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.

Essentially I am looking for a machine that can efficiently process 12Mpx RAW images. Currently I use AMD 2600+ 1GB RAM and 64M graphic card and Nikon capture for RAW conversion. After looking at other RAW converters NC is in my opinion the best for Nikon users. 6Mpx files from D70 are converted easily but the machine struggles with 12Mpx. After receiving great information from another thread on the subject I realise the CPU is a major bottleneck as sits at 100% during the long conversion process. I'll consider anything including MAC to make conversion a joy rather than a pain.

I should make it clear that I am talking about the mac that is only just shipping with "Intel core duo"
http://www.apple.com/macbookpro/
not historic ones like mine except that the new one is in the same box, an industrial design classic and inter alia using to within 7mm of the edge of the top for the 1280x800 screen.

I am not sure whether I would quite go so far as describe using GraphicConverter as joy and not sure what the universal has in it; what you would have to do is go to a mac dealer and get the trial download http://www.lemkesoft.com/en/graphdownload.htm
onto a demo box and try your RAW files.

You should not directly compare processor speeds, as the OS is far craftier. GC has a good record of keeping up to date with Mac OS and I think Nikon will follow. Less confident about Adobe as their so-called MacOSX progs are hopelessly memory hungry and cumbersome compared to true natives; seem to have the MS habit of adding more and more superstructure and never going back to the foundations. There would be a lot in the editing field that you would still need to go back to PS for (where I use 7 year old Color-it!!).

I find slight difficulty comparing mac with Wintel as no-one whose Wintel system I have had the misfortune to try and use in emergency seems to know how to use it themselves, never mind explain to me. I also have to admit that I did have to use a paper manual to change from Mac OS9 to 10, unprecedented since Excel 2...and I would have to say 3 year extended warranty was essential having had new hard drive and superdrive under mine at 3 years minus 10 minutes or so.

But I am sure you would find it worth spending an hour with a dealer and their prices are no worse than internet ones.

I would also check your memory and hard disk usage during image manipulation. It might be that the disk is thrashing due to continual virtual memory paging. Control Panel -> Administrative Tools -> Performance monitor will help with analysis. The CPU can be at 100% even though it is paging and/or the disk that is the issue since it performs the i/o operations and byte transfers.

Hi Stephen

I'd wait until Nikon Capture NX becomes available (imminent) before I did anything radical with my computer set up. The computer setup you quote is more than adequate for handling a 12mpixel file. Capture NX is touted to be something worth waiting for, it's sure to be a cheaper option than a new PC/MAC system that will gain you very little realtime advantage for a large outlay of cash.

A trial version of Nikon Capture NX will be available for download shortly at the following web address.

http://www.nikonimaging.com/global/p...p/download.htm

nirofo.

The single and best upgrade you can make is quality ram - particularly where photo editing is concerned - this followed by a sata 2 disk (if Mobo supports it) with high burst speeds will make the largest differences. AMD and Intel are now with awesome chips but intel is known for its longer pipelines and that is why they hold the edge over AMD for video processing and also a slight boost with pics. this is also the reason why AMD have the edge over intel when gaming is concerned. Upgrade the ram but not with corsair value - spend the extra few quid and get quality ram and you will notice the difference - it will also allow you to overclock the system gaining yet more performance. Corsair TwinX is awesome and I highly reccommend it but it is dual channel and im not sure your system supports that but it would still make a significant increase to performance working without dual channel support. The RAM would speed it all up but not reduce the workload of the CPU so consider a dual core CPU especially as prices are now driopping considerably thanks to teh launch of INTELS excellent new Core Duo X6800. Of course this would also mean a new motherboard so basically upgrade everything lol - welcome to the frustrating world of performance hardware. :)