Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

FX-6100/8120 v 2500k/2600k - Need help deciding for certain APPS

Tags:
Last response: in CPUs
Share
March 3, 2012 11:41:37 PM

Hi guys, I'm building a new system intended for work use only, I will never use this system to play games with, just certain apps.

I make comics using Manga Studio and Photoshop and is really what I am building this system around, I may use this system in the future for light video editing for animation. My main use is painting with brush tool (dual brush, texture) smudge tool (same) and eraser, @ 5000px+ which currently give me lag.

As it stands I am looking at the i7-2600k but in the real world and not comparing benchmarks, is there really a lot of difference between the 2600k and 6100 with the tools I mentioned? I know the 2600k is the one to go for but does it really justify the massive price gap? I know people in the gaming world who have both and experience the same thing whatever they're using in BF3, and you only see a difference in benchmarks, but they can't advise me for my needs.

i7-2600k - £240
i5-2500k - £170
FX-6100 - £108

So the difference is £128 (that could buy Win7 and a cooler) or £58 (cooler and 2 fans) when comparing the i's against the FX.

Hope I can get some advice, can't find jack on the net, but this looks like the place!

So what should I do?

Thanks.
a b à CPUs
March 4, 2012 1:19:59 AM

Photoshop?
See that the i7-2600k is faster even compared to the flagship FX-8150
25% faster in first test
24% faster in second and third test

So it looks like all the benchmarks are correct. Considering the first benchmark that contains the FX-6100, we're talking about 40% more performance.
Performance wise, the FX-6100 have a better performance/price ratio. But, if you use it earn money, to work, productivity have a major weight there. I would with the 2600k



m
0
l
a c 127 à CPUs
March 4, 2012 1:28:09 AM

2600K is a sure bet. The FX-6100 is not even close to a Phenom II X6 in performance due to the module approach AMD took for the FX series.
m
0
l
a c 186 à CPUs
March 4, 2012 2:02:25 AM

An nvidia graphics card with CUDA will help greatly.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
March 4, 2012 2:40:54 AM

It is necessary to understand that those benchmarks are measuring the speed of using certain plugins in tandem on a particular picture so yes the i5/i7 may save you that few seconds over a course of say 40-50 minutes of work but then it depends on how often you use those plugins. Another thought is to go after an 8120, but really either way there isn't going to be a huge performance hit depending on how you use Photoshop.
m
0
l
a c 87 à CPUs
March 4, 2012 2:49:42 AM

I say take the middle of the road. 2500.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
March 4, 2012 4:51:41 AM

i5-2500K still is the best value CPU!
m
0
l
March 4, 2012 12:19:51 PM

vitornob said:
Photoshop?
See that the i7-2600k is faster even compared to the flagship FX-8150
25% faster in first test
24% faster in second and third test

So it looks like all the benchmarks are correct. Considering the first benchmark that contains the FX-6100, we're talking about 40% more performance.
Performance wise, the FX-6100 have a better performance/price ratio. But, if you use it earn money, to work, productivity have a major weight there. I would with the 2600k


Thanks everyone for the advice much appreciated,

As caqde noted the benchmarks are comparing plugins and not real world tools like brush tracking, dual brush and smudge (I'm a painter, I only use filters when making brushes) so that's why I wanted to disregard them, I know the i7 will defeat any FX processors but if even the benchmark says it's just a 10 second gap at a canvas size I probably will never paint at, in a real world scenario, would you notice which CPU you was using if you was painting in Photoshop?

Price and performance is important to me as I'm not very rich, but even if I was to buy the 8120 CPU that is £146 vs £240 for 2600k with a £94 gap, that's even cheaper than the 2500k at £170.

Does £94 justify 10 seconds quicker in a plugin? is that all the i7 has over FX? what about dual brush smudging? this is super difficult because there is no real world usage stats anywhere.

Hmmm...
m
0
l
March 4, 2012 1:18:45 PM

Well U seem to painting Artist So i dont think u need to consider tht must abt Benchmarks coz they Are mostly game related and when it comes to Heavy threading application Yes AMD does A better too Like i use 3ds Max And Maya works perfect only u need to get good graphic like Quadros which have cuda cores which help much .Also u shud consider the lvl of work u are gonna do and price u want to pay on basis of tht make decession Dont make dession simple on benchmarks In the end ur not gonna runn benchmark in ur pc But do work for wat u are going to buy it.
m
0
l
March 4, 2012 1:22:25 PM

And abt Which plugin u talking abt u mean plugin for photoshop? for brush painting? well the plugin in PS doesnt make ur processor runn faster but simply it ll save u time making detail stuff easily and cud be less heavyier then in Default PS ..I just Guess coz same Difference Goes For Vray and Mental ray default Renderer In Max
m
0
l
March 4, 2012 1:26:37 PM

And one More thing i forgot to mention Which u are Working On texture sizes which more then 1000px and smudging and watever scatter pain effect its all using ur GPU unless Ur rendering or Modelling which uses both in Default and can be configured Fully to GPU By seeting them to OPEN GL .
m
0
l
March 4, 2012 2:40:18 PM

vikas12 said:
And one More thing i forgot to mention Which u are Working On texture sizes which more then 1000px and smudging and watever scatter pain effect its all using ur GPU unless Ur rendering or Modelling which uses both in Default and can be configured Fully to GPU By seeting them to OPEN GL .


So a good GPU is as important as a good CPU? A friend of mine (I'm not sure what his CPU is but I know he told me it's over 4.1GHz and 16GB RAM) uses an old nVidia 6600 Series just to connect his monitor to, there's nothing else there and seemed fine using Illustrator, Corel Painter and a older Photoshop CS3 (not for paint).

I've already been told not to worry about GPU unless I'm going to render 3D, is that wrong?

About plugins - nono, I mean the only benchmarks out are using plugins and filters and not conducting other methods of Photoshop usage like a Painter would use it, brush tool, smudge tool and eraser tool, which I believe are all single-threaded tools still, zoom etc is multi-threaded though which is why the i7-2600k is much more attractive to me because I think for single-thread 2600k dominates, but unless the 8120 for example gives excessive lag when painting 1000px+ brush size against a non lag i7-2600k I don't see the point spending an extra £94 for absolutely no performance gain to my eye, maybe in an academic benchmark, but what's important is whether my eye notices it or not, whether I need to go make a cup of coffee while waiting for a brush stroke to render.

I haven't been able to talk to someone with an FX and Photoshop yet, everyone uses sandybridge.
m
0
l
March 4, 2012 2:53:53 PM

AHH seriously I dont pay much attention Towards benchmarks too but they cant be ignored also wat i care abt is it shud satisfy my need. And if u are asking for Future proof and also budget freindly NO platform can provide u the future garantee .coz u also know being in 2D/3D how today the technology is increasing and new stuff need smthing more so how can we think our pc to be tht future proof .


Abt 4.1GHZ yes u can overclock ur Prossesor and u can achive it too abt wat i mentioned tht u need Good cpu+gpu just becoz u said tht ur gonna work sm high resolution textuing and painting may be apply lot of effect too so wat i mean to say smtime a normal cpu maybe Dualcore with normal GPU u can work on PS like Charm but Tht wont give u the future proof tht y i mention Good Gpu Yes a good is needed For 3d rendering.I myself Work in 3DS Max,Maya,PS although i dont have good Graphic card and NOT tht high End Machine

AMD Phenom II X4 970 BE
16GB Corsair XMS3 DDR3 1600
Coolermaster Hyper 212+
Antec 300 PC Case
400 Watts Generic PSU
Zotac Nvidia 9500GT 1GB

m
0
l
March 4, 2012 3:05:43 PM

ALso abt FX Family i think its usefull to person who want to build budget based machine for 3D rendering and have more Core which is really needed For running MAX and maya they both are heavily threaded application even nowaday PS too require much more memory and Cpu usage

here is a print screen of how much amt of workload may be u can figure it out wat ur not able to decide.

m
0
l
a c 87 à CPUs
March 4, 2012 3:16:43 PM

Wow....

It depends on what your doing. If you are working with "traditional" programs then the CPU and ram will be doing the work. But with GPUs becoming as powerful as they are, many programs are starting to use them more and more to do things like apply those filters you don't use. As your friend showed you, you really only need a card that can output what the CPU has already done. From what you've mentioned so far it doesn't sound like a power GPU is anything you need.
m
0
l
March 4, 2012 3:42:37 PM

yess for his work at the moment he doesnt need tht high cpu and gpu but if he want to go future proof and do sm 3d stuff also then only u can think of getting high cpu gett cpu with nice amt of core/thread
m
0
l
March 4, 2012 5:52:11 PM

I have no clue about photoshop, but i think FX wolud be a good solution considering the overall build , because he is going to earn from this work.
Processor - Less expensive
Motherboard -less expensive
Finally the FX processor may be slower in the benchmarks.
But you are never going to notice that in the real world.
Even in games when all these processor can push more than 30 FPS who cares who gives 110 and 105 FPS.
Look at your budget and make your decision.
m
0
l
a c 119 à CPUs
March 4, 2012 6:17:44 PM

well i dunno where your ordering your 2500k from but i know i can get it easily £40 cheaper. in fact 129.99 is attainable...
looks like another amd fanboi wanting to show the difference in prices... rather than the reality of performance...
m
0
l
March 4, 2012 6:24:02 PM

well whom u targeting too abt being fanboy? I not fan OF AMD nor Intel I just like to Get wat I Need For My Work If u say being Fanboy Im showing this stuff To him Even i got My I3 before this rig then Wud tht mean Im Intel Fanboy?...
m
0
l
March 4, 2012 7:53:36 PM

HEXiT said:
well i dunno where your ordering your 2500k from but i know i can get it easily £40 cheaper. in fact 129.99 is attainable...
looks like another amd fanboi wanting to show the difference in prices... rather than the reality of performance...


Are you taking the mick? I dont have the time to camp sit or act like a child, don't bring your loyalty hate here.

But please, let me know where you can get the i5 2500k for the price you've stated because I checked overclockers, pcworld, amazon, ebuyer and all offer at around £170 give or take a few £. I'd happily buy an i5 2500k at £130 no hesitation. I even have them all bookmarked and check daily for price changes since 12 Feb.

PS: I have already stated over and over that I understand 2500k and 2600k performance wise tops FX and I was in favour of going 2600k, if you bothered to read - but whether it's noticeable or not in the real world is different than to a benchmark, like vikas12 says I buy what I need at the time despite brand. If I can save about £100 on a CPU then I will - but it will depend.

You mention performance, I am looking for a CPU that will run the tasks I require up to a point, I don't need a benchmark telling me I can apply a filter to a photo at 80MP 1.2GB filesize with X CPU 5-10 seconds faster than Y CPU because it's irrelevant to me, maybe in 10 years time I will need to paint at that scale but not right now, I don't even ink comics yet anywhere close to that, if I apply the same filter to a 7MP photo at 1.2MB for example you won't even see the filter load whichever processor your using.

I am still in favour of the i7 2600k, but going by what people have said here it has made me consider the FX 8120 and I need to learn more about this CPU, unfortunately whether you like it or not price is indeed a factor in my purchasing with every component - not just CPU, my work is mostly freelance and to me every £ has to go as far as it can on things like this.
m
0
l
a c 119 à CPUs
March 5, 2012 12:09:37 AM

well all i did was use google shopping and found 1 for 129.99 the store had 3 left in stock when i found it. but now has 0... ebay has 1 for 120... you just check about 10am... the average price is just over £140 currently which is still cheaper than your 170
so no i wasnt kidding... now was i b.s'ing... i see to many posts lately where amd fanboys are claiming they can pick up a top of the line fx for 70-80 cheaper than the rrp and then post that they cant find a 2500k for any less than 30-50 more than rrp take it as you see it but you can see why i jumped on your post...

as for price being you deciding factor than your best paying the inital higher price for the i5 (either model) and let it return a saving on your electric bill... overall it will run substantially cooler and with less power...
i worked out how much i would save over 1 year and it turns out to be 70+ pounds and thats compared to my i7 920... over 4 years that will turn into a healthy margin and give more performance while doing so..the numbers for the fx are even worse...
like i say its not even a choice...
there is no reason to buy an fx if you can afford an i5. you will pay more over all and get less over all... it just doesn't make sense...
even if you prefer amd i would say get a turban core over the fx as even it will give more and cost less.
the fx is a none entity for most users and pointless as the budget option... if you want to run a cheap linux server then the fx is a viable option but for any other reason they just aint worth the money...
thats not h8 its just a fact...
they need x2 the cores to compete with intel.
they need to run faster to compete with intel
they need more juice so cost more in the long run than intel...
really its a no brainer...
intel have this round and the next with ivy and quite possible the round after that with haswell...
if you buy amd you buying the brand not performance and by what you have posted performance is what your after...

the simple answer is there is only 1 option and its not amd.


if you think im being a fanboy about this then i gotta say your making a mistake. the reason im being so forthright is that i keep seeing posts in the gaming section where guys arnt getting the performance they think they should get. either they thought they were gonna get a top draw cpu after reading skewed benches or they ignored good advice and got the cpu's any way. but what ever the reason there still back here complaining about bottlenecks and lack of performance.
your rite in that benches dont tell the full story but when you see the members posting you know theres something not right with the fx range... and this is why i am so passionate about telling members to avoid this cpu like the plague...
m
0
l
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
March 5, 2012 12:53:33 AM

ah, excuse me.

why are you worried about the CPU?
PS will run more than fine on an i3 21xx! it RAM RAM RAM RAM that PS LOVES!!

mortgage the house on getting as much as possible of good ram and a scratchdisk (think SSD!*) as possible.

now you all may go back to the AMD/intel p*ssing match :lol: 

* you do NOT need a Z68 motherboard, a H67 with an SSD in a sataIII port to use ONLY as a PS scratch disk is fine.
m
0
l
March 5, 2012 2:17:30 AM

@HEXiT

See it's much better when we write posts like this, thanks for the advice. Although I can't find a 2500k for under £160-£170 and I will never use ebay for my own reasons, it doesn't mean the 2500k isn't within my budget, I am just contemplating if I can save any money, what I mean is if the 8120 can perform just as well as a 2500k or 2600k when painting* then I obviously need only the cheapest CPU whichever that is. This is the same with the 2500k and 2600k, if the 2500k performs just as well as the 2600k when it comes to brush tracking then I don't need a 2600k but a 2500k.

Benchmarks are sometimes like photo finishes in races, they're important, but sometimes difficult to tell who won with the naked eye.

@looniam

I do more than use Photoshop, I often have a lot open at the same time as well! I take your advice on the chipset change, I'm not sure if I will overclock this build or not.

The build I had in mind was:

CPU: i7-2600k £219.99 (Amazon lowered price by £19? did they read this? lol)
MOBO: ASRock Z68 Extreme3 Gen3 Intel Z68 (cause it's cheaper) £113.05
RAM: 16GB G-Skill RipJaws 4x4GB (lower profile than Vengeance) £75.20
PSU: Corsair TX650 V2 (crazy cheap) £65.24

£473.48 (2600k build)
£413.99 (with the 2500k instead of the 2600k)
£365.48 (same spec but FX 8120 and AM3+ mobo)

I was thinking of adding SSD at a later time for scratch, still pretty expensive to get a build started tbh.

Thanks.
m
0
l
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
March 5, 2012 3:48:42 AM

Naota said:
@looniam
I do more than use Photoshop, I often have a lot open at the same time as well! I take your advice on the chipset change, I'm not sure if I will overclock this build or not.


if you get a K series, you HAVE to overclock, thats a rule. :sol: 
the Z68 mobo would be a better choice for that. i was hoping to point out to not overlook some other components that are just as important when it comes to image creation/manipulation.

btw, since SSDs are more for reading than writing data this might be as good for half the price:
WD 150GB VelociRaptor Hard Drive - 3.5" SATA-III - 10000RPM 32MB Cache £85.00inc. vat
http://www.ebuyer.com/278134-wd-150gb-velociraptor-hard...

but there is only 3 ATM.

on a side note, i found this while cruising an unrelated thread:
Adobe Photoshop CS4 - Retouch Artists Speed Test
The Photoshop test does basic photo editing; there are a couple of color space conversions, many layer creations, color curve adjustment, image and canvas size adjustment, unsharp mask, and finally a gaussian blur performed on the entire image.
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU/25


m
0
l
!