Photoshop Computer Rig

[MrMoo]

Hey photoshop peeps,

I'm looking to get a PC rig to use exclusively with photoshop. I might down the road use 3D Studio Max, SketchUp and Zbrush with my pipeline but i'm really lost as to what I should look for.

Thanks in advance for all the advice!

~milo

[vardoburrito]

Straight out of the top of my head. It may not make sense, but I've dot pointed it for quick glancing. :) Cheers.



I've just built one for Photoshop & Lightwave a month ago.
Be ready to do a lot of comparison if you're tight on money.
I hope my rig will last me at least 2 years.

*A high speed CPU. For all the calculations of some brush function
you might be creating. (ie. Random, Opacity)
Your CPU will determine the motherboard. Pref. the same brand.
I settled for a 2.4Ghz, a 3Ghz would have been nice had the price
difference not been there.

I went for a quad for the 3D rendering side of work.
But a Dual core is 'apparently faster' for Photoshop filter tests.
It's about knowing your balance of work ratio, and reading all
the tests that are done for them. I used 'tomshardware' a lot. (Google it)


*As much memory as you can get.
4G+ (needs a 64bit OS)


*512+MB Graphic Card. I went for a Gigabyte 8800GT.
Current drivers work good with 3D Studio Max.
Current drivers don't work good with Maya 2008. viewport errors.
Current drivers don't work good with Zbrush. pixelations/artifacts.

I can confirm that it works with Photoshop and Lightwave. Sweetly.


*
Power unit. Enough to drive the current hardware and probable 'future' additions to your system.
I'm specifically looking at another another same model graphic card.
But I've only got a 650W PSU.



The rest is how much you have left.
Case, peripherals, DVD Rom etc.




* Various notes.
-An old hard drive for scratch disking. I've yet to try a RAID setup.
I just don't know how to set it up.
-Old Dual 19" monitors at 1400x900 each. Waiting for the 24" to be cheaper, as I want me those 1920x1200 resolution per screen.
(I may need another GFX card) If only CRT standard resolutions transitioned
to 15" LCDs and up. :D



A lot of reading, but best of luck deciding and building.
Keywords. CPU. RAM. Future upgrade or not.

I have however, 'what iffed', a Mac Book Pro. It would have been
4 times more expensive, but portability I would not have minded at all.

Good luck. :steph:

[MrMoo]

Dwardo:

Wow... just... wow.. thanks for the reply! It's very thurough and i appreciate your input and the link (i'll check it out).

A few questions:

You mention a 64Bit OS to tap into getting more ram for photoshop, but i assume you're also talking about getting a 64Bit version of photoshop to take advantage of that extra bit, right? From what i've read, having a 64bit computational process doesn't necessarily equate to a "faster" photoshop experience. It may, in fact, slow things down. Here's a link that explains it far better than i ever could:

http://blogs.adobe.com/scottbyer/2006/12/64_bitswhen.html

Concurrently i've been told just to get an old version of Photoshop 7 and just use that. Yes, it's older but i've been told it's fabulous for painting for a variety of reasons:
1. Stability. It's not as bloated of a program as CS
2. Speed. Because it doesn't have a bunch of unecessary features (at least from a painting angle) it runs faster at some points
3. RAM use. (i've had some Major bugs with Photoshop CS2 and leapord compromising Real Memory allocation)
4. Money. It's cheep! I can get a version of Photoshop 7 for about $125-$165. w00t.

Anyhooey, any thoughts on the matter would be well received.

~milo

[Jie Kageshinzo]

Depending on what your needs are for painting, Photoshop 7 should be more than enough for your digital painting needs. I myself am using Photoshop 7 and I see no cause to upgrade to the CS family yet. I have a measly 2.0 Ghz C2D with 2 GB RAM and a 256 MB GeForce 7600 and I'm running both Photoshop 7 and Painter IX on it fine.

If you're thinking of 3D though, I would go with what dwardo said. :D

[vardoburrito]

Cheers for that article, nice read.

I mentioned x64 OS mainly for the reason of when you have 4Gig+ of RAM.
http://photoshopnews.com/2005/04/04/photoshop-cs2-how-much-ram-fact/


I've only recently moved to CS3, the last work version being Photoshop 6.
So it may take me a while to get used to it. I totally skipped 7, CS & CS2. :D

If you know what Photoshop 7 has to offer you. That's the only answer
you need. Plus you've already had a go with CS2, so then at least
you're in the know to what you're missing.

I'm just however feeling refreshed with CS3's brush maker.
It could use a touch of Corel Painters though, but nonetheless.
My brain is surging electricity again. behehehe.

[Ito Saith Webb]

You know unless you are familiar with Studio max I would suggest that you stay away from it as it is not really user friendly, at least not for me. I find that Maya is much more intuitive and I find it has more control.

I use both PS and Painter and both have their pluses and minuses. I love the selection ability of photo shop and it is great for detail work. Painter is great for when you want to get in good colors and I love the blender nubs.

[AdamR]

It's impossible to tell you without a budget. So that's first.

Solid build looks like:

C2D E8400
Gigabyte P35-DS3L
8800GT
Corsair 550w PSU
2GB of RAM (Kingston is a solid brand. Corsair and G.Skill are two others)
320gb HDD (Western Digital / Samsung are solid brands)
some optical drive that looks solid
Cooler Master RC-690 is a good case if you don't have anything else in mind

If you know you're gonna be running Photoshop mainly, then 2GB of fine. You can always just put in another module later if you honestly find yourself needing more.

Aside from money, there really isn't a reason to not go with the most updated version of Photoshop tbh. But since money obviously can be an issue, then it might be wise to find an earlier version for cheap, so just do what you have to. Just realize the features that the CS family has that you won't be getting, and make sure you're cool with it.

@dwardo "(I may need another GFX card)" not in the least lol don't worry about it.

Hope it helped.

- Adam

[MrMoo]

Thanks Adam,

Sorry about not posting on the budget.

I'm looking around 1100-1500 for my budget, the reason is that i also plan on getting a Cintiq. So my end budget is going to be close to 4000. yeesh.

~milo

[AdamR]

Well in that instance, something along the lines of the following should do you great (assuming you don't need any peripherals):

Intel C2D E8400
2x2GB kit of RAM (Kingston/G.Skill/Corsiar brands are great)
nVidia 8800GT 512MB
500GB HDD (Western Digital/Samsung are great brands)
gigabyte GA-EP35-DS3L mobo
samsung optical drives are great
550w PSU (corsair is a good brand)

I would have added links to specifics but I've got to get going. Do some searching over www.newegg.com (if you live in the US), make a list of what you get based off those suggestions and come back with the links. I'll run through them and make sure everything is in check for ya.

- Adam

[MrMoo]

Thanx Adam,

that's kind and thorough of you. I'll check back to ya when i'm done with my finals.

~milo

[GriNGo]

Mr.Moo, just in case check out the equipment at www.uberclok.com, for maximum BANG FOR BUCK. the ION pc is the perfect, you can get a quadcore intel overclocked to 3.4 ghz, 4-8 gigs of overclocked ram, decent hard drives space, even an overclocked graphics card for just 2000-2500 bucks... they have a nice warranty it's a machine that will handle anything you throw at digital art wise, and prepares you for the future: CS4 will feature 64 bit support on PC's, theoritcally making the quadcores very useful(assuming your using a 64 bit os, vista or xp), therefore much faster to work with in PS CS4, as well as it can handler bigger images with ease. If you compare this overclocked PC with top notch pc's (from alienware, voodoo pc, dell, etc), it's half the price of the big name ones, and just as powerful or more... they won't sell it with monitors, so you're out of luck there... but big monitors are cheap now awadays, and you can even find top of the line refurbished monitors (a 20 inch multisync lcd from NEC for example), for 1/4 the retail price... you just gotta luck hard...

[AdamR]

That's far from the "best bang for the buck." Quadcore could be useful (as of now the software isn't really programmed to utilize them) in the future, so that's fine. 8GB of RAM is useless in Photoshop; 4GB is pretty much spot on.

And Alienware/Voodoo PC are jokes.

Antec 900 + 650i mobo + Q6600 + 4GB RAM + 8800GT + 500GB HDD + OS = ~$900USD. NOT $1900 (which is what that place is charging (1k more? Dub Tee Eff mate))

I mean obviously any prebuilt machine will be significantly more than building your own, but I mean, just looking at it... it's like why would you actually spend that much more money? That money being able to be spent on plenty of other things.

[GriNGo]

The difference is uberclok gives you a safely overclocked version. and it costs more because they give you a FULL 3 year gaurantee (they will replace the defective parts at their cost: remember if any part is overclocked, the manufacturares wont replace because you've broken their rules).. let me see if you can safely overclock your machine to what uberclok offers... and as I clearyl said, this is a machine for the future: CS4 and onwards (but CS3 would kick ass in it as well)... and yes, you're right about Alienware and Voodoo PC: way overpriced.

[AdamR]

Well overclocking is a pretty simple process. Purchase good cooling with a processor well known to get good OC's and it's simple. Yes, the warranty is void when you do it, sure. But as long as you have the proper cooling, and you aren't an idiot who tries to push everything crazy high beyond what is capable, you're not gonna lose it. I know a lot of people who overclock their machines, myself included, and I have never had one friend who has fucked up their parts because of it.

[bumskee]

32bit can handle 4gb of ram.. but it will prolly only register as 3.2~3.5gb and use such.. While PS will max out at 2gb I think.. but it will help with smoothing out while using PS.. Ram is cheap so grab 4 gb..

If you are only going to do PS.. you don't need a good video card.. it's 2d.. the cheapest nastiest video card will handle PS fine.. it's only if you are thinking dual screen, you will need to look into it. but most cheap video cards has dual output.. and if you are a gamer or do bit of 3d, yes should look at a decent vid card..

spend the extra on a good screen rather.. it helps.. a dell 24" is a good choice, cheap and 8bit.

[Zebz]

I've been looking into a new rig myself. The one I paint on at work is so much better that I've grown spoiled by it and can't fathom working on the crap box I have at home. I've always been a PC user (with the exception of my Powerbook) at home and at work. But I'm tempted by these new Mac Pros. Someone please speak some sense into me. I'm sure I could get something comparable with dual lcds comparable to the Apple CDs. My main worry is reliability (PCs, in my experience require a fair amount of maintenance), color accuracy in displays, etc. I'm tired and I've been up googling info for several hours now so forgive me if this post is random and doesn't make sense. lol I started trying to figure out how I could somehow budget/finance $3,500 for all this Mac stuff. But I don't think I really NEED it. I could probably get something comparable in a PC for much cheaper. Please speak truths that will get me away from the crack that is Apple design. So... sleek... metal... beautiful. lol I need some people to help pull me towards practicality!!! Thanks guys!!!

[GriNGo]

I think the MACPRO is way overpriced, whereas the MACBOOK PRO isn't... strange thoughts don't you think? Well anyways, for that money get yourself a nice ION system for 2000 bucks at uberklok.com, and spend the rest of the 1500 on buying a pair of good LCD's: just in case, the apple cinema displays are way overrated. Just get yourself a pair of cheaper DELL 24" inchers, the latest model it has an excellent color accuracy, out of the box. Now if you can afford to buy the 30" incher, it's even better.

[AdamR]

something comparable in a PC for much cheaper.

Better in a PC for cheaper.

The best way is to build your own computer really.

If you're really bound to buying a prebuilt though, a vendor like Falcon would probably be better, because tbh I can't agree with how overpriced Uberclock is at all just because they did an average overclock of your CPU.

I just did a comparison, and basically to get an Uberclok PC to comparable specifications as a Falcon Northwest Talon, you have to pay $740 more -- and that's just getting the configurators as close as I can; the Falcon is still better in every respect save for the GPU -- and that's because the Reactor is only giving you the choice for the new GTX260/280 series by nVidia, which while are great GPUs, aren't really of any use if you don't plan to be doing gaming on the brand newest of games.

To be fair, I also did a comparison with the Ion, but found it hard because the selection of parts available weren't as comparable to the Talon system as I would have liked. But regardless, in the end, Falcon came out both cheaper and better. And I at least know of Falcon.

www.falcon-nw.com

Still, in all, I'd build my own.

Choice is yours however. Just trying to show you more options.

- Adam

[GriNGo]

Um i just compared, and uberclok is cheaper. by several hundred bucks. try it: configure the ION in comparison with the TALON and the uberclock will be 350 bucks cheaper, sans overclock. You could might as well buy yourself the more powerful reactor from uberclock for that price! Rembember the Talon isn't overclocked at all! Uberklok is a guaranteed safe overclock... 3 years TOTAL: if something get's damaged, they'll replace it free of charge!... i don't even think Falcon PC's have this type of guarantee. Uberclok is just a dream: It's just too good to be true: you really can't get wrong with that. don't even get me started with the more advanced models. Falcon is just overkill (with our limited budgets). Go uberclok go!

[AdamR]

The ION is probably cheaper because, had you read my original post, I said that I compared it to the Reactor instead of the ION, because the configuration of it doesn't give you parts that compare to Falcon's selection. So, let's do this again:

The GTX 260 is $300 USD. The HD 4850 is $185. Since we're not talking about a gaming computer (and the reactor only gives you the option of higher end graphics cards), we'll subtract $115 from the Reactor to be fair.

http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/9942/reactorww2.jpg

http://img396.imageshack.us/img396/7922/falconnwta1.jpg

Now, perhaps I'm smoking too much, but that to me looks like a $653 difference in favor of the Falcon computer.

So, what are the differences? Uberclok overclocks your processor. Sorry to tell you but that truly isn't anything to pride your company on. Any idiot can overclock their components. And for Photoshop, depending on what this guy is doing, overclocking period probably won't even show him that much of a difference to be completely honest. But if he wanted to, he could learn how to in twenty minutes. SO I'm not even going to label overclocking as a 'advantage' for these guys because it's a gimick.

It's basically like when someone takes their computer into a computer tech store and actually pays for them to put in a new graphics card. You're seriously going to pay money for something you could have easily done yourself?

So what else is different? Ooohhh a pretty 3 year warranty. Well if your computer isn't going to fuck up majorly in a year, then you're pretty much set. But if you're really that frightened and want a 3 year warranty, hey, go ahead and add one. It's still $370 cheaper.

And to be completely honest, I would still never even buy a Falcon. You're right. They are overpriced. Thing is, every prebuilt system out there is, in fact, going to be overpriced. There's no way to get around it. But if you're going to pay for an overpriced computer you may as well go for the one that isn't AS overpriced.

[telebiker]

I priced a custom computer from Uberclok, between the Ion and Reactor and compared to Falcon Fragbox. The only difference in components was the Ion had an Intel 9450 Quad processor overclocked to 3.4 GHz versus an Intel 9550 processor for the Falcon which was not overclocked. The Falcon was $1,000 more expensive. At least for my system Uberclok was cheaper. I haven't received the computer yet to test but customer service has been very good so far. I could build the machine myself but I like having a warranty for overclocked components as well as knowing Uberclok pays for shipping charges if something fails under warranty both ways.

Mike

[Nikoh]

Here's something I found when I googled around abit:

From Russell Williams, Photoshop architect:

“Just to be a little more explicit on the “3+GB thing” — if you’ve got 4GB and are still hitting the scratch disk on either Mac or Win, you will probably see significant benefit from adding RAM. We’ve seen 40% and greater speedups when running tests on big documents that hit the scratch disk by increasing RAM from 4GB to 6GB.

What’s happening is that Photoshop can only make direct use of about 3.5 GB of RAM on Mac and 2GB on Windows and 3+ on XP 64 bit. But when it goes to write to the scratch file, normally that I/O is done directly from Photoshop’s memory to the disk (or vice versa). If you’ve got more than 4GB of RAM, we let the OS do its buffering thang instead. That is, data is not written directly to the disk; the OS copies it into RAM buffers that reside in that extra RAM Photoshop can’t otherwise use. If Photoshop later asks for some data from the scratch disk and it happens to be in one of those buffers, the OS copies it from the buffer instead of reading from the disk.

This is the usual way that most file access works — via the OS disk buffers. The reasons Photoshop normally *doesn’t* use those buffers are:

1. It costs extra to copy the data to and from the buffers instead of just reading it to / from the disk. If you get data from the buffer instead of doing a disk I / O, this is more than worth it, but…

2. Photoshop’s access patterns to its scratch file mostly don’t match what the OS is expecting. The OS assumes that if you just read or wrote it, you’re likely to need it again soon. But that’s not generally the case with Photoshop’s scratch disk.

But when you’ve got more RAM than Photoshop can use directly, there’s little to lose by letting the OS cache it.”

I should add that this is from 2005, but I guess in this case that doesnt really matter.

[Brashen]

Until photoshop cs4 comes out that will take much more power to run since it will be 64bit and rely on your graphics card.

I suggest you build you're own PC.