Please help to build a Photoshop PC

[stockriderman]

I need a new hard drive(I'll take care of it),motherboard,CPU and 8GB Ram.
I am not going to overclock it. I need a stable system for Photoshop and Premiere work.
Looking to get intel. Need something not expensive,but with good and stable performance for business use.

I currently have x2 4400 + 2gb ram + Asrock SataII. It's just not powerfull enough anymore and I need something twice as fast at least

 

[myocardia]

You're a perfect candidate for an E6850 or E8400 CPU, any P35 motherboard, and two sets of this RAM. So, ~$200 for the processor, $100-170 for the motherboard, and $160 for the 8GB of RAM, leaving you plenty for a video card and power supply.

 

[Tweakin]

Originally posted by: myocardia
You're a perfect candidate for an E6850 or E8400 CPU, any P35 motherboard, and two sets of this RAM. So, ~$200 for the processor, $100-170 for the motherboard, and $160 for the 8GB of RAM, leaving you plenty for a video card and power supply.

I agree with myocardia. As you can see from my sig, I'm running 8GB of this memory @ DDR-876 speeds with no issues on a c2d.

 

[aigomorla]

Originally posted by: myocardia
You're a perfect candidate for an E6850 or E8400 CPU, any P35 motherboard, and two sets of this RAM. So, ~$200 for the processor, $100-170 for the motherboard, and $160 for the 8GB of RAM, leaving you plenty for a video card and power supply.

and how would a E8400 benifit from a Q6600 @ a cheaper price on premier? <seriously asking a question>

Because wouldnt a quadcore be better then a dualcore expecially since photoshop doesnt even hint to use SSE4.

 

[daveybrat]

I would do a Q6600 for $219 right now at Newegg. Should be a little more future-proof and photoshop should love it.

 

[ther00kie16]

Originally posted by: daveybrat
I would do a Q6600 for $219 right now at Newegg. Should be a little more future-proof and photoshop should love it.

Photoshop doesn't use more than 2 cores except for following test
anand's article
So a 4ghz e8400 is better now but who knows in the future.

 

[ther00kie16]

btw, q6600 is going for $200 + shipping at fry's. dunno know about shipping to Canada though. For p35 board, go with gigabyte (solid caps).

 

[aigomorla]

Originally posted by: ther00kie16

Originally posted by: daveybrat
I would do a Q6600 for $219 right now at Newegg. Should be a little more future-proof and photoshop should love it.

Photoshop doesn't use more than 2 cores except for following test
anand's article
So a 4ghz e8400 is better now but who knows in the future.

that link you gave shows quads pulling ahead.

The Q6600 clocked @ 2.4ghz is better then a X6800 clocked @ 2.93

So im still lost on why he should get a dualcore?

 

[stockriderman]

I just checked a few articles seems like 8400 or 8500 are faster for photoshop. Because of the price of CS3,I don't think I'll be upgrading for at least 2 years.
In regards to the motherboard, can you guys please recommend specific models. At this point I have an ASROCK mobo. Should I just keep with this Brand? haven't had any issues with mine so I assume it's a good brand
I don't want to pay a lot. I know some have extra features for overclocking etc. Don't need that since I won't be doing it.

cheers

 

[Modelworks]

Quad core is not going to be fully utilized with photoshop.
Maybe in some of the coming versions, but for now I would use a 8400.
The quad core would be faster for video encoding so if you do lots of that then I would go for the quad core, if not the 8400.

 

[ther00kie16]

Originally posted by: aigomorla

Originally posted by: ther00kie16

Originally posted by: daveybrat
I would do a Q6600 for $219 right now at Newegg. Should be a little more future-proof and photoshop should love it.

Photoshop doesn't use more than 2 cores except for following test
anand's article
So a 4ghz e8400 is better now but who knows in the future.

that link you gave shows quads pulling ahead.

The Q6600 clocked @ 2.4ghz is better then a X6800 clocked @ 2.93

So im still lost on why he should get a dualcore?

Like I said, Photoshop doesn't use more than 2 cores except for the test Anand did, which I linked. So there's no point of a quad core unless OP wants future-proofing or does a lot of what Anand did in that test.
For motherboard, best get a Gigabyte P35.
You can overclock the 8400 to >4ghz in the future if it's slowing down.

 

[aigomorla]

and the increase in cache wont help him?

were talking about 8meg cache vs 6megs cache.

Not to mention if you want to keep the scenairo the same, the quad is a future proof upgrade more so then the wolfdale.

When both overclocked the wolfdale will probably have a 15-20% advantage over the quad, unless he goes for high end wolfdale overclocking.

But ahh you guys are missing the point. Yes he will only do photoshop, but since when have you seen someone just use 1 program? He most likely will have an AV running in the background + Chatting program + ie programs with other programs running.

If photoshop is gonna take 2 whole cores to process having a third or a 4th would help in the background program he runs.

This is the point im trying to get across.


Or is this completely wrong?

 

[soccerballtux]

Originally posted by: aigomorla
and the increase in cache wont help him?

were talking about 8meg cache vs 6megs cache.

Not to mention if you want to keep the scenairo the same, the quad is a future proof upgrade more so then the wolfdale.

When both overclocked the wolfdale will probably have a 15-20% advantage over the quad, unless he goes for high end wolfdale overclocking.

But ahh you guys are missing the point. Yes he will only do photoshop, but since when have you seen someone just use 1 program? He most likely will have an AV running in the background + Chatting program + ie programs with other programs running.

If photoshop is gonna take 2 whole cores to process having a third or a 4th would help in the background program he runs.

This is the point im trying to get across.


Or is this completely wrong?

Funny thing is, I did all those you mentioned except photoshop on my old amd sempron 3100+ oc'd to 2.3Ghz, and never hit more than 25% CPU on 4x256 throttled CPU. Chatting + writing paper + 8 10+page PDF's open + 10+tabs of Firefox open + burning DVD + AV + copying files from internal to external + listening to music + bittorrenting + speedfan all at once.

Now, if you want to photoshop at the same time that's different, but I'd just delay the virus scan till I go to bed (only thing that would lag photoshop); everything else takes < 5% CPU all at once.

 

[bryanW1995]

yeah, but multitasking is way cooler when you're doing in with a quad

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: aigomorla
and the increase in cache wont help him?

Yes, it will, but not anywhere near 600 Mhz worth. Also, Photoshop CS3 has already been patched to benefit from SSE4.

 

[aigomorla]

Originally posted by: myocardia

Originally posted by: aigomorla
and the increase in cache wont help him?

Yes, it will, but not anywhere near 600 Mhz worth. Also, Photoshop CS3 has already been patched to benefit from SSE4.

oh then this ends it.

 

[runawayprisoner]

One thing, though, 4.0GHz Q9450 was lagging in Photoshop CS3 with some simple pictures at 25000 x 12000. So evidently, if you work at really insane res (for prints, billboards), consider getting a Xeon rig instead.

And I'll end it at that.

 

[ther00kie16]

Originally posted by: runawayprisoner
One thing, though, 4.0GHz Q9450 was lagging in Photoshop CS3 with some simple pictures at 25000 x 12000. So evidently, if you work at really insane res (for prints, billboards), consider getting a Xeon rig instead.

And I'll end it at that.

Wait... 300MP (that's 0.3BP)? Are you kidding me?

 

[ther00kie16]

Originally posted by: ther00kie16

Originally posted by: runawayprisoner
One thing, though, 4.0GHz Q9450 was lagging in Photoshop CS3 with some simple pictures at 25000 x 12000. So evidently, if you work at really insane res (for prints, billboards), consider getting a Xeon rig instead.

And I'll end it at that.

Wait... 300MP (that's 0.3BP)? Are you kidding me?

I guess a quick google brought up a prototype lens system from Adobe that combines 30 10MP images together so it's not out of the question. But 300MP viewed at 100% would only show ~1% of the image on a 30" LCD, needless to say that the file would be what... around 1GB?
So I wonder if you multiplied both dimensions by 10 thinking it'd be 30MP.