Photoshop Machine

[adams]

A friend is interested in me building him a machine which runs Photoshop, Illustrator, In Design, etc. and can run them fast. I have a few questions.

1)I'm wondering if I can get by with an Athlon XP or if an Athlon 64 is that much better that it justifies the expense.

2)What is an appropriate amount of RAM for these Adobe apps?

3)Other than size, does the type of Hard Drive matter much?

4)Is it necessary to get a high-end video card for these graphics programs? If not, what would be sufficent?

5)Anything else I should be concerned about.

Thanks!

Adam

 

[Hulk]

I'll give this a shot.

1)I'm wondering if I can get by with an Athlon XP or if an Athlon 64 is that much better that it justifies the expense.

Some of the lower clocked A64's are very affordable and will show increased performance. I'd go for the A64.

2)What is an appropriate amount of RAM for these Adobe apps?

This depends on the size of the images he'll be editing. I would estimate 1GB minimum for serious photo editing.

3)Other than size, does the type of Hard Drive matter much?

Faster hard drive will open/save images faster, go with something that is 7200rpm and 8MB cache.

4)Is it necessary to get a high-end video card for these graphics programs? If not, what would be sufficent?

No image editing functions are accelerated from the graphics adapter. Be concerned with image quality. If gaming is not a priority I'd go with a Matrox card, if some gaming will be done ATI is probably the next best option.

5)Anything else I should be concerned about.

I'm sure the A64 would do a good job, but also remember that some features in Photoshop are highly optimized for the P4 and hyperthreading.

 

[wizdum]

Matrox Parhelia is a pretty expensive card and you could get the same image quality from say a Geforce 4 Ti 4200, which I have, and I photoshop every now and then because I build websites. GF4's are cheap and do just fine for photoshopping.

 

[Ikonomi]

1) A high end Athlon XP would be fast enough for those applications, but a 64 will be even faster. Athlon 64s are a good performance bargain. I'd build around one of those.

2) 512 MB bare minimum. 1 GB of RAM is much better.

3) Well, not so much. There's no reason not to get a drive with an 8 MB buffer these days, though. They're not very expensive anymore.

4) No, you don't need a powerful graphics card. You just need a monitor and card that can do a good working resolution comfortably. High resolution = lots of work space.

5) Nothing that I can think of.

 

[jerome12345]

1 gig ram and a 74gig raptor for apps and windows
160gb 7200rpm 8mb hd for jpegs and other files

or

2 gig ram w/1gb ramdisk for photshop scratch disk

 

[Eug]

Power Mac G5 dual 2.5 GHz (when it comes out), with 4 GB RAM. That should be pretty fast.

Actually it really depends on what he's doing, but he may just be happy with a single P4 3.2 with 2 GB RAM, with a RAID0 scratch disc (if he has humungous file sizes). It might be nice to get a dual DVI video card too. Throw in a colour analyzer too for the monitor.

 

[Hulk]

Originally posted by: wizdum
Matrox Parhelia is a pretty expensive card and you could get the same image quality from say a Geforce 4 Ti 4200, which I have, and I photoshop every now and then because I build websites. GF4's are cheap and do just fine for photoshopping.

I have to disagree with you here. I've seen the image quality of the Ti4200 vs. the Matrox cards. At resolutions over 10x8 on good monitors there is a noticable difference.

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

As I said if gaming isn't important you can pick up a P650 for a very reasonable amount of money.

 

[yhelothar]

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

 

[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.

 

[adams]

Thanks for all the replies.

Someone mentioned that the P4 had been optimized for Photoshop. Will it then run faster than an A64, or does it just help it keep up?

Thanks

Adam

 

[vortix]

If he is truly serious about doing photo editing, I'd suggest that he gets a G5 Power Mac. Otherwise an Intel or AMD system will work.

 

[adams]

Originally posted by: vortix
If he is truly serious about doing photo editing, I'd suggest that he gets a G5 Power Mac. Otherwise an Intel or AMD system will work.

This may be so, but it's not an option. He's been using Photoshop on a PC for many years, and has no desire to switch to Mac whatever the merits may be.

 

[mooojojojo]

Oh my, what complicated respones.
I think that if you get him anything ~2.8GHz, 1GB RAM, a 160GB disk and a mid-range video-card (I wouldn't go with a low-end since memory bandwidth IS an issue in resolutions above 1600x1200@32bit) he'll be plenty happy.

 

[Dug]

Originally posted by: mooojojojo
Oh my, what complicated respones.
I think that if you get him anything ~2.8GHz, 1GB RAM, a 160GB disk and a mid-range video-card (I wouldn't go with a low-end since memory bandwidth IS an issue in resolutions above 1600x1200@32bit) he'll be plenty happy.

Exactely.

 

[gauravsharma311]

1)I'm wondering if I can get by with an Athlon XP or if an Athlon 64 is that much better that it justifies the expense.

barton 2500, change fsb to 200 in bios, = 3200+ for $60, motherboards cheap too, no point paying triple for 10% faster cpu.

2)What is an appropriate amount of RAM for these Adobe apps?

pc3200 is fine (ddr400), anything higher is overpriced.

3)Other than size, does the type of Hard Drive matter much?

yes, matters a LOT for that type of work. get a 10k rpm Raptor with 8mb cache. If he needs silence, samsung P80160GB with 8mb cache(slower, but still fast). Will reduce load times hugely and disk access will be faster when memory runs out.

4)Is it necessary to get a high-end video card for these graphics programs? If not, what would be sufficent?

No. anything will give same result in windows. Good idea to have DVI output for LCDs though.

5)Anything else I should be concerned about.

Get decent monitor, like a 213T or 2001FP reviewed here. It might cost 60% of the total system value but will be worth it for the clarity and desktop space it brings.

 

[gauravsharma311]

to add - image quality is virtually exact same (perfectly sharp) through a dvi port, so comments above about what card does better 2D only concern your friend if he is running a CRT at high res.

 

[charloscarlies]

Here is what I use for video/photo editting and it works very well I think:

P4 2.8 M0 stepping @ 3.5 ghz
Abit IS7
1 gb OCZ Pc3200 (same as in this rig...runs 2-3-2-6 without problems at rated speed)
74 gb Raptor for OS
2 of my old 80 gig maxtors that I took from this system in Raid 0 for dealing with large files
fx5200 (yes a bad gaming card but i don't use it for games)
etc, etc....

I would definitely go Intel if he has the means. I have also become a huge Raptor fan and I think he might get use out of one or two even if money isn't that big of an issue.

Edit: Forgot to add....I found a deal on a couple of refurbed Dell 21" crt's and couldn't be happier. That's one of the reasons I went with the NV because their dual monitor support is better. Matrox would be even better if the money isn't a problem.

 

[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.

 

[adams]

Does anyone know of any Photoshop specific benchmarks for the different processors?

I've searched Google but haven't had much luck except I did find out that the K6-2/300 beat out the PII-300 in some photoshop tests!!!

 

[KeithP]

Adobe recommends that for maximum performance their applications' scratch disk be on a physically separate drive than the operating system's virtual memory disk (not just a different partition). So you will want at least two drives. You probably want three though, 1 for os/apps/os vm, 1 for a scratch disk for Adobe apps and 1 for data. Of course the faster the drives the better. If the machine is going to be used more than 20 hours a week for imaging editing or other intensive tasks, I would go SCSI. Especially if the size of the average project is over 200 MB.

-KeithP

 

[yhelothar]

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.

 

[Huma]

Here's a really important question. What's he designing for? Web or print?

You can get away with a lot more when working for web since it's not nearly as demanding. Here's a take on your questions though

2)What is an appropriate amount of RAM for these Adobe apps?
1-2gb. whatever he can afford. more doesn't hurt.

3)Other than size, does the type of Hard Drive matter much?
if he's working with really large files, a fast second hard drive as the scratch would be very useful.

4)Is it necessary to get a high-end video card for these graphics programs? If not, what would be sufficent?
For 2D work, get a matrox G550. it's a bit older, but cheap, and still awesome for 2D work.
screw nvidia, screw ati, screw the parhelia even. The G550 is a great 2D workhorse with great dual monitor support.

5)Anything else I should be concerned about.
Does he have a good monitor? A high end 19" should be used, or a 21" if he can afford it. I still recommend CRTs for graphics work. And they're cheaper for the real-estate too which is a big draw. when I'm working in design, I want as much screen space as possible.

 

[adams]

Originally posted by: Huma
Here's a really important question. What's he designing for? Web or print?

He'll be designing primarily for print.

3)Other than size, does the type of Hard Drive matter much?
if he's working with really large files, a fast second hard drive as the scratch would be very useful.

You know... after reading numerous replies, I have to say I don't really know what a scratch disk is.

5)Anything else I should be concerned about.
Does he have a good monitor? A high end 19" should be used, or a 21" if he can afford it. I still recommend CRTs for graphics work. And they're cheaper for the real-estate too which is a big draw. when I'm working in design, I want as much screen space as possible.

He has a 21 inch CRT, but is really looking to move to an LCD, primarily for space reasons. Any suggestions on a quality LCD that would work for him?

Thanks

 

[Eug]

Photoshop can only access 2 GB RAM. Once the RAM is maxed out it goes to disk. What many people do is have a dedicated empty single hard drive or RAID0 setup specifically for Photoshop.

How can you max out 2 GB you ask? Well, the print types often have multiple files in the several hundred megabyte range and running various actions and filters on those files. Also, they may have In Design or Quark loaded at the same time among other things. When you're working with 600 MB files it's pretty easy to max out your RAM. For such a scenario, often the limiting factor isn't just CPU speed, but hard drive speed, because the computer is constantly swapping out to disk.

Power Macs are very expensive, but in the print scenario may have a few advantages. (This is according to my Photoshop print friends since I do don't this for a living.)

1) Colour management is supposedly easier, esp. with Apple's own LCDs.
2) The computers can access way more than say 4 GB RAM. Effectively it's only 4 GB though since getting 8 x 1 GB memory costs too much. People get 8 x 512 MB. Photoshop can only access 2 GB, but if you're running In Design at the same time or whatever then having more than 2 GB RAM is a big bonus.
3) Macs tend to be much faster at certain actions such as RGB -> CMYK for print. If you're batch converting say 50 files, it's a HUGE benefit to have tons of RAM and a dual G5.

The drawback of course is cost. If you're on a lower budget, probably something like a Pentium 4 3.2 GHz with 2 GB RAM and two hard drives (one for scratch) would be fine.

 

[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.