am not building anything now. And if you do not know how to build a computer you can go to any of the small white box builders and they will build a computer to your specifications for under $100.00 labor. >> Slightly off topic, I know, but since this will be used in >> conjunction with my digital camera, I thought what [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > If I had money and can wait till next year, I'd want a dual core > Athlon 64!!! >My main use is playing with my photographs with Photoshop and >transferring video to DVD. Gaming ability is >unimportant. From what I've read, the P4 processors might be better for the process of transferring video to DVD, since the MPEG encoding step is slow and involves a great deal of signal processing computation. Apparently, the main difference between the current AMD and Intel processors is the AMD has a shorter pipeline with less latency, which is valuable if you're running code that branches frequently. The P4 suffers more every time the code takes an unexpected branch. But for long stretches of straight computation without branches (e.g. filtering, FFTs) the higher clock rate of the Intel processor gets more done per unit time, and the long pipeline delay doesn't matter. In the long run, the 64-bit capability of Athlon 64 may make it more useful in a year or two when more 64-bit software exists. Whether this matters to you depends on how frequently you upgrade. Dave Not really. The memory and having 2 hard discs is more important. Signaturehttp://www.chapelhillnoir.com home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto The Improved Links Pages are at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html > Slightly off topic, I know, but since this will be used in conjunction with my digital camera, I thought what > the heck! :-) [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Does one stand out over the other for my uses? > Slightly off topic, I know, but since this will be used in conjunction with my digital camera, I thought what > the heck! :-) [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Does one stand out over the other for my uses? Something to consider with a new system: For a while now new systems are being delivered with SATA (Serial ATA) hard drives. But it has been Serial ATA 1. Serial ATA2 is just coming out, and the interface is double the speed. I'm planning an upgrade too, but one thing I'll wait for is SATA 2 interfaces in the computer, even if SATA 2 drives are not out yet (anyone seen one)? SATA 2 has performance to SCSI 320, very nice. One thing I have not seen, is how many disk drives can a SATA controller handle? Roger > Slightly off topic, I know, but since this will be used in conjunction > with my digital camera, I thought what [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Does one stand out over the other for my uses? I build computers for living. There really isn't much difference in performance. It can be measured and both manufacturers can give you bench marks showing they are faster. The brand of motherboard, motherboard chipset, brand of video card (some clones have good performance but fuzzy display), type of hard drive etc. will make far more of a difference to your computing experience. Find a good shop that stands behind their work and be prepared to pay a little more for top brand equipment and you won't go wrong. Make sure you stress you want top notch equipment. Even the top m/b manufacturers make "value priced" boards. Kerry > My main use is playing with my photographs with Photoshop and transferring > video to DVD. Gaming ability is unimportant. I'd ask in the video groups as that application is what's going to need some horsepower. For PS either one is overkill. SignatureStacey |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.