Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: PC configuration for PS  (Read 7006 times)
Craig Murphy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 312


WWW
« on: December 15, 2007, 01:27:52 PM »
ReplyReply

I know there have been discussions here before about how to best configure a PC for PS but I am not having luck finding them.  Does anyone have links to information about that subject or personal information pertaining?  Thanks!   I think my current Dell may not be totally up to the task.
Logged

CMurph
wesley
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 66


WWW
« Reply #1 on: December 15, 2007, 02:37:31 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I know there have been discussions here before about how to best configure a PC for PS but I am not having luck finding them.  Does anyone have links to information about that subject or personal information pertaining?  Thanks!   I think my current Dell may not be totally up to the task.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160881\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hi there,

Here are some essentials, other more knowledgeable photographers might have more info:

1. Having enough RAM is paramount. Make sure you are running at least 3 to 4gb of RAM for XP machines if you plan to process and retouch 11MP (or bigger) files.

2. Get a fast CPU, if you can overclock, it's even better. Go either Intel Quad or Duo Core, the higher the clock speed the faster the work gets done. Anything => 2.4Ghz is great.

3. Get a medium performance video card, 8800GT, etc. Having the fastest video card doesn't influence Photoshop speed much.

4. Make sure you get a good monitor and get it profiled/calibrated properly with the EyeOne. Without profiling, you might be working blind.

Best
Wesley
Logged

Craig Murphy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 312


WWW
« Reply #2 on: December 15, 2007, 02:51:25 PM »
ReplyReply

Thank for the reply.   I was looking to find more details about configuring.  I know there are experts out there somewhere.  Google not turning up much current info.  Articles from Jan 2007 etc. are already old news I'm sure.  
        I do have a good monitor.  NEC 2690.  What is CPU overclocking?   What is the difference between Duo Core and Intel Quad?  Why one over the other?   Thanks!
Logged

CMurph
John.Murray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 893



WWW
« Reply #3 on: December 15, 2007, 03:20:41 PM »
ReplyReply

This is from Adobe's site - although "Mac specific", pretty much everything mentioned  is applicable to PC:

http://kb.adobe.com/selfservice/viewConten...ternalId=317280

hth - John
Logged

wesley
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 66


WWW
« Reply #4 on: December 15, 2007, 06:04:08 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Thank for the reply.   I was looking to find more details about configuring.  I know there are experts out there somewhere.  Google not turning up much current info.  Articles from Jan 2007 etc. are already old news I'm sure. 
        I do have a good monitor.  NEC 2690.  What is CPU overclocking?   What is the difference between Duo Core and Intel Quad?  Why one over the other?   Thanks!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160907\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hello,

1. NEC2690 - If your monitor is > 3 years old, it might be time to change it.
2. CPU overclocking - it means running the CPU at a higher speed than rated. It's very technical and I have no in-depth knowledge. Sorry.
3. Dual core OR Quad Core - Simply means the processor has 2 or 4 cpus buit into them. The performance increase is not linear and it's OS and application dependent. You can check this site barefeats.com for more info, they run comparisons on the CPUs for Photoshop.

Try googling points 2 and 3. There are lots of information on the net. I spent about 2 or 3 weeks gathering data before I DIYed a PC.

Best
Wesley
Logged

stevenh
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 37


« Reply #5 on: December 16, 2007, 08:15:28 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Hello,

1. NEC2690 - If your monitor is > 3 years old, it might be time to change it.
2. CPU overclocking - it means running the CPU at a higher speed than rated. It's very technical and I have no in-depth knowledge. Sorry.
3. Dual core OR Quad Core - Simply means the processor has 2 or 4 cpus buit into them. The performance increase is not linear and it's OS and application dependent. You can check this site barefeats.com for more info, they run comparisons on the CPUs for Photoshop.

Try googling points 2 and 3. There are lots of information on the net. I spent about 2 or 3 weeks gathering data before I DIYed a PC.

Best
Wesley
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160934\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

be careful overclocking. in somes cases it will void the cpu warranty. you need to be cautious of the temperature of the cpu and over heating. usually i have seen this happen on graphics cards for gaming but it is possible with the cpu as well.
Logged
PSA DC-9-30
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 200



« Reply #6 on: December 16, 2007, 09:01:12 PM »
ReplyReply

Yeah, now the big question is: XP or Vista. Does Photoshop / Lightroom run on Linux, or the new derivative OS of Linux (can't remember the name)Huh
Logged

Bradley Proctor
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 150



WWW
« Reply #7 on: December 16, 2007, 10:34:03 PM »
ReplyReply

Unfortunately, neither Photoshop or Lightroom run on Linux.  I switched from running Ubuntu Linux to XP for this reason.  Even though I find Ubuntu Linux a much better OS.  It just doesn't have the necessary software available.  

I'd suggest XP over Vista.  I use XP at home and Vista at work (no choice).  Vista is a big, slow, and buggy, with no clear advantage over XP (except if you care about it's fancy 3D graphics).
Logged

Rusty
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 147



WWW
« Reply #8 on: December 17, 2007, 12:56:23 AM »
ReplyReply

Craig
I'd suggest adding a couple of internal drives to your standard C: drive. One large to store your files, one not so large to use as a cache.
I recommend Amadou Diallo's book, "Mastering Digital Black and White" which has an excellent chapter on system configuration plus a whole lot more of interest.
Logged

Craig Murphy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 312


WWW
« Reply #9 on: December 17, 2007, 08:56:43 AM »
ReplyReply

Thanks much for the replies.  That was my next question.  Vista or XP.  Don't know anything about Vista.  Its been out for a while.  Still a mess?  I ran that Photoshop Speed test yesterday.   The 'fast' times for processing the test are in the 45sec range.   My system took two and a half minutes.   No wonder I can't stand sitting in front of the computer any more.  Jeez.
« Last Edit: December 17, 2007, 09:21:12 AM by Craig Murphy » Logged

CMurph
wesley
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 66


WWW
« Reply #10 on: December 17, 2007, 08:10:22 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Thanks much for the replies.  That was my next question.  Vista or XP.  Don't know anything about Vista.  Its been out for a while.  Still a mess?  I ran that Photoshop Speed test yesterday.   The 'fast' times for processing the test are in the 45sec range.   My system took two and a half minutes.   No wonder I can't stand sitting in front of the computer any more.  Jeez.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=161231\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Go XP. Skip Vista. Couple of reasons:

1. Properly configured, XP and drivers for printers, etc are very very stable. I have been running a AMDx2 XP machine with 4GB RAM, Epson printers, EyeOne, CS2 for 2 years with no crashes.

2. Last I heard, Vista has a different color management from XP, might turn out to be color management hell.

3. Vista service pack is due only mid next year.

The only con about XP is the 4GB RAM limitation. But even if you are on 21mp files, CS2 can handle it with ease on 4GB RAM.

Best
Wesley
Logged

Hendrik
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 93


WWW
« Reply #11 on: December 18, 2007, 03:10:37 AM »
ReplyReply

Suggestions above are imo a bit overdone. True more is better, but you can relax a bit on many aspects.

I run Vista Home Premium 32-bit since September when I bought a new computer and donít have problems relevant for photographers. Photoshop CS3 works like a charm without any crashes or strange behavior. Lightroom works without any problems either. I have no driver problems.

Speed is good on my machine with 2GB RAM and E6750 dual core proc. My typical files are from a D200, 16-bit layered tiff, around 300-500MB with all layers. Speed is good and I donít have the feeling itís too slow.

My display (21-inch LCD) is calibrated with the DTP-94 colorimeter and ColorEyes Display Pro software without any problems.

With the experience I have, I would choose Vista over XP without any hesitation when I had to do it again. Vista is nicer to work with and gives you more feedback. True, there are some annoyances, but XP wasnít perfect either.
Logged
mahleu
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 577


WWW
« Reply #12 on: December 18, 2007, 04:23:18 AM »
ReplyReply

Before you rush out and upgrade try giving your current system a proper clean.

-Get rid of any adware using software like Adaware or Spybot
-Clean out your registry using something like CCleaner
-Make sure your antivirus is up to date and do a full scan (also make sure it's not norton:) )
-Kill all the processes which aren't being used (lots of things start up which you don't need, like msn/skype/printer apps, they can always be started when needed.
-Do a disk clean up and get rid of accumulated junk
-Defrag
Logged

______________________________________________________________________
Anyone selling a 1DSIII or 6D cheap?
wesley
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 66


WWW
« Reply #13 on: December 18, 2007, 06:10:42 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Thanks much for the replies.† That was my next question.† Vista or XP.† Don't know anything about Vista.† Its been out for a while.† Still a mess?† I ran that Photoshop Speed test yesterday.†  The 'fast' times for processing the test are in the 45sec range.†  My system took two and a half minutes.†  No wonder I can't stand sitting in front of the computer any more.† Jeez.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=161231\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hello Craig,

As you can see, you'll be getting a lot of suggestions from different folks. Best thing for you would be to conduct some tests based on the software you intend to use, esp Raw convertor and image processing. I did some tests on Macs and PCs before DIYing my system. That way, you can make a good decision based on the results. User experience is subjective, and best thing would be to get hard numbers on processing times, etc so that you can judge accurately.

Have fun,
Wesley
« Last Edit: December 18, 2007, 06:12:40 AM by wesley » Logged

Craig Murphy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 312


WWW
« Reply #14 on: December 18, 2007, 08:09:06 AM »
ReplyReply

I'm running a Pentium4 3.2 ghz machine.  Seems to me that Dual Core has made the processing much faster.     I thought XP's maximum Ram usage capability was 3gb.
One of the things thats always bothered me is the startup menu.  You look at all those programs that run and its difficult to tell what should be running and what should not be.  Names are abbreviated making it impossible to tell what many of them are.
« Last Edit: December 18, 2007, 08:19:09 AM by Craig Murphy » Logged

CMurph
mahleu
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 577


WWW
« Reply #15 on: December 18, 2007, 09:32:46 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
One of the things thats always bothered me is the startup menu.  You look at all those programs that run and its difficult to tell what should be running and what should not be.  Names are abbreviated making it impossible to tell what many of them are.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=161430\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Using something like Xsetup lets you see which folder the startup items come from so you can figure out if it's neccessary or not.
Logged

______________________________________________________________________
Anyone selling a 1DSIII or 6D cheap?
John.Murray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 893



WWW
« Reply #16 on: December 18, 2007, 11:37:06 AM »
ReplyReply

I'm very happy running both LR and CS3 on Vista.  Now that the Release Candidate for SP1 is publicly available, I can say that SP1 will deliver  improvements in several areas including:

File Copy performance, both Internal and Network.  This made a *huge* difference on my laptop, my desktop with SCSCI disks not as noticeable, network performance however showed great improvement across the board - apparently Vista, which is based on Server 2003 code, not XP, inherited the user disk quota and throttling mechanisms, which are usefull for a shared resource in a networked environment, however, not optimal for an individual user tossing 10GB folders about . . .

UAC Prompts no longer nail the currently loaded Display Profile.  I hope I don't get in trouble on this one . . . my Eye-One display profiles currently survive full UAC prompts without having to reload the profile, or re-login.  This with latest Eye-One Match bits: 3.6.2

Energy management, including fixes to hibernate/standbye wake-ups.

Program Compatibility, including PS plugins - I'm no longer getting UAC prompts

All that said:  My experience is based on VISTA SP1 RC which is a BETA and WILL CHANGE before final release, supposedly early 2008.  I DO NOT recommend you install this publicly available beta on a production machine.

hth - John
« Last Edit: December 18, 2007, 11:40:51 AM by Joh.Murray » Logged

Don Libby
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 729


Iron Creek Photography


WWW
« Reply #17 on: December 18, 2007, 12:29:45 PM »
ReplyReply

My current machine is a Dell Precision 690:

Quad core 2993 Mhz
8 GB Ram
Windows XP Pro x64 (Service Pack 2)
Dual NVIDA Quadro NVS 285 Video Cards
4 internal drives; 2 180GB spinning at 15K and 2 750 GB spinning at 7200 (I use one of the 15k as my scratch disk)
Dual Dell Monitors (2407WFP and 2405FPW)

Photoshop CS3

Would I do the same system again?  The answer is a hard one.  I've had this system now for about 18 months, I had to hunt for the drivers for my Epson printers (3 of them) as well as my new HP laser fax/printer.  Every time I add new software or component I need to make sure that it supports 64bit and that there are drivers; in some ways this has been a good thing e.g., I now run Avast for my antivirus.  There are times I've felt that I would have been better off staying at 4 GB RAM thus with Windows XP Pro.  

I shoot medium format digital with single file sizes of 31 MB and up and need all the horse power I can get.  The current plan is to keep with what I have and wait for at least 1 or more years till VISTA x64 works all the kinks out.

The bottom line at least for me is that this is the best configuration for my workload and workflow.


don
Logged

Jack Varney
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 393


WWW
« Reply #18 on: December 18, 2007, 09:05:59 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
One of the things thats always bothered me is the startup menu.† You look at all those programs that run and its difficult to tell what should be running and what should not be.† Names are abbreviated making it impossible to tell what many of them are.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Try going to [a href=\"http://www.sysinfo.org/]http://www.sysinfo.org/[/url] there you can find definitions of the various startup entries and processes the run on a PC.
« Last Edit: December 18, 2007, 09:06:35 PM by Beachconnection » Logged

Jack Varney
John Sheehy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 838


« Reply #19 on: December 18, 2007, 09:19:22 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I know there have been discussions here before about how to best configure a PC for PS but I am not having luck finding them.  Does anyone have links to information about that subject or personal information pertaining?  Thanks!   I think my current Dell may not be totally up to the task.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160881\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You might want to consider a separate hard disk for the scratchpad.  The 150 GB Western Digital 10,000 RPM SATA Raptor is up to the job.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad