AMD / Intel and graphics processing

Started Oct 21, 2012 | Discussions thread
kelpdiver Veteran Member • Posts: 3,084
Re: Not true

sjgcit wrote:

> The AMD rarely comes close when the comparison is properly constructed

This rather depends on your definition of "properly constructed".

Not really.  It's pretty simple.  A working box, not just a cpu.

People here like to post- the AMD X costs $100 instead of $200 (i5) and works 65% as well in general.  Therefore it's a better value.  But when you tack on the minimum $400 for case, ps, memory, disk, it becomes $500 versus $600 and the sandy bridge cleans up.

As the vast majority of tasks people use their PC's for require less processing power than even the lowest x86/64x architecture's currently available produce, I think it's rather a silly argument.

If this were a general PC forum, and not one dedicated to photography, maybe.

For people expecting to do a lot of graphics work a large memory and a fast GPU ( not CPU ) remain the best investments.

Again, not for a forum for people who use photo editing software.  Even CS6 makes marginal use of the GPU capacity.  Memory is fine for most at just 8 gig, but CPU is still the bottleneck for most actions.  It really shows up in batch.  If I want LR to import and generate full previews for a few hundred shots, it pegs all 4 cores for a long stretch.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow