Two questions

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
On 2015-09-17 10:01, PAS wrote:
"PeterN" wrote in message
...

Thanks, sounds like good information. Since I am doing pre-purchase
research, I will not be doing the experiments. I am thinking quad
core
with about a 3.5 - 3.8 CPU. I know there are faster, but I am not
yet
convinced that the additional price is worth the extra cost.

Anytime I've built a new system, I never opted for the fastest
processor, second or third fastest is fast enough. I doubt that
there
is any noticeable difference except in benchmark testing. In real
world
scenarios, I doubt we would notice and performance difference between
the first, second, and third fastest processors.

If you're talking clock and cores, then there is one real world test
where everything counts: processing video, especially in an efficient
program like Handbrake. It saturates every core and even hyperthread
on intel machines. So a 4 core machine runs full tilt equating about
5.3 cores X nearly 100% processing / core.

I've always used AMD processors. Except for a period of time after
the
original AMD Athlon processor was released, Intel has always been the
performance champion. For my use, AMD processors are just fine and
are
an excellent value.

Yep. But the advantages of HT on intel cannot be underestimated. A 4
core processor gets over 5.3 cores of performance (in optimal
conditions, of course).

Check me if I'm wrong but isn't this where Intel proecessors have it all
over AMD processors - video editing?

My most recent iMacs have been maxed out. Resale value is astounding
after 5 years - so worth the premium.

In article , PAS
wrote:

Check me if I'm wrong but isn't this where Intel proecessors have it all
over AMD processors - video editing?

intel processors have everything over amd.

unless you like to generate heat.

"nospam" wrote in message
...
In article 201509171104071059-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck
wrote:

.. and would not 32 GB RAM be even better?

Yes, if your work needs it. I make do with 16GB.

for some purposes, 4 gig is fine.

it depends on what someone is actually doing.

blindly getting 16 gig or 32 gig just because it's the maximum could
easily be a waste of money.

Yes. I make due perfectly fine with 16GB of RAM. I may see an
advantage to having 32GB but most likely not, it wouldn't be noticed at
all.

"nospam" wrote in message
...
In article , PeterN
wrote:

I plan to make my purchase within the next week.
Would I be making any great mistake by getting an i7 quad core
processor, or its AMD equivalent, with at least 16g memory, and a
video
card that would fully utilize a 4k ass monitor.

no, and stick with intel.

Why?

What would I tangibly lose if I got an 15 with a similar speed.

not much in most cases. either way you can't go wrong.

"PeterN" wrote in message
...
On 9/17/2015 12:15 AM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

snip

All 4 cores are totally independent as for as GHz is
concerned. Just as if they were on 4 separate chips, or
for that matter in 4 separate boxes.

What you are describing is true of a single core that is
hyperthreaded. With that there is one clock and one
core, but the hyperthreading makes it look to the
software as if there are multiple cores.
Multi-threading in that way slows everything down by 1/2
each time the number of threads is doubled. (Actually
it is slightly slower than half due to administrative
overhead for context switching.)

But multi-core CPU's actually have different hardware
for each core, each core runs independently at full
clock speed, asynchronously to the other cores.

Here's the difference in practice... If you do a lot of
text editing, either writing papers or reading and
writing email, having a hyperthreaded single core vs
just a single core is very nice. Clock speed doesn't
make any difference to a text editor, because vastly
more than 99% if all clock cycles are no-ops that just
give up their slice immediately while waiting for
keyboard input. Everything else keeps right on chugging
along without a hitch, yet the reponse time of the
editor to keyboard input is always very quick. Some
interupt that bogs down 1 logical CPU for 2 or 3 seconds
won't cause the keyboard to wait that long. This is
probably very useful for a typical laptop, as an
example.

But on a desktop, if it is used for anything that is CPU
intensive, actual multiple cores are much better. Not
just at speeding up the CPU intensive processes, but
allowing that same quick response time for the keyboard.
What works is 1 core for every CPU process being run in
parallel, plus one for everything else.

The last time I even thought about a single core desktop
was over 20 years ago. I'm not sure about a laptop, but
that wasn't too long after.

Floyd.
Bottom line:
I plan to make my purchase within the next week.
Would I be making any great mistake by getting an i7 quad core
processor, or its AMD equivalent, with at least 16g memory, and a
video card that would fully utilize a 4k ass monitor.

I think either an Intel or AMD would do fine for you. Look into getting
a system that has a self-contained liquid cooling system, it keeps
things cool and quiet and they are not expensive at all. I put one in
my system when I upgraded recently and I really am happ that I decided
to go with it rather than a CPU fan.

16GB of RAM should also be fine for you. I would advise the you get a
system that has four slots for memory just in the event you want to add
more in the future.

What would I tangibly lose if I got an 15 with a similar speed.
As you know my prime use is for Photoshop2015, with plugins & Corel
Painter.

On 9/17/2015 1:29 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2015-09-16 16:23, PeterN wrote:

Thanks, sounds like good information. Since I am doing pre-purchase
research, I will not be doing the experiments. I am thinking quad core
with about a 3.5 - 3.8 CPU. I know there are faster, but I am not yet
convinced that the additional price is worth the extra cost.

Typically it's not. If you're trading RAM for CPU always go for more
RAM and less clock. More cores and less clock is good too.

8 GB is not expensive. 16 GB is affordable. (Generally it is cheaper
to buy a desktop computer with 8 GB and then eventually add 16 GB in the
3rd and 4th slots for 24 GB total. Then you're talking - and it leaves
you the option to swap the 8 GB bank for 16 in the future)

Even under high loads a dual core (HT) (most recent i5's for example run
4 threads) computer won't use 99% of all the CPU resources - certainly
not in Photoshop - or when it does it's a fleeting thing.

If you do a lot of video processing, then by all means more cores,
higher clock and more memory is the way to go.

GPU use is also increasing in many photo apps like Photoshop.
For example, Adobe will be adopting OS X "Metal" in upcoming versions of
Photoshop/Lightroom, and so on. Under Windows Adobe GPU use is done by
the less efficient OpenGL in Lightroom and camera raw.

Nope. No video. Just stills. I have no objection to spending money, if
it is worthwhile. But I don't want to throw it away either.



--
PeterN

In article , PAS
wrote:

I plan to make my purchase within the next week.
Would I be making any great mistake by getting an i7 quad core
processor, or its AMD equivalent, with at least 16g memory, and a
video card that would fully utilize a 4k ass monitor.

no, and stick with intel.

Why?

intel is better suited to multithreaded calculations because of memory
bandwidth limitations on amd.

intel also uses less power for an equivalent performance. you may have
heard the term 'mips per watt' or 'performance per watt'.

http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph6396/51142.png

lower power consumption keeps the system cooler, reducing the need for
loud fans and also reducing overall operating costs.

In article , PAS
wrote:

I think either an Intel or AMD would do fine for you. Look into getting
a system that has a self-contained liquid cooling system, it keeps
things cool and quiet and they are not expensive at all. I put one in
my system when I upgraded recently and I really am happ that I decided
to go with it rather than a CPU fan.

oh god no. liquid cooling is just asking for trouble.

On 9/17/2015 3:04 PM, PAS wrote:
"nospam" wrote in message
...
In article , PAS
wrote:


if you replace your hard drive with an ssd, where exactly do you
think
the scratch file will go?

In a multiple drive system you choose where it goes.

the majority of computers have a single drive, but regardless, it's
trivial to choose.

again, an ssd is the easiest and often the cheapest performance
boost
one can make, which affects just about every single app.

Yes, there is a performance boost but if one's primary use of a computer
is Photoshop, there's not much of a boost.

oh yes there is.

i can tell you first hand that changing a spinner to an ssd makes a
*huge* difference across the board, hands down, even on older computers
where the bus is not as fast as in modern computers.

it's night and day, even on an older computer that's bottlenecked by
slower sata or even pata, but the benefit will obviously be less.

do you have an ssd in any of your systems? i think not.

I have no need for one.

exactly as i thought.

you have no experience with ssd. you're talking out your ass.

I said I don't own one, that doesn't mean I've never used one or perhaps
someone in my house has one on his laptop? Being all-knowing, I'm
surprised you didn't pick up on that.

I will have one eventually but at the moment my
HDDs work just fine for my needs. My 174hp Subaru gets me around fine,
I don't need a 707hp Dodge Charger Hellcat to do that. It might be nice
to have but not necessary for my needs.

in other words, you're happy with a substandard system.

Are you happy with your substandard car?


I think you should buy a Rolls to make nospam happy.


if you spent just $100 for an ssd (256 gig) and moved the os and apps
to it, you'd see a *huge* performance increase, for very little money.

shop around and you can even find an ssd for $70-80ish, and that's a
name brand (crucial or samsung), not some noname crap.



--
PeterN

"nospam" wrote in message
...
In article , PAS
wrote:

I plan to make my purchase within the next week.
Would I be making any great mistake by getting an i7 quad core
processor, or its AMD equivalent, with at least 16g memory, and a
video card that would fully utilize a 4k ass monitor.

no, and stick with intel.

Why?

intel is better suited to multithreaded calculations because of memory
bandwidth limitations on amd.

In real-world scenarios, most users wouldn't notice much of a
difference.

intel also uses less power for an equivalent performance. you may have
heard the term 'mips per watt' or 'performance per watt'.

http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph6396/51142.png

lower power consumption keeps the system cooler, reducing the need for
loud fans and also reducing overall operating costs.

No loud fans with a good liquid cooling system, and they are very
affordable. Heat is not an issue with a proper cooler.