desktop recommendations

kar1

kar1

Suspended / Banned
Messages
239
Name
karl
Edit My Images
Yes
Looking at getting a new PC after xmas.

I shoot a lot of raw, what would you recommend as the minimum requirements for the new specs...
 
Intel i5-3xxx, 8G memory. 120+GB SSD if you can push that far. Decent monitor.
 
Shooting RAW doesn't mean much... are these RAW files from a D90, or from something with larger files?
 
Not sure on the budget yet till after xmas.

Yeah raw from my d90.

Tbf my current pic us an XP dinosaur
 
kar1 said:
Looking at getting a new PC after xmas.

I shoot a lot of raw, what would you recommend as the minimum requirements for the new specs...
Click to expand...

8-16gb of RAM.

i5 or if flush i7 processor

I'd also get a 256 or 360gb SSD for the operating system and programmes and a 1 or 2 TB drive for actual photo and video storage. The SSD will massively improve performance.

Make sure you get a decent screen and calibrator as well.

Windows 7 64 bit (really try to avoid windows 8 - its terrible as a non touchscreen desktop UI).

I wouldn't waste twice the money on a mac of similar spec.
 
I have a Dell Studio XPS, i7 processor,16GB ram, 2x1TB HDD in a RAID array ( not as fast as SSD but a damn sight cheaper ). I have done restoration on images that are 10Gb+ in size and HD video work on this set up & it works very well. The only weak link is the bundled monitor, different vertical screen angles change the colour.
 
Chris O said:
2x1TB HDD in a RAID array ( not as fast as SSD but a damn sight cheaper ).
Click to expand...


RAID0/striping? I'm assuming so if speed was the reason for doing it. I hope you're backed up, as you've just doubled your chances of disk failure.



to the OP. Don't skimp on the monitor. It's the only part of your digital darkroom that actually affects the quality of your output.
 
I've just got a new customised set up from http://www.chillblast.com/
Have a look through - although they are big on gaming machines for processing large files and video the requirements are not that different but look at upgrading the monitor in their packages and perhaps dropping a few things like webcam or fancy sound (can always be added later).
You can get a nice system with 2TB storage, SSD for the OS and programs + 16GB RAM for well under £1000.
 
Pookeyhead said:
RAID0/striping? I'm assuming so if speed was the reason for doing it. I hope you're backed up, as you've just doubled your chances of disk failure.
:cool: religious backup, automatic daily to external HDD with weekly offsite storage
Click to expand...
 
As others have said, a decent i5 CPU (I didn't bother with the extra cost for an i7 as the hyperthreading it offered didn't seem that much value for money for what I would be using it for).
Never underestimate how much RAM you need. I'd say 6-8GB minimum. I put in 16.
Really second the idea of a fast SSD for your OS and applications. I have mine set up that way: one SSD for OS and user profile and it holds my lightroom catalogue + a second larger traditional HDD for data. I only have a 600GB HDD on my PC but have a small server with 6TB for archiving.

Cheapest way of doing it is a self-build. If you're not confident with doing that, many people will build a PC to your spec. Just be aware that "gaming" PCs will have more money spent on a graphics card than you need for photo editing. Also a decent monitor and hardware calibrator are a must.
 
Thanks for the replies! Very helpful.

I'm looking at using a full HD 32" as a monitor through hdmi for the time being how will that work?
 
That should be fine. Any recent and decent motherboard (or discrete graphics card) will give you HDMI or DVI at least. Don't forget to calibrate it all though :)
 
kar1 said:
I'm looking at using a full HD 32" as a monitor through hdmi for the time being how will that work?
Click to expand...
It depends on the HDMI implementation on the monitor and the quality of the panel.
 
gnirtS said:
8-16gb of RAM.

i5 or if flush i7 processor

I'd also get a 256 or 360gb SSD for the operating system and programmes and a 1 or 2 TB drive for actual photo and video storage. The SSD will massively improve performance.

Make sure you get a decent screen and calibrator as well.

Windows 7 64 bit (really try to avoid windows 8 - its terrible as a non touchscreen desktop UI).

I wouldn't waste twice the money on a mac of similar spec.
Click to expand...

Would love to see a PC built with the same spec as a iMac for £800 :thumbs:
 
Studi0488 said:
Would love to see a PC built with the same spec as a iMac for £800 :thumbs:
Click to expand...
OK.


So, that's £491 for the PC/components and £550 for the monitor. Add cost of cheap webcam/speakers and you may add at least another £30....

So, 2/3rds the price for the base model may be higher than half, but it is still a significant saving, especially when you can spec up a MUCH better PC for a LOT less than Apples inflated prices for their addons. Plus you don't need to buy a new monitor every time you buy a new PC ;)
 
Not wanting to drag this on the point has already been made :)

But add:

Warranty
A same spec mouse
The time building the thing
The time installing the software and drivers
Not sure your spec has Bluetooth and wifi
Support in the form of telephone and walk in stores
The difference in software prices

I bet your not that for off being comparably priced :)
 
Any recommendations for calibrators?
 
Studi0488 said:
Would love to see a PC built with the same spec as a iMac for £800 :thumbs:
Click to expand...

My 27 iMac cost 1400 and my gaming rig cost me 1000 to build and thats a decent rig...
 
Studi0488 said:
I bet your not that for off being comparably priced :)
Click to expand...
Ahahahahaha....

I took the best value iMac they do and still beat the price by 1/3rd (if you want BT and wifi, add another £20-£30 to the motherboard). Take any one of the other macs and I'd get close to 1/2 the price for pretty much the same spec. in about 20 minutes (which was all I spent on the above)....

If I were you at this point, I'd stop trying to justify it and say, yes, the Mac is more expensive, but there are other intangibles it has which some find valuable and are willing to pay for. It doesn't, however, make it the ultimate value package for everyone ;)
 
Aside from all this arguing about the price of iMacs, the main reason not to get one would be the screen. iMac screens are completely unsuitable for editing. The matte cinema displays they used to do (not sure if they still do them) were pretty good though. This is an unbiased opinion, I am currently posting this from my mac.... However I would never dream of doing any serious kind of editing on here.
 
SamuelHearn said:
Aside from all this arguing about the price of iMacs, the main reason not to get one would be the screen. iMac screens are completely unsuitable for editing. The matte cinema displays they used to do (not sure if they still do them) were pretty good though. This is an unbiased opinion, I am currently posting this from my mac.... However I would never dream of doing any serious kind of editing on here.
Click to expand...

Er ok, the thousands of people out there using them "seriously" must be doing it all wrong.
 
I thought the big thing with them was the fact they are ready made to be perfect for graphics and such. ?

Schools and colleges by them for that sole purpose. ?
 
Looks like I poked the hive again..

They aren't THAT bad. Just they are way too reflective which allows lots of colour contamination and makes it hard to work in a bright room, also right out out of the box the colours are off for anything requiring a decent amount of accuracy. They are designed to deliver a 'visually pleasing' experience, and are therefore very bright with overly punchy colours without calibration (in my experience). Of course you will be able to edit pictures well on an iMac or even a macbook pro. I'm just pointing out that for any professional application it isn't ideal and there are many much cheaper alternatives that are far superior to the iMac in terms of accuracy. For anyone who wants to deliver the very best images these nagging issues that might not be a problem for most people become a deciding factor.
 
For reference, I run a 120GB SSD in my machine with 2 striped 500gb drives for general data, my HTPC stores all my photos and stuff over the network.

Unless you install a LOT of stuff I don't know why you'd need a 360GB SSD.

I also only have 4GB of ram in it and a 2500k Sandy Bridge and it runs LR4 like a dream. With memory prices like they are though dropping 8GB in is worthwhile though I wouldn't bother with 16 unless you are doing it for a living or if you just have the extra money.

Other considerations are what you are going to use the machine for. Do you want to play Metro 2033 on it? Where do you keep your photos currently? What do you have that you can use in the new machine (assuming a self build)?
 
I don't' know why people argue about Apple prices all the time, you don't see someone saying his Audi is expensive when a Toyota can do the same journey in the same amount of time.

p.s. those who compare spec don't take into account a lot of things even if it is the same spec.

1 - noise, PC, especially a powerful one is loud, to get iMac silent you need watercooled
2 - size, built me a PC the size of an iMac or Mac Mini then I will entertain a debate with you.
3 - None of them will have the same screen as the new iMac.

My point is, a PC is never identical to a Mac, ever, it can only be roughly.
 
Raymond Lin said:
1 - noise, PC, especially a powerful one is loud, to get iMac silent you need watercooled
Click to expand...
No you don't. After market coolers maybe, but not water cooling....
 
Pookeyhead said:
RAID0/striping? I'm assuming so if speed was the reason for doing it.
Click to expand...

i wouldnt bother doing it at all on a desktop, on a cost/performance its not worth it. there was an article a while back about single vs raid0 raptors and only in some situations was it fast enough to warrant the extra cost.

SamuelHearn said:
Aside from all this arguing about the price of iMacs, the main reason not to get one would be the screen. iMac screens are completely unsuitable for editing. The matte cinema displays they used to do (not sure if they still do them) were pretty good though. This is an unbiased opinion, I am currently posting this from my mac.... However I would never dream of doing any serious kind of editing on here.
Click to expand...

indeed. and its my ultimate bug bear with macs (the new retina macbooks are better but still not ideal).. how many pro screens are glossy?
 
SamuelHearn said:
Aside from all this arguing about the price of iMacs, the main reason not to get one would be the screen. iMac screens are completely unsuitable for editing. The matte cinema displays they used to do (not sure if they still do them) were pretty good though. This is an unbiased opinion, I am currently posting this from my mac.... However I would never dream of doing any serious kind of editing on here.
Click to expand...

Not anymore.

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showpost.php?p=5224301&postcount=123
 
The only use would be for photos and net. I don't do PC gaming. My photos are just soured on the hdd of my current PC. But I'm starting to so more and more, another reason for upgrade. Although I do have external hdd if need be.

Any recommendations on calibrators? Do these adjust the output from the PC so you don't have to rely on adjusting options on the monitor/HD TV.?
 
kar1 said:
The only use would be for photos and net. I don't do PC gaming. My photos are just soured on the hdd of my current PC. But I'm starting to so more and more, another reason for upgrade. Although I do have external hdd if need be.

Any recommendations on calibrators? Do these adjust the output from the PC so you don't have to rely on adjusting options on the monitor/HD TV.?
Click to expand...
It can be a bit of both. I have a (now superceded) Spyder 3 which lets you tell it which picture control functions you have on your monitor. You adjust those to get it close to the ideal brightness and white balance and then the program takes 10 minutes to go over a variety or red, green and blue patterns which are measured.
Once done, it writes a colour profile to the graphics card which "compensates" the RGB values to give you a truer picture.
 
arad85 said:
Ahahahahaha....

I took the best value iMac they do and still beat the price by 1/3rd (if you want BT and wifi, add another £20-£30 to the motherboard). Take any one of the other macs and I'd get close to 1/2 the price for pretty much the same spec. in about 20 minutes (which was all I spent on the above)....

If I were you at this point, I'd stop trying to justify it and say, yes, the Mac is more expensive, but there are other intangibles it has which some find valuable and are willing to pay for. It doesn't, however, make it the ultimate value package for everyone ;)
Click to expand...

You need a new calculator, best 27in is £1500 yours is £1100 and you conveniently left off the warranty, build time, mouse, which would easiyl be a couple,of hundred quid, so at a squeeze like for like your PC is £200 cheaper, at best......
 
tfboy said:
It can be a bit of both. I have a (now superceded) Spyder 3 which lets you tell it which picture control functions you have on your monitor. You adjust those to get it close to the ideal brightness and white balance and then the program takes 10 minutes to go over a variety or red, green and blue patterns which are measured.
Once done, it writes a colour profile to the graphics card which "compensates" the RGB values to give you a truer picture.
Click to expand...

Cheers, I'll have a look once get the PC and TV together.
 
Studi0488 said:
You need a new calculator, best 27in is £1500 yours is £1100 and you conveniently left off the warranty, build time, mouse, which would easiyl be a couple,of hundred quid, so at a squeeze like for like your PC is £200 cheaper, at best......
Click to expand...
No. You need a new calculator ;)
 
If you really want OSX on the cheap, build yourself a hackintosh. Much cheaper. So much cheaper in fact that no calculators are required but some serious tinkering is! and is totally unsupported of course :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top