Build a Photoshop PC

Of course, the subject should have read "Building a Photoshop PC", but I’m sure you already guessed that!

In the writings of Al Treacher, the <rqqoa0179fjs7rscf3ddmacufuccf33q32@ 4ax.com> scrolls contained these prophetic words:

To give you even more headaches read this article below. Now is *not* a good time to build a new machine too many new motherboard designs and technology are coming out. Intel have their new socket design due out at the end of the year, SATA 2 and PCI-Express is due out as well…

The article is a comparison of Intel/AMD processors and their abilities.

http://techreport.com/reviews/2004q2/opteron-x50/index.x?pg= 1

Personally? I am waiting till beginning of next year before I build another system to a workstation specification. That way I avoid the ‘sting’ of new technology, and the the prices should have stabilised.

Oh and I am running a Athlon 64, very fast system compared to Intel’s chips…

Oh and before people accuse that site of being AMD biased, just check other reviews, Opteron seems to beat Xeons hands down in most disciplines, and those that it doesn’t are Intel optimised and we have yet to see how the 64Bit optimisations affect both Intel and AMD. —
Scottish Heritage:
http://www.CelticShadows.co.uk

In my experience the four biggest contributors to PS performance are, in order:

1. CPU speed
2. Memory speed
3. Disk subsystem speed
4. CPU cache size

Don’t get too hung up with all the multiprocessor/hyperthreading marketing glitz. PS is multiprocessor aware but will use a second CPU only for a very limited number of operations (e.g. certain filters). One is usually better off with a single cpu system with a faster FSB. There are exceptions to this, e.g. if the system will not be a dedicated PS workstation.

Rick

"Al Treacher" wrote in message

Hi folks,

The PC I currently run Photoshop in is now a very long way past its "best by" date, so the time has come to build a new one. I’ve sought advice from a couple of techie friends about the basic system architecture and I’ve got essentially three direction that I could take, it seems. Neither of my "advisors" use Photoshop regularly, so I’d like to get opinions from other people that do…

Option 1:
Dual-processor motherboard with a pair of 2.8GHz Intel Xeon CPUs.
Considerations:
Two processors, each with HyperThread tech, so in theory I’d get a performance equivalent to maybe three and a bit individual processors. **IF** Photoshop supports more than two processors – I know it supports two, but would it support (essentially) four?

Also, it looks like the Front-Side-Bus speed of Xeons is low compared to the other Intel processors available, at 533MHz or possible even only 400MHz. I’m guessing this is because of the necessity to synchronize more threads, but I could be wrong.

Would this result in Photoshop running slower than a single processor system running a 800MHz FSB?

I’m having problems finding the details of the cache size for Xeons. It looks like there is an average (512KB) level 2 cache, with a 2MB level 3 cache on some chips, but finding which ones seems impossible! Any ideas?

Option 2:
Single Pentium 4C (Prescott) 3.2GHz CPU.

HT tech again, so essentially a dual processor on a single CPU. 800MHz Front-Side-Bus.
1MB of level 2 cache.

Seems like a good all-round option, but I’d like to find out if the dual Xeons would outperform this when running Photoshop.

Option 3:
Single Pentium 4C (Northwood) 2.8GHz CPU overclocked to about 3.2GHz. (Using PC4000 DDR500 RAM.)

Raising the FSB speed to 900+MHz would increase the speed the core was running at, and also give faster RAM transfer. How much of a performance increase (if any) would be noticeable?

Of course, there’s the slight hit-and-miss of getting a chip that will reliably overclock and keeping it cool, but I’d deal with that…!

I’d thought this was going to be a relatively easy project and I’d have had the thing up and running now… How naive of me…
Your thoughts/observations/experiences and opinions are welcome!
Cheers,
Al

"Al Treacher" wrote in message

Hi folks,

The PC I currently run Photoshop in is now a very long way past its "best by" date, so the time has come to build a new one. I’ve sought advice from a couple of techie friends about the basic system architecture and I’ve got essentially three direction that I could take, it seems. Neither of my "advisors" use Photoshop regularly, so I’d like to get opinions from other people that do…

snip<

Sounds like overkill in the three cases.
If your PC is a tool you use for your trade AND if you are very busy you "could" need something that fast.
Like someone said here not long ago, a few seconds gained on rendition of filters can add up and make you more productive at the end of the day.But are you really that busy that seconds count?
Working with photoshop is made much easier with a multiple display system and a good graphic tablet.
I would get two or three very good monitors and a calibrating tool instead of gamers motherboards and chips.

Stephan

On Thu, 20 May 2004 09:44:58 +0100, Al Treacher
wrote:

Hi folks,

The PC I currently run Photoshop in is now a very long way past its "best by" date, so the time has come to build a new one. I’ve sought advice from a couple of techie friends about the basic system architecture and I’ve got essentially three direction that I could take, it seems. Neither of my "advisors" use Photoshop regularly, so I’d like to get opinions from other people that do…

Option 1:
Dual-processor motherboard with a pair of 2.8GHz Intel Xeon CPUs.

Option 2:
Single Pentium 4C (Prescott) 3.2GHz CPU.

Option 3:
Single Pentium 4C (Northwood) 2.8GHz CPU overclocked to about 3.2GHz. (Using PC4000 DDR500 RAM.)

Or you could do Option 4 and have either a single or dual Athlon system in which case you’d have a faster PC, but there you go…

—

Hecate

veni, vidi, reliqui

On Thu, 20 May 2004 09:44:58 +0100, Al Treacher
wrote:

Hi folks,

The PC I currently run Photoshop in is now a very long way past its "best by" date, so the time has come to build a new one. I’ve sought advice from a couple of techie friends about the basic system architecture and I’ve got essentially three direction that I could take, it seems. Neither of my "advisors" use Photoshop regularly, so I’d like to get opinions from other people that do…

Option 1:
Dual-processor motherboard with a pair of 2.8GHz Intel Xeon CPUs.
Considerations:
Two processors, each with HyperThread tech, so in theory I’d get a performance equivalent to maybe three and a bit individual processors. **IF** Photoshop supports more than two processors – I know it supports two, but would it support (essentially) four?

If your applications are multithreaded and support more than one processor you will be fine, but even with applications that do not support multiple processors a dual processor system is fine if you find one application keeping one processor busy while the other handles OS and anything else (Oracle 7 database on a two processor system worked like that).

Fo all other considerations there is a simple preference list:

1) Available real memory (and accessing speed)
2) Processor speed (no longer relevant once you run out of memory)
3) Virtual memory speed (put scratch and pagefile on RAID-0)

1) Graphic apps live on available memory. If you have a single huge file or a smaller one with lots of layers doesn’t matter, you will end up using large chunks of memory. If you have not enough memory you will fall from RAM-speed (several 2-digit-nanoseconds access time) to disk-speed (1-digit-milliseconds at best; 100.000 times slower). Access speed and caching is less relevant, more memory is always better than going to the disk drive, even if more memory may be slower than less memory on some systems.

2) Most current processors are able to process more data than their memory interface can provide. FSB 800 is promising but still: getting the hardware that gives you the last five percent of performance will never pay.

3) There will be a day when you run out of memory. If you have 2 GB this day will come later, but it will come.
If you are prepared, you will drink less coffee than otherwise. Even if RAID-0 is a high risk configuration that I’d never recommend for storing important data, it is perfect for high speed access to pagefile and scratch files – contents that will be gone when you close the application or switch off the system.

On the other hand: If you have multiple disks then distributing pagefile and scratch files over as many of them as possible will probably give better results. Graphic apps tend to have certain access patterns for reading contiguous chunks of data from one location while writing it to some other location – if source and target reside on the same disk, this will result in slow transfer and heavy disk activity. Source and target on different drives reduces positioning activity and enables higher transfer speed.

And, by the way, there is no need for a high speed graphics card.

Michael

"Xalinai" wrote in message

2) Most current processors are able to process more data than their memory interface can provide. FSB 800 is promising but still: getting the hardware that gives you the last five percent of performance will never pay.

Promising? Five percent? Where have you been the last year?

FSB 800MHz pumps twice as much data to a cpu (or cpus) as 400MHz, and 50% more than 533MHz.

Rick

Rick wrote:

"Xalinai" wrote in message

2) Most current processors are able to process more data than their memory interface can provide. FSB 800 is promising but still: getting the hardware that gives you the last five percent of performance will never pay.

Promising? Five percent? Where have you been the last year?
FSB 800MHz pumps twice as much data to a cpu (or cpus) as 400MHz, and 50% more than 533MHz.

Rick

Where did you get those figures from? In the real world it will not be quite as cut and dried as that, it may reach that at burst rates but not continually.

Stuart

On Fri, 21 May 2004 02:01:03 -0700, "Rick" wrote:

"Xalinai" wrote in message

2) Most current processors are able to process more data than their memory interface can provide. FSB 800 is promising but still: getting the hardware that gives you the last five percent of performance will never pay.

Promising? Five percent? Where have you been the last year?
FSB 800MHz pumps twice as much data to a cpu (or cpus) as 400MHz, and 50% more than 533MHz.

Sure.

But it does so for how much of the total code processed? And it does so in what address mode?

How does a graphics application work? Adressing pixels, 3 bytes per pixel. PS is processing data bytewise or double-byte-wise (in 16 bit mode) adressing multiple pixels in a grid that makes memory locations of pixels in adjacent rows three times the image width apart (Filters, sharpen, blur). This isn’t very much the thing that high speed burst mode was designed for.

You won’t get much more than five to ten percent on application level from the faster memory bus on the average system. There will be more if memory access is the major bottleneck in two (otherwise similar) competing systems for specific applications (like Video streams).

Michael

"Stuart" wrote in message

Rick wrote:

"Xalinai" wrote in message

2) Most current processors are able to process more data than their memory interface can provide. FSB 800 is promising but still: getting the hardware that gives you the last five percent of performance will never pay.

Promising? Five percent? Where have you been the last year?
FSB 800MHz pumps twice as much data to a cpu (or cpus) as 400MHz, and 50% more than 533MHz.

Where did you get those figures from? In the real world it will not be quite as cut and dried as that, it may reach that at burst rates but not continually.

With the current P4, which can’t do much (or in many cases, anything) with bus speeds higher than 533MHz, that’s correct. But that will be changing in the very near future.

Rick

Hecate wrote:

On Thu, 20 May 2004 09:44:58 +0100, Al Treacher
wrote:

Hi folks,

The PC I currently run Photoshop in is now a very long way past its "best by" date, so the time has come to build a new one. I’ve sought advice from a couple of techie friends about the basic system architecture and I’ve got essentially three direction that I could take, it seems. Neither of my "advisors" use Photoshop regularly, so I’d like to get opinions from other people that do…

Option 1:
Dual-processor motherboard with a pair of 2.8GHz Intel Xeon CPUs.

Option 2:
Single Pentium 4C (Prescott) 3.2GHz CPU.

Option 3:
Single Pentium 4C (Northwood) 2.8GHz CPU overclocked to about 3.2GHz. (Using PC4000 DDR500 RAM.)

Or you could do Option 4 and have either a single or dual Athlon system in which case you’d have a faster PC, but there you go…
—

Hecate

veni, vidi, reliqui

I’ve been a geek for a couple of decades, but don’t claim to know it all. I’ve also used PS for several versions. (I think I started with 3, skipped 4, and hit the rest.) I also sell computer equipment for a living (such as it is).

I recently built my own PS machine. I have a P4 3.0 GHz HT with 1 GB of Dual Channel PC3200 memory. I have a 7200 rpm 120 GB SATA hard drive. I also have a CD-RW/DVD-+RW drive and a Firewire card. My son had bought me a case with a top and side window in it, so I had to get a blue cathode light in it. My Antec power supply also has blue lights, as does the case front. It’s all kind of cool. The case has 4 fans, which is overkill. I use the heat sink and fan that came with the Intel box set. Oh, I have an Intel D865-GBF motherboard.

In short, this is a very nice PS computer. It’s very fast. I do professional digital wedding photography as a side job and need to run batches and hairy filters to do a bunch of pictures at once. In using XP’s performance measuring tools, I don’t have any real bottle necks.

The P4 seldom works at 100% or anywhere close to it. The Hyper Threading technology gets used some, but not all that much. I really like it to run iTunes in one "processor" while I’m working in PS. Even with the heaviest filters, the processor runs closer to 75%.

My guess is that’s because the memory is the bottleneck. Dual Channel 400 MHz REALLY makes a difference!!! That is absolutely critical to performance in PS. Maybe DDR-II will help a lot in the near future, but it isn’t hear yet. I don’t have any need for more than 1 GB. I know a lot of people claim that 2 GB is the cat’s meow, but I have a tough time filling up memory. Usually I don’t even get close. I can only get close with large stitched pano images, but haven’t filled up memory there either.

I don’t see much need for a faster hard drive. Yes, PS does swap no matter how much memory you have. However, that all runs in the background and doesn’t seem to slow down much of what I do. Otherwise, the HD speed is for opening and saving files. That’s it fast enough for me; even in batches. Besides the only way to get real disk speed would be to do 15,000 rpm drives in RAID 0. That means very expensive SCSI server drives.

Well, there is my $.02.

Clyde

Clyde wrote:

I recently built my own PS machine. I have a P4 3.0 GHz HT with 1 GB of Dual Channel PC3200 memory. I have a 7200 rpm 120 GB SATA hard drive. I also have a CD-RW/DVD-+RW drive and a Firewire card. My son had bought me a case with a top and side window in it, so I had to get a blue cathode light in it. My Antec power supply also has blue lights, as does the case front. It’s all kind of cool. The case has 4 fans, which is overkill. I use the heat sink and fan that came with the Intel box set. Oh, I have an Intel D865-GBF motherboard.

Why did you "had to get a blue cathode light in it"? Did the blue light speed up the machine? <g>

I don’t see much need for a faster hard drive. Yes, PS does swap no matter how much memory you have. However, that all runs in the background and doesn’t seem to slow down much of what I do. Otherwise, the HD speed is for opening and saving files. That’s it fast enough for me; even in batches. Besides the only way to get real disk speed would be to do 15,000 rpm drives in RAID 0. That means very expensive SCSI server drives.

A hd’s cache size matters, the bigger the better. The new hds have 8mb cache, up from the older 2mb, and the newer ones probably will have more.

Why did you "had to get a blue cathode light in it"? Did the blue light speed up the machine? <g>

Of course it did. Didn’t you know they do that? I put a "Type R" sticker on my PC, and it’s 5 times quicker now.

Ewan