Which processor for Photoshop/Music? (Haswell vs E, wait for Skylake, etc..)

[aman74]

First off, I'm very out of the loop. First build in over 10 years, I'm researching and catching up. I might do a Hackintosh. I know that HT and/or more cores helps with Photoshop and Logic, etc..., but the benches don't tell me about in practical use and my needs may be modest comparatively, but not sure.

Most benches refer to renders and large batch files and such. I'm more the type that if it's something that's going to take a long time anyhow a bit of savings isn't a big deal in that case...like Handbrake encoding or batches, etc...I would like to mess around a little with video, but not concerned about 4K and video would just be a more minor concern. If it needed time to encode that's ok, but more concern would be when actually working on it.

Anyhow, video isn't a priority unless it would be torturous with a 4690K, but I don't think that's the case.

On to the priorities which would be Photoshop and some Audio production.

Again, I don't care about batches so much, but what about actually doing layers, panoramas, HDR, focus stacking, etc...Is there a big difference when applying these things and having to wait. This is where 5 seconds compared to one actually feels a lot different I'd imagine? Is there that difference in the first place?

I've not done digital imaging in a long time, but am getting back into it, so not sure the practical matters here. Same for audio.

For audio I don't think I'd be a power user, but would like to use some VST's and VST instruments. People say it really helps with the instruments and such, but at the same time I have a buddy who runs Cubase on an old dual core, might even be a core2duo, and he seems to run synths ok, so maybe I'm just not a power user, but would probably get into applying more verbs and console emulators and such then him. I'm still just a hobbiest though.

Ok, so onto the processor...

I have access to MicroCenter

-The 4690 is the real powerhouse value option, if it's sufficient I will probably go this route...

-The Xeon 1231 v3, I believe it is, give me HT for 10 bucks more, but it looks like you can't get the motherboard combo discount with this one. No on board video and no overclock. Might still be good value, but the price with no board discount pushes up towards the 4790K and definitely if I had to get a GPU...I need to decide if I want that anyway as I do love gaming, but up until now, not PC gaming...

-The 4790K vs 5820K....at Microcenter the 5820K is only 20 dollars more, cheapest board a hundred more and RAM is actually only about 45 more looking at PCpartpicker. So 165 and I'd have to get a video card.

-How is the 5820K overclocking? From what I saw it looks to take a lot more wattage to get there compared to Haswell? I'm going to get a decent air cooler, but I'm more just looking to raise the voltage just a tick to get a decent bump. Not looking to get too heavy into OC'ing.

Here's where I'd like to discuss value. Budget is a concern, but this isn't as easy at looks on the surface. Normally I think it's better to but bang for your buck options and update more often. I think that makes more sense more often and if I was only gaming it would be 4690K all the way. However, if HT or more cores is big for my use, the time between updates using what I get now is important. Not only that, but then how long a socket is supported comes into play and in this case also the RAM. If I buy DDR3 now, chances are it will be worthless for my next upgrade and only of value if I moved it to a second box or something, but I'm not usually one to have two computers around. So it's a 45 dollar premium for the DDR4, but a savings of 120 if I can reuse it a few years down the road.

Then there's the platform:

-Socket 1150 probably dead after Broadwell?

-Socket 2011-3 could get an update beyond Haswell-E?

-Skylake is 1151 right? How many years would that one be viable?

-The next big question is just wait for Skylake. Latest rumor is August? I could possibly consider that, but even when it first comes out will we have K chips and pretty much a replacement for what we have now on Haswell?

-When would the next 2011-3 chips be out?

-Skylake uses DDR4?

-What would the expected gains be for Skylake? Iris Pro would be nice, but if it's just 10-15% overall, that would be nice, but maybe not worth the wait.

Thanks so much for reading and helping if you choose to. Sorry this was so long, but maybe it was even just a good way to get all my thoughts down.

 

[Blue_Max]

I remember earlier audio programs didn't like hyperthreading and those who had it wound up shutting it off. I'm sure that so many years later, the i7's make more sense now... but an i5 makes a sensible and affordable choice.

And RAM. Gobs and gobs of RAM. Audio and video editing alike benefit from as much memory as you can throw at it. And maybe a fast "thrashing" hard drive or SSD for a work in progress.

Certain video programs may get more benefit from nVidia CUDA than from i5 vs. i7.... but I'm no expert by a long shot.

Don't bother with socket 2011 unless you're going +6core right from the get-go.

 

[Yuriman]

I'm not all that familiar with how well threaded Logic is, but the 4790K sounds like the right chip for your needs. Pair it with an inexpensive board (H97, probably), since it's already near the max OC you're likely to get with Haswell, and enjoy.

You might also want a low-end discrete video card, such as a Radeon 250X/260X or perhaps nV 750/750Ti, since photoshop can take advantage of OpenCL.

~

These days, you are pretty likely to replace your board when you get a new chip, as platform improvements are coming more quickly than major performance improvements. I wouldn't worry about 1150 being dead. It's no more or less dead than any other socket you could buy.

2011-3 will probably get Broadwell-E (others please correct me if I'm wrong), which will probably be worth 0-5% performance and use a bit less power, but also (unknown at this point) may not overclock as high, which hardly seems worth the trouble of swapping a $400+ CPU for.

Skylake is a new socket, yes, but don't hold your breath for a major performance improvement. You can expect a bigger and faster integrated GPU, and probably 0-15% better CPU performance at slightly lower power consumption. Intel has historically phased out their old chips without discounting them and replaced them with newer, slightly faster ones at the same price.

You can probably expect Broadwell-E late this year.

Skylake I believe can use either DDR3 or DDR4, depending on what board you pair it with. DDR4 offers basically no real-world benefit over DDR3 at this point and is much more expensive. I don't foresee DDR3 going away for at least several years.

 

[Headfoot]

I know Reaper is super cheap and is very multithreaded, runs plugins all in separate threads so you can get a ton going. I've done full software emulated guitars, quad tracked, with lots of verb in a number of other tracks and lots of other effects and VSTs going and that capped out my 2500k at 4.5 ghz. This is a pretty extreme case though, songs with less tracks ran fine. It takes a lot to overload it. If you are going to use a lot of effects, high quality reverb with IRs and convolution you might want to go at least 4790k. It would take a ridiculous project to load up all 12 in the 5820k though so i think thats over the top for audio at least.

Skylake is looking like the end of the summer

 

[tynopik]

might ram be a limiting factor? if you think you might ever want more than 32gb, 2011-3 will get you gobs of DDR4 ram now

E5-1620 v3 $295
http://www.superbiiz.com/detail.php?...51620V3BX&c=CJ

 

[turtile]

It's hard to say given we don't know your budget. But for overall value, an i5 will do fine. Invest in RAM and a good SSD. I'm using a dual core 2.6-3.3Ghz i5 and I barely have to wait for anything in Photoshop CC 2014.

 

[ClockHound]

It's hard to say given we don't know your budget. But for overall value, an i5 will do fine. Invest in RAM and a good SSD. I'm using a dual core 2.6-3.3Ghz i5 and I barely have to wait for anything in Photoshop CC 2014.

You are the most patient person on the internet. You have my admiration.

Question tho? Are you using the deep 3D capabilities of PS? Apply many actions? Create files around 1-2GB?

 

[ClockHound]

Regarding the OP. The 4790k, not 4690, is definitely the best bang for the buck for hobbyist audio/graphics use. The extra threads and speed will be put to good use in both audio projects and image/video rendering. Dependent on the program, Quicksync will speed video renders with a small hit on quality. 4690 is ok, but for your tasks the 4790k is a much better value.

However, the 5820k system for an extra 165 is very tempting - $82.50 for each extra HW core...good deal. You can never have too many cores, threads or too much RAM, contrary to the counsel of computing tea-toddlers. ;-)

With the 2011-3 board you could upgrade to an octa-core if the need and and budget arises. It is the most future-proof of the dead platform choices.

Enjoy your HW hexcore! ;-)

 

[turtile]

You are the most patient person on the internet. You have my admiration.

Question tho? Are you using the deep 3D capabilities of PS? Apply many actions? Create files around 1-2GB?

No, I use it for photography. Mostly RAW Conversion, batch conversion, minor edits and HDR. I do have a K2100M so that should help with 3D.

Basically, I got a good deal on mobile workstation that I couldn't pass up...

 

[aman74]

You are the most patient person on the internet. You have my admiration.

Question tho? Are you using the deep 3D capabilities of PS? Apply many actions? Create files around 1-2GB?

You're saying he must be patient because his system would be slow for PS?

I'm not worried about 3D, but I will be doing high MP count RAW with layers and panoramas...that's sure to increase as a 50 MP camera is probably in my future. Right now though I'm at 24 MP's.

Regarding the OP. The 4790k, not 4690, is definitely the best bang for the buck for hobbyist audio/graphics use. The extra threads and speed will be put to good use in both audio projects and image/video rendering. Dependent on the program, Quicksync will speed video renders with a small hit on quality. 4690 is ok, but for your tasks the 4790k is a much better value.

However, the 5820k system for an extra 165 is very tempting - $82.50 for each extra HW core...good deal. You can never have too many cores, threads or too much RAM, contrary to the counsel of computing tea-toddlers. ;-)

With the 2011-3 board you could upgrade to an octa-core if the need and and budget arises. It is the most future-proof of the dead platform choices.

Enjoy your HW hexcore! ;-)

This is kinda along the lines of what I was thinking...wanting the HT of the 4790K, but then the budget is already up and makes me just want to go all the way and get the 5820K. How is the OC'ing on the 5820k? The review here seemed to indicate it's pretty variable, just like the 4790K, but then it also seemed to be taking much more watts to get there? Making me have to up my CPU cooling budget?

Someone mentioned CUDA fro PS, but as far as I know that's only a couple actions that actually use it and the HD4600 actually does GPU acceleration for them as well.

The 5820K or 1231 forces me into a GPU, so that ups the budget as well. If I decide I'm going to game on it though I'd have to do it either way.

The other thing is what will the system look like in a few years? IVY and Sandy have aged pretty well as things are generally slowing down a bit. So in some ways I'd rather try and just stretch out the lifetime of the system. The 5820K would probably hold up quite well, I'd imagine the 4790K as well.

Thanks to all for the replies so far. I know it's my decision only, but the input helps.

Another thing is the RAM budget. Do you think that 32 vs 16 GB's of RAM offers more performance vs the extra 2 cores of the 5820 or even comparing the 4690 with no HT to the 4790? I'll have at least 16, so I thought at that point anything beyond that might not be helping as much as HT or extra cores, but I don't know for sure. If it's RAM first then that would help me make a decision there as well.

I've been reading about RAM disks as well and get a lot of differing opinions. Some say no point for PS as you're limiting the thing in the first place that is causing the bottleneck. Makes sense, but then I hear different.

I will be doing a scratch disk. I've heard differing on this as well. Most seem to say the I/O of SSD's is so great now that you can just put it on the main boot SSD with your programs. I'd rather not put it on a 7200 HDD or get another SSD.

 

[aman74]

I know Reaper is super cheap and is very multithreaded, runs plugins all in separate threads so you can get a ton going. I've done full software emulated guitars, quad tracked, with lots of verb in a number of other tracks and lots of other effects and VSTs going and that capped out my 2500k at 4.5 ghz. This is a pretty extreme case though, songs with less tracks ran fine. It takes a lot to overload it. If you are going to use a lot of effects, high quality reverb with IRs and convolution you might want to go at least 4790k. It would take a ridiculous project to load up all 12 in the 5820k though so i think thats over the top for audio at least.

Skylake is looking like the end of the summer

Thanks, that's good real world advice. If you were fine with that on a 2500K I'd imagine I'd be fine with a 4690K and definitely with the 4790K for that usage at least.

might ram be a limiting factor? if you think you might ever want more than 32gb, 2011-3 will get you gobs of DDR4 ram now

E5-1620 v3 $295
http://www.superbiiz.com/detail.php?...51620V3BX&c=CJ

What is the significance of that processor compared to the ones I mentioned?...especially since the 1231 v3 is 209?

Yeah, I'm trying to also find out where RAM plays it's part here. I'm going to do at least 16GB and not sure how much more helps. If it's significant I might focus on that as first priority. Also because of Haswell sometimes not liking RAM that isn't matched. I've heard differing on this as well. I thought it was ok to get a matched pair, say two 8GB sticks and then add another matched pair as it's only each channel that needs the match within itself, but not to each other for the next set. Then I've heard you should get all 4 matched and buy at once?

Any thoughts on that from folks?

Oh...also wondering if DDR4 is as sensitive to matching as well? I guess this wasn't so much a problem in the past and was kinda new with Haswell?

 

[aman74]

One other factor to all of this is the Hackintosh aspect. Has any Mac used the X99 platform? I'm not even sure if that's the chipset name or what exactly.

Z97 is working well with Hackintosh's, but I know things get even better once Apple actually starts using the exact chipset.

Another thing I now need to look into.

 

[ClockHound]

You're saying he must be patient because his system would be slow for PS?

I'm not worried about 3D, but I will be doing high MP count RAW with layers and panoramas...that's sure to increase as a 50 MP camera is probably in my future. Right now though I'm at 24 MP's.



This is kinda along the lines of what I was thinking...wanting the HT of the 4790K, but then the budget is already up and makes me just want to go all the way and get the 5820K. How is the OC'ing on the 5820k? The review here seemed to indicate it's pretty variable, just like the 4790K, but then it also seemed to be taking much more watts to get there? Making me have to up my CPU cooling budget?

Someone mentioned CUDA fro PS, but as far as I know that's only a couple actions that actually use it and the HD4600 actually does GPU acceleration for them as well.

The 5820K or 1231 forces me into a GPU, so that ups the budget as well. If I decide I'm going to game on it though I'd have to do it either way.

The other thing is what will the system look like in a few years? IVY and Sandy have aged pretty well as things are generally slowing down a bit. So in some ways I'd rather try and just stretch out the lifetime of the system. The 5820K would probably hold up quite well, I'd imagine the 4790K as well.

Thanks to all for the replies so far. I know it's my decision only, but the input helps.

Another thing is the RAM budget. Do you think that 32 vs 16 GB's of RAM offers more performance vs the extra 2 cores of the 5820 or even comparing the 4690 with no HT to the 4790? I'll have at least 16, so I thought at that point anything beyond that might not be helping as much as HT or extra cores, but I don't know for sure. If it's RAM first then that would help me make a decision there as well.

I've been reading about RAM disks as well and get a lot of differing opinions. Some say no point for PS as you're limiting the thing in the first place that is causing the bottleneck. Makes sense, but then I hear different.

I will be doing a scratch disk. I've heard differing on this as well. Most seem to say the I/O of SSD's is so great now that you can just put it on the main boot SSD with your programs. I'd rather not put it on a 7200 HDD or get another SSD.

Yes, I was saying his system would kill my workflow, so I would starve to death...but I work in the motion graphic/video/audio world, so every second counts. Don't mind if the system has to wait for my muse to arrive, but can't stand waiting for the system to do the muse's bidding. Which is why I have to have more than one system. ;-)

Ah...the budget question...simples...get the 4790k, 16-32GB RAM, big 512+GB SSD and some spindle drives for storage. That will be the best performance/dollar option.

The answer to the RAM question is, it depends....how many layers of 24mp? Each 24 megapixel image at 16 bit depth uses 144 MB. It can add up real quick. If you're not working on whole bunch of layers with whole bunch of images at once, then 16GB will be fine. But, 32GB will be better. ;-)

With PS, a limited budget and I had to choose between more cores or more RAM...it would be RAM first.

 

[turtile]

HDR uses a ton of RAM. I actually couldn't merge 8 12MP photos with alignment on a computer with 4GB. With more RAM, virtual memory becomes less important obviously. What's the point of 2 more cores if the data can't be processed?

The E5 uses registered memory which allows for more sticks of memory to be used at once. However, it adds an extra cycle.

 

[Idontcare]

Yes, I was saying his system would kill my workflow, so I would starve to death...but I work in the motion graphic/video/audio world, so every second counts. Don't mind if the system has to wait for my muse to arrive, but can't stand waiting for the system to do the muse's bidding. Which is why I have to have more than one system. ;-)

It is rare to find someone who speaks the same language I speak, let alone reflects my own thoughts. You do. I'm so there, muse and latency and all.

I want my computer's idle power consumption to be 3mW so I don't feel bad that my muse hasn't shown itself today, or all of last week.

But when it (gender neutral muse here) shows up, I want my computer systems (yes, plural!) to jump to life in 3ns and suddenly start crunching through computations faster than a 5GHz devils canyon!

 

[Headfoot]

Thanks, that's good real world advice. If you were fine with that on a 2500K I'd imagine I'd be fine with a 4690K and definitely with the 4790K for that usage at least.

For audio at least, if I were buying today I'd get a 4790k. Depending on how badly you want/need to upgrade, Skylake is looking like you won't have to wait much longer than 6-9 months which isn't that long if you consider how long the CPU will be relevant.

 

[ClockHound]

It is rare to find someone who speaks the same language I speak, let alone reflects my own thoughts. You do. I'm so there, muse and latency and all.

I want my computer's idle power consumption to be 3mW so I don't feel bad that my muse hasn't shown itself today, or all of last week.

But when it (gender neutral muse here) shows up, I want my computer systems (yes, plural!) to jump to life in 3ns and suddenly start crunching through computations faster than a 5GHz devils canyon!

Ah...thanks, IDC. I appreciate your appreciation. And your sensitivity about the delicate nature of muse latency. Is it still called latency when it's over a week? Or that other L-word?

Now feel like I need to go delid a Xeon in your honor. Oh...wait..the geek muse says something about not happening. ;-)

 

[DigDog]

installing Yosemite on a 6 core isn't easy -according to most hack-intosh-ers.

 

[schmuckley]

4790K be fine

 

[aman74]

installing Yosemite on a 6 core isn't easy -according to most hack-intosh-ers.

Hey, thanks for that! I did do some preliminary research and saw posts about X99 so assumed it was ok. Glad you mentioned that as I hadn't heard about it!

 

[DigDog]

i'm looking to make a hackintosh build of my own within a month actually; should start working on it around the 25th of this month, i'll post my experience, you are welcome to post yours.

 

[aman74]

i'm looking to make a hackintosh build of my own within a month actually; should start working on it around the 25th of this month, i'll post my experience, you are welcome to post yours.

I'll look out for that. What method are you using? I hear Clover is a bit harder, but supposed to be better.

What MB? Seems Gigabyte is favored, but I'm seeing positive about Asrock, Asus and MSI as well.

I'm pretty daunted by the task. The hardware is a piece of cake comparatively.

What forums are best for Hackintosh? From what I've seen the various forums don't seem to like each other much and the angst is high. PM me if it's more appropriate.

 

[aman74]

Yes, I was saying his system would kill my workflow, so I would starve to death...but I work in the motion graphic/video/audio world, so every second counts. Don't mind if the system has to wait for my muse to arrive, but can't stand waiting for the system to do the muse's bidding. Which is why I have to have more than one system. ;-)

Ah...the budget question...simples...get the 4790k, 16-32GB RAM, big 512+GB SSD and some spindle drives for storage. That will be the best performance/dollar option.

The answer to the RAM question is, it depends....how many layers of 24mp? Each 24 megapixel image at 16 bit depth uses 144 MB. It can add up real quick. If you're not working on whole bunch of layers with whole bunch of images at once, then 16GB will be fine. But, 32GB will be better. ;-)

With PS, a limited budget and I had to choose between more cores or more RAM...it would be RAM first.

I am going to prioritize RAM, at least so far as getting to 16GB's. Everything I've read seems to jive with what you're saying.

Do you think the 4690K would be a bad choice? If HT makes a significant difference I'll probably go 4790K. I just don't know how much difference it makes. I'm not too worried about big batches, just one project at a time, but would like to do panorama and multiple layers, etc...Trying to understand if we're just talking an extra couple seconds here and there or what exactly.

What do you think is the best way to arrange the storage? I am going to get one SSD, possibly two, but that's pushing it. I've seen recommendations to have a specific HD for everything, OS, program, scratch, working files and then storage...this seems excessive, possibly even excessive for a pro nowadays?

I can't seem to get any solid info on whether or not a separate drive for scratch matters much nowadays since you can just keep it on the main SSD. Not only that, but I still see people say put the scratch on a spinner even when they have an SSD? With 16GB's of RAM, I don't think I'll hit the scratch too much? Keep in mind I'm not a pro, I'd appreciate the performance, but I need to balance this as far as bang for the buck goes.

How much space does the scratch need?

I was thinking of just a 512GB SSD like you said. Then probably a 7200 spinner and then a backup drive the same size.

Does even the main HD need to be 7200Rpm's? I don't know if it makes much difference since I'm guessing I'd move the images I'm working on to the SSD?

If I were to get an extra SSD or even another spinner...what would I prioritize as it's use...scractch?...working file? I just don't know if saturating the I/O is even an issue at this point? What about for audio, if you happen to know much about that...I see people keep sample libraries on a separate disk. I thought if I got a second disk for scratch I'd put the samples there. I don't want to go that route though unless the benefits are significant.

If I can keep it to 3 drives for now and just add as necessary that would be great.

Thanks!

 

[Yuriman]

Take a look here:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8227/devils-canyon-review-intel-core-i7-4790k-and-i5-4690k/3

Sometimes HT is worth very little. Sometimes, a lot.

 

[aman74]

Take a look here:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8227/devils-canyon-review-intel-core-i7-4790k-and-i5-4690k/3

Sometimes HT is worth very little. Sometimes, a lot.

I have, but there's a couple problems with that for me. One thing is that I don't always fully understand the tests. Another is that most aren't real world tests for my use.

If encoding or something I'm already waiting, so waiting a bit more after a certain point doesn't mean much as I'm not on a deadline and if it's a decent length of time I'd have to stop working and walk away from the computer or work on something else anyhow. I suppose working on something else, HT would help with multi-tasking, but those use cases aren't common for me anyhow as I'm not so worried about video or large batches.

I'm more concerned about when I'm actually working on the file. Those tests are for encoding and 4K video, not a priority for me.