Best Computer for Photoshop CS5

[Guest]

I really do not know a lot about computers, anyone out there can tell me the specifics I need to know when purchasing a new computer?

[Mylenium]

And specifically? What's the budget? Do you want to run PS extended or PS Standard? Do you want to run otehr apps? Pretty much any computer you can buy these days should be able to handle PS, even the 300 Euro ones. Which one to get really comes down to more specific details...

Mylenium

[Guest]

I would spend in the $800 - $1000 range, more if its worth it. I do a lot of photo work so I need something that can handle that. (Is extended only for 3D or is there more in it for photos?)

[Reynolds__Mark_]

Ivaharis - For photo editing, Photoshop Standard has everything you will need. Extended is more for video, 3D and what they call "Interactive" design.

I've no idea what in the hell they are doing at Apple to have released something so obviously incomplete.

When I made that post, I was extremely angry having to sort out, and get used to a new Operating system. Where I also had to manage a team of 3 other retouchers also struggling with the same issues. What angered me is that on impossible deadlines, and brand new macs, we seemed to be FORCED to use the new 10.6 - when Leopard was perfect, and frankly a little more efficient for everything we needed to do.

[Guest]

[Guest]

I don't give a toss about what platform I'm on, I just pick whatever system seems to work the best at that moment in time.

Right now, I have yet to see anything that would make me switch to mac.

[Reynolds__Mark_]

… If you can't see it, then don't do it. Old Chinese proverb - "even the most resourceful housewife cannot create miracles from a rice less pantry".

[Guest]

Reynolds (Mark) wrote:

When I made that post, I was extremely angry having to sort out, and get used to a new Operating system.

Imagine the utter insanity of suggesting that someone here on the Windows forum should move to Mac when even a long time Mac user like Mark needs to 'get used to a new OS'.

Ivaharas, please excuse the Mac diversion. Mark entertains, always.

Simply buy as much as you can afford with emphasis on processor speed, RAM and a 2nd internal hard drive to use as scratch... as noted in post #3.

We all do 'a lot of photo work' so we're still uncertain of what you specifically need to do. Odds are that Extended is not necessary. You can always download the trial to explore the features.

[Doc81harley]

Check out www.cnet.com or consumer reports and see what they and other professionals recommend for what you want to do.  Whether it be a Mac or a PC, you can at least do your homework by listening to computer professionals and not buying one by someone elses personal favorite on here.  I actually have a Dell Home PC, a Toshiba Laptop and my newest laptop, a Sony Vaio.  Each computer was bought with specific needs in mind and only after I researched each one for that specific need.

I am pleased with all 3 computers as they perform what I bought them for.

Kevan

[wumpe]

I'm shopping too and I'd use a CPU with a lot single thread power.  Intel i5-750 for example has the Turbo mode, when PS only uses one core of the CPU.  If I understand correctly multiple CPU's and graphics cards are not very helpful for PS.  A Radeon HD5750 should be fine.  Other cards are maybe cheaper or a bit faster for that price, but they're hotter and less efficient too - I like passive cooling. 

[Guest]

Any high speed cpu will do. Be it a core duo or i7, difference between an e5200 and i7 will be marginal if you use PS for files of average size. Get as much ram as you can and at least 2 hard disks, so you can put your scratch disk on a separate physical drive. Any certified/tested graphics card will do, many untested  cards also work just fine. If you intend to use 3D however, I suggest you get a decent card.

[Reynolds__Mark_]

http://www.apple.com/uk/macpro/

[Zeno_Bokor]

Please stop it or would you like it if we went to the mac forum and told people there that they should install Windows in order to work around OSX bugs?

[Guest]

Reynolds (Mark) wrote:

http://www.apple.com/uk/macpro/

Erm... Reynolds (Mark) seems to have a really short memory to forget his own criticism of Apple.

While the CS5 patch has helped problems across both Mac and Windows, there are some bugs on the Mac side that users are still waiting on Apple to fix.

So one must be really really silly to suggest at this moment that a MacPro is the best computer.

[Reynolds__Mark_]

Just an honest recommendation folks. Take it or lave it. Each to their own.

With Windows 7, its possible now to imagine that a few years down the the line, there may indeed be a more equal playing field. So that you folks will have a more convincing argument. I'm looking forward to that day, so that I can happily post my changed opinion on the matter.

The few glitches in Snow Leopard (complete rewrite of the OS front end, released a few months ago as it is) are inevitably going to be sorted out soon. Apple can be trusted that way I have found. So far anyway.

[Guest]

Reynolds (Mark) wrote:

With Windows 7, its possible now to imagine...

Imagining is all that you can do because you do not use Windows and can never make any sort of intelligent comparison.

Why are you now backpedaling on your previous criticism of Apple? These comments do not seem like you really trust them.

Reynolds (Mark) wrote:

...Snow Leopard seems to have a whole lot of problems...every day I try and use this damn new re-coded Operating System something new pisses me off. 

I've no idea what in the hell they are doing at Apple to have released something so obviously incomplete. 

Mark is certainly a fine advocate of Apple. 

Which 'honest recommendation' from Mark are we supposed to trust?

Reynolds (Mark) wrote:

With Windows 7, its possible now to imagine that a few years down the the line, there may indeed be a more equal playing field.

Is the reason why you want to look a few years down the line because you expect Apple to patch their 'damn new re-coded Operating System' (as you put it)? Snow Leopard was released 2 months prior to Windows 7 so it seems like they are already on an equal playing field. You can compare right now unless your Mac is too bonked to work right.

(I'm no platform bigot - - - I just like making fun of those that are too nearsighted.)

[Noel Carboni]

Cody_doc, your first post is nothing but abusive and has been reported as such.

I think it's sad to see people harboring so much anger.  Consider switching to decaf and attending English classes.

-Noel

[RobertoBlake]

Comparitively a Mac is not going to be "better" in an of itself to run Photoshop (CS5). Additionally its going to cost several times more to build a Moster Photoshop Mac, and a Monster Photoshop PC, components, specs, and price matter, the Mac brand just sounds good. They stopped specializing in components years ago.

I get into major details in my article here http://robertoblake.com/blog/2011/07/building-a-photoshop-cs5-computer/

Bottom line is the "bottom line"...

A Quad to Hexa Core Processor 3.2GHz +

16GB of DDR3 Ram

2X 1.5TB Hard Drive

1X 1TB Hard Drive

1X 90GB Solid State Drive

1X 1GB 256Bit Open GL4.1 Graphics Card

1X Blu Ray Burner

PC= Less than $1500 Mac PRO= Over $5000

And thats, thats. There is not going to be a way to qualify over $3000 in price, performance wise Mac to PC at those specs.

The only difference in Photoshop performance on Mac vs PC in Mac's favor is when you are not operating in a 64Bit environment, but why wouldn't you in the first place? If you don't you can't use more than 3GB RAM on the entire system and most computers come with that or more by default now.

[Noel Carboni]

RobertoBlake wrote:

1X 90GB Solid State Drive

Just to make one comment:  People have ongoing problems when using a "too small" SSD for the operating system drive.  90 GB is a bit on the small side.  I'd probably shoot for at least 256 GB for drive C:, and even then you'll have remember to install applications on another drive whenever you can.

I've often thought that a pair of SSDs, each on its own SATA cable, and making up a RAID 0 system drive (say, 2 x 256 GB = 512 GB) might make for a really fast Windows system:  No seek time and 2x the throughput of one drive.

At the moment I'm running 2 x 1 TB "old tech" spinning drives (WD RE4s) for drive C: in RAID 0.  It's pretty snappy!

-Noel

[RobertoBlake]

Actually the way my setup goes is that you use the 90GB Solid State Drive as the Scratch Disk rather than for the OS or what I refer to as the Application Level. You're right about it being a bit small if you were going to go that route, well relatively speaking anyway. For the Application level I would just use one of the 1-2TB Hard Drives and partition it. The partitions would only really be for my personal "Hidden Partitions" and for what I consider "Dump Space" the space for dumps from USB flash drives, SD cards from cameras and so on.

The SSD would be for the Scratch disk and for a small increase in price it could be 2 of them or more runnin in RAID0.

[Guest]

Maybe Mark works for Apple now.

[Guest]

Ivaharas

I found the information on this site very useful when researching my own build.  You could also use it as a shopping guide for a commercial PC.

http://www.imagescience.com.au/kb/questions/141/Build+a+powerful+PC+for+Photoshop+and+other+imaging+...

Sandboxie is a very interesting concept too!

[wumpe]

PS does use many CPU cores.  I'd go for the Phenom X6 if possible in order to minize mixer brush lag.

[Noel Carboni]

Just a different thought...

I've actually had good luck getting powerful machines inexpensively by buying just off cutting-edge Dell workstations from eBay.  Such a machine, with some brand new drives, can really zip along and so far all mine have been very reliable.

-Noel

[fliginskih]

I bought myself this laptop (asus n53da). Will Photoshop work freely on this model?