# Advice on new PC for processing images.



## Granddad (Jan 4, 2015)

I have a quote from another photographer I know to build me a desktop PC aimed 99% at photo processing. I'm currently working on a 7 year old laptop so just about anything would be better and faster. Does anyone have some knowledge on this subject and can tell me if the equipment quoted will do the job? I'm not much good on this subject myself. The price seems decent and I don't mind him making a reasonable profit, there's no way I could do it myself. Thanks in advance. (Mods, feel free to move this if there's a more appropriate forum).

_Amd dual core 3.9ghz that auto over clocks to 4.1 if needed but can tweak that to 4.5 easily _
_without issue. Done it before_
_8gb ddr3 high speed ram_
_250gb ssd (this is a must for editing as it cuts load and render times drastically. _
_What would take 1 to 2 seconds to load on a standard hard drive is as good as instantaneous on these bad boys_
_Integrated graphics on the apu/cpu keeps the need for a graphics card down and makes it all one easy to _
_keep cool package in a nice case with a corsair 600w psu and a couple of uber quiet case fans._
_Windows 7 64bit premium._
_Logitech compact keyboard and asus 22inch led super definition monitor._
_£650 built and tested._


----------



## sashbar (Jan 4, 2015)

Most important is to get a high quality hIgh  (HD) resolution IPS monitor with good brightness range that is capable of 100% or near 100% of sRGB colour gradient. I would go for the one marked as 4K and a matt screen, but IPS is a must. It will not change its brightness and colours with a slight shift off a viewing angle unlike a TNT monitor.  The difference compared to your 7 y.o. laptop will me mind-boggling.

8 Gb RAM is enough, modern PSUs are quite powerful and fast, I personally do not care if the processing takes 1 second or 5 seconds. It makes no difference at all unless you bunch process humongous amount of files. SSD drive is nice, (it takes several seconds to boot instead of 45-50 seconds with a conventional drive, big deal )  but 225 Gb is not enough and a second 1-2 Tb drive to store the files is a must in my view.


----------



## Overread (Jan 4, 2015)

I agree with regard to storage. I used a 250GB SSD drive myself, its got windows installed on it and my photoshop/lightroom. but I use a separate 2GB internal regular harddrive to store all my photos on. 

I think if you try to store on a 250GB then unless you are shooting JPEG chances are with todays cameras you will fill that space up very fast


----------



## sashbar (Jan 4, 2015)

Overread said:


> I agree with regard to storage. I used a 250GB SSD drive myself, its got windows installed on it and my photoshop/lightroom. but I use a separate 2GB internal regular harddrive to store all my photos on.
> 
> I think if you try to store on a 250GB then unless you are shooting JPEG chances are with todays cameras you will fill that space up very fast



I am sure you mean 2Tb separate drive


----------



## Seventen (Jan 4, 2015)

I was just recently buying a laptop and as I was trying out everything the people in the shop was telling me and even friends was stay clear of AMD and look at intel i5 or better, and a graphics card that is not on board as it is large help with processing. Again this information came from a friend whos uncle uses computers for photo editing and got advice from him and from 2 different shops I asked in. Also at least a full HD screen was another item they mentioned was needed. 
I am also not great with computers so had to rely on advice of others and this 5 month looking at everything possible really paid off and got something that was very good for a nice price.


----------



## Overread (Jan 4, 2015)

sashbar said:


> Overread said:
> 
> 
> > I agree with regard to storage. I used a 250GB SSD drive myself, its got windows installed on it and my photoshop/lightroom. but I use a separate 2GB internal regular harddrive to store all my photos on.
> ...



Yes, yes I did!


----------



## Granddad (Jan 4, 2015)

I didn't say that I already have 2 external hard drives, a 1TB and a 2TB for photo storage. I'll check with him about the model # of the monitor and if it's IPS etc. Thanks guys. 

The only time I'm concerned about about speed is when it takes 10 seconds or longer for each RAW image to settle in LR before I can start working on it... or even determine if it's sharp enough to be worth it. If I'm dealing with a large batch of photos this can be a major pain.


----------



## 407370 (Jan 4, 2015)

Sounds OK except for the CPU, it is a bit old but much cheaper that Intel I5 / I7. If you have the budget go for more up to date components.


----------



## KmH (Jan 4, 2015)

You want a new computer because you're an aspiring professional photographer?


----------



## Granddad (Jan 4, 2015)

KmH said:


> You want a new computer because you're an aspiring professional photographer?



I agree that on the face of it it's an odd choice; but do you have a better suggestion of where to put the question? I looked at all the forums, none fitted and so I ended up putting it here because I thought I might get answers from people who have some experience. I got the answers so it seems to have worked. I know how helpful people are on this site.


----------



## bratkinson (Jan 5, 2015)

I've been a builder of computers for myself and friends for over 25 years using AMD processors and ASUS motherboards exclusively.  I've never had any fail.  More 'bang for the buck', in my opinion.

That said, my current computer is used primarily for internet access and photo processing.  Note that I an NOT a gamer, so video card speed is completely irrelevant as having a screen 'paint' speed faster than 0.5 sec is needless.  Would I or anyone else notice a 0.25 sec vs 0.5 sec screen paint speed as being faster?  As such, I have a cheapo, no-fan-needed ASUS HD 6450 video card in my computer.

I'm currently using a quad processor AMD FX-4350 with 'stock' fan slightly overclocked from 4.2ghz to 4.9ghz on an ASUS M5A99FX Pro motherboard with 16gb of PC-2133 RAM instead of PC-1600 as an aid to overclocking without overheating.  As indicated by others, a SSD is essentially mandatory for fast boot and processing.  I have Windows 7 Pro, all installed software, My Documents, and any 'in process' photo shoots on the 120gb Samsung SSD.  When I'm done processing, the folder with the shoot is moved over to a 1TB 'storage' drive which is soon to be filled to the max and replaced with a 3TB drive.  I like it quiet, so there's only a large, slow fan in the top of the case and the fan in the power supply to make noise.

What it all comes down to is "how fast is it for photo processing?"  Working with RAW images from my 5Diii, import time in Lightroom for perhaps 100 shots from SSD is less than 10 seconds, give or take (I first copy from memory card to SSD to provide backup and later speed).  It takes longer to click/scroll/click/scroll to select the folder than it does to import.  I think the longest time to see a change in LR 'take effect' on the screen is maybe 1/2 second.  It's generally instantaneous.  Exporting 100 photos to JPG format at full resolution is perhaps 3-4 minutes.  I've never checked my watch to see just how fast it is, but it's never a problem.  Photoshop Elements 10 is a bit slower on processing.  Some changes may take 2 seconds to process if the entire image is affected (such as noise reduction).   Brightness sliders are instantaneous in PSE.

I'm satisfied that the computer is fast enough for my needs...although I still have a mild case of GAS when it comes to computers, so I'm drooling over the high end AMD 8 processor chip for sometime in the future.  Of course, I have full clone backups of both the SSD and hard drive on slider bays, and an e-SATA external 3TB drive for off site backups as well.

As for monitor, I don't have any preferences.  But I recently installed a Samsung S24C450 as I use them at my employer and find them bright and reliable.  And, as long as the OP is buying...don't forget to get a screen calibration tool such as Colormunki.  I got one a little over a year ago and it makes all the difference in the world!


----------



## Michael Robinson (Jan 5, 2015)

My next computer will have a SSD but my 2 TB 7200 RPM Hard drive does pretty well. If you're getting a computer custom built, have them add a second hard drive or two unless it's a laptop. It's always good to have a backup hard drive in case the first one fails.

I have a AMD Dual on my Laptop that I bought in the spring of 2011 and  a AMD Quad on my current desktop. Both work fine and haven't had a problem with them.

I'd get Windows 8 if you're worried about speed. 8 takes less power to operate and loads damn quickly. Plus, it's purty looking.

Acer makes good monitors, make sure it's at least 23"...trust me...you'll want it!


----------



## DandL (Jan 6, 2015)

If I were going to build a photo processing computer, the following changes to your list would the *minimum* I would consider:

Intel i7 processor.   (Up until the Intel Core processors came along, I was always an AMD guy)
16GB RAM (I would go 2 8GB DIMMS allowing for future expansion to 32GB. One can NEVER have too much RAM)
256 GB SSD  (Samsung 840 PRO)
2TB conventional hard drive for storage. (I prefer the WD Red or Black drives)
Dedicated video card (1 to 2 GB VRAM. Nvidia or ATI/AMD what ever your preference)

I agree with sashbar about getting a high quality IPS monitor.  
I like your choice of power supply and OS.

I'm new to the wonderful world of photography, but I make my living as a computer tech for the State of California. My philosophy is, "Buy once, cry once". If you do it right the first time, it only hurts once. If you do opt for the AMD system, get at least a quad core processor instead of that dual core you have listed. You'll be much happier.

Best of luck with your decision.


----------



## KmH (Jan 6, 2015)

Granddad said:


> KmH said:
> 
> 
> > You want a new computer because you're an aspiring professional photographer?
> ...


Yes. I do. I would suggest:
*Digital Discussion & Q&A*
Questions or comments on all things digital! Discussion and advice on the latest techniques, plus all digital-related products.


----------



## Granddad (Jan 7, 2015)

KmH said:


> Yes. I do. I would suggest:
> *Digital Discussion & Q&A*
> Questions or comments on all things digital! Discussion and advice on the latest techniques, plus all digital-related products.



Thanks for that KmH, It's a bit late now but if I have any similar questions in the future I'll definitely keep that in mind.


----------



## vvcarpio (Jan 9, 2015)

Hi, Granddad. I hope I'm not too late in the discussion -- it caught my eye because I, too, am considering upgrading my Windows AMD-based rig to at least an Intel i5 processor and motherboard.

To check on various processor benchmarks and compare speed/price ratios I go to PassMark Software - CPU Benchmark Charts

For example, for the two machines I use now -- an AMD Athlon IIX4 635 Windows PC I built 4 years ago and a Mac Mini Late 2012 -- their CPUs and benchmark scores are as follows:

My build -- AMD Athlon IIX4 635@2.9GHz score:      3,289
Mac Mini -- i7-3615QU@2.30 GHz score:      7,348

To test my machines, I timed processing for an HDR image and found the Mac Mini (with the i7 @ 2.30 GHz) finished faster than my home built AMD PC (with the Athlon X4 @ 2.9 GHz). It took the Mac Mini approximately only 2/3 the time it took my AMD PC. So the benchmark scores at cpubenchmark.net are indicative of real world scores IMO.

For me to get my home built AMD PC at a performance comparable to my Mac Mini -- that is, a score of over 7,000 -- and keep costs down, from cpubenchmark.net I would need to go for either the cheapest i7 4790S @3.20 GHz ($304 on Newegg but with score of 9,710) or the popular i5 4690K @ 3.5 GHz ($199 on MicroCenter with a respectable score of 7,765 -- even faster than my Mac Mini's i7).

So I guess I'm saying a higher-end processor may be worth the higher cost *if* you would be doing a lot of post-processing work like I do (HDR). I imagine the AMD dual core @ 3.9 GHz processor in your spec would be the AMD A6-6400K with a score of 2,364 which costs $62 on Newegg. In comparison, the cheapest i3 on Newegg is the i3-3240 @ 3.4 GHz with a score of 4,322 at a cost of $119. The i3 is faster but increases your budget for the processor by $57.


----------



## Granddad (Jan 10, 2015)

Thanks to you all for your input. I've been putting off making the decision pending your comments and I'll take them into account. My budget is pretty well fixed as I have a self made rule that my photography has to be self funding. I'll talk it over with my "manufacturer" The IPS monitor is a must, from what's been said. One option I'll look at is going for the better CPU instead of the SSD drive... or alternatively I might live with my old laptop for a couple of months more and scare up some more business so I can increase my budget and go for both - I see I'm going to need the screen calibration thing, too, and that's not cheap, about £110 for Colormunki. You're all stars! 

Ignorance is curable and old dogs _can_ learn new tricks.


----------

