Intel vs AMD

Hello,
Which is the best and least costly cpu to run Photoshop Esentials and Elements plus Lightroom without problems?

I would have to go with something like the Intel® Core™ i7-2600K with a solid Z68 motherboard (ASRock Z68 Extreme3) and between 8GB to 16GB DDR 3 memory to fit the best and least costly CPU, Motherboard, and RAM.

Christian Wood
Intel Enthusiast Team

best and least costly cpu, a price range would be nice
i7-2600 is like 300$ which isn't too... expensive, though its preformance makes up for it in my eyes

Hi

Pleaseee...... LEAST COSTLY he said......an i7 LOLLLLLLLLLLLLLL

Thats like calling a Porsche (which I own) ..just a car.....

All the best Brett

AMD FX-4100 it's around $100 and it's worth it.

4 Cores To!

get a athlon x3 or x2. They are the most cost effective solution if you are low on budget.

put everything else into at least 8 gb of ram.

have you used one?

Hi

The car thing was a comaprison I thought that people would understand... obviously not in your case and anyone that has to resort to personal insults on a Computer forum is hardly worth listening to....

I no doubt expect you have huge computer expertise, well in excess of mine, as I only own two computer companies, that build and repair computers and laptops...

Is there an "ignore user" on this forum by the way (question aimed at any Moderators reading this by the way)

All the best Brett

no, a quick youtube search can pull up alot of bad things about the fx series
the 8150 preforms on par with the i5-2500, and it has twice the cores/higher clock

I think the op is stressing the cheapness as he say run "without any problems"

given you would not use such a term for a high end CPU with tonnes of headroom.

Phenom II x4 955 get while there hot there are almost sold out and for around $100 FTW

You were the one that started in with the troll attitude, instead of just offering your opinion like others, you had to snarkily comment on someone else's opinion before offering yours; Pentium 4, seriously? The op might have been vague and open-ended with his requirements, but he/she did not say anything about building a relic system just for the fun of it. If they wanted to emphasize the "least costly" part of their requirement, then one of the cheaper i3's would do nicely, if wanting to lean more towards "the best", than 2500K is easily the best value and power right now (still $180 at Micro Center, I believe, if you happen to be near enough one). Intel enthusiast was not that far off by suggesting the i7.

I agree, in any case, I think it is generally a good idea to get the newest (Sandy Bridge is newest until March/April) tech if your looking for the most trouble-free experience, even if you end up going with the lower to mid-range.

i5 2500k best option

Like it or not, the 4100 does give a fair bang for the buck. Now, we know you don't like the FX, but there's no need to badmouth it at every opportunity.

Yeah, but look at the price difference... Down here in NZ, the 4100 is $160 and the 2500k is $370.

The 2500 just doesn't warrant the price with the amount of performance gain you get from it. And a stock 4100 still renders videos faster then my overclocked 955 did.

You can be a FX hater all you want, but for video editing and rendering, you'd have to get an Intel 990x/980x or 3960x/3930k to beat out the 8150. And a 2600k doesn't stand a chance. And don't even bother arguing about that, I have tried both. Adobe After effects. If you want gaming performance, then yes, Intel is standalone... AMD doesn't touch it. But in the OPs case, AMD is the best option.

@op, AMD motherboards are in general cheaper as well, and the 990fxx chipset (even 990x and 970) is a great chipset.

Ignore my last post. A core I5 2400 or 2500 would likely be better than a Fx-8150 in photoshop overall.

Hi

Ah an educated man who can count to 1.... that about says it all

All the best Brett

Even over clocked it's still not that great. The Bulldozer even when overclocked still doesn't beat out the I5 in most cases. I would say the "best" price to performance is the I5 2500 or 2500k.

These applications utilize multi-threading capabilities quite well and in which case the fx series is easily as viable as intel. Bang for buck for these applications I'd really have to lean towards an fx 8120 for the op's purposes. Though 99% of the time I reccomend a i5 sandy bridge architecture for most usages for an average user not looking to go broke.

Sure the 4100 is not a bad CPU if you want a slow dual core processor that runs hot and sucks power. Not to mention that it can't even compete with the older Phenom's.

The 4100 is more of a quad core than a i3, in fact it is eessentially a quad core, which beats out any dual core, including i3s, when it comes to threaded workloads. But how many times do I have to say that other than in gaming, my mate's 4100 outperformed my old PHII 955.

All the FX haters can say what they want: OP, the AMD FX-4100 is basically the best value CPU you can get for Photoshop. In workloads it easily outperforms a Phenom II 955 overclocked at 4.0gHz. The motherboards are relatively cheap, and you can get a decent system for a relatively low price. If you can fork out for a bit extra I would say get an 8120.

As an overall system you would want a relatively powerful GPU, nothing amazing, but something along the lines of a 5770 or a GTS450 would be good. For a motherboard you'd want something like an Asus M5A97 EVO, 8GB of DDR3-1600 or so RAM, and maybe a 500w PSU.

The FX-4100 isn't a "true" quad core processor but has two Bulldozer modules packed with a pair of processing cores each. That is the biggest change from the older Phenom II architecture. Despite all that it's slower than the Phenom II.

a module is 2 cores. a 2 module cpu is 4 cores. Now stop talking about stuff you know nothing about cause you don't know how the hardware actually fits together.

You have no clue what you're talking about. EvilElmowrote this about the 8150 and he is 100 percent right and it applies to all Bulldozers not just the 8150. Just substitute a few things and it's exactly the same.


Bulldozer FX-8150 has 4 modules each with 2 integer scheduling units. This means that Bulldozer has a total of 8 Integer Scheduling Units. A.K.A Execution pipelines. (As you can see bellow the FX-8150 contains four Bulldozer Modules)



The reason many people rightfully claim that Bulldozer is not a true 8 core processor is that when processing floating point operations... Bulldozer is left with the equivalent of half the Floating Point Scheduling Units found in a traditional processor.


As you can see above each Floating Point Scheduling Unit, found in a Bulldozer module, is shared by two Integer Scheduling Units. So when it comes to processing floating point operations... Bulldozer acts more like a Quad Core than an 8 Core Processor and thus comes out looking severely crippled.

Your earlier post shows you clearly don't.