WPF - World Photography Forum
Home Gallery Register FAQ Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Welcome to World Photography Forum!
Welcome!

Thank you for finding your way to World Photography Forum, a dedicated community for photographers and enthusiasts. There's a variety of forums, a wonderful gallery, and what's more, we are absolutely FREE. You are very welcome to join, take part in the discussion, and post your pictures!

Click here to go to the forums home page and find out more.
Click here to join.


Go Back   World Photography Forum > Off Topic > Computers and The Internet


Computers and The Internet This is the place to ask questions and discuss the complex world of computer and internet issues.

AMD or Intel

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #1  
Old 03-04-06, 18:31
Canis Vulpes's Avatar
Canis Vulpes Canis Vulpes is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Age: 51
Posts: 4,398
Default 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!
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 03-04-06, 18:54
Saphire's Avatar
Saphire Saphire is offline  
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Shropshire
Age: 75
Posts: 5,980
Default

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.
__________________
Christine Iwancz
Gallery upload limit is 4 photos per 24hrs Gallery Posting Guidelines here
http://ciphotography.freehostia.com/index.php
Equipment= Canon 7D, 40D, 400 f5.6, 75-300, 100mm Macro, 18-55, Canon 70-200 f4, Tokina 12-24mm, Kenko pro 300 1.4,1.5 and 2.0x, Jessops ext tube set,
Canon 580 flash. Home made ring flash. . Close-lens.


Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 03-04-06, 18:55
Chris West Chris West is offline  
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Derby, UK
Posts: 35
Default

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.
__________________
I really need more time for my photography!
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 03-04-06, 19:00
Wheeler Wheeler is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 112
Default

AMD gives you more bangs for your buck in my opinion. The last Intel chip I built a PC with was a Pentium 133.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 03-04-06, 19:02
Chris West Chris West is offline  
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Derby, UK
Posts: 35
Default

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 really need more time for my photography!
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 03-04-06, 19:14
Leif Leif is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Luton
Posts: 911
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Fox
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!
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
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 03-04-06, 20:49
nirofo's Avatar
nirofo nirofo is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: North Scotland
Posts: 798
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 05-04-06, 09:29
Chris
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 05-04-06, 09:43
jammie*dodger jammie*dodger is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Bedford, UK
Posts: 103
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by daedal
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.
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.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 05-04-06, 10:15
robski robski is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Kent UK
Posts: 3,739
Default

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.
__________________
Rob

-----------------------------------------------------
Solar powered Box Brownie Mk2

Captain Sunshine, to be such a man as he, and walk so pure between the earth and the sea.

WPF Gallery
Birdforum Gallery
http://www.robertstocker.co.uk updated
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 23:03.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.