AMD vs Pentium 4 for Photoshop work.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

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?

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Old Bugger" <grumpy@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:0bh171pnuckvqb1vkr3o8rpf1rmr00np8g@4ax.com...
> 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?

At the end of an eight hour day, you'd hardly notice a difference between
the two in the amount of work accomplished.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"John" <nospam@earthlink.net> wrote in
news:1Y3ce.995$GQ5.831@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:

> "Old Bugger" <grumpy@mailinator.com> wrote in message
> news:0bh171pnuckvqb1vkr3o8rpf1rmr00np8g@4ax.com...
>> 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?
>
> Choose Intel for compatibility and stability.

IOW, choose FUD as a way of life.

Feh.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

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
? "Old Bugger" <grumpy@mailinator.com> ?????? ??? ??????
news:0bh171pnuckvqb1vkr3o8rpf1rmr00np8g@4ax.com...
> 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?
>
>
>
>

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Old Bugger wrote:
> 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?
>
>
>
>
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.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

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.

--
Skipweasel.
Ivor Cutler - "Never knowingly understood."

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

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
Ï "Peter" <durians.nomail@gmx.net> Ýãñáøå óôï ìÞíõìá
news:4270f64a$0$155$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
> 2005-04-28, Dimitrios Tzortzakakis wrote:
> > 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
>

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Old Bugger <grumpy@mailinator.com> writes:

>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

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

MarkH wrote:
> Old Bugger <grumpy@mailinator.com> wrote in
> news:0bh171pnuckvqb1vkr3o8rpf1rmr00np8g@4ax.com:
>
>
>>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?
>
>
> 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.


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.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"John" <nospam@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1Y3ce.995$GQ5.831@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> "Old Bugger" <grumpy@mailinator.com> wrote in message
> news:0bh171pnuckvqb1vkr3o8rpf1rmr00np8g@4ax.com...
>> 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?
>
> 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.

Intel has nothing over AMD for stability and compatability. Your repeating
old wives' tales when you state the Intel is more stable.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 13:24:45 GMT, Eric Gill <ericvgill@yahoo.com> wrote:

>"John" <nospam@earthlink.net> wrote in
>news:1Y3ce.995$GQ5.831@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
>
>> "Old Bugger" <grumpy@mailinator.com> wrote in message
>> news:0bh171pnuckvqb1vkr3o8rpf1rmr00np8g@4ax.com...
>>> 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?
>>
>> Choose Intel for compatibility and stability.
>
>IOW, choose FUD as a way of life.
>
>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...

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Peter A. Stavrakoglou" <ntotrr@optonline.net> wrote in message news:Rscce.244$FE3.6@fe12.lga...
> "John" <nospam@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:1Y3ce.995$GQ5.831@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > "Old Bugger" <grumpy@mailinator.com> wrote in message
> > news:0bh171pnuckvqb1vkr3o8rpf1rmr00np8g@4ax.com...
> >> 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?
> >
> > 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.
>
> 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.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

callme annie wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 13:24:45 GMT, Eric Gill <ericvgill@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>"John" <nospam@earthlink.net> wrote in
>>news:1Y3ce.995$GQ5.831@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
>>
>>
>>>"Old Bugger" <grumpy@mailinator.com> wrote in message
>>>news:0bh171pnuckvqb1vkr3o8rpf1rmr00np8g@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>>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?
>>>
>>>Choose Intel for compatibility and stability.
>>
>>IOW, choose FUD as a way of life.
>>
>>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...
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...


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"John" <nospam@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:9vhce.1034$BE3.707@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> "Peter A. Stavrakoglou" <ntotrr@optonline.net> wrote in message
> news:Rscce.244$FE3.6@fe12.lga...
>> "John" <nospam@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> news:1Y3ce.995$GQ5.831@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> > "Old Bugger" <grumpy@mailinator.com> wrote in message
>> > news:0bh171pnuckvqb1vkr3o8rpf1rmr00np8g@4ax.com...
>> >> 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?
>> >
>> > 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.
>>
>> 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.

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.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 01:12:01 -0500, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net>
wrote:


>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.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"John" <nospam@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:9vhce.1034$BE3.707@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> 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.