Decent £400-£500 (Maybe go £600) gaming/graphics PC?

[jcheeseright]

For running photoshop etc, unless you're looking at designing billboards at print quality you'll be fine with pretty much anything.

For example, my housemate Dom ( http://www.dommoore.co.uk ) does all his post processing and editing on a Macbook Pro and he does it for a living.

 

[Lozart]

I use an i5 for Photoshop and it's fine. Granted PS IS optimised for hyperthreading but as long as you have PLENTY of RAM you'll not struggle anyway.

Corsair is a highly reputable brand (I also have their M60 mouse and K90 mechanical keyboard and they're lovely bits of kit) so you'll be fine with their PSUs.

 

[Shinobi]

So, i'd be fine with an i5! BUT, would an AMD perform better in programs like PS, C4D, AE, Premiere? And i'll be going with 8GB's I think, and a Corsair PSU.

 

[Esoterick]

So, i'd be fine with an i5! BUT, would an AMD perform better in programs like PS, C4D, AE, Premiere? And i'll be going with 8GB's I think, and a Corsair PSU.

No get an i5. AMDs are cheaper but not as good.

 

[Shinobi]

No get an i5. AMDs are cheaper but not as good.

May I just ask why? I know they are, and have better Architecture and stuff, but Im amazed how 4 cores outperform 8!?

 

[Lozart]

May I just ask why? I know they are, and have better Architecture and stuff, but Im amazed how 4 cores outperform 8!?

Intel's architecture gives their processors better raw single core processing power. As most applications are still only really optimised to run on a single core that's why the Intel CPUs get the advantage in most bench tests. The difference is when you get a hyperthreaded application that can use multiple cores either as coarse threading (where multiple tasks run simultaneously on separate cores) or fine threading (where single applications can be parallel processed across multpile cores) that the differences change. If for example you wanted a machine that was going to be purely used for Photoshop (other than the fact you would probably end up witha Mac because they're just better at doing PS) then you would be able to take advantage of AMDs higher number of cores. For a gaming PC it's largely irrelevant because VERY few games (if any) are actually optimised to run on more than a single core. Hence you're better off with an Intel.

 

[Tariq]

Intel > AMD

However an i7 is pointless for what you need/want.

I've only known my PC to use all 4 cores and hyperthreading (4 extra non physical cores) when i've been running FEA and CFD simulations.

 

[Shinobi]

Intel > AMD

However an i7 is pointless for what you need/want.

I've only known my PC to use all 4 cores and hyperthreading (4 extra non physical cores) when i've been running FEA and CFD simulations.

Aha, ok! I think it'll be fine then, just might have to cheapen up abit if it's £160.

 

[Shinobi]

Intel's architecture gives their processors better raw single core processing power. As most applications are still only really optimised to run on a single core that's why the Intel CPUs get the advantage in most bench tests. The difference is when you get a hyperthreaded application that can use multiple cores either as coarse threading (where multiple tasks run simultaneously on separate cores) or fine threading (where single applications can be parallel processed across multpile cores) that the differences change. If for example you wanted a machine that was going to be purely used for Photoshop (other than the fact you would probably end up witha Mac because they're just better at doing PS) then you would be able to take advantage of AMDs higher number of cores. For a gaming PC it's largely irrelevant because VERY few games (if any) are actually optimised to run on more than a single core. Hence you're better off with an Intel.

Aha, ok! Thanks for that, I think i'll be gaming slightly more so I think i'll go for that if I can afford the £160 for the CPU alone

 

[Mack]

Dont forget about a decent cpu cooler, especially if you plan on OC'ing it

 

[Shinobi]

Dont forget about a decent cpu cooler, especially if you plan on OC'ing it

I may not OC straight away, but I think i'll get the Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO just incase How much does OC'ing shorten the life of a CPU by?

 

[Shinobi]

Intel > AMD

However an i7 is pointless for what you need/want.

I've only known my PC to use all 4 cores and hyperthreading (4 extra non physical cores) when i've been running FEA and CFD simulations.

If I was to be doing alot of multitasking, editing, rendering etc, would the AMD be a better choice? And how much better is the i5, as it is a fair chunk more?

 

[Tariq]

Intel seems to generally use it's cores and speed more effectively.

Seen a few articles about running and AMD and Intel processor against each other, both 4 cores and same speed.

Intel came out on top.

Although if you're not too worried about shaving a couple of minutes about the processing time AMD should suit you. There isn't that much between them on a small scale. Although for processes like i do, could save me a couple of hours processing.

I like brand names too. I put Intel, Corsair and Coolermaster into my PCs. Look nice and tidy having consistent parts inside, and are very good quality parts too.

Also Nvidia > AMD for performance, AMD > Nvidia for performance/cost

 

[Shinobi]

Intel seems to generally use it's cores and speed more effectively.

Seen a few articles about running and AMD and Intel processor against each other, both 4 cores and same speed.

Intel came out on top.

Although if you're not too worried about shaving a couple of minutes about the processing time AMD should suit you. There isn't that much between them on a small scale. Although for processes like i do, could save me a couple of hours processing.

I like brand names too. I put Intel, Corsair and Coolermaster into my PCs. Look nice and tidy having consistent parts inside, and are very good quality parts too.

Also Nvidia > AMD for performance, AMD > Nvidia for performance/cost

So, would render times be better on the i5? And I only wonder because then I can spend more money on my GPU, should an R9 280x be sufficient?

 

[Lozart]

So, would render times be better on the i5? And I only wonder because then I can spend more money on my GPU, should an R9 280x be sufficient?

You need to look for benchmarks using the software you need if you're after specifics.

What are you trying to render? What software are you using to do it?

 

[Shinobi]

You need to look for benchmarks using the software you need if you're after specifics.

What are you trying to render? What software are you using to do it?

Ok, i'll have a look. Just After Effects, Premiere, Cinema 4D really

 

[Lozart]

After effects and Premiere will benefit from hyperthreading but as you're not looking at i7's that's less of an issue.

Of course you could just accept that rendering takes ages and live with it

Or alternatively, build all your old components into a dedicated rendering machine?

 

[Shinobi]

After effects and Premiere will benefit from hyperthreading but as you're not looking at i7's that's less of an issue.

Of course you could just accept that rendering takes ages and live with it

Or alternatively, build all your old components into a dedicated rendering machine?

Well, I don't have any old components... This is my first build!

And ok, I just wonder because if I want to go Intel, my GPU budget will be lower, whereas if I go AMD, I can get a much, MUCH, better one. This'd make a bigger difference to gaming than any CPU could do! BUT, I obviously wanted to check whether the Editing capabilities etc would be affected?

 

[Lozart]

Read this: http://helpx.adobe.com/x-productkb/policy-pricing/system-requirements-effects.html particularly this bit:

* Adobe® After Effects® CS6 renders ray-traced 3D images using your computer’s CPU, employing all of its physical cores. Additionally, it may also take advantage of NVIDIA OptiX™ for highly accelerated rendering (requires a supported NVIDIA GPU and with 1024+ MB of texture memory). For more information, visit our After Effects blog post. Note, you must download the After Effects CS6 (11.0.2) update to take advantage of these Kepler-class GPUs.

Which would suggest to me that the CPU requirements for what you're doing aren't actually all that high but the GPU is more important. Also it would appear that After effects at least is optimised for nvidia hardware.

Personally I'd go Intel and nvidia every time. If you're not going to overclock or use multiple GPUs you can save on your PSU and motherboard requirements.

 

[Shinobi]

Aha, ok! I could go Nvidia, but I was considering a R9 280x Toxic because it's a little cheaper and has more cooling, + an extra GB of RAM. I'll keep looking!