recommend me a computer

BBones · July 6, 2005

Since I have the P-2000 now I do not need to bring the laptop to the track with me or have one really (it is work provided by my day job). So I need a very good PC for at home for editing shots. I currently have a Viewsonic VX2000 (20 inch display) that seems to be quite good so it is the computer I need the recommendation on....

More RAM?
Video card really matter since these are still images?
Faster CPU?

where do you recommend I put the money into?

luckyrwe · July 7, 2005

RAM is the best way to go. Get at least 2GB.

DJ-S1 · July 7, 2005

RAM. Photoshop can use 2GB max IIRC, so don't go more than that unless you have some other need for it.

luckyrwe · July 7, 2005

Well if Photoshop wants 2GB, add more for Windows.

gus · July 7, 2005

BB im not the most technical person you will find answering this thread but i do pretty well all my add ons myself & i recon i have a good idea of what works for the layman.

Video cards are cheap as chips now for the lower end 128 meg cards. You can pick these up for under $100 US & i find they do most everything well ceptin' Doom 3 which can make it struggle a bit but hey...its possibly the most power hungry game atm. So for photos i wouldnt go past 128 meg.

Ram baffles me...i went from 256 to 1 gig & sure it was a bees privates faster but running XP & P/Shop CS2 i would have expected a big jump in speed..but it didnt so for me ..personally i cant see what 2 gig will do. I will stand corrected here as i have no idea what im talking about...just what i see on my computer as a layman.

Processor ..well its really a no brainer as the current ones avail for about $200 are in the 3 gig range which is well fast enough atm. If you buy an AMD then be sure to buy an Athlon..i have had 3 over the past 3 years & find them bullet proof. Also AMD have quietened them a lot.

I work on a diff theory to most people (at least i think i do) whereas i update every 12 months or so & thus the update only costs about $300-$400.

Being able to lose a few hundred each year to me is better than a major update every 2 years as i often dont have to update MB or power supply. Speaking of which i would certainly look at a good power supply that will sit & keep those updates churning..maybe a 480w to cope with all the extras etc.

Hard drives are a personal thing as i dont store photos ..i just send them all to smugmug to do that bit.

I am not responsible for any of the above listed information as computers see me as a suicide bomber when i walk into a room & sit down with them. If they could run they would.

Good Luck
Gus

colourbox · July 7, 2005

RAM first, then a fast hard drive, then another fast hard drive for Photoshop scratch disk...

Here's the skinny on Photoshop CS2 RAM. If you have the right Windows or Mac configuration, you could reach around 3.5GB.

Here's another tech note.

wxwax · July 7, 2005

colourbox wrote:

RAM first, then a fast hard drive, then another fast hard drive for Photoshop scratch disk...

Here's the skinny on Photoshop CS2 RAM. If you have the right Windows or Mac configuration, you could reach around 3.5GB.

Here's another tech note.

Good links, 'box.

Khaos · July 7, 2005

Minimum 2GB RAM.

Athlon64. Not because of the 64 bits, but because the memory controller is on the CPU die and will run at the speed of the CPU. This eliminates the bottle neck of having it on the motherboard.

The larger you can go on CPU cache, the better. It makes a world of difference in speed, but also in price.

Fast hard drives. Even with a ton of RAM, PS will still use the scratch disk. The faster your hard drive, the better.

Graphic cards don't mean squat in photo editing.

The new thing is dual core CPUs. This will be very common in the next few years. Again, AMD is leading the curve on this one, benchmarks found in the latest issue of Maximum PC has it faster than Intel. PS will utilize multiple CPUs, so dual core would be nice.

BBones · July 7, 2005

Graphic cards don't mean squat in photo editing.

I thought so, good info.

Actually this is all really good info guys. So a 3Ghz AMD Athlon w/2GB of RAM, my external 200GB HDD coupled with a wicked faster internal HDD should do the trick eh?

Khaos · July 7, 2005

BBones wrote:

I thought so, good info.

Actually this is all really good info guys. So a 3Ghz AMD Athlon w/2GB of RAM, my external 200GB HDD coupled with a wicked faster internal HDD should do the trick eh?

Yes.

gus · July 7, 2005

Khaos wrote:

Graphic cards don't mean squat in photo editing.

.

As i said i dont know much at all but try editing with a shared card...i did & it was pathetic.

Khaos · July 7, 2005

Humungus wrote:

As i said i dont know much at all but try editing with a shared card...i did & it was pathetic.

That goes back to the RAM issue.

Instead of dedicated memory, the card, well, graphics chip in this case, since it's soldered onto the board, uses your PCs RAM, or in the gentler sales person's terms, shares it. I prefer to call it sucking up my precious resources.:D

The other thing that will slow this down is that a seperate card with memory on board will access the memory WAY FASTER than one that is stuck sharing memory through the system bus.

So thank you for pointing that out, I forgot about that. What matters only in video cards (chips) is that they don't "share" memory. Unless you're gaming or running CAD, high end cards arent needed, they won't help you edit photos faster.

recommend me a computer

Comments