Processor or Video Card?

Question

I’m do a lot with computer graphics/graphic design. I need a computer that moves graphics fast. Which computer is better for me and why? Please give your source.

1. The desktop PC with a faster processor (Intel Core 2 Quad Processor Q6600), but a mid-range video card (Radeon HD 2400 XT, 12.8 GB/sec).

OR

2. The desktop PC with a slower processor (Intel Pentium 4, 2.40 GHz), but a high-range video card (GeForce 8600 GT, 22.4 GB/sec)

Answer 1

#1 is the best. Most of you limits on speed will be the rendering calculations and format conversions that are CPU intensive. This makes the processor the most important. The Core 2 Quad 6600 is 623% faster than the Pentium 4, 2.4GHz.

In addition the Core 2 Quad is probably the best processor available for overclocking though I do not recommend overclocking for most people.

I recommend you also have 2 to 4 GB of 800MHz or faster Dual Channel RAM. Read following article
Hardcore DDR2 RAM by Corsair, G.Skill, OCZ and Patriot
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/06/15/hardcore_ddr2_ram_by_corsair/page16.html

The NVIDIA 8600GTS is 41 % faster an only $53 more than the Radeon HD 2400 XT. The difference will probably will not be very noticeable unless you play the latest games.

If you are a gamer spend the extra money and get the NVIDIA 8800 GTS or at least get the 8800 GTS.

It seems strange to buy an extreme Quad Core system and then get cheap on the video card. Video cards are easily changed later.
=========================

CPU Performance Index (minutes:seconds):
Lower time is faster
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html

Pentium 4 2400 MHz Performance Index: 5:40 (est)
Pentium 4 2800 MHz Performance Index: 4:56
Pentium 4 3600 MHz Performance Index: 3:51
Core 2 Quad Q6600 2400 MHZ Performance Index: 0:47

5:40 = 340 sec
0:47 = 47 sec
340/47= 7.23 (7.32-1)*100% = 632%
The Core 2 Quad 6600 is 623% faster than the Pentium 4, 2.40 GHz


Estimate for the Pentium 4 2400 MHz (2.4GHz) based on 2005 tests listed here:
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2005.html
===============================
Video Card Performance

My opinion for a new video card:

For playing the latest advanced games a FRAPS (frames per second) of 50 or higher (80 or higher ideal)
For moderate games a FRAPS of 30 or more.
For simple games or no games a FRAPS of 18 or more
Refer to:
http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphics.html
-------------------------------
FRAPS (frames per second); higher is better per
http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphics.html

ATI Radeon HD 2400 XT ($77) FRAPS = 38 est.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=2010380048+1069609641+1305520549+106792278+1067929490&name=Radeon+HD+2400XT
Sapphire HD2400XT and HD2600XT Graphics Cards Review
http://www.virtual-hideout.net/reviews/Sapphire_HD2400XT-HD2600XT/index4.shtml
http://download.hightech.com.hk/manual/HD2400/radeon_hd2400_users_guide_137-41371-10.pdf
A 550 Watt or better power supply.

NVIDIA 8600GTS ($130) FRAPS= 53.6
http://www.evga.com/products/moreinfo.asp?pn=256-P2-N761-AR&pwindow=specs&family=23
400 Watt Minimum; 22 Amps minimum @ 12V rail

NVIDIA 8800GTS ($250) FRAPS=102.2
http://www.evga.com/products/moreinfo.asp?pn=640-P2-N825-AR&family=23
400 Watt Minimum; 26 Amps minimum @ 12V rail .

53.6/38= 1.41; (1.41-1) x 100% = 41 % faster
The NVIDIA 8600GTS is 41 % faster than the Radeon HD 2400 XT

Prices per newegg.com
=========================
CPU gaming performance charts: Rendering time
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html

CPU Benchmarks
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/index.php
===============================
Graphics card gaming performance charts:
http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphics.html
http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=399&type=expert&pid=1
http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1595&Itemid=40&limit=1&limitstart=2

http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/08/06/the_best_gaming_video_cards_for_the_money/page7.html#summary

Integrated/Mobile Graphics - Benchmark List
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Mobile-Graphics-Cards-Benchmark-List.844.0.html

Answer 2

even though you are doing a lot of graphics, i think still go with the one with the core 2 quad. processor is still very important, and the core 2 quad is 10x better than the old pentium 4. and even if, the 8600 gt won't run well with the pentium 4.

That;s a tough question, though.

I actually recommend using both the core2quad and an 8600 in a custom build if you have time and money.

Answer 3

Ok processor and amazing video card. The video card is much more important for gaming, and the CPU you listed is plenty fast to play most of the games on the market today. Besides, a Core 2 Duo is going to be better for gaming because most games only utilize a single core during operation. So having a Quad core CPU would not help your gaming performance unless the Clock speed and cache memory are significantly higher than the Core 2 Duo.

Answer 4

ATI Video cards have better 2D performance than Nvidia (and better CAD performance too), so I would recommend the first one. Try an X1900 Pro or XT card for only $170 or less, it is better than the X2400. Or the X2600XT for only $120.



Matrox has the best 2D performance but poor 3D performance. ATI is a good balance.

This is an old debate from 2001 but is still true today.

Answer 5

I would easily recommend the 1st one. A better processor is very useful for multitasking, and the 2400 does it's job well. If you want even faster performance though, add another $30 to getting a good heatsink and overclock.

Answer 6

Hi Emmy

When you say 'graphics', thats a big category and will ultimately depend of the software you are using and what you are trying to achieve with it. however, it might be worth getting the information from the 'horses mouth'. My suggestion would be to maybe have a look at forums that are dedicated to the software you are using. people using the same software for the same applications as you would be best positioned to tell you about their own experiences of upgrading and precisely what hardware will work best.

a google search for " forum" will hook you up.

good luck with it :o)

Answer 7

I would go with the first. The pentium will be a bottle neck for CAD software and video editing and when youre running cad you dont need fast frame rates to see a 3d part.

Answer 8

Take the first. Your application demands processor power.

Core 2 technology would be better even just the dual cores:
http://www.techreport.com/articles.x/10351/13
http://www.techreport.com/articles.x/10351/14
BUT Q6600 should be great.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2quad-q6600_10.html#sect0

The slow processor in 2nd PC would just bottleneck the 8600GT.