Jump to content

Ultimate Photoshop Pc


D_block

Recommended Posts

ok guys. for a heavy user of adobe photoshop and cs suite products on a whole , looking for a new system which wont lag or hang when opening large products like banners really large ones at that , what kind of hardware do u suggest having ..

all comments welcomed !!

Link to comment
Share on other sites


really large ones at that , what kind of hardware do u suggest having ..

Some points:

  • "really large" doesn't really mean anything, so it's hard to say just what kind of needs you have
  • as things are printed physically larger, the DPI at which you print also greatly reduces since nobody looks at a 10ft large sign from 12" away, so image size doesn't go up all that much
  • image complexity (how many layers, etc) will also make a great deal of change on what kind of needs you have
  • you fail to mention what kind of specs your current computer has (so we have an idea of what's inadequate for your needs, as a way to judge the workload, and suggest better)
  • a faster CPU always helps to crunch the numbers faster, but a great deal of the bottleneck is memory (which is backed by a scratch disk -- i.e. a hard drive, which is relatively speaking extremely slow)
  • more memory would work great for very big images, but unfortunately there is no x64 version of photoshop, so it can't really use large amounts of it...
  • if you can't work fast enough within the limits imposed by the x86 arch (i.e. 2GB limit) & photoshop's scratch disk, your best bet is to look at how you can reduce resource usage, using the same old photoshop tweaks as ever (e.g. reducing the number of zoom levels cached, having a fast disk for its scratch disk, etc), and seeing if you can't make the image simpler (considering lowering DPI, layers, etc -- as possible)

There's just no hardware that will make photoshop fly on just any large project. For all we know, you could be using an old P3 that doesn't cut it at all, a memory starved P4, or a high end workstation (overkill) but with a ridiculously large image... We have no way to guess, nor make any real suggestions.

CS4 (will be out in 4 days!) will be x64, so if you upgrade to that (and a x64 OS obviously), then a new PC with loads of memory would help a lot. New photoshop, new OS, and new computer means a lot of $$$ though. However, it would mean a big boost in performance (access to lots more physical memory so less waiting for the slow scratch disk, the extra CPU registers help a bit -- about 10%, and it even has GPU acceleration using a suitable video card)

Edited by crahak
Link to comment
Share on other sites

well firstly the pc aint mines , its a company i did a lil work for previously . the guy who usually does the graphics told me he was gettin problems with a banner i cant remember the size exactly but it was much bigger than 12ft

i think they are on a dual core machine at present with 2 gigs of ram , im not sure the precessor speed though but the machines is about 3-4 yrs old

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quad Core CPU (overclocked)

8GB of ram (DDR3) overclocked

64 bit OS

RAID Array (some raptors in raid0) for work drive.

ATI graphics card for the better colors.

Samsung 245T or 275T (can adjust the monitor to vertical position for photo editing) and very good color correction software.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

jcarle: exactly.

8GB of RAM is useless, unless you're going to use CS4, on a x64 OS. DDR3 costs a LOT, yet yields no significant speed boost. Overclocking a quad core won't make much change either, it's not quite that CPU demanding...

RAID & fast disks works fine (a fast scratch disk like I said before).

As for ATI cards having better colours, I haven't really seen any evidence of that.

Monitor wise, nothing against samsung in particular, but the choice is weird for sure. Typically, we've always been lacking horizontal space on our moniors for photoshop (due to palettes), and widescreen (16:10) monitors finally fix this. I see no point in suggesting a monitor that "flips" for this. Mine does too, but I'd NEVER do that in photoshop! You'd have a very tall and narrow monitors, and half of that would be wasted by palettes, making your monitor one REALLY narrow & very tall column, which isn't suited to most work (especially when most images tend to be wide, not tall)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for ATI cards having better colours, I haven't really seen any evidence of that.
In fact, video cards have nothing to do with colour reproduction. The monitor used, the active color space profile and the type of connection between the video card and the monitor have an influence, not the videocard itself. All modern videocards are able to reproduce 32-bit colors, and if this information is transmitted digitally to the monitor (ie: DVI or HDMI) then the monitor is the deciding factor that determines the color reproduction quality.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Overclocking is unnecessary and so is the 8GB of ram and the 64-bit OS. As mentioned previously, Photoshop is a 32-bit application and does not take advantage of either more then 4GB or a 64-bit OS.
jcarle: exactly.

8GB of RAM is useless, unless you're going to use CS4, on a x64 OS. DDR3 costs a LOT, yet yields no significant speed boost. Overclocking a quad core won't make much change either, it's not quite that CPU demanding...

Sure 8GB helps a lot. If Photoshop would be the only program running you would be correct, however if it´s not so than you must be wrong.

With 8GB of RAM the system, and I presume D_block goes with 64bit Vista, will use 2GB of that RAM just for the system. Photoshop will use about 3.7GB until it moves to the scratch disk so that would be a total of 5.7GB, leaving about 2.3GB for a RAM drive (for a scratch disk* (edited Sep 21 2008)) or for other apps that would be running while using Photoshop.

As for ATI cards having better colours, I haven't really seen any evidence of that.
In fact, video cards have nothing to do with colour reproduction.

Yes they do, but you are right that there is almost no influence when using a digital interface.

Some video cards have poorly calibrated voltages on the RGB signal, so you could see differences between video cards (Only if Analog). It is true that displaying a program without accelerated video streams (decompressing) or using any DirectX filters should show the same on both ATI and nVidia chipsets, however, this depend on the electronics used around the GPU self and this is before the signal goes to the monitor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure 8GB helps a lot. If Photoshop would be the only program running you would be correct, however if it´s not so than you must be wrong.

With 8GB of RAM the system, and I presume D_block goes with 64bit Vista, will use 2GB of that RAM just for the system. Photoshop will use about 3.7GB until it moves to the scratch disk so that would be a total of 5.7GB, leaving about 2.3GB for a RAM drive or for other apps that would be running while using Photoshop.

I honestly can't debate that point further because I do not have a machine with 8GB of RAM to be able to test with, nor do I have enough knowledge on the inner workings of Vista memory addressing/translation to confirm or deny that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I honestly can't debate that point further because I do not have a machine with 8GB of RAM to be able to test with, nor do I have enough knowledge on the inner workings of Vista memory addressing/translation to confirm or deny that.

While I don't have a box with > 4GB yet either (nor run the x64 version of Vista), he's assuming he's using Vista x64, which is kind of unlikely.

Photoshop on a x86 OS is still limited to the 2GB of private address space (assuming he isn't using the /3GB switch...)

If you want to go the x64 way (on a new box), then CS4 which should be out in like 4 days now, will be able to make use of *all* your RAM, and even of your GPU. That will definitely fly.

But like I said before, most of the time, there's no need for anything this drastic. Reduce the number of zoom levels cached, don't work at a ridiculously high DPI for nothing (e.g. you don't need 300dpi if you're going to do screen printing/halftoning on that large sign), don't go overboard with a super complex design, etc. I have yet to see a box being taken down to its knees by photoshop so far -- most of the time, it's the RIP that does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He asked for ultimate, so I suggested Ultimate.

ATI do have superior image quality... there's plenty of evidence on the net to prove that. A/B test them yourself, the color calibration is just better for photo/graphics editing. The monitor only displays what the video card tells it to, not the other way around.

The /3GB switch doesn't do what you think it does, should read the M$ docs a bit more clearly on that. The /PAE switch does what your thinking.

And yes, CS4 is coming out soon, and most large companies upgrade when available.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ATI do have superior image quality... there's plenty of evidence on the net to prove that. A/B test them yourself, the color calibration is just better for photo/graphics editing. The monitor only displays what the video card tells it to, not the other way around.
Are you drunk? You will NEVER see video card reviews that talk about color reproduction accuracy yet every serious monitor review will have a full color gammut review. Assuming 32-bit color depth, that 8-bits for red, 8-bits for green, 8-bits for blue and 8-bits for additional data, usually the alpha channel. Ignoring the data bits, if the display driver is instructed to display a pixel using RGB 00 00 00, it will send a black pixel to the monitor. Using a digital connection (DVI or HDMI) the monitor will receive 00 00 00... it is UP TO THE MONITOR to accurately reproduce that value. Aside from the uncommon possibility of a voltage regulation issue with the video card if using an analog connection (who does that anymore?), then the video card has NOTHING to do with color reproduction.
The /3GB switch doesn't do what you think it does, should read the M$ docs a bit more clearly on that. The /PAE switch does what your thinking.
crahak was accurate in his statement. PAE is another technology completely.
And yes, CS4 is coming out soon, and most large companies upgrade when available.
No, most companies do NOT upgrade as soon as it's available. Most companies wait as long as possible before upgrading. There's a lot of companies that are still using Photoshop CS and CS2. Some are even still using Photoshop 7. Edited by jcarle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

He asked for ultimate, so I suggested Ultimate.

When it comes to the "ultimate" box, one could still suggest very different things (e.g. dual xeon workstation). I still wouldn't suggest things like DDR3 and a monitor that flips... But we have to stay within a reasonable price obviously (8GB of DDR3 isn't exactly cheap, and won't give a 1% speed boost). And like I said before, chances are that with some minor tweaks, and perhaps upgrading a couple things (not a new box altogether), he could get very good performance, without breaking the bank.

ATI do have superior image quality... there's plenty of evidence on the net to prove that.

BS. jcarle explained it all nicely (twice no less). However, if there's so much of that "evidence", you should have no problems finding some for us (explaining why/how it's better, from a credible source) -- and that doesn't mean a 5 year old "review" that talks about VGA output of heavily processed video (using things like "digital vibrance")

The /3GB switch doesn't do what you think it does, should read the M$ docs a bit more clearly on that. The /PAE switch does what your thinking.

the /3GB switch changes the 2GB/2GB split for system and user-mode virtual address space, to a 1GB/3GB split. It does exactly what I was thinking. PAE is for accessing over 4GB, and doesn't work on most systems (in part due to drivers). Sounds like you're the one who should go read up...

most large companies upgrade when available.

No. Large companies are typically quite slow at upgrading. Lots of big companies just upgraded to XP a couple years ago.

Edited by crahak
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The /3GB switch doesn't do what you think it does, should read the M$ docs a bit more clearly on that. The /PAE switch does what your thinking.
@Nexus_06, I have to step in here. Unless you want to be schooled, do research before you post things like this. /3GB allows for 3GB of virtual address space by a running process, but the memory manager determines what part of this goes into RAM, or gets put into the swapfile. It does *exactly* as crahak said, and /PAE only works on server 2003 or 2008, and can *only* be used for data (no executable code), and also the application itself *has to be written with it's own memory manager to address memory above 4GB* (which Photoshop does not).

Read Windows Internals, 4th edition, chapter 7 before you post further on memory management in Windows. Please.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...