PC build for photoshop CS6 & Colour Calibration

DTS said:
I'm buying a new PC next week - having it built by a company nearby

I'm considering going up to 32gb of ram

I'm having a 3.3ghz six core amd, 2gb gaming gfx, 16gb ram, 1 tb HD, 24" led monitor and 2.1 surround sound for £458 so would be rude not to ramp it up to 32gb of ram if you ask me
Click to expand...

Ditto. I've just completed a Photoshop build and I went straight for 32GB. Rationale? It's so cheap at the moment, why not? Less than £100, and it is more future proof.

As for the monitor, I agree with most of what's been said - if you have a £1200 budget for a Photoshop build, spend at least £400 on the monitor. It is the single most important piece of equipment for you. You don't need an i7, and you certainly don't need a Geforce 650 - who cares if an operation takes 2.3 or 2.8 seconds? What really matters is how it looks on screen.

I urge you to find the small bit of extra desk space for the Dell U2711 - the jump in resolution and quality is well worth the money.
 
Pookeyhead said:
With your examples though, how big is the image? Doing what you just did with a 200MB TIFF saw my RAM usage jump up to 6.8GB. So 8GB for me would put me close to the swap file limit, especially if I had other apps running too. I also do video editing, and that really pushes things.. I regularly use page files with Premiere and 16GB. I really could do with 32GB here.
Click to expand...
The files were raw files from a 50D (about 18MB each) converted with UFRaw straight into Gimp via the plug-in without any saving.

The biggest tiff file I could find was 60MB:

60mbtiff.jpg
and with the 2 operations:
60mbtiff2.jpg



re: the case. I think that Cooler Master case I linked to is nice.. understated and discreet :)
Click to expand...
I agree. I have the Cooler Master Cavalier for those very same qualities :)
 
i think youll struggle to use 16gb let alone 32gb, but like everyone says its so cheap these days you may as well. win7 will use some of the spare as a cache though so its not all "wasted" persay.

had the same argument with people when i got 16gb a year or so ago :D
 
Last edited:
neil_g said:
i think youll struggle to use 16gb let alone 32gb, but like everyone says its so cheap these days you may as well. win7 will use some of the spare as a cache though so its not all "wasted" persay.

had the same argument with people when i got 16gb a year or so ago :D
Click to expand...


Agreed.

Because the i5 is dual channel, it's either 8GB, 16GB or 32GB configs. 8GB is on the limit for large TIFFs, so while 16GB may not always be needed, it's the next step up from 8GB whether you need it or not. You really should keep your RAM as 2x DIMMs if possible, as auto config via JDEC settings will always opt for the fastest timings, and it's far more stable than using 4 DIMMS. It's advisable to use the same brand/model for each too, so again, buying in pairs, it's either 8, 16 or 32GB. Using 3, or 5, or random bits of RAM you have lying around to make up a value will probably result in your machine running in single channel mode, which will hit your machine's bandwidth pretty hard.

8 makes no sense considering the price and the fact that it's actually pretty easy to max out 8GB.
 
Last edited:
neil_g said:
i think youll struggle to use 16gb let alone 32gb, but like everyone says its so cheap these days you may as well. win7 will use some of the spare as a cache though so its not all "wasted" persay.

had the same argument with people when i got 16gb a year or so ago :D
Click to expand...

I agree about buying more memory on a new build if it's cheap enough.
 
A simple question but I thought a separate graphics card wasn't needed for photographs, more for gaming ?
 
I completely agree with need for top quality monitor. With £1200 you could have one of the best systems going mines costing £700 all in including monitor calibration equipment and its more than il need for a few years
 
stinky pete said:
Hi

How often will it need to be done, and I am interest in this price, can you let me know which one is available for £75, as the ones recommended all come up in excess of £120.
Click to expand...

I do mine about every 3-5 months with a Spyder 3 - and there are subtle changes during this time.
 
stevewestern said:
A simple question but I thought a separate graphics card wasn't needed for photographs, more for gaming ?
Click to expand...

It will still help with 2d performance - you just don't need to spend hundreds to get 2D performance that is more than adequate for photoshop/lightroom. 2D will generally be just as good from a cheap card though... and better than most onboard solutions too.
 
stevewestern said:
A simple question but I thought a separate graphics card wasn't needed for photographs, more for gaming ?
Click to expand...

CS6 uses GPU power for certain things (liquify being one), but it's still far from GPU-dependant. A basic £50 GPU is probably best, I still don't like integrated graphics (especially for big 2560x1440 monitors).
 
Pablosammy said:
CS6 uses GPU power for certain things (liquify being one), but it's still far from GPU-dependant. A basic £50 GPU is probably best, I still don't like integrated graphics (especially for big 2560x1440 monitors).
Click to expand...

Intel HD2500 and 4000 on Ivybridge CPUs is more than enough for 2D work, and Photoshop CS6. If you want to save cash and sink it into a decent screen solution, I'd start right there unless I also played games.
 
wow, I was not expecting any more posts.

David, I do like the look of the Asus PA248QJ and I can see it on a couple of other sites for £410 which all include the Spyder 4 express.
http://www.technextday.co.uk/produc...-LED-monitor-24-1-1920-x-1200-?prodid=1211617

Is Is the spyder 4 a good calibration unit as it is nearly half the price of the one you originally recommended, and is that all I would need regarding ongoing calibration.

If I go with the Asus screen I am only a little bit over my budget (£60) if I stick with my original build, but change the monitor to the Asus £410 and the CPU to the i5 £160. I think the best option is to make the £60 saving on the wifes xmas present, using the kids education as leverage.

So my build would be

CM Storm Enforcer Case with Coolermaster 650W GX PSU £110
Gigabyte GA-Z77X-D3H Socket 1155 Motherboad £96
Intel Core i5 3570 £163
EVGA GTX 650 SuperClocked 1024MB GPU £92
Corsair 16GB DDR3 1600MHz Vengeance Performance RAM £61
OCZ 256GB Vertex 4 SSD - Solid State Drive £160
WD 2TB Green Desktop Drive £75
Arctic Silver 5 Silver Thermal Compound Thermal paste £6
TP-Link TL-WDN4800 Wireless-N450 PCIe Adapter £30
memory card external USB 3.0 £15
Microsoft Windows XP Professional SP3 from ebay £18.50
Windows 8 upgrade £25
ASUS PA248QJ - LED 24 inch IPS Monitor with Spyder 4 express £410
TOTAL £1261
 
stinky pete said:
wow, I was not expecting any more posts.

David, I do like the look of the Asus PA248QJ and I can see it on a couple of other sites for £410 which all include the Spyder 4 express.
Click to expand...

Yes, it's perfectly good. The software is a little basic, but it will calibrate your screen perfectly well.
 
Hi Neil,

I still have some unknowns with regards to the type of work my Kids will need to do, so I would keep the GPU as is, which is still one of the more basic models at £85 (after shopping around).

When you say overspending on the SSD, do you mean having 256gb instead of 120 or 128gb.
 
Get yourself over to software4students save money on the original discs as u say you a student.
Monitor calibration is a must.
You will always get people saying this n that about a build it will never be to everyone's taste.
Basic 3.2 quad core decent gphx 12or16 gig mem sad will make processing pics fast
 
I agree that is a very good spec machine and good value, which is very similar to mine. I do have extra bits that are requred, the wireless PCI and a USB card reader. If you exclude these and if I go down to a 120gb SSD, my machine is only £700.

I don't know a great deal about SSD's, so excuse my ignorance here as I was applying the same logic as for a HDD. In my experience if the HDD that windows is installed on gets near to being full, then the PC starts to slow down.

Is this not the same for a SSD, as I was going to install windows and my programs on the SSD, and I was also going to load my photo's from my cards to the SSD first then work on them in PS and only move them to my HDD when I have finished editing them.

I don’t normally have more than 16GB of photo’s, but I go out with my daughter for the day, which is happening more frequently then this figure can go up to 30/40GB. So if I am processing these on the SSD first, then I didn’t want the PC to go slow whilst doing my editing. I am no expert here, and I am open to advice if this is the wrong thing to do with the SSD.
 
SSD will slow down with less space available but not for the same reason as HDD.

if youre editing straight from the SSD then fair enough, if it was just OS and programs then 120 would've been plenty.
 
IMO opinion this machine is vastly over-spec'd for what you want to do.

I recently bought this pre-assembled bundle like this from E-bay:

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Intel-i7-...0?pt=UK_Motherboards_CPUs&hash=item1c2b53b2b2

the only difference is I only had 8Gb RAM.

And it runs extremely fast and the onboard graphics play Blu-Ray films using Power DVD 10, so should be quite capable of running Photoshop et al without a graphics card - an immediate saving of £100 ( no need for thermal paste since it's pre-assembled).

You might also be able to save on your wireless card with these dongles:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Wireless-In...r_1_17_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1

I have used them on several PCs and found they work perfectly and have saved me lot of money over wireless cards - or if you want something even more unobtrusive I have also used these on my Netbook:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/7dayshop-Wi...dapter/dp/B004ZDRBJ6/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top

I only have a 3M Internet dongle as my main Internet interface connected to a router so don't know how they are on high speeds but for me they are fine.

And if you're using SD cards I find this card reader works fine, especially when connected to the USB3 ports on the MB with XFast USB activated:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Integral-USB-Single-Slot-Reader/dp/B000VY80AM

.
 
Last edited:
stinky pete said:
I agree that is a very good spec machine and good value, which is very similar to mine. I do have extra bits that are requred, the wireless PCI and a USB card reader. If you exclude these and if I go down to a 120gb SSD, my machine is only £700.

I don't know a great deal about SSD's, so excuse my ignorance here as I was applying the same logic as for a HDD. In my experience if the HDD that windows is installed on gets near to being full, then the PC starts to slow down.

Is this not the same for a SSD, as I was going to install windows and my programs on the SSD, and I was also going to load my photo's from my cards to the SSD first then work on them in PS and only move them to my HDD when I have finished editing them.

I don’t normally have more than 16GB of photo’s, but I go out with my daughter for the day, which is happening more frequently then this figure can go up to 30/40GB. So if I am processing these on the SSD first, then I didn’t want the PC to go slow whilst doing my editing. I am no expert here, and I am open to advice if this is the wrong thing to do with the SSD.
Click to expand...
Hello, no need to load the photos onto the SSD to process.

The downloading time will be determined by the SD card (or whatever your camera uses) and the reader/reading method (USB cable or card reader device). When you are working on an image, it is loaded into memory so again the disk is unimportant. About the only time you may notice a difference is when saving a file - but I doubt that too.

Also you have to think about your workflow etc, moving files around becomes a drag - building in extra step as you suggest (i.e. temp load onto SSD) adds to that. Simplify it if you can.

fwiw, I think you have been given some very good advice about the specs.
 
PaulButler said:
Hello, no need to load the photos onto the SSD to process.

The downloading time will be determined by the SD card (or whatever your camera uses) and the reader/reading method (USB cable or card reader device). When you are working on an image, it is loaded into memory so again the disk is unimportant. About the only time you may notice a difference is when saving a file - but I doubt that too.

Also you have to think about your workflow etc, moving files around becomes a drag - building in extra step as you suggest (i.e. temp load onto SSD) adds to that. Simplify it if you can.

fwiw, I think you have been given some very good advice about the specs.
Click to expand...

read: http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=417126&highlight=ssd
 
Neil,

I noticed in that thread that you bought 2 120gb SSD's 1 for boot and the other for processing, do you think that would be better that 1 256gb SSD.
 
Last edited:
PaulButler said:
Hello, no need to load the photos onto the SSD to process.

The downloading time will be determined by the SD card (or whatever your camera uses) and the reader/reading method (USB cable or card reader device). When you are working on an image, it is loaded into memory so again the disk is unimportant. About the only time you may notice a difference is when saving a file - but I doubt that too.

Also you have to think about your workflow etc, moving files around becomes a drag - building in extra step as you suggest (i.e. temp load onto SSD) adds to that. Simplify it if you can.

fwiw, I think you have been given some very good advice about the specs.
Click to expand...

Thanks Paul,

I know I can't improve the initial download of my files to much, apart from a USB 3.0 card reader, and I think my main bottleneck here will be my CF cards. I am quite happy to start the download and then go get a cup of tea, my main gripe is with the processing as I am quite impatient when it comes to this sort of thing.

I realise it is an extra step, but if it means I don’t get any delays when editing then I will be a happy bunny.
 
Last edited:
stinky pete said:
Neil,

I noticed in that thread that you bought 2 120gb SSD's 1 for boot and the other for processing, do you think that would be better that 1 256gb SSD.
Click to expand...

i did it that way just to keep stuff separate..

i.e. the first drive has - OS and programs. the 2nd SSD has - lightroom cat, photoshop scratch and temp location for working files.

but you could just run 1 larger SSD, larger drives normally read/write faster.
 
Any thoughts on this monitor LG IPS225V-BN 21.5" Full HD LED Monitor,

OR

This one - BenQ GW2250M - LED monitor - 21.5" - 1920 x 1080 - VA - 250 cd/m2 - 5000:1 - 20000000:1 (dynamic) - 4 ms
 
I'd go with the i5, 16GB ram and definitely an SSD. I've got a 220GB SSD for the OS, other software and also use it for current editing. Once a job is finished the files get moved to the traditional large capacity drives. I can easily have three large editing jobs on the go at once so the 220GB drive can fill up quickly, especially with the odd bit of R&R installed also :)
 
Just want to jump in and add my 2p's worth. Recently did a home build and installed 16GB of RAM. I worked on a massive composite in CS5 which resulted in a file size of nearly 1GB and had 100+ layers, many of which were smart objects. My norton utility thingy never put my RAM usage aboe 7GB. Also I run a 3.0Ghz triple core AMD and it's just about fast enough for this work and general day to day. Norton thingy never puts this anywhere near max processor use but gonna upgrade though to one of the AMD Bulldozers in the new year just really cos I can, but it really just doesn't need it.

With a photoshop machine once you hit a certain threshold of processor speed, its about having enough RAM and a good quality display. Also running Windows 7 it boots up in about a minute and hitting both icons for photoshop and bridge at the same time and they are up and ready for use in less than 15 seconds. I don't have an SSD.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top