More cores or fewer?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
T Hutchems

T Hutchems

Reputable
Dec 31, 2014
26
0
4,530
I'm about to build a workstation pc which will be used primarily for Photoshop, Illustrator and some 3DS Max work (no gaming). As I research, it seems there's a split between those who say more slower cpu cores are better than fewer fast cores. Was wondering what opinions are here. Thanks.
 
Solution
B
an i5 would real world perform better then the fx-8350.
The "8-core" fx-83XX cpus are not true 8 cores, they are 4 physical cores each with 2 logical cores. This is kind of similar to Intel's hyper threading (not an exact comparison). So an i7 is a 4 core cpu but is an "8-core" with hyper threading.

Now with that said architecture efficiency is another factor. The core iX architecture is better then amd fx lineup so an i5 with no hyper threading would still perform better then an 8 core fx series cpu.
Sort by date Sort by votes
T

Tom_Taplin

Honorable
May 26, 2014
303
0
10,860
if you're only doing one task at a time, fewer and more powerful always, high end intel CPUs have fewer cores as they are specifically engineered to yield best performance in harsh workloads such as rendering and photoshop
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
pasow

pasow

Distinguished
Nov 15, 2012
474
0
19,160
generally speaking, fast cores and a lot of them is the optimal point. however if you have to make the trade off, i would go core count over core clock for media production. a Core i7 can beat out a Core i5 while running at lower clocks, the same can be said for all AMD hard ware vs other AMD hardware, when it comes to production software.

now if we were talking word processing, internet surfing, or some gaming, its all about core clock rather than core count once you make it past 2/4 cores.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
B

boosted1g

Titan
Jun 12, 2013
14,846
8
74,965
Most of of your editing and 3d programs are coded now days to utilize more cores. The ideal woule be to get an i7 cpu and have both clock speed and more cores; the next best option is an E3 Xeon which has lower clock speeds but has hyper threading so the Xeon is a nice in-between the i5 and i7; then the third option is an i5.

For Photoshop and Adobe products they are coded to utilize cuda cores in Nvidia GPUs. I don't know much about 3DS max. For Photoshop a GTX 750 ti is good for anything that is not huge (like a 600dpi 4ft banner). If doing something that large then a 760 (or 960 when it comes out) would be better. Any bigger of a gpu would be a waste for creative suite software.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
T Hutchems

T Hutchems

Reputable
Dec 31, 2014
26
0
4,530
Thanks for the replies. For the last five years, I've done my graphics work on an i7 rig (an old Dell XPS 435mt with a 920). Still happy with it but it's past time for a new rig. I hardly ever
run more than one program at a time so I'm sure a new i7 would be best. But out of eight-core curiosity, I'd been looking at an AMD FX-8350/ASUS SABERTOOTH 990FX combo.
Would you see any reason to consider that combo against an i7 rig?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
B

boosted1g

Titan
Jun 12, 2013
14,846
8
74,965
an i5 would real world perform better then the fx-8350.
The "8-core" fx-83XX cpus are not true 8 cores, they are 4 physical cores each with 2 logical cores. This is kind of similar to Intel's hyper threading (not an exact comparison). So an i7 is a 4 core cpu but is an "8-core" with hyper threading.

Now with that said architecture efficiency is another factor. The core iX architecture is better then amd fx lineup so an i5 with no hyper threading would still perform better then an 8 core fx series cpu.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Solution
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom