Photoshop: best hardware..

[ccchuck]

I'm getting into digital photography and am about to buy a new PC, was wondering what recommendations for hardware..
have decided on either 512 or 1 GB of memory, was wondering about video card, etc..
wouls any of Dell's machines be a good deal?

Please note - MONEY is definitely a consideration but looking for a reasonable balance..;

 

[Rottie]

I would like to hear more about that because I already have all the programs includes 3D apps and Adobe apps. But the video card is another issue..I check with website there is no video card requirement on any of 3D apps. (I have ATI Radeon 9200 128MB)

 

[DaveSimmons]

This is discussed often in General Hardware.

For PhotoShop a good but fast budget system would be either an Athlon A64 3000+ or (a little slower) a P4 3.0C. Memory is very important so you want 1 GB.

If even the A64 is too expensive, the next best price/performance choice is an Athlon XP 2500+ but it is a significant step down.

PhotoShop is 2D based video so the video card doesn't matter much.

General Hardware is filled with threads recommending the right motherboards and memory for all three of these choices.

 

[oog]

for casual photography, photoshop doesn't really require all that much. i've found it only really becomes a pig with really large pictures. i haven't had trouble with the basic editing i've been doing to my 4megapixel pictures with a relatively old Athlon XP 1700+ and 512MB of RAM.

 

[gsaldivar]

In my opinion, here are the most important factors in increasing Photoshop speed:

1) RAM
2) HD Space
3) CPU Speed

The ATI Radeon 9200 video card you have should be adequate - don't bother buying a new video card.

About 512MB-1GB of RAM is usually what I consider to be a "minimum" for PS.

If you think you'll be working extensively with large files and layers, consider 2-3 GB instead. PS has a RAM limit of 2GB - so if you purchase 2GB, your OS and background apps will use 300-600MB of that, leaving PS with around 1.5GB. If you purchase 2.5-3GB of RAM, PS will run at its full 2GB limit, leaving the remaining 512MB-1GB for OS and background apps. When considering different RAM types: SDRAM is minimum, DDR is better, Dual-Channel DDR is best.

Empty, contiguous, dedicated HD space is also essential for PS. When working with a 100mb layered file, it isn't unusual for PS to consume 500mb or more worth of "scratch disk". When planning your computer purchase, make sure you have at least ONE empty hard disk which will be dedicated for PS "scratch disk" use only.

PS has a 2GB file size limit on scratch disks. This means PS will only use the first 2GB of each scratch disk volume. To circumvent this limit, partition your empty "scratch disk" hard drive into four 2GB partitions. Set up PS preferences to use each of these four logical 2GB partitions as a different scratch disk.

If properly maxxed out, your PS rig should have 3GB of RAM (PS will run at its full 2GB RAM limit), and four 2GB scratch disk partitions.

In my opinion, CPU speed is the least-important of the 3 factors: For CPU speed - obviously faster is better. PS supposedly has some optimizations that allow it to run faster on Intel processors, but avoid buying into an older Intel-based system which uses costly RDRAM. Stick to inexpensive DDR instead. If you max out on the first 2 factors (RAM & HD Space), your CPU speed will be less important to getting maximum Photoshop speed.

If money is an issue, why bother with Dell? Just do your homework and ask around here on Anandtech for advice. It's easy and inexpensive to build your own system for a fraction of the cost of a similarly-equipped Dell machine. There are now over 100,000 members here who are happy to offer advice for free.

PM me if you have questions.

Hope this helps - Good luck!

 

[igowerf]

chuckchuckchuckchuck?

 

[RussianSoldier]

I would recommend visiting one of these sites if you'd like to save money over dell or gateway: United Micro or CyberPower Systems

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

For taking pictures and editing them in photoshop, you don't really need that great of hardware.

 

[gsaldivar]

Originally posted by: BingBongWongFooey
For taking pictures and editing them in photoshop, you don't really need that great of hardware.

True.

But the title of the thread is "best hardware"...

:beer:

 

[Rob G.]

If money is a consideration then don't use Photoshop. There are several really good photographic editing packages available for a LOT less money. Paint Shop Pro 8 is particularly good.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by: gsaldivar

Originally posted by: BingBongWongFooey
For taking pictures and editing them in photoshop, you don't really need that great of hardware.

True.

But the title of the thread is "best hardware"...

:beer:

Well if it's "best", then best for photoshop (or anything else with multimedia) 5 times out of 7 is going to be APPLE.

I've used Windows media stuff on fast machines, and used Apple media stuff on relatively slower machines (dual Xeon's multiple gigahertz (I think 1.5- 2ghz, which was fastest at the time.) vs Dual CPU g4's) and I have to say that the combination of OS features with the controlled hardware in the Apple wins hands down.

Also he mentioned "budget", so there goes the Macs.

Pretty much any computer can handle Photoshop nowadays. Big amounts of memory is a big plus. A super-fast CPU is only neccissary if you have a over-fondness for using cpu-intesive filters on gigantic pictures.

2ghz AMD cpu with a gig of RAM is the ticket for this sort of thing, but a 700 dollar computer from walmart would + some extra memory would be fine.

Money would be better spent on a high quality and very large CRT monitor and a decent enough vid card to give high refresh rates at high resolutions. Probably a ATI. (LCD's need not apply, for at least a couple years or so.)

That would make it easier to do the fine detail stuff. Also a high quality (read: expensive, but not too expensive) printer so that you don't blow the money on cheap printers that gobble expensive ink. (expensiver printers give better quality with lesser ink, cheap printers saturate the ink on the paper for the glossy "photographic" look.)

Also a decent scanner with a film negative scanner if your into the chemical end of photography.

That is if your going to be doing serious work.

If your not doing serious work, then get a decent gaming computer and use gimp and go have fun with your money.. (check out the beta versions of Gimp 2.0, they are pretty impressive if your used to seeing the current photoshop-wannabee-looking of the current versions of Gimp.)

 

[gsaldivar]

Originally posted by: drag

Originally posted by: gsaldivar

Originally posted by: BingBongWongFooey
For taking pictures and editing them in photoshop, you don't really need that great of hardware.

True.

But the title of the thread is "best hardware"...

:beer:

Well if it's "best", then best for photoshop (or anything else with multimedia) 5 times out of 7 is going to be APPLE.

That used to be true 5-10 years ago, but not today.

:beer:

 

[drag]

Originally posted by: gsaldivar

Originally posted by: drag

Originally posted by: gsaldivar

Originally posted by: BingBongWongFooey
For taking pictures and editing them in photoshop, you don't really need that great of hardware.

True.

But the title of the thread is "best hardware"...

:beer:

Well if it's "best", then best for photoshop (or anything else with multimedia) 5 times out of 7 is going to be APPLE.

That used to be true 5-10 years ago, but not today.



:beer:

There is a lot more to a computer and a operating system enviroment then the ability to run a photoshop filter 5% faster then the other competition.

Nowadays it's the computer waiting on the human a lot more then the human waiting on the computer that takes the longest. If a OS and system allows me to get stuff done 15minutes to a hour quicker because of a slicker user enviroment than that's worth a lot more then a extra 2 seconds of waiting for a blur to complete.

Anyways, I'd like to see that test again with a few different apps running in the background, and after a few months to let the MS bloat set in and with a virus scanner churning away in the background in the windows box. (maybe the same maybe different. Mac OSes can bloat up too, I am just saying I would like to see those benchmarks. )

Anyways the photoshop speed advantage stuff is BS anyways from the Mac camp. Intel had the speed avantage over the motorola G4's ever since x86 got around 1ghz in speed. It's just that Photoshop and app similar to that were originally designed for a Macintosh enviroment and probably weren't well optimized for x86 or windows. A problem rectified with the CS release, since more and more people are familar with Windows and are getting into digital photography for the first time, and don't have the experiance with the Mac to compare it against. (I am guessing)

 

[gsaldivar]

Originally posted by: drag

"...There is a lot more to a computer and a operating system enviroment then the ability to run a photoshop filter 5% faster then the other competition...more and more people are familar with Windows and are getting into digital photography for the first time, and don't have the experiance with the Mac to compare it against..."

I'm aware of that.

I used to be a certified tech rep for Apple and Adobe, so I'm completely aware of the ergonomic plusses/minuses of the operating systems, as well as the speed-enhancing tricks used on each platform to portray superiority.

I disagree with your assertion that computers "wait on humans" more often than not, simply because I have been intimately involved in prepress workflow management for a number of years and have seen first-hand exactly the opposite.

Anyone who has used Adobe Photoshop professionally, rather than as a hobby, can agree that the advent of faster processing speed has directly and positively impacted their creative and productive ability.

The "touchy-feely" OS argument is the typical Mac-user fall-back when they are faced with the hard reality that they machines that they cherish, love and idolize - are no longer the speed leader that they once were.

If you look at the benchmarks that are out there, you are no longer seeing 5% speed disadvantages on the Mac platform - you are seeing in some cases, speed hits of 20-30% or more.

While I agree that MS bloat and multitasking can cause a speed hit using a Windows box, the exact same thing is true when using a Mac box. In my experience, the majority of world-class designers out there, haven't a clue how to properly configure either the hardware or the OS for maximum performance - either they depend on specialized integration consultants (such as myself), or they simply fork over wads of cash and hope for the best.

 

[KeithP]

This tech note from Adobe may help.

-Keith