is this a good computer for photography?

L

lawless23456

Suspended / Banned
Messages
261
Name
lawrence
Edit My Images
Yes
these are the specs:

Microsoft Windows Vista Home Premium
Intel Core 4 Quad Q9550 Processor – NEW GENERATION
8192MB Corsair DDR II Memory
1500GB SATA II Seagate Ultra Fast Hard Disk Space
NEC 7200 Multi Format DVD/CD ReWriter
nVidia GeForce 2048MB Quad Monitor Graphics
7.1 High Definition Surround Sound
Intel Deluxe Motherboard
Multi Format Memory Card Reader
LG BLU RAY Drive
10/100/1000 Ethernet LAN
12 x USB2 Ports
Firewire
3 x Hanns G 22” Widescreen TFT 5MS HDMI Flat Panel
Microsoft Wireless Multimedia Keyboard
Microsoft Wireless Optical Mouse
Creative Inspire 6100 5.1 Speaker System
12 Month Classic Warranty

and heres the linky to the actual page i will be upgrading it to xp rather than vista as having used vista i hate it!


lawless
 
It should just about cope with most things.

Small point though, if you're going to XP make sure it's the 64bit version, 32 bit won't use all that RAM. Not even sure if 64 bit will to be honest.
 
Well over the top for photo editing in my humble opinion, depends what else you will be using it for.

If using it for other high end processing Gaming, Video Encoding etc will be fine
 
lawless23456 said:
these are the specs:

Microsoft Windows Vista Home Premium
Intel Core 4 Quad Q9550 Processor – NEW GENERATION
8192MB Corsair DDR II Memory
1500GB SATA II Seagate Ultra Fast Hard Disk Space
NEC 7200 Multi Format DVD/CD ReWriter
nVidia GeForce 2048MB Quad Monitor Graphics
7.1 High Definition Surround Sound
Intel Deluxe Motherboard
Multi Format Memory Card Reader
LG BLU RAY Drive
10/100/1000 Ethernet LAN
12 x USB2 Ports
Firewire
3 x Hanns G 22” Widescreen TFT 5MS HDMI Flat Panel
Microsoft Wireless Multimedia Keyboard
Microsoft Wireless Optical Mouse
Creative Inspire 6100 5.1 Speaker System
12 Month Classic Warranty

and heres the linky to the actual page i will be upgrading it to xp rather than vista as having used vista i hate it!


lawless
Click to expand...


thats a bit overkill

firstly i would get rid of the 1500gb harddrive and replace with a 10,000rpm 150gb western digital raptor (run all you programs from this as its ultra fast) then think about a bigger harddrive for storage.

secondly you have said that this machine has got 8GB of ram, unless you are running Windows Vista64bit then this will not work as Vista cannot see over 3Gb ram

Graphics are a bit overkill too, you will notice basically no difference running quad graphics over a single faster card

it sounds as if you are buying this as a prebuilt kit, could i ask how much it is costing cause in my opinion you can build one your self for half the price

Cheers

GKenny
 
£1,499 follow the link in the original post
 
Can't see why you would need High Definition Surround Sound for photographs but other than that it seems just about adequate ... :naughty:






:p
 
Can't see why you would need High Definition Surround Sound for photographs but other than that it seems just about adequate ... :naughty:






:p
 
Have a look at this dell - good spec for half the price



Subtotal £741.56

Components
XPS 420 E8300 Core 2 Duo Processor (2.83GHz, 1333MHz FSB, 6MB cache)
Genuine Windows Vista® Home Premium - English
1 Year Base Warranty
22in E228WFP WIDESCREEN UK/Irish (1680 x 1050) TCO99 DVI-D
3072MB 800MHz Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM [2x1024/2x512]
750GB (7200rpm) Serial ATA/100 Hard Drive with 16MB DataBurst™ cache
512MB ATI® Radeon® 3870 Graphics card
Blu-Ray ROM Drive (read/write CD/DVD & read Blu-Ray Disc)
Dell™ Enhanced USB Multimedia Keyboard - UK/Irish (QWERTY)
Dell Optical Scroll Premium Mouse
 
It seems like a very good deal for what you're getting, but what you're getting is overkill for, um, anything really. Personally I would prefer 2 24" monitors to 3 22".
 
what else are you doing witht he comp lawless?

3gb ram, an average graphics card with 512mb and i have a p4 3000 processor. works fine for me. for tog editing very overspecced.

would agree 3 22" monitors is overkill, far better with a 24" or 28", you would fit more of the pic onscreen.
 
Jamougha said:
It seems like a very good deal for what you're getting, but what you're getting is overkill for, um, anything really. Personally I would prefer 2 24" monitors to 3 22".
Click to expand...


agreed, if you buy cutting edge technology it's always expensive and way too much power for any domestic user, in 6 months that PC will be 1/2 that price
 
I think you're better off getting a lower spec PC.
Get something with 2 cores, that does help for day to day use. Get something with >3GB of RAM, but be sure that the OS can handle it (At least Vista Home Basic 64bit, preferably Vista Home Premium 64bit).
Get a few hard drives, so you can backup between the two.
Take the spare cash and buy a GOOD monitor. Colour management on the 3 cheap monitors that website bundles in is awful, and even with a calibrator you'll never get a good match out of them. Perhaps buy one large monitor and one smaller more accurate one.
 
LOL you have asked "is this a good computer for photography?", yet proceed to post the highest spec PC money can buy pretty much?!? :)

I get the impression this could be a big of an ego rubbing thread.

Of course it will sufficiently and more be suitable for photography work :) and as what others have posted overkill if it was purely for photoediting.
 
I wonder how many people came in to say 'I find a camera is much better than a pc for photography' and then got carried away by such an obscene spec....

You either know enough about computers to be posting just for bragging rights, or you have more money than sense....
 
that is a beast.. but a bit OTT and as mentioned the ram wont work with 32bit os'es.
 
dod said:
Small point though, if you're going to XP make sure it's the 64bit version, 32 bit won't use all that RAM. Not even sure if 64 bit will to be honest.
Click to expand...

Afaik, 64 bit processing can address up to 16GB of RAM. But if you're not a big time photography pro you will never need more than 4GB. Unless you need to get rid of excess cash, of course.
 
Just to stray slightly, I bought my last PC from the same company (Cube) and was mightily impressed. Theirs was easily the best price I could find after an extensive search of similarly specced PC's and they used quality components as well. Delivery was fast and they were extremely helpful and spent a lot of time on the phone with me, answering my stupid questions, while I was fine tuning the spec. From my experience I would heartily recommend giving Cube a look when sourcing a new PC.

Flashy
 
DollyBuster said:
Afaik, 64 bit processing can address up to 16GB of RAM. But if you're not a big time photography pro you will never need more than 4GB. Unless you need to get rid of excess cash, of course.
Click to expand...

64 Bit systems limit you to 17.2 billion GB of RAM. Any limit smaller than that (everything consumer-wise is smaller than that) is because you physically can't put that much into a system, or the OS refuses to accept it. There are plenty of PCs out there with at least 32GB of RAM.

The 4GB limit for 32 bit processing includes the memory on your graphics card, and all the caches in your system. I have a 512MB graphics card, so I can have up to 3.5GB (minus, say, 20MB for various caches, etc.) I put 4GB in to my system, because RAM is so cheap today it makes more sense to buy 2 x 2GB than 3 x 1GB and 1 x 512MB. Besides, I can always upgrade my OS and have room to spare.

For almost all applications, adding RAM will give you the best performance boost on your system. If anybody is running on 1GB of RAM, spend the £65 to upgrade to 4GB and your performance will soar.

Personally, when I can upgrade to a 64bit system (some of the stuff I use isn't compatible yet) I will be putting another 4GB of RAM in. 8GB should make Vista fly.
 
Don't bother with Vista, Its still unstable and imperfect. Windows XP Professional SP3 is still superior (and there is a 64 bit version of XP Professional for those who're looking hard enough, seen as nearly all processors these days seem to be x86-64 compliant)
 
I would stay away from those 22" monitors. AFAIK all 22" monitors use TN panel tech which isn't great for photography (small gamaut, poor viwing angles).

If you want a big view area try a 30" Apple or Dell, or probably the dogs danglies at the moment is the Samsung SyncMaster XL30. You should be able to afford one with the change you'll get if you go for a lower spec PC ;)
 
That looks a great spec, but it doesnt mention which motherboard it is using. All that high performance stuff just may not work well if the motherboard isnt up to it and I assume it will be the cheapest one available that all the stuff will fit on.
But, it will still be fine for images.
If you want a real computer, then look here. The sky`s the limit as long as your credit card is empty.
Allan
 
allanm said:
That looks a great spec, but it doesnt mention which motherboard it is using.
Click to expand...

When they (Cube) built mine they let me choose the motherboard. It was a very flexible and personal service.

Flashy
 
Mohain said:
I would stay away from those 22" monitors. AFAIK all 22" monitors use TN panel tech which isn't great for photography (small gamaut, poor viwing angles).

If you want a big view area try a 30" Apple or Dell, or probably the dogs danglies at the moment is the Samsung SyncMaster XL30. You should be able to afford one with the change you'll get if you go for a lower spec PC ;)
Click to expand...

Beware of the truly huge monitors: check you don't need two DVI-I (dual link) outputs to hook the display to, or if you do want a monitor that needs two ports, make sure you have a suitable graphics card (or cards).
 
Hard drive advice:

Id get 2x250gb segates 7200.10's and up them in Raid 0 and use that as your boot drive (vista x64 as stated before....install PS and other softwear on the same drive).
its what ive got now and get a constant 150 MB/sec. which is chuffin amazing.

then use several large drives...such as the 15000gb stated for storage. Or, even better, get 3x500gb's and put them in Raid 5. Say bye bye to data loss from faulty drives.

also:
1) ditch the 3rd monitor...completely unnecessary. 2's ok if your editing / programming.
2)make sure the memory is +8500 as opposed to +6400.
3) replace the 2 video cards with a 8800GT, but a silent heat sink on it...Noise is damn annoying.
4) youve missed out a PSU, youll probably need a 800w one. there pretty cheap now anyway, so get a decent one.



that system is overkill bth. you could get a decent system for photo editing for about £700.
 
G-Kenny said:
firstly i would get rid of the 1500gb harddrive and replace with a 10,000rpm 150gb western digital raptor (run all you programs from this as its ultra fast) then think about a bigger harddrive for storage.
Click to expand...


raptors make this bloody annoying clicking sound. Not sure about the 'X' series though. Ok...there fast, but modern drives, such as the segate's that i mentioned before, are just as fast...without the clicking sound.
 
tbh a £400 laptop would handle most things associated with regular photography.
 
jordan_aryan said:
1) ditch the 3rd monitor...completely unnecessary. 2's ok if your editing / programming.
2)make sure the memory is +8500 as opposed to +6400.
3) replace the 2 video cards with a 8800GT, but a silent heat sink on it...Noise is damn annoying.
4) youve missed out a PSU, youll probably need a 800w one. there pretty cheap now anyway, so get a decent one.
Click to expand...

Intel C2D's aren't that fussy about RAM speed though, even PC5300 matches with them pretty well.
 
Yes I have to agree with Jordan, Raid 5 is the way to go if you are spending this much money. Of course that won't protect you from accidental deletion, but it will protect you from hardware failure.

I use a laptop with 1ghz celeron and 2Gb of RAM for *most* of my tog stuff and it works fine. So this should munch absolutely anything.
 
TheKrikkitWars said:
Don't bother with Vista, Its still unstable and imperfect...
Click to expand...

If you are going to make statements like this, be prepared to back them up...Ask 100 people, you'll get 100 different opinions;)

Vista's initial problems were with a lack of drivers, especially with older legacy hardware. Unless you have some really obscure hardware you NEED to use, Vista is, in my opinion, a more stable OS than XP, especially for your average Joe Q Public home user. EVERY operating system, XP, Vista, MacOS, and Linux are being continually updated and upgraded, both to improve performance and compatibility, and to fix bugs as they arise.

Me? I run Vista Home Premium on my home-built PC (Dual Core Athlon XP5600, 2GB DDR2, 1.5TB drive space, 24" monitor, etc etc) No stability problems, and that's real-world computing....

And my view on hard drives - RAID, in any form, is NOT backup. sure, your data might still be on a disk, or spread across several disks, but will the RAID controller you originally set it up on still be available? Separate internal drives, external drives or optical media are still the safe bet.
 
yea, i agree...nowt can be as reliable as a optical storage (dvds and the like). i use dvd's for long term storage.

but in terms as short to mid term storage, drives are ideal.... raid or non raid.
 
jordan_aryan said:
i use dvd's for long term storage.
Click to expand...

Think again, jordan:
burned DVDs are not suitable for long term storage. As opposed to pressed DVDs. Burned DVDs' physical components react chemically in a sort of osmosis, which renders them unreadable after 7 to 10 years. Much less for cheap DVDs.

I reburn all my archival DVDs every 3 years.
 
Get what comp you want if you like that one get it!
It is good enough to do video editing let alone photo editing. i have a similar speced box mine is a bit more beffy but i use it for rendering and 3DSM and Miya, its down to you what you want and get.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top