D800 hardware requirements

[alastair_anderson]

<p>My current system is too slow and I need to upgrade. I'm leaning towards PC rather than Mac because its cheaper. It has been suggested that I will need a 'quad-core' processor and lots of RAM (16G?) as well as a good graphics card and obviously a lot of storage.<br>

Any thoughts?</p>

[liljuddakalilknyttphotogra]

<p>Well I just recently bought a DELL with 10GB of RAM & it's doing just fine.</p>

[jared_youtsey]

<p>I've found RAM to be much less important than processor power (and perhaps HD speed). I rarely see my RAM spike above about 6BG on my 16GB system. That said, I can kill my hyper-threaded quad core i7 in no time flat. A 203 MB TIFF with multi layers in PS running a filter can just bring it to a stop.<br>

Buy all of the processor you can possibly afford. RAM? 8-12 to be safe?</p>

[alastair_anderson]

<p>Thanks for the quick response, Lil. Did you buy a D800? I would have thought DX was better for birding? May I ask what software you're using, and would you know anything about your computer's cpu?</p>

[alastair_anderson]

<p>Jared, that's exactly the kind of information I was looking for, thanks. Although 'hyper-threaded' doesn't mean anything to me. But I know there are several icore7 processors out there.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>I think this can be over-stated - a D800 is three times the resolution of a D700, but you can still get a lot of 203MB layers into Photoshop before you start to stress a low-ish end modern computer. If your PC is a few years old, maybe it'll struggle, but otherwise it depends how much you're really dependent on instant response. Yes, my (a couple of years old) i7 box - I've forgotten whether it has 6GB or 12GB - feel detectably slower when processing D800 images than D700 ones, but things like Focus Magic always took a few seconds to process, and I've been using it since I had a much slower computer. The processing speed of a D800 image is probably similar to whatever you might have been editing a D3 image on when it was launched; if you're used to how fast a modern PC can process a 12MP image, it's a bit of a come-down. Patience, Grasshopper.<br />

<br />

If you're using it commercially and your career depends on fast processing, it's probably worth not trying to make do with an i3 and 2GB. Otherwise, bear in mind there's a sweet spot for CPU price/performance, and you can pay a lot of money for a small performance boost. RAM is cheap, though, and it doesn't hurt to go for plenty. Note that, for most uses, the GPU is only used for image effect <i>previews</i>, not for heavy-duty processing - for now, and if we're talking Photoshop. This may change in future revisions - Adobe do use the GPU in After Effects already, and it may be a better route for them than trying to make all filtering make proper use of multiple CPU cores (as far as I know, Photoshop only does this selectively for now, though I don't work for Adobe and haven't seen the code). In the mean time, a faster single thread may mean better performance on some operations than a large number of threads - which suggests that a high-end Intel chip (i7 Ivy Bridge) over AMD's latest and greatest. But my information may be outdated.<br />

<br />

I'd say "definitely lots of storage", but then I never get around to throwing anything away...</p>

[m_tt_donuts]

<p>The GPU also helps for video. Some of the popular video editing software like Cyberlink can use the video card to help compile video making creating a full length blu-ray less of a snore-fest. It also gives better previews. <br />For photoshop direct from Adobe's mouth when discussing CS5 (I could not find one for CS6)</p>

<p>Photoshop CS5 on 64-bit Windows 7 opens a 2GB file 15 times faster than Photoshop CS4 on a 32-bit Windows 7 machine</p>

<p>Opening and saving files is up to six times faster on a 64-bit system than on a 32-bit system.</p>

<p>Processing large files (over 500MB) is significantly faster on a 64-bit system with memory configurations of 8GB or more</p>

<p>CS6 has more GPU related features.</p>

<p>Photoshop generally runs faster with more processor cores, although some features take greater advantage of the additional cores than others. There is a law of diminishing returns with multiple processor cores: The more cores you use, the less you get from each additional core. Therefore, Photoshop doesn’t run four times as fast on a computer with 16 processor cores as on a computer with four cores. For most users, the increase in performance provided by more than six cores doesn't justify the increased cost.</p>

[Kent Shafer]

<p>One small recommendation I would make: be sure to get a machine with USB 3.0 ports and some USB 3.0 capable external drives. This setup makes backups and copying photo libraries much faster than USB 2.0.</p>

<p>When I bought a new HP computer a few months ago, adding USB 3.0 ports was a very inexpensive option, and I'm really glad I got it. Western Digital 3 TB USB 3.0 drives are available for only about US$150—sometimes a bit cheaper at Costco.</p>

[john_deerfield]

<p>Wow, Mac to PC. That's rare. If it is simply a pricing issue, you will need to add into the mix all the new software you will need to buy for the PC side of things. You don't say what you are using now, but have you maxed out the Ram with what you have? We bought a Core i5 iMac last year for casual use. It come stock with 4GB. It was only $50 for a 8GB chip so I upgraded... what a difference. Even Apple's OS is starting to require a healthy chunk of Ram, so the more the merrier. </p>

[alastair_anderson]

<p>Thanks for the responses. <br>

Kent, I'll definitely look for USB 3.<br>

John. I'm currently using PC. Would change to Mac if I thought it would be better. Just really ignorant.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>There are a few sites listing benchmarks for processor performance with photo editing. Use them while evaluating a computer purchase. Keep in mind that state of the art quad core processors in the 3 GHz range will be very expensive (some are $300 or more just for the CPU) and mostly intended for hardcore gamers and video editors. You'll find the best values a notch or two below while still getting excellent photo editing performance.</p>

<p>I'm a cheapskate so I bought a PC with a recently discontinued AMD quad core CPU - around $70 - and middling performance but good enough for my needs editing 10 mp files. It's still blazing fast compared with what I was using.</p>