| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/30/2013 09:28:05 AM · #1 |
I have realised my desktop PC is rather long in the tooth now and it feels like it is constantly struggling to keep up with me. It has done rather well as I have had it about 6 years I am sure.
Anyway I am a bit out of touch with hardware these days and wasn't looking to spend a huge amount but don't want to get something too low spec.
I have seen this specification and wondered if any of you with knowledge of PC's could let me know how this system sounds. I will need it for Photoshop and App Development using various tools such as Adobe Flash. Also the occasional bit of Video Editing but not enough to justify needing anything dedicated to video.
4th Generation Intel® Coreâ„¢ i7-4770 Processor (8M Cache, up to 3.9 GHz)
Operating System Windows 8 64bit, English
Memory1 12GB2 Dual Channel DDR3 SDRAM at 1600MHz
Hard Drive 2TB 7200 RPM SATA Hard Drive 6.0 Gb/s
Video Card NVIDIA® GeForce® GTX 645 1.0GB GDDR5
My current PC is a Dell Dimension 9200 with 320GB HD and 4GB RAM and an onboard graphics card.
Thanks for any advice.
|
|
|
|
09/30/2013 09:40:01 AM · #2 |
| I would get a SSD for the OS and programs use the standard HD for file storage. You will notice a distinct speed bump, especially at startup, over a conventional hard drive |
|
|
|
09/30/2013 09:41:32 AM · #3 |
I'll leave this template here so the next poster can copy/paste it.
"I think you should get a Mac because _________" |
|
|
|
09/30/2013 10:33:44 AM · #4 |
Originally posted by JH:
I'll leave this template here so the next poster can copy/paste it.
"I think you should get a Mac because _________" |
Sorry I should have said I do not want a Mac. They are over priced and I do not get on well with the OS. I have been using Macs for over 15 years and have a Macbook but I have never grown fond of using a Mac. I do however love my iPad and did love my iPhone before I sold it to pay for my camera to be fixed (which actually ended up not being fixed but instead replaced with another from Ebay). Anyway just saying I am not an Apple hater:)
Message edited by author 2013-09-30 10:36:13. |
|
|
|
09/30/2013 10:34:28 AM · #5 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
I would get a SSD for the OS and programs use the standard HD for file storage. You will notice a distinct speed bump, especially at startup, over a conventional hard drive |
Thanks Spork. That sounds a great plan. I will look into whether that sort of customisation is possible. |
|
|
|
09/30/2013 10:50:53 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by P-A-U-L:
Originally posted by Spork99:
I would get a SSD for the OS and programs use the standard HD for file storage. You will notice a distinct speed bump, especially at startup, over a conventional hard drive |
Thanks Spork. That sounds a great plan. I will look into whether that sort of customisation is possible. |
It's the kind of setup I use at work. I do a lot of engineering work with Inventor and Ansys and having the SSD (along with a good amount of RAM) makes those resource hogs run a LOT faster. |
|
|
|
09/30/2013 10:54:46 AM · #7 |
I second the recommendation to get a SSD for OS and apps, and using the rotating drive for data. As far as the overall hardware spec:
- the 4th generation i7 is a great choice, and the 4770 in particular is a very capable processor. One side benefit of the newer Intel chips is the fairly capable on-board graphics. Even if you don't drive a monitor with it, it can still be leveraged by Ps to speed up processing.
- 12GB of RAM is probably sufficient. I'm running 8GB and not having issues; you may only need more if you deal with extremely large files.
- The graphics card that is spec'd is pretty powerful, but keep in mind it is oriented to gaming, not professional graphics. There are trade-offs.
|
|
|
|
09/30/2013 10:59:55 AM · #8 |
Thanks kirbic - that is really helpful advice.
I probably wouldn't shave much off the price reducing to 8GB RAM so may as well stick with the 12GB option.
I did wonder if the graphics card was more of a games related one. I may have to look into whether there is an option more geared towards using graphics applications or perhaps the standard on board one would suffice. I know that would shave a bit off the overall price.
The advice was really appreciated! |
|
|
|
10/01/2013 12:02:58 AM · #9 |
Bump!
I work on my 6 years old Lenovo and it's excruciating so I am in the same boat...
|
|
|
|
10/01/2013 12:37:32 AM · #10 |
If doing any "critical" work that is prone to rendering errors (e.g. rendering a complex scene), or professional 3D, you should get a workstation graphics card (I'd say get a FirePro, since those are a much better value than Nvidia Quadro).
A workstation card should also offer better performance than a similar (similar architecture, probably not similar price) gaming card in a professional environment. The reason is that these cards use special drivers developed in conjunction with program developers, squeezing out every ounce of performance for the task at hand. Check out review sites that run benchmarks for different tasks (e.g. ones that test a bunch of different Photoshop filters on each card).
I'm almost finished purchasing parts for my PC, which I want to use for 2D/3D CAD, but which I also plan to use for basic photo editing and quite a bit of gaming. So I'm split on whether I want a gaming graphics card or a workstation one. Since I don't really have "critical" work stuff to do*, I think it'll be the gaming card (which offers double the gaming performance of the equally-priced workstation one).
*My biggest problem at the moment (with a gaming card) is surfaces showing up "through" each other in SolidWorks when using a gaming card. If that happens while rendering a photorealistic scene for a customer, I'm SOL since it'll happen every time and I'll never be able to get a scene rendered properly. There's also a huge performance hit when I'm viewing a model in the "shaded with edges" mode, since it requires polygon rendering, shading, and accurate drawing of edges (the hardest thing for a gaming card to do) at the same time.
Regarding your setup: I like the high RAM, but I don't like that you've gone for the highest-performance processor. That's usually a worse value-for-money than the next 1-2 processors down, and you may not see a big performance improvement at all in your task. Again, look up benchmarks. Also, I like Windows 7 Pro (or Ultimate) much better than Windows 8 - personal preference I guess. You know my thoughts on the graphics card already, but if you're getting the computer from a company (rather than building it), get it without the card and then get the card elsewhere. You'll have more options and will probably get a better price.
Question: Is it 12GB RAM or 24? If it's 12, you should consider moving up to 16. Whichever one it is, you should consider the potential performance benefits of quad-channel memory (currently not available for Intel Haswell).
Question #2: Have you considered an SSD? Have you considered RAID?
Question #3: What motherboard do you have picked out? Or is the computer from a manufacturer that doesn't disclose that info?
Message edited by author 2013-10-01 02:52:34. |
|
|
|
10/01/2013 06:10:44 AM · #11 |
Thanks George for the advice.
I will look into what options are available for the graphics card. It may be a case of going with the default on board card and upgrading.
I am not going to build my own PC - that sounds like far too hard work. I am currently looking mainly at Dell just because the prices seem reasonable and I have had quite a few Dells in the past and have been happy with the machines.
My current Dell Desktop has RAID
Also my current desktop has the following processor: Intel(R) Core(TM)2 CPU 6600 @ 2.40GHz 2.39 GHz
I guess I should really ask if my current PC needs replacing or if reformatting and chucking a load more RAM would make much difference. I suspect as it is so old I would really notice the difference using a new PC.
Good call about my choice of the highest processor - I guess I was going along the theory of getting the fastest machine I could afford so it would last longer but I can save quite a bit going for the i3 or the i5 so that is definitely tempting.
With regards the OS, I too prefer Windows 7 - I have Windows 8 on my laptop and don't get on well with it. Windows 8 seems to be as rubbish as Vista was.
Message edited by author 2013-10-01 06:12:54. |
|
|
|
10/01/2013 06:37:31 AM · #12 |
having worked with many i3, i5 and i7 processors, i can say the i5 is a good long term solution if its a good savings over the i7. also, i have to reiterate what spork said about using a ssd for your OS, you'll notice a huge difference in boot time. i put two i7 dells to configure next to eachother, one with 16gb of ram and one with 8, the 8gb had the ssd, and considering a few reboots during configuring, the 8gb ssd finished at least 15 minutes sooner.
i'd stick with windows 7 until at least the first win8 service pack is released. |
|
|
|
10/01/2013 06:43:43 AM · #13 |
Thanks FourPointX - looks like the i5 will be a good one to go for. I will see if Dell offer the ability to configure the hard drives to have SSD for the OS. I hope so as it sounds like a real time saver.
I totally agree about Windows 7 and will have to see if there is an option for this too with the Dell machines.
If anyone has any other recommendations to an alternative to Dell please shout. I have not really researched any alternative apart from looking at the large retail outlets. |
|
|
|
10/01/2013 11:46:23 AM · #14 |
Perhaps it'd be wise to wait for the next group of i7 processors to come out? All they have is the 4770 and 4771 right now. I'd say wait for the next few, so you can get something close to the price of the i5-4670 but in the i7 line.
That is, if any of the programs (or filters) that you use can take advantage of the extra 4 threads. Both the i5 and the i7 are quad-core, but the i7's cores can do two things at once.
Here's a good benchmark of the current top models in the i5 and i7 line; compare the light blue bars (4670 vs 4770):
//www.anandtech.com/show/7003/the-haswell-review-intel-core-i74770k-i54560k-tested/6 |
|
|
|
10/01/2013 12:35:48 PM · #15 |
If you plan on doing relatively complex editing (100+ layers in PS) at high resolution (50MP+), your main priority is without a doubt RAM. If the OS starts to swap memory a lot, no SSD nor multi-core CPUs will save you. PS commonly uses 40Gb+ of RAM when I work on a typical project, so I thrown 64Gb of RAM in my PC and never felt happier with it. By far the greater speed improvement for the money that I ever witnessed.
Of course it may be totally irrelevant in your case, depending on your editing needs and habits, so just disregard that if it doesn't apply.
Message edited by author 2013-10-01 12:36:19. |
|
|
|
10/01/2013 02:47:22 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by gyaban:
If the OS starts to swap memory a lot, no SSD nor multi-core CPUs will save you. |
The pagefile, if properly located and regularly defragmented, may save you. Won't be as fast as RAM, but doing it right should offer a decent performance boost over doing it wrong if you don't have enough RAM.
Originally posted by gyaban:
I thrown 64Gb of RAM in my PC and never felt happier with it. |
Intel's Haswell desktop (i.e. not server) processors "officially" support only 32GB RAM, and unfortunately, only in dual-channel mode. Getting a motherboard that supports 64GB means spending a lot, and if it doesn't have 8 slots (which itself is ridiculous, because a standard ATX motherboard really doesn't have the room for it), you have to go out and buy 16GB-per-stick server memory, which again is wildly expensive. |
|
|
|
10/01/2013 03:13:27 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by George:
If doing any "critical" work that is prone to rendering errors (e.g. rendering a complex scene), or professional 3D, you should get a workstation graphics card (I'd say get a FirePro, since those are a much better value than Nvidia Quadro). |
It doesn't seem to me like the FirePro cards are a better value. For instance, the entry level Quadro 600 is about $140, has plenty of horsepower for Ps work (1GB RAM, 2560x1600 max resolution, 128-bit memory interface, DirectX 11...) while the FirePro 24XX cards have half the RAM and are well over $200.
Bottom line, I swear by the Quadro cards. I have an older (570) Quadro that still works flawlessly with CS6 and very large (>500MB) Ps files. The 600 would have several times the power of my card. I can run two monitors, both at 2560x1600 resolution.
|
|
|
|
10/01/2013 03:13:31 PM · #18 |
I have 16GB in this computer, and I'm getting 32 in my next. It runs pretty fast with 16 (much better than last time when I had 6GB) but LR is a memory hog and PS is not far behind. Just starting up LR it gobbles a GB of private memory. It goes up to as high as 6 or 7 GB of working set after using it a while (though I keep everything in the same database). Chrome can go as high as 2-3 GB or so (partly due to memory leaks I presume). Right now with one window open, and 9 tabs, it's up to 1 GB private memory.
|
|
|
|
10/01/2013 03:26:27 PM · #19 |
While we're on the topic, how're the new AMD chips these days?
I have an older Phenom II that I have OC'd to 4Ghz stable. Looking to upgrade to the new Vishera chips ((8320 8-core) on my Asus 990X mobo.
Have they improved much since the failed Bulldozer? |
|
|
|
10/01/2013 03:45:27 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by Garry:
While we're on the topic, how're the new AMD chips these days?
I have an older Phenom II that I have OC'd to 4Ghz stable. Looking to upgrade to the new Vishera chips ((8320 8-core) on my Asus 990X mobo.
Have they improved much since the failed Bulldozer? |
Originally posted by AnandTech:
Vishera is still built on the same 32nm GlobalFoundries SOI process as Zambezi, which means there isn't much room for additional architectural complexity without ballooning die area, and not a whole lot of hope for significantly decreasing power consumption. As a fabless semiconductor manufacturer, AMD is now at GF's mercy when it comes to moving process technology forward. It simply has to make 32nm work for now. Piledriver is a light evolution over Bulldozer, so there's actually no substantial increase in die area compared to the previous generation. Cache sizes remain the same as well, which keeps everything roughly the same. These chips are obviously much larger than Intel's 22nm Ivy Bridge parts, but Intel has a full node advantage there which enables that.
|
From this article.
Bottom line, they are cost effective to purchase, but power-hungry compared to equivalent (i5) Intel chips and simply not competitive in the high-end desktop (i7) environment. IMO, of course.
|
|
|
|
10/01/2013 03:52:16 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by George:
The pagefile, if properly located and regularly defragmented, may save you. Won't be as fast as RAM, but doing it right should offer a decent performance boost over doing it wrong if you don't have enough RAM. |
I suppose it's up to everyone's tolerance. Personally, I wouldn't want to work on a machine constantly swapping, I would probably rather not edit at all, or reduce the size of my project accordingly.
Originally posted by George:
Intel's Haswell desktop (i.e. not server) processors "officially" support only 32GB RAM, and unfortunately, only in dual-channel mode. Getting a motherboard that supports 64GB means spending a lot, and if it doesn't have 8 slots (which itself is ridiculous, because a standard ATX motherboard really doesn't have the room for it), you have to go out and buy 16GB-per-stick server memory, which again is wildly expensive. |
Standards and price are one thing, my sanity is another. I favored the latter, and am very happy with that choice. Just my personal feedback, for what it's worth, nothing more. |
|
|
|
10/01/2013 04:46:59 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by George:
If doing any "critical" work that is prone to rendering errors (e.g. rendering a complex scene), or professional 3D, you should get a workstation graphics card (I'd say get a FirePro, since those are a much better value than Nvidia Quadro). |
It doesn't seem to me like the FirePro cards are a better value. For instance, the entry level Quadro 600 is about $140, has plenty of horsepower for Ps work (1GB RAM, 2560x1600 max resolution, 128-bit memory interface, DirectX 11...) while the FirePro 24XX cards have half the RAM and are well over $200.
Bottom line, I swear by the Quadro cards. I have an older (570) Quadro that still works flawlessly with CS6 and very large (>500MB) Ps files. The 600 would have several times the power of my card. I can run two monitors, both at 2560x1600 resolution. |
Memory size, memory interface, processing cores, etc. don't mean anything if they don't translate to performance. In most benchmarks, FirePro cards beat similarly-priced Quadro cards. Check out the Vx900 cards (V3900, V4900, etc.). I'm mostly interested in CAD work, so for photo and video editing, the results may very well be different. Again, check benchmarks on review sites. |
|
|
|
10/01/2013 04:48:11 PM · #23 |
| Your specs sound pretty much like my dream machine. Win8 is a completely different experience with a touch screen, and I have had no problems with it in a laptop configuration. I've had a very good experience with a Crucial M4 128G SSD - again in a laptop, so I don't know how tough it would be to throw into a desktop. |
|
|
|
10/01/2013 05:10:09 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by George:
Memory size, memory interface, processing cores, etc. don't mean anything if they don't translate to performance. In most benchmarks, FirePro cards beat similarly-priced Quadro cards. Check out the Vx900 cards (V3900, V4900, etc.). I'm mostly interested in CAD work, so for photo and video editing, the results may very well be different. Again, check benchmarks on review sites. |
I'm not such a big benchmarks guy, but in this case some benchmarks (the application-based ones) are useful. The V4900 is well-spec'd, and does seem to offer more memory bandwidth than the similarly priced Quadro 600. The one penalty is the power consumption, 75W for the V4900 vs. 40W for the Quadro 600. Real world, no doubt both would be fine cards for a graphics workstation, and at a reasonable price.
Edit for typo
Message edited by author 2013-10-01 17:10:35.
|
|
|
|
10/01/2013 06:15:04 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by George:
Memory size, memory interface, processing cores, etc. don't mean anything if they don't translate to performance. In most benchmarks, FirePro cards beat similarly-priced Quadro cards. Check out the Vx900 cards (V3900, V4900, etc.). I'm mostly interested in CAD work, so for photo and video editing, the results may very well be different. Again, check benchmarks on review sites. |
I'm not such a big benchmarks guy, but in this case some benchmarks (the application-based ones) are useful. The V4900 is well-spec'd, and does seem to offer more memory bandwidth than the similarly priced Quadro 600. The one penalty is the power consumption, 75W for the V4900 vs. 40W for the Quadro 600. Real world, no doubt both would be fine cards for a graphics workstation, and at a reasonable price.
Edit for typo |
Power consumption is a bit of a problem for me, since I'm building a Mini-ITX computer... But not having enough performance would be a bigger problem, so I guess I'll have to deal with the heat. My options are 65W gaming or 75W workstation, and if I choose the workstation card, my list would be:
//pcpartpicker.com/user/SultanOfHell/saved/2uH3
Note that I didn't go for the lower-power processor (4670S, 65W vs 84W), because I want to have as much performance as I can without stepping up to the i7. I also got a combo deal (that wasn't available with the 4670S), which offset some of the shipping cost.
Back to the topic at hand... I think the questions are:
i5 vs i7 processor
12 GB vs 8 GB vs 16 GB vs 32 GB vs 64 GB RAM
2TB HDD vs mix of SSD and (smaller?) HDD
gaming vs workstation graphics card
Windows 7 vs Windows 8
My choices (for Paul) are in bold. Hey, look! The basics are identical to mine (except that I don't need an SSD).
Message edited by author 2013-10-01 18:15:59. |
|
