My thing is creating gigapixel images using a program called Autopano Giga (or APG). I use Photoshop to edit the images produced. N.B the image files can be over 100GB and I do mean giga.
Kolor - who make APG - are strangely reluctant to give any advice on what sort of architecture is best for running their program. All they will say is "it uses a lot of multithreading" and I happen to know that in one phase of the process APG uses GPUs where available. So the more cores the better and a higher-end graphics card seems in order. With regard to memory, even if I could afford 256GB it isn't clear that would be enough so M.2 strikes me as a possible alternative. (APG is like PS in that you can configure scratch disks.) My budget is max £2500 for CPU, mobo, RAM, M.2 (if used) and graphics card. £1500 would be a lot better though.
I am tying myself in knots thinking about the choices. What I would like is a small set of specs with difference in price and performance clearly set out. That may be too much to ask for but maybe someone will be kind enough to point out any inconsistencies in what I think I know - maybe that will make the choices clearer.
So: a 6800 with 32GB (64 if I can afford it) and the biggest M.2 I can afford, overclocked if I can afford that and it is a sensible thing to do?
Any thoughts very gratefully appreciated,
Kolor - who make APG - are strangely reluctant to give any advice on what sort of architecture is best for running their program. All they will say is "it uses a lot of multithreading" and I happen to know that in one phase of the process APG uses GPUs where available. So the more cores the better and a higher-end graphics card seems in order. With regard to memory, even if I could afford 256GB it isn't clear that would be enough so M.2 strikes me as a possible alternative. (APG is like PS in that you can configure scratch disks.) My budget is max £2500 for CPU, mobo, RAM, M.2 (if used) and graphics card. £1500 would be a lot better though.
I am tying myself in knots thinking about the choices. What I would like is a small set of specs with difference in price and performance clearly set out. That may be too much to ask for but maybe someone will be kind enough to point out any inconsistencies in what I think I know - maybe that will make the choices clearer.
- The Ryzen has 8 cores - excellent. I would have to get an 1800 if I want more than 32GB RAM, but even then it seems that it is not straightforward to configure a system with more than 32GB. (Neither ***Removed Competitor*** nor OcUK offer this as a standard option.)
- An i7 6800 has only six cores and is ?£400 more expensive. It is however a known quantity which means there are no problems with (a) stuffing RAM into it and (b) overclocking - should I wish to go that way.
- I'm keen to buy soon so a Ryzen 1800 with 64GB RAM doesn't seem like an option. That would mean getting a 6800 or I could stick with 32GB and add an M.2 card. That way I wouldn't even need a Ryzen 1800 because the 1700 supports 32GB.
- With respect to overclocking, the Ryzen is designed with overclocking in mind but my feeling is that it is too new for people to have much experience with that (perhaps I am wrong though) and that makes me think 6800 is the way to go.
So: a 6800 with 32GB (64 if I can afford it) and the biggest M.2 I can afford, overclocked if I can afford that and it is a sensible thing to do?
Any thoughts very gratefully appreciated,
Last edited by a moderator:
