Photoshop Computer Questions...

[morton20]

Hello,

I am building a computer almost exclusively for using Photoshop in the US. My only real requirements are that it run Photoshop/CS3 smoothly and effeciently, that it support Apple's 30" Cinema display, and that it cost somewhere around $1000 -$1200 (The version speced out below costs $1128 shipped from Newegg). I have speced it out as follows, and would appreciate any insight/knowledge that you could contribute. Also, I was wondering if I should stick with 2gb of RAM or go to 4gb of RAM, and if so, does it need to be 2x2GB or can it be 4X1GB? Thank you so much for your help!


Processor/CPU
Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 2.4GHz (Will not be overclocking)

Mother Board
EVGA nForce 680 SLI ATX Intel Motherboard

RAM
OCZ Platinum Revision 2GB (2x1GB)DDR2 800 RAM

Video Card (I believe that this supports the 30" display (Dual Link DVI), is this correct?)
Gigabyte GV-NXT256H GeForce 8600GT

Hard Drive 1
Western Digital Raptor 150GB 10,000 RPM SATA Hard Drive

Hard Drive 2
Western Digital Caviar 400GB 7,200 RPM SATA Hard Drive

Case
Antec Sonata III Case

Fan
Zalman 9700 110mm

Card Reader
Sabrent 52 in 1 Internal Card Reader (Fits in 3.5" slot)

Optical Drive
Samsung 20X DVD Burner

OS
Windows Vista Ultimate Edition 32-bit (Already have a copy)

Any feedback/thoughts are appreciated!

 

[LightningRider]

I would definitely go with 4GB of RAM, and it can be 4x1GB or 2x2GB as long as the motherboard supports it.

Now speaking of the motherboard, I recommend a P35 based board instead as you obviously don't need SLI. Abit IP35-Pro, Gigabyte P35-DS3R (No firewire on this if that's important to you), ASUS P5K or P5K Deluxe if you like the extra features.

Also if you are going with 4GB of RAM, you will need Vista 64. I recommend Home Premium at least. Apparently photoshop works fine on Vista 64, at least CS3 does, don't know about the others but you can research that first but it should be fine.

Also, another thing is why 400GB? Seems like an older model, get the WesternDigital SE16 500GB, they can be had for 100$ if you search for the deals.

I don't know what that case is like but I'm guessing you like it.

 

[morton20]

Thanks for the response. What are the advantages of having 2x2gb vs. 4x1gb? Also, if I'm going to use 32-bit, I know that it can only take advantage of up to 3gb of ram. Should I then put in 3x1gb? Also, what advantage will come from using the 64-bit vs. 32-bit? Are the difficulties associated with 64-bit worth the benefits? Thanks again!

 

[themisfit610]

2x2gb vs 4x1gb - I would go with 2x2, because you can add more later! (Theoretically, I've never actually done it).

Photoshop is a 32 bit app (why god, why didn't they make cs3 an x64 app?), so running x64 and more than 3 gb of RAM is a waste. BUT, not totally, because with 2x2 you still get dual channel mode, which isn't possible with 3x1.

I wouldn't run vista if I was you, simply due to the fact that it gobbles memory, which Photoshop should have access to

~MiSfit

 

[LightningRider]

The main advantage of 2x2GB vs 4x1GB is that you have room for future expansion. If you use 4x1GB, chances are you are using all the slots the motherboard has for RAM so you can't upgrade the memory beyond 4GB easily. Most P35 motherboards support up to 8GB of RAM and the only way it is possible to get this much is to use 2GB sticks (2GBx4).

Native 64 bit code is often slightly faster, though sometimes it can be more noticeable (Crytek claims that Crysis 64bit will run 10-15% faster per CPU core than the 32bit). 64 bit apps are sometimes slightly, slightly larger in size than 32bit apps (not even worth mentioning it's so small but I did). Most apps today are not programmed with 64bit code though so these apps for the moment are far and few in between. The main advantage right now is the ability to use more than 3GB of RAM, and believe me with Vista, you will find use for more than that, especially with programs like Photoshop (assuming heavy usage).

As for difficulties, personally I've had almost no problems with the applications I run on my 64 bit Vista Ultimate. I have Photoshop CS3 on it and I have no problems to report. Games all run very well. The only thing I have had trouble getting to work is PHP (though I haven't tried recently) and in some cases Visual Studio 2005 where you have to tell the compiler to use the 32bit target, but otherwise seems to work fairly well. I also have drivers for all my components that require it. Personally I don't think the supposed problems with 64 bit are all they are made out to be, though some may have different experiences than me. But 64 bit has been fine with me and support will only improve and is improving I guess. It also makes sense to me to buy something now so I don't have to buy it again later when I need it. That is, paying for 32 bit Vista then paying again in the future for 64 seems a little silly, and I don't like those upgrades they sell, and they still cost money!

Also, again I suggest a P35 motherboard, better overclockers (though that's not an issue for you), better stability.

EDIT: To the above post, Vista does use more memory, though most of it is used for SuperFetch, which speeds up your machine by prefetching files from the hard drive which it thinks are going to be used soon. If you need the memory, it simply frees up cache and allows the program requiring it to use it.

Also, I believe you can edit the Photoshop .exe and set it to use the Large Address Aware flag and you will be able to use more than 2GB of memory with it.

 

[airhendrix13]

Yeah, LightningRider and themisfit610 are leading you on the right track here. I would like to add that you really can do better than an 8600GT for the same price. The only reason I ever recommend 8600's is when someone wants DX10 at a reasonable price.

But considering photoshop doesn't take advantage of DX10, I would drop the 8600 and buy a 7900 or a 1950.

Enjoy,

Ryan

 

[themisfit610]

Well, photoshop doesn't take advantage of direct3d anything

Unless you plan on gaming (ever), then just get something very basic like an X1300 or a 7300gt. Your money is wasted otherwise Both should have one dual link DVI port.

~MiSfit

 

[vasdrakken]

Let me get this out of the way first:
morton20 you are going to just retouch photos, or do simple low resolution doodles, my only advice is make sure the videocard can drive the resolution you are using, that screen's native resolution is pretty sick at 2560 x 1600 (apples optimum resolution), and the card you chose may not have a large enough frame buffer, not sure how to find info on that though.

If your actually using it for art or work (what a shocking thought), you may find yourself needed more than a cheap low end videocard since the video-card does the work rasterizing the image, which means that if the image is high resolution, like say greater than 2k, you will find that moving it around, or resizing it can all be rather slower than you'd like. Memory plays a larger part once the file size gets to certain point depending on you undo size and how many layers/filters/effects you used. One thing that was not even mentioned is that having Photoshop's scratch pad on a different drive makes a large impact as does making your windows swap file about 2.5 times larger than your physical memory and make the initial and maximum size the same number. You will also find that when creating adjustment layers that your cpu time will spike if the image size is large enough. Also adjustment layers use twice as much memory since they are keeping two copies of the layer being modified in. As far as vista goes, if you are using the 64bit version of vista, even a program that can not address the additional memory benefits from not sharing memory with the OS which can address all of it.

Now misift, someone should make you go sit in a corner for spreading misinformation. I'm going to totally ignore CS3 ability to load waveform objects, to focus on the fact that Photoshop's raster engine is entirely 3D based, otherwise you get no layers. The original Photoshop did not have layers until version 3 and I'm not sure which is the first version that used Direct Draw in its raster engine but Photoshop 6 on the PC did while the mac was based on OpenGL at the time with seven they added OpenGL extensions to the PC while some of the plug-ins were dependent on D3d calls like the light effects, and a few other things someone who has ever had to write a plug-in for Photoshop might remember. CS2 and CS3 use DX9 code, VS 2005(.Net) code to make the call to the hardware now so figuring out exactly what calls what is really ugly now I think it fair to say if raster engine needs DX then it ?takes advantage of direct3d? on windows, with the exception being on a mac at which point you would be right since the engine can only use OpenGL extensions on the Mac OS. Which is why so many plug-ins don't work on a mac! And from your statement I can guess your were among the many that assume since Photoshop is considered a 2D application it must need much to draw pretty pictures, totally ignoring that in the end anything draw to your screen is 2D!

 

[themisfit610]

@jiulemoigt:

Well, I've never heard anybody say the things you do regarding Photoshop and Direct3d. I was under the impression that aside from a few select filters, Photoshop did all its work on the CPU (aside from actually putting a picture on the monitor, which obviously is done by the graphics card).

Now, I had no idea that "Photoshop's raster engine is entirely 3D [hardware] based".

You sound very well informed, and I will absolutely retract the statement I made. However, I would like to see some benchmarks that show the effect of replacing a very basic video card with something high end.

I do a lot of Photoshop, but I do most of my work in Lightroom and mostly use Photoshop for cropping, resizing, sharpening, denoising, and encoding. I consider myself pretty well informed, but I must confess I've never written a plugin for Photoshop, as you seem to have.

That said, I must say - I find your tone very offensive. If I really am as misinformed as you seem to think, then I can understand your frustration. Regardless, it wasn't really necessary to suggest that I "go sit in a corner". But I'm a tolerant person.

One final question - you say "I'm going to totally ignore CS3 ability to load waveform objects". What do you mean by this? I am not familiar with waveform objects in the realm of image editing.

Thanks
~MiSfit

 

[KoolDrew]

I wouldn't run vista if I was you, simply due to the fact that it gobbles memory, which Photoshop should have access to

OMFG, when will you people stop?

EDIT: To the above post, Vista does use more memory, though most of it is used for SuperFetch, which speeds up your machine by prefetching files from the hard drive which it thinks are going to be used soon. If you need the memory, it simply frees up cache and allows the program requiring it to use it.

Thank you! At least somebody has it right. :thumbsup:

 

[LightningRider]

Yea, Vista bandwagon bashers annoy me something fierce as well. Granted every OS has its faults, even XP, but personally I think Vista is an improvement over XP. Misinformed bashers who hate just for the sake of it and then recommend advice to people which is really misinformation gets to me.

 

[themisfit610]

Misinformed basher?

Show me a benchmark where Vista is faster than XP on the same configuration. Show me one where Vista is as fast as XP.

I think not.

 

[LightningRider]

So what? So slightly slower that most of the time you can't notice it. As far as games go, driver updates have brought Vista very very close to the XP performance. I'll take Vista's improvements and sacrifice a very small performance percentage any day.

If you have decent hardware, Vista will run very nice for you. The only reason I would not get Vista for a new machine is if you need to run software that is not yet compatible with it.

 

[Modelworks]

If you have plugins that you use with photoshop make sure they are working fine with vista.
There are a few alien skin plugins that hang the app in vista.