Agree with sjms, but without any more detail to your workflow, it's hard to define where you'll want to put the concentration of your limited funds.
I'm guessing that an average 'new' computer for image processing is about double what your looking at spending. So you'll want to get the right components for your workflow.
For instance, are you working on one file at a time, or batch? Massive resolution panos or snapshots? Hundreds of thousands of files per weekend (like me) or dozens per day?
Depending on whether you can/want to build one or want a stock consumer PC - will determine if you can put a little more towards performance parts.
The main components are going to be:
- CPU
- Memory
- Hard drive(s)
These components, depending on your workflow, could vary alot - as in which one or ones that you put more investment in.
Graphics card to a much lessor extent (unless you want to venture into video), as well as specific components: case/psu/mobo, etc would be considered 'general' items: needed, but not defining your capabilities.
It comes down to time or money - which do you have more of. Spend more money - it'll save you more time with faster processing.... and vice versa.
these days GPU acceleration has become an integral part of many programs such as CS6, DxO and many more. this unloads the CPU for the heavy work and increases the speed at which things are done overall. so yes now a reasonably good quality video card will give your processing good kick. look at your programs, they will refer to things like open CL, CUDA and GPU acceleration in the preferences areas. it can make a big difference.
sjms wrote:
these days GPU acceleration has become an integral part of many programs such as CS6, DxO and many more. this unloads the CPU for the heavy work and increases the speed at which things are done overall. so yes now a reasonably good quality video card will give your processing good kick. look at your programs, they will refer to things like open CL, CUDA and GPU acceleration in the preferences areas. it can make a big difference.
i'd be considering many things on the MB like drive support, i/o ports and types and such. you get to make the decisions not someone else.
my basic suggestion in MBs is either Gigabyte or Asus. these are the top of the heap and will give you the best support and options in addition a longer useful life
sjms wrote:
these days GPU acceleration has become an integral part of many programs such as CS6, DxO and many more. this unloads the CPU for the heavy work and increases the speed at which things are done overall. so yes now a reasonably good quality video card will give your processing good kick. look at your programs, they will refer to things like open CL, CUDA and GPU acceleration in the preferences areas. it can make a big difference.
Agreed - but depending on what is being used... to a limited extent:
Photoshop: only assists in visual aspects with Open GL, few filters use MGE (at this time)
Premiere Pro: CUDA and OpenCL assets render in real time with MGE
Lightroom: none
Personally, I spend that entire budget on a video card with 512 CUDA cores for video work and future compatibility.
It's getting there - but with a limited budget, GPU shouldn't be listed as a top contender. Again, it all depends on workflow: quantity/quality of photos, software and expectations.
Base price (no GPU): $550 up to $900 for better parts. So yes, there is room for a low end video card if other parts are minimized. The question comes down to what offers the best bang for the buck... for each ones own needs.
Adobe Premiere Pro, After Effects, SpeedGrade, and Photoshop Extended each place unique demands on the major hardware components discussed above. Even different tasks performed inside the same software may vary these requirements drastically. In this section, we will state the basic system requirements for each software package, and then discuss specific demands and potential performance bottlenecks that may lead you to go beyond those basic requirements to optimize your own experience.
That is a serially limited budget. I think you might do best to look on Craigslist for used equipment. PC prices fall to "nothing" after a very short time. You could easy spend most of your budget on hard disks and bakup hard disks
I'm doing the same, buillding up a new computer but in my case I want a storage server to run a NAS with RAID. This will cost less then a photo editing computer because the NAS box does not need a monitor or keyboard but does need four or five good sized disks and internal room for 5 or 6 more. Craigslist is a really good resource. You might have to buy two or more computers to get the parts you need but they are dirt cheap
The other idea is to reconcider the Mac. Yes the 13" Macbook Pro costs $1,000 but after using it for three years it retains most of its value when you resell it so it might only cost you $500 to own. You'd need a big monitor as 13" is to small and a couple external disks. But then you have a computer to take on the road and then plug into a monitor when you are at home. Cost of ownership is less than your budget.
CAlbertson wrote:
That is a [seriously] limited budget.
Based on the budget, I hazard to guess this pc is for personal use at moderate work loads. As such, the budget is adequate for the OP needs if built from scratch. Upgrades and repairs are also much easier without proprietary parts.
If you custom build it yourself, you can future-proof your investment.
For instance, several years ago I custom built the PC I'm working on now, with a motherboard that allowed the use of an i3, i5 or i7 processor and I stuck an i5 on it.
Now I'm upgrading the CPU in it from a quad-core i5 to a six-core twelve thread i7.
You can buy a $75 high performance video card with a GB of video memory - but you can probably do with one built on the motherboard until you can free up more memory.
Shutterbug2006 wrote:
If you custom build it yourself, you can future-proof your investment.
For instance, several years ago I custom built the PC I'm working on now, with a motherboard that allowed the use of an i3, i5 or i7 processor and I stuck an i5 on it.
Now I'm upgrading the CPU in it from a quad-core i5 to a six-core twelve thread i7.
You can buy a $75 high performance video card with a GB of video memory - but you can probably do with one built on the motherboard until you can free up more memory.
Just a quibble: I wouldn't call ANY $75 video card high performance. The $100 to $150 range tends to be the sweet spot on a budget, but even those cards aren't high performance.
And there are multiple generations of iX labelled processors, and even among generations incompatibility in cpu slot (1155/56, 1366, 2011, etc). Guessing you just bought an i7-970. Nice chip. Overclocks pretty well.
Finally: No reason you can't build a killer PC... and install OS X on it IF you know what you're doing and choose compatible components.
justruss wrote:
Just a quibble: I wouldn't call ANY $75 video card high performance. The $100 to $150 range tends to be the sweet spot on a budget, but even those cards aren't high performance.
And there are multiple generations of iX labelled processors, and even among generations incompatibility in cpu slot (1155/56, 1366, 2011, etc). Guessing you just bought an i7-970. Nice chip. Overclocks pretty well.
Finally: No reason you can't build a killer PC... and install OS X on it IF you know what you're doing and choose compatible components.
I wasn't discussing those types of video cards likely to be favoured by Gamers, they won't do much for photographic needs, imo.
