Which of these two system would be better for Photo Editing?

[yaoxing]

Given price is not an issue.... which of these two would you prefer for a photo editing PC? State your reasons if you wish.

System 1
Asus A7V8X-X Mainboard
AMD Athlon XP (Barton) 3000+ (FSB 333 MHz) (default HSF)
2 x 512 MB PC2700 DDR SDRAM (CL 2.5)
40GB HDD (ATA100 7200 rpm) for software
120GB HDD (ATA100 7200 rpm) for photo only

System 2
Asus P4T533-C Mainboard
Intel Pentium 4 3.06B GHz (FSB 533 MHz) (Aero 4 Lite HSF)
4 x 512 MB PC800 RDRAM (45ns)
40GB HD (ATA100 7200 rpm) for software
120GB HDD (SATA150 7200 rpm) for photo only

 

[theITguy]

is the spec fixed or can be changed? I would think that the Athlon is cheaper and you can get more RAM with it. RDRAM..... is a joke with the price.

 

[judeseah]

Given price is not an issue.... which of these two would you prefer for a photo editing PC? State your reasons if you wish.

System 1
Asus A7V8X-X Mainboard
AMD Athlon XP (Barton) 3000+ (FSB 333 MHz) (default HSF)
2 x 512 MB PC2700 DDR SDRAM (CL 2.5)
40GB HDD (ATA100 7200 rpm) for software
120GB HDD (ATA100 7200 rpm) for photo only

System 2
Asus P4T533-C Mainboard
Intel Pentium 4 3.06B GHz (FSB 533 MHz) (Aero 4 Lite HSF)
4 x 512 MB PC800 RDRAM (45ns)
40GB HD (ATA100 7200 rpm) for software
120GB HDD (SATA150 7200 rpm) for photo only

try single DDR of ur size rather than 2.

if u do disc check often,
get 2 of the same HDD and stack RAID 0,
very fast that way.

make sure sufficient power and ventilation for AMD ver.

 

[user111]

try 2 gig ram

 

[yaoxing]

The reason why price is not an issue is because I already have the above hardware (both sets). Currently my setup is as follows:

Current System
Gigabyte 7S748 (SiS 748 chipset)
AMD Athlon XP 2400+ Thoroughbred (Stock HSF) (FSB 266 MHz)
2 x 512MB PC2700 DDR SDRAM
30GB ATA100 7200 rpm
120GB ATA100 7200 rpm (using separate PCI IDE card)

System 1 is currently my Gaming PC.
System 2 is currently my Video-editing PC (also my TV-recording PC).

I'll upgrade either of the above two in June, and I'll continue to use the replaced PC as a photo editing PC. So seeking opinion which one would be more suitable.

 

[goering]

I'll take system 2 anytime

a) firstly my experience with chipsets that use RDRAM - in this case 850(E) have been extremely positive. These systems are stable as a rock - probably the most stable systems I've used before

b) Photo editing software are very ram hungry - so the more the merrier. 2 GB is really a nice bonus

c) Photo editing software like Photoshop would have more optimisations with the Intel SSE/SSE2 for the filters, etc than the Barton system

 

[waiaung]

Definitely system 2...

 

[Firefox]

Given price is not an issue.... which of these two would you prefer for a photo editing PC? State your reasons if you wish.

System 2
Asus P4T533-C Mainboard
Intel Pentium 4 3.06B GHz (FSB 533 MHz) (Aero 4 Lite HSF)
4 x 512 MB PC800 RDRAM (45ns)
40GB HD (ATA100 7200 rpm) for software
120GB HDD (SATA150 7200 rpm) for photo only

I'd choose System 2. Having more ram is always a nice touch.
The added bandwidth of RDRAM will outweigh the longer response time of the RDRAM when using applications like Photoshop. The response time is more of an issue if you're gaming.

1GB of ram is typically enough for a serious home user but having more doesn't hurt.. I've a P4-3.0E w/ 1GB of dual-channel DDR-DRAM.
Photoshop only started lagging (ie. using swapfile) after I opened 30+ 4MP files and copied them into a 48MP picture file (don't ask).

I'd highly recommend that you buy a 73GB Western Digital Raptor drive for OS & applications and swapfile. Then use the 120GB for data storage.

 

[Ian]

yaoxing,

Since you own both systems I'd recommend you do some serious benchmarking with Photoshop or whatever graphics editor you intend to use, a stopwatch and a few hefty batches of files.

Recommended tests (basic but informative)

Test 1 General Photoshop:
Time to open, perform a level adjustment (auto levels) and then add an USM and save file. Set up an Action in photoshop and perform this with this test with 100 or so images that are as big as you intend to work with you'll get a far better idea which system is really suited to graphics/photographic editing.

Test 2) Complex Photoshop:
Similar to test 1, but also add a couple of resizes to the image (increase by 200%, decrease by 300% or so, and save in original format. For fun add a couple of extra filter stages to the test to help find any slow points in the process.

A word about files:
Use the largest files you can get, uncompressed TIFF or similar provide a good amount data to work with. When I run this test I normally use a DVD load of images (4GB) as that simulates a reasonable amount of work and allows for meaningful comparisons in overall performance.

 

[nickmak]

How about the PowerMac G5?

 

[Ian]

How about the PowerMac G5?

1) It is not in the list of choices (see first post)

2) Power Mac's aren't even in the same performance league, they are completely outgunned by IBM clones these days, a sad but true fact of life.

 

[tao]

2) Power Mac's aren't even in the same performance league, they are completely outgunned by IBM clones these days, a sad but true fact of life.

That's absolutely untrue, a comparably priced dual G5 is still faster for both video and image editing apps such as photoshop and after effects. There are benchmarks posted by independent review sites comparing Dual-G5 vs Dual- Xeon/Opteron to prove that. Sometimes, significantly faster, especially as the file size gets larger as the G5 benefits from having the fastest bus speed around.

That's the reason why even Anand of Anandtech has switched to a Dual G5-2.5Ghz as his primary machine, not to mention it will save him spyware and worm woes.

Where the G5 loses in overall performance is in 3D rendering apps such as Maya and 3D gaming (loses badly!!).

 

[theITguy]

The reason why price is not an issue is because I already have the above hardware (both sets). Currently my setup is as follows:

Current System
Gigabyte 7S748 (SiS 748 chipset)
AMD Athlon XP 2400+ Thoroughbred (Stock HSF) (FSB 266 MHz)
2 x 512MB PC2700 DDR SDRAM
30GB ATA100 7200 rpm
120GB ATA100 7200 rpm (using separate PCI IDE card)

System 1 is currently my Gaming PC.
System 2 is currently my Video-editing PC (also my TV-recording PC).

I'll upgrade either of the above two in June, and I'll continue to use the replaced PC as a photo editing PC. So seeking opinion which one would be more suitable.

OK, my advice since you have more information.

1. Invest in SCSI Maxtor 10K or get the 10K RPM Raptor 73GB version (not 36GB one). Put this in your System 2 as it is probably more than good enough for both Video and Photo. People mistaken CPU Speed and RAM as more important. I am still using my Athlon 1600 XP but with upgrading of HDD it upkeep the power against faster CPU but slower HDD. Moreover you are doing video editing..... Use SCSI/Raptor as main HDD with a Hitachi(or the old IBM brand) big drive like the 250GB version as storage (get 2x 250GB if you are heavy user, or 2x 120GB so as to speed up process in transfering/encoding).

2. I run all my HDD on difference channels to maximise the transfer rate for video editing. Try not to run external HDD if you are using a CPU heavy programme as running external device you will still need some CPU power to drive it, or else you will slow it down.

3. Intel is more responsive IMO although it might not be the fastest (hardly much difference anyway). Unless you are getting top of the end Intel (3.73Ghz??) you will not see much difference with some much money spend. Since you also have 2GB RAM invested you should also retain your system until you outgrow your system.

4. Get a Athlon 64 3200 or higher with NForce4 to play your games and as a backup photo editing rig when you are busy with your video editing. I suppose your 2x 512MB 2700 might be able to use with newer RAMs so you see for yourself.

 

[theITguy]

That's absolutely untrue, a comparably priced dual G5 is still faster for both video and image editing apps such as photoshop and after effects. There are benchmarks posted by independent review sites comparing Dual-G5 vs Dual- Xeon/Opteron to prove that. Sometimes, significantly faster, especially as the file size gets larger as the G5 benefits from having the fastest bus speed around.

That's the reason why even Anand of Anandtech has switched to a Dual G5-2.5Ghz as his primary machine, not to mention it will save him spyware and worm woes.

Where the G5 loses in overall performance is in 3D rendering apps such as Maya and 3D gaming (loses badly!!).

While I do not agree/disagree on your points, I would that the Athlon is built on pure Floating Point Unit power (based on the Alpha) and is best on running games and 3D rendering applications, and also some other stuff which it is now being optimised.

Intel's P4 is built on running SSE1/2/3 and fast speed, therefore better on apps like Photoshop and software optimised apps.

G5's processor is built on smoothness and software optimised like the P4, and Photoshop Premiere is the selling point behind Mac all along. Might not be the fastest but still great for that speed you get and overall performance.


There is no best processor for anything. I do video and sound processing, but I also multitask, so I am waiting for my Dual Core Athlon 64 :devil:

 

[Ian]

There are benchmarks posted by independent review sites comparing Dual-G5 vs Dual- Xeon/Opteron to prove that. Sometimes, significantly faster, especially as the file size gets larger as the G5 benefits from having the fastest bus speed around.

Show me some links :devil:

There's nothing like winding up Mac users for sport

 

[ortega]

Macs have better colour reproduction. So since you are in a photography forum i supose that you are a photographer, so colour should mean more to you than speed.
Anyway the files from a DSLR are still considered small.

 

[theITguy]

Macs have better colour reproduction. So since you are in a photography forum i supose that you are a photographer, so colour should mean more to you than speed.
Anyway the files from a DSLR are still considered small.

How do you come across the opinion that Macs have better colour reproduction? Because of the graphic card which we also have (ATI or Nvidia?)? Or the monitor? Or is it the colour space which can be reproduce on the Windows/Linux side?

I am interested to hear your opinion.

 

[ortega]

try it yourself, take an image file and view it from both systems.
I did this like years ago, so I don't really know what the difference is nowadays.
Let me know the results.

BTW, I use both platforms.

 

[Richard]

There's nothing like winding up Mac users for sport

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

 

[Pro Image]

RD-RAM price maybe steep and something funny to laugh at but they are quite stable. I am using 2 x 512 and 2 x 256 RD-RAM with a 850E MB 2.4GHz. So far editing 5-6 layers with 20-25MB per layers was a smooth transition for me.