Which Microsoft Windows 10 (or 11?) Computer for Adobe?

[neil poulsen]

Having in mind the Windows 10 Operating System, what computer should one purchase to run Adobe software, and in particular, Photoshop/Lightroom software?

I'm thinking of some sort of desktop or tower, since I plan on getting a second BenQ, color-managed monitor for whatever I purchase.

[sharktooth]

Here are the minimum system requirements for Photoshop and Lightroom.

https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/system-requirements.html

https://helpx.adobe.com/lightroom-cc/system-requirements.html

If you're looking to get a new computer, you'll probably want something that has far more than the minimum requirements, and probably a bit more than the current recommended requirements, so you'll have a lot of useful life.

[Jim Noel]

If you purchase a computer with W11, it is far better to get 16megs of ram, and the same for SSD space. Less and speed will suffer.
W10 does a good job with PS and LR. For me it's greatest selling point is files are not automatically save on One Drive which after 5 megs will cost you a monthly fee.
I am currently in the process of eliminating that trait.

[bmikiten]

I'm on W11 with a 3090 GPU and having no issues whatever using VERY large (8x10) scans and LR and PS.


Brian

[Alan9940]

Whatever you buy, I'd recommend at least 32GB memory (64GB if you can afford it) and a higher-end graphics card, again with as much memory on it as you can afford. A lot of software relies heavily on the graphics card nowadays so it pays not to scrimp here. I would also recommend a 512GB or 1TB SSD for your system drive and one or more larger internal hard drives for general storage. Choice of OS will come down to your own personal needs. I stayed with Win 10 (for now) because several bits of software I use regularly have not been updated for Win 11. Plus, I like to wait a bit on major OS upgrades until many of the bugs, etc, have been worked out.

[r.e.]

Whatever you buy, I'd recommend at least 32GB memory (64GB if you can afford it) and a higher-end graphics card, again with as much memory on it as you can afford. A lot of software relies heavily on the graphics card nowadays so it pays not to scrimp here.

I just purchased a computer that has 32GB of memory, but for reasons unrelated to processing still photographs. I believe that the vast majority of photographers need no more than 16GB of RAM. I can't think of any reason why the average photographer would need to hold 64GB of data in short-term memory.

This Adobe page says when, and for what, Photoshop/Lightroom use a computer's graphics processing unit as of January 2022: Photoshop GPU FAQ (https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/kb/photoshop-cc-gpu-card-faq.html)

Photoshop/Lightroom are CPU intensive, not GPU intensive.

[Alan Klein]

I've used Dell tower desktop computers for many years, currently an XPS 8700 tower at least five years old, with 3.40 gigahertz Intel Core i7-4770 running Windows 10. I use Lightroom and Adobe Premiere Elements a video program that needs a lot more power than Lightroom. I also edit large scans of 4x5" photos film running 500mb in tiff for each photo file. I've run Lightroom on these at the same time I've run Premiere video. I've never seen over 12gb in use although I do have 24gb total available. 16gb should do it but get a tower with expansion capability to 32gb just in case. If you buy now, you're going to get Windows 11 loaded. I also have a 256mb SSD, a definite advantage.

So anything better than this will work well for you. I can't tell you about video cards.

Here's a nice place to start.
https://www.dell.com/en-us/shop/desktop-computers/xps-desktop/spd/xps-8940-desktop/xd8940msrfbres

[Corran]

IMO, ask around locally for someone who can build you a custom computer - a student or young professional is probably around who does it on the side. Check craigslist and Facebook. Your budget will determine specs. Any decent modern CPU with 16-32gb of RAM and a low- to mid-tier graphics card, along with an SSD and all of that of course, will easily run PS and LR.

There are also companies that will take the parts you pick and do a flat fee, such as $75 from here: https://buildredux.com/

I have no personal association or experience with the above, I mention it for information only as a possible solution. The only issue is these companies usually are geared towards gaming computers. But anything good at games will be good at PS/LR too.

You should know that some PC parts are extremely difficult to get right now, most notably graphics cards. One option in that regard is to get a CPU with built-in graphics, and if you need to upgrade to a dedicated GPU later you can do that when supply chains are a bit less FUBAR.

[Alan Klein]

The only problem with custom build is the warranty, especially with some kid or young "professional" putting it together who won't be around when it breaks. With Dell or HP, you're going to get support and you can buy extended service agreements. Unless you're experienced somewhat with these systems, you need to have backup for maintenance and repairs. Someone you can call. Also, custom is going to cost a lot more than buying Dell off the shelf.

[Corran]

If you consider a "warranty" or how-to call service essential, sure buy whatever mass-market computer you want. By the way, don't dismiss your local guy. I built a computer for a pro music writer way back over a decade ago and he called me for years to ask questions or just get computer help. I charged him for house calls. Good friend, now, and I eventually stopped charging him just because I was nice. Like literally hundreds of calls.

However do NOT buy a Dell. Ever.

"Custom is going to cost a lot more than buying a Dell" - yeah, you're right, because you'll get a good computer, not junk. Often, the reason people hate on Windows computers is because they're used to the lowest-bid garbage they have at work, usually a Dell.

Personally, I recommend anyone in this thread shopping for a computer to simply put in the time to learn how the components work and watch a few build tutorials. Then build a custom yourself. No need for a warranty on the build when you did it and know how to fix it. I built my first computer at 14, it's incredibly simple. More simple than it used to be actually. And you can build a system for a fraction of the price of high-end customs. I spent $1100 7-8 years ago on my current computer, which still runs flawlessly and I have not had a single component failure. I upgraded the SSD once.

[Oren Grad]

My current PC is a Dell XPS 8930, a desktop tower design. I bought it locally from a store that sources bare-bones configurations from Dell and builds them up with additional RAM, drives, video cards, etc. It's about 21 months old now, came with Windows 10 and is equipped with a Core i7-9700 at 3 GHz, 32 GB of RAM, 1 TB SSD (I use outboard spinning-disk drives for backup and archiving) and a graphics board aimed at middling-serious gamers on top of the default integrated graphics. I set aside the Dell keyboard and installed my Unicomp Model M, which old-timers will recognize as the direct descendant and spitting image of the PS/2 incarnation of the IBM clicky keyboard. So far the set has been rock solid under intensive daily use. Of course, no telling what will happen tomorrow or the day after.

Between them, the 32GB and the SSD make this machine hugely more responsive than my last PC; it continues to be a pleasure to use for photographic, work and general utility tasks.

[Alan Klein]

If you consider a "warranty" or how-to call service essential, sure buy whatever mass-market computer you want. By the way, don't dismiss your local guy. I built a computer for a pro music writer way back over a decade ago and he called me for years to ask questions or just get computer help. I charged him for house calls. Good friend, now, and I eventually stopped charging him just because I was nice. Like literally hundreds of calls.

However do NOT buy a Dell. Ever.

"Custom is going to cost a lot more than buying a Dell" - yeah, you're right, because you'll get a good computer, not junk. Often, the reason people hate on Windows computers is because they're used to the lowest-bid garbage they have at work, usually a Dell.

Personally, I recommend anyone in this thread shopping for a computer to simply put in the time to learn how the components work and watch a few build tutorials. Then build a custom yourself. No need for a warranty on the build when you did it and know how to fix it. I built my first computer at 14, it's incredibly simple. More simple than it used to be actually. And you can build a system for a fraction of the price of high-end customs. I spent $1100 7-8 years ago on my current computer, which still runs flawlessly and I have not had a single component failure. I upgraded the SSD once.

I bought my current Dell XPS8700 in 2014. So it's nine years old. My previous Dell was bought in 2008. So I had that one for six years. So I've had long experience with Dell. I think my previous one had viruses so I finally got rid of it. The one I have now I use Russian-made Kaspersky anti-virus software and I haven't had any issues with the computer that Kaspersky didn't handle. Apparently, Russian software is more reliable than their tanks.

The only problem I had with the current 9-year-old unit was I kept losing WiFi the last year and the computer would stop with a blue screen. So I ordered a $23 WiFi card from Dell and replaced it and everything has been OK since. The only other problem is that the disk reader doesn't read once in a while. That could be dirt or problems with some of my old DVDs. On-line warranty phone calls and advice are also good although I haven't used them in 8 years so I can't assert if they are still good.

Actually, I'm probably a good candidate for building my own as I've been working in electronics all my life, including the repair of computers and other electronic systems. But even I want to have backup in depth and felt buying from Dell or HP is a better deal, especially for people like I belive the OP is who aren't electronically oriented.

[bmikiten]

Hi.... While I understand that this is a photo forum, I have to just drop a quick note about the Dell-bashing. I have purchased literally hundreds of Dell computers over the years for industrial applications from workstations to servers and have only had two out of the box failures and only one or two field failures. In all cases, the Dell warranty support was amazing and in one case, a Dell tech flew to California to replace a RAID installation on what was a fairly inexpensive workstation at a client site. I get the prejudice but we also used custom built machines (in-house), HP and others with less than stellar results. I'm out of that business but recently purchased a BH Photo machine and the first one was DOA (dead 3090 graphics card). They shipped another out immediately and it has been fine for the last 30 days. For many people, Dell offers a good machine and very good warranty support.

Brian

[Alan9940]

I just purchased a computer that has 32GB of memory, but for reasons unrelated to processing still photographs. I believe that the vast majority of photographers need no more than 16GB of RAM. I can't think of any reason why the average photographer would need to hold 64GB of data in short-term memory.

This Adobe page says when, and for what, Photoshop/Lightroom use a computer's graphics processing unit as of January 2022: Photoshop GPU FAQ (https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/kb/photoshop-cc-gpu-card-faq.html)

Photoshop/Lightroom are CPU intensive, not GPU intensive.

Personally, I would consider 16GB of memory to be barely adequate for most photographers working today; especially with the higher megapixel sensors and certainly for any LF photographer post-processing drum scans. I process 8x10 scans that reqularly go beyond 1TB in file size. When you consider that PS opens the equivalent of 5 versions of your file during processing, these large files can put a strain on any system. More memory means less swapping out to wherever your scratch disk is located. Perhaps 64GB is a bit overkill today, but tomorrow? RAM is cheap nowadays.

[r.e.]

Apparently, Russian software is more reliable than their tanks.


:)

This March 24th article in the Atlantic Monthly, by a veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan, says that there's nothing wrong with Russian tanks or the soldiers manning them. What it says is that tanks are going the way of horse cavalry. Interesting read: Ukraine’s Three-to-One Advantage (https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/03/american-volunteer-foreign-fighters-ukraine-russia-war/627604/)

[r.e.]

Personally, I would consider 16GB of memory to be barely adequate for most photographers working today, especially with the higher megapixel sensors and certainly for any LF photographer post-processing drum scans. I process 8x10 scans that reqularly go beyond 1TB in file size. When you consider that PS opens the equivalent of 5 versions of your file during processing, these large files can put a strain on any system. More memory means less swapping out to wherever your scratch disk is located. Perhaps 64GB is a bit overkill today, but tomorrow? RAM is cheap nowadays.

You can think what you want, but it should be obvious that the vast majority of people using Photoshop/Lightroom have 16GB of RAM, and in many cases 8GB (32GB is certainly not the norm). You may be working with 1TB images, but that is also not the norm; nor is the 2TB internal solid state drive that one should have to process an image that size. Or are you editing directly on 2TB NVMe high speed external solid state drives, which most people also don't have? Your assertion that 16GB of RAM is "barely adequate for most photographers" will certainly come as news to the legions of people who are using 16GB RAM laptops to edit photographs and video.

In a current thread on this forum - Apple's New Mac Studio Computer (https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?167819-Apple-s-New-Mac-Studio-Computer) - a full-time working professional with a blue chip client list says that he's using a 16GB M1 Mac mini. On an M1 Apple computer, that 16GB of memory is shared between central processing and graphics; that's why it's called unified memory rather than RAM. The professional photographer posting in that thread says that if the 32GB Mac Studio was available when he made his purchase, he would have bought one, not for the memory, but for the ports. Earlier in this thread, Allan Klein says that he's never seen his computer use more than 12GB of RAM while processing still images in Lightroom, and video in Premier Pro, at the same time.

When I purchased a computer three years ago, nobody seriously suggested that 32GB of RAM was needed for Photoshop/Lightroom. In 2022, in the course of purchasing a Mac Studio, which isn't available with less than 32GB of memory, I noticed that there are suddenly people claiming that 32GB is needed. In your own case, you actually recommended 64GB of RAM. Now you're recommending 64GB for "future proofing". I've yet to see one of these people identify a concrete problem that they've had with 16GB of RAM. As far as I can tell, it's amateur photographers flush with cash engaging in RAM inflation, and, in the case of the Mac Studio, trying to justify buying the shiny new computer on the block.

If somebody wants 32GB of RAM because he's got excess cash and sees 32GB like chicken soup for a cold - couldn't hurt - cool. Otherwise, I think that Allan Klein made a good suggestion above. Install 16GB and, if one decides at some point that more is needed, install a second 16GB module.

[Alan Klein]

Hi.... While I understand that this is a photo forum, I have to just drop a quick note about the Dell-bashing. I have purchased literally hundreds of Dell computers over the years for industrial applications from workstations to servers and have only had two out of the box failures and only one or two field failures. In all cases, the Dell warranty support was amazing and in one case, a Dell tech flew to California to replace a RAID installation on what was a fairly inexpensive workstation at a client site. I get the prejudice but we also used custom built machines (in-house), HP and others with less than stellar results. I'm out of that business but recently purchased a BH Photo machine and the first one was DOA (dead 3090 graphics card). They shipped another out immediately and it has been fine for the last 30 days. For many people, Dell offers a good machine and very good warranty support.

Brian

You just reminded me that when I worked for NYC in School Construction Authority, they had hundreds of Dells including desktops and laptops and monitors. Of course, we had dozens of information Technology techs (IT) who handled all the electronics from the computer to cell phones, beepers ;) software servers etc for almost a thousand employees. So if there was a problem, we'd call our IT people.

I wonder if Dell's business support and manufacturing is different than home section? I recall they had different type of computers focused on business use. Not sure if they still do.

[Alan Klein]

:)

This March 24th article in the Atlantic Monthly, by a veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan, says that there's nothing wrong with Russian tanks or the soldiers manning them. What it says is that tanks are going the way of horse cavalry. Interesting read: Ukraine’s Three-to-One Advantage (https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/03/american-volunteer-foreign-fighters-ukraine-russia-war/627604/)

That's what they said would happen to my film cameras. ;)

[Alan Klein]

You can think what you want, but it should be obvious that the vast majority of people using Photoshop/Lightroom have 16GB of RAM, and in many cases 8GB (32GB is certainly not the norm). You may be working with 1TB images, but that is also not the norm; nor is the 2TB internal solid state drive that one should have to process an image that size. Or are you editing directly on 2TB high speed external solid state drives, which most people also don't have? Your assertion that 16GB of RAM is "barely adequate for most photographers" will certainly come as news to the legions of people who are using 16GB RAM laptops to edit photographs and video.

In a current thread on this forum - Apple's New Mac Studio Computer (https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?167819-Apple-s-New-Mac-Studio-Computer) - a full-time working professional with a blue chip client list says that he's using a 16GB M1 Mac mini. On an M1 Apple computer, that 16GB of memory is shared between central processing and graphics; that's why it's called unified memory rather than RAM. The professional photographer posting in that thread is considering a 32GB Mac Studio, not for the memory, but for the ports. Earlier in this thread, Allan Klein says that he's never seen his computer use more than 12GB of RAM while processing still images in Lightroom and video in Premier Pro at the same time.

When I purchased a computer three years ago, nobody seriously suggested that 32GB of RAM was needed for Photoshop/Lightroom. In 2022, in the course of purchasing a Mac Studio, which isn't available with less than 32GB of memory, I noticed that there are suddenly people claiming that 32GB is needed. In your own case, you actually recommended 64GB of RAM. Now you're recommending 64GB for "future proofing". I've yet to see one of these people identify a concrete problem that the've had with 16GB of RAM. As far as I can tell, it's amateur photographers flush with cash engaging in RAM inflation, and, in the case of the Mac Studio, trying to justify buying the shiny new computer on the block.

Just to clarify what I said. I was running Premiere Elements not Premiere Pro along with Lightroom V6 purchased, not CC. My stills are sometimes 500mb (4x5 color scans in tiff). It is true I never saw anything over 12GB running these together with other stuff as well. So I would definitely not go below 16GB down to 8GB. My own system which I bought in 2014 has 24GB RAM. I figured at the time that I might need that for future expansion. Today I would buy 32mb if I was shopping for a new computer to cover me for the future as well. Like some have said, memory is pretty cheap today. Or ,make sure you have the slots to add memory cards later. So buy 16GB but make sure it comes with slots to add another 16GB.

I also have 256SSD and 2TB hard drives. I'd probably expand the SSD to 512GB. Processor speed is important. But back in 2014, I bought and still run the 3.40 gigahertz Intel Core i7-4770. So anything above that is icing on the cake.

[Corran]

If you have good experiences past or present with Dell, good for you. I hope it continues to work out fine for you or others who may purchase them. However, my main issue with Dell is not even about reliability but documented outrageous upsell behavior. This video series would be a prime example and includes a host of companies to compare, from a variety of perspectives (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gz7WMF4wWko).

And hey, I work on a Dell almost daily - at the university I am employed at. I would never consider that kind of computer for my personal use, but the bargain-tier workstation I have access to even runs Photoshop CC to an okay degree. But yes, we have an entire IT team dedicated to maintaining and fixing issues...so take that into consideration.

Regardless I will simply say once more that anyone looking for a good, reliable computer would be remiss not to consider building it themselves. You will get more performance dollar-for-dollar and a knowledge base to help keep it working into the future.

[r.e.]

However, my main issue with Dell is not even about reliability but documented outrageous upsell behavior. This video series would be a prime example and includes a host of companies to compare, from a variety of perspectives (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gz7WMF4wWko)...

Regardless I will simply say once more that anyone looking for a good, reliable computer would be remiss not to consider building it themselves. You will get more performance dollar-for-dollar and a knowledge base to help keep it working into the future.

Watched some of that video. It's pretty funny, less so if you look at it from the perspective of someone who's dealing with a Dell salesman. Disappointed that Linus isn't wearing a real bow tie :)

Just admit it Corran. You're a "build your own" evangelist :)

[Corran]

Oh yeah, unabashedly. I understand that some folks have their issues with computers, but it's mostly software problems. Building a computer these days is just adult LEGOs. Verified builds with instructions can be found online easily.

If you're lucky, one of Micro Center's 25 stores in the USA is nearby and they could walk you through some details. I'm probably going to the one in GA next time I do a build.

[neil poulsen]

I appreciate all the input. I think that I have a pretty good idea of what would be needed. Still, making a choice has its complexities.

I like Oren's strategy. Purchase a Dell without bloat-ware and then beef it up with memory and a good CPU.

In fact, I'm considering both a Microsoft based system and an Apple, and will begin a thread on the latter. I think that some of what has been gleaned in this thread regarding Microsoft carries over to Apple.

[DrakeHeyman]

If you're into Adobe software, consider a desktop or tower with a good processor, plenty of RAM, and a dedicated graphics card. Adobe apps, especially Photoshop and Lightroom, can be resource-intensive. I've found that having a solid system makes a big difference in performance and productivity. Also, a comptia pentest+ (https://trainocate.com.my/courses/ct-pentest-comptia-pentest-certification/)course could be helpful, so consider it. Good luck!

[xkaes]

I like Oren's strategy. Purchase a Dell without bloat-ware and then beef it up with memory and a good CPU.



Don't forget what Alan wrote -- and a higher-end graphics card, again with as much memory on it as you can afford.

[gypsydog]

The new MacBook pro 16 w/M3 Max in Black Aluminum!
They should call it the Black Beast!

[Jim Andrada]

The biggest baddest system I can (almost) afford. However much memory I can shoehorn into the box. lots of cores. Oh yeah - I use the system for other things than Photoshop. Like Cinema 4D using Maxwell Render - I've had renders go 3 t0 4 days or more across three or more networked systems. Realflow fluid simulations can take a bit of memory and CPU/GPU as well. Yeah - I'm sort of crazy. My only Dell is a dual Xeon 1U server with 64M of memory. At one point I had around 14 systems stacked up at home, most running Linux.