I posted another post trying to figure if I should build or buy a new computer. I just want to know what speed CPU, type of video card, and memory I would need (not bare minimum or not top of the line, but something that will be plenty adequate). I don't play games, and the most demanding things I will be doing is editing photos with photoshop, and I recently got an HD camcorder so I will have to start doing something with those files.
What specs do I need for video and photo editing?
- Thread starter dm76
- Start date
Impr3ssiv3
New Member
video editing is very multi0core intensive so more cores will do better than clock speed. Im actually replacing all my major components in my thread couple posts down, somethign similar to that will do fine.
Drenlin
Active Member
Keep in mind, they're quoting minimums...if you're building a new computer, you're going to want one with a new DDR3-based platform. Anything old enough to use DDR2 has already been replaced by a newer technology. As far as building vs buying, building one will nearly always net you a better quality system. We can help you find the right parts.
What is your budget?
What is your budget?
Well I made a post about building vs buying the other day. Budget is around $1000 (with monitor). Some people suggested parts and the price was around the same as what I could buy one for, and it didn't seem like the build one was that much better as far as the specs. And then I was just thinking if I am not going to save much money, I may as well buy one, and then everything is under warranty too at least and supported for a couple years. Something like this Gateway at Costco seems to have a lot of power and is pretty cheap. What do you think about this? Would that suit my needs?
Last edited:
tremmor
Well-Known Member
i do agree with Gremlin. On the lighter side for editing pictures i would not worry much about. Yes, it can be an issue with rendering movies. You could for example just max out memory. No more than 3 gig with a 32 bit operating system. 2 gig should be fine. clean it up the drive and run with it.
the clean up might be malaware byte freeware, ccleaner and defrag the drive.
Good video card and monitor is all ya need. just to show the colors proper.
then edit
the clean up might be malaware byte freeware, ccleaner and defrag the drive.
Good video card and monitor is all ya need. just to show the colors proper.
then edit
Last edited:
th1bill
New Member
Besides the mobo and the processor the operating system makes all the difference in the world. I left the Windoze world a few years back because of infections and speed of software.
All of that being said, the processor is critical and while I have not run a test for more than three years now to compare AMD against Intel, I did so once and it became very clear that they both use different bench marks to rate their processors. I did the test with a tool I do not normally use for a purpose I never need but it was great for the test.
Running Windows XP on both machines I converted a standard Dual Track DVD of about 6 gig into a 4.5 gig file. With both processors rated at the exact same speed and with both running 1 gig of RAM the Amd finished the file 20 minutes faster than the Intel and I had the complete job of compressing and writing the disc by almost 24 mins.
Your processor choice is critical and your budget is greatly affected by it.
All of that being said, the processor is critical and while I have not run a test for more than three years now to compare AMD against Intel, I did so once and it became very clear that they both use different bench marks to rate their processors. I did the test with a tool I do not normally use for a purpose I never need but it was great for the test.
Running Windows XP on both machines I converted a standard Dual Track DVD of about 6 gig into a 4.5 gig file. With both processors rated at the exact same speed and with both running 1 gig of RAM the Amd finished the file 20 minutes faster than the Intel and I had the complete job of compressing and writing the disc by almost 24 mins.
Your processor choice is critical and your budget is greatly affected by it.
Drenlin
Active Member
You have no idea what you're talking about, do you?
1: With current processors, Intel wins every time clock-for-clock. Dollar for dollar is another matter.
2: You CANNOT compare processors of different architecture based on their clock seed alone. It just doesn't work like that.
3: It isn't possible for a company to over/under rate their pricessor's clock speed or measure it differently.
Last edited:
th1bill
New Member
Your arrogance has placed your foot in your mouth, my friend. i did the test and the results were exactly what they were. Regardless of cost, I'll never purchase another Intel processor. Now, this string was a gentleman seeking advise and we both gave our opinions and to fight like children of two years is not what the OP is seeking, okay?
Mattu
Member
It's my understanding that AMD was on top in the 2003-2006 era, at least if you were going to build a decent gaming rig. Intel's desktop processor architecture at the time was the crappy NetBurst, which was ok for practical task. Now since the debut of the Core and most recently Nehalem architecture, Intel seems to be back on top.
th1bill
New Member
And I respect honest opinions but that is just what you've given and I have found no practical, matched system tests that illustrate that. And i was a youth once and remember when opinion mattered but now I am in my mid-sixties, building and computing since the seventies and now I like proof.
Drenlin
Active Member
He's right. Everything Intel made after the pentium 4/pentium d has completely outclassed the ATI equivalent. The reason that ATI is still a good choice is because they compete very well for the price.
Case in point, Intel's top of the line CPU versus AMD's:
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/...compare,2417.html?prod[4470]=on&prod[4437]=on
Intel blows them out of the water. When you look at Intel's price equivalent to the 1090T, Intel still wins, with 2 less cores and lower clock speed, but not by as large of a margin:
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/...compare,2417.html?prod[4477]=on&prod[4437]=on
However, when you look at the locked version of the 1090T, which is 2/3 the price, things are a bit different:
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/...compare,2417.html?prod[4438]=on&prod[4483]=on
The 1055T, having two more cores and a higher clock speed, pulls away from the i5 in heavily multi-threaded apps, but anything with 4 threads or less and the i5 still comes out on top. The 1055T is the more powerful chip overall, but again, it has 1.5x the amount of cores and a much higher clock speed, while using 30% more power.
Much of Intel's advantage is due to them having a much more sophisticated 32nm manufacturing process. AMD is still on 45nm.
Last edited:
th1bill
New Member
And once more you are giving opinion, not test results. Opinions are just that, an opinion, not always based on fact. In the case of this gentleman, I gave him fact because I not only repair and build computers but I also do photo and video work. That is also why I run a Linux OS instead of Windoze, I need reliability, not press releases.
bomberboysk
Active Member
Toms hardware isn't really the best source of comparison, compared to the i7 930, the 1055/1090T are slightly more powerful in multithreaded applications. However, most applications aren't very well multithreaded, so the Phenom II X6's are really best suited for use in areas such as rendering and similar multi threaded applications.
Drenlin was presenting facts, not an opinion, however the Phenom II X6's are more powerful in multithreaded applications. Unless someone is building a (high end) machine for rendering, they are better off with an i7 processor, as X58 chipsets support both SLI and Crossfire depending upon the motherboard, unlike the AM3 platform.
Well, Well. I've been doing this for many years too and I am no youth!. This test you ran with no info or results to back it up means nothing. Didnt even give the spec. on the AMD or Intel system. If it was a test between a Athlon 64 vs. a Pentium 4, yeah sure the Athlon probably cleaned the floor with the Intel. But thats not the case (now).
Intel beats AMD clock for clock in just about any test you run. Been this way since the Core 2 architecture was released in 2006. You should know this unless you have been living under a rock in the woods for the last 4 years.
Now if you are talkng about price vs, performance. That a different story. You could build equal systems, maybe even in the AMDs favor..
This is coming from a guy that probably builds 98% AMD systems for customers and all my build are AMD.
Intel beats AMD clock for clock in just about any test you run. Been this way since the Core 2 architecture was released in 2006. You should know this unless you have been living under a rock in the woods for the last 4 years.
Now if you are talkng about price vs, performance. That a different story. You could build equal systems, maybe even in the AMDs favor..
This is coming from a guy that probably builds 98% AMD systems for customers and all my build are AMD.