Which processor/computer setup ?

Joined
Mar 31, 2008
Messages
449
Location
Romney, WV
I am ordering a new computer, probably tonight from Dell (or components from Newegg). I was just wondering, with photo processing my main priority with this computer, which processor/RAM combo would be better?

For the same price I can get:

AMD Phenom X4 9750 with 6GB Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM
640GB HD
Dual Drives: 16X DVD-ROM + 16X DVD+/-RW w/ dbl layer write capable
Integrated ATI Radeon HD3200 Graphics card

or

Intel® Core™ 2 Quad Q8200 with 4GB Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM.
500GB HD
16X DVD+/-RW Drive
ATI Radeon HD 3450 256MB Graphics card


Both will run Vista 64 bit and get the free Windows 7 upgrade.

Third option is to buy the components with no software and my brother has XP he can install for now. Probably a slightly better computer this way but I miss out on the free Windows 7 upgrade.

My main question is about the processors. Is there a difference in performance as far as what my intended use is? Also, how much does the graphics card play a part? I know for gaming an integrated card is not desirable but does it matter in my case?

And just FYI...right now I am only using Elements 7 for my processing but I will be installing Light Room on the new computer and possible CS4 in the future since I can get a student discount now.
 
Joined
May 2, 2008
Messages
515
Location
Antioch, IL
I don't know how well the amd system will run ... I currently built a system using the intel core you are looking at with 8 gb of ram and it flies with anything i throw at it. I couldn't be happier.

Someone said to get a video card with at least 512MB of memory on it - I opted for a card with 1gb of memory for not much more.

I suggest buy the components with no software. if you can get win 7 when it is released .... I am currently running the win 7 RC and it is an amazing OS
 

Growltiger

Administrator
Administrator
Joined
Apr 26, 2008
Messages
12,728
Location
Up in the hills, Gloucestershire, UK
See if you can stretch to the Intel i7 920 instead.

Also look at the new i5 processors. Intel seem to be rolling out the i5 now as the cheaper alternative to the i7, so perhaps the Core 2 Quad is being phased out. Perhaps Dell would give you an end of production discount?

I'm SO impressed by the speed of the i7 920.
I can't wait to get it running with Windows 7 64 bit. I've fitted 12GB of RAM (6*2).
 
Joined
Mar 31, 2008
Messages
449
Location
Romney, WV
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #4
I would love to have an i5 or i7 but they are both out of the budget for this build.

I have been searching around to see if a dual core processor (cheaper) is suitable to run the photo processing programs and also how important the video card is and whether I can go with less and still be ok.

Both the builds through Dell above are around $550 and that is pretty much the max of my budget right now. I just need something that will get me through the next couple years until I get done with school and can get back to work full time making decent money.
 
Joined
Mar 31, 2008
Messages
449
Location
Romney, WV
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #7
Yeah, no games and no video processing, just some video watching...youtube, hulu, that sort of thing.

Main task is photo processing.

Another quick question...for photo processing, would it be better to go with a nicer dual core or a lesser quad core?

The three I am looking at are:

AMD Athlon II X4 620 Propus 2.6GHz 4 x 512KB L2 Cache Socket AM3 95W Quad-Core Processor

AMD Phenom X4 9750 (2.4GHz, 1066MHz, 4MB)

AMD Phenom II X2 550 Black Edition Callisto 3.1GHz Socket AM3 80W Dual-Core Processor
 
Joined
May 12, 2008
Messages
418
Location
DC
Real Name
John
Another quick question...for photo processing, would it be better to go with a nicer dual core or a lesser quad core?

The three I am looking at are:

AMD Athlon II X4 620 Propus 2.6GHz 4 x 512KB L2 Cache Socket AM3 95W Quad-Core Processor

AMD Phenom X4 9750 (2.4GHz, 1066MHz, 4MB)

AMD Phenom II X2 550 Black Edition Callisto 3.1GHz Socket AM3 80W Dual-Core Processor
Go with the AMD 620. It is the fastest processor in its price range for Photoshop.
 
Joined
Mar 31, 2008
Messages
449
Location
Romney, WV
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #10
I was set to go AMD but according to the chart I linked to the Intel Core™ 2 Quad Q8200 is faster than all of the AMD's on the chart. The Dell I have listed at the top has that processor. I just wish I knew what mobo RAM setup was used in the testing.
 
Joined
May 2, 2008
Messages
515
Location
Antioch, IL
you won't be disappointed with the Quad core -

There is a thread here somewhere about how fast your pc really is. Download a raw file and do a radial blur to it and time how long it takes for your rig to finish it. With my Q8200 and 8gb of ram I finished in about 12.5 secs. My old rig (AMD xp 3200 with 1gb of ram) - I never ran it on there cause I didn't want to wait that long. But I read systems with the same spec doing it in a couple minutes.

The i7 cores of course were doing the "test" in sub 10 secs. But if you are going to chase technology you will go broke fast. I priced out the difference with the i7 and the Q8200 - it would of cost me about $250 - $300 more, not too bad but my build was costly enough. So I opted for the quad core.

I have not regretted this since the first time I powered up. Running win 7 64 bit right now. I mainly use CS3 for processing and bridge to sort. I no longer wait for bridge to load pics - its pretty much instant viewing - I don't see the splash screen for bridge either. CS3 loads just as fast and when I run actions they are done almost instantly.
 
Joined
Mar 31, 2008
Messages
449
Location
Romney, WV
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #12
I am definitely not a technology chaser. I'd rather have something that is a year old that was great then but is still very decent now but much less expensive because at a year old it is old tech. I will probably end up with the quad core unless I read something that really blows me away about the AMD's. I really wanted to build my own computer but I am just not certain about doing it so I will probably just go Dell for now. It will still be much better than what I am running now which is also a Dell and has lasted me nearly four years.
 
Joined
Mar 29, 2005
Messages
1,643
Location
Central, FL USA
I'm running a pentium I7 with 9 gb of ram and the system really moves...
Nikon Capture is actually fast and CS4 is also very fast....extremely happy with my system..
 
Joined
May 13, 2009
Messages
642
Location
Streamwood, IL
I have the machine in #1.. It is not running well enough for what I want it to do.. And i am processing small images from d40 (2x3Kpx)..
When I upgrade to d300s, I am worried it will be running slow. even though I have a goo chunk of ram.

that said, I agree on the i7 recommendation or a AMD Athlon II X4 620 Propus 2.6GHz
 
Joined
Mar 31, 2008
Messages
449
Location
Romney, WV
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #15
Well, I ended up just ordering the components to build a computer. I went with an AMD Phenom II X3 720 2.8GHz Triple-Core Black Processor and 4GB of RAM. With this processor I may be able to actually unlock the fourth core and I should be able to overclock it to over 3GHz pretty easily.
 
Joined
Mar 31, 2008
Messages
449
Location
Romney, WV
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #16
Computer is built. Won't have software installed until next week. It will be running W7 64 bit. I'll report how things run once I get it up and going.
 
Joined
Jun 11, 2008
Messages
950
Location
Middletown, NY
Well, I ended up just ordering the components to build a computer. I went with an AMD Phenom II X3 720 2.8GHz Triple-Core Black Processor and 4GB of RAM. With this processor I may be able to actually unlock the fourth core and I should be able to overclock it to over 3GHz pretty easily.
It depends on what motherboard you have, if you can unlock the last core or not. I looked into doing it, but found a good percentage of people having unstable systems after doing it. It depends if the last core was disabled because it was defective or if it was disabled to meet the market demand.

Also, is 200Mhz worth shortening the life of the processor? I used to overclock years ago, its just not worth it for me. I ended up either having a slightly unstable system or the CPU would have to be replaced in one year's time.
 
Joined
Jun 11, 2008
Messages
950
Location
Middletown, NY
Joined
Mar 31, 2008
Messages
449
Location
Romney, WV
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #19
I actually got it for free and it is installed and working great so far. It is the Ultimate 64 bit version and is the full retail version.

As far as overclocking, I have not decided on it yet but have been doing my research and from what I read and what everyone says on the computer site I go to, overclocking is not really that bad for the cpu as long as you do things right, keep the temps in check, and make sure you are running stable. Bumping up from 2.8 to 3.0-3.2 should be pretty easy with no increase in voltage and with 5 case fans (four 120mm and one 140mm fans) plus the cpu cooler I doubt I am at any risk of overheating. I know that I run the risk of shortening the life of the processor but over the life of the cpu, it will most likely be so out of date it will be replaced on that merit before it actually goes bad.

My mobo will support unlocking the 4th core but it is a crap shoot as to why it was locked in the first place and even if unlocked if it will do any good.
 
Joined
Jun 11, 2008
Messages
950
Location
Middletown, NY
I actually got it for free and it is installed and working great so far. It is the Ultimate 64 bit version and is the full retail version.
QUOTE]

I didn't realize the Ultimate was out yet, I know the Enterprise Edition is since we've been testing it at work.
 
Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2005-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom