Which processor would be good for photo editing? Also, how much ram is recommended for moderate photo editing? I'm trying to put together a office computer, photo editing, and gaming machine for my brother. I already have bought a Sapphire 7970 Vapor X for $399 from newegg.
FX-8350 or FX-8320
- Thread starter andycal
- Start date
ur6beersaway
Honorable
- Apr 18, 2013
- 2,951
- 2
- 13,460
maestro0428
Splendid
- Apr 3, 2009
- 2,857
- 29
- 22,090
If you don't have a motherboard yet, go Intel, they are faster for the money. Both AMD processors are good for multithreaded apps though. I use 32GB in my system so when I am editing I can run a 16GB RamDisk for storing images and my scratch disk. Very fast. Otherwise 16GB is plenty (8 would probably be fine too) as I have never used that much when photo editing (although when encoding and rendering I have).
8350rocks
Distinguished
- Mar 14, 2013
- 6,235
- 0
- 18,460
FX 8350 + 2x4 GB RAM @ 1866 MHz should be plenty...if he isn't rendering/encoding he won't need more than 8 GB, and 8 is plenty for games.
If you're overclocking, save a few bucks and buy the 8320...if you're not overclocking, the increase in stock clock speed on the 8350 is worth the extra $30-40.
If you're overclocking, save a few bucks and buy the 8320...if you're not overclocking, the increase in stock clock speed on the 8350 is worth the extra $30-40.
Yea I plan on overclocking and pairing whatever processor with a Corsair h80i water cooler. Which is better for editing, Intel or AMD? I noticed if he spends $50-$60 more he can get a new Haswell i5-4670k processor with a MSI Z87-GD65 Gaming board for $401.00.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboDealDetails.aspx?ItemList=Combo.1326050
8350rocks
Distinguished
- Mar 14, 2013
- 6,235
- 0
- 18,460
Haswell isn't worth the money...
Additionally, adobe partners with AMD to optimize software for their architecture. If you use photoshop, then you're going to see great performance from the AMD CPU. That's not to say intel wouldn't also be competitive there, but the 8350 does really well in photoshop rendering/editing.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-vishera-review,3328-9.html
This one is editing functions speed:
This one is H.264 encoding:
Note the FX 8350 is faster at editing than all intel CPUs, and in encoding only the 3770k is marginally faster.
The FX8350 is money well spent for your brother.
Additionally, adobe partners with AMD to optimize software for their architecture. If you use photoshop, then you're going to see great performance from the AMD CPU. That's not to say intel wouldn't also be competitive there, but the 8350 does really well in photoshop rendering/editing.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-vishera-review,3328-9.html
This one is editing functions speed:
This one is H.264 encoding:
Note the FX 8350 is faster at editing than all intel CPUs, and in encoding only the 3770k is marginally faster.
The FX8350 is money well spent for your brother.
That's about it for AMD and it's only because they have more physical cores. In MOSTLY everything else, Intel wins.
If you want value, then AMD will always win, however Intel is more about performance/quality.
You should always pick according to what you are doing. Who cares if AMD is better in one that Intel isn't or the other way around? If you're going to buy a car for your family, then you wouldn't buy a two door sports car. For the difference, I would go 3770k instead of either, simply because photo editing isn't all he is doing.
If you want value, then AMD will always win, however Intel is more about performance/quality.
You should always pick according to what you are doing. Who cares if AMD is better in one that Intel isn't or the other way around? If you're going to buy a car for your family, then you wouldn't buy a two door sports car. For the difference, I would go 3770k instead of either, simply because photo editing isn't all he is doing.
8350rocks
Distinguished
- Mar 14, 2013
- 6,235
- 0
- 18,460
The difference is minimal at best with a comparable CPU from intel...most of those the difference is less than the margin of error for the benchmark. I don't consider .4 FPS difference a victory either way.
Additionally AMD wins or ties in the benchmarks where multiple monitors are used...(note Metro 2033/BF3/AVP with resolution 5760x1080 and 4800x900)
Except if you look at the couple that have the i7-3960X in them...though that CPU + MB will cost you $1300 before you buy any other piece of your system, so I doubt we're considering it.
Additionally AMD wins or ties in the benchmarks where multiple monitors are used...(note Metro 2033/BF3/AVP with resolution 5760x1080 and 4800x900)
Except if you look at the couple that have the i7-3960X in them...though that CPU + MB will cost you $1300 before you buy any other piece of your system, so I doubt we're considering it.
YYYYYYYYYEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA..............NO! Not even considering the i7-3960x! The processor and motherboard costs as much as my AMD rig! No way I can justify the let alone recommend it to someone I'm trying to keep on a budget. Another dumb question. Is there a difference between PCIe 3.0 and PCIe 2.0?
- Apr 27, 2009
- 37,552
- 3,222
- 143,290
There is a difference, but none you will notice. There isn't a single gpu solution that can fully saturate a 2.0 graphics slot, much less a 3.0.
Since it looks like you want to overclock, then I suggest the 8320 and use money saved for something elsewhere or just pocket it.TRENDING THREADS
-
News Windows 11 will reportedly display a watermark if your PC does not support AI requirements- Started by Admin
- Replies: 19
-
-
-
Discussion What's your favourite video game you've been playing?- Started by amdfangirl
- Replies: 3K
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram