Future-proof Pc for Lightroom/CS4

F

fulwood

Suspended / Banned
Messages
894
Name
henry
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm about to build a PC for photo editing using Adobe Lightroom 2.6 and/or PS CS4 or similar.

I want to make it future proof, so something that will handle large files if I ever upgrade to say a 7d or 5D II will be needed.

I've got a 24 inch Dell Ultrasharp to use with it. Quite capable of building it all from scratch - not sure whether the Adobe software works with both Intel and AMD cpus. Does a quad core have any advantages over a twin core for adobe?

Will only be using for photo editing and internet, so don't need fancy graphics - thinking of using Win XP as already have.

Cheapest that will do the job without struggling.
Thanks
 
defo i7'
offboard graphics
6gb ram
ssd/fast drive as system drive
multiple big hard drives for storage
external backup
decent mobo

I'd go windows 7 for reliability and efficiency and because it copes a lot better with new kit. Old os's are never as smooth with new components as they were with those from their generation
 
Sorry but no such thing as "Future-proof".
 
CS5 is out soon so unless you have already purchased it wait a few months and get the newer version.
 
Thanks for the replies.

Money is tight, so really looking for a budget set up - CS5 not on the agenda at the mo!

I'll happily get a used twin core cpu from a gamer who's upgrading, but there seem so many options. I've not kept up with the technology, but have been using a Pentium D 805 dual core up to now - I don't want to spend more than £50/60 on a used cpu, will then buy a m/b to match it.

So what recommendations for a used cpu at the £50 mark - if you've got one for disposal, drop me a line!
 
To put you in the picture I run CS4 on the following rig -
Intel Core 2 Duo 2.2Ghz CPU (i paid £67 for this new of ebay inc heatsink)
2Gb DDR2 667Mhz Ram
ATI HD 4670 1gb graphics card
Gigabyte mobo
160gb HDD
Windows XP 32 bit
and it runs perfectly well (no hesitation or crashing)

Personally I wouldn't buy a second hand CPU, you don't know how much load it has been put under and wether it has been clocked.
I would suggest buying most components new.
What I have listed above is only a fraction of my build list when I did my comp and my total by the time I was finished was a smidge over £300.
Source your components and find out who's cheapest.
I bought my stuff from microdirect and ebuyer
 
Thanks stupar, that's more like what I had in mind - is this OK with processing large RAWs?
 
fulwood said:
Thanks stupar, that's more like what I had in mind - is this OK with processing large RAWs?
Click to expand...

Yeah it fine processing large RAW files. The Graphics card easily handles the job and takes the load off the main system.
 
Thanks neil_g - good bedtime reading there!

stupar if I can get an Intel dual core that clocks somewhere near 3Ghz, combine it with 3 to 4 Gb ram, a 1TB Hd and a graphics card from the Adobe recommended list I should have something gutsy enough to run 7D or 5D II RAWs in a XP based system - I know W7 is better, but I've got XP! What do you think?
 
fulwood said:
Thanks neil_g - good bedtime reading there!

stupar if I can get an Intel dual core that clocks somewhere near 3Ghz, combine it with 3 to 4 Gb ram, a 1TB Hd and a graphics card from the Adobe recommended list I should have something gutsy enough to run 7D or 5D II RAWs in a XP based system - I know W7 is better, but I've got XP! What do you think?
Click to expand...

That should be fine, I can't see that spec causing you any problems when processing your RAW files
 
Thanks again stupar, no point in spending too much on computer hardware, better to spend on good glass for the camera! I'll let you know what I end up with.
 
fulwood said:
Thanks neil_g - good bedtime reading there!

stupar if I can get an Intel dual core that clocks somewhere near 3Ghz, combine it with 3 to 4 Gb ram, a 1TB Hd and a graphics card from the Adobe recommended list I should have something gutsy enough to run 7D or 5D II RAWs in a XP based system - I know W7 is better, but I've got XP! What do you think?
Click to expand...

remember theres no point installing more than 3gb memory with 32 bit operating systems..
 
Edtog said:
CS5 is out soon so unless you have already purchased it wait a few months and get the newer version.
Click to expand...

Normally after the initial launch event you can get a free upgrade to the next version so on occasion it can actually work out slightly cheaper to buy the version now and then upgrade it for free avoiding any price increases they might chuck in ;)
 
neil_g said:
remember theres no point installing more than 3gb memory with 32 bit operating systems..
Click to expand...

XP (32 bit) will recognise 3GB of Ram. Most newish mobos these days perform better when ram is matched and run in dual channel format.
So if he puts in 4gb of matched ram (2x2gb), yes XP won't regonise the last 1gb, however the mobo/CPU will operate more efficiently than if he was running 1 bank of 2gb and 1 bank of 1gb because running a 2gb module beside a 1gb module isn't pairing.
Dual channel requires everything to be the same (capacity, speed, voltage etc) to get the maximum out of it.
See below for more info

http://www.kingston.com/newtech/MKF_520DDRWhitepaper.pdf
 
the cost of the extra memory isnt worth the marginal performance increase in my opinion..

anyway (again in my opinion) its a no brainer to install a 64bit OS as standard these days.
 
neil_g said:
the cost of the extra memory isnt worth the marginal performance increase in my opinion..

anyway (again in my opinion) its a no brainer to install a 64bit OS as standard these days.
Click to expand...

paticuarly when both the programs you mention have 64 bit versions

if you know a student you can get win7 for 30 quid
 
i still run cs4 in 32bit, as many plugins wont run properly on the 64bit version.
 
david1701 said:
paticuarly when both the programs you mention have 64 bit versions

if you know a student you can get win7 for 30 quid
Click to expand...

and the version you get even works on 32 and 64 bit, I got the student version of 7 for £30 and then got the latest enterprise version of Office for £8.95 through work..... Result !!!! To be honest though it is fair enough as neither will get that much use in our household.
 
stokecity_m said:
i still run cs4 in 32bit, as many plugins wont run properly on the 64bit version.
Click to expand...

True, but if you are running 64 bit os and installl PS then it installs both 32 and 64 bit versions so you can still use plugins with the 32 and have the extra poke of the 64 bit version and so be able to make use of the ram that is installed.
 
Escy said:
True, but if you are running 64 bit os and installl PS then it installs both 32 and 64 bit versions so you can still use plugins with the 32 and have the extra poke of the 64 bit version and so be able to make use of the ram that is installed.
Click to expand...


thats what i do :)

What does the 64bit version do that the 32bit version can't?
Is it just the ram usage etc?
 
64 bit seems to be the dog's B's nowadays - is it just the extra ram?
There are problems as I'm not sure that some of my ancient Canon and Epson printers have 64 bit drivers - default win ones don't give me the same full control of the printing settings I get in the 32 bit XP drivers from Epson and Canon - am I right?
Also some (cheap) motherboards only allow you to fit 2 or 4 gb of ram!
 
fulwood said:
64 bit seems to be the dog's B's nowadays - is it just the extra ram?
There are problems as I'm not sure that some of my ancient Canon and Epson printers have 64 bit drivers - default win ones don't give me the same full control of the printing settings I get in the 32 bit XP drivers from Epson and Canon - am I right?
Also some (cheap) motherboards only allow you to fit 2 or 4 gb of ram!
Click to expand...

In a sense 64 bit operating systems are becoming industry standard.
However if you have access to a 32 bit XP OS then I don't see the problem in using it, especially on a budget.
Whilst the main difference between 32/64 bit is RAM, it's not the only difference.
If you say that all you will be using your rig for is photoshop and the internet, then in my eyes a 64 bit system won't hold much of an advantage of a 32 bit system.
If 32 bit was that bad they wouldn't still be producing 32 bit OS.
I cant account for your driver issues as I have never had that problem.
As for "cheap" mobo's, all mobo manuafacturers make low budget boards as well as top end thus allowing greater flexability and affordability to the end user.

In my case I bought a gigabyte mobo for £35 inc postage.
Because its a budget board I can only get a max of 2gb RAM on the board
The board accepts a CPU with a max of 1066mhz FSB (hence the core 2 duo 2.2ghz) which suits my needs.
It has one PCI-E x 16 slot which is all I need for my graphics cards and it has SATA connectors for high speed connections with the hard drive.
Like I say its a basic system with a 32 bit OS, however it runs CS4 fine, the wife plays Sims 3 on max settings fine and I play all my games max'd just fine too.
The point of building a PC is to get the exact spec you want, if your going to fill it will all the latest technology (purely to brag) and then only run photoshop and the internet you would be aswell going into PC world and let them rip you of around £800 for a pre built system.
Bigger isn't always better!
 
stupar said:
If 32 bit was that bad they wouldn't still be producing 32 bit OS.
Click to expand...

id put money on windows 7 being the last produced with a 32bit varient.

youre right in that bigger isnt always better, however there is a sense of false economy sometimes when building budget rigs as theyll become "behind the times" quicker and in all likelyhood will need replacing sooner to meet new softwares requirements.. i built a quad core box with 8gb ram not so long ago now because i wanted it to "just work" (to quote the mac lot) with new software for a long time.

but we're going off topic a little now :D
 
neil_g said:
id put money on windows 7 being the last produced with a 32bit varient.

youre right in that bigger isnt always better, however there is a sense of false economy sometimes when building budget rigs as theyll become "behind the times" quicker and in all likelyhood will need replacing sooner to meet new softwares requirements.. i built a quad core box with 8gb ram not so long ago now because i wanted it to "just work" (to quote the mac lot) with new software for a long time.

but we're going off topic a little now :D
Click to expand...

Its personal preference at the end of the day and also boils down to budget which is usually a big factor.
 
Have you thought about going down the AMD route at all? You could get a good Socket AM2 CPU and board for a good price and it would most likely outperform an Intel based setup. I tried a 3GHz dual core Intel chip a few weeks ago - just to see what all the hype was about surrounding Intel, but my old 2.6GHz dual core AMD chip outperformed the Intel by quite a fair margin. I do understand that with the chips of that era, the memory controller is not built into Intel chips, so the performance of the system is dependant on the board whereas the AM2 chips have the memory controller on the same die as the CPU, so there is little performance difference between AM2 boards. However an AMD chip to outperform an Intel chip which has a clock speed 400MHz higher per core says a lot I think.
I am not trying to rubbish Intel, I have heard some good things about them, and I have started using their processors since Apple switched over to Intel. I am just saying that if you are on a tight budget (like me) :), you might want to keep your options open.
 
Kibi said:
Have you thought about going down the AMD route at all? You could get a good Socket AM2 CPU and board for a good price and it would most likely outperform an Intel based setup. I tried a 3GHz dual core Intel chip a few weeks ago - just to see what all the hype was about surrounding Intel, but my old 2.6GHz dual core AMD chip outperformed the Intel by quite a fair margin. I do understand that with the chips of that era, the memory controller is not built into Intel chips, so the performance of the system is dependant on the board whereas the AM2 chips have the memory controller on the same die as the CPU, so there is little performance difference between AM2 boards. However an AMD chip to outperform an Intel chip which has a clock speed 400MHz higher per core says a lot I think.
I am not trying to rubbish Intel, I have heard some good things about them, and I have started using their processors since Apple switched over to Intel. I am just saying that if you are on a tight budget (like me) :), you might want to keep your options open.
Click to expand...

you may want to read this:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/e8500-phenom-9350e,2010.html

;)

dont get me wrong, i used to use AMD in all of my systems. however at the moment intel blows AMD away.
 
neil_g said:
you may want to read this:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/e8500-phenom-9350e,2010.html

;)

dont get me wrong, i used to use AMD in all of my systems. however at the moment intel blows AMD away.
Click to expand...

Have to agree here, i used to always go with AMD but since the core 2 duo, intel have taken the lead by quite a way.

AMD processors are not bad and could be a good option if you are on a budget but if you have the money then go for an intel i7.


I am running an i7 920 (clocked to 3.8ghz) with 6gb of ram and running photoshop cs4, lightroom, dreamweaver etc.. at the same time while watching tv on my other monitor with no problem at all.
 
instigator said:
Have to agree here, i used to always go with AMD but since the core 2 duo, intel have taken the lead by quite a way.

AMD processors are not bad and could be a good option if you are on a budget but if you have the money then go for an intel i7.


I am running an i7 920 (clocked to 3.8ghz) with 6gb of ram and running photoshop cs4, lightroom, dreamweaver etc.. at the same time while watching tv on my other monitor with no problem at all.
Click to expand...

I agree with your comments. I have heard of the i7 and believe it is rather good.
My comments were related to CPU's of the Pentium D 3.0GHz / AMD AM2 era. One of the OP's posts lead me to believe that he was in the market for a system based on a CPU of that vintage. AMD were on top at that time. Like I said earlier, I am still running a 2.6GHz AMD system and it is plenty fast for CS4 and COD MW2 plays smoothly on it with the game video settings "all set to 10" (9800GT graphics card I admit). I think a system like that would fit the OP's budget and needs suitably.
 
You don't need to spend a lot of money on a graphics card.

A decent speed CPU, 3GB RAM or more if you're going 64-bit, and a fast HDD are the key bottlenecks in a system for crunching RAW files.

If you don't want to splash on the Core i7 I understand the Core i5s offer good performance for the money. Samsung Spinpoint F1 drives are fast, not too pricey and virtually silent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top