# Upgrading PC or buyin a new one



## selo (Apr 29, 2015)

Our budget isn;t very big for this one. We have a computer that we like to upgrade to work better with photoshop. The specs are 
Intel Core i5-2300, 2,8GHz
8gb of ram
GeForce GT520
for more: Acer Aspire X3990 PT.SGKE2.093 - Specificaties - Tweakers

What we want:
- faster PC
- a good monitor with good calibration

I have searched the web and found that a good monitor would costs us around 800-900 usd, so with a 1200 ish budget what should we get?

Mobality isn't very important but it would be a good bonus. 

Options:
- Upgrade PC (but upgrade what?) +  and buy a good monitor 
- Buy a good laptop like macbook pro or something similair with good a screen

Thoughts?


----------



## unpopular (Apr 29, 2015)

A few things to consider about a new PC:

-Do you need a laptop? Even good laptops have a shorter life span than a good desktop. For day to day use, I'd recommend a desktop.

-You can easily spend $1200 on a "good" monitor, and as you've already pointed out a mid-range monitor will chew up a lot of your budget. I'd suggest getting a decent monitor with third party calibration device, many can be found on ebay, just make sure it's compatible with Windows 8/10 or the latest version of MacOS X

- Consider refurbished units. You can get a monster refurbished HP or Dell workstation for a fraction of the cost. I bought a $3,000, 12-core 2.6ghz, 8gb (upgraded to 16gb - will upgrade to 24 soon) Dell T5610 for $1700 from a company called IT Creations. Single processor T5610 can be found for around $1200. It came with all the warranties from Dell. I've contacted Dell on two occasions for support questions without any problem. Aside from running Windows, it's been a great machine.

- Regarding workstations, be aware that most (all?) Xeon systems take expensive ECC Registered RAM and that Photoshop specifically does not really take advantage of multithreading much as you'd expect. In fact, my machine doesn't out-perform less expensive faster machines with fewer threads. However, these systems are extremely well-built, stable and reliable. But overall, I'd highly recommend the Dell T-series over consumer-oriented stuff - even if you'd need to save a bit for a monitor.

But be aware, if you are planing to upgrade a T5610 video card, it can be tricky. There is only 300W to work and your space is really limited. You can upgrade the PSU, but they are stupid expensive. Mine came with a Quadro K2000, which seems plenty sufficient for Photoshop.

- You of course can build your own, it's not hard and you *may* save some money. But there are some disadvantages to that as well.


----------



## sashbar (Apr 29, 2015)

I think your specs are quite decent, unless you are bunch-processing large numbers of images. I had ben using  a 4 y. o. Lenovo with dual i7 2,7 Gz processor, 8 RAM and Radeon card with Photoshop and other editors until recently and had no complains whatsoever, apart from its display which was a TNT type, i.e. narrow angle.
What I have learned is that a good IPS display is more important than a superfast processor. With a faster processor you can save some seconds, but with a better monitor you improve the quality of your work.
I could not find any cheap decent Windows laptops with a good IPS screen, there are some good machines like the new Asus gaming laptop or Dell XPS 15, but their price range is close to that of a MacBook and neither of those two was perfect. So I went for a Mac which is a choice de rigueur for photographers these days. It cost me, but I think it is a better long term investment. And so far I am glad I did it, it has "Money well spent" written all over it.
If you are on a tight budget and mobility is not important, then a PC with a good large IPS monitor is a cheaper and probably better option. If you can stretch a bit, then some extra spending on a good Mac is not a bad option either.


----------



## Designer (Apr 29, 2015)

Recommending a Mac might not fly if they have lots of Windows software.  Of course, a Mac can run Windows software too, so there's that.  Of course, you would have to buy Windows again to load it onto the Mac.  I agree with a desktop BTW, or in Apple-speak: an iMac.


----------



## selo (Apr 29, 2015)

Thanks for the answers.

I know the Mac is grear for photography but switching from windows to mac is kind of holding me back. It will slow us down a lot in the beginning. Also the mac seems more expensive with less specs, so it seems like a little bigger investment.

A laptop is not really needed. So i would like update my desktop, it runs smoother. But i think having a good monitor with good color calibration is more important for me at this point. We also use a Asus laptop which has much better specs than the desktop i described before. 

So what screen i should get? And what is the advantageous of a calibration device? I have read a little about it. Is it only optimizing the screen? If yes, couldn't I just borrow one and optimize my screen, so I dont have to buy one?

This is a very new topic for me.


----------



## KmH (Apr 29, 2015)

A computer display needs to be re-calibrated on a routine basis.
Most editing pros re-calibrate their editing display(s) at least monthly.

X-Rite ColorMunki Display


----------



## selo (Apr 29, 2015)

so i should get the iMac. Ill prolly get the 27inch retina whil at it. Need to make more money first.

Since i have a laptop that is good i could get a screen for it. Any advice on what screen to get? or where look for as specs.

Also are there good cheaper calibration devices?


----------



## Designer (Apr 29, 2015)

selo said:


> Any advice on what screen to get?


I think there was a thread on here about what display to get, search for it.  

What is your budget for a display?  If you are considering an iMac plus a second display for the laptop, are you prepared to spend the dough?  

We are a two-platform family.  My iMac, an iPad, two iPhones, and two Windows computers (desktop and laptop).


----------



## Designer (Apr 29, 2015)

selo said:


> Also are there good cheaper calibration devices?


I don't have one, but I would caution you about being penny-wise and pound foolish.  If you're going full bore on the computers, the calibration devices are $400.  
X-Rite ColorMunki Photo Color Management Solution CMUNPH B H

I suppose you can find something cheaper, but just be aware of the differences.


----------



## IronMaskDuval (Apr 29, 2015)

Please let this pc master race chime in.

Don't get a Mac, this coming from a Mac fanboy. My primary is a pc.

You can keep your cpu. If you want better performance, switch your os onto an ssd and buy an additional 8 gbs of ram. Your system would also benefit from a better gpu like a gtx 970 or r9 290. You can get a 24" asus pro art color calibrated ips for $300. With everything you can be at about $700
For a fast system that will carry over in components when you upgrade cpu and motherboard. You may need a new psu for the gpu as well.


----------



## The_Traveler (Apr 29, 2015)

IronMaskDuval said:


> Please let this pc master race chime in.
> 
> Don't get a Mac, this coming from a Mac fanboy. My primary is a pc.
> 
> ...



^makes sense, a lot of sense.
Changing systems in the face of a budget crunch is not good sense.
First get a monitor calibrator and a SSD for your programs.
That will give you much faster bootup, much faster processing as program elements are switched in and out.
See if the monitor calibration makes a difference before you throw out the old. 
Unless you are doing pro work for money an expensive monitor may not pay back in any way.
It looks like you are maxed out on RAM but you can work around this by closing everything but PS when you edit.
   Check on Ram usage and see what is going on.
If you eventually find you absolutely need a speedup, you can change motherboards and go for an overclockable i7.
This may require an upgraded Power Supply but those are relatively cheap.
That will need new ram and more of it.


----------



## unpopular (Apr 30, 2015)

IronMaskDuval said:


> Please let this pc master race chime in.
> 
> Don't get a Mac, this coming from a Mac fanboy. My primary is a pc.
> 
> ...



The thing about Mac, and the main reason I didn't get get a Mac Pro - you can't upgrade the processor or video card. In a few years I can upgrade my processors for about $1,200 (or less) which is $2-3,000 less than a new Mac Pro.


----------



## selo (Apr 30, 2015)

Great info's thanks!

I probably wait before i invest into something big like a new monitor + calibration device. The system as we have it now works ok. I rather invest in studio gear first.

The computer we want to upgrade is the one my wife is using. I will try to figure out what needs to be upgraded to make it faster, probably RAM and maybe the graphic card. But this computer is 5 years old and is never upgraded, is it worth upgrading it at all? Isn't better to get a new cheap PC for like 500-600 and upgrade that one with a SSD + RAM + Better graphicscard? 

I doubt that we will switch to a Mac in the near future. My wife wants to switch to a Mac but eventually if something needs to installed or fixed I would be the one that needs to fix it . So I guess we both need to switch at the same time. I recently switched from Iphone to a android phone, the main reason for this decision was that the iphone i limiting you. Android is like a jailbreaked iphone. But Iphone is far more stable and reliable though. I think this is the same with OSX vs Windows, OSX is probably more stable but a little limited, windows the opposite. Right?


----------



## IronMaskDuval (Apr 30, 2015)

selo said:


> Great info's thanks!
> 
> I probably wait before i invest into something big like a new monitor + calibration device. The system as we have it now works ok. I rather invest in studio gear first.
> 
> ...



That i5 is still a really capable cpu. In fact, many of the first gen i7 and second gen i5s are still up to modern tasking. It's just your components. Ram may not be your first line. If you are booting up and it starts fast then begins to slow as you work, it is a ram issue. If not, more RAM won't help, although 16 gb should be the minimum for what we do. Here's the break down of your upgrade:

250gb ssd = $80 (sales)
8gb RAM = $70 (sales)
R7 250x video card + $110
Corsair CX430 PSU = $35

Total upgrade: $295

You can't buy a new computer that cheap. When you exhaust your cpu and motherboard, you can upgrade using the same components, and the psu I listed will be a able to power a gpu one to two steps above the r7.

If you were to go buy a new desktop with these upgraded specs, you'd be shopping in a gaming class computer, and those do not come in at your budget.


----------



## KmH (Apr 30, 2015)

Photoshop's minimum system requirements include a display that can display a minimum color depth of 16-bits.

The $300 Asus display recommended above is only 10-bits of color capable, and does not meet Adobe Photoshop minimum system requirements.
ASUS PA248Q 24-Inch LED-Lit IPS Professional Graphics Monitor

I am not aware of *any* $300 display that can display the minimum required 16-bit color.


----------



## selo (Apr 30, 2015)

Hi, i didn;t buy the monitor with it. We have a phillips monitor with 16,7 million colors, not sure how to figure out the bits of it.

Our computer max ram is 8gb so i can't upgrade that. SSd would deff help, i installed a SSD in my laptop and its a big improvement. Why exactly do I need a new videocard and the new power supply? How would that effect the performance?


----------



## sashbar (Apr 30, 2015)

selo said:


> I think this is the same with OSX vs Windows, OSX is probably more stable but a little limited, windows the opposite. Right?



When I switched to Mac my first thoughts were "The OS X is so limited compared to Win 7, it is like a toy". Then I started to discover various options and shortcuts and realised it was all there, and the system was not so limited at all, just different.

But I do not share opinions of experienced Mac users who think Windows is so inferior. I thing most of them have switched years ago when Windows were indeed poor. Now the gap is very close as far as I can judge now with my limited Mac experience. These are just different platforms.

There are some things though that I do not like and have not yet found ways to fix.

I can not see the subfolders in the side bar as it was with Windows, where you can open subfolders with one folder in the right window and with the other inside the side bar and can drag files from one subfolder to the other. With Mac I have to open another window. That takes one more comm-N click, but still is annoying tbh.
If someone knows a way to change it, your feedback is welcome.  I suspect there must be an option, but I am unable to find it.
The other thing that bugs me big time is lack of forward delete button, you have to press Fn-Delete. On the other hand touchpad is miles ahead of Windows.
The OS X apps system looks more closed than the Win programmes system.
So it takes time to get used to. But you can not deny the overall quality of the whole package.
I have bought it with 3 year Apple care plan which means everything will be cared for for 3 years, after that lets hope it is as reliable as they say. Anyway, nearly all my Windows laptops lasted for about 4 years before something started to go wrong and I needed an new one. You know however good a Win laptop is, there is always something be it a weak hinge, or a bad touchpad, or a wrong monitor or some plastic thing that wears out fast, always something is wrong... With my Mac one thing that surprised me - you can not insert a SD card all the way, it sticks out. A small thing, but disappointing, not convenient if you want to put it in the bag etc.
My MBP is quad core i7, 16 Gb RAM, 550 Gb SSD and NVIDIA 750, so lets hope it will serve me much longer than usual 4-5 years of my Win machines lifespan. As for the software, yes, I had a lot of Win soft that I can not use now. I realised that most of it I have not used for a long time anyway 

Having said all that, if I had my own desk I would have bought a desktop PC with a good monitor, I agree with the guys here, but I do not have this luxury, our only desk is highjacked by my daughter.


----------



## KenC (Apr 30, 2015)

What is the problem with your current set-up?  I have a 4 1/2 yr old iMac with an i3 processor and 4 GB ram and I don't have any problems (as in no delay at all) using CS5 with files up to about 150 MB.  If you handle much larger files that's different, but you shouldn't really need more than you have unless your requirements are really stringent or there's some problem with the hardware.


----------



## selo (Apr 30, 2015)

i have been testing the computer.... seems like it gets very slow loading stuff and freezes untill it opens. So its certainly a hard drve issue. I probably clean it up see how it goes after but I will upgrade it to a SSD for sure.

Ironmask advised to upgrade with 
250gb ssd = $80 (sales)
8gb RAM = $70 (sales)
R7 250x video card + $110
Corsair CX430 PSU = $35

Cant get more RAM, but why exactly do I need a new videocard and the new power supply? How would that effect the performance?


----------



## IronMaskDuval (Apr 30, 2015)

selo said:


> i have been testing the computer.... seems like it gets very slow loading stuff and freezes untill it opens. So its certainly a hard drve issue. I probably clean it up see how it goes after but I will upgrade it to a SSD for sure.
> 
> Ironmask advised to upgrade with
> 250gb ssd = $80 (sales)
> ...



The psu would only be needed if you upgrade to a video card that requires its own line of power, assuming that yours does not. The video card can pick up graphical tasks and take the load off of the cpu, but for the one I recommended, it may only be a step up from your current one.

Why only 8gb of ram? What mobo are you using?


----------



## selo (Apr 30, 2015)

What is mobo?

Acer Aspire X3990 PT.SGKE2.093 - Specificaties - Tweakers this site says that the 8gb ram is the max for my computer... is it not?


----------



## IronMaskDuval (Apr 30, 2015)

KmH said:


> Photoshop's minimum system requirements include a display that can display a minimum color depth of 16-bits.
> 
> The $300 Asus display recommended above is only 10-bits of color capable, and does not meet Adobe Photoshop minimum system requirements.
> ASUS PA248Q 24-Inch LED-Lit IPS Professional Graphics Monitor
> ...



Most people cannot afford a monitor or adapter that supports 16 bit


selo said:


> What is mobo?
> 
> Acer Aspire X3990 PT.SGKE2.093 - Specificaties - Tweakers this site says that the 8gb ram is the max for my computer... is it not?



That seems to be the case. Mobo = motherboard. Perhaps it is time to buy a new computer and purchase an ssd to go with it.


----------



## selo (Apr 30, 2015)

I see... so get a new comp because of ram issues. i might a ssd first and install it on this one first and see how it goes. later i can buy a new comp and switch the ssd to the new one.

For ssd i think the samsung evo 840 250gb is very good... i got the pro version on my laptop


----------



## IronMaskDuval (Apr 30, 2015)

selo said:


> I see... so get a new comp because of ram issues. i might a ssd first and install it on this one first and see how it goes. later i can buy a new comp and switch the ssd to the new one.
> 
> For ssd i think the samsung evo 840 250gb is very good... i got the pro version on my laptop



That will do! The easiest way to find your bottle neck is to monitor task manager and see what's slowing you down.


----------



## selo (Apr 30, 2015)

Yeah, thats exactly what i did. Ram seems fine, processor is sometimes clocking but thats for a short period. I cant see the harddisk performance in taskmanager in windows 7 though. But im pretty sure the harddisk is slowing it down. Mainly when exporting from lightroom or booting the pc or programs its much slower than my laptop. I think a SSD is going to speed it up maybe 3-4 times. Will buy the samsung evo 840 250gb

Thanks for the info all, learned a lot!


----------



## Tailgunner (Apr 30, 2015)

KmH said:


> A computer display needs to be re-calibrated on a routine basis.
> Most editing pros re-calibrate their editing display(s) at least monthly.
> 
> X-Rite ColorMunki Display



I just bought this and can't get it to work on my 21.5" Mac. The reviews mentioned it was good but when I dove in a little deeper, I ran across people having issues with using it with Apple. Apple also stopped supporting some forms of this as well. It's been a hassle for sure.


----------



## Tailgunner (Apr 30, 2015)

unpopular said:


> - Regarding workstations, be aware that most (all?) Xeon systems take expensive ECC Registered RAM and that Photoshop specifically does not really take advantage of multithreading much as you'd expect. In fact, my machine doesn't out-perform less expensive faster machines with fewer threads. However, these systems are extremely well-built, stable and reliable. But overall, I'd highly recommend the Dell T-series over consumer-oriented stuff - even if you'd need to save a bit for a monitor.
> 
> But be aware, if you are planing to upgrade a T5610 video card, it can be tricky. There is only 300W to work and your space is really limited. You can upgrade the PSU, but they are stupid expensive. Mine came with a Quadro K2000, which seems plenty sufficient for Photoshop.
> 
> - You of course can build your own, it's not hard and you *may* save some money. But there are some disadvantages to that as well.



I've been researching workstations, Photoshop may not fully utilize the processor but it shouldn't it benefit from the video cards?

 Reviews may show Apple being the best computer for Photography but your typical store bought systems (PC or Mac) comes with what I call a "Consumer" grade video card. Even Nvidia has stated their general video cards don't function with Photoshop and recommend their "Professional" video cards...cards not found in general consumer computers in stores including the Apple store. The only machines I've found thus far that comes with a decent professional video card has been workstations. Unless you custom build one.


----------



## unpopular (Apr 30, 2015)

Tailgunner said:


> I've been researching workstations, Photoshop may not fully utilize the processor but it shouldn't it benefit from the video cards?
> 
> Reviews may show Apple being the best computer for Photography but your typical store bought systems (PC or Mac) comes with what I call a "Consumer" grade video card. Even Nvidia has stated their general video cards don't function with Photoshop and recommend their "Professional" video cards...cards not found in general consumer computers in stores including the Apple store. The only machines I've found thus far that comes with a decent professional video card has been workstations. Unless you custom build one.



Well. I have a K2000, which is the first tier in the Quadro K-series, so I don't really know. Not a whole lot is known about AMD cards in the Mac Pro. I am guessing they are similar to (really over priced) W600. I think that when you hear about the mac pro video cards, you're hearing a lot from people who use consumer cards, and yeah, workstation cards seem pretty weak by comparison if you're looking at the numbers alone. Most of these people haven't used a Mac Pro and think that the sole qualification of a powerful computer is how fast it runs Call of Doodie. Getting good information about workstations online is very difficult. I've found that the internet is heavily polluted with teenagers who have literally no idea what a workstation is.

There is a LOT of debate over consumer versus workstation video cards. For pure number crunching, consumer cards often out-perform workstation cards, and people will often point out that Nvidia's Keplar cards use the same architecture on both GTX and Quadro. However, when testing for OpenGL performance, the Quadros typically out perform the GTX. So, there is something that does differ, whether this is hardware or software doesn't much matter.

I know that Adobe products use CUDA as well as OpenCL, and this *might* be where the consumer Nvidia cards fall short. I've heard that AMD cards work better with Premier, so this would suggest that, at least as far as Premier goes, OpenCL is better optimized.

However, if that is the case AMD cards, both professional and consumer perform very well under OpenCL, so if you don't need the OpenGL viewport it might be better to go with an AMD consumer card - and FirePro cards from AMD  likely perform equally well under OpenGL as Nvidia cards do.

If you need a CUDA compute unit, you might be better off getting both a FirePro for display and GTX 900-series (or four) as a the compute nodes. Whether this will realistically improve Photoshop performance is anyone's guess (i have serious doubts). It might just be that Nvidia claims that GTX doesn't run well with Photoshop to convince people that they need a $1500 K5000 when PLENTY of people use $100 GTX 500-series cards with no issue what so ever.

That said, the Mac Pro is a fine machine and has a proven performance record. If you're the type of person who won't likely upgrade and you have thousands of dollars burning a hole in your pocket, it's a good solution - and frankly, no more expensive than similar workstations from HP or Dell. In fact, when you're buying new, non-refurbished units, the Mac Pro is probably one of the less expensive options out there in the very expensive world of workstations.



sashbar said:


> When I switched to Mac my first thoughts were "The OS X is so limited compared to Win 7, it is like a toy". Then I started to discover various options and shortcuts and realised it was all there, and the system was not so limited at all, just different.



You hear this complaint a lot from people who don't know how to use MacOS. It's completely untrue. From an OS standpoint, there is nothing that you can't do on MacOS that you can on Windows.


----------



## Tailgunner (Apr 30, 2015)

unpopular said:


> Tailgunner said:
> 
> 
> > I've been researching workstations, Photoshop may not fully utilize the processor but it shouldn't it benefit from the video cards?
> ...



Thanks, 

Yes, locating intelligent pros and cos concerning Mac and Workstations has been challenging. A lot of the reviews I ran across when searching for professional photography computers talked about cosmetics and price, but nothing technical. All of them talking about your typical consumer bought machine from Bestbuy etc. 

My situation I'm frustrated dealing with color banding. I'm at my whits end with it. My current Mac 21.5 is absolutely horrible. I've tried everything and nothing helps. The more I research it the more I wonder if a more professional setup is in order. Something like the Mac Pro. It tools some hunting but I found what I believe to be reliable information talking about the AMD like you mentioned. I don't think I need a $10,000 machine and believe their base Mac Pro or intermediate version should surface. That combined with a good high res monitor should work. 

Funny, I never had any real issues with this using my Macbook Pro or my old PC laptop. It was there but no where as pronounced.


----------



## sashbar (May 1, 2015)

.


----------



## unpopular (May 1, 2015)

Tailgunner said:


> It tools some hunting but I found what I believe to be reliable information talking about the AMD like you mentioned. I don't think I need a $10,000 machine and believe their base Mac Pro or intermediate version should surface. That combined with a good high res monitor should work.



I really do not think that my modest K2000 though is the reason my Photoshop numbers aren't as impressive as I'd expected. I think this is because my clock is running at 2.7ghz/core - even with 12 cores and 24 threads, Photoshop just doesn't seem to utilize them.

That isn't to say Photoshop performance is lacking, and I have never once felt that it got in my way. Benchmark-wise though, Photoshop doesn't perform as well as I've come to expect from applications that do utilize multiple cores efficiently. But again, actually using Photoshop I've never noticed a problem.

It may be that Nvidia cards are just not as well equipped for OpenCL as AMD cards are (a pretty well known fact, and one major reason I'm thinking of switching), but I still feel like Photoshop is more processor intensive than it's implementation of GPGPU.

If you're really looking into a workstation, again, the Dell T-series has been great and the HP Z-series, albeit a bit more expensive, likewise looks promising. And I do recommend workstations. Consumer PCs are, for the most part, total garbage.

I got mine from these guys: Dell PowerEdge Servers HP Proliant Servers Xeon Processors


----------



## Tailgunner (May 1, 2015)

unpopular said:


> Tailgunner said:
> 
> 
> > It tools some hunting but I found what I believe to be reliable information talking about the AMD like you mentioned. I don't think I need a $10,000 machine and believe their base Mac Pro or intermediate version should surface. That combined with a good high res monitor should work.
> ...



Thanks for the info, 

I'm really trying to stick with Apple since switching to PC would require so much work and added expense such as needing a new Laptop as well as a desk top. That and software etc.


----------



## unpopular (May 1, 2015)

i'd stick with apple. it takes a while to get used to windows not working most of the time.


----------



## unpopular (May 3, 2015)

IronMaskDuval said:


> KmH said:
> 
> 
> > Photoshop's minimum system requirements include a display that can display a minimum color depth of 16-bits.
> ...



I am 100% certain that is not what they mean by 16-bit. What they mean is that the color pallet must be 16-bit (billions of colors), not the monitor LUT.


----------



## selo (Jul 28, 2015)

Hi,

I just bought an SSD the samsung evo 250gb... right now im trying to free space so i have less than 250gb, almost ready. After i will clone my current hdd to the ssd with software samsung provides (i did this before it worker great)

After that i have to replace the SSD with the HDD.... Is this correct? Or do i need to install the SSD in a different hard drive slot?

Can i just replace it and use the current HDD as a 2nd drive for storage (after formatting it)?


----------



## selo (Jul 28, 2015)

I managed to install the SSD and did some tests, it is deff booting faster and lightroom etc starts faster. While editing or exporting photos in lightroom, there is not much change in speed. I can't really figure out if i need more ram or a better processor. It seems like the processor is using 70% a lot of times and ram is always using 2.4gb or so. 

Why is it using only 30-40% of the ram available?


----------

