PC Spec - Bigger better?

R

rabaroo

Messages
324
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi

changed my mind on a laptop, now looking at a desktop - been enticed by Quad Core CPU and 4GB RAM specs....

I want to do Photoshop (limited) and Lightroom etc - however I only have CS2 and having read a bit I am not sure if a Quad Core CPU will actually be the best thing for me?!

My head tells me to buy the biggest and meatiest machine available to my budget; but is there more sensible advise around the workloads I will put this to - i.e. Browsing, Photo manipulation using the above, ITunes and generic multitasking etc......

Something inside stops me buying Core 2 processors when Quads are available?
 
Yes, quad cores are better than dual cores, but you only really need quad imho if you are an avid gamer.

I am using a PC I built 5 years ago now, it was top of the range then but its still going strong and has no issues what so ever with CS2. Just about to try it out with CS4 but thinking I may buy a new 1TB Sata drive and do a fresh install of Windows 7 to see what the fuss is.

My system:

AMD X2 64 4400+ @ 2.1ghz (I think the speed is correct)
2GB Ram
7800GTX gfx card.

I'd suggest you get a decent dual core setup, 4GB ram if your using Vista as I think XP will only pick up on 3GB max and get a decent graphics card. :)
 
Photoshop doesn't use multiple cores IIRC, so a dual core with a higher clock speed than a similarly priced quad core would actually be better value for money for a photoshop orientated machine.

What else do you plan to use the machine for, and what is your budget?
 
with a recent test quad cores actually were slower than tri-cores.
the dual cores were well worth the money
for PS I would look at dual core or tri core with a higher clock speed
cache size is handy too, but a beasty machine?? 2-4gb, decent HDD. stable and with a decent monitor <--- the most important part of a machine used for photoeditting
 
If i were buying a desktop now i would make sure it has 64bit Vista then load it up 8gb of memory. "Normal" Vista and XP can only see 4gb of memory and use about 3.5 of that for system use.

If you're buying a prebuilt system then don't buy extra memory from the retailer, visit crucial.co.uk and buy it from them, much cheaper.

I'd be tempted to get the beefiest cpu you can afford as you will be keeping the system for a few years and what seems like overkill now will give you more life out of the system in the future when software gets more demanding.

If you don't game then you can forgo the expensive graphics card, you might even be able to use a Dell Inspiron.

One last thing to not forget, don't scrimp on the monitor!

I hope i haven't confused you more lol.
 
lepster74 said:
If you're buying a prebuilt system then don't buy extra memory from the retailer, visit crucial.co.uk and buy it from them, much cheaper.
Click to expand...

That's not always true! The company I work for will supply, fit and test Kingston ram for around the same price as buying a similar Crucial module.
 
lepster74 said:
If i were buying a desktop now i would make sure it has 64bit Vista then load it up 8gb of memory. "Normal" Vista and XP can only see 4gb of memory and use about 3.5 of that for system use.
Click to expand...

But you need to make sure the CPU can handle 64 bit.
 
You do not need a quad core machine to do photo editing, so no need to buy latest technology.

When upgrading a PC I buy the best of last years technology that I can afford which lasts me over five years before it gets too slow.

As said previously a high clock speed dual core cpu with lots of memory is what you want.
 
I recently broke my old Athlon single core machine, dating from around 3 years ago (don't ask). Having thought about it for a while, decided to do a cheap upgrade to replace the broken motherboard with a new one, dual core athlon 4400 CPU and 2GB of ram. Despite being about the cheapest option available (£118 all in for the three components and heatsink), seems to be more than capable of everything I throw at it. I'm guessing I'd only need more if I were doing video processing. It walks all over CS2, although being fair, I'm running XP, not Vista.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top