Photo Editing Pc build help/opinions

[bratkinson]

For screaming speed, I just built my computer using a 128GB SSD (Solid State Drive) for Windows and all programs, and a SATA-3 1TB drive for all photo storage. The SSD plugs in and works just like a hard drive, but 40 times faster! Everything seems like it's instantaneous! I download my pix from camera to SSD and work on them there. When all done, I move them to the HD, and delete them from the SSD, to make space for the next shoot.

Of course, regular backups to an external drive or 2nd HD (what I did) are mandetory. You never know when something decides it will quit working or scramble your data.

[Ads]

[cgipson1]

I do not have any specific recommendations about brands and what not. If you are planning on doing only photography, you do not need a big memory card. You do need a lot of ram, and I would suggest maxing out whatever board you get. I think at least 4gb, RAM is one of those things you can't have enough of.

You want at least two hard drives, one of which you won't ever really touch. This will serve as your scratch disk in Photoshop. It is important that all your hard drives have a fast transfer rate, and your scratch disk must have a fast transfer rate. If you wanted to use the second drive, or only use one drive, be sure to partition the disk. This will help performance and reduce fragmentation.

Having enough RAM also reduces the impact on the hard drive, so when considering the platform, consider how much maximum RAM you can use.

4gb ram? Maybe for Windows 32-bit XP. Windows 7 (and 64 bit is better)... 16gb at least....

I have 4 GB on my Windows 7 64 bit....

It will run fine on four.. but if you any apps you run will utilize pretty much whatever you have... if they are 64-bit.

[AaronLLockhart]

It will run fine on four.. but if you any apps you run will utilize pretty much whatever you have... if they are 64-bit.

8GB in truth is all you will ever need to run anything in even a 64-bit windows environment. I try not to talk much about this kind of stuff, because most people don't understand what I'm saying. However, it seems that we have a few very tech savvy people aboard here, so I will fire away.

RAM Timings and the correct configuration with the motherboard have more to do with how efficiently it will operate than how much RAM you have will any day of the week. In other words, Two 4GB DIMM's (8GB) with very tight timings on a Dual Channel Motherboard, will run DOUBLE as smooth as Four 4GB DIMMs (16GB) of loosely timed RAM using all four slots ever will.

Also, just so we are clear, the i5 2500k is a quad core cpu, not a dual core. Not all i5 chips are dual core. I promise he wouldn't notice a single difference between the i7 3820 and the i5 2500k. As said before, the i5 would probably be better for this application because it has a graphics processing unit built into the chip. Not to mention, the 2500k overclocks much better than the 3820 if he eventually wants to go that route.

I already know the OP has chosen to go with the i7. However, I just wanted to make myself clear that, although the personal preference may be for the i7, the better choice is the i5, and they are both quad cores. The i5 is also substantially less in price. Butttttttt, to each their own

[unpopular]

The best choice is Xeon, and with a $2000 budget, why not?

[cgipson1]

It will run fine on four.. but if you any apps you run will utilize pretty much whatever you have... if they are 64-bit.

8GB in truth is all you will ever need to run anything in even a 64-bit windows environment. I try not to talk much about this kind of stuff, because most people don't understand what I'm saying. However, it seems that we have a few very tech savvy people aboard here, so I will fire away.

RAM Timings and the correct configuration with the motherboard have more to do with how efficiently it will operate than how much RAM you have will any day of the week. In other words, Two 4GB DIMM's (8GB) with very tight timings on a Dual Channel Motherboard, will run DOUBLE as smooth as Four 4GB DIMMs (16GB) of loosely timed RAM using all four slots ever will.

Also, just so we are clear, the i5 2500k is a quad core cpu, not a dual core. Not all i5 chips are dual core. I promise he wouldn't notice a single difference between the i7 3820 and the i5 2500k. As said before, the i5 would probably be better for this application because it has a graphics processing unit built into the chip. Not to mention, the 2500k overclocks much better than the 3820 if he eventually wants to go that route.

I already know the OP has chosen to go with the i7. However, I just wanted to make myself clear that, although the personal preference may be for the i7, the better choice is the i5, and they are both quad cores. The i5 is also substantially less in price. Butttttttt, to each their own

I won't argue with you about it!!

[trabaker]

I want to hijack my own thread with another question. For those of you with similar ssd/hdd setups, how do you handle downloading/importing/editing files into lightroom for example? By that I mean, where do you store your raws when editing them to get the most benefit from your ssd? Is it enough to keep the catalog and previews on the ssd and download your raws directly to your hdd? I haven't had the luxury of this problem before and I want to get it straightened out before I transfer all my data. Thanks

[EDL]

For most speed, use the SSD as the primary system drive and import/download your photos to the drive and edit from there. Once done, then save the originals and processed off to your mass storage device.

I prefer external USB drives for my storage as they are only plugged in and used as needed. Internal hard disks will power up every time the PC is booted and are susceptible to any potential nasties that occur with the PC.

Also, I usually (once every 6 months or so) copy off the originals from the large HDD to DVD's for longer term storage. All hard drives, mechanical and SSD wear out and fail at some point.

I know there are arguments about how long a burned disk lasts, but I do have an original 1x CD that was burned back when burners first came available that has been handled roughly through the years, has tons of scratches, been left out on the desk, dusty and dirty, etc and my PC still reads it fine today. I think a decently cared for disk will last much, much longer than a mechanical device...and they're cheap too.

One other reason an SSD is helpful as the primary system drive is the swap file. Even if you have 16GB of memory, not all programs will make good use of it and you will still have a swap file and it will get used. An SSD will speed up the whole system overall because of the much increased throughput.

To get the most out of an SSD, make sure your motherboard is SATA-3 (6GB/s) and you get a SATA-3 capable drive. If you really want some speed then run two of them in RAID0, but for the ultimate, OCZ has a PCI based solution out (the Revo Drive). Basically 2 or 4 SSD's (depending on capcity) on a PCI card with built-in RAID controller. 1.5GB/s read and 1/2GB/s write speeds, and even though it's a PCI card, it's bootable. Prices start at around $600 for 240GB up to about $3,200 for 960GB capacity.

[EDL]

Oh, and I didn't see a monitor listed in the parts (or I missed it)....I assume you are planning on a good quality IPS panel for photo editing?

[trabaker]

Oh, and I didn't see a monitor listed in the parts (or I missed it)....I assume you are planning on a good quality IPS panel for photo editing?

Soon enough, yes. I'll need to save up some first b/c I don't plan on skimping on the monitor.

[jamesdak]

This is exactly what I am looking for. A list like AaronLLockhart's list but current. 1/2 those items are out of stock now. Anyone able to spec it out with current compatible items? Thanks and sorry for reviving this old thread but the list is just what I am looking for.