Please review - first time build for photoshop - Q6600

Got a shopping cart of parts that you want opinions on? Get advice from members on your planned or existing system (or upgrade).

Moderators: NeilBlanchard, Ralf Hutter, sthayashi, Lawrence Lee

rdavis01
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 1:02 pm

Please review - first time build for photoshop - Q6600

Post by rdavis01 » Tue Jul 17, 2007 1:06 pm

I will be doing my first ever build after 7/22.

This machine will be primarily a photoshop and video editing machine. Thus it will need lots of hard drive space, IEEE 1394 ports, and lots of memory. I may experiment with overclocking, but that is not a necessity.

Due to the location of it, it will also need to be quiet and have minimal external wires.

I plan to buy the Dell 2407WFP-HC 24" monitor. Also the Logitech MX3200 cordless desktop.

CPU: Q6600
CPU cooler: Scythe SCNJ-1100P 120mm Sleeve CPU Cooler
Motherboard: GIGABYTE GA-P35-DS3P LGA 775 Intel P35 ATX Intel Motherboard
Memory: 3 Gb total. CORSAIR XMS2 2GB (2 x 1GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 800 (PC2 6400) Dual Channel Kit Desktop Memory Model TWIN2X2048-6400C4 and CORSAIR XMS2 1GB (2 x 512MB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 800 (PC2 6400) Dual Channel Kit Desktop Memory Model TWIN2X1024-6400C4
Case: Antec Solo
Hard Drives: 3 of the Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 ST3500630AS 500GB 7200 RPM SATA 3.0Gb/s Hard Drive
Power Supply: CORSAIR CMPSU-520HX ATX12V v2.2 and EPS12V 2.91 520W Power Supply
Video Card: GIGABYTE GV-NX76G256D-RH GeForce 7600GS 256MB GDDR2 PCI Express x16 Silent Pipe Lead Free Video Card
Thermal Compound: Arctic Silver 5 Thermal Compound
OS: Vista Premium 32 Bit OEM
DVD Writer: SAMSUNG 18X DVD±R DVD Burner With 12X DVD-RAM Write, LightScribe Technology Black SATA


What do you think of this build for my purposes?

Are there smaller cpu coolers that I can use that will still be quiet?

I chose the motherboard because it is P35 chipset with IEEE 1394 ports front and back and enough SATA ports to handle my current needs with room to expand.

Arvo
Posts: 294
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 1:30 pm
Location: Estonia, EU :)
Contact:

Post by Arvo » Tue Jul 17, 2007 1:18 pm

Hardware looks well (can't comment cooler though), but why Vista?

Max Slowik
Posts: 524
Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2006 7:39 pm
Location: Denver, Colorado USA
Contact:

Post by Max Slowik » Tue Jul 17, 2007 1:30 pm

Vista is a lot nicer than XP.

For what it's worth, NVIDIA can't code Vista drivers for shit. Go ATI HD 2000, you'll be a lot happier. Lower power, just as passive, Avivo video processing. . .

rdavis01
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 1:02 pm

Post by rdavis01 » Tue Jul 17, 2007 1:39 pm

Max Slowik wrote:Vista is a lot nicer than XP.

For what it's worth, NVIDIA can't code Vista drivers for shit. Go ATI HD 2000, you'll be a lot happier. Lower power, just as passive, Avivo video processing. . .
I'm definately going with Vista. I can't imagine putting together a new build that I would like to last for 4-5 years and not putting the latest version of Vista on it.

Max, do you have a specific card to recommend?

Max Slowik
Posts: 524
Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2006 7:39 pm
Location: Denver, Colorado USA
Contact:

Post by Max Slowik » Tue Jul 17, 2007 2:22 pm

Well, for a little less, you can get this card, which is actually better:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6814102699

If you wanted to bump up a notch, I'd go with a DDR2 2600 Pro for an extra ten bucks:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6814102103

But as you can see, you'd have to add a passive cooler to it, if you wanted pure silence. The latter is still my pick, for sure.

Natronomonas
Posts: 73
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2005 1:07 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Post by Natronomonas » Tue Jul 17, 2007 4:35 pm

Why 3gb of RAM? Why not just get 4x1gb dimms, or better yet, 2x2gb? If budget is a concern, get 2gb now, 2gb later. You're running Vista64 I hope?
You also don't need ddr2/800 unless you are going to overclock; even ddr2/667 will take you to 3.0ghz without o/c the ram, but the g0 q6600s are said to sometimes make it over 3.0, so if you're not paying through the nose, may as well get the 800.

Re: the q6600, make sure you get the G0/SLACR stepping; cooler, by around 15W, and with better o/c potential.

edit: why vista 32bit? If you want large memory, you should get 64bit...

cmthomson
Posts: 1266
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2005 8:35 am
Location: Pleasanton, CA

Post by cmthomson » Tue Jul 17, 2007 5:30 pm

The Ninja is an excellent cooler (especially the original version). The Rev B (push pin) version gets bad marks for not having enough mounting pressure; search these forums for lots of complaints and suggestions.

Other coolers to consider are the HR-01, Ultra 120 (original or extreme), or NH-U12. All of these will cool a C2Q very well. I often recommend the HR-01 because it comes with a duct that mates with the back fan in most cases, eliminating the need for a CPU fan.

Living Ghost
Posts: 12
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 7:19 pm

Post by Living Ghost » Tue Jul 17, 2007 8:30 pm

Don't get that processor. Core 2 Duo's perform much better than the quad cores, they overclock better, etc. They're better in every way, not to mention being cheaper. No Windows consumer OS can handle more than 2 cores or 3 gigs of ram, anyway.

Also, matched pairs of ram for dual-channel mode is a must if you're overclocking. Otherwise, match the speed and capacity of the ram.

nick705
Posts: 1162
Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2004 3:26 pm
Location: UK

Post by nick705 » Tue Jul 17, 2007 11:44 pm

Natronomonas wrote:Why 3gb of RAM? Why not just get 4x1gb dimms, or better yet, 2x2gb?...

edit: why vista 32bit? If you want large memory, you should get 64bit...
Maybe the driver situation with Vista 64 is causing a problem, in which case I'd guess this would be the rationale for 2x1GB + 2x512MB. :)
Living Ghost wrote:Don't get that processor. Core 2 Duo's perform much better than the quad cores, they overclock better, etc. They're better in every way, not to mention being cheaper. No Windows consumer OS can handle more than 2 cores or 3 gigs of ram, anyway.
Well, you're right about them overclocking better and being cheaper (at least until 22nd July). That doesn't make them "better" - there's plenty of benchmarks around showing quads stomping all over faster-clocked C2Ds for the OP's intended applications (video editing and Photoshop).

rdavis01
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 1:02 pm

Post by rdavis01 » Wed Jul 18, 2007 7:39 am

Max Slowik wrote:Well, for a little less, you can get this card, which is actually better:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6814102699

If you wanted to bump up a notch, I'd go with a DDR2 2600 Pro for an extra ten bucks:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6814102103

But as you can see, you'd have to add a passive cooler to it, if you wanted pure silence. The latter is still my pick, for sure.
Thanks for the recommendations.

It's hard to choose to switch to something like this since these have no reviews on newegg.

rdavis01
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 1:02 pm

Post by rdavis01 » Wed Jul 18, 2007 7:42 am

Natronomonas wrote:Why 3gb of RAM? Why not just get 4x1gb dimms, or better yet, 2x2gb? If budget is a concern, get 2gb now, 2gb later. You're running Vista64 I hope?
You also don't need ddr2/800 unless you are going to overclock; even ddr2/667 will take you to 3.0ghz without o/c the ram, but the g0 q6600s are said to sometimes make it over 3.0, so if you're not paying through the nose, may as well get the 800.

Re: the q6600, make sure you get the G0/SLACR stepping; cooler, by around 15W, and with better o/c potential.

edit: why vista 32bit? If you want large memory, you should get 64bit...
I've changed my mind and will be going with 4Gb of RAM. I'm going with the 800 just in case I decide to try some overclocking.

I don't know what you mean by going with the G0/SLACR stepping???? Can you explain.

I'm going with Vista 32 bit to ensure as much compatibility with other programs and drivers as possible. Although this machine is being optimized for Photoshop use, it will also be used by the entire family.

rdavis01
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 1:02 pm

Post by rdavis01 » Wed Jul 18, 2007 7:44 am

Living Ghost wrote:Don't get that processor. Core 2 Duo's perform much better than the quad cores, they overclock better, etc. They're better in every way, not to mention being cheaper. No Windows consumer OS can handle more than 2 cores or 3 gigs of ram, anyway.
I'm getting the quad core for Photoshop.

Arvo
Posts: 294
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 1:30 pm
Location: Estonia, EU :)
Contact:

Post by Arvo » Wed Jul 18, 2007 8:19 am

Living Ghost wrote:No Windows consumer OS can handle more than 2 cores or 3 gigs of ram, anyway.
Sure it can.

All 32bit OSes can natively handle max 4GB minus PCI address space (includes video memory), which makes about 3.0-3.5GB. Using PAE (Physical Address Extension) they can handle more, but this slows entire system down.

64bit OSes of course don't have 4GB limit.

What about cores - XP multitasking is enough good, Vista is even better. NT line is designed for servers, if someone doesn't remember. Both support multiple cores without problem. They may not support multiple processors though - artifical limitation for cheaper OSes.
--
If your software makes use of four cores (or you'll using more programs at same time, like background video processing), then IMHO quadcore is way to go.

Das_Saunamies
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 2000
Joined: Tue May 15, 2007 1:39 am
Location: Finland

Post by Das_Saunamies » Wed Jul 18, 2007 8:39 am

To discuss points already raised:

Not sure how much extra oomph you'll get out of a quad core compared to a dual core, even with Photoshop. Even the dual cores can't use all their capability most of the time(programming and structural issue), and dual cores, at least here, are better value for money(supply and demand). Overclocking and management are apparently easier for dual cores. I agree with Arvo though: if your software benefits from it, it may be worth the extra investment. A processor's stepping is the specific revision of a model.

Good choice going for 4GB(note B not b, 1B=8b) RAM, make sure motherboard supports amount and speed. DDR2 is so cheap there's no reason to skimp on the rating, so 800 it should be, especially if you're already ready to invest in a hotpants quadcore. Having equal-sized and spec'd sticks from the same manufacturer ensures compatibility. The fewer sticks you can get away with the less clutter you'll have, and as Ghost pointed out, matched kits are a must for overclocking.

64bit isn't quite ready yet, so 32bit is understandable, but 64bit has more potential and will become the norm in the future. Vista as 32bit sounds like a waste of potential, but it's your money. XP Pro already plays the 32bit game well and with fewer troubles if you have that. Vista being "nicer" is just a matter of opinion; to me it felt like a flashy toy(a world of features I won't use), albeit a very modern one. All the old limitations that you can leave behind with 64bit make it worth the initial extra trouble in my opinion.

I'm not getting into another Nvidia vs Ati discussion, but I'm an Nvidia man. I went from TNT2 to Radeons, but quickly came back for compatibility reasons and haven't been swayed since. Admitted, I only work, game and watch movies with them.

But now for my additional recommendations:

- Solo with those components will need fans and fan management. You've said nothing about this. It's also a regular-sized case, meaning more HDDs, memory sticks, possibly hot CPU and hot video card(if you add one) will raise temperatures. Think wiring through before you begin: what may need to come off some time, where do you need access to. There isn't much extra space as I understand it.
- Seagate Barracudas are noisy. Consider Samsung, WD or Hitachi for silence.
- Arctic Silver 5 is nice, make sure you have lint-free cloth and some compatible cleaning agent in case you need them.
- Make sure your DVD drive comes with speed-limiting technology(most recent drives do). Samsung has made good drives, but apparently with some sample variance. Plextor has always been consistently good, and they had speed management from the get-go.
- SPCRs recommended CPU cooler list is where you'll find your alternatives. Ninja is apparently the cooling power champion that few will rival. I prefer Zalmans for their consistent quality, ingenuity and looks(don't knock a fellow's taste now).

Wibla
Friend of SPCR
Posts: 779
Joined: Sun Jun 03, 2007 12:03 am
Location: Norway

Post by Wibla » Wed Jul 18, 2007 9:56 am

I was gonna write something insightful, but Das_Saunamies said it all :)

rdavis01
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 1:02 pm

Post by rdavis01 » Wed Jul 18, 2007 10:05 am

Das_Saunamies wrote:
- Solo with those components will need fans and fan management. You've said nothing about this. It's also a regular-sized case, meaning more HDDs, memory sticks, possibly hot CPU and hot video card(if you add one) will raise temperatures. Think wiring through before you begin: what may need to come off some time, where do you need access to. There isn't much extra space as I understand it.
- Seagate Barracudas are noisy. Consider Samsung, WD or Hitachi for silence.
- Arctic Silver 5 is nice, make sure you have lint-free cloth and some compatible cleaning agent in case you need them.
- Make sure your DVD drive comes with speed-limiting technology(most recent drives do). Samsung has made good drives, but apparently with some sample variance. Plextor has always been consistently good, and they had speed management from the get-go.
- SPCRs recommended CPU cooler list is where you'll find your alternatives. Ninja is apparently the cooling power champion that few will rival. I prefer Zalmans for their consistent quality, ingenuity and looks(don't knock a fellow's taste now).

Antec Solo and Fans: The Solo comes with one fan. I am hoping to use just that and the CPU cooling fan. Less fans means less noise which is good for me.

Seagate Barracudas being noisy: I guess I should have said that I really just need the PC to be quiet when it is idling. Some noise while in use shouldn't be a problem. I chose the Seagates because of the 5 year warranty.

Samsung DVD drive: I just checked and it does have speed management.


Thanks for the comments.

Max Slowik
Posts: 524
Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2006 7:39 pm
Location: Denver, Colorado USA
Contact:

Post by Max Slowik » Wed Jul 18, 2007 11:02 am

It's hard to choose to switch to something like this since these have no reviews on newegg.
Seriously, you want the opinions of other customers? Half the time when someone says the hardware was DOA I assume they didn't connect it right.

But if you want a recommendation, I have two of every HD 2000 video card. They're better than 7-series NVIDIA cards. Sapphire is the largest ATI manufacturer, and they're the company that makes ATI-branded cards, so they're very good at it.

Oh, and if you're going to exceed 3 gigs of RAM, buy a 64-bit version of Windows. I run both 32- and 64-bit Vista, and have in the past used both versions of XP Pro, and I can't say I have or had any problems with drivers.

Das_Saunamies
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 2000
Joined: Tue May 15, 2007 1:39 am
Location: Finland

Post by Das_Saunamies » Wed Jul 18, 2007 2:51 pm

Your choice with the HDDs. WD RE and RE2 lines come with a five year warranty, they're just classified as enterprise drives. I think all should have the five year warranty so it would extend over a future upgrade, as HDDs often carry over, but so far Seagate has been the only one to extend it to all drives.

But if a HDD doesn't die in the first few years... chances are it'll last you a decade.

If you're comfortable trying with just the one fan then why not, less fans does mean less noise. Your passive graphics card might appreciate a breeze though.

I never read customer reviews myself. Utter BS mostly. Stores should link to established review sites if anything.

My experience with 64bit comes through proxy mostly, Max is probably better in touch with the current reality.

Sizzle
Patron of SPCR
Posts: 634
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2004 5:01 pm
Location: Saginaw, Michigan
Contact:

Post by Sizzle » Wed Jul 18, 2007 6:40 pm

I would go with the Thermalright Ultra 120 or 120 Extreme over the Ninja to cool your CPU.

As far as the Quad Core goes, what I really don't like about it is that they are currently not true quad cores. They are two dual cores stuck together. Much like the first Intel dual cores. They have a much higher TPD then the Duo core does, which means more cooling needs, theoretically it would mean possibly more noise.

Natronomonas
Posts: 73
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2005 1:07 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Post by Natronomonas » Wed Jul 18, 2007 6:57 pm

Sizzle wrote:I would go with the Thermalright Ultra 120 or 120 Extreme over the Ninja to cool your CPU.
Horses for courses. The ninja will do a good job, the TR u-120ex the best, but there'll only be at best a few degrees in it.
As far as the Quad Core goes, what I really don't like about it is that they are currently not true quad cores. They are two dual cores stuck together. Much like the first Intel dual cores. They have a much higher TPD then the Duo core does, which means more cooling needs, theoretically it would mean possibly more noise.
The TDP is fine, especially on G0 - 90W. That's less than double the TDP of 2xe6600's.

The true quad core thing, who cares. Two dies means higher yield=cheaper CPUs. Since there's no true quad out yet, why fuss about it? You want four cores in one socket, this is the only way right now. When AMD come out with a 'true' quad, we can compare and see if there is much performance penalty. Ditto when Intel release a monolithic quad.

If you really need superb core scaling, you're looking at a 4,8 socket Opteron anyhow.

mttcrlsn
Posts: 49
Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2007 11:22 am
Location: La Crosse, WI
Contact:

Post by mttcrlsn » Fri Jul 20, 2007 6:40 pm

Go for the Q6600. Photoshop is one of the few programs that can use a Quad.

N7SC
Posts: 179
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2007 7:22 pm
Location: Sunny Florida, where dead people vote 3 times in a county they never even lived in!

Post by N7SC » Fri Jul 20, 2007 7:28 pm

A few pointers:

If you use Photoshop CS2, make sure that you apply the patch or update that properly enables it to use 4 cores. Otherwise it won't.

If you use, or plan to use Photoshop CS3, please take a look at the Adobe forums before you commit to Vista. They are having nothing but trouble with Vista and CS3. I don't know if it applies to single applications, like just Photoshop, but if I was going to build a system for Photoshop CS3, I'd stick with XP Pro until Microsoft and Adobe get a few updates and major bug fixes out, just to be safe. The problems are really bad and worth avoiding.

ronrem
Posts: 1066
Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2005 2:59 am
Location: Santa Cruz

Post by ronrem » Fri Jul 20, 2007 10:54 pm

rdavis01 wrote:
Max Slowik wrote:Vista is a lot nicer than XP.

For what it's worth, NVIDIA can't code Vista drivers for shit. Go ATI HD 2000, you'll be a lot happier. Lower power, just as passive, Avivo video processing. . .
I'm definately going with Vista. I can't imagine putting together a new build that I would like to last for 4-5 years and not putting the latest version of Vista on it.

Max, do you have a specific card to recommend?
Simply do a dual boot. Have a partition with a stripped down XP for serious work and a Vista for general. There's a lot of processes,bells,whistles an n-lite XP removes. You can get the "boost" of an overclock without the negatives (heat,instability,reduced component life.) Your XP-Lite partition can even be a no Internet zone...so you lose all the overhead of that + firewall and Anti-Virus. Pure lean + Mean. Storage can be accessed from either partition.


I'd lean to a somewhat more roomy case. You got a high powered CPU,a semi-high end passive vid card and 3 HDDs----you need a bit of volume to dissipate heat better-and you don't want to cram things in and not be able to plan a good airpath

In general...a nice rig....well beyond my budget,so I have to let the machine work at what pace it can.

silence
Posts: 85
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 6:25 pm
Location: Worcester, MA

Post by silence » Fri Jul 20, 2007 11:13 pm

I'm gonna need to keep this short and sweet and to the point, otherwise it could turn into a novel:

-Go 64-bit and never look back. It gives you the ability to upgrade to 8GB+ of RAM in the future, which will undoubtedly make a noticeable difference in PS CS2/2. I've been running Vista Ultimate 64-bit since February and have had no more application incompatibility problems than I can count on one hand. Generally, the only things that haven't worked are sloppily coded random internet junk, which I make a point not to use unless I have to. Photoshop and the whole CS2 suite run beautifully on Vista 64. If I may, I'd suggest going with the Ultimate version if you want to go Vista. It comes with the Media Center software and a whole bunch of extras that IMHO are worth the extra $60.

-Go with 2 x 2GB memory modules now so you can upgrade in the future when RAM prices come back down. I've got this kit in my PC right now and it has been running like a champ since day one...by far the best money I've spent in a while (especially since I got them a month ago when RAM was dirt cheap!).

-You can always go with PS CS2 now and upgrade to CS3 later when application compatibility gets addressed. It will be much easier to update that one application than to update the entire operating system...why let one application set the agenda for the whole build?

-For storage, you need to think long and hard about what your needs are. I also do some heavy-duty photo editing on my PC, so a heavy-duty storage subsystem was a priority in my current build. I'm running a RAID-0 array with two 200Gb disks and within that two partitions: one of 300GB for the OS and apps, and the other 72ish GB is for pagefile and PS swap space. If I could do it again, I'd just leave them on separate disks instead of complicating it with a RAID array. For data storage, I have four 250GB drives in a RAID-5 array - this type of array speeds data access and has built-in fault tolerance. Bear in mind that you should also invest in AT LEAST enough back-up drive space to make a FULL backup of your data at some point in the future, since it will only grow with time. So, my recommendation here is this: go with one decent size (preferably perpendicular recording*) disk for your OS and apps, another of similar or smaller size for your pagefile and swap space, and two or more LARGE drives for some type of fault-tolerant RAID array or other realtime backup scheme. *I say preferably perpendicular recording because the high platter density of these disks lends them well to random access tasks, which are very often performed by the operating system. I can give you some more guidance with this topic if you'd like...PM me if you're interested.

-The motherboard choice looks great, no need for change there.

-Don't plan on playing very many newer (meaning in the last few months) games with a 7600GS and 24" monitor - not enough horsepower to push all those pixels! But, since photo/video editing is your thing, you don't need a TON of GPU power, so this is a good place to keep the budget within reason. Check the mid-level ATI offerings just for the hell of it.

-Stick with the quad-core. You're getting two Core 2 6600's on the same die for $60 more than you'd pay for one of them! The next step up from there in the same price range is the Core 2 6700 which isn't a whole lot faster...the software you're using will utilize more cores better, and it makes a lot of sense to go that route with today's pricing anyway.

-Cooling looks good, but what did you have in mind for fans/fan control?

Time for bed, I'll check again here soon. Good luck!

-Domenic

cristiandemarch
Posts: 21
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2007 3:49 am
Location: Venice, Italy

Post by cristiandemarch » Fri Jul 20, 2007 11:21 pm

There is quite a bit o misinformation in this thread.

Photoshop CS3 does not benefit at all from 4 cores vs 2. There's little point if it "officialy supports" 4 cores. Fact is there's no boost in performance.
At the same clock speed, Quad & Dual core CPUs perform exactly the same with CS3. Just look at the benchmark around with E6600 and Q6600.
Maybe this performance issue is going to be addressed soon, but who knows?

If the OP is doing video editing (not to talk about HD video), then a quad core is a must, since the best editing software can make good use of the 2 extra cores, and the performance gains are noticeable.

I would definitely chose a quadcore after Intel price cut (this week? next one? can't remember...). A Q6600 at 260$ is a great buy. With a good cooler, it can work flawlessy at 3Ghz keeping heat to reasonable levels.

To Living Ghost: how can you say:
They're better in every way, not to mention being cheaper. No Windows consumer OS can handle more than 2 cores or 3 gigs of ram, anyway.
This is plain untrue. Better in every way?? Cheaper. Cooler of course. But a Quad is MUCH faster if used with proper applications (Premiere Pro 2 or Final Cut Pro 2) for video editing. Also, a 64Bit OS supports more than 4Gb of memory and even the good old WinXP Pro 32Bit can handle QuadCores.

About the RAM.. DDR2 is dirty cheap at the moment. I would buy 4GB DDR2 800 with decent timings (C4). The price premium you pay on better ram only gives you marginal performance improvements at best.

The OS... Vista 64Bit or XP 64Bit. I would get Vista.
Last edited by cristiandemarch on Fri Jul 20, 2007 11:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.

nick705
Posts: 1162
Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2004 3:26 pm
Location: UK

Post by nick705 » Fri Jul 20, 2007 11:33 pm

cristiandemarch wrote:Photoshop CS3 does not benefit at all from 4 cores vs 2. There's little point if it "officialy supports" 4 cores. Fact is there's no boost in performance.
At the same clock speed, Quad & Dual core CPUs perform exactly the same with CS3. Just look at the benchmark around with E6600 and Q6600.
Maybe this performance issue is going to be addressed soon, but who knows?
According to this, the Q6600 clearly outperforms faster-clocked duals in Photoshop CS3, not by an enormous amount but not insignificant either.

cristiandemarch
Posts: 21
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2007 3:49 am
Location: Venice, Italy

Post by cristiandemarch » Fri Jul 20, 2007 11:55 pm

nick705 wrote:
cristiandemarch wrote:Photoshop CS3 does not benefit at all from 4 cores vs 2. There's little point if it "officialy supports" 4 cores. Fact is there's no boost in performance.
At the same clock speed, Quad & Dual core CPUs perform exactly the same with CS3. Just look at the benchmark around with E6600 and Q6600.
Maybe this performance issue is going to be addressed soon, but who knows?
According to this, the Q6600 clearly outperforms faster-clocked duals in Photoshop CS3, not by an enormous amount but not insignificant either.
According to this, it does not.
Our sources of information are in contrast. Probably Anandtech is using a better/more complex/more reliable test, that manage to shrink every drop of power out of a Quad. Tomshardware only test filtering. So we can say that in pure filtering there is no gain, but a Quad is overall quite faster than a Dual with a complex PS Action? That's great.

Bottom end: good to know that in real world use a Quad is faster even in CS3. Thank you for the link! I am currently testing my rig with Retouch Artists speed test ;)

mttcrlsn
Posts: 49
Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2007 11:22 am
Location: La Crosse, WI
Contact:

Post by mttcrlsn » Sat Jul 21, 2007 8:21 am

There was a time at which information on Tom's Hardware was useful - and that time is not now (just look at the Ninja review). A simple one filter test is not a way to compare speed of Photoshop. Try doing a bunch of things like layer manipulation with resizes, filters and adjustments.

As for 64-bit it is the future but it is not now. Vista 64 is good from the MS point, better from the drivers angle but sucks from the application point. Chief of this is Adobe. None of their programs work well with it if at all. Photoshop CS3 seems to be the better of the group and is usable but the Premiere does not work (not supported and check the Adobe Forums on this for the angry users). I tried Premiere Elemets and it does not even run on x64.

pputer
Posts: 155
Joined: Wed May 02, 2007 5:05 am

Post by pputer » Tue Jul 24, 2007 4:00 am

I was reading the discussions on the Tom's Hardware forum about the comparison between the Q6600 and E6750/E6850. I am thinking of getting the E6750 if the price ever reduces as expected. I think the Q6600 is better for video work (which is what I will build the computer for) but the E6750 is almost as fast and the price/performance ratio is better. Does this make sense (to anyone)?

Living Ghost
Posts: 12
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 7:19 pm

Post by Living Ghost » Tue Jul 24, 2007 4:06 am

Yes, especially because windows can't really use more than 2 cores, and "7" is 3 years away.

Post Reply