Building system: what's the best Photoshop setup?

[Skypix7]

Hi gang:

A search didn't come up with any recent discussions. I'm wanting to upgrade my system for pro Photoshop processing (I'm an aviation photographer) from this 3 year old rig:

win 2K
Asus P4PE
2GB DDR memory
lots of big IDE drives
NVIDIA GeForce 6600

I've had a great run with the ASUS board which has been rock solid, but in Photoshop it's just too slow, I'm sitting way too long waiting for images to save etc.

I'm out of touch with the new dual core/dual core 2 etc etc, I don't know what's the hot setup for imaging with the new processors (i.e. do I need core 2 or is dual core pretty much good enough?).

I know I want faster drive interface, like SATA, beyond that I'm being lazy and just checking in to the wizards on Anandtech, who already know more than I will ever know!

thanks for any input, I'll consider anything.

 

[Zolty]

You will notice a difference when upgrading to any modern multi core proc, Core 2 Duo's are currently the best, although anything would be better. SATA is the current interface of choice but you will not notice a drive speed difference unless you get a "fast" drive (10k rpm drive).

Ideally people get a 10k rpm drive to hold applications and the swap space. Then get a couple 7200rpm drives for main storage.

Also if you want to compare processors in regard to photoshop performance THG has a handy chart.

 

[Skypix7]

Thanks Zolty! big help.

 

[yuppiejr]

First off, a good article on optimizing your PC for Photoshop CS2 here: http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1910615,00.asp

I, personally, would wait to upgrade until fall if you can. The P35 chipsets, Intel Penryn Core and DDR3 are all going to hit the market soon to replace the current generation products and should bring a significant incremental performance improvement for the same money come fall. Quads core procs are also going to drop into the sub $300 price range come fall which will be nice for a photoshop box. Finally, you will want to be running Windows Vista 64-bit which is a mixed bag from a driver support standpoint now, though is improving daily.

Do you have a budget requirement in mind? I'll go bang for buck to start out if you were picking components from those available today:

OS - Windows Vista Business or Ultimate Edition (64-bit)
CPU - E6600 Core 2 Duo CPU
Mainboard - something in the i975x chipset family like the P5W Deluxe with the ICH7r southbridge. A good p965 board with the ICH8r southbridge would also work.
RAM - 2 x 2 gig sticks of DDR2/800 or 667
Video - something PCIe that will output a resolution to match your monitor, probably whatever you can get for less than $100 that supports DX9
HDD - 6 drives, all SATA II versions w/ 16 meg cache:

1 x 10k or 7200 RPM O/S drive (WD Raptor or something else in the 80-ish gig range should do)
2 x 7200 RPM drives for a RAID0 scratch drive array (80+ gigs each should be fine)
3 x 7200 RPM drives for a RAID5 array for storage array (500 gig drives would net you 1 TB)

Case: Thermaltake Armor will hold 6 x 3.5" drives and has great airflow/fan options
PSU: PC Power and Cooling Silencer 610 - rock solid, will have plenty of juice for all of the drives, etc... Seasonic S12 650 watt is also a good option.

 

[Skypix7]

Thanks yuppiejr, very helpful.

I've looked at RAID before but have never wanted to do the braincram bit to get it up and running. What's the actual advantage of RAID other than protecting against drive failure?

 

[vailr]

Photoshop CS3 is the latest version from Adobe and is still 32 bit only. A 32 bit O.S. can only access about 3.2 GB out of whatever memory is present.
I'd recommend going with one of the latest Intel P35 Bearlake chipset boards and 4 GB of memory; WinXP SP2 32 bit instead of Vista (at least until Vista SP1 is released).
For CPU, I'd suggest (for now) the C2D E6420 or E6600. In August, Intel's price drops will (then) have the quad-core Q6600 priced at $266.
For older IDE drives, put them in external USB cases, and use for backup storage.
For Q1 2008, there should be Intel Penryn CPU's, which can also work in P35 boards.

 

[bobbyz]

Originally posted by: Zolty
SATA is the current interface of choice but you will not notice a drive speed difference unless you get a "fast" drive (10k rpm drive).

Why not? I am just asking. I in process of building a new rig for photoshop. Fromw hat I gather using SATA II drives should improve performance over older IDE drives (assuming they were on same IDE controlelr) as now I can put my drives on separate SATA channels.

 

[Heidfirst]

the actual thing that limits transfer speed isn't the interface limit but the drive mechanics - as single drives they simply aren't capable of continuously transferring data as fast as even IDE 100 let alone SATA300, typically you are looking around ~60MB/s for a 7200rpm drive.
Whilst you will see some improvement that's more to do with them being newer drives with incremental improvements rather than the interface.

 

[yuppiejr]

Originally posted by: Skypix7
Thanks yuppiejr, very helpful.

I've looked at RAID before but have never wanted to do the braincram bit to get it up and running. What's the actual advantage of RAID other than protecting against drive failure?

The advantages of RAID depend on the "flavor" you are using:

RAID0 typically uses a pair of drives and splits the read/write operation between the two drives simultaneously which can greatly improve read/write performance. You get the full capacity of BOTH drives (so 80 + 80 = 160 gigs available). It also doubles your explosure to data loss risk since if either drive fails, you lose your data. It's advantage is purely performance.

RAID1, or "mirroring", uses 2 drives and writes the SAME data to both drives. There can be a small performance hit depending on how it's implemented, however since your data is on both drives it's still safe even if one drive fails. You only get the total capacity equal to one of the drives (so 80 + 80 = 80 available) - the advantage is data protection.

RAID5 uses 3 or more drives in an array and provides a more space efficent form of duplication than RAID1. Enough data is written to the other drives so that if one drive in a RAID5 array fails, data can still be retrieved from the surviving drives until a replacement is installed and the array rebuilt. The advantage of RAID5 is security and efficent use of available drives - you only lose one drive worth of capacity in the array which gets better the more drives you use. (500 + 500 + 500 = 1000 gigs available, 500 + 500 +500 + 500 = 1,500 gigs available, etc..)

Giving it more thought, I'd actually suggest you look at going with two independant fast drives for your O/S and scratch drive (2 Raptors or 2 fast 7200 rpm model) and then 3 or 4 x large drives (320-500 gig are your best price per gig) in a RAID 5 array.

1st drive = O/S and system drive
2nd drive = photoshop scratch drive
3rd-6th drives = RAID5 array for storage

I still advocate going with Vista 64-bit now since Adobe will use all 4 gigs of RAM you offer it today - plus going with 2 x 2 gig sticks now means you have an easy upgrade path to an additional 2 or 4 gigs later. Since Windows XP pro 64-bit is a dead-end technology, Vista is your best bet. Why stick yourself with XP Pro 32-bit on a machine you intend to use for a few years (assuming the normal 3-year tech depreciation schedule).

If anything, limp along with your current rig for a couple of months - fall is going to be a really good time for a tech upgrade with the maturation of the new techs hitting the market now and the improvement of Windows Vista 64-bit support.

 

[vailr]

Another option: use the Intel Mac version of Photoshop CS3, running on an Apple Mac Pro (dual Xeon) workstation. There's even a dual quad-core Mac Pro, for those with bigger wallets.

 

[ribbon13]

Areca RAID6 == fastest and most reliable with a single driver letter. Once you have one, you'll never turn back. The reason you don't hear em suggested much is their initial cost. For example, for an entry level array:
$768 - Areca ARC1231ML
$320 - 4 x Seagate
$110 - AMS DS-3141SSBK

Kinda of expensive, but you have so much you can do:
Add a battery backup unit, this will allow you to turn on write-back caching and increase performance:
Upgrade the DDR2 ECC module.
Get another AMS enclosure and add more hard drives giving you more space and speed.

A high end array would be like this:

ARC1261ML
BBU
Cache
Housing
Population

 

[Skypix7]

Thanks everybody, lots of great suggestions. I think I'll take yuppiejr's advice and wait until fall. That'll give me time to research a bit more too.

Much obliged all.