Hello, I've done lots of research but now it's time. I want to check out my short list with people who know more than me.
Approximate Purchase Date: As soon as possible
Budget Range: Up to $400NZ for CPU, Mobo and RAM
System Usage from Most to Least Important: Photo and video editing, multitasking, virtualbox, surf net, email
Parts Not Required: keyboard, mouse, speakers, OS (I'm a Linux user and haven't chosen an OS for my new build – maybe Linux Mint), case (Soprano Thermaltake VB1000BWS with Thermaltake PSU model #XP550NP 430W)
Preferred Website(s) for Parts: www.pricespy.co.nz Obviously anything suggested would have to be available here in NZ.
Country: New Zealand
Parts Preferences: I've worked out two possible builds, one Intel and the other AMD.
Another possible mobo could be Asus F1A75-V Pro (build price NZ$438.72).
Overclocking: Can't on the Intel build, can on the AMD build, never done it, would I want to for future-proofing? I don't know but maybe if I went with the AMD build it would meet my needs for longer into the future.
SLI or Crossfire: No, don't think I'll ever take up gaming.
Monitor Resolution: Getting a new monitor, no decision made yet, any suggestions would be great. Thinking of a 24”, maybe the Dell Ultrasharp U2412M but should I care that it doesn't have an HDMI port?
The AMD process is quad core, the Intel two cores. Reviews don't show much performance difference that I can see, but would the quad be better for a longer lasting computer? I'd like to get 5 years out of this build.
Did I get the right RAM?
Any problems running Linux with either of these builds?
Any comments will be very gratefully received, thanks in advance. I get a great deal of help from Tom's Hardware website.
Thanks TheBigTroll, is this based on the idea that the AMD build is more than I need, or that the Intel build is superior? Intel seems to have the edge over AMD at present, according to my research, but isn't the quad core build a no-brainer just because it is a quad and the other is a dual?
Not exactly. cores dot atter nowadays that uch. its like saying the fx-8150 is 4 times better than the i3 2120. it is only true by about 50% tops when you have a workload not gaming load. the i3 will totally destroy the 8 core.
on intel's side the i3 have 2 cores and 4 threads. this is achieved by hyper threading. on the i5, you get 4 cores and 4 threads. obviously, actual cores are faster than irtual cores.
in the end if you have the cash to upgrade to the i5, it will be better than the i3 by a bit.
If you did not yet buy everything I suggest you include the following in your consideration.
Adobe and the experts who share on the forums tell us that for good performance of Lightroom, processor bandwidth (cores and speed) matters the most. This bandwidth speeds several of the most important steps in LR workflow more than what turns out to be excessive RAM. Although they also say that a good LR (v4 especially) has to tbe "balanced" with all components at about the same level of speed and throughput, the processor is needed for renedering and Develop feedback. SSDs, and vast amounts of RAM, for instance are not drop-dead critical. There is an interesting thread on Ian Lyons' blog that shares the effects of introducing an SSD, and that is something to consider... but when spec'ing this machine buy all the processor cores you can afford.
The Adobe forum is a good place to collect a lot of details for your build. If you do not use Lightroom, Photoshop has a slightly different expectation under the hood. For Corel and Elements I have no information.
I have just had to spec a new machine as my 17-920 mobo sprung a current leak in the handling of outside-powered USB devices so I am forced to upgrade. (I will get a new board from GigaByte but will have to build before sending the GigaByte as I am a commercial photographer and not willing to be without the machine for some weeks.) I chose the Intel DH77KC board and i7-3770 as I decided I was not going to overclock.