| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/23/2008 06:13:31 PM · #1 |
Hi, like De Sousa before me who posted a similar thread re: configuring a new pc, I too would love some advice from the 'all knowing' photogs on here!
I'm considering a Dell pc with:
- Intel® Coreâ„¢ 2 Quad-Core Q9400 Processor (2.66GHz, 6MB cache, 1333MHz FSB)
- 4096MB 800MHz Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM [4x1024]
- 512MB nVidia GeForce 9800GT graphics card
- 750GB (7200rpm) SATA Hard Drive
- DVD+/-RW Drive (read/write CD & DVD)
All I want it for is to edit photos (CS4), surf the web and store mp3 files (all at the same time)! I don't need it for gaming or watching dvd's.
From my limited knowledge, I think that configuration will be more than sufficient, but let me know what you think! Any thoughts would be appreciated. Oh, and I'm sick and tired of having to wait 20+ mins to load or save an edited image (I tend to work with a lot of layers!!!).
|
|
|
|
12/23/2008 06:22:24 PM · #2 |
The spec seems a little over the top, but that's no bad thing when it comes to image editing, you certainly won't spend much time waiting around.
Just a couple of things, you haven't mentioned a display. If you are editing photos then you're going to want a good quality large display. Don't skimp on the price of your display to have a higher spec CPU for example.
Also, if load times are your issue, you might also want to consider RAID disks, you can get plenty of systems now that support a basic RAID 1/0 set-up which will give you far better disk performance. Just make sure that if you go with RAID0 that you backup your data regularly, 2 disks means twice the chance of losing it! RAID1 is great, you get that big performance increase with the added security of a redundant disk, though at the cost of losing 50% of your purchased storage capacity.
Apart from those, it sounds like a perfect set-up for what you are doing with it, and if you do fancy the odd game or 2 it will be more than capable.
Enjoy!
*EDIT
Just thought of one more thing, Photoshop, particularly under Windows will show a large performance increase if you have a second disk to use as a "scratch disk". This is particularly applicable if you are working with large size files (those at high resolutions with many layers). Even if you don't want to use RAID it could be worthwhile having a second HD added to the system for that purpose, which can also be used to backup the important stuff (photos / music). You can set the option for the scratch disk in Photoshops prefs under the performance section.
Message edited by author 2008-12-23 18:27:44. |
|
|
|
12/23/2008 06:45:29 PM · #3 |
Looks like a good configurations with one exception. I would take that 750GB HD and divide into 2x 250 GB internal drives and 1x 250GB External HD.
My External HD has saved me a couple of times. Having two smaller internal drives will be more efficient saving time because the computer does not have seek a large hard drive.
|
|
|
|
12/23/2008 06:47:28 PM · #4 |
Thanks Iain. I recently purchased a good quality NEC multisync 21 inch monitor which I'm more than happy with, so that's covered.
I really am fed up of my current inadequate pc, it's definatelly ready for the scrapheap!!!
|
|
|
|
12/23/2008 06:53:21 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by SDW:
Looks like a good configurations with one exception. I would take that 750GB HD and divide into 2x 250 GB internal drives and 1x 250GB External HD.
My External HD has saved me a couple of times. Having two smaller internal drives will be more efficient saving time because the computer does not have seek a large hard drive. |
Scott, you're complicating things for me now! lol. What you've just said, makes sense I suppose! I really do have a brain the size of a pea when it comes to pc's - they bore the hell out of me, but I definatelly want to get one that is going to be top notch, so I'll have to look into that! When you say its safed you a couple of times, what do you mean? |
|
|
|
12/23/2008 07:08:45 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by Covert_Oddity:
*EDIT
Just thought of one more thing, Photoshop, particularly under Windows will show a large performance increase if you have a second disk to use as a "scratch disk". This is particularly applicable if you are working with large size files (those at high resolutions with many layers). Even if you don't want to use RAID it could be worthwhile having a second HD added to the system for that purpose, which can also be used to backup the important stuff (photos / music). You can set the option for the scratch disk in Photoshops prefs under the performance section. |
Thanks again Iain, this is all stuff I havent got a clue about, but if I know me, I'll be reading all about it and will soon become an expert (i'm hoping!!!).
Message edited by author 2008-12-23 19:10:00. |
|
|
|
12/23/2008 07:23:51 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by Caravela:
When you say its safed you a couple of times, what do you mean? |
I think what is meant is that by partitioning it into several smaller drives, seek times are reduced.
I am currently building my own new system as well, here's what I already have:
-Diamond Radeon 4650, (1Gb vram) video card (Probably overkill for a non-gamer like me, but Vista should run snappily)
-Thermaltake V1 CPU cooler (I think I could use this as a radiator for my car.)
-Maxtor 1 Terabyte SATA hard drive
-4 GB Corsair DDR2 800Mhz ram
-Antec Sonata III case w/500w power supply
-LG dual layer SATA DVD burner with lightscribe
I think I am going to go with an AMD Athlon X2 6000 (3.0 Ghz dual core) for my processor. What I have leaned about the extra cores is that most software, including photo editors, are not multi core aware. Generally, the multi core aware apps are video editing, 3d modeling and some games. Photo editing cannot take advantage of the extra cores, so the only benefit would be improved multitasking. I decided the most bang for my buck would be spent on a faster dual core CPU, rather than a slightly slower quad. Even though Intel has bragging rights on the top end chips right now, I don't think it makes much difference in the mid range, and I tend to prefer AMD.
Motherboard is likely to be an Asus model.
Will probably go with Vista home premium. I don't think there is anything in the pro version that I really need. I'm not going to stay with XP at this point. As solid as XP is, I will not learn all the under the hood nuts and bolts of Vista until it is running on my own computer.
I think your own choice of parts is just fine, and not too different from what I am putting together.
Edited to add: Just read your post again and realized you are buying, not building. Still, I hope my input is of benefit.
Message edited by author 2008-12-23 19:27:48. |
|
|
|
12/23/2008 07:33:40 PM · #8 |
Yeah you'd be better off getting an E8400 over the quad core. It's more efficient with current apps and it costs less.
EDIT: The 4650 isn't THAT great of a graphics card. They just put lots of video memory in it to confuse people who don't know what they're looking for. But if you're not gaming it should suit you fine, I guess.
Message edited by author 2008-12-23 19:35:13. |
|
|
|
12/23/2008 07:44:36 PM · #9 |
Thanks Steve and Max, I can see I'm going to have to spend a little bit more time researching this! I was hoping I could just buy the bloody thing, but I can see now it's not as simple as that!!!
Thanks for all your help and advice. |
|
|
|
12/23/2008 07:53:07 PM · #10 |
| Sometimes in the computer world, the most expensive thing isn't actually the best :P |
|
|
|
12/23/2008 10:52:13 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by Anti-Martyr:
EDIT: The 4650 isn't THAT great of a graphics card. They just put lots of video memory in it to confuse people who don't know what they're looking for. But if you're not gaming it should suit you fine, I guess. |
Well, for $79 after rebate, I don't expect a high end card. I just want enough that Vista's interface is snappy. It was a good buy for me, and still a significant upgrade. I'm currently running a 128Mb AGP card on one monitor and the spare screen is being driven by an ancient 4Mb Matrox Millenium.
Message edited by author 2008-12-23 22:54:35. |
|
|
|
12/23/2008 10:59:02 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by yospiff:
Originally posted by Anti-Martyr:
EDIT: The 4650 isn't THAT great of a graphics card. They just put lots of video memory in it to confuse people who don't know what they're looking for. But if you're not gaming it should suit you fine, I guess. |
Well, for $79 after rebate, I don't expect a high end card. I just want enough that Vista's interface is snappy. It was a good buy for me, and still a significant upgrade. I'm currently running a 128Mb AGP card on one monitor and the spare screen is being driven by an ancient 4Mb Matrox Millenium. |
Good god, I don't think I've heard the term "Matrox Millennium" since...well... last Millennium!
*EDIT
Reminds me of a motherboard I once bought, a "TX Pro" I think it was called. It had a picture of jet fighters on the front, I should have known there and then that it wasn't going to go well!
Message edited by author 2008-12-23 23:00:25. |
|
|
|
12/23/2008 11:05:57 PM · #13 |
That motherboard brand sounds familiar. I recall ads for it. I wish I still had the motherboard from the first computer I put together myself. A 386/40, with a whopping 4Mb of ram. Windows 3.1 ran nicely on it. It was an upgrade from a 12Mhz '286.
Message edited by author 2008-12-23 23:08:05. |
|
|
|
12/23/2008 11:42:09 PM · #14 |
Vista 32 or 64? I'd go 64 if at all possible, and more RAM if you're going 64 bit. 6Gb would be good. It's cheap now to get some more of it. And go faster than 800 if you can - 1366 bus should take faster ram.
As to HDs you'll not find 250s unless you want Raptor 10,000 rpm drives. I opted for a 500Gb C drive and 2 750s raided as mirrors for data. Got the 750s on sale on line so they're were pretty cheap. Get 32mb cache SATA 3.0 drives. I hear a raptor C drive is killer for speeding things up, if you got the money for it.
How much extra is the 2.66 over a 2.33? The speed improvement is 10% so the price premium should be no more, IMO.
My Vista 64 box is quadcore 2.33, 4Gb ram (not sure the speed of that box), nvida 8600GTS 256 and it rates a 5.6 overall on vista with ram, proc, and drives at 5.9 (highest vista will rate things).
My older box is XP32, intel dual core 2.44, 4Gb ram (again, i forget the speed - 1000 I think) and 250g C and 500Gb data (it won't do raid). It's got a nvidia 8500GT 512mb and I don't see much difference in speed in most things. The new box is much faster on web downloads for some reason.
|
|
|
|
12/23/2008 11:51:43 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by Caravela:
Originally posted by SDW:
Looks like a good configurations with one exception. I would take that 750GB HD and divide into 2x 250 GB internal drives and 1x 250GB External HD.
My External HD has saved me a couple of times. Having two smaller internal drives will be more efficient saving time because the computer does not have seek a large hard drive. |
Scott, you're complicating things for me now! lol. What you've just said, makes sense I suppose! I really do have a brain the size of a pea when it comes to pc's - they bore the hell out of me, but I definatelly want to get one that is going to be top notch, so I'll have to look into that! When you say its safed you a couple of times, what do you mean? |
I store my pictures, music, and data that would be hard to replace on my external hard drive. That way if my internal hard drive or computer fails I have it my most precious and sensitive data in a safe area. It also keeps viruses, Trojans, mailware, and adware away from those files.
As for having two hard drives instead of one, it just makes your computer fast when finding what you are calling from the hard drive. It easier to search 2 x 250GB HD's than 1 x 500GB HD.
Hope that helps
Scott
|
|
|
|
12/24/2008 10:19:50 AM · #16 |
Originally posted by SDW:
I store my pictures, music, and data that would be hard to replace on my external hard drive. That way if my internal hard drive or computer fails I have it my most precious and sensitive data in a safe area. It also keeps viruses, Trojans, mailware, and adware away from those files.
As for having two hard drives instead of one, it just makes your computer fast when finding what you are calling from the hard drive. It easier to search 2 x 250GB HD's than 1 x 500GB HD.
Hope that helps
Scott |
How does keeping them separatre protect them? The external drive is in the same room (fire, floor, pestilance), plugged into the same electrical source (surges, lightning) and unless you shut it off if a virus or malware gets on the computer the other drives are not that much safer. Depends on how often you copy to it, how long the virus may lie dormant, etc. (you may copy it to the external drive and not know it).
As to benefits of two over one HD I don't know. Probably is beneficial, but computer makers are going for bigger HDs over more of them on a mobo. I also find it easier to find stuff on one HD than two or three - fewer places to go look for it.
|
|
|
|
12/24/2008 11:12:11 AM · #17 |
Keep in mind that more drives = more failures... Just the maths of the thing. Now WHEN a drive fails, the consequences can be worse for larger drives but that is a back issue - right. The difference in seek time is minimised with large cache e.t.c. on some of the larger drives and there are different tech, so it's impossible to make blanket statements like that.
More drives are not necessarily faster - depends on configuration of drives and other parts of the computer and if you are running RAID and what type.
I agree right now on the faster dual rather then a quad if it's just PS & general stuff BUT that is always advancing, so don't be surprised if things like PS start using all the processors.
I would not do a cheap graphics card.... There is more likely to be more work pushed to the graphics in image editing future IMO, so I would go mid range. Crystal ball gazing though.
Message edited by author 2008-12-24 11:13:24.
|
|
|
|
12/24/2008 11:45:58 AM · #18 |
Originally posted by robs:
I would not do a cheap graphics card.... There is more likely to be more work pushed to the graphics in image editing future IMO, so I would go mid range. Crystal ball gazing though. |
Depends on ones definition of cheap, I suppose. Cheap to me is the integrated graphics on the motherboard that uses shared memory, or a real budget card like the AGP card I have in my present system. I think it was $5 after a rebate several years ago. The 4Mb matrox actually did just fine until I added a DVD drive to my system and found my cideo way underpowered. Also keepo in mind that today's top end is going to be the mid range or bargain unit in a couple of years.
Oh, that's something else for the OP to know. Is the video integrated on your motherboard, or an add in card? One thing that helps keep costs down is the use of integrated graphics processors. Nothing wrong with that, but a separate video board is preferable if it is an affordable option. For someone who is a gamer, you really should have separate graphics. |
|
|
|
12/24/2008 01:03:10 PM · #19 |
| i am assuming you will be running vista? xp can not address 4 gigs of ram, to the best of my knowledge 3 is the limit |
|
|
|
12/24/2008 01:36:53 PM · #20 |
Graphics cards befuddles me.
My editing box came with a card that wasn't terrible (not on the mobo at least) but wouldn't run dual monitors, so i had to upgrade it.
The choices are astounding!
Easy choices are the amount of RAM, but there are different types and speeds.
Different cooling options.
SLI capable (for gaming so it's not an issue for editing)
Processer speed and I guess different types too.
So I had a choice of a slower processor and more RAM or faster processor and less RAM...both teh same price. How on earth does one even begin to figure this out?
then cards come in variations - //www.nvidia.com/object/geforce_family.html
They list 11 nine series cards - and 9600 GSO, GSO512, GT, GTX, GTX+, GX2...not to mention 7 eight series cards - and I've seen others for sale that are not listed here as 'current'.
And then they sublet their chipsets to other manufacturers - who's good and why? There are easily 100 cards to choose from! And the best deal may be last month's hot card for the price of this month's mid range card, but which is better FOR YOU?
Time for a beer, I mean, in the holiday spirit, eggnog!
|
|
|
|
12/24/2008 01:39:19 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by smardaz:
i am assuming you will be running vista? xp can not address 4 gigs of ram, to the best of my knowledge 3 is the limit |
vista can't either - well, vista 32 can't. You need Vista 64 or XP 64, but Vista will be cheaper and easier to find. The 64 bit version of vista is free off MS's website, but you need teh registration key from the 32 bit you bought.
My latest PC is vista32 as teh one app I need to run on it is a specialized app that the company says will only run, is only supported, on 32 bit OS and they have no plans to migrate to 64 bit at this time. Ouch.
|
|
|
|
12/24/2008 02:02:03 PM · #22 |
I've pretty much got the same Dell computer except I got the duo core 3.0 GhZ and the ATI video card. I'm running Photoshop CS3 and it does very well. I've got all of my photos on a 160 GB external drive - haven't really cracked the 750 GB drive yet. I'm also a fan of external hard drives - its nice to be able to bring all of my photos with me whenever I want.
What kind of drive are you getting? I got the blu ray burner with the hopes of making redundant hard copies of my photos but so far have had a hard time finding 50 GB blu ray media (the price is very high as well - another external hard drive is probably more economical on a per GB basis)
|
|
|
|
12/24/2008 02:16:43 PM · #23 |
| Wow, just thought I'd come back to this thread I created last night to see whether there was any further comments, and its took on a life of its own!!! lol. Many thanks for all your advice, I'm going to have to research a little bit more before making my purchase. |
|
|
|
12/24/2008 02:26:14 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by Caravela:
Many thanks for all your advice, I'm going to have to research a little bit more before making my purchase. |
Glad we could help confuse you with something that you were previously clear on. |
|
|
|
12/24/2008 03:53:20 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by yospiff:
Originally posted by Caravela:
Many thanks for all your advice, I'm going to have to research a little bit more before making my purchase. |
Glad we could help confuse you with something that you were previously clear on. |
...and for that as well!!! lol |
|
