What components is impt for a PC that is used mainly for photos processing?
Helping a friend to build one.
Thanks.
Helping a friend to build one.
Thanks.
Impt feature of graphic PC
- Thread starter binbeto
- Start date
- Status
I find that a graphics card with good 2D, lots of memory and lots of harddisk space are more important.
J
JerChan
Guest
High speed CPU, FSB, RAM and hardisk.
A good graphics card, something like Oxygen. Big amounts of RAM and hardisk space.
S
sunyee
Guest
good printer...and fast comp...the quality of the photo depend very much on the printer and transfer speed(from comp to printer) and not forgeting the paper 
lots of ram, good graphic etc is mean or faser loading on the comp, was it worth doing self print? i find that going thru the lab for print so much easy and faster hehe
lots of ram, good graphic etc is mean or faser loading on the comp, was it worth doing self print? i find that going thru the lab for print so much easy and faster hehe
J
JerChan
Guest
Originally posted by sunyee
good printer...and fast comp...the quality of the photo depend very much on the printer and transfer speed(from comp to printer) and not forgeting the paper
lots of ram, good graphic etc is mean or faser loading on the comp, was it worth doing self print? i find that going thru the lab for print so much easy and faster hehe
I use a 990cxi. So far, so good. No complains.
Several things are indispensible.
[1] A colour calibratible monitor with LOTS of real estate, the more the merrier.
[2] The more RAM the merrier.
The rest are really secondary. Nice but not the end of the world. A CD/RW and/or a huge hard disk might also be necessary depending on your working style.
[1] A colour calibratible monitor with LOTS of real estate, the more the merrier.
[2] The more RAM the merrier.
The rest are really secondary. Nice but not the end of the world. A CD/RW and/or a huge hard disk might also be necessary depending on your working style.
Windows 2000.
As for physical RAM, 512 seems to be enough. I can work on 3 x 35Mb pics simultaneously with 2 IE windows open and not run out of physical RAM. You should also be thinking about faster RAM and if the photoprocessing computer is for commercial use, PC1066 RDRAM should be considered with the new 533FSB P4's (with a theoretical memory bandwidth of 4.0 Gb/s+)
Otherwise, PC266 DDRAM is good and cheap....
As for physical RAM, 512 seems to be enough. I can work on 3 x 35Mb pics simultaneously with 2 IE windows open and not run out of physical RAM. You should also be thinking about faster RAM and if the photoprocessing computer is for commercial use, PC1066 RDRAM should be considered with the new 533FSB P4's (with a theoretical memory bandwidth of 4.0 Gb/s+)
Otherwise, PC266 DDRAM is good and cheap....
For me, the order of importance would be:-
1. RAM - lots and lots and lots of it - 256MB minimum, 512MB best
2. HD - SCSI if money no object; ATA133 alternative
3. Processor Speed - at least 1.5Ghz
4. Graphics Card with DVI output
5. LCD with DVI input (CRT also can)
6. Optional - hardware color calibrator if you are concerned about color accuracy.
If going for CRT and analog input, go for a Matrox card since they give the best ANALOG video output. DVI from Nvidia or Matrox or ATI very very close, so anyone will do.
My current config:-
Pentium 4 1.7Ghz with 384MB memory (RDRAM)
60GB HDD (IDE, ATA100)
CD-RW
17-in LCD driven via DVI from Nvidia GeForce3
My NEXT config (dream dream):-
Pentium 3Ghz with 512MB memory (most likely DDR SDRAM)
At least 80GB HD (either Serial ATA or Ultra160SCSCI)
Nvidia GeForce4 (or GeForce5 ;p)
1. RAM - lots and lots and lots of it - 256MB minimum, 512MB best
2. HD - SCSI if money no object; ATA133 alternative
3. Processor Speed - at least 1.5Ghz
4. Graphics Card with DVI output
5. LCD with DVI input (CRT also can)
6. Optional - hardware color calibrator if you are concerned about color accuracy.
If going for CRT and analog input, go for a Matrox card since they give the best ANALOG video output. DVI from Nvidia or Matrox or ATI very very close, so anyone will do.
My current config:-
Pentium 4 1.7Ghz with 384MB memory (RDRAM)
60GB HDD (IDE, ATA100)
CD-RW
17-in LCD driven via DVI from Nvidia GeForce3
My NEXT config (dream dream):-
Pentium 3Ghz with 512MB memory (most likely DDR SDRAM)
At least 80GB HD (either Serial ATA or Ultra160SCSCI)
Nvidia GeForce4 (or GeForce5 ;p)
get a big, sharp, low radiation monitor. Either Sony or NEC...they are low in radiation. 17inch at least. 19 or 20inch if possible. I will get a CRT, as LCD too expensive.
CDRW, get a burn proof one. Asus latest CDRW claims to be "no more bad disc".
RAM, I would get 512MB at least if possible. Note that Win98 will not utilize this much RAM, you need Win2000 or XP.
Processor...I won't get the fastest available...a P1.7GHz is good enough for me
Hardisk...80GB, partition into 4 (30, 20, 15, 15)
Display card, not very sure about this one...can check with other's recommendatin. GeForce 4 64MB any good (quite famous)?
Mouse. Optical mouse of course.
Motherboard. Again, not sure...but a good motherboard will give you stable performance and reliability. Asus or Intel original mainboard? Make sure you get the one with firewire port, 4x AGP, enough USB port, number of slot for rams...etc.
This is what I can think of now...or the computer that I am going to build...
CDRW, get a burn proof one. Asus latest CDRW claims to be "no more bad disc".
RAM, I would get 512MB at least if possible. Note that Win98 will not utilize this much RAM, you need Win2000 or XP.
Processor...I won't get the fastest available...a P1.7GHz is good enough for me
Hardisk...80GB, partition into 4 (30, 20, 15, 15)
Display card, not very sure about this one...can check with other's recommendatin. GeForce 4 64MB any good (quite famous)?
Mouse. Optical mouse of course.
Motherboard. Again, not sure...but a good motherboard will give you stable performance and reliability. Asus or Intel original mainboard? Make sure you get the one with firewire port, 4x AGP, enough USB port, number of slot for rams...etc.
This is what I can think of now...or the computer that I am going to build...
(1) Win 98 can utilise 512Mb. AFAIK, 98 and ME can utilise above 512Mb with the appropriate registry setting (could be the same for 98?). Search pcmag's site. Also, at current picture file sizes, 512Mb is enough.
(2) virtually all cdrws have buffer underrun technology.
(3) firewire - i do not see it as a necessity - unless you plan to have several firewire peripherals. also, you should take a look at the firewire equipped motherboards; they cost more than buying a firewire card separately because they have loads of other stuff.
(2) virtually all cdrws have buffer underrun technology.
(3) firewire - i do not see it as a necessity - unless you plan to have several firewire peripherals. also, you should take a look at the firewire equipped motherboards; they cost more than buying a firewire card separately because they have loads of other stuff.
Thanks all for the reply..
What I have in mind for him is:
P41.6A
Abit DDr M/b
256+256Meg DDR
TDK 32x10x40x CDRW
Maxtor 60Gb Hdd
17" samsung(will changed to better one if have budget)
Abit Geforce 3 Ti200
**** and the rest like kb,mouse,fdd,casing etc ***
He only has a budget of abt $1.5K.
He doesn't have much PC parts knowledge but he knows what scanner and printer he wants.
He's going to get a his own scanner and printer by himself.
What I have in mind for him is:
P41.6A
Abit DDr M/b
256+256Meg DDR
TDK 32x10x40x CDRW
Maxtor 60Gb Hdd
17" samsung(will changed to better one if have budget)
Abit Geforce 3 Ti200
**** and the rest like kb,mouse,fdd,casing etc ***
He only has a budget of abt $1.5K.
He doesn't have much PC parts knowledge but he knows what scanner and printer he wants.
He's going to get a his own scanner and printer by himself.
Okay, this 512Mb of RAM is enough is beyond me. Photoshop as a rule of thumb likes 7 times the file size you are working on. That's real file size, not JPEG compressed file size. A good 35mm scan comes in at about 45-50Mb, at 7 times, that's almost your 512Mb, plus the memory your OS takes up, etc. Work with more than one, and you start to jump. Work with higher res scans and you're stuck up the creek without the proverbial paddle. With the price of RAM being what they are, buy as much as you can physically put in, and worry about the rest later. Frankly, I'd go for more, slower RAM as opposed to less, more expensive RAM if cost is an issue.
Macs are also a myth. Unless you need the integration with other graphics professionals, or do a lot of high intensity crunching in PS, and I mean the high intensity stuff, then Macs are actually not any more advantageous than PCs. In fact for the normal photographic processes, PCs are usually faster.
Like I said, about the only two things that really matter for picture work is a good monitor with tonnes of real estate, and as much RAM as you can get your hands on. After that it depends on your workflow.
Macs are also a myth. Unless you need the integration with other graphics professionals, or do a lot of high intensity crunching in PS, and I mean the high intensity stuff, then Macs are actually not any more advantageous than PCs. In fact for the normal photographic processes, PCs are usually faster.
Like I said, about the only two things that really matter for picture work is a good monitor with tonnes of real estate, and as much RAM as you can get your hands on. After that it depends on your workflow.
Anyway, my 512Mb response was accompanied by my stating that the conclusion was based on me using 3 x 35Mb files open at the same time, so obviously, those using larger files should know their mileage will vary I suppose similarly for Darren as a D1x user - given his file sizes, he finds 512Mb 'best'. I'm not sure what sort of file sizes Kho King is working at that requires more than 512Mb....
Under such conditions, 512Mb of fast RAM will result in photoprocessing just that little bit faster compared to 1Gb of slower RAM. Of course, 1Gb of fast RAM is even better.
Furthermore, RAM prices drop, and when the time comes, you can upgrade 512Mb of fast RAM with an additional 512Mb of the same type. Whereas for 'slow' RAM (say DDR-266) when you add DDR-400 (in the future) to it, you're still stuck at DDR-266 speeds....
p.s. if i ever get an A3 printer and have to rez up my files then definitely, more than 512Mb. But s9000 - $999 wahhhhhh....
I suppose similarly for Darren as a D1x user - given his file sizes, he finds 512Mb 'best'. I'm not sure what sort of file sizes Kho King is working at that requires more than 512Mb....Under such conditions, 512Mb of fast RAM will result in photoprocessing just that little bit faster compared to 1Gb of slower RAM. Of course, 1Gb of fast RAM is even better.
Furthermore, RAM prices drop, and when the time comes, you can upgrade 512Mb of fast RAM with an additional 512Mb of the same type. Whereas for 'slow' RAM (say DDR-266) when you add DDR-400 (in the future) to it, you're still stuck at DDR-266 speeds....
p.s. if i ever get an A3 printer and have to rez up my files then definitely, more than 512Mb
. But s9000 - $999 wahhhhhh....The bad news is Ram price increased a bit this 2 weeks... Like for a 256DDR increased from 70+ to 90+. So will still still to 512Meg 1st. cos the price jump will be too great.
Thanks again for all the valueable information.
- Status
Similar threads
