| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/17/2007 12:41:49 AM · #1 |
I'm about to get a new Dell XPS, and want to get the best possible one I can. My neighbor, who has been really helpful when I have computer woes has been helping with the selection. He has a question that I can't answer, so I'm throwing it out to our fantastic DPC members.
Does Photoshop perform better with a dual or quad Intel processor. The quad processor [my neighbor] selected ( Intel® Core� 2 Q6600 Quad-Core (8MB L2 cache,2.4GHz,1066FSB)
can be substituted with a dual processor with a faster clock speed for the same cost. So, the big question is what is best for Photoshop, a quad processor running at a slower clock speed or a dual processor running at a faster clock speed
Anybody know the answer?
|
|
|
|
08/17/2007 12:46:12 AM · #2 |
You would probably see a performance increase with photoshop on a quad core CPU since photoshop is a multithreaded program. With that said, I'm building a machine next week and opted for the faster dual core CPU instead of the quad.
Another small word of advice, don't buy the XPS, build your own. The parts I am purchasing add up to $1014 where as an equivalent Dell XPS is well north of $1600. Building your own PC isn't hard to do especially if you have someone who knows computers.
|
|
|
|
08/17/2007 12:46:44 AM · #3 |
|
|
|
08/17/2007 12:50:54 AM · #4 |
alienware desktops
nuff said |
|
|
|
08/17/2007 12:51:42 AM · #5 |
Originally posted by Lowcivicman99:
4 is better than 2 |
Only with applications that can take advantage of it. |
|
|
|
08/17/2007 12:55:05 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by Lowcivicman99:
4 is better than 2 |
This one goes the eleven. |
|
|
|
08/17/2007 01:43:29 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by Fetor:
alienware desktops
nuff said |
Aren't they owned by Dell?
|
|
|
|
08/17/2007 01:54:41 AM · #8 |
if you get an alien ware your gunna pay even more through the nose cause its all about the name... most diecent dells are cheep but if you really wanna go cheep go to newegg.com and build your own computer, save yourself a cupple hundred bucks and turn out with a better computer, id go quad on the processor, also, get at least 1 gig of ram if not more, it will help in actual image processing while in photoshop, (more layers and faster load time with filters and whatever else you wanna do) :) happy shooting, i hope this helped a little, if possible, i would get a AMD dual core 64bit processor would be fast enough, i like amd more than intel, i think there processors process a little faster, like my 1.8ghz amd atholon is about equivalant to a Pentium 4 2.8ghz, but its all your choice :) stick a nice GeForce 6800GT graphics card, or better something arouond 256bit. try to get a LCD Flatscreen monitor, most dells come equipt with them, my bros got one, and i tend to do Photo editing on his more cause its brighter. PM me if you wanna chat. good luck:)
Message edited by author 2007-08-17 01:56:01. |
|
|
|
08/17/2007 02:02:22 AM · #9 |
Personally, unless I was doing some hardcore *video* editing, I wouldn't spend too much on the box. If you don't already have a good monitor with a calibration system, get one. IMO, anything more than about a grand is generally overkill for just photo editing, especially with files from an 8mp camera. If you were shooting medium format digital, yeah, a super high end computer with tons of fast chips would be great, but...
Spend the difference on a good monitor, a Spyder tool, and a few 250GB external hard drives for backup. They're around a hundred bucks, so there's no excuse for having only one copy of your images saved. I need to follow my own advice on that one.
Believe me, seeing your photos on a beautiful, color-accurate 24" LCD will beat the heck out of having a photo take 2 seconds instead of 4 to convert from RAW. |
|
|
|
08/17/2007 02:43:31 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by MadMan2k:
Personally, unless I was doing some hardcore *video* editing, I wouldn't spend too much on the box. If you don't already have a good monitor with a calibration system, get one. IMO, anything more than about a grand is generally overkill for just photo editing, especially with files from an 8mp camera. If you were shooting medium format digital, yeah, a super high end computer with tons of fast chips would be great, but...
Spend the difference on a good monitor, a Spyder tool, and a few 250GB external hard drives for backup. They're around a hundred bucks, so there's no excuse for having only one copy of your images saved. I need to follow my own advice on that one.
Believe me, seeing your photos on a beautiful, color-accurate 24" LCD will beat the heck out of having a photo take 2 seconds instead of 4 to convert from RAW. |
I'd agree
|
|
|
|
08/17/2007 02:57:19 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by MadMan2k:
Believe me, seeing your photos on a beautiful, color-accurate 24" LCD will beat the heck out of having a photo take 2 seconds instead of 4 to convert from RAW. |
Except that I still strongly prefer a CRT monitor to LCD, I agree with the rest of the post ... I think a good monitor and extra RAM is "worth" more than a slightly faster processor.
When I started using Photoshop (v 2.0), running the UnSharp Mask filter on a medium-sized image for print (e.g. 5x7" @ 300 dpi) also allowed one to run next door to the local cafe (no Starbucks®) for a latte to go before proceeding to the next step. If you can give a GB of RAM to Photoshop you shouldn't have to wait more than 5-30 seconds for anything. Going from 30 to 15 seconds isn't as valuable to me as RAM, monitor, and storage.
Also, make sure you can burn DVDs, as that's really the only practical way to back up these huge hard drives; or, get a second hard drive you can keep somewhere else, and copy everything to it every few days. |
|
|
|
08/17/2007 09:33:57 AM · #12 |
Thank you, everyone, for your input in this question.
I think what I am hearing is that there is little immediate difference between the two (Slightly slower Quad core vs slightly faster Dual core at the same price) as far as Photoshop performance is concerned, except that there is little 'use' for a Quad core right now.
I'm thinking, given that, I might as well get the Quad for applications that aren't on the horizon now but will be eventually (CS4?).
I really, really don't want to buy another computer for a very long time. |
|
|
|
08/17/2007 09:43:55 AM · #13 |
Why build your own when you can get the new dualcore2 iMac for £800.
Oh yeh, and before you all jump on me and bash my MAC head in... I was joking :P
But seriously though, if you want a machine for editing photos then I personally think the Mac screens on the iMacs 20" are absolutely brilliant and the 2.0ghz dual core is fast enough to run photoshop. You may wish to up the RAM from 1GB to 2GB at an extra cost direct from MAC of £91
I run a MacBookPro 2.16 with 2GB RAM and it really fly's along nicely.
If you are a devoted WINDOWS user then you can instal windows on these machines too. I agree the screen is very important and the Mac cinima screens are the best.
Happy shopping
|
|
|
|
08/17/2007 09:51:59 AM · #14 |
Originally posted by sfalice:
Thank you, everyone, for your input in this question.
I think what I am hearing is that there is little immediate difference between the two (Slightly slower Quad core vs slightly faster Dual core at the same price) as far as Photoshop performance is concerned, except that there is little 'use' for a Quad core right now.
I'm thinking, given that, I might as well get the Quad for applications that aren't on the horizon now but will be eventually (CS4?).
I really, really don't want to buy another computer for a very long time. |
I was thinking exactly that, as I was reading this thread! Not everyone is insane like some of us and upgrade our computers each year with the best of last year that is now significantly cheaper. If it's in your budget and you don't want to worry about it for a few years, then go for the quad.
To me the quad isn't worth it, but that's because it's still out of my price range, and I enjoy upgrading every year (at least that's what I tell myself). It will be a year and a half before you start thinking a dual core is too slow for you. It will be 3 years before you start questioning your quad. In the long run the cost is the same. It's just a matter of "do you want to be upgrading at the end of next year again?" |
|
|
|
08/17/2007 09:54:03 AM · #15 |
Originally posted by MAK:
...
But seriously though, if you want a machine for editing photos then I personally think the Mac screens on the iMacs 20" are absolutely brilliant and the 2.0ghz dual core is fast enough to run photoshop. You may wish to up the RAM from 1GB to 2GB at an extra cost direct from MAC of £91
I run a MacBookPro 2.16 with 2GB RAM and it really fly's along nicely.
...
Happy shopping |
 MAK I knew someone would tell me about Apple and I looked at one very carefully. A friend just purchased one with the Windows capability. However he doesn't do much photo editing. He swears by (and at) it and recommends it even though he's having considerable trouble with the Windows stuff.
As it happens, I do a LOT more than just photo editing on this thing, and will get 4 Gb of RAM to make sure it will hold up for a while. |
|
|
|
08/17/2007 10:21:38 AM · #16 |
| Well as you see Alice, pc's are like the old ford/chevy debate. You got the right idea though.Build it to last, i've built tons of pc's for friends and clients and when they ask me what they should get, i always tell them "as much as you can afford" |
|
|
|
08/17/2007 10:24:18 AM · #17 |
Originally posted by sfalice:
Originally posted by MAK:
...
But seriously though, if you want a machine for editing photos then I personally think the Mac screens on the iMacs 20" are absolutely brilliant and the 2.0ghz dual core is fast enough to run photoshop. You may wish to up the RAM from 1GB to 2GB at an extra cost direct from MAC of £91
I run a MacBookPro 2.16 with 2GB RAM and it really fly's along nicely.
...
Happy shopping |
MAK I knew someone would tell me about Apple and I looked at one very carefully. A friend just purchased one with the Windows capability. However he doesn't do much photo editing. He swears by (and at) it and recommends it even though he's having considerable trouble with the Windows stuff.
As it happens, I do a LOT more than just photo editing on this thing, and will get 4 Gb of RAM to make sure it will hold up for a while. |
What "Windows" stuff are you doing that can't be done on a Mac. Microsoft makes a full version of Office for the Mac that actually has more features that the Windows version.
The new iMacs that were just released last week are pretty amazing performers. |
|
|
|
08/17/2007 10:56:27 AM · #18 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
What "Windows" stuff are you doing that can't be done on a Mac. Microsoft makes a full version of Office for the Mac that actually has more features that the Windows version.
The new iMacs that were just released last week are pretty amazing performers. |
Now David, you know that Office for Mac has issues with Exchange server and compared to Office 2007 has not kept pace.
With that said, for most (maybe all) things visual - image/video editing, I recommend the Mac, hands down.
What keeps me from using the Mac full time is that there is no developer tool nearly as capable as MS's Visual Studio. Also, I rip a lot of DVDs and to do that on a Mac, if you can find a program to do it, takes forever. DVDShrink on a PC is quick and simple. If the new Intel-based Macs address these two issues, I would scrap my PC.
|
|
|
|
08/17/2007 11:07:42 AM · #19 |
Originally posted by signal2noise:
Originally posted by scarbrd:
What "Windows" stuff are you doing that can't be done on a Mac. Microsoft makes a full version of Office for the Mac that actually has more features that the Windows version.
The new iMacs that were just released last week are pretty amazing performers. |
Now David, you know that Office for Mac has issues with Exchange server and compared to Office 2007 has not kept pace.
With that said, for most (maybe all) things visual - image/video editing, I recommend the Mac, hands down.
What keeps me from using the Mac full time is that there is no developer tool nearly as capable as MS's Visual Studio. Also, I rip a lot of DVDs and to do that on a Mac, if you can find a program to do it, takes forever. DVDShrink on a PC is quick and simple. If the new Intel-based Macs address these two issues, I would scrap my PC. |
LOSER! (Tommy and I go way back!)
The DVD copy issue is greatly inproved since the conversion to Intel. I haven't done any side by side testing, but programs like Handbrake (freeware) do a great job.
Office 2007 is pretty sweet, but Office 2008 for the Mac is due out soon. I too wish there was better Exchange compatibility for the Mac. Maybe it will come, if not, no big deal. I can use Outlook web.
You can even get a fully compatiple Office suite for Free for the Mac
//www.neooffice.org
Even had a database program. Again, it's FREE!
Visual Studio issue . . . eh. OK if you are a MS programmer, stick with a PC. But there are many many developer tools for the Mac just as groovy as Visual Studio. Beleive it ot not, people do program outside of Visual Studio. I don't consider myself a programmer although I do play one sometimes at work.
Xcode is one example.
//developer.apple.com/tools/
Computer life can exist without Microsoft, believe it or not.
Message edited by author 2007-08-17 11:09:37. |
|
|
|
08/17/2007 11:10:10 AM · #20 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
You can even get a fully compatiple Office suite for Free for the Mac
//www.neooffice.org
Even had a database program. Again, it's FREE! |
You can get that free for pretty much every platform there is, windows included.
//www.openoffice.org/
It is 'so-so' in terms of office compatibility. More WYSIWTF than WYSIWYG
Message edited by author 2007-08-17 11:10:25. |
|
|
|
08/17/2007 11:49:10 AM · #21 |
I would highly push for the build your own route.
Here's a small comparison of the parts/performance differences between the parts I've bought and the Dell XPS I priced out:
My PC:
Intel Core2Duo E6550 2.33GHz dual core w/1333MHz FSB - $50 cheaper than the 2.66GHz, not much difference in speed.
2GB OCZ Gold DDR2 800 RAM
Gigabyte Intel P35 motherboard
Coolermaster aluminum case
OCZ Stealth 600W power supply
500GB Western Digital SATA (3.0gbps) hard drive
NVidia 8800GTS 320mb graphics card (high performance vid card for games, if you don't need one of these you can save a ton)
Logitech G5 laser mouse
DVD-ROM drive
DVD-RW drive
Card Reader
Dell 20in Ultrasharp monitor
Total: ~$1300
Dell XPS 410:
Intel C2D E6600 2.4GHz dual core w/1066MHz FSB
375W Power supply
2GB DDR2 800 RAM
500GB hard drive SATA 3.0gbps
DVD-ROM
DVD-RW
Dell 20in ultrasharp monitor
Nvidia 8600GTS 256mb graphics card (not nearly as good as the 8800gts)
Logitech G5 laser mouse
Card reader
Total: $1688
The only real difference you'll see between these machines is in 3D gaming operations. With that said, if you back off the 8800GTS and get the 8600GTS you'd save about $200 on top of the initial savings on the build your own.
Message edited by author 2007-08-17 11:51:13.
|
|
|
|
08/17/2007 11:55:05 AM · #22 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
More WYSIWTF than WYSIWYG |
??? What's WYSIWTF ?
|
|
|
|
08/17/2007 12:00:13 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by Gordon:
More WYSIWTF than WYSIWYG |
??? What's WYSIWTF ? |
i thot that was funny, i was guessing it was "what you see is WHAT THE F***" |
|
|
|
08/17/2007 12:01:06 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by Gordon:
More WYSIWTF than WYSIWYG |
??? What's WYSIWTF ? |
You mean, WTF is WYSIWTF?
:-) |
|
|
|
08/17/2007 12:01:43 PM · #25 |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/23/2024 04:34:20 PM EDT.
