[olug] AMD or Intel for multi-core apps?

[Obi-Wan]

> Intel fairs better even with 4 core's. They have better rendering video from what I read on web. Intel Corei7 2600K (4core) performs just as good as the AMD FX8150 eight core. They AMD Bulldoze was coined faildozer because it failed to live up to expectation. Either CPU's are good and work good for multi-threaded apps. The FX8150 doesn't do so well in single threaded apps, even the AMD Phenom 1100T beats it or comes very close. The diff comes down to how long do you want to wait really. If you are rendering huge video/images then the biggest Corei7  with Quick Sync is the way to go. AMD will do the same thing just takes a bit longer. I've used AMD's a lot and they are good workhorses, reliable and is the cheaper option. My next rig is going to be a monster though and I will be going w/Intel mainly because of the Quick Sync and 65w vs AMD's 125 for fx8150. The Intel Corei5/7 beats AMD in a lot of benchmarks and they are the top performers. If you want the best performance ri
 g!
h
>  t now it has to be Intel Corei7.

I don't do any video work or game playing, so real time graphics rendering
to the display won't help me a bit.  I need something that can do in-process
FP calculations very quickly, and do so in multiple threads.

Virtually all of my number crunching comes when postprocessing photos.
Some of my common apps (like Corel AfterShot Pro) multi-thread very well,
while others (like digikam) fall flat on their face.

-- 
Ben "Obi-Wan" Hollingsworth    obiwan at jedi.com    PrairieRimImages.com
   The stuff of earth competes for the allegiance I owe only to the
     Giver of all good things, so if I stand, let me stand on the
       promise that You will pull me through.  -- Rich Mullins