Help me build my new PC

[stevez]

Like many others, I've come to the crossroads of digital darkroom processing and must decide what computer

technology is going to best serve me in the future for photo editing. I'm planning on upgrading to Windows Vista

64 and I'll need a faster, more powerful PC system that allows me expandable RAM (minimum 8 gigs but expandable

up to 32 gigs). I'll also be running a dual monitor system as well. Taking into account all the PC hardware

components what do you recommend?

[mattb1]

I'd look at at least a dual core CPU, but raw CPU speed may be more important than the number of cores. I think Photoshop is multi threaded, but not sure how much and would think the large tasks are still mostly single threaded. Thats why I think single CPU speed is important, to get through that single task quickly. Other editing software will most likely be more single threaded and therefore need more speed.

 

Make sure you have a lot of slots for the ram, and that the motherboard can handle the large amount of ram.

 

I'd also look long and hard at having a raid disk, I just bought two 1TB drives for this purpose. It may be a little slow, but worth the security IMO. I personally like the idea of having most of my image library in an external raid drive, a newtorked drive would be great. But, more expensive to set up.

 

Becareful on the video cards, some say that they are dual monitor but ony have one DVI.

 

For connections, can't have enough USBs. Firewire may be a good thing to have. But, e-sata may be a good thing to have as well. There are some raid encoulsures that offer e-sata interface.

 

Good luck, it always takes a lot longer to do than you think it will...

[Mark Keefer]

Are you sure you want to go with Vista 64bit. There are a number of issues with drivers (especially for older hardware) and a number of programs that will not run on the 64bit version. Do a Google for what will and will not work on Vista 64bit. I had read someone complaining that they could not get Adobe Premier to open .DV files under Vista 64bit. I think as far as new hardware drivers will be there, but the older hardware may not have drivers and developers may not want to waste time making drivers for hardware they are no longer selling. This one website had a complaint that his Epson Photo Printer had no Vista 64bit driver.

http://www.dansdata.com/askdan00001.htm this is just one place you may want to read, there is a ton of info out there.

 

I have Vista 32 bit on one hard drive and Win XP on the other, I generally just use XP, I would love to be using the 64 bit XP or Vista but didn't want to deal with not being able to use a lot of my old software and hardware.. Darn system just works well for everything under XP 32 Bit, I do a lot of Adobe Photoshop and Premier work and I can live with the time it takes to do tasks vs not having programs work at all.

 

Maybe VIsta 64 has come a long way since early 2008 when I was looking into it. If you have a lot of success

with it please let me know. Good luck. - Mark

[kelly_flanigan1]

Support for multiple CPU and Core came out with Photoshop 4; its beena round for a decade.

[mendel_leisk]

I'd recommend a run-of-the-mill "gamer" system with Windows XP.

[sheldonnalos]

Did you see this recent thread?

 

http://www.photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00RYss

[Mark Keefer]

Kelly, yep my Adobe Premier detects multiple processors on my 32 bit Win XP notebook system. From what I've been

reading, CS3 and CS4 will run on Vista 64, but they are still only 32 bit programs and will be running under

VIsta 64's 32 bit

emulator. They will not run any faster under Vista 64. Also Vista will not support 16 Bit programs, and while

that is real old stuff, there are cases where some installers maybe using something written and compiled with 16

bit even though the program being installed is 32 bit.

 

If you did go with Vista 64 and had problems, you could always wipe the disk and install with XP 32bit or Vista

32. As cheap as hard drives are these day, you could have one drive with XP and one with Vista for easy switching

back and fourth if you really wanted take advantage of programs written and compiled as native 64 apps. The programs

that do not play nice under 64 could be left on the XP OS. That would give you the best of both worlds and you

could become the go to guy/gal for asking what works and does not work with Vista 64. :) I would really like to

hear a full report on how it is working for someone using many of the same Apps I use every day. I would really

like to hear that more programs are going FULL 64 Bit applications and that the OS is safe to move over to with

out headaches. I have been working with and building systems since the early 80's having gone through many

incarnations of computers, Tandy TRS 80's, Apple II, Mac, Power PC,z80 processors, 286, 386, 486, Pentiums,

Intel, Athalon, I have built so many systems and fixed so many systems at work and for friends, after almost 30

years of messing with computers I have learned one thing, if I never have to fight with a computer again because

some app or driver does not play nice with the OS it will be to soon, I am at the point in my life I have little

patients for stuff that does not work...life is to short and I have better things to do than to hang on the phone

with tech support and deal with people who know less about computers than I do. When I hear that VISTA 64 is bug

free and there is enough native stuff for it to really knock my socks off, I'll make the plunge. So Steve, if you

go Vista 64, please let us know how it works for you. I will look forward to your full report. My fingers are

crossed and hope you tell me good news. Best of luck! - Mark

[garrison_k.]

"Thats why I think single CPU speed is important, to get through that single task quickly. "

 

I don't think you can still buy a single core cpu. They're like...old. Even the last few P4's that came out are

dual core. CS3/4 uses all four of mine all the time.

 

"They will not run any faster under Vista 64."

 

Incorrect. CS4 is 64-bit native for Windows and will use as much ram on a Vista64 as one has installed.

It flies. I went Vista64 after service pack one was published. It's awesome to finally break the 3.2gig ram

barrier. I built with 8 gigs of ram but the board will take 16. Not sure I need 16 as I think the next

bottleneck is hard drive speeds.

 

Today I'd buy the i7 if I didn't mind seeing the prices drop by spring. The speed reports on the i7 are

great.

 

Antec Sonta III case $130

 

Intel i7 920 $300

 

GIGABYTE GA-EX58-EXTREME $330

 

Corsair XMS3 TR3X6G1333C9 6GB DDR3 $225

 

Video Card, not gaming? Take your pick $100+

 

WD 640 hard drives 3X @ $70 = $210

 

Microsoft Windows Vista Ultimate SP1 64-bit $160

 

Pioneer Black 20X, $30

 

That's $1500 and is pretty darn fast. But I'd get an after market air cpu heat sink. Two of those WD 640's

would go RAID O and the third for a scratch

disk. If cash is no problem, bump the ram from 6 gig to 12 gig as CS4

on a 64-bit Vista will use as much ram as installed. This

board only supports 24 gig of ram. Did I really say "only"? Video card is sky's the limit and the better the card, the

faster the machine with CS4. This i7 is only a week old. In the spring, prices

will drop and there will be more mobo's to chose from. The Antec comes with a 500W power supply and Antec's

house brand ps is great. However, I find this box is small for my needs and the seven hdd's I have going. I use the

Antec P182. Looks great, very well built with a great lay-out. If you go larger case like the Antec P182 for more hdd's,

get a 750W ps.

 

I'd make an account at the over clockers forum and ask for success recipe of parts.

[Mark Keefer]

Garrison, thanks for correcting that, I read bad info and that is good news for PC users. I did see Mac's still aren't getting 64 bit. Can't wait to hear how much better it is than the 32 bit version.

[stevez]

Thanks Garrison, this is a good starting point well within my ballbark for the upgrade.

Not sure what the advantages of a "GIGABYTE GA-EX58-EXTREME" would be.

Also, don't need a "gaming" video card. Still confused about hardware required for dual monitor

use.

[garrison_k.]

The gigabye mobo seems to be middle of the road. Mobo's for the i7, there's only a handful of them right

now, run from $250 to $500. Some, like the Intel p6T only take 12 gigs of ram. The Asus extreme for

$500 seems like over kill if one isn't gaming. So the I mentioned seems like a great board from a great

company that many are using right now.

 

I'd seriously take the 30 seconds and make an account at the overclockers forum and be asking there.

[mattb1]

“I don't think you can still buy a single core cpu. They're like...old. Even the last few P4's that came out are dual core. CS3/4 uses all four of mine all the time.”

 

I don’t think you got what I was saying, I was referring to the speed a CPU runs regardless of the number of CPUs on the chip. Threading is how a given task (like an action in PS, for example the application of a filter) is broken up into many parallel units each unit is a thread, it is a software and OS thing. A core is a CPU on a chip with other CPUs; it is what hardware you have. A particular thread will run on only one CPU/core. That is why it is important; if an action still has a large thread then that thread will require a fast CPU/core to run quickly no matter how many cores are available. No matter what the marketing people tell you, 4x the number of CPUs does not mean 4x system performance.

 

If the budget is tight, a 2.9 GHz dual core may be faster at some tasks than a 2.0 GHz quad core. It is important if there are large tasks or sub-tasks that are single threaded, i.e. run on a single core. PS CS4 may not be much of an issue, they may have it pretty well done so all threads are pretty small, but not everyone has it. However, I’m only running dual core right now (2.2GHz, last year’s build), with PS CS4 and XP 64 and it does not run much faster than the single core system it replaced. Both CPUs may be busy, but the total time to do a task has not been significantly reduced. So, I’m a little skeptical that a quad core running 2.9GHz would be worth my time and effort at this point.

 

For a fresh build, the budget has to be considered. I would be leaning toward the fastest CPU speed first and the number of cores second. But, it is just my opinion.

[garrison_k.]

"I don’t think you got what I was saying..."

 

You're right, I didn't. Sorry Matt.

 

Here is a link showing PDNBench run on various cpu's. This is a decent bench test in my opinion as it is

applied like Photoshop. Meaning a multi threaded software that can use multi core processors.

 

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2008/11/03/intel-core-i7-920-945-965-review/7

 

The new $300 i7 920 is so impressive. It's significantly faster than the $1400 QX9770.

 

With Sisoft Sandra run on the same is here,

 

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/Intel-Core-i7-Nehalem,2057-18.html

 

Hope you find it interesting.

 

Cheers,

 

G

[larry n.]

Memory bandwith may be more of a bottleneck that raw CPU speed (no matter the number of cores). Read this blog from a Photoshop engineer:

 

http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2006/12/is_photoshop_cs.html

 

This may give an edge to Nehalem when paired with triple channel DDR3 RAM.

 

Btw, I think Vista 64 is the way to go. I have it installed on a 2.66 Ghz quad core with 8GB and it runs like a dream. For legacy programs, you can easily install a Windows XP virtual machine.

[larry n.]

This is the link you want. The other link just referred to this one:

 

http://blogs.adobe.com/scottbyer/2006/12/64_bitswhen.html