vvcarpio
No longer a newbie, moving up!
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2014
- Messages
- 118
- Reaction score
- 35
- Location
- New York, NY
- Can others edit my Photos
- Photos NOT OK to edit
Hi, Granddad. I hope I'm not too late in the discussion -- it caught my eye because I, too, am considering upgrading my Windows AMD-based rig to at least an Intel i5 processor and motherboard.
To check on various processor benchmarks and compare speed/price ratios I go to PassMark Software - CPU Benchmark Charts
For example, for the two machines I use now -- an AMD Athlon IIX4 635 Windows PC I built 4 years ago and a Mac Mini Late 2012 -- their CPUs and benchmark scores are as follows:
My build -- AMD Athlon IIX4 635@2.9GHz score: 3,289
Mac Mini -- i7-3615QU@2.30 GHz score: 7,348
To test my machines, I timed processing for an HDR image and found the Mac Mini (with the i7 @ 2.30 GHz) finished faster than my home built AMD PC (with the Athlon X4 @ 2.9 GHz). It took the Mac Mini approximately only 2/3 the time it took my AMD PC. So the benchmark scores at cpubenchmark.net are indicative of real world scores IMO.
For me to get my home built AMD PC at a performance comparable to my Mac Mini -- that is, a score of over 7,000 -- and keep costs down, from cpubenchmark.net I would need to go for either the cheapest i7 4790S @3.20 GHz ($304 on Newegg but with score of 9,710) or the popular i5 4690K @ 3.5 GHz ($199 on MicroCenter with a respectable score of 7,765 -- even faster than my Mac Mini's i7).
So I guess I'm saying a higher-end processor may be worth the higher cost *if* you would be doing a lot of post-processing work like I do (HDR). I imagine the AMD dual core @ 3.9 GHz processor in your spec would be the AMD A6-6400K with a score of 2,364 which costs $62 on Newegg. In comparison, the cheapest i3 on Newegg is the i3-3240 @ 3.4 GHz with a score of 4,322 at a cost of $119. The i3 is faster but increases your budget for the processor by $57.
To check on various processor benchmarks and compare speed/price ratios I go to PassMark Software - CPU Benchmark Charts
For example, for the two machines I use now -- an AMD Athlon IIX4 635 Windows PC I built 4 years ago and a Mac Mini Late 2012 -- their CPUs and benchmark scores are as follows:
My build -- AMD Athlon IIX4 635@2.9GHz score: 3,289
Mac Mini -- i7-3615QU@2.30 GHz score: 7,348
To test my machines, I timed processing for an HDR image and found the Mac Mini (with the i7 @ 2.30 GHz) finished faster than my home built AMD PC (with the Athlon X4 @ 2.9 GHz). It took the Mac Mini approximately only 2/3 the time it took my AMD PC. So the benchmark scores at cpubenchmark.net are indicative of real world scores IMO.
For me to get my home built AMD PC at a performance comparable to my Mac Mini -- that is, a score of over 7,000 -- and keep costs down, from cpubenchmark.net I would need to go for either the cheapest i7 4790S @3.20 GHz ($304 on Newegg but with score of 9,710) or the popular i5 4690K @ 3.5 GHz ($199 on MicroCenter with a respectable score of 7,765 -- even faster than my Mac Mini's i7).
So I guess I'm saying a higher-end processor may be worth the higher cost *if* you would be doing a lot of post-processing work like I do (HDR). I imagine the AMD dual core @ 3.9 GHz processor in your spec would be the AMD A6-6400K with a score of 2,364 which costs $62 on Newegg. In comparison, the cheapest i3 on Newegg is the i3-3240 @ 3.4 GHz with a score of 4,322 at a cost of $119. The i3 is faster but increases your budget for the processor by $57.