computer advice

[ladytx]

Am looking at this computer for photography/video. Would like some feedback and advice as to whether this computer would do all the tasks involved quickly. Are the components any good. Any other thoughts or recommendations. Buy a pre-made computer or have one built?

Processor - Intel Core i7
Processor Speed 3.4 GHZ with turbo boost
Cache Memory - 8 mg
RAM - 8 gb (would add 2 gb memory)
Type of RAM - DDR3 SDRAM
Hard Drive Type - SATA (7200 rpm)
Graphics Card - ATI Radeio HD 5770
Video Memory - 1 gb
Windows 7

[chuckinsocal]

I'm no expert but that looks like a pretty powerful system to me.

Here's a list of benchmarks (http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_list.php) for all the various processors. Note the sub models within the Core i7 series. Some are significantly faster than others. More expensive too. I don't know how valid these benchmarks are but I used them as a guide in choosing my new computer last month.

I hope this helps a little.

[lanaer]

Remember that at this point, the hard drive is by far the slowest part of your system, and from experience a good SSD can make a huge difference.

[Pupator]

That's a good system.

Two things:
1) get an SSD if you can. Even if it's only a small one used for Windows and applications, and you keep your data on a HDD
2) don't upgrade to 10GB of RAM. Either go up to 12 or leave it at 8.

[ladytx]

Thanks for the replies. SSD? HDD? Sorry not very educated on these things. This system has a 1.5 tb hard drive. I don't like that part. I have always had a smaller hard drive for programs and a separate hard drive for my pictures, videos, etc. (Had my computer built before not a name brand). Not fond of having it all on C drive. I have externals holding things now but it is slower than having internals. How about partitioning the hard drive. How secure is that? I can add two drives to this machine. Thoughts on that?

[DeVerm]

http://www.apple.com/imac/

Add Windows 7 if you really need it; you can even make it a 100% Windows machine if you like.

ciao!
Nick.

[Pupator]

SSD is a solid state drive - that means it has no moving internal parts (think of it like a giant memory card). They're much faster reading/writing than drives with spinning platters (which reasonably max out at about 7200rpm).

You can partition the drive if you like - that will help if your installation of Windows gets corrupted somehow. But it's not going to help if the drive simply fails. Better would be to purchase a small SSD (64GB or so) and have Windows and the programs installed on it, while keeping your data on the 1.5GB HDD (hard disk drive).

[Pupator]

http://www.apple.com/imac/

Add Windows 7 if you really need it; you can even make it a 100% Windows machine if you like.

ciao!
Nick.

Yes, get an iMac. Less RAM, slower processor, and no ability to add an extra (internal) HDD or SSD. But other than that it would be a great investment. :deal

[Nikolai]

That's a good system.

Two things:
1) get an SSD if you can. Even if it's only a small one used for Windows and applications, and you keep your data on a HDD
2) don't upgrade to 10GB of RAM. Either go up to 12 or leave it at 8.

+1 :agree
with my recent desktop I got 120Gb SSD specifically for this purpose (system + apps), no regrets about that.
12Gb should be enough if you don't plan on multitasking too much. 6/8/9gb is also OK, although you may expect *some* sluggishness on large composites/panos.

[DeVerm]

Yes, get an iMac. Less RAM, slower processor, and no ability to add an extra (internal) HDD or SSD. But other than that it would be a great investment. :deal

Looks like you might want to rethink that... you could order an iMac with:

- i7 quad core w/ turbo boost @ 2.93 GHz
- 16 GByte RAM
- 2 TB HDD + 256 GB SSD

So explain to me how that would be less RAM when it is in fact DOUBLE RAM and having a HDD + SSD is pretty much what everybody advices and opposite of what you state... Sure, the CPU is a little slower but with 16 GB RAM and SSD I think it's a better choice than the OP's proposed config.

ciao!
Nick.

[Pupator]

...
So explain to me how that would be less RAM when it is in fact DOUBLE RAM and having a HDD + SSD is pretty much what everybody advices and opposite of what you state... Sure, the CPU is a little slower but with 16 GB RAM and SSD I think it's a better choice than the OP's proposed config.



You Mac guys drive me nuts. You're not comparing a standard iMac configuration here, you've added every possible upgrade. And you might want to read the thread again if you thought I suggested not getting an SSD.

You know what it costs for the iMac you just spec'd for us? (Yes, you do, but you chose not to post it.) It's $3,699. That's three-thousand, six-hundred, and ninety-nine dollars.

Would the OP care to chime in on the price for the computer she originally inquired about? :ear

[lanaer]

Rather, the price of the computer originally inquired about, *plus* the cost of 8 more gigs of ram, plus an ssd, plus a good quality 27" (2560-by-1440 resolution) display. That display alone would probably add at least $800.

Now for the op's situation... if you already have a good monitor, it probably doesn't make sense to buy a second one that's built into an iMac. Since the iMac display is also glass, and highly reflective, I'm not sure if you can get the same color accuracy from it as other displays.

I also don't see a need to upgrade to 16GB of ram (I have 8GB, and am very happy with that), especially if you have an SSD handling your virtual memory.

And if you want to be able to easily upgrade your machine, an iMac might also not be a great idea for that reason. (I have a Mac Pro that I bought and configured with the intention of being able to last me 6 years. It was expensive, but I think it'll do quite a good job at lasting, with fairly minimal upgrades along the way).

[ladytx]

I am definitely not spending $3,700! The machine I am looking at is $1,100.00. To get the machine to the recommendations here I would be purchasing 4 gigs of ram (don't know how much that is) plus an ssd drive. Just popping over to Newegg it looks like a 64 gig ssd is $134.00. Is that big enough? I already have a monitor.

I will be multitasking. One of the main reasons I am getting a new machine, other than mine is 6 years old. I import my photos into Lightroom while working in Photoshop while a video is rendering in Pinnacle. My computer now will run Lightroom and photoshop, slowly, but I can't add much else. It is 1.2 ghz with 2 gigs of RAM! I am looking for a BIG improvement on that!

[Nikolai]

I am definitely not spending $3,700! The machine I am looking at is $1,100.00. To get the machine to the recommendations here I would be purchasing 4 gigs of ram (don't know how much that is) plus an ssd drive. Just popping over to Newegg it looks like a 64 gig ssd is $134.00. Is that big enough? I already have a monitor.

I will be multitasking. One of the main reasons I am getting a new machine, other than mine is 6 years old. I import my photos into Lightroom while working in Photoshop while a video is rendering in Pinnacle. My computer now will run Lightroom and photoshop, slowly, but I can't add much else. It is 1.2 ghz with 2 gigs of RAM! I am looking for a BIG improvement on that!

LR, PS and Pinnacle living all together happily in 4Gb of RAM? Not gonna happen, sorry :dunno... Yes, it will be better than your 6yo, but you do need at least 8Gb or more to marry those three. SSD is your last concern. Get more RAM first, then up the videocard, then get a better CPU, and only after that it comes to SSD vs HDD. Place your money where you need it it the most. :deal

[lanaer]

Nikolai, I've found an SSD to be the single most dramatic upgrade I could get. In a computer with slower processors, less RAM, with an SSD, it was substantially faster in most actual tasks I needed to do than a faster computer with more RAM and a normal hard drive.

Obviously this wouldn't be true of all things (some parts of a photo editing workflow will be CPU-bound, for sure, and that would be much more true for video editing), but it's worth keeping in mind.

[lanaer]

The SSD should hold, at least, your OS, applications, and your swap file. I don't know how much space Windows 7 takes up, or how many apps/etc. you have, but 64GB wouldn't be enough for me. My own SSD is 160GB, and I'm currently using 135GB of it (with none of my photo library on it).

On the upside, it looks like one of those $134 SSDs on newegg (Crucial's RealSSD C300) far outperforms my own SSD, which I got for more than $600, over a year ago. It's a rapidly improving market.

---

As a side note, an iMac that is configured to be similar to the op's originally mentioned configuration is $2,399.00. That's for the fastest i7 available to an iMac, which is only available on the 27", 8GB RAM, and those are the only 2 upgrades from the baseline. An identical display sells for $999, so roughly $1400.00 is left for the component cost, which doesn't compare all that badly against $1100.

I'm not saying to buy an iMac (it makes no sense given that you don't need a new expensive display, and the difficulty in upgrades), I just hope you realize Macs aren't ridiculously overpriced (though obviously they can get quite expensive if you max out the configuration as was done above).

[angevin1]

I've found an SSD to be the single most dramatic upgrade I could get. In a computer with slower processors, less RAM, with an SSD, it was substantially faster in most actual tasks I needed to do than a faster computer with more RAM and a normal hard drive.


Yep, mee too! But as soon as we start multi-tasking, that RAM or lack of it really, really comes into play.

[angevin1]

I am definitely not spending $3,700! The machine I am looking at is $1,100.00. To get the machine to the recommendations here I would be purchasing 4 gigs of ram (don't know how much that is) plus an ssd drive. Just popping over to Newegg it looks like a 64 gig ssd is $134.00. Is that big enough? I already have a monitor.

I will be multitasking. One of the main reasons I am getting a new machine, other than mine is 6 years old. I import my photos into Lightroom while working in Photoshop while a video is rendering in Pinnacle. My computer now will run Lightroom and photoshop, slowly, but I can't add much else. It is 1.2 ghz with 2 gigs of RAM! I am looking for a BIG improvement on that!



Processor - Intel Core i7
Processor Speed 3.4 GHZ with turbo boost
Cache Memory - 8 mg
RAM - 8 gb (would add 2 gb memory)
Type of RAM - DDR3 SDRAM
Hard Drive Type - SATA (7200 rpm)
Graphics Card - ATI Radeio HD 5770
Video Memory - 1 gb
Windows 7

Not to worry, with this gear, you'll be much improved over your old system.
That said, You will bog down once you begin multi-tasking, and there are several reasons for it. Ram is one reason, so is limited HDD's. In the scenario you listed above, LR+Ps+Pi, I'd say boggy unless you got into the 24GB of RAM area. And yes, they do sell 24GB RAM kits, and Yes, it is recommended to buy RAM in matched Kit form.

Win7 will take up about 40-43GB on a SSD/HDD. So you'll have a bit of room to spare there depending on which you choose. I think you need more HDD space and separate drives at that, due to having/needing scratch disks and the like.

I like the system you have laid out, and I'd be willing to bet there are tons of folks out here with similar systems.

You might find it interesting to ask folks what they use and how theirs works.

I doubt I've been much help here. Reading and asking is the best way to go about it, and you're doing that.

It does all remind me of that adage from my racing days:
Speed cost money; How fast can you afford to go?

[eoren1]

A few suggestions:
Get one of the new Z68 chipset motherboards (coming in one week)
Add a 20gig intel SSD (will launch at same time); also a 2 TB 7200k hard drive
The new boards and small SSD serve to greatly increase your effective hard drive throughput and are the best 'bang for the buck' out there
You should do fine with an i5 process but make sure it is the new Sandy Bridge one (2500k) - saves you $100 vs the i7 and, for your purposes, should be more than powerful enough
Agree about at least 8 gigs ram
If you don't have a monitor, make sure you get one with an IPS screen (the technology of how accurately it displays colors)

[DeVerm]

Let me give a little background info on RAM and SSD issuie:

This, and the performance factor, revolves around a possible lack of available memory for applications and data. The OS will counter this using what is called a swap file.

The memory manager component of the OS keeps tab on which part of memory is used how often and when for the last time; when a request for more memory comes but there isn't any free, the memory manager can decide to "swap" some to disk: part of the memory contents is written to disk and the memory is made available for the request. The memory manager keeps tab on this too, so that it can quickly retrieve the data written to the swap file when it is needed again.
The OS is using a virtual memory space which is much bigger than the physical amount of memory.

Now, the memory I wrote about above is the RAM. Optimally you would want so much of it that the OS NEVER uses the swap file. But in case it does, you want the swap file to be on a very fast disk, hence the SSD.

Logic dictates that a machine that has more RAM will swap less. But if one wants to multi-task 2 applications but lack, say, 4 GByte RAM for that, it doesn't help to add 2 GB RAM as the OS still needs to swap. This is why some do not see an improvement when adding RAM while they see an improvement when adding a faster SSD. It doesn't mean the SSD is more important... it just means THE RESULTS GOT YOU FOOLED into that conclusion. If you had bought 4 GB extra RAM instead of 2 GB, you would have seen an improvement that is a multiple of the SSD improvement.... because you would have prevented swapping!!

In short: buy more RAM but make sure to have a SSD too. Every OS does allow you to check how often/much swap is used and how much free RAM is available (run "top" in terminal window on Linux or MacOS). Check it!

I hope this clears up some of the confusion and that I didn't go too technical on this :deal

ciao!
Nick.

[DeVerm]

As a side note, an iMac that is configured to be similar to the op's originally mentioned configuration is $2,399.00. That's for the fastest i7 available to an iMac, which is only available on the 27", 8GB RAM, and those are the only 2 upgrades from the baseline. An identical display sells for $999, so roughly $1400.00 is left for the component cost, which doesn't compare all that badly against $1100.

I'm not saying to buy an iMac (it makes no sense given that you don't need a new expensive display, and the difficulty in upgrades), I just hope you realize Macs aren't ridiculously overpriced (though obviously they can get quite expensive if you max out the configuration as was done above).

Exactly. The $300/25% extra cost of the iMac is, imo, well worth it when considering that the build quality is higher. With configurations like these, just the RAM price range alone is significant and cheaper isn't always better.

I agree that the screen wasn't asked for... but I had this hunch that a nice 27" big screen might also be welcomed :-) I just think it's important that people get reminded that Macs run Windows too and have a quality level that isn't matched by many other PC manufacturers and certainly not by self-assembled systems using components on the cheap end of the range.

cheers,
Nick.

[Nikolai]

Yep, mee too! But as soon as we start multi-tasking, that RAM or lack of it really, really comes into play.
That was my main point, multitasking. SSD helps with system startup time, app launch times and swaps. However, the first two, however annoying they may be, are happening very infrequently. And if you have enough RAM, the latter (swap) shoud'nt be even happening, or, at least, not often. But when it comes to doing a multitude of work - the speed of the system drive doesn't really matter. :deal

[Nikolai]

Let me give a little background info on RAM and SSD issuie:
...
In short: buy more RAM but make sure to have a SSD too.
...
Nick.
Very true.
Yet again, speaking of multitasking specifically for photot/video it's
RAM -> CPU -> GPU -> SSD/HDD,
in this order.

As I have mentioned in my older post, I run 24Gb of DDR3x1600MHz RAM, i7 CPU overclocked at 3.84Ghz, a decent video card and an SSD as a system drive. This system seems adequate for what I do, with all the compoinents working nicely together and non holding others back.
Yet I can attest that when I run a complex job while multitasking it can easily get to using 20..22Gb of RAM. Meaning: if I got any less than 24 it'd start swapping and I would start experiencing inevitable delays. :dunno
Basically, you need to get a good idea of what you intend to do and then build your machine to match those tasks. And while I understand the concept of the "budget constraints" I also understand that if I only have enough funds to get an entry level economy car I would not get a pulling power of F-350 truck, a speed of Mazerati speedster and a comfort of Lexus sedan. :deal

[lanaer]

One of the reasons I find an SSD very important is that I launch applications fairly frequently. Also, if the files you are editing are on the SSD, loading and saving those will be much faster, especially if you are going through a lot of relatively small files.

But yes, a sufficiently fast CPU and sufficient RAM come first.

[Nikolai]

One of the reasons I find an SSD very important is that I launch applications fairly frequently. Also, if the files you are editing are on the SSD, loading and saving those will be much faster, especially if you are going through a lot of relatively small files.

But yes, a sufficiently fast CPU and sufficient RAM come first.

I don't deny SSD value. As I said, I'm using one in my desktop.
However, OP was rather specific about LR (read: huge database) and video processing (meaning: huge files), which are both totally not the case of the "relatively small files". :dunno Besides during either still or video processing you really don't "launch applications fairly frequently", in fact you launch them once and keep working with them.
So, speaking from the OP's perspective and budget limitations, I continue to think that SSD should be OP's last priority, as the other features (RAM, CPU, GPU) would have a much greater influence on the overall system performance (again, given the tasks at hand). :deal

[DeVerm]

One of the reasons I find an SSD very important is that I launch applications fairly frequently.

Do this test:

1. (re)boot your computer, disconnect any network/Internet links and let it idle for 5 minutes so that you are 100% sure it's finished booting and not doing some hidden downloading etc.

2. watch the time and start an application like Lightroom or Photoshop. Time how long it takes before it is loaded and running.

3. close the application and let the computer idle for 5 minutes again.

4. repeat step 2.

If you have enough RAM, you will find that the 2nd start of the program is much faster than the first. This is yet another function of RAM : the disk cache. Basically, the 2nd time around, the OS pulls the program from the RAM cache instead of loading it from disk.

The same thing happens with small files. The OS will not only cache them but also do delayed writes for any changes made to them... meaning that you don't have to wait for that disk-write to finish.

cheers,
Nick.

[ladytx]

Thanks so much for the conversations and recommendations. . The information is very helpful, although, kind of confusing. Yes, the main work on my computer will be importing and exporting large numbers of raw files in/out of lightroom. Working in photoshop cs5 and the filters (photoshop filters and third party filters). Also editing and rendering video. I often am wanting to do these things at the same time.

I needed a place to start in purchasing a new computer. The machine I originally layed out, according to the salesman, would do my work wonderfully but I definitely trust the opinions and experience here more.

It seems from the information here that 16g of memory would be best for the minimum. SSD drives, or at least one for the op system, would be best. 64g on that should be minimum, maybe. I can upgrade this machine to 16g of RAM. I can purchase and install an SSD drive for op system. In that case is the intel Cor i7 3.4 ghz a good choice? Is the ATI Radeon HD 5770 video card a good choice? Is it worth upgrading this machine?

Or should I have a computer built? Which makes me have to ask what to put in it?????

I would like to keep the cost of the machine at 1,500.00 or under if possible but can go higher if the compromise is too much.

[lanaer]

Do this test:

1. (re)boot your computer, disconnect any network/Internet links and let it idle for 5 minutes so that you are 100% sure it's finished booting and not doing some hidden downloading etc.

2. watch the time and start an application like Lightroom or Photoshop. Time how long it takes before it is loaded and running.

3. close the application and let the computer idle for 5 minutes again.

4. repeat step 2.

If you have enough RAM, you will find that the 2nd start of the program is much faster than the first. This is yet another function of RAM : the disk cache. Basically, the 2nd time around, the OS pulls the program from the RAM cache instead of loading it from disk.

The same thing happens with small files. The OS will not only cache them but also do delayed writes for any changes made to them... meaning that you don't have to wait for that disk-write to finish.

cheers,
Nick.

I am aware of all of that, believe me. And trust me when I say that whenever I use a machine without an SSD, no matter how much RAM it has, I get aggravated with it very quickly, because no matter how much gets cached, it still needs to load everything the first time, especially when I start loading large batches of images :D

[lanaer]

In that case is the intel Cor i7 3.4 ghz a good choice? Is the ATI Radeon HD 5770 video card a good choice?


Those both seem like good choices to me.

[Nikolai]

Here's a quick take at CyberpowerPC. Obviously, there is a room for tweaking up or down...

$1,705 http://www.cyberpowerpc.com/saved/1D77PN

Case: Thermaltake Element-T Mid-Tower Case [-45] (Original Color)
Internal USB Extension Module: None
Neon Light Upgrade: None
Extra Case Fan Upgrade: Default case fans
Noise Reduction Technology: None
CPU: Intel® Core™ i7-960 3.20 GHz 8M Intel Smart Cache LGA1366
Freebies: None
Venom Boost Fast And Efficient Factory Overclocking: Extreme OC (Extreme Overclock 20% or more) [+49]
Cooling Fan: Asetek 510LC Liquid Cooling System 120MM Radiator & Fan (Enhanced Cooling Performance + Extreme Silent at 20dBA) (Single Standard 120MM Fan)
Motherboard: (3-Way SLI Support) MSI X58A-GD45 Intel X58 Chipset SLI/CrossFireX Triple-Channel DDR3 ATX Mainboard w/ 7.1 Audio, eSATA, GbLAN, USB3.0, SATA-III, RAID, IEEE1394a, 3 Gen2 PCIe, 3 PCIe X1 & 1 PCI (All Venom OC Certified)
Motherboard Expansion Card: None
Memory: 12GB (2GBx6) DDR3/1600MHz Triple Channel Memory Module (Corsair or Major Brand)
Video Card: AMD Radeon HD 6850 1GB GDDR5 16X PCIe Video Card (Major Brand Powered by AMD)
Video Card 2: None
Video Card 3: None
Dedicated PHYSX Card: None
Multiple Video Card Settings: Non-SLI/Non-CrossFireX Mode Supports Multiple Monitors
Power Supply Upgrade: 800 Watts - XtremeGear Gaming Power Supply - Quad SLI Ready
Hard Drive: 128 GB A-Data S501 V2 SATA III 6.0G/s Gaming MLC Solid State Disk [+196] (Single Hard Drive)
Data Hard Drive: 2TB (2TBx1) SATA-III 6.0Gb/s 64MB Cache 7200RPM HDD [+127] (Single Hard Drive)
Hard Drive Cooling Fan: None
External Hard Drive (USB3.0/2.0/eSATA): None
USB Flash Drive: None
Optical Drive: 24X Double Layer Dual Format DVD+-R/+-RW + CD-R/RW Drive (BLACK COLOR)
Optical Drive 2: None
Sound: HIGH DEFINITION ON-BOARD 7.1 AUDIO
3D Vision Glasses: None
LCD Monitor: None
2nd Monitor: None
3rd Monitor: None
Speakers: None
Network: Onboard Gigabit LAN Network
Network Switch: None
Keyboard: Xtreme Gear (Black Color) Multimedia/Internet USB Keyboard
Mouse: XtremeGear Optical USB 3 Buttons Gaming Mouse
Mouse Pad: None
Gaming Gear: None
Extra Thermal Display: None
Wireless 802.11B/G Network Card: None
External Wireless Network Card: None
Wireless 802.11 B/G/N Access Point: None
Bluetooth: None
Flash Media Reader/Writer: None
Video Camera: None
Headset: None
Printer: None
Cable: None
Power Protection: None
Surge Protector: None
IEEE1394 Card: None
USB Port: Built-in USB 2.0 Ports
Operating System: Microsoft® Windows® 7 Professional [+31] (64-bit Edition)
Media Center Remote Control & TV Tuner: None
Office Suite: None
Games: None
Ultra Care Option: Ultra Enhanced Packaging Solution - Protect Your Dream System During Transit [+19]
CoolerMaster Thermal Fusion 400 Extreme Performance CPU - Thermal Compound Optimized for Thermal Dissipation [+10]
Professional Wiring for All WIRING Inside The System Chassis - Minimize Cable Exposure, Maximize Airflow in Your System [+19]
Service: STANDARD WARRANTY: 3-YEAR LIMITED WARRANTY PLUS LIFE-TIME TECHNICAL SUPPORT
Rush Service: NO; READY TO SHIP IN 5~10 BUSINESS DAYS

[eoren1]

That's a generation-old board and CPU. Really no reason not to go for Sandy Bridge. The i5 2500k actually gets a better CPU score than the i7 960 and is $50 cheaper. I still suggest waiting for new chipsets coming out next week though. Only reason to go i7 vs i5 is if you plan to do a lot of video work. Again the new Z68 chipset allows you to take advantage of a must faster encoding chip to fly through video and offload the CPU.

[Nikolai]

"How many photographers does it take to configure a computer?"
"100. 1 to do it, 99 to post C&C"

...Only reason to go i7 vs i5 is if you plan to do a lot of video work...

per ladytx: "Also editing and rendering video" :deal

I'm not saying the configuration above is ideal. I picked up one of the base ones and made a few changes towards what OP wants. It took me about two weeks (and a help of more advanced friends) to configure mine. And even at that one component turned out faulty and we had to replace it in a month or so.

Waitng for the next new thing is vicious circle. There is always one (or more) on a horizon. Yesterday it was SSD and USB3.0, today it's Thunderbolt, tomorrow there will be something else, but equally exciting. It never stops. Yet at some point you must make a decision. And yes, the moment you hit "Submit order" button you'd get an email telling you about a brand new technology XYZ that immediately renders your still-to-be-assembled machine obsolete. That's life.

[lanaer]

I like your configuration, Nikolai.

And yes, don't keep waiting for new stuff. There's a reason I buy my computers with an intent of keeping them for at least 5 years: I know I am going to be seeing *many* new things, so I'm not too worried about what's coming out soon.

Also, if I only replace it every 5 years, I can allow myself to spend a lot of money on it :D

[Nikolai]

I like your configuration, Nikolai.
Thanks. As I said, it needs work, but it's a start.

And yes, don't keep waiting for new stuff. There's a reason I buy my computers with an intent of keeping them for at least 5 years: I know I am going to be seeing *many* new things, so I'm not too worried about what's coming out soon.

Also, if I only replace it every 5 years, I can allow myself to spend a lot of money on it :D
It's my MO, too. I'd love to do it more frequently, but then it becomes a bit overly expensive. So I kinda did the same thing what I did with my cameras. I have 5DII and 7D, which seem to be on two different lifecycles, so hopefully I would never have to upgrade both at the same time. With computers I currently have a 3 yo laptop (which is still pretty decent) and a 6mo desktop. They are about 2.5 years apart. My hope is that I will be able to upgrade my laptop in a couple of years, thus catching on some technological advances, and then in 4.5 years update the desktop, etc. This way I should be only 2.5 years "behind the front edge".

[eoren1]

I was just pointing out that Sandy Bridge CPUs are here and offer a significant benefit at lower cost compared to the prior generation processors.
Only reason to wait for Z68 is Quick Sync which handles video encoding very, very well.
I agree about the futility about waiting for the 'next big thing' but we are talking a week for significant benefit. If time is an issue, a Sandy Bridge board/CPU can easily be found now.

[angevin1]

I will say this to the OP. Yes, there is lots of good info here.

1. Yes. that 64GB SSD will work, but I love my 160Gb ones simply because they allow me more room, which translates to me being able to be lazy about making sure they're clean/mean/lean!
2. VIDEO: like me, Nik, and others may have said, once you step into VIDEO editing, forget SSD and think RAM, and as much as you can afford>.<
3. You didn't ask, so I'll tell you: I multi task often. BUT I USE TWO COMPUTERS! When rendering video, or something other-such, I always do one task at a time on my "workstation." AND I keep my Workstation OFFline! Sometimes I have to go Online with it to update or some-such, but otherwise, it doesn't get a connection..not even a cable to connect it with. I love it too much! The other good news about keeping it OFFline is, you don't need to have Antivirus running all the time. Antivirus software has to monitor everything and that takes: t i m e!
4. I did a build up to the Workstation I presently have. It was painful only because dollars don't come easy to me. I learned a LOT! SSD's will definitely make any system rock that hasn't had one ( i have three over two systems) But they are not the end all or end-game. As soon as you say video, and especially if you mix that word with Adobe: Think RAM!

As far as CPU's go. If I were buying today, I'd definitely go with the newest Intel CPU: Sandybridge. It is a second generation chip, meaning they got a second chance to fix things. And from everything i read: they did!

Incidentally, i bought a Radeon HD card prior to spending 1k on a Nvidia QuadroFX3800. The Radeon @ appx.$230 was Almost equal to the Nvidia card that was a full grand. Why: Because I do video and video is spelled: R. A. M.!

I participate in other forums, mainly having to do with rendering video and using After Effects. RAM is THE watchword. Get a card that suits ya, such as the one you mentioned or whatever is the latest that you can afford over at Nvidia or Radeon, but watch it on Nvidia's marketing hyperbole, they'll have you thinking that their Card will fix anything. it won't! so spend a couple hundred on a card, and forgetaboutit!

[Nikolai]

I will say this to the OP. Yes, there is lots of good info here.
Good stuff, Tom! :thumb
Speaking of antivirus. I don't use any (except MS Security Essentials lately, which doesn't seem to boggle CPU at all), never had a problem. And yes, I do surf, just not blindly :-) And I agree, they can be major culprits behind the machine low performance.

[Pupator]

+1 on Microsoft Security Essentials as the only A/V or spyware protection I use.

[angevin1]

Good stuff, Tom! :thumb
Speaking of antivirus. I don't use any (except MS Security Essentials lately, which doesn't seem to boggle CPU at all), never had a problem. And yes, I do surf, just not blindly :-) And I agree, they can be major culprits behind the machine low performance.


Woo! Thanks Nik (Paul too)! I haven't heard of MS essentials, but am off to look 'em up. I don't run anything on my Workstation, due to it being Offline, but of course I do fire up my AV when I have to go ONline, which has happened about 4 times in 8 Months so far.

I don't know about others that may keep their work-horses offline, but with the Internet so rife with garbage and hidden Gems and the like, I am thankfully glad I do not have to Multi that workstation as an Online Machine.

Oh, and as an aside to your (NIK) reporting your RAM usage of 22Gb at some points, I venture to say that number would go right on up to 48 GB if you had it... up and until you ran into I/O prob's on an HDD. Did I mention BUY MORE RAM yet?:D

[elgauchogrub]

Am looking at this computer for photography/video. Would like some feedback and advice as to whether this computer would do all the tasks involved quickly. Are the components any good. Any other thoughts or recommendations. Buy a pre-made computer or have one built?

Processor - Intel Core i7
Processor Speed 3.4 GHZ with turbo boost
Cache Memory - 8 mg
RAM - 8 gb (would add 2 gb memory)
Type of RAM - DDR3 SDRAM
Hard Drive Type - SATA (7200 rpm)
Graphics Card - ATI Radeio HD 5770
Video Memory - 1 gb
Windows 7

That system spec looks pretty good, you might consider either switching the HDD to an SSD or adding the SSD and using the SATA hard drive for storage.

[Sam]

One thing I haven't seen, (please forgive me if it's been mentioned), is back up.

All the advice on the computer is great, but even more important is not loosing your images and work.

Spend some time looking at a back up strategy, and budget for it.

Sam

PS: I have 4 copies of my images. :D

[bgarland]

This thread was perfectly timed for me. My older Dell system bit the dust Friday night with a hard motherboard failure. It was down level enough to not justify a repair.

I was actively researching my options when I came across this thread.

Thanks to everyone for their sound advise. I used Nikolai's config as my base with a few up tweaks and came up with a new system I am happy with.

I also upgraded my dying old LCD display with a NEC EA231WMi-BK 23-Inch MultiSync Widescreen eIPS LCD Monitor

CyberPower Black Pearl (NO MONITOR)


CAS: * Azza Hurrican 2000 Full Tower Gaming Case with 4 Hot Swappable HDD Cage & (4) 230MM Fans
CD: 24X Double Layer Dual Format DVD+-R/+-RW + CD-R/RW Drive (BLACK COLOR)
CPU: Intel(R) Core™ i7-960 3.20 GHz 8M Intel Smart Cache LGA1366
CS_FAN: Default case fans
FAN: Asetek 510LC Liquid Cooling System 120MM Radiator & Fan (Enhanced Cooling Performance + Extreme Silent at 20dBA) (Single Standard 120MM Fan)
FLASHMEDIA: INTERNAL 12in1 Flash Media Reader/Writer (BLACK COLOR)
HDD: 128 GB A-Data S501 V2 SATA III 6.0G/s Gaming MLC Solid State Disk [+221] (Single Hard Drive)
HDD2: 1TB SATA-III 6.0Gb/s 32MB Cache 7200RPM HDD [+68] (Single Hard Drive)
KEYBOARD: Xtreme Gear (Black Color) Multimedia/Internet USB Keyboard
MEMORY: 24GB (4GBx6) DDR3/1600MHz Triple Channel Memory Module [+225] (Corsair or Major Brand)
MOTHERBOARD: * (2-Way SLI Support) Asus Rampage III Gene Intel X58 Chipset SLI/CrossFireX LGA1366 mATX Mainboard - Overclockable w/ 7.1 HD Audio, GbLAN, IEEE1394a, USB3.0, SATA-III, RAID, 2 Gen2 PCIe, 1 PCIe X1, & 1 PCI [+57]
MOUSE: Logitech B100 3 Buttons 1 x Wheel USB Wired Optical 800 dpi Mouse (Black Color) [+4]
NETWORK: Onboard Gigabit LAN Network
OS: Microsoft(R) Windows(R) 7 Home Premium (64-bit Edition)
POWERSUPPLY: 800 Watts - CoolerMaster Silent Pro Gold 80 Plus Power Supply (80+ Gold) [+85]
RUSH: RUSH!!! READY TO SHIP IN NEXT BUSINESS DAY [+109]
SERVICE: STANDARD WARRANTY: 3-YEAR LIMITED WARRANTY PLUS LIFE-TIME TECHNICAL SUPPORT
SOUND: HIGH DEFINITION ON-BOARD 7.1 AUDIO
USB: Built-in USB 2.0 Ports
USBX: NZXT Internal USB 6-PORT Expansion Module [+19]
VIDEO: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 Ti 1GB 16X PCIe Video Card [+79] (Major Brand Powered by NVIDIA)
VIDEOCAMERA1: Logitech HD Webcam C510 [+58]

_PRICE: $2224


This is a significant upgrade from where I was and I'm looking forward getting this set up next weekend. I am not looking forward to reloading all my current software apps. That is always a pain.

Once question, I current have the LR3.4 32 bit and CS4 32bit. Can I just download the 64 bit versions on my new system or are they going to force me into paying an upgrade to get 64 bit versions of my licenses apps?

Thanks again for the great advise as always.

[bgarland]

Just an update. I received my new PC from CyberpowerPC (config in above post) last week and got it set up this weekend.

I'm very happy with the results so far. The one caveat that they should have caught when reviewing my order was I ordered Window 7 Home Premium and 24GB of memory. Win 7 Hm Premium only supports up to 16GB of memory so I had to upgrade to the Win 7 Pro version to be able run with my installed 24GB RAM memory.

No biggy, just something good to understand.

That being said, this config runs great. Only my OS and Lightroom and Photoshop are in the 128GB SSD. All other apps and personal docs are on a separate spinning HDD.

Once the MB initializes and you see the Windows Starting message it only take about 15 seconds to be fully loaded and ready to go. Amazing improvement over my last system. Lightroom cruises right along with none of the delays I was used to. This will be a pleasure to use.

It's nice to have 4 front panel externally accessible swappable HDD slots too. Makes swapping hard drives a cinch.

Thanks again for the configuration and Cyberpowerpc recommendations. I would definitely use them again for my next purchase.

[Nikolai]

Just an update. I received my new PC from CyberpowerPC (config in above post) last week and got it set up this weekend.

I'm very happy with the results so far. The one caveat that they should have caught when reviewing my order was I ordered Window 7 Home Premium and 24GB of memory. Win 7 Hm Premium only supports up to 16GB of memory so I had to upgrade to the Win 7 Pro version to be able run with my installed 24GB RAM memory.

No biggy, just something good to understand.

That being said, this config runs great. Only my OS and Lightroom and Photoshop are in the 128GB SSD. All other apps and personal docs are on a separate spinning HDD.

Once the MB initializes and you see the Windows Starting message it only take about 15 seconds to be fully loaded and ready to go. Amazing improvement over my last system. Lightroom cruises right along with none of the delays I was used to. This will be a pleasure to use.

It's nice to have 4 front panel externally accessible swappable HDD slots too. Makes swapping hard drives a cinch.

Thanks again for the configuration and Cyberpowerpc recommendations. I would definitely use them again for my next purchase.
:thumb
Congrats on a new toy!
:clap

[PilotBrad]

Wow, that's some system Brad.

I am shopping around for a new PC (or maybe an iMac) and was going to build my own, but I've now checked out Cyberpower. Their confirguration choices are dizzying!!!

I tested my current system performance using Geekbench (http://www.primatelabs.ca/geekbench/) (recommended in another thread), and my overall score was a dismal 2765. If your feeling adventurous, I'd be curious and probably a little depressed to see where your new system scores.
My scrore: http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/412660

Enjoy!

[bgarland]

Wow, that's some system Brad.

I am shopping around for a new PC (or maybe an iMac) and was going to build my own, but I've now checked out Cyberpower. Their confirguration choices are dizzying!!!

I tested my current system performance using Geekbench (http://www.primatelabs.ca/geekbench/) (recommended in another thread), and my overall score was a dismal 2765. If your feeling adventurous, I'd be curious and probably a little depressed to see where your new system scores.
My scrore: http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/412660

Enjoy!

Edit: I ran the 32 bit version first. Updated now with 64 Bit version results.

Hi Brad, I played. :D

My Windows rating is currently 7.3 out of 7.9

My Geekbench result was 9490

64 Bit Results (http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/413204)

[PilotBrad]

Thanks... I feel so inadequate now. :D

[bgarland]

Thanks... I feel so inadequate now. :D


Sorry about that. :D

Time to upgrade. :clap

[lifeinfocus]

Here is a website that provides a very nice list of equipment for photography - the only one I could find.
<table style="width: 786px; height: 27px;" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><col width="108"><tr height="20"> <td class="xl65" style="height:15.0pt;width:81pt" width="108" height="20">http://www.imagescience.com.au/kb/questions/141/Build+a+powerful+PC+for+Photoshop+and+other+imagin g+applications#Introductions</td> </tr></table>and check out Photoshops requirements at:<table style="width: 353px; height: 40px;" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><col width="108"><tr height="20"> <td class="xl65" style="height:15.0pt;width:81pt" width="108" height="20">http://kb2.adobe.com/cps/404/kb404439.html</td> </tr></table><table style="width: 441px; height: 45px;" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr height="20"><td class="xl64" style="height:15.0pt;width:81pt" width="108" height="20">
</td> </tr></table>

[lifeinfocus]

I'm no expert but that looks like a pretty powerful system to me.

Here's a list of benchmarks (http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_list.php) for all the various processors. Note the sub models within the Core i7 series. Some are significantly faster than others. More expensive too. I don't know how valid these benchmarks are but I used them as a guide in choosing my new computer last month.

I hope this helps a little.

Another way to look at is at the same site but graphically:
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/common_cpus.html