AMD or Intel for Graphics Editing.

[John90]

I am going to be doing my first build soon, I will mainly be using Photoshop but may occasionally play a game, usually Battlefield.

Would AMD or Intel be better for this? I will be running 64 bit and 4 GB Ram, XP for the first few months.

This is the <$500 intel build I am considering, a couple people helped me out.
http://secure.newegg.com/WishList/Pu...istTitle=Intel

I can't find the link to my AMD one. Will keep looking.

[callistra]

Recommend getting some kind of a dedicated card if you plan on playing games at all.

If you're using XP you do not need 4gb of ram.. that's one place to save..there are some other small places you can save to get a better cpu and a dedicated card. http://secure.newegg.com/WishList/Pu...Number=9638646 $489.56 after shipping and rebates. If you add the 4gb of ram back you have $501.56 but seriously for photo editing and light gaming just stick with XP.

[John90]

I planned to get vista after a couple months, just wont have the money right at the time. I have a XP disc here so why not use it.

As for the video card, I have a 8800 GT here that im not using yet.

So anyway, should that stuff last me a while? And am I going to benefit from using Intel over AMD. With AMD I can cut the cost down quite a bit.

[jlreich]

If you really use Photoshop 4GB ram is not absolutely necessary but will be helpful. And ram is dirt cheap, so I recommend 4GB. If you do high res work and lots of editing the less you have to go to scratch disk the better.

The 8800GT you already have will hold for some time for what you are doing. If you want something that will really help with Photoshop you need to move into workstation class video cards. With your budget that is not going to happen. A decent workstation class video card will cost more than your entire build, and that's just getting started.

Without a workstation class GPU Photoshop will reply heavily on the CPU. So the more cash you can put into the CPU the better. Intel is generally better, but an AMD will also perform well.

[callistra]

jlreich sorry but you're just flat out wrong. Photoshop does not make use of gpus. It's very cpu intensive. Photoshop would run just as well on an integrated video chipset, it's ONLY for holding onto profiles do you need any card at all, and I do mean that any card will do. Now it's possible that future versions of Photoshop will change to make more use of the gpu but at this time your advice is mistaken.

Now for the video editing the OP wants to do the 8800gt sounds good! No need to get another card.

I've revised the recommendations to take out the video card, since the OP already has one, and included a stronger CPU since budget now allows: http://secure.newegg.com/WishList/Pu...umber=10713288 On the case there is an option for another 120mm front intake fan but it will take you over budget to include it. If you're willing to spend just a little more for the added cooling, I would go with this fan: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16835185058

[jlreich]

I stand corrected. There are some 3D features that require as a minimum a DirectX 9 compatible card with 64MB ram. It also lists 512MB system ram the minimum even for vista. But you are right, it doesn't seem to need all that much in the way of GPU rendering.

* Intel Pentium 4, Intel Centrino, Intel Xeon, or Intel Core Duo (or compatible) processor
* Windows Vista Home Premium, Business, Ultimate, or Enterprise (certified for 32-bit editions)
* 512 MB of RAM
* 1 GB of available hard disk space (additional free space required during installation)
* DVD-ROM drive
* 1024 x 768 monitor resolution with 16-bit or greater video card
* Some 3D features in Photoshop CS3 Extended require a DirectX 9 capable graphics card with at least 64 MB of VRAM

[callistra]

Haha yeah 512mb ram using Photoshop in Vista.. I agree that's not very realistic.

CAD work is where you'd really benefit from a workstation card.. like SolidWorks, AutoCAD..etc. That's just for 3d rendering though. I hope the CS4 starts to make use of the gpu. That would be helpful.

[Rick]

Sorry to correct you
But You are wrong

Photo shop will make use of a true color video card

In fact it does it very well

A dedicated video card is the Best thing to use with Photoshop


That is unless you like having white come out as Pink or any color of the rainbow for that matter

Yes Photoshop is very very CPU intensive
In fact it will like many other high cad programs will make use of all your CPU's 1,2 4 and I am not taking about cores.
I am talking about true multi CPU systems


Whan it comes to graphics and design edit work
GO Intel
It is optimized for graphics

[callistra]

I am a photographer. I work with Photoshop for a living. Performance wise, a dedicated card is absolutely not necessary. You don't even NEED a dedicated card for Photoshop, so it's very certainly not the BEST thing. The BEST thing for Photoshop is beefing up your CPU and your RAM. Additionally, your video card does not determine what color spectrum you will see, that is very much determined/restricted by your monitor. Maybe several years ago when the technology was different, but even the integrated chipsets, like the Intel GMAs, are able to support True Color today, and most people have switched to using LCDs, which do not display images as accurately as a good CRT. The gpu becomes most important when we are talking about accuracy. A person who is serious about their work will want to calibrate their monitor and hold onto profiles. Even the newer integrated chipsets have some problems with this - mainly you would have to recalibrate every single time the computer start up, which is a royal pain. Having a nice low end card will due the trick just fine. Now if you want to talk about printing color problems (non neutral b&ws .. having pinkish cast) that's a WHOLE other thing, and again, not the fault of the gpu.

Anyway, I'm not going to keep arguing back and forth. People can believe what they want to *shrugs* Do some research if you don't believe me.. or don't.

[John90]

Sorry I haven't been able to reply, we were out on the lake today.

I am also getting into photography, most my images are raw, and I don't notice a difference between the on board and the card. I have a 19" 1080i LCD I am using as my monitor.

I appreciate everyone's help. I have tons of fans here from old PC's. Ive got 4 or 5 120's, and tons of 80's.

Now some questions.
1. Do I really need a 500W PSU?
2. I noticed, someone recommended the ATX instead of MicroATX, is that because of more ram slots or for another reason?
3. Could I get something cheaper than the ARCTIC COOLING Freezer 7 Pro 92mm CPU Cooler if I don't plan to overclock? Or in this case, better safe than sorry.

Edit: I see that the 500W PSU is on sale, but it will be a little while before I buy this and the sale may be gone, so please still answer #1.

[callistra]

1) No you don't. You need a GOOD 450w power supply to run a 8800gt, but I took into consideration the $39.99 price and the free shipping. You're not going to find a power supply which meets requirements any cheaper, and it also happens to be a very strong and dependable to boot. This was what I was going to recommend until I saw the price of that one: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16817139003
2)I recommended a P45 chipset over your G31. It's superior. If you do a google search there are tons of boards discussing/comparing chipsets. You'd prob do better to compare the P35 (precursor to the P45) and G31 though, since there will be more discussion on that.
3)That's the best bang for the $ aftermarket cooler there is. That is one of the cheap ones, but it also happens to be excellent.

[John90]

Alright, thanks.

If the power supply is still on sale when I go to order I will be adding it and removing the 450. (450 is $54.99 after mail in rebate)

http://secure.newegg.com/WishList/Pu...istTitle=Intel

Does that list look alright? It will take me a little longer than I wanted to order but I want something that will last me a while.

I removed the DVD Burner to cut the cost, I'll throw my Sony into it.

[jlreich]

If you're not overclocking the stock cooler that comes with the CPU will be quite adequate. If for some reason you find it is not as cool as you want you can always add it later.

Get rid of that and the Arctic Silver and you save $38.

FYI. Was looking at the reviews at Newegg and system specs at Gigabyte's site. Looks like you will want to update the board to the latest BIOS as soon as you get it. First, it list version F4 needed to support the 8xxx CPU's and some are saying it ships with F3. Second, there seems to be some bugginess in earlier versions until you get to the latest F8.

[callistra]

That motherboard after shipping is about $109. For $10 more this board is very much worth it if you plan to OC: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16813131299 It has free shipping so .. that's where it makes up the price difference.

I would swap the AC5 for MX-2. It's very easy to install, non conductive so if you don't do it right you're not gonna fry anything and reviews consistently show lower temps.

If you don't plan to OC then ignore both of the above and toss the aftermarket cooler because the stock cooler is plenty unless you plan to OC.

I'm not really sure why you chose that case but this is a better CM case for less money: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16811119068

ETA: Above is correct. If you get the Gigabyte board flash the newest bios right away and also DO NOT install the energy saving crap. I hate how Gigabyte did that.. I wanted to cry.. they wrecked one of the best boards around.

[jlreich]

I agree don't install the energy saving software. I run on an x38 Gigabyte board and absolutely love it. But don't use the energy saving crap.

[John90]

Alright, last time

http://secure.newegg.com/WishList/Pu...istTitle=Intel

And if I order before discounts change, they have a combo deal with that Board and Processor for $30 off.
Power Supply is $54.99 after mail in rebate.
Board is $119.99 after mail in rebate.

I'll still be pretty darn close to $500 before shipping.

[hockey man]

Yes, that is a nice setup. Since you are not a serious gamer, then buying a non-SLI MOBO isn't an issue. If you want to do more than the occasional game, then might I suggest an SLI capable MOBO. That way if your occasional game becomes to much for your system you can go SLI.

[callistra]

I really highly disagree about the need for an SLI mobo. They're expensive and general more trouble than they're worth. You will get much better stability from the Intel chipset. Plus there isn't a single game or application that needs SLI to run well. Imho, SLI is for extreme gamers who just want to show off and/or have a lot of money to throw around into their obsessive hobby. That board chosen DOES support crossfire and being a Nvidia person myself I hate to say it, but the tables have certainly turned in favor of ATI the last few months.. very strongly and thoroughly across the board.

[John90]

Once again, I appreciate it guys. Unfortunately im looking at early November before I order now.

Will try to stay up to date with the stuff.

Like I said before, I don't play games much, maybe once every three months ill load up battle field. Not even sure if I need the 3 GHz.

Right now, im running a Pentium 4, 2.6 GHz with 2 GB of Ram. And it runs Photoshop alright once everything loads. It's a HP Pavilion a250n (Do I really NEED the 3 GHz)

[Rick]

The more power you get up front the better off you will be

In Nov. when you order the system
The prices will have dropped
Get the Most horse power you can

[hockey man]

The reason I suggest an SLI MOBO was because he already has an 8800GT. SLI isn't for extreme gamers, but at the moment it is more money per frame rate than crossfire so it is not something I suggest. For him the cheapest frame rate increase though would be to just add another 8800GT.