Upgrading PC or buyin a new one

[unpopular]

It tools some hunting but I found what I believe to be reliable information talking about the AMD like you mentioned. I don't think I need a $10,000 machine and believe their base Mac Pro or intermediate version should surface. That combined with a good high res monitor should work.

I really do not think that my modest K2000 though is the reason my Photoshop numbers aren't as impressive as I'd expected. I think this is because my clock is running at 2.7ghz/core - even with 12 cores and 24 threads, Photoshop just doesn't seem to utilize them.

That isn't to say Photoshop performance is lacking, and I have never once felt that it got in my way. Benchmark-wise though, Photoshop doesn't perform as well as I've come to expect from applications that do utilize multiple cores efficiently. But again, actually using Photoshop I've never noticed a problem.

It may be that Nvidia cards are just not as well equipped for OpenCL as AMD cards are (a pretty well known fact, and one major reason I'm thinking of switching), but I still feel like Photoshop is more processor intensive than it's implementation of GPGPU.

If you're really looking into a workstation, again, the Dell T-series has been great and the HP Z-series, albeit a bit more expensive, likewise looks promising. And I do recommend workstations. Consumer PCs are, for the most part, total garbage.

I got mine from these guys: Dell PowerEdge Servers HP Proliant Servers Xeon Processors

 

[Tailgunner]

It tools some hunting but I found what I believe to be reliable information talking about the AMD like you mentioned. I don't think I need a $10,000 machine and believe their base Mac Pro or intermediate version should surface. That combined with a good high res monitor should work.

I really do not think that my modest K2000 though is the reason my Photoshop numbers aren't as impressive as I'd expected. I think this is because my clock is running at 2.7ghz/core - even with 12 cores and 24 threads, Photoshop just doesn't seem to utilize them.

That isn't to say Photoshop performance is lacking, and I have never once felt that it got in my way. Benchmark-wise though, Photoshop doesn't perform as well as I've come to expect from applications that do utilize multiple cores efficiently. But again, actually using Photoshop I've never noticed a problem.

It may be that Nvidia cards are just not as well equipped for OpenCL as AMD cards are (a pretty well known fact, and one major reason I'm thinking of switching), but I still feel like Photoshop is more processor intensive than it's implementation of GPGPU.

If you're really looking into a workstation, again, the Dell T-series has been great and the HP Z-series, albeit a bit more expensive, likewise looks promising. And I do recommend workstations. Consumer PCs are, for the most part, total garbage.

I got mine from these guys: Dell PowerEdge Servers HP Proliant Servers Xeon Processors

Thanks for the info,

I'm really trying to stick with Apple since switching to PC would require so much work and added expense such as needing a new Laptop as well as a desk top. That and software etc.

 

[unpopular]

i'd stick with apple. it takes a while to get used to windows not working most of the time.

 

[unpopular]

Photoshop's minimum system requirements include a display that can display a minimum color depth of 16-bits.

The $300 Asus display recommended above is only 10-bits of color capable, and does not meet Adobe Photoshop minimum system requirements.
ASUS PA248Q 24-Inch LED-Lit IPS Professional Graphics Monitor

I am not aware of any $300 display that can display the minimum required 16-bit color.

Most people cannot afford a monitor or adapter that supports 16 bit

I am 100% certain that is not what they mean by 16-bit. What they mean is that the color pallet must be 16-bit (billions of colors), not the monitor LUT.

 

[selo]

Hi,

I just bought an SSD the samsung evo 250gb... right now im trying to free space so i have less than 250gb, almost ready. After i will clone my current hdd to the ssd with software samsung provides (i did this before it worker great)

After that i have to replace the SSD with the HDD.... Is this correct? Or do i need to install the SSD in a different hard drive slot?

Can i just replace it and use the current HDD as a 2nd drive for storage (after formatting it)?

 

[selo]

I managed to install the SSD and did some tests, it is deff booting faster and lightroom etc starts faster. While editing or exporting photos in lightroom, there is not much change in speed. I can't really figure out if i need more ram or a better processor. It seems like the processor is using 70% a lot of times and ram is always using 2.4gb or so.

Why is it using only 30-40% of the ram available?