Silkroad Online Forums

Sorry to spam OTL with another CPU thread but I really need some advice on this one. Is it actually worth it to build a powerful CPU if I'm only going to use it for editing photos/videos?
The thing is, I'm working with photos that are around 4000x3000+ res high and they take forever to edit with my laptop. So now I'm thinking of getting myself a nice tower for this purpose. I already have my PS3 for gaming purposes and I really don't see myself going back to playing MMORPGs in the future. I was 'googling' around for what type of computer I should get but I keep getting bombarded by "BUY MACS" and since I'm used to working with Microsoft/Windows, I think I'd rather stick to it.

So...going back to my main question, is it actually worth putting together a computer that rivals 'top-of-the-line' gaming towers just for this purpose? What would you suggest? Price range?

Thanks in advance!

In short: yes.

If you don't plan on playing games you could get a workstation gfx card though..

as for what to get.. depends on how much you're willing to spend.
You can make a nice PC for $800 or an even nicer one for $1600

Azilius wrote:In short: yes.

If you don't plan on playing games you could get a workstation gfx card though..

as for what to get.. depends on how much you're willing to spend.
You can make a nice PC for $800 or an even nicer one for $1600

For $1600 you can make something that can run any game on the market easily. That's waaaaayyyyyyyyyy too much to spend just on a computer. You can get a good one for $800. You don't even need to build it, you can get a computer more than good enough for what you need to do from best buy for $800.

And don't get a mac... ever. Yes, the operating system is better. But that's only as a standalone, when you take into account how many compatibility issues you'll have on a mac OS, you'll wish you stuck with windows. Plus, macs are unbelievably expensive. Compare the specs on an $800 PC to a $1200 mac and find out that the PC still has much better specs.

Maybe have a look at the AMD x6 line. Six true cores for a very nice price. Most photo editing apps are multithreaded and in the future software will continue to make use of more cores.

TheKramers wrote:

Azilius wrote:In short: yes.

If you don't plan on playing games you could get a workstation gfx card though..

as for what to get.. depends on how much you're willing to spend.
You can make a nice PC for $800 or an even nicer one for $1600

For $1600 you can make something that can run any game on the market easily. That's waaaaayyyyyyyyyy too much to spend just on a computer. You can get a good one for $800. You don't even need to build it, you can get a computer more than good enough for what you need to do from best buy for $800.

And don't get a mac... ever. Yes, the operating system is better. But that's only as a standalone, when you take into account how many compatibility issues you'll have on a mac OS, you'll wish you stuck with windows. Plus, macs are unbelievably expensive. Compare the specs on an $800 PC to a $1200 mac and find out that the PC still has much better specs.

my $1600 statement was just to show that he can really buy anything he wants and we can't suggest anything until he gives us a price range.

Also work station cards are very expensive in some cases, and so are SSD's if he wanted to go that route.

Going with EvGa for sure, even if not the x6, the Phenom x3 or 4 would work quite well for the OP's usage. As for your hesitance of spending alot just for editing, I say its worth it, you KNOW you will end up using the system for alot more than just editing and having the system resources to do w.e may come up feels SO good haha.

Well think of it this way. By the sound of this thread the extra performance will be noticable and reduce processing time for your images. The big question is simply this: How much is that saved time worth to you? Is it worth $800? $1200? $1600? If so, build yourself a new computer. If not, than suffer with me in lagville. To me spending money on a new computer doesn't justify the additional performance it could provide for me. So I'm still using my old Dual Core with 1 GB DDR ram. Sure some things take a while to load up and I lag on many games (although I don't game much), but money is money.

it takes like 10min just to save a picture in photoshop sometimes. They're about 800mb to 1gb large on average :/

$800 seems like a fair price.

inky wrote:it takes like 10min just to save a picture in photoshop sometimes. They're about 800mb to 1gb large on average :/

$800 seems like a fair price.

800 can easily get you a rather beast quad core. I really like AMD for their cheap quad options, yet you really do get good performance *IMO*. If you have money to blow, go Intel but if you are on a budget you can get an amd quad and mother board for like 150-180 online.

MrTwilliger wrote:Well think of it this way. By the sound of this thread the extra performance will be noticable and reduce processing time for your images. The big question is simply this: How much is that saved time worth to you? Is it worth $800? $1200? $1600? If so, build yourself a new computer. If not, than suffer with me in lagville. To me spending money on a new computer doesn't justify the additional performance it could provide for me. So I'm still using my old Dual Core with 1 GB DDR ram. Sure some things take a while to load up and I lag on many games (although I don't game much), but money is money.

Not sure how important it is but I'm sure you can upgrade to a little better with a few hundred bucks?

By all means, buy a Mac, preferably with a good CPU, you need that for picture editing.

After reading up on photoshop, it really depends on what you use it for (which features, etc) as to how well it will scale performance wise with more cores.

BUT, you can't really go wrong with more cores. Future proofing is always good (if the price is right) and the X6 series from AMD is damn good for the price.

X6, copious amounts of ram, maybe an SSD for a scratch disk? Enjoy.

*I don't photo edit much.

XMoshe wrote:

MrTwilliger wrote:Well think of it this way. By the sound of this thread the extra performance will be noticable and reduce processing time for your images. The big question is simply this: How much is that saved time worth to you? Is it worth $800? $1200? $1600? If so, build yourself a new computer. If not, than suffer with me in lagville. To me spending money on a new computer doesn't justify the additional performance it could provide for me. So I'm still using my old Dual Core with 1 GB DDR ram. Sure some things take a while to load up and I lag on many games (although I don't game much), but money is money.

Not sure how important it is but I'm sure you can upgrade to a little better with a few hundred bucks?

I could, but I just don't see it being justified. For what I use my computer for (msn, itunes, facebook, occasional gaming) I don't really need decent specs. The games I play are mainly old and don't run too badly. I could spend more money, perhaps on a new GPU and some RAM, but I don't see the need for it. Performance isn't too much of a criteria for me considering the tasks I use my computer for.

Inky on the other hand, he really should upgrade. If it's taking him 10 minutes to save a single photo than there really is a definite need to do it. If I was doing a similar sort of thing I could easily justify the money.

Thanks for the suggestions. I did consider buying a Mac but for one that's powerful enough to do stuff I want done, it would cost me a pretty penny - around $1500+ worth. Plus, I'm not used to the OS and I hate fretting around when I use Macs.

I'll probably build a tower or something with a budget of $1000. But that one's at the end of my to-buy list for now =/

Vacation (for 2), photo/camera equipment, college expenses, and rainy day funds go first. lol.

Buy any mid range cpu and pair it with a 6850 or a gtx 460 and you have a top performing system for less than 900 bucks, is really that simple. CPUs are largely irrelevant these days unless you are going for a budget one in which case you need to do a little bit of research.

Unless he wants to run multithreaded apps and proccessing time (reduction of) is a premium. In that case "any mid range" may not be the best choice...

Your mid range may not be the same as my mid range or his mid range..

The performance gain past certain point ( you start to see this line being drawn starting somewhere along the 100 bucks mark ) is negligible and I would go as far as using nonexistent to describe real world performance for your average user. An i5-750 for 200 bucks will net you performance that won't really get any better no matter how much you dump on your system and just under that price you can find performance that has little to envy that 200 bucks pricetag.

If I remember correctly when it came to editing and whatnot intel had a pretty convincing lead over AMD across the board on non-budget CPUS ( those closer to 100 bucks ) so I would look into that claim and make a decision based on what you find.

It kinda sounds like I need to refresh my memory by giving some benchmarks/reviews a look but yeah I myself prefer AMD based systems as they tend to do an excellent job on the bang for buck department but I have come to expect every1 to settle for Intel based systems as cost/benefit analysis is rather poor around here.

My last comment is that Intel will be lunching Sandy Bridge early next year which won't exactly be that big of a deal ( if you are getting a gpu with this build ) but perhaps you might want to wait for it for some wierd reason, gl.

That's why I recommended an AMD processor.

I think AMD is launching another line of 6 core (maybe 8 also?) soon...

Azilius wrote:my $1600 statement was just to show that he can really buy anything he wants and we can't suggest anything until he gives us a price range.

Also work station cards are very expensive in some cases, and so are SSD's if he wanted to go that route.

SSD's ... is there really a point?

TheKramers wrote:

Azilius wrote:my $1600 statement was just to show that he can really buy anything he wants and we can't suggest anything until he gives us a price range.

Also work station cards are very expensive in some cases, and so are SSD's if he wanted to go that route.

SSD's ... is there really a point?

Uh, yes? Do you even realize over the years one of the slowest developing things is the hard drive? Hell internet speeds are catching up..

SSD's are the most important thing you need to get on a modern computer. The Hard Drive is, in fact, the bottleneck of most systems. One workaround - in the past - was to use 16000 RPM SCSI Hard Disks, but those weren't really reliable, and were awfully expensive. Nowadays, SSD's are not that expensive, and they can really speed up things. I'd sacrifice high-end graphics for an SSD.

I currently own a Lenovo ThinkPad T510, Intel Core i7 620M @ 2.66 GHz, 8 GB of RAM, NVidia Quadro NVS3100 graphics card. Initially, it came with a 500 GB 7200 RPM Hard Drive. I've bought an Intel high performance SSD, and I'm now using the old Hard Drive on my Mac Mini.

Ever since I bought the SSD, things happen much faster: significantly faster boot times and, generally, program startup. It's amazing, really. And I won't regret spending a few extra $ on the SSD, it really pays off.

Heh to avoid spending $$$ on SSD's I've been in raid0 for about a year and a half now. I'm terrified of one of the HDD's crashing X_X

Raid-0 can never match the access times of a SSD drive and that is where you see the huge performance boost. Sure, you can match the throughput with two drives in Raid-0 (surpass it with 3, etc), but you will never EVER match the seek time. A low access time is where you get the most noticeable "speed" increase (responsiveness is a better word)...

That said, I can't justify the current price/GB of SSD drives for what I do on my pc (program). I run two 250GB seagates in Raid-0 atm. Soon to be replaced by 3 F4 Samsungs in Raid-0 with the 250's as backup.

If you can afford an SSD and want the best of the best and a hella responsive system, go for it.

I wouldn't recommend an SSD either, I would describe them as money to burn as HDDs perform quite well and get your business done in a timely fashion.

Didnt want to make another computer thread so im posting in this one

i wanna know what i should be looking for when i buy/make a new computer? mainly for gaming and stuff with photoshop( not to in depth basic stuff)

DinoNuggets wrote:Didnt want to make another computer thread so im posting in this one

i wanna know what i should be looking for when i buy/make a new computer? mainly for gaming and stuff with photoshop( not to in depth basic stuff)

Best GPU you can afford, my recommendation once again is the 6850. Other parts are much less relevant.

edit: kickass article here:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4025/holi ... ders-guide