New monitor advice??? And more! - DPChallenge Forums

05/01/2009 09:33:10 PM · #1

I am currently trying to help my wife upgrade her 'computer' used for photo editing. I know very little about cameras and photography but just enough about computers to get myself into trouble! As a little background, The 'computer' is only used for photos, currently running XP 32 bit, with an athlon X2 dual core, 2GB RAM, on-board video using Photoshop CS2. She is not connected to the internet, rarely uses a word processor, and doesn't game beyond solitaire with this 'computer'. I am hoping to completely replace this in the very near future, starting with the monitor.
Currently looking at either the Dell 2007FP / WFP or HP LP2065. Our budget runs out quickly beyond those monitors but was wondering whether most prefer the wide screen to normal ratio? Other than that I don't believe there is much difference between these. Enlightenment is welcome.
Second will be a video card, again trying to stay within somewhat of a budget I am looking at the Radeon HD 3650, 4650, or 4670. Am I way off base here, or are these good options. By the way I am looking to do a dual monitor setup with her existing monitor. Would I be best off getting one with 2 DVI outputs or running on-board video as well? Again enlightenment welcome.
I will likely soon be looking for more insight on the rest of the build. Is more than dual core beneficial, or going to be in the near future? What speed RAM? What OS & 32 or 64? Maybe we can get into that when I can get a monitor that will be decent.

Thanks in advance for any insight.

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

05/01/2009 09:59:39 PM · #2

One more thing, should I steer clear of a refurbished monitor or is that an ok route to take?

Steveinnz

Canon EOS-60D

05/01/2009 10:21:21 PM · #3

I run a 'computer' shop to pay for my photography!.
your existing setup should handle most things OK. The processor will possibly hold you back a bit but you do not say how fast it is. You already are at maximum for all intents for the ram, XP will see up to 3Gb but with a dual core cpu it is best to balance the ram which is a bit hard with 3Gb, we find we get better performance from 2x1Gb than a 1 and a 2 or a 2 on its own, but this is dependant on cpu.
The video card when fitted will disable the onboard card so to do the two monitor thing you will need a dual headed card. The wide screen is great when editing, it will be an old monitor thats not a widescreen.
Sounds like a new monitor is really all you need, I edit on an old 3Ghz P4 with 2Gb ram and shared video, I also do video editing no problems. The video cards come into their own on gaming apps and lately if you want to watch true HD video.
Good luck, hope my 2c helps

Ken

Canon EOS-7D

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

05/01/2009 10:24:37 PM · #4

Originally posted by JNZ:

One more thing, should I steer clear of a refurbished monitor or is that an ok route to take?

Personally I'd stay clear of a refurb. I normally don't have issues with refurbed stuff but with a monitor it could have been left on 24/7 for a year.

I'd also spring for a hardware calibration device, you can get them for less than $100.

05/01/2009 11:06:36 PM · #5

I have the Radeon 4650 in my system that I built in January. Only one minor issue that seems to be a driver conflict with Paintshop pro only when using a curves layer. Runs dual monitors nicely. Not the top of the line graphics card these days, but still more than enough to keep vista running snappily. I don't like the aero interface, but when I did try it, it handled it just as fast as the Win9x theme that I prefer.

I have two monitors, a widescreen 20" NEC that runs at 1680x1050 and a 17" running at 1280x1024. With only 26 pixels difference in vertical size, the movement between them is pretty seamless.

05/02/2009 12:15:53 PM · #6

Thanks to all who have responded.

I think I have made up my mind on the monitor, the Dell 2007FP unless I can get a good deal on a new WFP, but it looks like Dell doesn't have the widescreen. Thinking I will go new now, not refurbished.

As far as the video card goes, I just want to make sure I will not be shooting myself in the foot with one of those Radeon HD cards.
More about the rest of the 'computer' plans, currently thinking:
AMD Athlon X2 7750 2.7GHz, Gigabyte GA-MA78GM-US2H, 4 GB 800MHz RAM (MB has 4 slots to upgrade this if needed), 250-500GB SATA2 hard drive (plans to add more, not one big one). I am thinking Vista 64 bit, probably just home edition, unless there is something more I should know about the OS.
Does any of this look completely wrong to anyone, or am I leaving a big (important) chunk of photo editing performance on the table?

Thanks for the help, and the space.

05/02/2009 01:28:57 PM · #7

Originally posted by JNZ:

As far as the video card goes, I just want to make sure I will not be shooting myself in the foot with one of those Radeon HD cards.
More about the rest of the 'computer' plans, currently thinking:
AMD Athlon X2 7750 2.7GHz, Gigabyte GA-MA78GM-US2H, 4 GB 800MHz RAM (MB has 4 slots to upgrade this if needed), 250-500GB SATA2 hard drive (plans to add more, not one big one). I am thinking Vista 64 bit, probably just home edition, unless there is something more I should know about the OS.
Does any of this look completely wrong to anyone, or am I leaving a big (important) chunk of photo editing performance on the table?

Your planned system sounds very similar to what I put together. Here's what I built if it helps:

-Diamond Radeon 4650 video card (Probably overkill for a non-gamer like me)
-Thermaltake V1 CPU cooler (I think I could use this in my car. Note: this cooler is difficult to install on an AMD socket the heatpipes interfere with the tensioning lever.)
-Maxtor 1 Terabyte SATA hard drive (Data drive)
-350 Gb Samsung hard disk (boot drive and applications)
-4 GB Corsair DDR2 800Mhz ram
-Antec Sonata III case w/500w power supply
-LG dual layer SATA DVD burner with lightscribe
-Athlon X2 6000+ (3.1 Ghz) CPU
-Asus M3A78-EM motherboard
-Bay mounted card reader & I/O panel (That 3.5" floppy drive bay is still good for something!)
-Vista 32 bit home premium. (went with 32 bit for compatibility with older apps. Planning on moving to 64 bit with Windows 7, for which I have the Beta installed on a spare partition)

Total cost was between $650 and $700

I went with a faster dual core, as my research led me to understand that most photo editing apps cannot take advantage of multiple cores, so I got more bang for my buck with a faster dual core than a slower tri or quad core. The extra cores will help it multitask more effectively, though.

A casual speed test shows it to be about as expected. I took an 8MP photo and ran a heavy noise reduction pass on it in PaintShop Pro.

Old PC: Athlon 2000, 1.25 Gb ram: 98 seconds
Work PC: 1.8Ghz Core 2 Duo, 1 Gb ram: 48 seconds
New PC, Athlon X2 6000+, 4 Gb ram 32 seconds

Message edited by author 2009-05-02 13:35:47.

05/02/2009 03:13:09 PM · #8

I went with a faster dual core, as my research led me to understand that most photo editing apps cannot take advantage of multiple cores, so I got more bang for my buck with a faster dual core than a slower tri or quad core. The extra cores will help it multitask more effectively, though.

Thanks.
This is what I found as well, initially planned on a Phenom quad, no need, this 'computer' will be for photos -that is it, not even the Infesternet!
What is "64 bit with windows 7"? mainly the windows 7 part. I am hoping to get setup with CS4 once this 'computer' is finished, I don't think I have to worry about the 64 bit compatibility deal since there really won't be many other programs. Will CS2 work on 64 bit Vista? If I have to wait until I can afford CS4.
Also, currently my wife uses a Canon iP6600D printer for small personal stuff, anyone know if I will have problems getting it to work with 64 bit? She would also like one of the bigger Epson printers in the near future (not sure which one, about $1500 though...I think) anyone see big problems with that?
Also, anyone know an easy way to size a power supply, maybe good link or something?

I haven't had anyone try to scare me from the 2007FP so I think that is getting ordered real soon. It should be good for the price- s-ips and all.

thanks.

05/02/2009 06:28:47 PM · #9

Originally posted by JNZ:

What is "64 bit with windows 7"? mainly the windows 7 part.

Windows 7 is the next version of Windows, currently under beta testing in the real world. Under the hood, it is almost the same as Vista. The major changes are going to be interface improvements, especially the taskbar. You will be able to dock common applications to it, similar to how a Mac works. Initial reviews of Win7 are mostly positive, and it sounds like it has fixed most of Vista's issues. Actually, most of Vista's issues have already been fixed by updates, but it now has a bad reputation it can't seem to overcome. Windows 7 is expected to be released next year, though there is some possibility that it may be released in late '09.

The technical difference between 32 and 64 bit OS's is the number of parallel bits that can be processed at once and the amount of ram it can address. What this means is that a 32 bit OS with 4 Gb of memory can only address a little over 3 GB of it. Not a huge problem right now, but it will be in the near future as applications and data files become larger. 64 bits increases the address space so you can install more memory and be able to utilize it.

From a compatibility standpoint, applications that are optimized for 64 bit environments will run more efficiently, but old applications will run in a 32 bit compatibility mode and the user will likely not perceive or know any difference. The big issue is with device drivers, which DO need to have 64 bit drivers, as they run at a more fundamental system level. If you have any older peripherals, you will want to check the manufacturers web site to see if they 64 bit drivers. Most recent product are now shipping with 64 bit and 32 bit drivers included. One additional note is that most Vista drivers will also work for Windows 7.

This driver thing is a problem for me sometimes at work. Now that people are beginning to transition to 64 bits, I sometimes get requests for 64 bit printer drivers for a printer that is 5 years old or more. There will not be 64 bit drivers made for many of the older products and the best I can do is to offer a workaround that will at least get them basic printing functionality.

Microsoft has been making 64 bit versions of windows for a few years now. I believe that with Windows 7 we will see the transition finally happen and the 64 bit version will be the one that is going to be the most common. (JMO)

Message edited by author 2009-05-02 18:33:12.

05/02/2009 07:50:35 PM · #10

I am still stumped as to what I really need for a video card. I just don't know what specs are the most important. Which one of these would be a better card?

SAPPHIRE 100248L Radeon HD 3850 512MB 256-bit GDDR3 PCI Express 2.0 x16 HDCP Ready CrossFire Supported Video Card
# Core Clock: 666MHz
# Stream Processors: 320 Stream Processing Units
# Memory Clock: 1760MHz
# OpenGL: OpenGL 2.0
# HDMI: 1 (via Adapter)
# DVI: 2
# Model #: 100248L

-OR-

MSI R4670-2D512/D3 Radeon HD 4670 512MB 128-bit GDDR3 PCI Express 2.0 x16 HDCP Ready CrossFire Supported Video Card
# Core Clock: 750MHz
# Stream Processors: 320 Stream Processing Units
# Memory Clock: 2000MHz
# DirectX: DirectX 10.1
# OpenGL: OpenGL 2.0
# DVI: 2
# Max Resolution: 2560 x 1600
# Model #: R4670-2D512/D3

I think I have it narrowed down to these but would be open to suggestions about something similarly priced, around $50-60.
thanks

05/02/2009 09:27:18 PM · #11

The 4600 series is a newer model and it's model series is placed above the 3600. It also appears to be clocked slightly faster. Both are pretty similar though and I think the modest difference in specs will really make a difference only if you are running high end games or doing video editing. Pushing around pixels for photo editing is really not too demanding of a video card. Both of them will drive two monitors, and both have the same ram on board.

If the price is close, I'd say go with the MSI 4670. If you found a great deal on the sapphire 3850 and need to watch the pennies, then go with that one and you have more left for a bigger hard drive, a bay mounted card reader, or something else that will really be of benefit to a photographer, such as a drawer to keep your shoehorn in.

One of the things that confuses video cards is that AMD/ATI and NVidia make the graphics processors, but then sell them to other makes to actually put into the boards that you buy, and those makers often do their own changes that make it hard to compare apples to apples.

Message edited by author 2009-05-02 21:30:39.

05/03/2009 08:59:52 AM · #12

Thanks.

or something else that will really be of benefit to a photographer, such as a drawer to keep your shoehorn in.
I think I saw you mention this in another thread and thought, "he has to be joking about the shoehorn." Has to be posed for the pic! possibly you use it to get a zip drive into your CF reader!!!

One of the things that confuses video cards is that AMD/ATI and NVidia make the graphics processors, but then sell them to other makes to actually put into the boards that you buy, and those makers often do their own changes that make it hard to compare apples to apples.
That has been my problem, 4650 or whatever model it is called really means nothing. I was just curious if 128 bit vs 256 bit makes a huge diff in this application. Not really sure what the most important spec would be, clock speed, mem speed, bit rating??? As the price is very similar I think I will go with the 4670, as you said it is a newer series.

By the way, I ordered the 2007FP from Dell. Called to get some questions answered and the rep offered free shipping. I asked her if I could get the $80 discount I saw on there website, she confirmed it was on sale so I got the discount and free shipping. It isn't the widescreen but should be pretty much unbeatable for the price. Look forward to getting it and hoping my wife will not be disappointed.

If, like I said, the 'computer' will only be for photos, how small of a hard drive would be reasonable just for program and OS installation. Having that on a separate drive would make it faster, correct? As 80 & 160 GB drives are about the same price I guess it wouldn't make much sense to go smaller than 160 and I figured that would be more than enough.
Thanks for all the help so far.