one more "which computer should I buy" thread...

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

09/04/2011 09:40:46 AM · #1

Hi all!

I know this comes around frequently, but when I did some searches, the threads I found were a couple of years old, so a couple of years out of date.

I'm looking for a desktop, not laptop. And I'd like to get the best I can buy -- except I only have about $800-1000 to spend.

I use CS4, and the computer I'm on now is very limited.

Recommendations? What type of processor should I get? Is the Ghz more important than the core type? (for instance, I can afford a quad core processor at 3.4 Ghz, but if I want one of the 6 core processors, I can only afford a 2.8 Ghz processor.)

What's the minimum of RAM I should have?

Is USB 3.0 necessary/desired?

I usually keep my computers for 6-7 years. So I'd like to get as much as I can, since I'm stuck with it for awhile.

Are there brands that I should definitely stay away from? Does the brand really not make a difference anymore?

Any and all advice greatly appreciated!!

thanks heaps and loads. :)

grahamgator

Nikon Z7II

09/04/2011 11:49:06 AM · #2

Looking forward to this thread, as I am in the same boat. Don't need a monitor, but need the computer. If you use separate hard drives for storage, does that make a difference in what you buy? Sorry for jumping into your thread Wendy.

slickchik

OM System OM-1

Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 Pro

09/04/2011 12:01:17 PM · #3

Well, my 2 cents, I used to use a pc. I went to the dark side and bought a top of the line iMac. I LOVE IT and wonder why I waited so long to convert. It is a DREAM! I cannot say enough good things about my iMac. Really and truly, every dime spent was WELL worth it.

I know this wasn't what you were looking for but I had to share my complete satisfaction with my computer. And Aperture 3 makes photo editing easy. I only occasionally use CS5.

adigitalromance

Nikon D750

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

09/04/2011 12:03:16 PM · #4

My advice is limited and biased so I will make sure to give it. :-D

I would get a nice brand. As far as my understanding goes, they have an array of tests they give componenets. Each component would have lets say 10-50 tests to pass and is allowed to fail x% of those. Retail parts are allowed to fail less, while OEM parts are allowed to fail more. So OEM parts end up being cheaper and more likely to fail in the long run. In other words, I would not buy the "cheapest" brand. I would buy reputable. (I learned this while working for an OEM about 10 years ago, so that information may be outdated or completely inaccurate, but don't skimp on quality.)

RAM is probably most important as far as longevity goes. The programs get bulkier and you will likely need more RAM before you'll really need more CPU (especially these days and with either of the CPUs you mentioned.) I would get at least 12 gigs, but if you max out at 16, go ahead and get 16.

I am not sure about multiple cores. I think it would depend on whether the programs you are running can send instructions to each processor, but I'm not sure if the operating system can divide the tasks out? Apparently programs and tasks that aren't optimized for it can bottleneck when the task is split to multiple cores. I'm curious as to what other will say about that.

I would get USB 3.0.

Also, probably the most important advice I can give you: Google search is your friend. If you build your own, Google the "motherboard model number reviews," etc. If you buy a Dell or Toshiba, etc, Google the model number. Check out what the users are saying.

Edit to add: For storage, as others may elaborate on, use your primary hard drive for operating system and O/S, and use secondary hard drive for documents, pictures, music, etc. This makes reinstalling (a corrupted) O/S much much easier.

Message edited by author 2011-09-04 12:05:47.

Covert_Oddity

Nikon D700

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

09/04/2011 12:08:11 PM · #5

Also use a Mac here, but I'm assuming you're looking for a PC, so:

For photo editing, especially large RAW files going into Photoshop where you're going to end up with multiple layers, RAM is king. Get 8G and make sure you are running a 64bit OS, preferably along with 64bit versions of the apps.

Without knowing which processors you're specifically referring to, I would say if all else was equal, the 6-core 2.8 would give you better results for editing, especially in situation where you're using more than one program at a time, e.g. I find when I'm editing, I have Aperture, CS4, iTunes all open and usually also Mail and Chrome still open in the background. The more cores you have, the more you can easily support this sort of work.

USB 3 will be very good for external hard disks, particularly RAID type enclosures with 3 or more drives. It will makes backups and general external storage much more useful / bearable and will perform much like the internal storage in terms of speed.

If it doesn't break the budjet, SSD disks for the OS make a massive difference, but they're VERY expensive.

Nordlys

Canon EOS R10

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

09/04/2011 12:44:50 PM · #6

This article on optimizing performance for Photoshop includes a section on hardware setup.

Tommy_Mac

Nikon D800

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.4D IF

09/04/2011 01:12:01 PM · #7

Wendy,

I just got the Dell inspiron 15r and love it!! Works very well with CS5. for 700 bucks it really can't be beat.

Processor
â�¢2nd Generation IntelÂ® Coreâ�¢ i5-2410M processor 2.30 GHz with Turbo Boost 2.0 up to 2.90 GHz
Display
â�¢15.6" High Definition (720p) LED Display with TrueLifeâ�¢
Memory
â�¢8GB Dual Channel DDR3 SDRAM at 1333MHz
Hard Drive
â�¢750GB SATA hard drive (5400RPM)
Video Card
â�¢Intel HD Graphics/HD Graphics 3000 with up to 1.6GB Dynamic Video Memory

Dell

ETA the goodies...

Message edited by author 2011-09-04 13:25:05.

Yo_Spiff

Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mark III

Olympus 12-100mm f/4.0 M.Zuiko ED IS PRO

09/04/2011 02:43:46 PM · #8

I built my last computer about 2 years ago for $650. (Actually, I built Ellen's more recently and got more oomph for slightly less.) I think for your $800-1000 you can do well, even with a prebuilt machine. I'd say get at least a quad core, 3Ghz or faster. 8Gb of ram, even more is fine if there is a good deal to be had (ram is at an all time low right now). I tend to like AMD processors. They tend to offer more bang for the buck than Intel and I like supporting the underdog. (Some people will advise you to only buy Intel, however.) My next system will probably have AMD's 6 core processor.

Get two hard drives. One smaller one for the OS and applications, the second for data. What this does is that if you have a hard drive failure you halve the damage and have options. If the boot drive goes out, your data is still ok, and if the data drive goes out, you can still operate the computer to try and restore or recover the files. (Of course, regular backups is the best option!)

The video card does not make as big a difference, unless you are using the computer for gaming or video editing. Pushing relatively static pixels around the screen does not take much horsepower. I think later version of the CS suite can take some additional advantage of the GPU (Graphics Processing Unit) to render things, but put the money first into other areas that will have more direct benefit.

All other things being equal, I would go for USB 3.0. It's backward compatible with USB2. Don't make it a priority feature, however, just a "nice to have". USB 3 peripherals and motherboard support are just starting to hit the market and it will be at least a few years until it is the overwhelming standard and you'll have to have it. Many devices don't even use the bandwidth that USB 2 provides. Card readers and external drives will be the areas where the most benefit should be seen.

Message edited by author 2011-09-04 14:48:37.

nova

Canon EOS-6D

Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L USM

09/04/2011 02:58:20 PM · #9

I recently bought a PC for Photoshop use, and as someone who isn't all that knowledgeable about computers I found a website that was very helpful. www.pugetsystems.com That company is a high-end builder of PCs, and I know that isn't what you are looking for so I'm not suggesting that you use them in that regard. However, you can click "Custom Computer - Build Your Own" on the left of the page, and they have info links on about every component you can think of. Using their website helped me a lot with my self-education prior to configuring and ordering a system.

For what it's worth, I decided to max out the RAM in my system and step the processer down a notch, so that meant an Intel I-5 and 16 gigabytes. I also learned that it was important to have two separate hard drives, one for the boot drive including the Adobe Photoshop program, and a separate drive for the scratch drive. Originally I had figured that just having a single very large drive would suffice, then I learned that for whatever reason, it's better to have distinct drives.

As I said, Puget is on the expensive side, but what I like about them is that your machine arrives with no bloatware, they are very service and customer oriented, and I think their product is outstanding. They get a very high rating at www.resellerratings.com . Good luck Wendy with your purchase.

Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD Canon Mount

09/06/2011 06:15:11 PM · #10

Thanks for the info, all!

Last question -- where should I be buying? Are there any good, reputable websites that are cheaper than others?

Mike

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

09/06/2011 07:30:25 PM · #11

here you go.

//configure.us.dell.com/dellstore/config.aspx?oc=dxcwmn1&c=us&l=en&s=dhs&cs=19&model_id=xps-8300

Message edited by author 2011-09-06 19:30:45.

09/06/2011 07:52:21 PM · #12

Originally posted by mike_311:

here you go.

//configure.us.dell.com/dellstore/config.aspx?oc=dxcwmn1&c=us&l=en&s=dhs&cs=19&model_id=xps-8300

yup. Was looking at that. A week ago, best buy was $150 cheaper than dell, but just because of a sale. I didn't know if there were other places I should be checking, as well.

Tamron AF 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di II for Canon

09/06/2011 07:54:22 PM · #13

Ok -- processor question.

In looking at benchmarks, the i7 -2600 scores better than the AMD Phenomâ�¢ II X6 1055T. But the AMD is 6 core, and the i7 2600 is a quad core. Does the 6 core give me more in the long run, even though the bench marks look more positive towards the i7 quad core?

jamesgoss

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

09/06/2011 08:01:54 PM · #14

//www.newegg.com

They're pretty reputable in the computer industry. If you find something you like elsewhere, these guys usually have it for a bit less.

------
here's one I found, other people might find something for a bit cheaper, but this was a quick browse.

//www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16883155177

DELL XPS 8300
3.40GHz Quad core processor, 6gb ram (easily upgradeable if you need more), 1gb vid card, 1 tb hard drive. Windows 7 64bit OS. ~$849 + free shipping. It has a built in media card-reader, I can see CF, but can't tell if it has the smaller ones too.

Message edited by author 2011-09-06 20:09:54.

jamesgoss

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

Tamron AF 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di II for Canon

09/06/2011 08:09:03 PM · #15

Originally posted by vawendy:

It all depends on how your software utilizes the cores. Not all software utilizes all of the cores. Also, from what I understand, the more cores you have, the smaller each core's processing power is.

(someone correct me if I'm wrong on that last part)