Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Intel vs AMD

Last response: in CPUs
Share
January 6, 2012 5:39:52 PM

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

More about : intel amd

a c 188 à CPUs
a b å Intel
January 6, 2012 5:49:52 PM

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
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 6, 2012 6:34:55 PM

IntelEnthusiast said:
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


Hi :) 

You are kidding right....and i7 as least costly cpu..lollll

For what the Op wants any dual core low end cpu and Mobo will do at a third of the cost of an i7 and mobo to match :) 

All the best Brett :) 



m
0
l
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
a b à CPUs
January 6, 2012 6:57:05 PM

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
m
0
l
a c 188 à CPUs
a b å Intel
January 6, 2012 7:12:01 PM

Since the OP asked for the best and least costly cpu I would guess that the OP wasnt looking for the cheapist option that could possibly do the job just as I would guess that he wasnt looking for the most expensive option. So while it is possible that an Intel® Core™ i3-2100 could do the job just like the Intel Core i7-3960X can do the job but it doesnt fit his listed needs the best. In the end my opinion is that the Intel Core i7-2600K at $320 fits his listed needs the best and least costly cpu.

Christain Wood
Intel Enthusiast Team
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 6, 2012 7:34:37 PM

IntelEnthusiast said:
Since the OP asked for the best and least costly cpu I would guess that the OP wasnt looking for the cheapist option that could possibly do the job just as I would guess that he wasnt looking for the most expensive option. So while it is possible that an Intel® Core™ i3-2100 could do the job just like the Intel Core i7-3960X can do the job but it doesnt fit his listed needs the best. In the end my opinion is that the Intel Core i7-2600K at $320 fits his listed needs the best and least costly cpu.

Christain Wood
Intel Enthusiast Team


Hi :) 

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

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

All the best Brett :) 
m
0
l
January 6, 2012 7:43:01 PM

Yeah. I would suggest getting a larger amount of ram around 8 Gigs. Just to add on to this.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 6, 2012 7:56:58 PM

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

4 Cores To!
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 6, 2012 7:57:45 PM

Hi :) 

System requirements for Lightroom...

Intel® Pentium® 4 processor or equivalent
Microsoft® Windows® XP with Service Pack 3; Windows Vista® Home Premium, Business, Ultimate, or Enterprise (32 bit and 64 bit); or Windows 7 (32 bit and 64 bit)
2GB of RAM
1GB of available hard-disk space
1,024x768 display
CD-ROM drive
.................................................................................

So a Pentium 4 and 2 gb of ram.... is all that needed................

All the best Brett :) 

m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
January 6, 2012 8:04:49 PM

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.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 6, 2012 8:34:31 PM

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

4 Cores To!


uhh, no... fx is sssllloowww, if you want a quad atleast go for a phenomII or i5/i7
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 6, 2012 8:49:30 PM

have you used one?
m
0
l
January 6, 2012 9:11:44 PM

This is exactly the reason why people need to give a BUDGET and all the components they need for their build.

Btw, brett, you kind of sound like a tool, no one cares about what car you have on a computer hardware forum. Secondly, yes, those specs would be the least amount you need to run it, then again, you only need a gt 430 and a dual core to run bf3 at lowest settings/extremely low res, but will most people want that? NO...
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 6, 2012 9:27:20 PM

bawchicawawa said:
This is exactly the reason why people need to give a BUDGET and all the components they need for their build.

Btw, brett, you kind of sound like a tool, no one cares about what car you have on a computer hardware forum. Secondly, yes, those specs would be the least amount you need to run it, then again, you only need a gt 430 and a dual core to run bf3 at lowest settings/extremely low res, but will most people want that? NO...



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 :) 
m
0
l
a c 471 à CPUs
a c 118 À AMD
a c 115 å Intel
January 6, 2012 10:02:55 PM

I can't find any solid information regarding Lightroom's ability to use Hyper Threading so I will assume it cannot take advantage of it.

Assuming the Core i5-2500k is within your budget ($220), that is probably the best CPU you can buy. If the sallyd is not into overclocking, then the Core i5-2500 can be bought for around $10 less.

If that is too much money, then in the moderately priced range, there is the Phenom II 4 960T which is around $125. It is actually pretty inexpensive.

For around $90 there is the triple core Llano A6-3500.

"Best and least costly CPU" is hard to determine for each individual because in general, the lower the price, the slower the CPU. It boils down to how slow is too slow?
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 6, 2012 10:33:58 PM

melikepie said:
have you used one?


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
m
0
l
January 6, 2012 10:39:05 PM

Without a budget given I would have to say I would agree with intelenthusiast and bawchica. @Brett. Op did not say cheapest. That was one of the words the person used, yes very good, though read again.

No use guessing what the op meant if we don't see a budget.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
January 6, 2012 10:43:42 PM

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.
m
0
l
January 6, 2012 10:56:27 PM

Without issues? Hmm.. 2500k. My best guess. i3's are also pretty nice but not quite as zippy. Not overly future proof. I could only recommend an i3 for a laptop or document/office management desktop, maybe an htpc, not a workstation really. If the person is an enthusiast or a professional I would definitly imagine them appreciating something that will have the least amount of issues.

Edit: an 8120 if you prefer amd also perhaps. If you can find phenoms those are great bang for buck combos. Any of them. OP I don't know this realm of computing fluently though maybe these charts will help. http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/sandy-bridge-core-i...

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8150-zambezi-bul...
m
0
l
January 6, 2012 11:38:25 PM

Phenom II x4 955 get while there hot there are almost sold out and for around $100 FTW
m
0
l
January 7, 2012 12:24:03 AM

cpu intel i7 2600 moderboard asus P8Z68 DELUXE memoria G.SKILL F3 8 GB 2x4GB )
GeForce GTX 560 Ti fuente corzair 750 w real jamas amd y ati radeom
m
0
l
January 7, 2012 2:46:56 AM

Brett928S2 said:
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 :) 


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.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 7, 2012 2:52:27 AM

ebalong said:
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.


+1

maybe we should wait for OP to clairify....
m
0
l
January 7, 2012 3:04:16 AM

nna2 said:
+1

maybe we should wait for OP to clairify....


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.
m
0
l
January 7, 2012 7:57:15 AM

nna2 said:
uhh, no... fx is sssllloowww, if you want a quad atleast go for a phenomII or i5/i7


Woah, where you getting this idea from? If an FX is slow, how come my FX isn't? My mate has a 4100 and it runs btter than my old 955...
m
0
l
January 7, 2012 8:00:25 AM

i5 2500k best option
m
0
l
a c 185 à CPUs
a b À AMD
a b å Intel
January 7, 2012 8:08:47 AM

FtsArTek said:
Woah, where you getting this idea from? If an FX is slow, how come my FX isn't? My mate has a 4100 and it runs btter than my old 955...

Because you overclocked it, otherwise fx sucks.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 7, 2012 8:15:50 AM

amuffin said:
Because you overclocked it, otherwise fx sucks.


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.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 7, 2012 5:39:24 PM

grumbledook said:
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.


in my eyes, the i5-2500 (k) would still be a better choice
m
0
l
January 7, 2012 7:45:49 PM

nna2 said:
in my eyes, the i5-2500 (k) would still be a better choice


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.
m
0
l
January 7, 2012 7:55:09 PM

In Tomhardware review nothing beat the AMD FX-8150 in the Photoshop test. Isn't the FX-8150 cheaper than the I7 2600K.?

Therefore for what the user has stated they want the best and cheapest processor for, the FX-8150 is the best choice.
m
0
l
January 7, 2012 8:00:14 PM

Ignore my last post. A core I5 2400 or 2500 would likely be better than a Fx-8150 in photoshop overall.
m
0
l
January 7, 2012 8:05:36 PM

bawchicawawa said:


Btw, brett, you kind of sound like a tool, no one cares about what car you have


+1
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 7, 2012 8:23:33 PM

Gothams Finest said:
+1


Hi :) 

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

All the best Brett :) 
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
January 7, 2012 8:35:11 PM

Brett928S2 said:
Hi :) 

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

All the best Brett :) 
Ah an educated man who can read a number and a plus sign but knows not it means... that about says it all :) 
m
0
l
a c 146 à CPUs
a b À AMD
January 7, 2012 9:04:59 PM

amuffin said:
Because you overclocked it, otherwise fx sucks.


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.
m
0
l
a c 185 à CPUs
a b À AMD
a b å Intel
January 7, 2012 9:09:44 PM

Moderators, please close this.
m
0
l
January 7, 2012 9:55:44 PM

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.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 7, 2012 9:58:49 PM

rds1220 said:
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.


I would agree, but that doesn't mean that the 4100 is necesarrily a bad value since it is quite abit cheaper(about half price it seems here).
m
0
l
a c 146 à CPUs
a b À AMD
January 7, 2012 10:10:19 PM

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.
m
0
l
January 7, 2012 10:16:25 PM

blobby91 said:
Ignore my last post. A core I5 2400 or 2500 would likely be better than a Fx-8150 in photoshop overall.


Slower rendering. But not really all that noticable. I would say the 4100 is the best value for what he wants to do.
m
0
l
January 7, 2012 10:30:03 PM

rds1220 said:
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.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 7, 2012 10:42:20 PM

rds1220 said:
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.

Most cases isn't what the OP is asking



Always the same, ignore what its going to be used for and suggest based on "most cases".

Even going as low as the 6100 isn't bad in photoshop



Than again, if your ONLY doing raidal blur with photoshop, Intel might be better. Guess thats why toms did multiple tests with photoshop instead of finding one that favored intel's cpu or appears to be equivalent to the memory bandwidth available.

As for guessing that lightroom is single threaded, doubt it. This is the only refrence I could dig up.

m
0
l
a c 146 à CPUs
a b À AMD
January 8, 2012 12:13:18 AM

FtsArTek said:
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.
m
0
l
January 8, 2012 12:26:25 AM

rds1220 said:
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.


How can you be so ignorant? In essence it is a quad core, not a true one though. And it's slower than 6 core and 980, 975 PhIIs, but not slower than 965 and 955 etc.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
January 8, 2012 12:28:09 AM

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.
m
0
l
a c 146 à CPUs
a b À AMD
January 8, 2012 12:37:02 AM

FtsArTek said:
How can you be so ignorant? In essence it is a quad core, not a true one though. And it's slower than 6 core and 980, 975 PhIIs, but not slower than 965 and 955 etc.


So it is a quad core but it's not really a quad core...way to contradict yourself. Read this its about the 8150 but it's the same for the 4100 and 6100 Bulldozers. http://www.silentpcreview.com/amd-fx8150
m
0
l
a c 146 à CPUs
a b À AMD
January 8, 2012 12:39:50 AM

esrever said:
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.
m
0
l
January 8, 2012 2:14:28 AM

rds1220 said:
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)

http://pinoytutorial.com/techtorial/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/bulldozer-module-diagram-img1.jpg

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.


I know exactly how Bulldozer works. Don't go lecturing me on that. Hyper Threading leaves less of the core. However the scheduling isn't good at the moment. The OP asked for the best value CPU for what they want to do, and the 4100 is that. Bulldozer 8150, if all cores are used, will be more effective than a 2600 because more parts of each core is available. That's why I use the 8150, because in Adobe After Effects that's the best I can get bar Intel Extreme editions (908x, 990x, 3960x 3930k) and Xeon or Opteron server CPUs. I have a server with two quad core xeons at 3.4gHz, and that (with the full 8 cores, 4 per CPU) processes faster than my 8150, but has no gaming capabilities because I couldn't find a dual xeon board that supports crossfire down here in New Zealand. Yes, a 2400 or a 2500 would outperform a 4100, having 4 true cores, but the price difference is the biggest thing. And also, I said the 4100 is ESSENTIALLY a quad core, having the majority of the parts in a quad core, but loses out to many true quad cores, but anything lesser to a PhII 965 is lesser to a 4100. If the OP is happy to fork out for a 2400 or 2500, it would be a great CPU to use, but if he want to fork out more or less a 4100 or 8120 is pretty much the perfect CPU for him. Adobe Photoshop, After Effects, etc is actually made to use all available cores, so an 8150 which has more of each core compared to a 2600 which has 4 cores with 8 threads will outperform.

The 2600 is too expensive for what it is for just what the OP wants. I suggest a 4100, then if he's willing to spend more, a 2500, and then if he wants a little more the 8120.
m
0
l
a c 146 à CPUs
a b À AMD
January 8, 2012 2:21:43 AM

Your earlier post shows you clearly don't.
m
0
l
!