Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

CPU ...

Last response: in CPUs
Share
November 19, 2012 7:19:23 AM

Hello,
for photoshop Intel or AMD I've been told one thing by a sales guy and the total opposite by a tech guy, in the same store on the same day !!

More about : cpu

a b à CPUs
November 19, 2012 8:13:58 AM

Since, Photoshop takes advantage of Multi-threading. So, more no. of physical cores will be always beneficial. AMD CPUs offer you more physical cores than Intel at same price (e.g. Intel i5 (Quad core) & AMD FX 8XXX (8 core) are nearly similar priced. So, IMO, You should go for AMD.
However, whatever CPU you choose, make sure to pack your system with at least HD 7850/GTX 650 Ti GPU.
November 19, 2012 1:10:46 PM

hafijur said:
Lol that is rubbish.

http://hardware-review24.com/load/cpu/desktop_ivy_bridg...

On photoshop amd 8 core cpu is left in the dust. To be honest I reckon it will take 2-3 years for amd to get anywhere near intel current cpu's not only in performance but performance per watt.

At the end of the day intel at 3.4ghz 4 cores is equivalent to amd like having 10 cores at 3.4ghz. AMD are like the pentium 4 of modern day cpu's, very slow and very power hungry. They sip electricity like its breakfast, heat up and whats more funny is how slow they are.

Question is would you prefer a cpu thats like 30-40% slower overall and take double the electricity to do the same task which is amd. I think amd might as well give up on the high end as all they are doing is cranking up the electricity.

If amd released a same power consumption cpu as lets say a 3770k, there performance would be similar to a core 2 duo. They have had to increase power consumption so high just to get some more performance. Intel cpu's can oc 1-2ghz more if you wanted to as they are not even close to the limit of thermals hence easy overclock.

Look at this:
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2012/11/06/amd-fx-8350...

Stop talking out of your ass. The FX8350 at a lower price than a 3570K leaves it flat in multi-threaded applications. Not to mention that the extra power consumption shouldn't be a factor in a performance based choice. Those benchmarks you listed, are only capable of using 1-2 cores. And of course Intel is better at X86 performance, after all you've got more space to put those 4 cores, when compared to the 8 on the AMD. Even if we were to compare price, then the most obvious choice should be a Phenom II x6 or x4, those perform with 5-10% better than their Intel price point equivalents.
Related resources
November 19, 2012 2:36:48 PM

I recommend you buy an Intel i7 processor for photoshop, AMD FX processors consume more power and output more heat than equivalent Intel CPUs.

If you want the best performance possible you should buy a 12-thread 6-core Intel processor. Buy the 8-thread 4-core Intel i7-3770 if you can do with less.
November 20, 2012 11:09:24 AM

hafijur said:
Are you for real. Who cares if it is 8 core or 100 amd is slower on 90% of benchmarks and takes double the electricity for same performance. 90% is for intel i7 3770k.

Soon as you don't care about electricity lets make it fair and overclock the intel 3570k cpu to 5ghz. Even then it should still take 30-40w less then the fx8350.

I understand that amd don't have much of the cpu market and there budget is small but like amd were ahead of intel in the desktop market with there athlon 64 era over p4. My point is all amd are now doing is cranking up the clocks = high power consumption just to compete. If intel vs amd current cpu's intel cpu's would be 80% at least better performance per watt and some tasks over 2x. I saw somewhere an intel cpu took like 80% energy less and completed the task miles faster. So not only did the intel cpu on load take less power it took less time and obviously this means miles less watts used.

I will be amazed if amd release a cpu in 2-3 years time as good as what intel have now. Most worrying thing is amd really have gone sidewards or backwards with bulldozer and intel haswell is the main focus for lowering power consumption. Added onto that adding high end intel hd graphics to compete with amd so that market share of amd apu could go. Its worrying times for amd as a high end cpu maker as they are miles behind on intel.

That 80% performance over AMD is kind of BS, and you know it. A more real 40-ish is more likely, even in single threaded apps. And comparing the 8350 to the 3770K isn't fair by any means. By how much does the 3770K beat the 8350 - 20%, 30%, 40%? For 30-ish % do you see it fitting to pay 50% more money? I certanly don't, that's the exact reason I went with a Phenom II 965 over an I5 2300, the I5 costs about 2X where I live, and it delivers only about 25% more performance.
November 20, 2012 12:41:14 PM

hafijur said:
unlimitedbanana, on about performance per watt. Intel cpu can be easily overclocked to 4.5ghz+ and still take less electricity. Point is the amd ios on the brink of its limits, intel cpu's are bought to be overclocked for high end users, or ofr people who don't care used at standard clock and low power consumption. Anyway the amout of joules required to do the same task.

On this shows 132 watt hours less required for 3770k over an amd fx8350.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-vishera-rev...

On this shows how poor amd fx is once overclocked as the power consumption rockets up:
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2012/11/06/amd-fx-8350...

I mean seriously a 3570k at 5ghz takes 267w or a 3770k takes 244w at 4.8ghz or old gen 2600k take 313w oc to 5ghz or 180w at stock vs an amd fx 8150 taking 586w oc to 4.8ghz or 244w at stock.

To be fair fx8350 takes 213 stock and 364w at 4.8ghz. Either way all tese amd cpu's get embarrassed.

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2012/11/06/amd-fx-8350...

If amd get close to what intel have now in 2 years that would be incredible turn around. The most worrying thing is intel will target with haswell to half power consumption at same performance and they already showed one benchmark like this that 8w haswell performs same as 17w ish ivy bridge. Now considering they are double the performance per watt currently amd could be 4x performance per watt behind if amd don't wake up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wthvk50F5g

I wasn't talking about performance per watt, I'm not insane to go and compare AMD against Intel in pure performance. But I was answering your insane results. Otherwise Intel wins, no doubt about it, but when we compare price - then things get interesting. And also, 213W for the whole system, there is no way that a 125W rated CPU can pull almost 2X that, the socket would burn out.
!