AMD or Intel
 

I understand modern computers are developed for gamers and game requirements. Photographers need another set of requirements of a PC, both AMD and Intel produce fine microprocessors but if purchasing from a clean slate and no brand allegiance which is best for the photographer interested in fast and efficient RAW conversion from the like of Nikon Capture.

Please note, thread not designed to be AMD v's Intel bashing!

Stephen mine is old hat now but it is plenty fast since I put extra memory in. I have AMD Athalon XP 2.2ghz with 1024 memory. AMD has some very fast processors now so there are plenty to choose from. Personally I think the extra memory makes more of a diference.

Christine.

Not seen any difference in performance between processors.
Fast RAM, Video RAM and fast HDD show the best gains.
Current set up for me is AMD4200 Dual Core processor with 256MB Nvidia 6600GT Graphics, 2GB Fast RAM (although I would have 4GB if my stupid new motherboard would take 4 x 1GB DIMM's).
Also, 2 x 300GB SATA Seagate HDD's.
Not seen this beast slow to a trot yet, even when handling complex photoshop filters.
What annoys me is the time all software takes to load RAW files (thumbnails even) when viewing a folder with, say 400 images.
Only better software and systems we won't see for a good number of years will improve on that.

AMD gives you more bangs for your buck in my opinion. The last Intel chip I built a PC with was a Pentium 133.

The other thing to remember also is that the latest Intel P4 chips require huge heatsinks and fans.
This makes them an awful lot more noisy than AMD systems.

I work in IT, and colleagues at my last client site reckoned that AMD Athlon gave better bang for the pound. However, I'm not sure there's much in it.

I think that your best bet is to look at magazines like PC World when they do tests of a selection of machines. What matters is how well the components - CPU, motherboard, RAM, HDD, graphics card - work together, rather than just the CPU. A good manufacturer will make sure that no component causes a bottleneck, and that no component is over specified relative to the others. Places like Evesham, and Mesh usually do well. Also I've found that the cheapest way to speed up a machine is by adding RAM. You really need at least 1GB RAM and more is better. Of course you need to avoid a gaming machine!

Colleagues also recommended XP Pro rather than the standard XP. If you have a hyper-threading capable Intel Pentium, you'll need XP Pro to take advantage of it. I think the latest Photoshop can use hyper-threading. (Hyper-threading allows the processor to emulate multiple CPUs so that programs that use multiple threads can run faster.)

Also Nikon are bringing out an update to NC which - fingers crossed - will be faster. Oh look, is that Father Christmas in a sled pulled by 6 flying pigs? :)

Leif

I've been using AMD since Intel became overly expensive for the difference in performance, probably 7 or 8 years now. I use an AMD Athlon XP Barton core 2800 CPU for all my computing, including graphics! I must say that I have not noticed anything lacking in both speed of rendering and graphics performance. For all my other computational needs it is far more than I will ever be able to put a strain on. Of course, to get the best out of a CPU you have to match it up with a good quality graphics card, I use a Nvidia Geforce4Ti 4600 128Mb, it's more than capable of rendering all the graphics I'm likely to need. I also have 1 Gb of PC3200 DDR 400 Ram to assist with the rendering procedure.

I see no necessity to change any of this at present, the extra cost doesn't warrant the slight extra performance gain I might achieve, in any case I would stick to AMD, they still have the price/performance edge.

If I were to update anything it would be to a higher quality 19" CRT monitor.

nirofo.

Don't entirely rule out the new mac powerbook with intel processor. Having used a standard mac 15" powerbook for 3 1/2 years for everything including Microstation CAD aswell as image/graphics and found it better than the previous tower+21" rig, the idea of something 4 or 5 times as fast and with a 'universal' operating system appeals. Not to mention the convenience of slipping it into a Jiffy bag in the inside compartment of a standard Lowe day bag and dropping it occasionally. Tho I suppose you guys have already partly won the fight to render Msofthink intelligble.

GraphicConverter, which does much of what Photoshop does with 1/4 the hassle is already available in universal; unfortunately the new box will not be able to handle older 'classics' so no use to me.

Hopefully the integration of user-friendly OS and Intel megabucks will introduce a new era to computing; could be worth seeing what happens next. Unfortunately what has been happening with mac may go on, viz making it idiot proof as there are more idiots than intelligent people in the marketplace.

Processor speed is rarely the block to creativity, that is controlled by your thinking speed. Don't have RAW files to mass convert so can't help specifically.

Hmmm, I have noticed that my TiBook is beginning to struggle and at the moment i'm going for a new WinXP box i'm afraid. The poor understanding by some companies that othe OS exist has driven me that way i'm afraid.

Interesting to see Microstation being used on a Mac tho'. Superb package that I enjoyed using for a few years whil working for IT support at UofHerts.

Rob.

I am surprised that the size of cpu cache has not come into the debate on performance. This is what probably bumps up the cpu costs.