is one of those high-powered "confusers" really necessary?

dirtbikejunkie · April 13, 2005

I've been using photoshop, illustrator, and InDesign on my laptop for the last 2 years and it is becomng too painful. It's a 2.2 GHz P4 with 768 MB ram, and may have some issues as it's well abused.

anyway, looking to buy a new machine targeted for image/print editing. Initially was looking at laptops but lately have been leaning towards desktops.

so my question is what are you using? what are some good specs for an adequate machine without going crazy?

wxwax · April 13, 2005

I wonder if just adding more memory to your current rig might not solve a lot of propblems.

Andy · April 13, 2005

wxwax wrote:

I wonder if just adding more memory to your current rig might not solve a lot of propblems.

what do you know? aren't you still using a commodore 64

dirtbikejunkie · April 13, 2005

wxwax wrote:

I wonder if just adding more memory to your current rig might not solve a lot of propblems.

my laptop is basically on it's last legs (it's been having numerous hardware issues), so I don't plan to upgrade it. however, it's always been a dog even before having hardware problems. I think a large problem with laptops and programs like photoshop is that a lot of page swaping is required (even with large amounts of RAM) and laptops are generally bad at that due to slower hard drives.

I've been looking at some fancy desktops, like Alienware and Dell's XPS, with RAID 0 HDs and 2GB rams, but those are pretty spendy and I am wondering if I would be good enough with an average $1000-2000 desktop?

wxwax · April 13, 2005

andy wrote:

what do you know? aren't you still using a commodore 64

:bluduh

wxwax · April 13, 2005

dirtbikejunkie wrote:

my laptop is basically on it's last legs (it's been having numerous hardware issues), so I don't plan to upgrade it. however, it's always been a dog even before having hardware problems. I think a large problem with laptops and programs like photoshop is that a lot of page swaping is required (even with large amounts of RAM) and laptops are generally bad at that due to slower hard drives.

I've been looking at some fancy desktops, like Alienware and Dell's XPS, with RAID 0 HDs and 2GB rams, but those are pretty spendy and I am wondering if I would be good enough with an average $1000-2000 desktop?

Well, I spent about $700 on mine at a high street computer store. 1GB ram, 7200rpm hard drive, 2.4 mhz processor, dunno about the bus, but it's just over a year old.

It's fast on 1D files, slow on 8mp mkII files. I reckon it would be faster if I had more memory. By slow, I mean I sometimes have to wait 5-10 seconds to flatten layers, switch too LAB, that kind of thing. Depends upon what else I have open (I always have a web page or two open, plus DPP with a 1 or 2 gig card showing all its thumbnails.)

bkriete · April 13, 2005

I would not bother with Alienware unless you have care about an extra 3 fps in Countstrike: Source and you're running it at 1600x1200. Or you have a lot of cash burning a hole in your pocket and no better use for it.
RAID-0 is probably a bad idea; it's faster but it also introduces two points of failure for your hard drive; if either goes down you're done. If you can swing it, and are a little bit techy, RAID-5 would be awesome. Otherwise, I would stay away from RAID in general. I am using a 200 gig drive to store pictures (fairly slow, but only $99), another drive for my operating system, and a third, quite fast drive (37 gig SATA 10K RPM) for a Photoshop scratch disk. This is actually a system that just kind of accumulated itself, but it ends up working pretty well and means that even if my scratch disk or system disk die (knocking on wood) I'll still have my pictures. Most of the ones I care about are on SmugMug, so that's my second backup. The ones I would really miss are burned to CD.
Here's what I would look for:

*3200 (or equivalent) Pentium4 or Athlon64 (or better) (Pentiums tend to get marginally better scores for graphic work, Athlons for games)
*1 gig of RAM (more is better, but RAM is easy to add at a later date to a desktop). I think Photoshop isn't very smart about using more than 1-1.5 gigs of RAM; one of the improvements of CS2 is supposed to be using extra RAM better.
*A DVD burner (both +/-) and a CD burner (two optical drives are nice, as you can put a CD in one burn it to the other)
*Windows XP Pro
*Most systems only come with one hard drive. This is sad. I would look for the fastest drive available, and then add a cheap one to set as a scratch disk for Photoshop. Storage is cheap, and it's not hard to add another hdd down the line, so total storage capacity is not so important.

I don't think your graphics card is very important to Photoshop, and that's much of what you'd be paying for with Alienware or Dell's XPS systems. If you plan on gaming, go for it. Otherwise, don't bother. I would suggest you stay away from integrated graphics solutions (ie, Intel's "Extremely Bad Graphics"), as they are usually of poorer quality than even cheap stand-alone cards, and if you don't have an AGP slot, you are stuck if your graphics chip dies.

Just my .02 (maybe closer to a nickel?)

luke_church · April 13, 2005

dirtbikejunkie wrote:

my laptop is basically on it's last legs (it's been having numerous hardware issues), so I don't plan to upgrade it. however, it's always been a dog even before having hardware problems. I think a large problem with laptops and programs like photoshop is that a lot of page swaping is required (even with large amounts of RAM) and laptops are generally bad at that due to slower hard drives.

(And they're small caches, slow data pipelines, 'power save motherboards' etc. You need a mobile workstation if you're doing *serious* work on a laptop)

Photoshop doesn't play by the rules. It decided that Window's paging algorithms weren't suitable for image processing and uses all sorts of custom back buffering in all of the newer versions. It works, it's fast, but it hammers the disk, which you're going to pay for with a slow disk, esp. if it has a small buffer, and/or it's been setup daft...

Whatever you do, don't set it up to use two virtual paritions on the same physical disk... Or, I had a badly configed BIOS that was forcing Windows to do hardware emulation on one of the drives (DUH!), load photoshop and watch the machine crumble if that drive was set as the a scratch disk

I've been looking at some fancy desktops, like Alienware and Dell's XPS, with RAID 0 HDs and 2GB rams, but those are pretty spendy and I am wondering if I would be good enough with an average $1000-2000 desktop?

The speed/$ curve looks pretty exponential. They're not going to run **that** much faster than a cheaper machine. I'm using a Dell Precision 360 with 2Gb of RAM and a QuadroFX 500, bought a year and a bit back for what would now be nearly $4000. At that time, it's what a 2Gb machine cost. Sure it runs nicely, but other than when I'm doing evil researchy things the memory very rarely touches the 1.5Gb mark. With that much RAM the hard drives (UDMA IDE) are not much of a problem... (And I move 25Gb chunks around every other day)

I wouldn't bother with Dell XPS, if you want serious performance go for their Precision range. If you want mid range then a high end Dimension will do you. The XPS comes with marketting hype for the 3llt3 gamaz.

I would suggest:

1Gb RAM min if you do photo stuff and something else at the same time (music?)
1.5Gb RAM if you're a heavy photoshopper.
2Gb RAM if you're a serious panaroma guy or a 92 copies of Internet Explorer open type [I am]

-Don't buy the fastest processor, buy one step down, they're much better value

- Don't bother with fancy HD setups, they'll only kill you if they fail. HDs are pretty well cached, so you shouldn't worry

- Buy Screen Space... I'm using a dual, sometimes triple screen (1280*1024) and still wanting more when doing imaging work

- Buy the best mouse and keyboard you can get your hands on... Trust me... Your hands will really appreciate it!

Remember, expensive machines loose their value faster. You can get pretty good kit for not that much money these days...

If you've got any questions, holler back as you people on the other side of the pond might say

All the best,

Luke

dirtbikejunkie · April 13, 2005

great info on the last couple posts!

this is what I was hoping to hear as I suspected the high-end "gaming" type machines were unecessary. Also, I read an article from M$ linked on another thread, that article was recommending very high end specs that seemed unecessary as well.

I had been looking at some of the dell precision workstations prior to he xps, and refurbished models with specs very close to those suggested above can be had for the $800-$1500 range, which I think is a good price.

if any other brands/models can be suggested please let me know. I really like the dell machines and use them at work, but also know their support is not so good so I am considering other companies if there is other good ones out there.

luke_church · April 14, 2005

dirtbikejunkie wrote:

if any other brands/models can be suggested please let me know. I really like the dell machines and use them at work, but also know their support is not so good so I am considering other companies if there is other good ones out there.

I've always found the support on the precisions to be excellent. I took a 3 year Next Business Day onsite. In a freak of bad luck I've had 2 of their monitors and an install CD(!) fail on me. The next one has always been there before 12:00 the next day.

Dell went through a bad patch on support, when they moved their call centre to the Eastern parts, but they have now moved it back. (They didn't move their precision support centre)

As they expect that people who by precisions tend to know what they're doing, the support tends to be a bit better.

[Note that these comments refer to support in the United Kingdom]

That's just my 2 pence anyhow,

Luke

bkriete · April 14, 2005

Just a comment on Dell monitors - I'm using a 2005 FPW, and it's great; the color, contrast, brightness are all excellent (using the DVI link). Dell just came out with an even bigger one, a 2405 FPW, for around $1000, which I am drooling over. With the great discounts Dell offers occasionally (keep an eye on techbargains.com), you can probably pick one up for well under $1K

wholenewlight · April 14, 2005

Great thread - I have had the same questions as dirtbikejunkie about what people are really using.

I've got an old HP desktop with 512 ram that needs replacing but I've been wondering how much is enough. I am using PS 6.x and Elements 2.0. It works okay but I have to reboot before and after I use Photoshop to clear the memory! Stupid, I know. I'll upgrade to CS2 as soon as I buy a new machine.

Also wondering about PC vs. mac if I am going to do a major upgrade (I've read the dgrin threads about mac's benefits). I guess if I have PS 6.x on the PC there is no way to buy an CS upgrade for the mac (wouldn't have a licensed copy running on the mac to do the upgrade)?? Anyone?
Thanks for the knowledge that has been posted on this topic.

Mongrel · April 16, 2005

Right under my nose
I just posted this on another forum (forgive me :uhoh please...):

"Basically, I've just started using RAW and trying to utilize batch processing options. I have found that saving to TIFF and other fairly intensive file manipulations seem to take *much* longer than anything I've ever done working with jpg's

I'd like some ideas for a cost effective upgrade to my current pc if anyone would care to give them.

What I have:

AMD XP2800+ Barton CPU
ECS L7SKA2 mother board (single channel DDR)
1.5 GB DDR400 (PC3200) (1) GB stick (1) 512MB stick
160 GB Seagate 7200RPM 8MB cache ATA100 hard drive
120 GB Western Digital 7200RPM 8MB cache ATA100 hard drive
160 GB Maxtor 7200RPM 8MB cache ATA133 hard drive (in another pc\available)

What I need to run:

Adobe Elements 3.0
JASC PSP9 (corel? what's corel?

)
Canon DPP
C1 LE
Noiseware Pro
DVD burner

Possible Options:

(1) Keep my existing CPU do a 'short-term' upgrade (about $150)

Replace motherboard with a nForce 2 Ultra400 (dual channel DDR400 capable)
Add a matching 1GB DDR400 stick of ram

(2) Dump my CPU and pickup (still kinda short term)

An Athlon 64 3200+ cpu and new Athon motherboard (around $250-$300?), keep existing RAM

(3) Go with Intel-

Pickup a Prescott P4 3.0E or 3.2E, an Asus motherboard, and 1GB stick of RAM.
(probably just over $300)

(4) Other?

What I'm doing is switching gears from a *gaming* centered rig to a digital photography dedicated rig. I plan on separating all of my photography programs and picture storage to a dedicated machine. Future compatibility although a consideration, isn't that important as long as it runs what I need it to run *today* quickly and reliably (correct me if I'm wrong here, please).

Anyway, I've done quite a bit of googling on this, and other than finding quite a few recommendations for switching to an Apple G5 Dual Processor (way-WAY over budget at this time), everything else is geared toward gaming pretty much.

I did see a few people recommending the P4's with HT as being very good at handling RAW files, which is why I'm leaning toward a P4 setup with 2GB of DDR400 in dual channel.

Sorry if this is too long or too boring, but I'd appreciate any input if you'd be so kind

Thanks in advance,

Anthony"

Seems like some good advice was right here. If anyone has anything comment on what I posted above, I'd sure appreciate it. The WD Raptor HD sounds very interesting. I'm clueless about setting up a 'scratch disc' whatever that is. Would that help speed up RAW workflow?

My main objective is to get my RAW files processed as quickly as possible, as cheaply as possible

Thanks,

Anthony

bkriete · April 16, 2005

When Adobe runs out of RAM it uses your hard drive as a really, really slow type of RAM, and writes and retrieves information to that. You can select the scratch drive by going to "Edit->Preferences->Plug-ins&Scratch Disks." You will only need your scratch disk if you've used up your memory, which for me at least only happens if I have 30+ JPGs open, or I've been using PSE2 for at least an hour or so. Number of layers used, file size, etc will all affect how quickly you run out of RAM. It's good to set your scratch disk to be separate from your operating system disk because it means your OS and Adobe won't be fighting over accessing data (that's probably stored in completely different locations). Your scratch disk is also more likely to be corrupted because of the fact that when you're using it intensively, Adobe is constantly writing to and reading from the disk, which makes extra wear and tear on platters, drive heads, and heat, which is the enemy of computers.
It sounds to me like you have a fairly well-balanced rig; while you would see improvement from everything you list below, I don't know how huge it would be. I think on the order of maybe 10%, maybe for switching to a Pentium more than that, but then you can't use your old RAM and Photoshop

RAM. I wonder if you might see good results from doing a thorough cleaning, debug and defrag; try something like CrapCleaner (which is free) to clean up your registry, and make sure there is no extra stuff in your system tray or loading on startup. Make sure you're spyware free also - I like Microsoft's Anti-Spyware Beta which you can download free from their web site, and which is supposed to remain free for the foreseeable future, and then run a defrag. I often think when people set up new systems and are amazed by how fast everything is, it's because they haven't had time to corrupt their registry, fragment their hard disk, and download a bunch of porn and spyware off of Kazaa.

Please note - the above is just my opinion, and is worth exactly what you paid for it. I use CrapCleaner and find it useful and it hasn't broken my computer, same with MS AS-B, but if it sets your house on fire and steals your wallet, don't blame me.

Mongrel · April 16, 2005

Ben, thanks for the detailed reply...
I appreciate it.

The *other* P4 consideration was if I decide to convert my family Hi8 video to DVD. Again, I've heard that the P4's were a bit better at video editing. BTW-my current memory modules are compatible with the P4 so no problem there. Plenty of P4 mother boards available that will run 184 pin DDRAM DDR.

However, the most cost effective plan may suffice for the time being as you pointed out.

The reason for upgrading the motherboard was to take advantage of the dual channel memory capability. My current MB is a pretty poor memory handler, and I think to get the best performance a bottom line nForce 2 board would help short term.

I try to keep my pc pretty clean and avoid the junk sites you mention. At this time I do have quite a few programs that I no longer use that could be dumped.

After I finish my current editing of a wedding I just shot, I'll probably tear my machine apart for cleaning and a fresh install of Win XP. I have a DVD burner I just purchased that I need to install, so doing a mother board change at that time would be no big deal.

Quick question: Does Photoshop still use a 'scratch disk' even with 2GB (or more if needed) of memory? I never open more than one or two RAW files at a time, and certainly not over a folder or two of jpg thumbnails.

Thanks again for your advice.

dirtbikejunkie · April 20, 2005

any thoughts on this setup
I've been keeping an eye on what's available through dell outlet and been close to pulling the trigger... here's a few I've been considering:

1: $954 (dual processor capable)
Dell Precision 470 Desktop: Intel Xeon Processor 3.20GHz, 1MB L2
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=-1]Memory:[/size][/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=-1]1 GB DDR2 ECC SDRAM 400MHz (2 DIMMS)[/size][/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=-1]Hard Disk Drive:[/size][/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=-1]40 GB EIDE SATA Hard Drive (7200 RPM)[/size][/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=-1]Video:[/size][/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=-1]128MB PCIe x16 (DVI/VGA) nVidia Quadro FX 1300, Dual Mon DVI or VGA Capable[/size][/font] [font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=-1][/size][/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=-1]CD Read-Write Drive:[/size][/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=-1]48X CD RW/DVD Combo Drive[/size][/font]

2: $919 (single processor only)
Dell Precision Small Mini-Tower: Intel Pentium 4 Processor 3.00GHz, 1MB/800
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=-1]Memory:[/size][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=-1]2 GB DDR2 ECC SDRAM 533MHz (4 DIMMs)[/size][/font] [/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=-1]Disk Drive:[/size][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=-1]80 GB EIDE Hard Drive (7200 RPM)[/size][/font] [/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=-1]Video:[/size][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=-1]128MB PCIe x16 (DVI/VGA) nVidia Quadro FX 1300, Dual Mon DVI or VGA Capable[/size][/font][/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=-1]CD Read-Write Drive:[/size][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=-1]48X CD RW/DVD Combo Drive[/size][/font][/font]

3: $1114 (single processor only)
Dell Precision 370 Desktop: Intel Pentium 4 Processor 3.40F GHz, Intel EM64T,1MB/800
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=-1]Memory:[/size][/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=-1]1 GB DDR2 ECC SDRAM 533MHz (2 DIMMS)[/size][/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=-1]Drive[/size][/font] [font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=-1]Hard Disk Drive: [/size][/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=-1]80 GB EIDE SATA Hard Drive (7200 RPM)[/size][/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=-1]Video:[/size][/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=-1]256MB PCIe x16 (DVI/VGA) nVidia Quadro FX 3400, Dual Mon DVI or VGA Capable[/size][/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=-1]CD Read-Write Drive:[/size][/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=-1]48X CD RW Drive[/size][/font]

Any thoughts? I've been leaning towards #3 thinking it's the best combination due to fastest processor and best video card, but #1 also sounds good as I wonder if the 3.2 ghz xeon processor (with dual processor capability) is better than the P4 3.4 Ghz. Both #1 and #2 I would consider doubling memory to 2GB if necessary, for #3 that would run about $200 for 1GB and about $350 for #1.

bkriete · April 20, 2005

Hey Mongrel,
As far as I know, Photoshop will use a scratch disk no matter how much memory you have. However, if you have 2 gigs, it won't need it very often at all. In my experience (using 1 gig and Elements 2.0) it only uses it if I have a ton of JPGs open at once. If I was processing 16 bit TIFFS from RAW, it would be more of a consideration, but I can't do much of anything 16 bit in Elements 2. I'm planning on upgrading to CS or CS2 this summer, and I won't be surprised if starting to do things in 16-bit mode and working more with RAW shows me the limitations of my current system. It will be two years old this fall, so I may do a comprehensive upgrade - new mobo, new cpu and RAM, new video card. I'd like to switch to passive water cooling, but I'm not sure if it's worth the hassle and expense.
I think right now is a confusing time to be shopping for a new PC. With the dual-core parts from AMD and Intel right on the horizon, PCI-E not catching on as fast as Intel et al. hoped, and the market in kind of a holding period between new video card releases, I think it's tough to make a choice. I am an AMD fan, because of the lower heat and power consumption (and hence noise), onboard memory controller, and the superior performance in games. I think in terms of technological development, AMD is leading Intel head and shoulders right now, and it's only through running their chips at speeds so fast they have no headroom for increasing speed in the future, that Intel has maintained some form of performance parity. On the other hand, Intel's chips tend to be slightly faster at office productivity tasks (who cares?) and media processing - exactly what you'd be looking for in a PS system.
Dirkbikejunkie, I think any of the systems you're looking at would work; I think RAM is more important than CPU speed. I don't know a lot about PhotoShop performance per se, so I can't comment on how much a video card matters. I do know with 40 gigs of space on the first system's hdd you will be wanting to upgrade pretty quickly. It's amazing how fast photos fill up a hard drive. I looked for some info comparing Xeons to the regular P4 in Photoshop performance, and didn't see much right away. One review -here- showed slightly better performance under PS 6 on a dual Xeon than on a single P4; newer versions of Photoshop might be better optimized for multiple processors, and if you do a lot of batch processing in the background, a second CPU might help. Seems like a pretty minimal improvement for a potentially quite large investment. I would guess, though not an expert, that the faster RAM on systems 2 & 3 would probably matter more than the Xeon's extra cache. Maybe not. I notice your option 3 has the newest P4 revision, which I think supports some additional power management features and 64-bit capability. I think that's probably a good thing, as Windows 64 should be available soon. The SATA hard-drive is theoretically faster also, though I think most hdds don't approach the theoretical transfer limit of IDE interfaces in everyday use.

www.anandtech.com is a pretty decent resource for info on processors and specifics about performance. I usually skip the charts (1200.5 vs 1197.6 fps in Quake 3 is pretty meaningless to me) and skip to the conclusions. If anyone knows a site doing more photoshop-oriented reviews, I'd like to see it.

Khaos · April 20, 2005

I bore easily, especially when too many people run too many lines together without blank lines between them.

Remember, the space bar is your friend.:D

1. The addage is that you can never have too much memory. Never. If I could have 100 GB of RAM I would do it. Get as much as you can afford. Do not go, I repeat, expecially with XP, do not go below 1 GB of RAM.

2. If you're not a gamer, you've just saved yourself a lot of money by not needing a high end video card. Use that money to buy more RAM.

3. Go with the Athlon64 processor. Not because of the 64 bits, but because the memory controller is on the CPU die and that means the data in all that RAM you got gets to the processor faster and you can process all those pics faster.

4. For right now, avoid the SATA drives. They do not have as long a life as the old IDE drives. They will die in almost half the time before an IDE.

5. Some people have to have a laptop as their main machine. If you have a choice, get the desktop. You can get more for the money and have greater leeway when later upgrading.

Please feel free to ask any questions.

Mongrel · April 21, 2005

Back from the dead...miss me?
alrighty then....where to start

....I know:

Due to my own stupidity I crashed my system right after my last post. Seems "delete all?" is a very dumb question to answer "yes" to

After many long and frustrating hours I'm back up and running-almost. I won't bore ya'll with the details. Worst part was missing the challenge (all my pics were totally innaccessable for a few days-backup? WE don't NEED no stinkin' backup...).

OK...here's where I'm at and what I did...

I'm sitting tight on the XP2800+ Barton (unless I can get in on a very tempting Dell 8700 desktop deal in the morning, more on that later).

I ordered a $50 refurb nForce2 motherboard from Newegg, and a second 1GB stick of DDR to match the one I already have.

Due to my little *situation* last week, I will be picking up another 160GB Seagate Barracuda drive to do a totally fresh install of everything. Possibly, I will explore 'raid' using two matching Seagates, if not, it's a great drive-quiet, fast *enough*, etc. The trouble maker 120GB drive will go into a firewire enclosure for BACKUPS (I have a firewire port on the back of my Audigy Z2 card, so no $$$ there).

Next, I will evaluate the system for a time to see what I'm working with. I agree with Ben, above, that there is just too much going on right now to make any decisive decision on what hardware direction to take. I'd prefer to wait till the smoke clears in a month or two.

However, a ran into an intersting heads up on a Dell Dimension 8700 desktop at a place called 'techbargains' (I think that's what they called it). It seems that starting tomorrow at 6am PST Dell will offer the above system which includes:

P4 630 3.0 Ghz with 2MB level 2 cache
512MB DDR2 PC3200 (400Mhz) ram
80GB Serial ATA hard drive
X300E PCI 16 Express vid card
Intel 925P chipset, with 4 dimm slots onboard, and plenty of other 'goodies'

and "some other stuff" for a total discounted price of $749.00 with free shipping and a 17" CRT monitor.

At that price, it's hard to think about building a system. I know whereof I speak, as I've built every system in my immediate family for the last...MANY...years

I KNOW, you *can* beat it by fastidiously shopping around, comparing components, etc., etc., etc., however, there is something to be said about a high level pre-built at this kind of price.

Stay tuned....

Sask2005 · October 28, 2005

I am a graphic designer by day and I use a AMD 64 Athlon 3 Ghz CPU, 40 GB HDD with a backup server (20GB P4 350 Mhz), 512 MB RAM, 128MB On board cache on CPU. I use Adobe CS1 on it. I picked the AMD because it is more graphic friendly and lots quicker than the old PC at work with a Pentium chip.

Bruce

dirtbikejunkie wrote:

I've been using photoshop, illustrator, and InDesign on my laptop for the last 2 years and it is becomng too painful. It's a 2.2 GHz P4 with 768 MB ram, and may have some issues as it's well abused.

anyway, looking to buy a new machine targeted for image/print editing. Initially was looking at laptops but lately have been leaning towards desktops.

so my question is what are you using? what are some good specs for an adequate machine without going crazy?

is one of those high-powered "confusers" really necessary?

Comments