where there’s smoke there’s forum fire
This came up in the Drobo thread, but I think it deserves its own thread. What are your thoughts on processor selection for photo editing?
I think the conventional wisdom is that a fast Core 2 duo will get you better results than a slower quad core. With the Core i5's and i7 rigs coming in under $1000, is it worth the upgrade? What software is able to take advantage of the extra Cores? Any other considerations to take into account (Graphics card, RAM, etc)?
Have at it!
I'm using a little bit tweaked mac mini (early 2009) for all my photo editing, it has intel core 2 duo 2Mhz on board and 4Gb of Ram (ddr3), 500GB 7200rpm hdd and it works flawlessly with adobe aperture - I'm shooting raw only, and have my photos stored externally on a usb disk.
generally, processor speed is doesn't give You too much, if You don't have all other components set up correctly, means - at least 4gb of ram (8 would be better, but 4gb sodimm ddr3 are too expensive) and a good hdd, I would say that 7200rpm is minimum, as for graphic card it really doesn't matter, photos are 2d not 3d so even the fastest gpu with a small amount of ram and slow disk will not improve Your performance
I agree with adamz. You need a decent amount of RAM, fast HDD, and some OS can now use the graphic card's CPU. You need a good combination of processing power and RAM. I'd go for a Mac if you're planning to buy a new computer. SnowLeopard is now more efficient with the multiple core lay-out. I personally use a Mac Pro with 2xQuad's and 4 Gb FB-DIMM's (not much but they are freaking expensive). But that might be overkill to you :p (it is to me but overkill is nice :D)
My desktop is now two years old, and it still gets the job done. It runs a bit slow in CS4, but not painfully slow and I'm rarely there anyway. I've replaced the video card (the old one suffered heat death) and added RAM in the meantime, and I expect to be using it for another year or two if I can. I'd rather spend the price difference on things like a monitor calibration setup, software, and lenses.
I've got two recent macs that are running just fine. Its my PC that needs a little love. I'm sporting a 3ghz Pintium IV from 2003. Being an XP machine, it only has three gigs of memory which seems to be plenty. I use my PC mostly for batch processing in Paint Shop Pro. Being a spreadsheet jockey, I also wouldn't mind a dedicated windows machine. The Mac version of excel is... well its not the windows version. I'll leave it at that. I run Windows 7 over boot camp and that seems to do all right, but rebooting is a pain and Parallels just slows me down.
willis - have You checked open office for mac or neooffice? they both are excel compatible and work really good even with huge spreadsheets
Willis said:
I think the conventional wisdom is that a fast Core 2 duo will get you better results than a slower quad core.
Why?
The processor dosent make two hoots, to the difference in quality.
Its a software program. Its follows rules, The only difference will be in speed in getting the results.
If you apply an effect in photoshop say unsharp mask, then on the latest p4 quad core 4 gig ram ultra fast hdd, ect,ect then the time to get the results will be say 10 secs.
If the same version of photoshop running on an old pentium 2 100Mh, will give you exactly the same results, ok it might take you 5 hours to get exactly the same result, but the result will be the same. it has to be, its following the same rules to generate the unsharp mask.
Think about it. Every one here will have a different set up, memory, HDD space, Processor, Mac or PC,ect the filter effect must do the same on every machine, Yes if you have a quad core over a dual core then there will be math routines inside photoshop that will use the extra processing power of the quad core, but the results have to be the same. If it produces different results on different setups how can you possible use the program?
i.e.
Last week the results i was getting were fantastic, this week i added 1 gig of more memory and the results are now totally different.
Nope. the results are the same, it took less time to get the results.
Mac.
Ridgeback - Better results was probably the wrong phrase to use. I should have said faster results. The thinking is that few programs out there can thread four cores at once, so a faster 2 core machine can perform better than a slow quad core.
Of course as newer programs come out, they will be optimized for multiple cores. Apple has a head start here because, apparently, coding for hyper threading is a real pain. Apple's Grand central stream lines a lot of that.
Adamz - I've used open office. Its OK, but doesn't play nice with SQL Analysis Services (at least the version I tried a couple year's ago didn't... may be different now). Not using Excel is like not using Photo Shop. Sure there are other programs out there that are cheaper (or free)\better \ more functional, but what you really benefit from is the knowledge base of other users. If I can't figure out how to do something in excel, the answer is a google search or forum post away. I've got plug-ins for excel that aren't available on other programs. You always have to pay extra for the industry standard.
Willis said:
Better results was probably the wrong phrase to use. I should have said faster results. The thinking is that few programs out there can thread four cores at once, so a faster 2 core machine can perform better than a slow quad core.Of course as newer programs come out, they will be optimized for multiple cores. Apple has a head start here because, apparently, coding for hyper threading is a real pain. Apple's Grand central stream lines a lot of that.
Understood.
I do believe that photoshop has built in routines to use the dual cores, at the moment untill they update their software to make use of quad cores, then the dual core will perform faster then the quad.
Mac.
I own both... and I have to say I definitely prefer the mac. OS X is a joy to use once you figure out how to configure the right click :) Everything just sort of runs the way it is supposed to.
The hardware is more expensive (although not a whole lot more for a perfectly comparable spec). The strange part, is that even though its all comoddity parts, its really the hardware I enjoy most. Running windows on a Mac, especially my mac book, is a far better experience than any PC laptop I've used.
The great thing is that you don't have to take my word for it. Just pop into a best-buy or apple store and give it a test drive.
And yes... they are over-hyped. If I have to watch one more Mac\PC or the windows garbage I'll get so mad that I'll have to download some ATT vs. Verizon commercials just to remind myself how much worse it can be!
Or, be like me, and build your own! (my processor is a 2.93 GHz intel i7, if you must know)
I'm actually thinking about it JMCS. I don't know that I'd save a ton of money with today's prices, but it would be a fun project, and I like the idea of getting to pick all of the parts.
It is much easier than you think. But you do need to know the exact parts you need, or you could have an expensive disaster on your hands.
I have had Mac's since the beginning and never regretted it. I used to work on PC's at work: They drove me crazy and froze or failed quite often. The only problem I have ever had on a MAC was a worn out CD/DVD which I got replaced for 100 euros. I now have 5 Macs at home and they work just fine, the older ones being very slow of course, but still fast enough for my wife (Just kidding !).
As for photo software I use Photoshop Elements for quick corrections, and NX2 for sophisticated work. Very good softwares ! I also use DXO 5 but generally for distorsion correction only.
Having 2 screens is a real advantage: The MacBook Pro screen is used for the tools and menus, and the LaCie 324 for the pictures or the page setup in InDesign. I believe everyone should have two screens. If you're like me, you never have enough room ! :o)
JMCS said:
It is much easier than you think. But you do need to know the exact parts you need, or you could have an expensive disaster on your hands.
I support this idea. It's much cheaper that way and you get exactly what you need.
Also, 2 screens is a must.
Here's how it works: the less time you waste with handling the tools (softwares) because of your lack of screen resolution, lack of speed that makes you wait often, etc. The less time it will take to get the job done... and that means less time in front of the machine, more time shooting.
This is why you want an i7 core.
adamz said:
I'm using a little bit tweaked mac mini (early 2009) for all my photo editing, it has intel core 2 duo 2Mhz on board and 4Gb of Ram (ddr3), 500GB 7200rpm hdd and it works flawlessly with adobe aperture - I'm shooting raw only, and have my photos stored externally on a usb disk.
That's exactly what I need! I'm on a mini too—2GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 1GB DDR3 RAM, and a 120GB drive with 0GB remaining :^( I don't have very much RAM, so I always have to keep a couple GB open on the drive for the computer to use for virtual memory :^(
Sporting a 2009 MBP 17" with 3.08 Core2Duo,6 GB RAM, and a 9600gt GPU. Aperture flies with a 20k RAW library, and the 1920x1200 screen is a dream.
@Alphanikonrex-You should try to have 10gb free for applications to run. I've had photoshop suck 6GB of my hard drive when editing huge files.
alphanikonrex said:
That's exactly what I need! I'm on a mini too—2GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 1GB DDR3 RAM, and a 120GB drive with 0GB remaining :^( I don't have very much RAM, so I always have to keep a couple GB open on the drive for the computer to use for virtual memory :^(
so just get some ram and add it Yourself, it's not that hard to do it - check ifixit.com and trust me You will see a huge speed improvement
adamz said:
so just get some ram and add it Yourself, it's not that hard to do it - check ifixit.com and trust me You will see a huge speed improvement
I'll consider that...don't know what my dad will say though. My friend's good with stuff like this, so I'm sure it won't be difficult at all.
My Mac pro is a 2.93ghz quad xeon, 8gb ram, and it works nice for me, my gaming pc is build from scratch, ive had a tonne of pc's over the years, used to participate alot in overclocking competitions etc.
my current pc is a 3ghz intel quad core, overclocked to 4ghz. has 4 gb of ram which windows xp obviously can't use all of.
has 2x 8800GTX in it, with raptor hdds. Its a really nice gaming machine, but nothing more.
ive run PS and LR on it and i don't really see much difference, and i prefer the OSX over windows.
Alpha, you pretty much can't install the ram wrong, they will only fit in one way.
I don't know about Macs, haven't had mine taken apart, but id reckon its exactly the same, if you only have 2 ram blocks you will have to place them in the right sockets, say if theres 4 sockets and 2 blocks it often needs to go, occupied - empty - occupied - empty in order for it to want to boot up.
Demisthene Akatsuki said:
Alpha, you pretty much can't install the ram wrong, they will only fit in one way.
I don't know about Macs, haven't had mine taken apart, but id reckon its exactly the same, if you only have 2 ram blocks you will have to place them in the right sockets, say if theres 4 sockets and 2 blocks it often needs to go, occupied - empty - occupied - empty in order for it to want to boot up.
The only stage that really worries me is opening the Mini itself. Apple's products always seemed to be sealed tightly—not very welcoming to people like me. But my friend is dying to open up my Mini, so I'll let him enjoy this one.
While I'm in there, should I replace the drive? 120GB is really feeling like nothing.
if You will replace the hdd go for the 7200rpm version there are 500gb hdd available that will fit Your mini
You must log in to post.
