Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Intel core i3 2120 for photo & video editing

Last response: in CPUs
Share
June 10, 2012 5:54:35 PM

Hi Everyone,

This is my first experience of building a PC.
I am considering the i3 2120 (onboard Intel HD Graphics 2000).
My work mainly involves editing 16 megapixel image files and videos shot at 1920 x 1080 resolution.

Can't afford the i5 and an expensive motherboard that it will need.

Will this processor be the right choice for this kind of work?
I don't have to multitask or play games. Do I really need 4 cores?

Please also suggest a budget motherboard that will not bottleneck the i3 2120.

I came across these (I can afford these) :
ASUS P8H61-M LX (Price: INR 3094)
Max 16 GB-2 slots, Integrated Graphic Card.

Intel DH61SA (Price: INR 3100)
Max 8 GB-2 slots, Integrated HD Graphics.

Please let me know what you guys think of these, keeping in mind my requirement.
Also if you could please suggest a better board in the same price range.

I can't afford a GPU now. Hence going for the i3 2120 which has HD Graphics 2000. Will it serve my purpose? I will buy a GPU later.

Many Thanks!

Rizwan Mithawala
http://flickeflu.com/photos/31711085@N04
a c 185 à CPUs
a b å Intel
June 10, 2012 5:56:18 PM

It will work perfectly fine, however you should invest in an Nvidia graphics card with CUDA.
m
0
l
June 10, 2012 6:18:40 PM

amuffin said:
It will work perfectly fine, however you should invest in an Nvidia graphics card with CUDA.

Thank you so much!
I will invest in a graphic card later. For now, I just want to start my editing work which has stopped as my laptop screen is dying. Will the onboard Intel HD Graphics 2000 not help me?

Could someone please answer all my questions?
m
0
l
Related resources
a c 185 à CPUs
a b å Intel
June 10, 2012 6:21:53 PM

The HD2000 is perfectly fine for your needs. What is your budget for a board?
m
0
l
June 10, 2012 6:29:04 PM

I like your pictures, they look awesome. :D 
m
0
l
June 10, 2012 6:33:06 PM

Ironslice said:
I like your pictures, they look awesome. :D 


thanks so much!

m
0
l
June 10, 2012 6:35:02 PM

amuffin said:
The HD2000 is perfectly fine for your needs. What is your budget for a board?


Well, it's around INR 3000..that's around $55.
Thanks again!
m
0
l
a c 185 à CPUs
a b å Intel
June 10, 2012 6:45:27 PM

How about an i3-2100 and an H61 motherboard?
m
0
l
June 10, 2012 7:08:24 PM

amuffin said:
How about an i3-2100 and an H61 motherboard?


I can afford these -

ASUS P8H61-M LX (Price: INR 3094)
Max 16 GB-2 slots, Integrated Graphic Card.

Intel DH61SA (Price: INR 3100)
Max 8 GB-2 slots, Integrated HD Graphics.

Please let me know what you think of these, keeping in mind my requirement.
Also if you could please suggest a better board in the same price range.

Thanks again!


m
0
l
June 10, 2012 7:17:54 PM

i3 2120 Socket Type is FCLGA1155

Could someone please tell me what's the difference between LGA1155 and FCLGA1155
m
0
l
a c 283 à CPUs
a b å Intel
June 10, 2012 7:23:46 PM

rizwanmithawala said:
i3 2120 Socket Type is FCLGA1155

Could someone please tell me what's the difference between LGA1155 and FCLGA1155


No difference. :)  1155 is 1155
m
0
l
June 10, 2012 7:25:47 PM

DJDeCiBeL said:
No difference. :)  1155 is 1155

thank you :) 
m
0
l
a c 146 à CPUs
June 10, 2012 7:28:08 PM

An I3 will will be fine for what you want to do.
m
0
l
June 10, 2012 7:33:34 PM

rds1220 said:
An I3 will will be fine for what you want to do.

thanks so much!
m
0
l
a c 283 à CPUs
a b å Intel
June 10, 2012 7:40:09 PM

rizwanmithawala said:
thanks for sharing!
I read it..someone mentioned b3 revision. What's that?


Edit: I stand corrected. That post is talking about motherboard revisions not chip revisions. In any case, any new LGA 1155 motherboard will be OK.
m
0
l
June 10, 2012 7:41:22 PM

Everyone,
Thank you so much for helping me choose the i3 2120 processor.
Now if you could please help me choose a motherboard that will not bottleneck the i3 2120.

I came across these:

ASUS P8H61-M LX (Price: INR 3094)
Max 16 GB-2 slots, Integrated Graphic Card.

Intel DH61SA (Price: INR 3100)
Max 8 GB-2 slots, Integrated HD Graphics.

Please let me know what you think of these, keeping in mind my requirement.
Also if you could please suggest a better board in the same price range.

Thanks again!
m
0
l
June 10, 2012 7:44:09 PM

DJDeCiBeL said:
Just talking about the revision of the chip, but that post is over a year old, so any 2120 you buy new now will be that revision.

Oh!
Thanks :) 
Could you please help me choose the motherboard?
I have enlisted 2 H61 boards in the above reply.
Thanks!
m
0
l
a c 185 à CPUs
a b å Intel
June 10, 2012 7:52:09 PM

Asus one.
m
0
l
a c 146 à CPUs
June 10, 2012 7:52:53 PM

An H61 or P67 socket 1155 motherboard will be fine for what you need.
m
0
l
June 10, 2012 7:53:34 PM

amuffin said:
Asus one.

thanks.
Is that the best in class?
I mean, the best I can get for the price?
m
0
l
a c 185 à CPUs
a b å Intel
June 10, 2012 11:23:07 PM

rizwanmithawala said:
thanks.
Is that the best in class?
I mean, the best I can get for the price?

Got a website I can look at? :) 
m
0
l
June 11, 2012 7:14:01 AM


thanks so much!

It (Gigabyte GA-H61M-D2H) has Intel H61 Express and 4 Memory Slots...also HDMI Port.
Whereas ASUS P8H61-M LX has Intel H61 (B3) Chipset 2 Memory Slots.

Are you recommending it for the 4 slots?
What's the difference between Intel H61 Express and Intel H61 (B3)?
Anything else?

Sorry for my ignorance..also I am trying to learn a lot quickly :) 

Thanks again!

m
0
l
June 23, 2012 5:05:00 AM

Can someone please answer my above question?

I am gong to buy the motherboard in a couple of hours.

Which is the best value for money H61 motherboard?
m
0
l
June 23, 2012 6:36:47 AM

rizwanmithawala said:
Hi Everyone,

This is my first experience of building a PC.
I am considering the i3 2120 (onboard Intel HD Graphics 2000).
My work mainly involves editing 16 megapixel image files and videos shot at 1920 x 1080 resolution.

Can't afford the i5 and an expensive motherboard that it will need.

Will this processor be the right choice for this kind of work?
I don't have to multitask or play games. Do I really need 4 cores?

Please also suggest a budget motherboard that will not bottleneck the i3 2120.

I came across these (I can afford these) :
ASUS P8H61-M LX (Price: INR 3094)
Max 16 GB-2 slots, Integrated Graphic Card.

Intel DH61SA (Price: INR 3100)
Max 8 GB-2 slots, Integrated HD Graphics.

Please let me know what you guys think of these, keeping in mind my requirement.
Also if you could please suggest a better board in the same price range.

I can't afford a GPU now. Hence going for the i3 2120 which has HD Graphics 2000. Will it serve my purpose? I will buy a GPU later.

Many Thanks!

Rizwan Mithawala
http://flickeflu.com/photos/31711085@N04


Hi Rizwan Mithawala,

I think you should get the AMD FX-4100 processor as it has four physical cores which will be more beneficial for your requirements and the most important thing is that it is cheaper than Intel Core i3 2120 too. The work you do can take advantage of more cores and also you don't game on your PC, so this FX processor will be more suitable in this case.
Also, you can get a cheaper ASUS 760G Motherboard which will be fine for the processor.

Here is what I recommend you to get---
AMD FX-4100 3.6GHz Quad-Core Processor---
http://www.flipkart.com/amd-3-6-ghz-am3-fx4100-processo...

ASUS M5A78 M-LX 760G Motherboard---
http://www.flipkart.com/asus-m5a78l-m-lx-motherboard/p/...

This processor doesn't has any integrated Graphics but the motherboard I have recommended has an integrated AMD HD 3000 GPU present which will work fine for you.

Regards,
SmartGeek
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
June 23, 2012 6:52:52 AM

^+1 actually...for video editing even i think the FX4100 will outshine the i3....but i'm quite not sure about image processing:) 

Anyway...if u decide to get an i3, get the i3 2105....its clock speed is slightly less but it has the HD3000 GPU.....the 2125 is currently priced too high here in india for no reason :( 
m
0
l
a c 146 à CPUs
June 23, 2012 6:55:00 AM

SmartGeek said:
Hi Rizwan Mithawala,

I think you should get the AMD FX-4100 processor as it has four physical cores which will be more beneficial for your requirements and the most important thing is that it is cheaper than Intel Core i3 2120 too. The work you do can take advantage of more cores and also you don't game on your PC, so this FX processor will be more suitable in this case.
Also, you can get a cheaper ASUS 760G Motherboard which will be fine for the processor.

Here is what I recommend you to get---
AMD FX-4100 3.6GHz Quad-Core Processor---
http://www.flipkart.com/amd-3-6-ghz-am3-fx4100-processo...

ASUS M5A78 M-LX 760G Motherboard---
http://www.flipkart.com/asus-m5a78l-m-lx-motherboard/p/...

This processor doesn't has any integrated Graphics but the motherboard I have recommended has an integrated AMD HD 3000 GPU present which will work fine for you.

Regards,
SmartGeek


I'm getting real tired of the AMD fanboyism. Get your facts straight. The 4100 Bulldozer is NOT a quad core processor it is a dual core processor with 4 threads, it's no different than the I3 with hyperthreading. Next yea the Bulldozer is cheaper but has no integrated graphics so you have to buy a video card. Thats more money down the drain and in the end you end up spending the same amount as you do with the I3 even if you buy a cheap videocard. Lastly AMD motherboards are no cheaper than Intel motherboards. You can get a cheap Foxconn motherboard for 50 dollars. There is no reason to go with the Bulldozer. The I3 will out peform it in just about everything and when you put it all together it's no cheaper than an AMD build.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
June 23, 2012 1:53:37 PM

rds1220 said:
Get your facts straight. The 4100 Bulldozer is NOT a quad core processor it is a dual core processor with 4 threads, it's no different than the I3 with hyperthreading. it's no different than the I3 with hyperthreading.


i think its you that needs to get ur facts straight !! We've been over this argument a zillion times!!! A FX is a Quad core...even thoe it maybe a weak one at that.
Agreed that in this particular case, going i3 makes slightly more sense thoe...it has a superior architecture and excellent HT implementation that makes up for 2 less cores.

However, an FX still is a quad core, coz it has 4 integer cores. Period. The original 8086 all the way to 80386 didn't have an FPU at all, don't bother about a shared FPU !! They needed a separate 8087 chip to do floating point math :D 
A SB/IB core only has a duplicate set of working registers IIRC, and that makes it waayyy different from a module implementation.

Anyway, i'm not tryna start a war here, so peace. And i'm also not some hardcore AMD fanboy, but i like the way AMD keeps coming up with nice innovative ideas, eventhoe they may not be successful all the time :) 
m
0
l
June 23, 2012 2:46:49 PM

$hawn said:
i think its you that needs to get ur facts straight !! We've been over this argument a zillion times!!! A FX is a Quad core...even thoe it maybe a weak one at that.
Agreed that in this particular case, going i3 makes slightly more sense thoe...it has a superior architecture and excellent HT implementation that makes up for 2 less cores.

However, an FX still is a quad core, coz it has 4 integer cores. Period. The original 8086 all the way to 80386 didn't have an FPU at all, don't bother about a shared FPU !! They needed a separate 8087 chip to do floating point math :D 
A SB/IB core only has a duplicate set of working registers IIRC, and that makes it waayyy different from a module implementation.

Anyway, i'm not tryna start a war here, so peace. And i'm also not some hardcore AMD fanboy, but i like the way AMD keeps coming up with nice innovative ideas, eventhoe they may not be successful all the time :) 


Hi $hawn,

Exactly right! I was going to respond but you cleared the mess nicely.
Thanks bro!

Regards,
SmartGeek
m
0
l
June 23, 2012 2:58:20 PM

rds1220 said:
Next yea the Bulldozer is cheaper but has no integrated graphics so you have to buy a video card. Thats more money down the drain and in the end you end up spending the same amount as you do with the I3 even if you buy a cheap videocard.


@rds1220,

Do yourself a favor and read this quote from my earlier post to solve the video card issue you stated---

Quote:
This processor doesn't has any integrated Graphics but the motherboard I have recommended has an integrated AMD HD 3000 GPU present which will work fine for you.


Hope you understood what I was trying to say.

-SmartGeek
m
0
l
a c 146 à CPUs
June 23, 2012 3:29:55 PM

$hawn said:
i think its you that needs to get ur facts straight !! We've been over this argument a zillion times!!! A FX is a Quad core...even thoe it maybe a weak one at that.
Agreed that in this particular case, going i3 makes slightly more sense thoe...it has a superior architecture and excellent HT implementation that makes up for 2 less cores.

However, an FX still is a quad core, coz it has 4 integer cores. Period. The original 8086 all the way to 80386 didn't have an FPU at all, don't bother about a shared FPU !! They needed a separate 8087 chip to do floating point math :D 
A SB/IB core only has a duplicate set of working registers IIRC, and that makes it waayyy different from a module implementation.

Anyway, i'm not tryna start a war here, so peace. And i'm also not some hardcore AMD fanboy, but i like the way AMD keeps coming up with nice innovative ideas, eventhoe they may not be successful all the time :) 


If the Bulldozer is a quad core than so is the I3. Do you even understand how the Bulldozers architecture works? The 4100 Bulldozer is a dual core processor with shared modules. It's AMD's pathetic attempt at copying hyperthreading. CMT is just an ‘invention’ by AMD’s marketing department. They invented a term that sounds close to SMT (Simultaneous Multithreading), in an attempt to compete with Intel’s HyperThreading. Now clearly, HyperThreading is just a marketing-term as well, but it is Intel’s term for their implementation of SMT, which is a commonly accepted term for a multithreading approach in CPU design, and has been in use long before Intel implemented HyperThreading. the problem isthat people like you are getting suckered into believing that the Bulldozer is really a quad core, six core and eight core CPU. They seem to think that CMT is just as valid a technology as SMT. And worse, they think that the two are closely related, or even equivalent. As a result, they are comparing CMT with SMT in benchmarks. In benchmarks, we see that the reality is different: AMD actually NEEDS those two dies to keep up with Intel’s single die. And even then, Intel’s chip excels in keeping response times short. The new CMT-based Opterons are not all that convincing compared to the smaller, older Opteron 6174 either, which can handle only 12 threads instead of 16, and just uses vanilla SMP for multithreading.

Let’s inspect things even closer… What are we benchmarking here? A series of database scenarios, with MySQL and MSSQL. This is integer code. Well, that *is* interesting. Because, what exactly was it that CMT did? Oh yes, it didn’t do anything special for integers! Each module simply has two dedicated integer cores. It is the FPU that is shared between two threads inside a module. But we are not using it here. Well, lucky AMD, best case scenario for CMT.

But let’s put that in perspective… Let’s have a simplified look at the execution resources, looking at the integer ALUs in each CPU.

The Opteron 6276 with CMT disabled has:
■8 modules
■8 threads
■4 ALUs per module
■2 ALUs per thread (the ALUs can not be shared between threads, so disabling CMT disables half the threads, and as a result also half the ALUs)
■16 ALUs in total

With CMT enabled, this becomes:
■8 modules
■16 threads
■4 ALUs per module
■2 ALUs per thread
■32 ALUs in total

So nothing happens, really. Since CMT doesn’t share the ALUs, it works exactly the same as the usual SMP approach. So you would expect the same scaling, since the execution units are dedicated per thread anyway. Enabling CMT just gives you more threads.

The Xeon X5650 with SMT disabled has:
■6 cores
■6 threads
■3 ALUs per core
■3 ALUs per thread
■18 ALUs in total

With SMT enabled, this becomes:
■6 cores
■12 threads
■3 ALUs per core
■3 ALUs per 2 threads, effectively ~1.5 ALUs per thread
■18 ALUs in total

So here the difference between CMT and SMT becomes quite clear: With single-threading, each thread has more ALUs with SMT than with CMT. With multithreading, each thread has less ALUs (effectively) than CMT.

And that’s why SMT works, and CMT doesn’t: AMD’s previous CPUs also had 3 ALUs per thread. But in order to reduce the size of the modules, AMD chose to use only 2 ALUs per thread now. It is a case of cutting off one’s nose to spite their face: CMT is struggling in single-threaded scenario’s, compared to both the previous-generation Opterons and the Xeons.

At the same time, CMT is not actually saving a lot of die-space: There are 4 ALUs in a module in total. Yes, obviously, when you have more resources for two threads inside a module, and the single-threaded performance is poor anyway, one would expect it to scale better than SMT.

But what does CMT bring, effectively? Nothing. Their chips are much larger than the competition’s, or even their own previous generation. And since the Xeon is so much better with single-threaded performance, it can stay ahead in heavy multithreaded scenario’s, despite the fact that SMT does not scale as well as CMT or SMP. But the real advantage that SMT brings is that it is a very efficient solution: it takes up very little die-space. Intel could do the same as AMD does, and put two dies in a single package. But that would result in a chip with 12 cores, running 24 threads, and it would absolutely devour AMD’s CMT in terms of performance.

So I’m not sure where AMD thinks that CMT is ‘more efficient’, since they need a much larger chip, which also consumes more power, to get the same performance as a Xeon, which is not even a high-end model. The Opteron 6276 tested by Anandtech is the top of the line. The Xeon X5650 on the other hand is a midrange model clocked at 2.66 GHz. The top model of that series is the X5690, clocked at 3.46 GHz. Which shows another advantage of smaller chips: better clockspeed scaling.

So, let’s not pretend that CMT is a valid technology, comparable to SMT. Let’s just treat it as what it is: a hollow marketing term. I don’t take CMT seriously, or people who try to use the term in a serious context, for that matter.
m
0
l
June 23, 2012 5:08:53 PM

Guys,

Thank you very much for the help!

My primary need is photo-editing and I would be editing videos occasionally. I have. no prior experience with AMD and am afraid of heating issues. I am fine with some delay in video rendering and anyways I will later get a GPU to go with the i3 2120.

Can anyone please suggest a GPU in the price range of INR 4000-5000 from the list here: http://www.flipkart.com/computers/components/graphic-ca...

Will that budget be enough or I'll have to spend more on GPU for improved video-editing performance?
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
June 23, 2012 5:20:30 PM

SmartGeek said:
Hi $hawn,

Exactly right! I was going to respond but you cleared the mess nicely.
Thanks bro!

Regards,
SmartGeek


nytime dude....always like clearing some bull$hit:) 
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
June 23, 2012 5:31:10 PM

rds1220 said:
If the Bulldozer is a quad core than so is the I3.
Let’s inspect things even closer… What are we benchmarking here? A series of database scenarios, with MySQL and MSSQL. This is integer code. Well, that *is* interesting. Because, what exactly was it that CMT did? Oh yes, it didn’t do anything special for integers! Each module simply has two dedicated integer cores. It is the FPU that is shared between two threads inside a module. But we are not using it here. Well, lucky AMD, best case scenario for CMT.

But let’s put that in perspective… Let’s have a simplified look at the execution resources, looking at the integer ALUs in each CPU.

The Opteron 6276 with CMT disabled has:
■8 modules
■8 threads
■4 ALUs per module
■2 ALUs per thread (the ALUs can not be shared between threads, so disabling CMT disables half the threads, and as a result also half the ALUs)
■16 ALUs in total

With CMT enabled, this becomes:
■8 modules
■16 threads
■4 ALUs per module
■2 ALUs per thread
■32 ALUs in total

So nothing happens, really. Since CMT doesn’t share the ALUs, it works exactly the same as the usual SMP approach. So you would expect the same scaling, since the execution units are dedicated per thread anyway. Enabling CMT just gives you more threads.

The Xeon X5650 with SMT disabled has:
■6 cores
■6 threads
■3 ALUs per core
■3 ALUs per thread
■18 ALUs in total

With SMT enabled, this becomes:
■6 cores
■12 threads
■3 ALUs per core
■3 ALUs per 2 threads, effectively ~1.5 ALUs per thread
■18 ALUs in total

So here the difference between CMT and SMT becomes quite clear: With single-threading, each thread has more ALUs with SMT than with CMT. With multithreading, each thread has less ALUs (effectively) than CMT.

And that’s why SMT works, and CMT doesn’t: AMD’s previous CPUs also had 3 ALUs per thread. But in order to reduce the size of the modules, AMD chose to use only 2 ALUs per thread now. It is a case of cutting off one’s nose to spite their face: CMT is struggling in single-threaded scenario’s, compared to both the previous-generation Opterons and the Xeons.

At the same time, CMT is not actually saving a lot of die-space: There are 4 ALUs in a module in total. Yes, obviously, when you have more resources for two threads inside a module, and the single-threaded performance is poor anyway, one would expect it to scale better than SMT.


Dude, copy pasting something out of context, without understanding what it actually means, doesn't make u any wiser :sol: 
here's the bull$hit article u copied from http://scalibq.wordpress.com/2012/02/14/the-myth-of-cmt...

I can safely assume that u don't noe head or tail of what u just pasted:D  In fact i don't think u even noe the basics of a CPU architecture!! :lol:  :lol:  So i'd rather suggest u shut up instead of talking about somethin u don't noe about :lol: 

PS:- And btw rizwanmithaw wanted info on Video and image processing, not some crap database MySQL and MSSQL stuff!!! just check out some highly threaded benchies like x264, each BD module comfortably manages to hold its ground against an Intel HT core :) 
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
June 23, 2012 5:41:31 PM

Just to muddy the water a bit more :)  You thought about Llano? The integrated Graphics are vastly better than HD2000 though in return you would have a weaker CPU.

FX its not a true quad as was always previously defined but its not anything like i3 and hyper threading..... 2 completely different things. Though I agree the OP doesn't want a 4100 or 4170. i3 if he wants raw CPU grunt and plans on dedicated graphics card soon as HD2000 is weak or Llano if he wants a better integrated Graphics solution and can accept a CPU performance hit
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
June 23, 2012 5:48:09 PM

wr6133 said:
You thought about Llano? The integrated Graphics are vastly better than HD2000 though in return you would have a weaker CPU.


I think the i3 2105 will strike the right bablance between CPU and GPU:) 

wr6133 said:
FX its not a true quad as was always previously defined

Wud u be kind enof to send me a link to where this fact had been "previously defined" :)  i think i got some reading to do maybe??!! :D 
m
0
l
June 23, 2012 5:50:05 PM

Guys,

If the debate as ended..your attention please.

Thank you very much for the help!

My primary need is photo-editing and I would be editing videos occasionally. I have. no prior experience with AMD and am afraid of heating issues. I am fine with some delay in video rendering and anyways I will later get a GPU to go with the i3 2120.

Can anyone please suggest a GPU in the price range of INR 4000-5000 from the list here: http://www.flipkart.com/computers/ [...] pop=flyout

Will that budget be enough or I'll have to spend more on GPU for improved video-editing performance?
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
June 23, 2012 6:01:51 PM

rizwanmithawala said:


Will that budget be enough or I'll have to spend more on GPU for improved video-editing performance?


err...what software exactly are u using btw??
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
June 23, 2012 6:09:00 PM

$hawn said:
Wud u be kind enof to send me a link to where this fact had been "previously defined" :)  i think i got some reading to do maybe??!! :D 


Your either being obtuse or trying to bait me here either way take a big FAT F for fail :non: 

The accepted norm for multi core CPU's prior to FX was along the lines of the Phenoms. FX however uses "modules" for example an 8 "core" FX uses 4 FX modules though each contains 2 physical cores they share the early pipeline (fetching and decoding), The FPU and the L2 amongst other things. For this reason an 8 "core" FX is really a Quad with a new and not very efficient way of threading.

@ Rizwanmithawa

I would save up a bit more for your Graphics Card yo budget is somewhat low better to wait till you can afford something better.
m
0
l
June 23, 2012 6:16:56 PM

$hawn said:
err...what software exactly are u using btw??


Thanks for the GPU suggestons.

I will be using Adobe Premiere Pro for Video editing and Photoshop CS4/5 for photo editing
m
0
l
a c 146 à CPUs
June 23, 2012 6:18:13 PM

$hawn said:
Dude, copy pasting something out of context, without understanding what it actually means, doesn't make u any wiser :sol: 
here's the bull$hit article u copied from http://scalibq.wordpress.com/2012/02/14/the-myth-of-cmt...

I can safely assume that u don't noe head or tail of what u just pasted:D  In fact i don't think u even noe the basics of a CPU architecture!! :lol:  :lol:  So i'd rather suggest u shut up instead of talking about somethin u don't noe about :lol: 

PS:- And btw rizwanmithaw wanted info on Video and image processing, not some crap database MySQL and MSSQL stuff!!! just check out some highly threaded benchies like x264, each BD module comfortably manages to hold its ground against an Intel HT core :) 


Clearly you don't understand how it works either if you actually think the 4100 is a true quad core CPU, 6100 is a six core and 8100 is a eight core CPU. You're right I did copy and paste it because that guy sums it up perfectly. He sums up perfectly how the Bulldozer architecture works and why it sucks balls. Why is it BS because it shines at showing why the Bulldozer is a POS? Or are you so blinded by brand loyalty that you can't see how the Bulldozer is that bad , I guess you already answered that one since you've done nothing but spew the same BS that AMD's marketing team fed us a year ago. Just pathetic, got to love AMD fanboys.

PS if you want to be taken seriously here on the forums how about using some spell check and not typing like a 12 year old texting his friends. :pfff: 
m
0
l
June 23, 2012 6:31:21 PM

wr6133 said:
Your either being obtuse or trying to bait me here either way take a big FAT F for fail :non: 

The accepted norm for multi core CPU's prior to FX was along the lines of the Phenoms. FX however uses "modules" for example an 8 "core" FX uses 4 FX modules though each contains 2 physical cores they share the early pipeline (fetching and decoding), The FPU and the L2 amongst other things. For this reason an 8 "core" FX is really a Quad with a new and not very efficient way of threading.

@ Rizwanmithawa

I would save up a bit more for your Graphics Card yo budget is somewhat low better to wait till you can afford something better.


thanks for the suggestion. I agree with you but photography and filmmaking is just a hobby for me. Hence I am not investing too much.

How does the absence of GPU affect video editing apart from increased rendering time. I don't have to meet client deadlines. Does it also affect colours, contrast, etc.?

I am buying top of the line Dell UltraSharp U2312HM Monitor (e-IPS Panel) as I don't want to compromise in that department. This monitor gives accurate colours that are uniform across wide viewing angles.

Will I not be able unleash the true performance of the monitor in terms of colours without a graphics card?

Please advice.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
June 23, 2012 6:44:45 PM

Ok I only dabble with video stuff at home so I stand to be corrected here but I believe the main difference is as you said related to speeds of tasks carried out (editing) but playback can be effected by weak graphics depending on resolutions, FPS, etc.

If thats your definite top budget for a GPU I think I would look at a GT440

http://www.flipkart.com/sparkle-nvidia-geforce-gt-440-1...

It wont set the world on fire but should give plenty of grunt for HD playback etc.
m
0
l
June 23, 2012 7:03:54 PM

wr6133 said:
Ok I only dabble with video stuff at home so I stand to be corrected here but I believe the main difference is as you said related to speeds of tasks carried out (editing) but playback can be effected by weak graphics depending on resolutions, FPS, etc.

If thats your definite top budget for a GPU I think I would look at a GT440

http://www.flipkart.com/sparkle-nvidia-geforce-gt-440-1...

It wont set the world on fire but should give plenty of grunt for HD playback etc.


thank you so much!

For the first month, I intend to rely in the onboard Intel HD Graphics 2000. Will it be useless?
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
June 23, 2012 7:09:31 PM

It won't be useless just may suffer a bit if your trying to playback really high res stuff with high FPS and any rendering benefit from a separate GPU will be lost.... it'll work just won't be superfast
m
0
l
June 23, 2012 7:21:57 PM

wr6133 said:
It won't be useless just may suffer a bit if your trying to playback really high res stuff with high FPS and any rendering benefit from a separate GPU will be lost.... it'll work just won't be superfast


that's very helpful..thanks!

I shoot 1080p at 25fps but the clips are not very long. Will get that GPU. Which GPU would you advice if I increase my budget a bit?
m
0
l
!