Intel i5 or AMD A10?

Started Jul 22, 2012 | Discussions
C-GREEN
Regular MemberPosts: 349Gear list
Like?
Intel i5 or AMD A10?
Jul 22, 2012

I think I'm finally ready to upgrade my four year old dual core system. A lot of improvements since I last looked into purchasing a cumputer. I think I may have narrowed it down to the Intel i5 or the AMD A10. I will be using this computer mainly for Photoshop CS4 (soon to be CS5) and Nikon NX2 editing. Any advice on the two processors would be very helpful. Thanks in advance.

 C-GREEN's gear list:C-GREEN's gear list
Nikon D90 Nikon D300 Nikon D7100 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G ED-IF +5 more
Barry Fitzgerald
Forum ProPosts: 29,888
Like?
The advice is..
In reply to C-GREEN, Jul 23, 2012

The Intel is faster but more expensive
The AMD has a decent onboard GPU but slower CPU performance

Really down to what you are doing or want to spend.

I bought some AMD FX CPU's in and I think for multi threaded applications they are better than I expected. Something like an FX6100 will do the job nicely. The Intel is faster but quite a lot more expensive. This processor is priced around i3 levels but it will do quite a bit better in heavy threaded applications such as LR and stuff like video.

But hey most folks on this forum are benchmark freaks who build the same boring pc's 0 imagination and no desire to try something new. Dare to be a little bit different!

The AMD APU's are interesting mostly if you have some kind of interest in the GPU performance and cost savings.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
thorkilry
Contributing MemberPosts: 870Gear list
Like?
Re: Intel i5 or AMD A10?
In reply to C-GREEN, Jul 23, 2012

I have just finished upgrading my hardware on my PC ( went from XP to Windows7)

I build it around a Intel Z77 chipset Motherboard,with Intel HD 4000 Graphics onboard.

Intel core i5-3570K Ivy bridge, 2x4 GB ram and Windows7 64bit on a 128gb Samsung 830 SSD storage.
What a boost, I think SSD is a must on drive C.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/satyrium_w/
E 620,E 51o 2x kit, EX 25, 35mm, 5omm; EC2o,
7o-3oo, 50-200, panaTz7, E-pl1,VF-2 ,14-42mm m4/3,mf 35mm f 1.7 SLRM.
some old manuel focusing lenses.

 thorkilry's gear list:thorkilry's gear list
Olympus C-765 UZ Olympus E-510 Olympus E-620 Olympus PEN E-PL1 Olympus OM-D E-M5 +1 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
kelpdiver
Senior MemberPosts: 1,886
Like?
Re: The advice is..
In reply to Barry Fitzgerald, Jul 23, 2012

Barry Fitzgerald wrote:

But hey most folks on this forum are benchmark freaks who build the same boring pc's 0 imagination and no desire to try something new. Dare to be a little bit different!

what's daring about running a slower cheaper option?

when you consider the full system cost, going cheap on the cpu is rarely a good move.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Barry Fitzgerald
Forum ProPosts: 29,888
Like?
Re: The advice is..
In reply to kelpdiver, Jul 23, 2012

kelpdiver wrote:

what's daring about running a slower cheaper option?

It's about looking at what you need, not just benchmarks and buying something that suits that need.

when you consider the full system cost, going cheap on the cpu is rarely a good move.

Buying a high end CPU is a bad move mostly because in a few years it becomes outdated and it's performance is surpassed by newer cheaper processors.

Regarding the i5 processor it's a competitor to the FX8 range and not the A10
The i3 is handily beaten by the FX6 series in multi threaded applications too.

The i5's are very decent CPU's, the i7's are mostly overkill for many users, the i3's are really quite overpriced and struggle for heavy lifting work such as video encoding etc

Many of the recommendations on this forum are simply following the tired and predictable routes of reading online reviews and benchmarks, and usually buying a PSU that is inappropriate to their needs, a high end GPU wastes a lot of money for most as well

Little common sense on this forum, mostly boy racer pc builders.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Richard
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,589
Like?
The BEST advice is.
In reply to Barry Fitzgerald, Jul 23, 2012

Barry Fitzgerald wrote:

kelpdiver wrote:

what's daring about running a slower cheaper option?

It's about looking at what you need, not just benchmarks and buying something that suits that need.

when you consider the full system cost, going cheap on the cpu is rarely a good move.

Buying a high end CPU is a bad move mostly because in a few years it becomes outdated and it's performance is surpassed by newer cheaper processors.

And slower cheaper processors will not be outdated even sooner?

If your need is you are on a budget I think AMD is the way to go, but if someone it going to buy SSD, the fastest ram, high end motherboard there is nothing wrong with the Intel CPUs

Regarding the i5 processor it's a competitor to the FX8 range and not the A10
The i3 is handily beaten by the FX6 series in multi threaded applications too.

The i5's are very decent CPU's, the i7's are mostly overkill for many users, the i3's are really quite overpriced and struggle for heavy lifting work such as video encoding etc

If I am going to do video encoding I am going to get an I7. I would probably make sure my program can use cuda or open CL so my video card could handle the process faster.

Many of the recommendations on this forum are simply following the tired and predictable routes of reading online reviews and benchmarks, and usually buying a PSU that is inappropriate to their needs, a high end GPU wastes a lot of money for most as well

So I purchase a motherboard that helps me move into the future that has thunderbolt, USB3, Sata 6gb Raid, that is $449 (I don't need thunderbolt, but I want it because of future monitor and external hard drive use)
2 240gb SSDs to raid0 together for the OS
3 2tb spindle disks raid 0 together for storage
2 2tb external drives for backups
I buy a fast video card to do my video processing.
I buy fast Ram 8-16 gb for pictures and video.
Why would I skimp on the CPU. That would bud dumb.

Little common sense on this forum, mostly boy racer pc builders.

Few people build their own systems on this board, building systems is something left to young men who play games, older men experienced in IT and or computers. Older people who just need a tool to adjust photos on just go buy a dell/hp/mac.

Though I don't have a mother board with Thunderbolt, the above system is what I have (though and older i5) and I don't think it is overkill, it is fast and snappy and allows me to do work quickly instead of waiting.

The best advise is to find out what you need, build a system on those needs. If you have a limited budget then the AMD may be a good option for you. But there is nothing unimaginative building an i7 system. Most people buy the best their budget will allow.

If AMD offered a faster processor for less money. I think you would see them selling a lot more.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
kelpdiver
Senior MemberPosts: 1,886
Like?
Re: The advice is..
In reply to Barry Fitzgerald, Jul 23, 2012

Barry Fitzgerald wrote:

Buying a high end CPU is a bad move mostly because in a few years it becomes outdated and it's performance is surpassed by newer cheaper processors.

the i5 isn't a high end CPU. At $215 for the i5-3770, it's nicely in the sweet spot for price/performance. And as the OP ran 4 years on his last system, this should be the lowest he goes on the cpu choice. It could be a reason to go with a hex core, even, despite the much greater cost for the cpu, but only if CS6 is in the cards. For CS4, not much gained with more than 4 cores.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Barry Fitzgerald
Forum ProPosts: 29,888
Like?
Re: The BEST advice is.
In reply to Richard, Jul 23, 2012

Richard wrote:

Few people build their own systems on this board, building systems is something left to young men who play games, older men experienced in IT and or computers. Older people who just need a tool to adjust photos on just go buy a dell/hp/mac.

Though I don't have a mother board with Thunderbolt, the above system is what I have (though and older i5) and I don't think it is overkill, it is fast and snappy and allows me to do work quickly instead of waiting.

I'm not that old but the general comment from me is that the forum is clearly only meeting the needs of high end builders. For many bang per buck is a factor and some builds are not entirely appropriate for the tasks at hand.

I see many puzzling choices on this forum that show a lack of understanding of basic computer components and a lot about following the mass crowd who mostly build overkill pc's. Nothing wrong in that but every post it gets a bit much.

The best advise is to find out what you need, build a system on those needs. If you have a limited budget then the AMD may be a good option for you. But there is nothing unimaginative building an i7 system. Most people buy the best their budget will allow.

Most of the builds are unimaginative using the same components in some cases even the same makers for builds. It's a shame because more often than not it's money wasted or not spent in a way which is more suitable for the pc required.

BTW I'm not saying everyone should build a super budget pc, but that some components are pouring money away for little to no gain, high end motherboards are a classic example.

If AMD offered a faster processor for less money. I think you would see them selling a lot more.

I've no idea how well AMD are selling to be honest, we know they can't compete at the higher end because they don't have the products to do that. But I will point out that almost nobody suggests AMD and they base that not on real world experience, but reading Tom's Hardware and other such sites.

My views on Thunderbolt are not so positive it's yet another format that we don't need, yet another new cable and connection. Best avoided USB is the mainstream place to be..and bar top end SSD's it's pretty damn fast for most folks.

Don't sucker into Apple's yet another format they can overcharge customers for. I surely won't

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
kelpdiver
Senior MemberPosts: 1,886
Like?
Re: The BEST advice is.
In reply to Barry Fitzgerald, Jul 23, 2012

Barry Fitzgerald wrote:

But I will point out that almost nobody suggests AMD and they base that not on real world experience, but reading Tom's Hardware and other such sites.

No one suggests AMD now because the performance isn't the same. In the era of the Pentium 4 and the awful Core Duo, it was very easy to suggest the AMD 64 and AMD 64-X2. Right now, the Magnys super core server cpus have some applications, and if you need faster integrated graphics for gaming, there are reasons to go with AMD, but a photoshop user has no reason to pick anything but Intel. It already had a lead and Sandy Bridge extended it.

A basic decent system runs about $700 in parts, with an i5 processor. Going cheap on the cpu to save $50 or $100 for measureably slower photo editing is silly.

My views on Thunderbolt are not so positive it's yet another format that we don't need, yet another new cable and connection. Best avoided USB is the mainstream place to be..and bar top end SSD's it's pretty damn fast for most folks.

Don't sucker into Apple's yet another format they can overcharge customers for. I surely won't

Thunderbolt was developed by Intel. Apple collaborated and for that got a one year head start, but now it is available to all.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
C-GREEN
Regular MemberPosts: 349Gear list
Like?
Re: The advice is..
In reply to Barry Fitzgerald, Jul 23, 2012

I would like to thank everyone for the advice!! I only upgrade my cpu about every four years. I want a machine that will stand the test of time. So I think I have made my decision, I am going with the Intel but not the i5 but the i7. HP is running a deal on a computer that is pretty good at the moment. I would like to thank everyone who helped me make the decision. I think this machine can handle my work flow wthout any lag. Thanks again! By the way this is the cpu I decided on.

http://www.shopping.hp.com/en_US/home-office/-/products/Desktops/HP-Pavilion/B4J27AV?HP-Pavilion-HPE-h8-1360t-Desktop-PC

 C-GREEN's gear list:C-GREEN's gear list
Nikon D90 Nikon D300 Nikon D7100 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G ED-IF +5 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Jim Cockfield
Forum ProPosts: 14,498
Like?
Re: The advice is..
In reply to C-GREEN, Jul 23, 2012

C-GREEN wrote:

I would like to thank everyone for the advice!! I only upgrade my cpu about every four years. I want a machine that will stand the test of time. So I think I have made my decision, I am going with the Intel but not the i5 but the i7. HP is running a deal on a computer that is pretty good at the moment. I would like to thank everyone who helped me make the decision. I think this machine can handle my work flow wthout any lag. Thanks again! By the way this is the cpu I decided on.

http://www.shopping.hp.com/en_US/home-office/-/products/Desktops/HP-Pavilion/B4J27AV?HP-Pavilion-HPE-h8-1360t-Desktop-PC

I don't have any experience with HP PCs (I usually by Dell models, and get them in refurbished condition from http://www.dell.com.outet since they have the same warranties as new machines). I've bought multiple desktops and laptops that way (refurbished from Dell Outlet), and I wait for coupon codes so that I get more off the already discounted refurbished pricing (since they have them on a regular basis).

But, that's a pretty good deal for the way that HP model is equipped.

That CPU (Core i7 3770) will "run circles" around the AMD CPUs.you'll find for desktops.

If it were me, I might upgrade the PSU to the 460 Watt model ($30 option in that configurator), just in case I wanted to use a faster video card that required more power later (since the default 300 watt PSU in the HP is too weak to handle anything other than a bus powered video card).

In a similar setup, you may also want to look at the Dell XPS 8500 config for $849 here:

http://www.dell.com/us/soho/p/xps-8500/pd?~ck=mn

It's got a 460 Watt PSU by default, and uses faster 1600Mhz DDR3 for system memory, with faster GDDR5 on it's HD 7570 video card (same card that the HP system defaults with, only the HP card uses slower GDDR3). So, by the time you upgraded the PSU in the HP to the better 460 Watt model, you'd be spending about the same as the Dell would cost, and the Dell would still have faster memory for both the system memory and the video card.

But, in most real world conditions, you're not going to notice the difference anyway by using faster memory. So, I wouldn't worry about that part if you prefer HP over Dell; and the HP does appear to come with Adobe Elements and Premier Elements if you care about having those apps.

-- hide signature --

JimC

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Jim Cockfield
Forum ProPosts: 14,498
Like?
For Corel AfterShot Pro, the FX-8150 would be a good bet...
In reply to Barry Fitzgerald, Jul 23, 2012

Barry Fitzgerald wrote:

Buying a high end CPU is a bad move mostly because in a few years it becomes outdated and it's performance is surpassed by newer cheaper processors.

A "few years" later, you'll be more likely to upgrade your entire system versus the CPU anyway, since too many things will have changed (memory type, interface standards, etc.).

So, you might as well enjoy a faster CPU during that time frame.

Of course, everyone's needs are different. A lot depends on the applications you're using and how much your time is worth.

Personally, I tend to buy "last years" models in refurbished condition, so I'll get more "bang for the buck", and just upgrade more often (replacing the entire machine versus individual components).

Regarding the i5 processor it's a competitor to the FX8 range and not the A10
The i3 is handily beaten by the FX6 series in multi threaded applications too.

Most of the benchmarks I've seen for the FX series CPUs leave something to be desired (IOW, they're typically slower compared to equivalently priced Intel models for most purposes).

The exception is the newer 8 core models when using an application like Bibble Pro (now Corel AfterShot Pro, since Corel acquired Biibble Labs).

That's because that particular application takes far better advantage of extra CPU cores compared to most any other application you're like to run.

See some benchmarks of Bibble Pro 5 on the AMD FX-8150 here:

http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/amd_fx8150/5.htm

But, the newer Intel Ivy Bridge CPUs are faster than the older Sandy Bridge models tested in that comparison. So, I wouldn't be surprised if the newer Ivy Bridge CPUs outperform the AMD FX-8150 with apps that are designed to use additional threads more efficiently.

But, for around $199 now, the AMD FX-8150 would certainly be a good contender if you're using apps like Corel AfterShot Pro more often (and I use it under both Linux and Windows).

So, I wouldn't mind having a machine using one if the price was right.

However, for typical user workloads, the latest Ivy Bridge Core CPUs are probably a better bet.

Or, if you really want superior performance, just go with one of the Intel Sandy Bridge E models like the Core i7 3930K with 6 physical cores. Yes, it costs a lot more (over $500 now). But, it will run circles around most CPUs, and when you look at system cost as a whole (versus just CPU cost) when buying a complete high performance system, it may be well worth it in time savings for some users over the life of a system.

-- hide signature --

JimC

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
C-GREEN
Regular MemberPosts: 349Gear list
Like?
Re: The advice is..
In reply to Jim Cockfield, Jul 23, 2012

Jim Cockfield wrote:

C-GREEN wrote:

I would like to thank everyone for the advice!! I only upgrade my cpu about every four years. I want a machine that will stand the test of time. So I think I have made my decision, I am going with the Intel but not the i5 but the i7. HP is running a deal on a computer that is pretty good at the moment. I would like to thank everyone who helped me make the decision. I think this machine can handle my work flow wthout any lag. Thanks again! By the way this is the cpu I decided on.

http://www.shopping.hp.com/en_US/home-office/-/products/Desktops/HP-Pavilion/B4J27AV?HP-Pavilion-HPE-h8-1360t-Desktop-PC

I don't have any experience with HP PCs (I usually by Dell models, and get them in refurbished condition from http://www.dell.com.outet since they have the same warranties as new machines). I've bought multiple desktops and laptops that way (refurbished from Dell Outlet), and I wait for coupon codes so that I get more off the already discounted refurbished pricing (since they have them on a regular basis).

But, that's a pretty good deal for the way that HP model is equipped.

I am partial to HP. I have purchased multiple computers from them and have had very good success.

That CPU (Core i7 3770) will "run circles" around the AMD CPUs.you'll find for desktops.

If it were me, I might upgrade the PSU to the 460 Watt model ($30 option in that configurator), just in case I wanted to use a faster video card that required more power later (since the default 300 watt PSU in the HP is too weak to handle anything other than a bus powered video card).

I did upgrade the power supply as well as the video card, the memory (12 GB) and the wireless N Lan card. With the discounts I ended up paying $915.00 before taxes.

In a similar setup, you may also want to look at the Dell XPS 8500 config for $849 here:

http://www.dell.com/us/soho/p/xps-8500/pd?~ck=mn

It's got a 460 Watt PSU by default, and uses faster 1600Mhz DDR3 for system memory, with faster GDDR5 on it's HD 7570 video card (same card that the HP system defaults with, only the HP card uses slower GDDR3). So, by the time you upgraded the PSU in the HP to the better 460 Watt model, you'd be spending about the same as the Dell would cost, and the Dell would still have faster memory for both the system memory and the video card.

But, in most real world conditions, you're not going to notice the difference anyway by using faster memory. So, I wouldn't worry about that part if you prefer HP over Dell; and the HP does appear to come with Adobe Elements and Premier Elements if you care about having those apps.

-- hide signature --

JimC
------

 C-GREEN's gear list:C-GREEN's gear list
Nikon D90 Nikon D300 Nikon D7100 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G ED-IF +5 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Barry Fitzgerald
Forum ProPosts: 29,888
Like?
Re: For Corel AfterShot Pro, the FX-8150 would be a good bet...
In reply to Jim Cockfield, Jul 23, 2012

Jim Cockfield wrote:

So, you might as well enjoy a faster CPU during that time frame.

It never works like that. Most folks couldn't care less about a 10 second penalty in a benchmark.

Most of the benchmarks I've seen for the FX series CPUs leave something to be desired (IOW, they're typically slower compared to equivalently priced Intel models for most purposes).

FX is inconsistent if you are benching Itunes for example. On the other hand for heavy threading like lightroom, quite good really.

The exception is the newer 8 core models when using an application like Bibble Pro (now Corel AfterShot Pro, since Corel acquired Biibble Labs).

I would have little interest in that software myself

That's because that particular application takes far better advantage of extra CPU cores compared to most any other application you're like to run.

See some benchmarks of Bibble Pro 5 on the AMD FX-8150 here:

http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/amd_fx8150/5.htm

But, the newer Intel Ivy Bridge CPUs are faster than the older Sandy Bridge models tested in that comparison. So, I wouldn't be surprised if the newer Ivy Bridge CPUs outperform the AMD FX-8150 with apps that are designed to use additional threads more efficiently.

There are ethical reasons why I don't use Intel I don't expect everyone to accept those but it's one very good point hardly touched on.

But, for around $199 now, the AMD FX-8150 would certainly be a good contender if you're using apps like Corel AfterShot Pro more often (and I use it under both Linux and Windows).

So, I wouldn't mind having a machine using one if the price was right.

However, for typical user workloads, the latest Ivy Bridge Core CPUs are probably a better bet.

Or, if you really want superior performance, just go with one of the Intel Sandy Bridge E models like the Core i7 3930K with 6 physical cores. Yes, it costs a lot more (over $500 now). But, it will run circles around most CPUs, and when you look at system cost as a whole (versus just CPU cost) when buying a complete high performance system, it may be well worth it in time savings for some users over the life of a system.

With increased GPU usage for software I think in a few years it will be a moot point pure CPU power.

Back to the OP I don't have a lot of confidence in HP's computers I've had too many problems with their choice of motherboard vendors. IMO they use junk motherboards.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
caterpillar
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,476Gear list
Like?
smart move
In reply to C-GREEN, Jul 23, 2012

C-GREEN wrote:

I would like to thank everyone for the advice!! I only upgrade my cpu about every four years. I want a machine that will stand the test of time. So I think I have made my decision, I am going with the Intel but not the i5 but the i7. HP is running a deal on a computer that is pretty good at the moment. I would like to thank everyone who helped me make the decision. I think this machine can handle my work flow wthout any lag. Thanks again! By the way this is the cpu I decided on.

That is smart. 4-5 years to upgrade is a nice time period to upgrade one's setup. Most yearly or even 2 year upgrades don't show that much improvement and is not the best bang for the buck. You also don't get to recoup your expenses if you upgrade often.

Although cpu's will definitely get faster in the future, as it always will, there is a point that you have to draw in the sand and personally, I think i7's of today are already very, very fast that it's the other subsystems that needs more attention as they will slow down the overall performance more than the cpu.

With a fast cpu, you need to keep the other components in line with that speed. A slow HDD is going to be your major bottleneck. Your best bet is to at least upgrade the storage where windows or your OS will use to a SSD. Of course, having the data on a separate SSD would also be good, but you can always go for that later if you are on a budget. I'd still keep the HDD if only for archival purposes or keeping done projects stored. But it better be in the 2-3TB range.

I'd also consider a modest CUDA or OpenCL compliant video card. That should further help along in the processing. Perhaps, in the future, that may only be the one you need to change add to your processing power.

I see that maybe 4ghz is the top end for a reasonable cpu to break past benchmarks in the future. After that, it would be smarter to just add more cores to get performance improvements, or at least add more threads. But that would also require that software be able to take use those extra cores. Most usually top at 4 cores of usage today. So, if one can afford it, and your plan is for a 4-5 year use before upgrading, then no doubt get an i7 now.

-- hide signature --

  • Caterpillar

'Always in the process of changing, growing, and transforming.'

 caterpillar's gear list:caterpillar's gear list
Sony Alpha NEX-5N
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Richard
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,589
Like?
HP not bad..
In reply to Barry Fitzgerald, Jul 24, 2012

Barry Fitzgerald wrote:

Back to the OP I don't have a lot of confidence in HP's computers I've had too many problems with their choice of motherboard vendors. IMO they use junk motherboards.

I bought my sister an HP Desktop. Her children plugin in their Ipods and what no static shocked the sound card after 4 years of operation. I put in a new cheap sound card and it still works great, especially for a vista machine, she still uses it all the time for face book and web browsing. I have owned and given away 6 HP/Compaq laptops. They all still work and they all worked great. They are value brand oriented and I think for the price you cannot go wrong.

I just bough me a new 17 17.3" 8gb nvidia 650 GDDR5, 750gb hybrid drive, extended battery HP laptop, just got it today. I bought a 240gb SSD for it and installed it. It is screaming fast. I ordered the drive caddy and cable so I can install the hybrid drive back in for 2 drives. They are great computers and I would recommend them to anyone. I would also recommend if your laptop from any manufacturers fails within the return policy, get a new one there will be a percentage of DOA with any brand.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Richard
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,589
Like?
Re: For Corel AfterShot Pro, the FX-8150 would be a good bet...
In reply to Jim Cockfield, Jul 24, 2012

Jim Cockfield wrote:

See some benchmarks of Bibble Pro 5 on the AMD FX-8150 here:

http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/amd_fx8150/5.htm

I have the Corel aftershot pro product, it works well on my old i5, it is an awsome product. I have been using rawshooter 2006 and finally found a inexpensive replacement in Aftershot pro (similar features for the way to adust parameters in raw which I did not care for how light room did it.. The AMD chip has almost no advantage with bibble but assuming the chip was 199 dollars, it might be worth looking at

But, the newer Intel Ivy Bridge CPUs are faster than the older Sandy Bridge models tested in that comparison. So, I wouldn't be surprised if the newer Ivy Bridge CPUs outperform the AMD FX-8150 with apps that are designed to use additional threads more efficiently.

But, for around $199 now, the AMD FX-8150 would certainly be a good contender if you're using apps like Corel AfterShot Pro more often (and I use it under both Linux and Windows).

So, I wouldn't mind having a machine using one if the price was right.

However, for typical user workloads, the latest Ivy Bridge Core CPUs are probably a better bet.

I must agree

Or, if you really want superior performance, just go with one of the Intel Sandy Bridge E models like the Core i7 3930K with 6 physical cores. Yes, it costs a lot more (over $500 now). But, it will run circles around most CPUs, and when you look at system cost as a whole (versus just CPU cost) when buying a complete high performance system, it may be well worth it in time savings for some users over the life of a system.

Agree again.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Jim Cockfield
Forum ProPosts: 14,498
Like?
Re: For Corel AfterShot Pro, the FX-8150 would be a good bet...
In reply to Barry Fitzgerald, Jul 24, 2012

Barry Fitzgerald wrote:

Jim Cockfield wrote:

So, you might as well enjoy a faster CPU during that time frame.

It never works like that. Most folks couldn't care less about a 10 second penalty in a benchmark.

Benchmarks can be a good indication of how one CPU compares to another if you look at benchmarks that are tailored to how you use a PC more, and if you are performing tasks that benefit from a faster CPU, using a slower one can be very frustrating.

For example, I can remember when I needed to go through 1000+ 24MP raw files from a Sony A850 to find some keepers for a review, and had a PC problem in the middle of that process. I was on a tight schedule and didn't want to risk taking any extra time fixing the PC issue. So, I decided to buy a PC with a Dual Core AMD CPU (2.8Ghz Athlon X2 240) with 64 Bit Win 7 on it to finish that process before worrying about getting the other PC working, since it was a cheap solution that I assumed would be faster than the other older PCs I already had.

Using the PC with that AMD CPU to try and go through those raw files was very painful, even trying to use FastPictureViewer Pro to grade them and select the keepers (which is a much faster raw viewer compared to most, and allows you to view images at 100% with one click). I didn't think I'd ever get through that process it was so slow with that AMD CPU. So, the cost of a faster CPU would have been worth it just for the reduced frustration over one day, much less over the life of a system.

I've still got it, and may spend a hundred bucks and throw a quad core in it at some point. I just never seem to get around to it, since it's not a high priority since I have a faster PC I can use.

As for my comments about the AMD FX-8150.... I wouldn't mind having one of those at all, since I use Corel AfterShot Pro now for all of my raw viewing and processing, and in it's case, the extra cores would make it a good "bang for the buck" CPU for me if I were building a system for personal use (it's only $189 right now at newegg.com).

It's written so that processing speed scales very nicely with more cores (expect performance to almost double each time you double the number of cores), whereas most other multi-threaded apps offer smaller improvements with each added core, because the code is just not granular enough to offer the type of improvement you get with extra cores using AfterShot Pro.

So, even though the newer Core i5 (quad core) Ivy Bridge CPUs are going to be faster with most applications compared to the 6 and 8 core AMD CPUs, for an app like AfterShot Pro, a CPU like the FX-8150 makes sense at it's current price point.

I also use LInux most of the time, and I suspect it would take better advantage of the extra cores in it, too -- especially since I tend to do things like run more than one OS at the same time in Virtual Machines on it.

But, chances are, my next PC will use an Intel CPU, just because I tend to buy refurbished machines from Dell Outlet using coupon codes for more off (since they have them on a regular basis and you can find some great deals if you're a good shopper), and they've quit offering AMD CPUs in virtually all of their desktops except for an Optiplex model they offer with Athlon CPUs on the business side.

The used to offer an XPS 7100 with AMD Phenom X6 models. But, they discontinued it and never replaced it with a newer model using newer AMD CPUs like the FX series models.

Now, if I were building a box, I might consider using something like an AMD FX-8150 in it. But, chances are, I'll just grab another Dell refurb when I need a new PC, as it's tough to beat the deals you can find on them if you wait on coupon codes for more off the refurb pricing.

There are ethical reasons why I don't use Intel I don't expect everyone to accept those but it's one very good point hardly touched on.

I wouldn't have a problem with that if you don't like the way they've conducted business.

I haven't kept up with all of it, but I do know that they've been accused of some shady competitive practices.

For example, in addition to the tactics they've been accused of using with comptuer manufacturers to try and keep them from buying AMD, I've seen numerous discussions about how they've deliberately crippled their compilers when AMD processors were detected. The implication is that Intel compilers used the slowest possible instructions when a non Intel CPU was detected, without even bothering to check and see what instruction sets were supported.

Here's one article on the subject:

http://www.osnews.com/story/22683

So, I can understand Ethics influencing a CPU decision.

Not wanting to give more business to a company with questionable ethics is one reason some people prefer not to use Microsoft products, too.

In any event, I think it's just human nature to try and find a product that performs better, even if they don't need the fastest CPU around.

Of course, we see the same thing with cameras, with users comparing every little detail (noise, retained detail, dynamic range, frame rate, etc.) in forums like the ones here at dpreview.com. lol

-- hide signature --

JimC

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
lemon_juice
Contributing MemberPosts: 752
Like?
Re: For Corel AfterShot Pro, the FX-8150 would be a good bet...
In reply to Jim Cockfield, Jul 24, 2012

Jim Cockfield wrote:

I wouldn't have a problem with that if you don't like the way they've conducted business.

I haven't kept up with all of it, but I do know that they've been accused of some shady competitive practices.

For example, in addition to the tactics they've been accused of using with comptuer manufacturers to try and keep them from buying AMD, I've seen numerous discussions about how they've deliberately crippled their compilers when AMD processors were detected. The implication is that Intel compilers used the slowest possible instructions when a non Intel CPU was detected, without even bothering to check and see what instruction sets were supported.

Here's one article on the subject:

http://www.osnews.com/story/22683

So, I can understand Ethics influencing a CPU decision.

Not wanting to give more business to a company with questionable ethics is one reason some people prefer not to use Microsoft products, too.

This is an interesting article. But how easy is it for an average person to really know what nasty tacticts a certain company uses? It's difficult to find unbiased information and often when you dig deeper it turns out that no respectable company uses healthy tactics. So I may exclude Microsoft from my shopping list, then it turns out I need to exclude Apple, then Adobe, etc. Then I'm left with some Linux distro on a no-name hardware with GIMP - while it may be fine for some it is not enough for any serious professional work.

I'm not trying to undermine any of your statements, it's just that I find it hard to tell which companies are ethical and which are not because it seems all the mainstream ones are not.

-- hide signature --

Michal.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads