メインコンテンツへスキップ

⚠️ Please note that this topic or post has been archived. The information contained here may no longer be accurate or up-to-date. ⚠️

Best performance: core count or processor speed?

コメント

4件のコメント

  • Paul Steunebrink
    I have not done any performance measures beyond 4 cores (note that hyper-threading doubles that amount for the software) with Capture One. However, I would be (pleasantly) surprised if any current mainstream application or Capture One supports or takes any benefit out of more than 4 or 6 processor cores.

    Why? Parallel processing we discuss here work thanks to the fact that a process can be split into multiple threads. See a thread as the sub part that is handled per core. Four cores can handle four threads (or eight if you take hyper-threading into account) simultaneously. Processes of Capture One are multi-threaded but I do not expect more than 8 or 12 threads (expect fewer), translating into 4 or 6 hyper-threading cores to buy in your next machine.

    Note that when you both process images and adjust others, you run more processes simultaneously, each with their multiple threads, utilizing more cores. In addition, you might run Capture One and another application like Photoshop simultaneously and extensively. This way you might be utilizing more than 4 or 6 cores.

    Hardware is ahead again of software for a few years. I would stop at 6 cores today when buying a computer, unless you want to invest in the long term.

    my 2 cts, which I am happy to exchange for a better one.
    0
  • PhilippePierre
    "Hardware is ahead again of software"
    (sorry out of topic comment)
    Paul_E Hardware is always ahead of soft plain comments.
    What you write within this forum Paul, for any church (PC or Mac), is always lenghty, clear-sharp and adequate.
    Sincere big thanks for your time spent at sharing and helping.
    Philippe.
    (no need to comment; Don't expose yourself to hardware sunburns)
    0
  • Paul Steunebrink
    I must prevent myself getting overexposed. 😉
    Thanks for your encouraging comments, Philippe.
    0
  • rap_digital
    Actually our 8-core Nehalem 2.9 is at least 20% faster than the 4-core 3.33. Whether the price difference is worth it is up to you. Having said that the 6-core looks the sweet spot. If only it had a couple extra pci-e lanes and usb3 😉
    0

投稿コメントは受け付けていません。