Photoshop Machine

[Eug]

Originally posted by: JediJeb
For 2D work only I would definately go with Matrox for video. I have been using a G450 for years and it is great with photos, but you would probably want one with more ram than I have for print quality work.

If you're going LCD, then all is needed is DVI. It doesn't matter what brand of card. Buy yeah, for VGA, I'd stay away from some of the nVidia brands.

 

[yhelothar]

Eug.. it does matter... did you see this link I posted earlier?
http://www.matrox.com/mga/products/tech_info/pdfs/parhelia/us_displ.pdf

 

[Schadenfroh]

burn the mac folks, get a athlon64 3200, it should be better all around, then get a geforce4 TI from a decent manufacturer, the good manufacturers have image quality on par with ATI, for best go with matrox, but they suck at 3d. 74 gig raptors are over priced, go with dual 120gb 7200rpm Seagate SATA drives with 8mb cache and run them in RAID0.

 

[xenocyd3]

get dual mp's

 

[mooojojojo]

Originally posted by: Mik3y
for photoshop. i really recommend you get duel processors, such as the athlon mp's. photoshop, like all other adobe apps, will drain your cpu of resources, so get a duel cpu, a radeon 9600xt, a 10000rpm raptor, and and a 200gb harddrive or so.

What's a duel CPU anyway?

Also.. Photoshop, like all other Adobe apps, doesn't drain your CPU power at all. Except maybe when you're saving or opening a large file, or maybe applying an action or filter in a huge image. Even then, the opening/saving of large files (actually mostly heavily layered files) is so far the most demanding thing I've seen for it, and I think it taxes the HDD more than the CPU. Could be wrong about that one, but the point is - opening Photoshop by itself doesn't drain any CPU power.

Maybe the original poster's friend, whose computer we're discussing, will focus more on work instead of timing his machine performing various actions.

 

[Dug]

Originally posted by: virtualgames0
Eug.. it does matter... did you see this link I posted earlier?
http://www.matrox.com/mga/products/tech_info/pdfs/parhelia/us_displ.pdf

Ummm, not only is that old but everything there deals with DAC's. All tests done were to show the superior performance on a CRT.
When the signal doesn't have to go through the DAC then it's useless info unless tested through the DVI port on an LCD.

Photoshop can only access 2 GB

It's more than that now.

 

[Eug]

Originally posted by: Dug

Photoshop can only access 2 GB

It's more than that now.

No it isn't.
The limit in CS is still 2 GB.

Originally posted by: virtualgames0
Eug.. it does matter... did you see this link I posted earlier?
http://www.matrox.com/mga/products/tech_info/pdfs/parhelia/us_displ.pdf

The guy said he wants an LCD. If so, they he should go DVI, and with DVI, that entire PDF is completely irrelevant.

 

[yhelothar]

ooops you're right.. i was thinking about another article..
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1558,1187651,00.asp
this one shows that different brands give different results for DVI quality too. Some can't drive as high resolutions as others, so a cheap brand 5200 won't be suitable for his setup if he was using dvi.

 

[Eug]

Originally posted by: virtualgames0
ooops you're right.. i was thinking about another article..
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1558,1187651,00.asp
this one shows that different brands give different results for DVI quality too. Some can't drive as high resolutions as others, so a cheap brand 5200 won't be suitable for his setup if he was using dvi.

Just about any DVI-D these days works fine, but yeah, I don't like cheap brand cards either.

 

[Dug]

Originally posted by: Eug

Originally posted by: Dug

Photoshop can only access 2 GB

It's more than that now.

No it isn't.
The limit in CS is still 2 GB.


Sorry, we got a release note that said it could on a 64bit OS and cpu.
If it can't with 10.3+ or Win64 because of incompatibility, then it could with a patch.

 

[Tab]

I would seriously ask someone who actually uses adobe products before asking any of our opinions on these forums. We are just crazy ethusiants who might download Adobe Photoshop to make a 50x50 signature, not use it professionally If I have to suggest something I advise you to wait for PCI-Express, AMD 939s and Intels 755s.

Asus/Abit Motherboard (For Intel or AMD)
Antec Case (Solid, Sturdy design, good power supplies)
P4 Prescott 2.8 1MB L2 (Not really sure if that larger cash will make the difference but what the hell )
AMD 64 3200+ (If you want to go AMD)
1GB PC3200 Major Brand - Crucial,Mushkin,Corsair,Crucial (Photoshop takes up alot of memory)
Matrox video card or ATi solution - I would look at Matrix's cards personally if he really want to get into it, I honestly have only heard goods things about their video cards. Otherwise I would go with ATi as nvidia's current lineup completely sucks.
36.7 Raptor or 80GB 7200RPM 8MB - (Not sure what I would do, I dont know how large photoshop files can get to be honest. If he is a serious artist I would consider getting a external HD as well and backing his work up just to be safe. I dont know if a Raptor would make that much difference in photoshop)
Plextor or Samsung CD-RW/DVD Drive (High Quality and quiet drives! They are actually quiet!)
LCDs generally dont replacate colors as well as CRTs, red colors are a big example. They just cant display reds properly. If you really wanted a LCD I would go with the Dell 2001FP and I think Hitachi makes a 24-Bit 17". Otherwise I would go with a LCD.
I hope I didnt miss anything. I would try to find some real photoshop experts before buying.

 

[mooojojojo]

Concerning flat panels: LCDs I've seen are unable to reproduce any shade lighter than 5%. So the original poster can advise his friend to actually try an LCD before getting one. He may be surprised.

That said I haven't seen a really high end panel so maybe there are those which are viable for design work. Also Apple seems to feel that LCDs provide a good enough color range to cut out any CRTs out of their lines.

 

[yhelothar]

Matrox video card or ATi solution - I would look at Matrix's cards personally if he really want to get into it, I honestly have only heard goods things about their video cards. Otherwise I would go with ATi as nvidia's current lineup completely sucks.

fanboys are sad..

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: virtualgames0

Originally posted by: Hulk

Originally posted by: virtualgames0

I also think ATI display quality is better than the nVidia cards.

you're wrong...
http://www.matrox.com/mga/products/tech_info/pdfs/parhelia/us_displ.pdf

I said "I think." That means this is my opinion based on MY experience with various Matrox, nVidia, and ATI card over the years.

Also, be careful not to blindly believe manufacturers testing results. Remember that independent testing labs are generally more reliable since they have no reason to prove one product better than another.

In addition, only three cards were tested, and the 8500 is a very outdated card.

Nice work finding the test, but be careful placing your trust in such a small and possibly biased sample. You never know if the competitors are "hand picked" in such a manufacturers test.

Surely you realize that if I were so inclined I could find "tests" proving my opinion as well?

Thank you for your time.

True but the fact is that you can't judge NVIDIA's 2D quality AS A WHOLE. NVIDIA's 2D quality is dependant upon the quality of the components used by the third party manufacturers. For example, gainward and leadtek will use top notch quality components, while if you get a cheap brand like xfx or jetway, you'll get crap 2D quality.

If you ever get the opportunity to see Evga and Leadtek side by side, its enough to make you say wtf.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: Tabb
I would seriously ask someone who actually uses adobe products before asking any of our opinions on these forums. We are just crazy ethusiants who might download Adobe Photoshop to make a 50x50 signature, not use it professionally If I have to suggest something I advise you to wait for PCI-Express, AMD 939s and Intels 755s.

Asus/Abit Motherboard (For Intel or AMD)
Antec Case (Solid, Sturdy design, good power supplies)
P4 Prescott 2.8 1MB L2 (Not really sure if that larger cash will make the difference but what the hell )
AMD 64 3200+ (If you want to go AMD)
1GB PC3200 Major Brand - Crucial,Mushkin,Corsair,Crucial (Photoshop takes up alot of memory)
Matrox video card or ATi solution - I would look at Matrix's cards personally if he really want to get into it, I honestly have only heard goods things about their video cards. Otherwise I would go with ATi as nvidia's current lineup completely sucks.
36.7 Raptor or 80GB 7200RPM 8MB - (Not sure what I would do, I dont know how large photoshop files can get to be honest. If he is a serious artist I would consider getting a external HD as well and backing his work up just to be safe. I dont know if a Raptor would make that much difference in photoshop)
Plextor or Samsung CD-RW/DVD Drive (High Quality and quiet drives! They are actually quiet!)
LCDs generally dont replacate colors as well as CRTs, red colors are a big example. They just cant display reds properly. If you really wanted a LCD I would go with the Dell 2001FP and I think Hitachi makes a 24-Bit 17". Otherwise I would go with a LCD.
I hope I didnt miss anything. I would try to find some real photoshop experts before buying.

Prescott runs SLOWER than northwood at this clock pretty much across the board, and generates far far more heat. I strongly suggest not getting a prescott pentium 4 at this time.

 

[Z24]

Photoshop...

PROCESSOR: you'll do fine with either a P4 or Athlon64. benchmarks
don't go dual. there is *some* benefit, but not anything proportionate to the price increase.

RAM: As other people have stated, Photoshop will not access more than 2GB. As a general guideline, PS uses 3-5X the filesize in RAM. So, based on what size files he's using, buy the appropriate amount of RAM. edit: more than 2GB isn't necessarily a waste -- it would ensure photoshop gets a full 2GB.

HD: Well, number of HD's matters. Again repeating what some people have said... Photoshop has what's called a scratchdisk. It uses that when it fills up the available RAM. It should *NOT* be on the same physical drive as the windows swap file. (It's also good to avoid putting your Photoshop data files on the same physical disk as the scratch disk aswell.) A three drive setup seems to work best. The following is a good setup:
disk0 - OS, Programs
disk1a - 5gb (give or take) partition for primary scratch disk (seperate partition keeps it from getting fragmented)
disk1b - the rest for non-photoshop data files, secondary scratch disk (incase photoshop needs more than 5gb -- unlikely)
disk2a - 4gb partition for windows swap file
disk2b - the rest for photoshop data

To be clear, disk0, disk1 and disk2 are three seperate physical drives on their own IDE channel (don't put two drives on the same ribbon). Use an add-on card (cheap) if your motherboard doesn't have 3 independent IDE channels. SCSI is better, but way more expensive.

VIDEO: High-end (3d) is not needed. Again like a lot of people said, Matrox is a good choice. Followed by ATI. Dual-head with photoshop is great. DO NOT GET AN LCD FOR PHOTOGRAPHIC WORK. I don't think I can be more clear.

ANYTHING ELSE: Well, be careful if people suggest a RAID0 setup (striping). The only time I would recommend that is if the RAID0 is strickly for your Photshop data files and nothing else. In that case, you'll notice big improvments when opening and saving 100+ megabyte files. BUT, if you use the stripe set for other things, a lot of the performance benefits will be lost. Also, you will lose everything on your RAID0 setup if only 1 of the disks goes.

 

[RussianSensation]

Originally posted by: virtualgames0

I also think ATI display quality is better than the nVidia cards.

you're wrong...
http://www.matrox.com/mga/products/tech_info/pdfs/parhelia/us_displ.pdf

Yeah that article does show 4200 being better in image quality than an 8500 and it further says that 8500 will be brigter and more blurred out. However, when I borrowed my friend's 4200 the reverse was true. Nvidia did have better whites because it was brighter in all colours, but 8500's image is more focused, and the text is clearer and easier to read. So I think this is more of a subjective subject because like Beauty, image quality is in the eye of the beholder. I bet some ppl love jaggies and you could find those who prefer blur over anisoptropic filtering goodness. And then there are gonna be others who are content at playing 640x480 at 16-bit like my friend who says it makes no difference to him if he plays that at 1600x1200 4aa/8AF ... go figure.

 

[sharkeeper]

The biggest question of all:

What is he using right now???

If there is a real need for single app access to >2GB, then wait for XP64.

There will also be a nicer selection of hardware (Dual Opterons!) in this category by then.

Also if he is interested in using a LCD, I recommend the Samsung 240T as it works very well for this application and the 16:9 ratio is nice for doing edits. The disadvantages of using TFT's are far outweighed by the advantages at this point. Any decent 128MB DVI card will produce a fast, flicker free 1920x1280 image. nV's dib blits are faster than ATi's so if he is doing full screen flash this can be a factor.

Cheers!

 

[Special1Sauce]

I'd say something heavy in CPU and alot of RAM

 

[Z24]

If there is a real need for single app access to >2GB, then wait for XP64.

This is a Photoshop limitation, not an operating system limitation. 64-bit Windows will have no effect on this.

The disadvantages of using TFT's are far outweighed by the advantages at this point.

For photographic work, CRT's are far superior. LCD's just don't have the colour reproduction needed for professional photographic editing.

 

[sharkeeper]

This is a Photoshop limitation, not an operating system limitation. 64-bit Windows will have no effect on this.

Right now this is an OS limitation. Adobe will fix this when XP64 is final.

For photographic work, CRT's are far superior. LCD's just don't have the colour reproduction needed for professional photographic editing.

While I don't disagree here, it seems that most shops (both mac and pc) are using LCD's and making adjustments as needed to compensate for the output differences. The space savings alone is defintely worth it.

Cheers!

 

[Smithyoffline]

Ok my input

running programs like these look at the adobe photoshop website Here and look at the recommended specs. I would then try to excel that a bit...

I would go for a pentium 4 as many programs like photoshop are starting to go with hyperthreading

i have a 2.8Cghz with 2x512mb PC3200 on a dual channel motherboard and runs photoshop sweet!!

Looking at the HDD go for a large size if he does this alot as pictures can tend to take up alot, definately if they are still being edited. Go for a 120Gb Western digital 7200RPM 8mb cache or something

The video card doesnt need to be the best for video editing, more the monitor you are working on. A 19inch or higher is better for photo editing. Go for something like a ti4200 card or something, maybe with 2x monitor slots just in case he wishes to have more than one monitor looking at the photoshop file. Also with tv out is good to see the final product on a tv monitor.

Just be aware of the speed of the processor, how much ram you have in the system (photoshop is ram hungry at some stages)

I hope this helps

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: RussianSensation
<blockquote>Quote
Originally posted by: virtualgames0
<blockquote>Quote
I also think ATI display quality is better than the nVidia cards.

you're wrong...
(there used to be a link here)
Yeah that article does show 4200 being better in image quality than an 8500 and it further says that 8500 will be brigter and more blurred out. However, when I borrowed my friend's 4200 the reverse was true. Nvidia did have better whites because it was brighter in all colours, but 8500's image is more focused, and the text is clearer and easier to read. So I think this is more of a subjective subject because like Beauty, image quality is in the eye of the beholder. I bet some ppl love jaggies and you could find those who prefer blur over anisoptropic filtering goodness. And then there are gonna be others who are content at playing 640x480 at 16-bit like my friend who says it makes no difference to him if he plays that at 1600x1200 4aa/8AF ... go figure.[/quote]
Can't be so broad.
Look at a Gainward or Abit (good, not amazing).
OK, look at a XFX (crap, fuzzy).
Now look at a Leadtek (sing your favorite hymn to these guys).
The drivers do make a difference, so you can play around with them for a 4200, but so do the manufacturer's components.
Color reproduction is probably important like Monster cables, really. I don't do PS work, but there is no standard for color on anything but the printed page. Anything else is opinion. It might be educated opinion and experience, but won't be fact, as far as how well you can actually use a given type of monitor, vid card, etc.

However, when you're looking at a monitor all your working hours, the card's output quality and monitor sharpness will make an amazing difference for your eyes and your mood. I hear nothing but good about Matrox, but haven't used one, and I know BBA Radeon 9500+ and Leadtek Geforces look great.

edit: WTF is w/ the link and quoting? (kinda fixed)

 

[gsellis]

The biggest weakness on one of these systems is the colorspace that the monitor can support. I would check with the Adobe community and see what they recommend. The 1931 C.I.E. standard is the keyword. This defines the visible color spectrum in RGB xy coordinates.

I think this site is to get a report on your stuff (did a quick search and did not really read it ) But, they have pretty pictures so you can see what the 1931 CIE color space map looks like and a gamut triangle.

A picture with a gamut example

To get good color, you need a monitor with the largest gamut (triangle) inside the color space. Guys who do this all day, both at Adobe and some of the digital photo forums, will know where you want to go. You may end up wanting a CRT in the end. I am not sure that some of the flat panels have the range yet, but I have seen samples of some that do.

 

[Eug]

The LCDs are not quite up to par with CRTs in that regard, but the LCDs are much better in terms of space savings and text quality obviously.

In any case, for many people they're good enough. I know a guy who does covers and articles for a magazine (online and print) with Photoshop, InDesign, and Quark, and he does it on a (good quality) LCD (Apple).