Version: 2008
Advanced Search
advertisement
advertisement
mySimon mySimon mySimon Outdoor Gear mySimon Swimwear mySimon Home and Garden

Forum display:

Community Newsletter: Q&A: New PC recommendations needed for graphic-intensive programs

by Lee Koo (ADMIN) Moderator - 4/18/08 11:26 AM
advertisement
Post 1 of 234

New PC recommendations needed for graphic-intensive programs

by Lee Koo (ADMIN) Moderator - 4/18/08 11:26 AM

Question

I need to upgrade my PC because I am using graphic-intensive programs including Adobe Photoshop, Dreamweaver, and Illustrator. I intend to stick with Windows XP (I have no interest in Vista at this point) and do not want to change to a Mac. Do I really need 3GB or 4GB of RAM, or is 2GB enough? Will an Intel dual-core processor work well enough, or do I really need the more expensive quad-core? I have never spent more than $1,000 on a PC but realize that my current requirements push me close to $1,500, including a wide-screen monitor. I have looked at the Dell Inspiron 530 and XPS 410. I welcome any and all suggestions. I do not want to spend for more than I need but I am having trouble figuring out the necessary essentials. Thanks so much for your suggestions!

Submitted by: Joan P.

Answer voted most helpful by the CNET Community newsletter readers:

Joan, good news, you get to save money!


Joan,

Well, first, you are suffering from a common mis-conception about graphics programs: In general, the programs you list are not "graphics intensive", and you could do quite well with a low-end video solution. Programs become "graphics intensive" when the video card has to CREATE 3-D content. This does not happen when processing photographs, video (DVDs, video editing, video capture from, say camcorders ... with one exception, that being very fancy scene-to-scene transitions) or creating web pages. It does happen when playing games, using CAD software or doing video editing involving CGI or a lot of fancy transitions from scene-to-scene. You didn't mention any of those. In all of your applications, the "image" comes from the file (e.g. the JPEG or TIFF files from your video camera directly contain all of the pixels in the image), and is not CREATED by the video card. This is classical 2-D video, it is not demanding, and you would do quite well even with just a modern low-end "chipset" integrated video system (in the case of Intel chipsets, AT LEAST GMA950 or later, but any current product will have that), or a low-end dedicated video card that is at least powerful enough to run Vista WITH the Aero interface. Note that being capable of running Vista with Aero is a threshold test of minimally acceptable video card "power", without regard to (and having nothing to do with) the entirely separate question of whether you actually use XP or Vista.

Now that we have that out of the way, lets talk about CPU: The "dual core" pentium has been created by Intel to go in-between the very low-end "Celeron" and the more powerful "Core 2 Duo" line of CPUs. A dual core Pentium might work well enough, but get a Core 2 Duo, which is still a dual-core CPU, but more powerful than the "dual core Pentium" CPU line. However, you don't need, and probably would not even benefit from a quad core CPU. Look for one of the Core 2 Duo CPUs with the larger cache memory system (say 4MB instead of 2MB) and you will have a fine system at a reasonable CPU price.

As to memory, 2GB should be plenty, especially if you are sticking to XP.

You didn't mention the hard drive, but I'd go with a 500GB drive, it won't cost much more than anything smaller, but going larger will really push the cost up and probably isn't necessary.

I don't see any reason why you can't get a system like this for WELL under $1,000, and perhaps more like $600, exclusive of an exotic monitor, however. I see nothing in your post that suggests a need to spend anything like $1,500. Or probably even $1,000. One other suggestion, if you are considering a Dell system (and even if you are not), check out a web site by the name of www.techbargains.com for deals on Dell computers. They come and go, and some of these deals literally last only hours. You have to be patient if you want to save money, but by watching this site for a period of about 90 days, you will likely find a deal that will save you nearly half of what you would otherwise pay for the exact same system.

Regards,
Barry Watzman

http://forums.cnet.com/5208-10149_102-0.html?forumID=7&threadID=288637&messageID=2735071#2735071

Submitted by: Watzman

Many additional helpful answers within the discussion thread below, so please check them out as well.

If you have any additional recommendations for Joan please click the reply link and submit your answer. Please be as detailed as possible in your submission. Thanks!

Post 2 of 234

wide screen monitor

by mdayger - 3/21/08 7:02 PM In reply to: New PC recommendations needed for graphic-intensive programs by Lee Koo (ADMIN) Moderator

You cannot get a better bang for your buck than the Hanns-G Full HD 1080p monitor.

Post 3 of 234

why?

by puma - 4/11/08 5:31 PM In reply to: wide screen monitor by mdayger

why would anyone want to stick with windows for graphic-intensive programs?

Post 4 of 234

Why?/Joan P.

by lois228lois - 4/11/08 6:37 PM In reply to: why? by puma

I used both and went to Mac because rendering playback. PC was always choppy and slow, and couldn't solve the problem of programs kept loading on tool bar in use on toolbar. Claiming that I am using them when I wasn't, even when I closed them. I tried all the reccomended fixes.
I chose Mac because I have less problems all around. Both have problems upgraded operating systems with old software. So if you already have to buy new software then why not go Mac?

Post 5 of 234

Actually that's what I did.

by jpachner - 4/11/08 7:30 PM In reply to: Why?/Joan P. by lois228lois

I am writing this on my iMac, but my pc is still here and I use it, especially for my academic word processing.

Post 6 of 234

graphics programs

by PhotoMan - 4/11/08 8:01 PM In reply to: why? by puma

Because all the major players in graphics write their programs for Windows first because that it where the business is.

Post 7 of 234

who cares?

by puma - 4/11/08 9:32 PM In reply to: graphics programs by PhotoMan

who cares if applications are written for whatever OS first? i'd rather have the same application running on an OS that is much more mature, stable, secure, and robust. i refuse to deal with a glitchy OS, and you should too (if you want to be efficient & productive)...

Post 8 of 234

clarification

by PhotoMan - 4/12/08 12:14 AM In reply to: who cares? by puma

Don`t get me wrong, I`m not Mac or Linux bashing. I`m referring to the market shares between all of the OS`s out there. With Windows being the predominate OS, it seems to always get the "First Crack" when a new piece of heavy duty software arrives.

Any OS can run efficiently written software and any software can run on an efficiently maintained computer. Neglect in code writing and maintenance knows no boundry.

Post 9 of 234

agreed

by puma - 4/12/08 4:30 PM In reply to: clarification by PhotoMan

market share is an inaccurate barometer because many people and businesses purchase systems with windows pre-installed only to remove it and install Linux or Unix... the least expensive Mac Mini will outperform the most expensive pc as the Mac OS is much better suited to handle the latest and greatest in today's technology. the windows OS just has too many limitations even for the average user

Post 10 of 234

what ?

by PhotoMan - 4/12/08 5:07 PM In reply to: agreed by puma

You don't actually believe what you just said, do you ??

Anyway, I'm not going where you wnat it to head to. Enjoy yourself.

Post 11 of 234

...

by puma - 4/12/08 6:13 PM In reply to: what ? by PhotoMan

obviously you never used a Mac before...

Post 12 of 234

Let's not be nasty

by nevido - 4/13/08 6:33 AM In reply to: what ? by PhotoMan

I have used Photoshop and Illustrator since version 2 came out so have some experience, actually making a living mostly from Photoshop.

There are two companies I am a big fan of, because they have devoted years of R&D to making my work easier, Adobe and Apple.

Earlier in the thread the PC "market share" was put forth as a reason for doing graphics on a PC. The one field where PCs have never matched the Mac's market share is the Graphics industry! All of the ad agencies I've worked at/visited were Mac based with maybe a few PCs to run accounting programs. The last agency I was at with maybe seventy Macs, the IT guy spent most of his time working on the 3 PCs and everyone loathed working on them.

I have worked in non graphics oriented companies where PCs were the rule and I was surprised how few people were really proficient on them even after being sent on numerous training courses. The word intuitive really does translate into dollars and cents. Did you know that Microsoft used to use Macs for its advertising?

Enough of that. Let's talk money. Illustrator has never made much of a demand on my computer. Maybe there are processes I don't use that would hit the processor harder, but in a pixels vs. bezier competition, bezier is way ahead, just look at the file size for a clue. I have had Photoshop poster files reach a couple of gigabytes where an equally large Illustrator file might be a couple of megs so I think if you get a setup designed for Photoshop, the other software will be well taken care of.

Since time is money, moments where I wait for my computer to catch up are big irritations and I think they relate to three computer parts, RAM, processor and hard drive.

Starting with the last, opening large files can be a sit and wait, and Photoshop loves writing/reading temporary files as you go so the faster the drive system, the better. Macs used to have faster SCSI drives compared to the PCs and that was one of the reasons they cost more; now it looks like SATA drives or a good RAID system is the way to go.

When I do a gaussian blur or use the smudge tool with a huge brush size you can sit while you watch the blocks of pixels being rendered one after another till you reach the bottom right corner of the image. This is probably a combination of processor and RAM. I'm told that many new graphics programs are shifting processing from the CPU to the graphics card so while people usually say a high end video card is more for gaming and 3D, I'd recommend putting money there. You don't want to wait when you're turning an effect on and off to see the difference.

I'm enough of a techno geek to know how a longer processor pipeline with "Complicated Instruction Set Computing" is slower even with faster processors than RISC and short pipelines, I haven't had to learn that stuff as a Mac user. I've just concentrated on the magic of Photoshop. I was pleasantly shocked to find my new MacPro has eight processors as standard equipment, that it can access more RAM than I can afford for a while, that I can just slide in a new hard drive and it's so quite I don't know if it's on unless I'm looking at the screen, but when Apple and Adobe have been working hand in hand to make software and hardware play nice together, I shouldn't have been so surprised.

Post 13 of 234

hold on here

by Budo7 - 4/18/08 6:40 PM In reply to: agreed by puma

While I am not knocking Mac, there are a ton of PC gamers out there who would love to get Mac's however since most Game company's are just now coming out with games that can play on both Mac and Windows, there are more then a few gamers who are not going to throw away their 3-5K machines, to buy a Mac.

I was excited when EA announced they were going to release some of their tittle for Mac, so I could play against my brother. Since both of us, do about the same thing for work, (web design & graphics) he went with the Mac and is limited on what he can play.

Post 14 of 234

games?

by puma - 4/18/08 8:58 PM In reply to: hold on here by Budo7

i see your point: windows are good for kids who like to play games. Mac is for productive power users

Post 15 of 234

You are a closed minded jerk!

by b_laur14 - 4/19/08 9:34 AM In reply to: games? by puma

Games are not just for kids! It is a multi-billion dollar industry, that employees thousands of programers and graphic artists (both 3d and 2d(photoshop) and programers, designers, orchestras, musicians, actors,producers, etc...) It cost millions to make triple AAA games. I am not talking solitare here. You mac people don't know crap and think games are for kids, its a laugh the most costly games are rated M which means 17+ age, basically an R rated movie rating. I am 29 and have been gaming and using pcs since I was a kid (although my first computer was an appleII which had tons of games back then) The mac sucks it limits you, stop sucking on jobs nob...seriously...you people are such fanatics on your dinky closed system clone pcs(yes that is what a mac is) that you believe anything. And you make lies to make you look right. Stop it already! And buy the way, i work as a web designer for a company that specializes in sites for real estate and mortgage. All our computers are PCS, we have one mac system for special cases for tech support with mac customers and testing...that mac is hardly if ever used, and basically sits there collecting dust. You and your non tech, one mouse button steve jobs loving cronies need to get with it and stop blindly following a company like you don't have a brain, and can't think for yourself. I had to rant here, as you pressed a nerve. I am a pc gamer and professional designer/ hobbiest coder, and needed to clarify things as most of you are just sour that you can't play games so you say things like that to make yourselves feel better.

Forum legend:
Locked Locked thread
Moderator Moderator
CNET staff CNET staff
Samsung staff Samsung staff
Norton Authorized Support team Norton Authorized Support team
AVG staff AVG staff
Windows Outreach team Windows Outreach team
Dell staff Dell staff
Intel staff Intel staff
Powered by Jive Software