Photoshop on a Celeron??

I am not trying to be churlish (well maybe a little) but if you do not know the answer to this question why are you building a custom system? If you are going to build a celeron level system save the effort and buy an off the shelf machine with a warranty.
An AthlonXP/Sempron system should perform better than a Celeron and these can be had pre-built and warrantied for prices that make it pointless to build your own.

"birdman" wrote in message

I am not trying to be churlish (well maybe a little) but if you do not

know

the answer to this question why are you building a custom system? If you are going to build a celeron level system save the effort and buy

an

off the shelf machine with a warranty.
An AthlonXP/Sempron system should perform better than a Celeron and these can be had pre-built and warrantied for prices that make it pointless to build your own.

Unless you have the ability to build your own with components that have warranties.
Then you get a system without all the endless crap that comes with a pre-built and
you get one with exactly what you want on it.
That is if you have the ability to do it.

In article <p42se.28842$>,
"Rod Paulson" wrote:

Can anyone tell me if it’s possible to run the latest versions of Photoshop on one of the newer Celeron processors?

Yes. Runs just fine.

—
Art, photography, shareware, polyamory, literature, kink: all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html

Personally I think you should look at the chip speed and a two fast hard drives. I think photoshop cs2 in one of the few programs that will take advantage of dual processors. Also, I would look at the AMD chips for a very good price advantage and they do have dual processor Motherboards support.

On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 22:37:09 GMT, "Rod Paulson" wrote:

Can anyone tell me if it’s possible to run the latest versions of Photoshop on one of the newer Celeron processors? I was thinking of building a new system for a friend. She wants the system so she can run Photoshop. Is there any reason why it can’t run on one of these cheaper procs? Let me know. Thank you very much for your time.

Rod Paulson

On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 22:37:09 GMT, "Rod Paulson" wrote:

Can anyone tell me if it’s possible to run the latest versions of Photoshop on one of the newer Celeron processors? I was thinking of building a new system for a friend. She wants the system so she can run Photoshop. Is there any reason why it can’t run on one of these cheaper procs? Let me know. Thank you very much for your time.

Yes, it will run.

And your next question should be, how well?

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

ok…how well will Photoshop run on one of the newer Celeron or Sempron procs? Good, decent or lousy?

"Hecate" wrote in message

On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 22:37:09 GMT, "Rod Paulson" wrote:

Can anyone tell me if it’s possible to run the latest versions of Photoshop
on one of the newer Celeron processors? I was thinking of building a new system for a friend. She wants the system so she can run Photoshop. Is there
any reason why it can’t run on one of these cheaper procs? Let me know. Thank you very much for your time.

Yes, it will run.

And your next question should be, how well?

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

Rod Paulson wrote:

ok…how well will Photoshop run on one of the newer Celeron or Sempron procs? Good, decent or lousy?

"Hecate" wrote in message

On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 22:37:09 GMT, "Rod Paulson" wrote:

Can anyone tell me if it’s possible to run the latest versions of Photoshop
on one of the newer Celeron processors? I was thinking of building a new system for a friend. She wants the system so she can run Photoshop. Is there
any reason why it can’t run on one of these cheaper procs? Let me know. Thank you very much for your time.

Yes, it will run.

And your next question should be, how well?

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

The Celeron is not noted for running anything fast. It is generally considered a good, cheap light use processor. If you are doing word processing, web browsing, e-mail, or anything like that, the Celeron works just fine. If you’re planning to do anything heavy, like Photoshop, games, big database work, the Celeron is lousy. I personally would not want to run Photoshop on any Celeron machine. I want to run Photoshop on as fast as computer I can find. You may not do much heavy work in Photoshop shop, then again what’s the point.

Clyde

"Clyde" wrote in message

Rod Paulson wrote:

ok…how well will Photoshop run on one of the newer Celeron or Sempron procs? Good, decent or lousy?

"Hecate" wrote in message

On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 22:37:09 GMT, "Rod Paulson" wrote:

Can anyone tell me if it’s possible to run the latest versions of Photoshop
on one of the newer Celeron processors? I was thinking of building a new system for a friend. She wants the system so she can run Photoshop. Is there
any reason why it can’t run on one of these cheaper procs? Let me know. Thank you very much for your time.

Yes, it will run.

And your next question should be, how well?

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

The Celeron is not noted for running anything fast. It is generally considered a good, cheap light use processor. If you are doing word processing, web browsing, e-mail, or anything like that, the Celeron works just fine. If you’re planning to do anything heavy, like Photoshop, games, big database work, the Celeron is lousy. I personally would not want to run Photoshop on any Celeron machine. I want to run Photoshop on as fast as computer I can find. You may not do much heavy work in Photoshop shop, then again what’s the point.

Clyde

I disagree. I’m running CS2 on a 1.4 gHz Celeron M with 1.2 gig of memory, editing 8 megapixel images, and it’s lightning fast. If there’s a performance issue, I’m not seeing it. CS2 starts in 6 seconds, and most graphics ops are instantaeous.
—
Mike Russell
www.curvemeister.com

Is she a professional who will use a lot of large files for print?

For internet images you don’t need all that much system just to run PS the program itself, but if you get into large files you need power and ram. My hubby uses PS just to paint Nascars for the online game, the files are so small even with 40 layers (1052X1052 px) he has no problems on an old comp. (AMD chip 1.8/512 RAM)

I am using a Dell 8400 with SATA hard drives upgraded vid and sound cards (I do 3D gaming) 1 GB RAM, stripped off all their intrusive software reformatted and put my own WIn XP pro SP2, Running PS CS and Illy. I got a pentium chip this time (1C3824PROCESSOR, 80547, PENTIUM 4 PRESCOTT DT, Pentium 4
Prescott DT, 3.0GHZ, 1 MEGB, 800FSB, SKT-T,)
not had any problems so far on images up to 48MB in several layers, filters run fast etc.previously used an Athlon 2.0 with 512 ram and it was just fine for my purposes. It did get very slow with files above 100 MB though.

My comp guy no longer builds for the reasons mentioned in the other posts, no warranties, you can buy as is system for very decent prices etc. You will avoid issues of non compatibility with Motherboards and chips etc.Plus he says if he builds it who do you think will have to fix it if it breaks?

"Rod Paulson" wrote in message

Can anyone tell me if it’s possible to run the latest versions of Photoshop on one of the newer Celeron processors? I was thinking of building a new system for a friend. She wants the system so she can run Photoshop. Is there any reason why it can’t run on one of these cheaper procs? Let me know. Thank you very much for your time.

Rod Paulson

In article <RcEse.104963$>,
KatWoman wrote:

Is she a professional who will use a lot of large files for print?
For internet images you don’t need all that much system just to run PS the program itself, but if you get into large files you need power and ram. My hubby uses PS just to paint Nascars for the online game, the files are so small even with 40 layers (1052X1052 px) he has no problems on an old comp. (AMD chip 1.8/512 RAM)

I am using a Dell 8400 with SATA hard drives upgraded vid and sound cards (I do 3D gaming) 1 GB RAM, stripped off all their intrusive software reformatted and put my own WIn XP pro SP2, Running PS CS and Illy. I got a pentium chip this time (1C3824PROCESSOR, 80547, PENTIUM 4 PRESCOTT DT, Pentium 4
Prescott DT, 3.0GHZ, 1 MEGB, 800FSB, SKT-T,)
not had any problems so far on images up to 48MB in several layers, filters run fast etc.previously used an Athlon 2.0 with 512 ram and it was just fine for my purposes. It did get very slow with files above 100 MB though.
My comp guy no longer builds for the reasons mentioned in the other posts, no warranties, you can buy as is system for very decent prices etc. You will avoid issues of non compatibility with Motherboards and chips etc.Plus he says if he builds it who do you think will have to fix it if it breaks?
"Rod Paulson" wrote in message

Can anyone tell me if it’s possible to run the latest versions of Photoshop on one of the newer Celeron processors? I was thinking of building a new system for a friend. She wants the system so she can run Photoshop. Is there any reason why it can’t run on one of these cheaper procs? Let me know. Thank you very much for your time.

Rod Paulson

I run CS on a 1GHz celeron laptop with 384MB and the slow disk that is typical for a laptop. I can open up an 8MB RAW file and do something basic with it.

I have not played with PS 8 but my imression is that unless you use the bridge feature heavily it’s not that much different in horsepower needs than CS.

—
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don’t blame me. I voted for Gore.

On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 05:15:11 GMT, "Rod Paulson" wrote:

ok…how well will Photoshop run on one of the newer Celeron or Sempron procs? Good, decent or lousy?

It depends what you want to do. Editing a small digital file say 8-12 MB and not using any of the more complex filters (say radial blur for an example) you’ll probably be OK as long as you have plenty of memory (min. 1Gb) and fast disks. If you’re intending to do serious work on images, and/or with larger images (for example my film scans are 120Gb *before* I do anything in Photoshop) then you’ll have to be prepared to not just make a cup of coffee, but go have and have your lunch whilst the image is being processed.

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

Mike Russell wrote:

"Clyde" wrote in message

Rod Paulson wrote:

ok…how well will Photoshop run on one of the newer Celeron or Sempron procs? Good, decent or lousy?

"Hecate" wrote in message

On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 22:37:09 GMT, "Rod Paulson" wrote:

Can anyone tell me if it’s possible to run the latest versions of Photoshop
on one of the newer Celeron processors? I was thinking of building a new system for a friend. She wants the system so she can run Photoshop. Is there
any reason why it can’t run on one of these cheaper procs? Let me know. Thank you very much for your time.

Yes, it will run.

And your next question should be, how well?

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

The Celeron is not noted for running anything fast. It is generally considered a good, cheap light use processor. If you are doing word processing, web browsing, e-mail, or anything like that, the Celeron works just fine. If you’re planning to do anything heavy, like Photoshop, games, big database work, the Celeron is lousy. I personally would not want to run Photoshop on any Celeron machine. I want to run Photoshop on as fast as computer I can find. You may not do much heavy work in Photoshop shop, then again what’s the point.

Clyde

I disagree. I’m running CS2 on a 1.4 gHz Celeron M with 1.2 gig of memory, editing 8 megapixel images, and it’s lightning fast. If there’s a performance issue, I’m not seeing it. CS2 starts in 6 seconds, and most graphics ops are instantaeous.

Good point. Of course, the problem that there is very broad range of what you can do in Photoshop. You can do plenty that doesn’t require much horsepower. You can also work a CPU to death. (Not literally.)

There are many times that my CPU cruises along without the temp even going up. Those situations would fit a Celeron without any trouble. Actually, when editing any single picture without a deadline the speed can be acceptable with a fairly slow CPU.

Hey, I’ve run Photoshop on some pretty slow computers going back to Photoshop 3. At the time, they seemed fast enough. With time, they all seemed to slow down.

I now edit several hundred wedding pictures at a time. I run a few key filters that run more than fast enough for a single picture. However, when I’m trying to move the workflow, they seem rather slow on my P4 3.2 GHz Prescott with 1GB of RAM. When I get these running through big batches (which I do whenever possible), I never have enough speed. I can watch the temp climb to just about the "yellow" with the processor maxed out.

I will admit that I haven’t tried the newer Celeron processors. I’ve heard that your M and the D are faster. How much faster in real Photoshop work, I don’t know.

So, the real question is: "What will you be doing with Photoshop?" If you can predict that, you should be able to build the ideal computer for it.

Clyde

snip
I now edit several hundred wedding pictures at a time. I run a few key filters that run more than fast enough for a single picture. However, when I’m trying to move the workflow, they seem rather slow on my P4 3.2 GHz Prescott with 1GB of RAM. When I get these running through big batches (which I do whenever possible), I never have enough speed. I can watch the temp climb to just about the "yellow" with the processor maxed out.
snip

Look at the size of the temp files PS creates when you work. I bet they are large, you will most likely be much happier with more RAM. 1GB isn’t much.

Stephan

Rod Paulson wrote:

Can anyone tell me if it’s possible to run the latest versions of Photoshop on one of the newer Celeron processors? I was thinking of building a new system for a friend. She wants the system so she can run Photoshop. Is there any reason why it can’t run on one of these cheaper procs? Let me know. Thank you very much for your time.

It will run fine for regular use.
What you really want for PS is a lot of RAM and a fast HD used for scratch should you max the RAM out.
Install PS on one drive on your first channel and a fast HD on the other channel. (Windows can’t use two drives on the same channel simultaneously ) Make sure you set your Preferences / Scratch Disks in PS.

Check out Mwave.com, you can get your choice of MB/Chip/RAM for a good price and even get it tested for $5 if I remember right.

Stephan

Stephan wrote:

Rod Paulson wrote:

Can anyone tell me if it’s possible to run the latest versions of Photoshop on one of the newer Celeron processors? I was thinking of building a new system for a friend. She wants the system so she can run Photoshop. Is there any reason why it can’t run on one of these cheaper procs? Let me know. Thank you very much for your time.

It will run fine for regular use.
What you really want for PS is a lot of RAM and a fast HD used for scratch should you max the RAM out.
Install PS on one drive on your first channel and a fast HD on the other channel. (Windows can’t use two drives on the same channel simultaneously ) Make sure you set your Preferences / Scratch Disks in PS.
Check out Mwave.com, you can get your choice of MB/Chip/RAM for a good price and even get it tested for $5 if I remember right.
Stephan

I wasn’t the original questioner, but…

99% of the time, 1GB works fine for me. When I open up 20 or so pictures at once, I can fill up memory. Luckily I very rarely do that.

Someday when I have money laying around I’ll buy a really fast HD to use as my Photoshop scratch disk. However, I don’t have the money AND it is hard to find a big enough jump in HD speed to justify it.

I have a Seagate that zips along pretty rapidly. It is in the speed range of the top 10% of HDs on the market. However, it and most like it aren’t fast enough to even fill up the SATA pipeline that I’m currently using.

About the only way to really improve HD performance would be to put a 15,000 RPM SCSI drive(s) in my computer. (Tests on 10K SATA HDs aren’t that much faster.) 15K SCSI would be great, but it’s damn expensive AND noisy.

Luckily running batches in Photoshop works well. When you think about it, it really isn’t that speed sensitive. I usually have plenty else to do while it’s running. So, I just run the batch and go do something else. For those times I watch and wait to do the next step, it would be nice. The rest of the time, it doesn’t matter. Even waiting can be nice; it’s often the only break I get.

Clyde