Originally posted by: The Orange Crab
Thank you for taking the time for such a nice reply. I'm lucky that I am by a Microcenter so I can get a $920 for around $200. Where are you seeing a mb for i7s for $200? The range I've seen is more like $250-280? For video cards I was looking at a gtx 275/high mid
range card. I use Illustrator/Photoshop a lot and work with big files but am getting more into Flash animations. I just don't want any performance issues, such as stalling, etc. You'd be amazed how quickly it becomes tiresome to deal w/lagged zooming & panning.
I have one good 7200 drive, less than a year old so that is why I passed on getting a new one for now. When you say to buy 2, do you mean to raid or just have 2 drives?
I just did a quick search on newegg. They start at $170. The ever popular Gigabyte GA-EX58-UD3R is $190. I just arbitrarily chose $200 as a reasonable cost for the mobo. Obviously, if there are specific features or brand that your looking for that will affect the cost.
GPU support in Adobe CS4 <- That link at Adobe's knowledgebase will give you the specifics on what is supported. In particular, follow the links at the bottom of the page for specific program accelerations. Illustrator is not GPU accelerated at all.
Here is the list of photoshop GPU accelerated features.
# Smooth Display at ALL Zoom Levels
# Animated Zoom Tool
# Animated Transitions when doing a One Stop Zoom
# Hand Toss Image
# Birdseye View
# Rotate Canvas
# Smooth Display of Non Square Pixel Images
# Pixel Grid
# Move Color Matching to the GPU
# Draw Brush Tip Editing Feedback via GPU
# 3D GPU features include:
* 3D Acceleration
* 3D Axis
* 3D Lights Widget
* Accelerated 3D Interaction via Direct To Screen
None of that needs a beefy video card. Maybe (**maybe**) the 3D stuff could use more power, but the 3D interface is so clunky and awful you're in for a world of hurt regardless.
If you were gaming, or doing real 3D work, then I'd recommend you pay more for a better vid card. But you're not, so I won't. Instead, use the cash you would have spent on the video card towards something that will actually make a difference such as more/faster hard drives, more RAM, faster CPU.
I completely understand your avoidance of lag. My fiance looked at me funny when I tried to explain to her the productivity increase in going from click, wait, click, wait, click to click, click, click. But in the apps you are using a better vid card is not the solution.
The point to multiple hard drives is to avoid concurrent writes/reads on the same drive at the same time. Worst case scenario is You are saving a file in photoshop, while photoshop uses the scratch disk, while windows uses the swap file, while your A/V runs a background scan.... all on the same drive.
Depending on the size of your files and whether or not it will fit in RAM, this may or may not be that big of an issue. If you are dealing mainly with web-sized files, this is really a non-issue. If you are making huge panoramas then it's more of an issue. If you are dealing with REALLY big files, then you would need a 3rd drive just for scratch. There was a discussion a while back as to which was better... one really fast (RAID10 or somesuch) drive versus multiple hard drives. The jury is still out on that one I think.
So in your case I'm suggesting use one drive for the OS/apps and the second drive as storage. If you have a good drive already then just get one additional for 2 drives total. Depending on what drive you have (you still haven't mentioned) it may better serve as storage or as your OS/apps drive. If it's big enough, then maybe you can use your current drive as storage and buy a new SSD for OS/apps instead of 2 new drives.