Home · Register · Search · View Winners · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username   Password

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  

FM Forums | Post-processing & Printing | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       end
  

Archive 2013 · Computer specs
  
 
StarNut
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #1 · Computer specs


I have no idea what the "K series" is, but, for the record, the chip in my box is a 3rd generation Intel i7-3770 3.40 GHz processor with "Turbo Boost 2.0 up to 3.90 GHz."


Jan 19, 2013 at 05:36 AM
Rogue416
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #2 · Computer specs


StarNut wrote:
My computer arrived on Monday. so I've had a few days to load it up with my backed-up data from the old box, and use it a bit.

Short answer: I like it very much.

Longer version: Early indications are that it is far more capable of doing the processor-intensive tasks image processing demands than my laptop had been.

For astronomy images, it rather effortlessly loads and works on as many as 25 40mb images at a time, something the old laptop was very slow at. All in all (with not a lot of experience), it seems much, much faster.

For "normal" images, I've
...Show more

Are you running Windows 7 or 8? 32 bit or 64 bit?

Edit: Also what version of Windows? ( Starter, Home Basic, etc...)

Trent



Jan 19, 2013 at 05:46 AM
StarNut
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #3 · Computer specs


Alas, Windows 8. No "version" given, just "Windows 8."

64-bit.



Jan 19, 2013 at 05:50 AM
Rogue416
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #4 · Computer specs


StarNut wrote:
Alas, Windows 8. No "version" given, just "Windows 8."

64-bit.


Thanks. I was just curious.

Trent



Jan 19, 2013 at 05:59 AM
Shutterbug2006
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #5 · Computer specs


StarNut wrote:
Thanks, guys.

Yes, you can get laptops with 32gb of RAM, but they're pricey. I'm inclined to get a desktop, which costs about half as much for the same computing power.

Mark


Notebook computers use mobile versions of CPU chips - so performance will lag behind that of a similarly equipped desktop.

Also consider that you can configure the desktop computer with a faster 7200 rpm SATA hard drive, or a fast SSD drive and you can upgrade the system when necessary, and you can maintain your investment in it by doing incremental upgrades as time passes (video card, more memory, new serial bus transfer device etc.)

The motherboard in my desktop currently has an i5 chip installed on it, but the user manual says I can replace that with an i7 or downgrade to an i3 anytime I want.

Get the desktop system with 16GB and you'll be pretty happy with the performance on a 64-bit version of Windows...... and don't forget that some software have 32-bit and 64-bit versions available - which can dramatically impact on the speed of performance.




Jan 21, 2013 at 05:43 AM
aubsxc
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #6 · Computer specs


StarNut wrote:
I have no idea what the "K series" is, but, for the record, the chip in my box is a 3rd generation Intel i7-3770 3.40 GHz processor with "Turbo Boost 2.0 up to 3.90 GHz."


Your non-k 3770 runs at 3.4GHz stock and can automatically increase the speed on all cores to 3.7GHz in Turbo mode. A non-k socket 1155 processor cannot be overclocked.

http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Core_i7/Intel-Core%20i7-3770.html

The K series processors are multiplier unlocked, i.e. you can increase the multiplier from stock to run the processor at faster speeds which is called overclocking. The i7 3770K runs at the same speed as the 3770 stock

http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Core_i7/Intel-Core%20i7-3770K.html

but with good cooling ($40 aftermarket heatsink) the 3770K can safely and easily be run at speeds up to 4.5 to 4.6GHz for 24/7 usage. Given that the unlocked K processors only cost about $20 or so more than the locked versions, most people who build their own systems choose the K versions while OEMs like Dell (who do not typically permit their systems to be overclocked) buy the locked ones.



Jan 21, 2013 at 11:53 AM
the888account
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #7 · Computer specs


StarNut wrote:
I have no idea what the "K series" is, but, for the record, the chip in my box is a 3rd generation Intel i7-3770 3.40 GHz processor with "Turbo Boost 2.0 up to 3.90 GHz."


Sounds familar to what I have (im not on it at the moment, so cant check)

I have an ASUS N56VM laptop:

I7 CPU
16Gb RAM
256 Gb SSD (Runs OS)
750 Gb 7200 drive for storage (Via a diskcaddy, removed the optical drive)
2Gb dedicated graphics.

To be honest, everything I've thrown at it is reacted to very well. I've stacked a few images for HDR with ease, but cant comment on a much larger stack for say Astro & stars.

Spec wise, cant fault it. Would prefer a PC, but I simply dont have the room for one in my home!



Jan 21, 2013 at 05:41 PM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



sanjayg
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #8 · Computer specs


I acquired a D800 which pushed me over the edge to replace my 5 year old system I just built this one:

Intel Core i7-3770K
Intel DZ77GAL-70K
Noctua NH-D14 CPU cooler
32GB of Low-Profile Corsair Vengeance (4x8gb) RAM
eVGA Nvidia geforce GTX 660Ti
Dual 128gb Sandisk SSD (Raid 1) for OS
2TB Hitachi Disk Drive (64mb cache) 7200 rpm for data
30gb OCZ Vertex SSD for scratch disk
LG Blu-Ray / DVD Writer
All in a nice Corsair Carbide 400R case with Antec 750W power supply.
Windows 7 Ultimate 64 bit

It is so nice to Nikon Capture working faster again I have not installed Adobe LR on it yet - but I will shortly.

I think I will be happy processing my D800 files - on the old desktop, it was just frustrating to wait for Capture/PS/LR to finish processing.



Jan 21, 2013 at 07:43 PM
aubsxc
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #9 · Computer specs


the888account wrote:
Sounds familar to what I have (im not on it at the moment, so cant check)

I have an ASUS N56VM laptop:

I7 CPU
16Gb RAM
256 Gb SSD (Runs OS)
750 Gb 7200 drive for storage (Via a diskcaddy, removed the optical drive)
2Gb dedicated graphics.

To be honest, everything I've thrown at it is reacted to very well. I've stacked a few images for HDR with ease, but cant comment on a much larger stack for say Astro & stars.

Spec wise, cant fault it. Would prefer a PC, but I simply dont have the room for one in my home!



Your laptop has a mobile series processor; almost all laptops with the exception of a few desktop-replacement type systems do. While the current gen Intel mobile processors are very, very fast in their own right, especially when compared to the mobile offerings from a couple of generations ago, they can't keep up with their desktop cousins. The mobiles are usually specced to run on very tight thermal and power envelopes (25 to 35W), while the high end desktop CPUs can be designed to run at much higher power. My 6-core 3930K is specced at 130W TDP and pulls over 200W at full load overclocked to 4.6GHz.



Jan 21, 2013 at 08:32 PM
Bifurcator
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #10 · Computer specs


Just to throw in my 2:

The amount or RAM and the drive speed are the two most critical factors for PS use. It's not the CPU or the GPU. The GPU hardly gets used at all in PS - for editing and processing photographs. Tested, there's like zero difference between an ancient 7300GT and the new GTX 690 screamer! - even when batch processing hundreds of files. The CPU becomes more important if you're running scripts and batching files but if one were to time a person processing 5 images one at a time like most of us seem to do, the times would not be significantly different between someone with an overclocked desktop and someone running on a laptop corei5. Maybe 20s or 30s difference at the end of the 20min. test - not significant - and given they both had 16GB or ram and an PS configured SSD or SSHD it wouldn't feel sluggish to either user.

IMO, I think 8GB is not enough for editing RAW images from modern cameras. It can be good enough even overkill for typical jpeg processing but people processing RAW images usually also bring in the files at 16bit. Processing more than a few of those or doing panoramas etc., gobbles up RAM pretty quick. So between the OS and wanting to preserve its RAM based caches, the PS app itself plus plug-ins, and the size and depth of our RAW IP sessions, 8GB doesn't always cut it. Anything between 16 and 32GB is a nice safe zone - typically speaking. 32 is better IMO and 64 is better than that but only "better" (over 16) when atypical usage profiles are considered.

PS also spends a considerable amount of time fishing on the hard-drive for this and that so having the OS, PS, and the PS scratch partitions on fast media also has a noticeable impact on performance. Again more-so than the CPU and a gazillian times more than the GPU. Of course you also want to have the scratch partition on a different physical drive than the PS app resides on - the difference there is almost 2x average speed difference in every situation when/if the scratch is employed during a session. Even with 16GB it gets hit from time to time. And when it does, OMG do things slow down - even with an SSD as your scratch.

All that said, after you have enough fast memory and properly tuned SSD/SSHD's one can squeeze a little more out of it by using fast(er) multi-core CPUs and a fast GFx card is useful for other things - like fragging n00bs...

Anyway, I guess I've spent a nickel already so being 3 over budget I'll leave it at that.



Jan 23, 2013 at 06:04 AM
morganb4
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #11 · Computer specs


The OPs comments were mainly directed at LR, not PS. LR is very highly CPU bound.

I also disagree that CPU is low impact on PS, it depends very much on what tasks you are running and how fluid you want your workflow.

Bifurcator wrote:
Just to throw in my 2:

The amount or RAM and the drive speed are the two most critical factors for PS use. It's not the CPU or the GPU. The GPU hardly gets used at all in PS - for editing and processing photographs. Tested, there's like zero difference between an ancient 7300GT and the new GTX 690 screamer! - even when batch processing hundreds of files. The CPU becomes more important if you're running scripts and batching files but if one were to time a person processing 5 images one at a time like most of us seem to
...Show more



Jan 23, 2013 at 01:36 PM
aubsxc
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #12 · Computer specs


In my experience, once you have enough memory to stop PS paging stuff to disk, the CPU speed becomes important. I disagree with your assessment that processing time is insensitive to processor speed. While PS still cannot efficently utilize the heavily multithreaded computing environments available today (6 and 8 core hyperthreaded Xeons or even hythreaded quad i7 desktop units), I have found processing time to be fairly sensitive to actual cpu clockspeeds, along with ram speed and timings. Others seem to feel the same way:


http://www.hardwareheaven.com/photoshop.php

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4083/the-sandy-bridge-review-intel-core-i7-2600k-i5-2500k-core-i3-2100-tested/15



Bifurcator wrote:
Just to throw in my 2:

The amount or RAM and the drive speed are the two most critical factors for PS use. It's not the CPU or the GPU. The GPU hardly gets used at all in PS - for editing and processing photographs. Tested, there's like zero difference between an ancient 7300GT and the new GTX 690 screamer! - even when batch processing hundreds of files. The CPU becomes more important if you're running scripts and batching files but if one were to time a person processing 5 images one at a time like most of us seem to
...Show more



Jan 23, 2013 at 08:46 PM
WAYCOOL
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #13 · Computer specs


Just goes to show 2 cents is completely worthless today


Jan 23, 2013 at 09:37 PM
1      
2
       end




FM Forums | Post-processing & Printing | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Retrive password