Computer for CS5

[sraichur]

Hello all,

I'm thinking of assembling a computer for CS5 use. Looking at bang for buck price point, not all out speed.
I've read through a few threads on this but still have a few questions and would love to get all your advice.

The max file size I would load might be 2 to 4 GB.
2 Stitched 4x5's scanned at 4000 dpi.

With that in mind could you all answer a few questions for me?

1. which processor - i5 - i7 - dual , quad or 6 core?
Affordability wise the i5 quad core 3.0 ghz is not bad. - I've read that it's better to spend the money on memory and SSD rather than CPU.

2. How much memory should i put - 16, 24, or 32 GB?

3. Does the speed of the memory matter that much - 1333 0r 1600 etc?

4. From previous threads people indicate it would be nice to have a SSD for applications, and photoshop scratch disk. Is this required if i use 32GB of memory?
I could spend the money on a SSD or 32GB of memory. Or should I do both? - Or is that overkill?

5. I don't do any gaming, (though i'll probably get MS Flight when it comes out), so is a video card required?. If so, which one would people suggest?

6. Any other suggestions?

Thanks very much
Sandeep

[Brian K]

Sandeep.

According to what I read on the Adobe site you need a 64 bit computer to utilize all your available RAM for Photoshop so make certain it's running 64 bit. I would get as much RAM as possible. Also I would reconsider using an SSD for photoshop if you get that much RAM. SSD drives are very fast but no one is sure how long they will last, there is a limit on rewrites with them and they are very costly. I would use one on a laptop, which I do, because they are shock proof.

[sraichur]

Brian,

Thanks. I will be using win 7 64 bit.
Have you had experience with SSD's failing? So many people are reccomending them these days.

[Brian K]

Brian,

Thanks. I will be using win 7 64 bit.
Have you had experience with SSD's failing? So many people are reccomending them these days.

Sandeep, it's not that they fail like a hard drive, it's that they have a certain limit on read/writes and eventually they stop doing that. I have an SSD in my laptop and have yet to have any issues with it. But it might be expensive to use it as a scratch disk for photoshop and you never want your OS on your scratch disk if you can help it. If I were you, I would RAM up and use a cheaper hard disk as a scratch disk, that is unless you can afford to burn out an SSD over time.

[Kirk Gittings]

I've done some homework on SSD failures and they are about the same as regular drives-about 3%.

[Preston]

Sandeep,

"With that in mind could you all answer a few questions for me?"

1. CPU: an i5 Quad Core will be fine
2. RAM: for the size files you are using, I would get as much as you can afford--32GB will likely be the best price point.
3. 1333 RAM will be fine. Faster RAM will just cost you more money for a marginal gain.
4. SSD's are fine for the OS and applications. They are too expensive for mass storage and as a scratch disk.
5. I have a 1GB NVidia video card. If you use two monitors, one can run off the video card, and the second can run off of AGP on the motherboard. If you plan to run games, a video card will give better 3D performance.

I agree with Brian's notes about SSD's.

Take a look at Puget Systems (http://www.pugetsystems.com/). They built a machine for me back in May of 2011. It has performed flawlessly.

--P

[Brian K]

I've done some homework on SSD failures and they are about the same as regular drives-about 3%.

But they cost significantly more. A 250gb SSD drive will run you $300-400. You can get a 500 GB hard drive for $125 to 150. A 500 GB SSD enterprise drive will run you $1200.

So you're better off getting more RAM and a cheaper drive.

[Peter De Smidt]

I agree that maxing out your ram is the most important thing. Don't worry about ram speed, as it's a much smaller boost. Multiple cores is more important for video editing, I've been told, than for Photoshop work. An ssd does really speed up some things. Check out Tom's Hardware and others for reviews. From what I've read, the Intel ones are the most reliable. If it's just for a system drive, do you really need a 250 gb? Have a separate start-up drive, storage drive and scratch drive. Make sure to enable UDMA when you install windows, so that esate drives will be recognized when you plug them in.

[sraichur]

Thanks for the replies guys.

I was planning on a regular HD for all mass storage, - 1 TB and use a 120gb SSD for OS and applications and scratch disk.

From what i have read i thought its good to put the OS and applications on an SSD because they open much faster and generally work better. Is this true or not?
Is it better to not use SSD at all right now, or are they reliable enough?

Then i also read that after maxing out on ram - say 32 gb would you not want a fast SSD scratch disk?

Wouldn't A 120gb SSD give me enough room for OS, apps and Scratch disk? Those are about $180 i think. I was thinking i could get 32gb ram, then another 60gb or so of scratch disk left over from the 120gb SSD.

Why would you not want your scratch disk on the same disk as the OS?

If that is the case is it better to have let's say:
60gb SSD SATA III for OS and apps ($100)
60gb SSD SATA III for scratch disk ($100)
1TB regular HD for storage
32 gb ram

[Preston]

"Why would you not want your scratch disk on the same disk as the OS?"

When you work on an image file, the OS is pretty busy. If your PS scratch disk is on the same physical drive, the drive will be even busier handling all the reads/writes. This will slow things down. Therefore, if your PS scratch disk is on a separate physical drive, performance improves. I have my PS scratch disk on 500GB Western Digital Caviar Blue, and performance is excellent.

There is one thing I will mention regarding saving of PSD files on CS5. From what I have read, CS5 is using an algorithm that results in a more accurate file. Because of this, save times are longer, even with SSD's. So, if you use SSD's, don't expect a miracle in this case. If you use TIF files, the saves will be faster, but the file size will be larger.

In my opinion, using an SSD, which are expensive for their capacity, as a scratch disk is a waste of money. You could buy a much larger standard HD and use for a scratch drive and as a storage drive for archived documents.

--P

[sraichur]

Preston,

Thanks.

So how much capacity is required for the scratch disk? I was under the impression 60gb would be enough and thus could use a SSD. It's only about a $100 now.

Is 500gb required for the scratch disk alone? If so of course an SSD is out of the question.

Is your 500gb partitioned into a scratch disk and a file storage disk, or is it all one, or is it a scratch disk alone?

[Preston]

Sandeep,

Honestly, I do not know how much space is used for the scratch disk. I suppose the amount would depend upon how much space PS needs. A 60GB drive would likely be fine for a scratch disk, though.

I specified the 500GB drive for use as a PS scratch disk and for storage of archived files. It is not partitioned.

--P

[John Rodriguez]

Ideal scenario -

- Maxed out RAM
- Application drive: SSD
- Storage: 2 standard drives in Raid 1 config
- Scratch: 2 SSD drives in Raid 0 config

CS5 doesn't use multi-threading for adjustment layers, so multi-cores aren't useful there. The place where CS5 does use the additional cores is ACR (same as with Lightroom - both are more processor dependent).

If I was pinching pennies and had to choose where to upgrade over standard separate drives for startup/application, storage and scratch I'd rank like this -

- Second storage drive in Raid 1 for peace of mind
- Max out RAM (make sure your running 64 bit, in 32 bit PS can only use 2.1 GB)
- Single SSD scratch disk (as soon as PS eats up RAM it moves on to the scratch disk)
- Second SSD scratch disk in Raid 0
- SSD startup/application drive
- SSD storage drives

[sraichur]

Preston thanks.

John,

Thanks for the input.
I am not savvy at all with Raid. Also I already have 3 (2 TB external drives) that I back everything on manually. So do you think I'll still need to raid it?

Why are you suggesting 2 SSD's in Raid 0 for scratch disk? Is one not enough?
Also as I asked Preston, do you think 60GB SSD is enough for a scratch disk?

As for maxed out RAM, the bang for buck right now is 4x4gb = 16gb (About $100)
For 4x8gb = 32GB it jumps to ($330). 3 times the price for double capacity.

So here is what i have calculated prices/ performance wise:

Base config (cheapest): (I'm not including all components here, just the basics)
16GB RAM ,60GB SSD for scratch ($130 for MB + $100 RAM +$100 SSD = $330)

Middle of road - but fixed at 32GB Max memory
32GB Ram plus 60GB SSD SCratch ($130 MB + $330 RAM +$100 SSD = $560)

Middle of road but expandable to 64gb in the future:
32GB Ram, 60 GB SSD ($280 MB with 8 slots + 330 Ram + 100 SSD = $710)

Most expensive
64GB RAm and No extra Scratch disk ($280 MB with 8 slots + $570 RAM = $850)


So What do you think is the best bang for Buck?
Is it worth paying extra $520 to get 64gb ram and no additional SSD scratch disk,
or save $520 and use 16gb ram and 60gb SSD scratch?

Or in between is $230 extra to get 32GB ram and 60Gb SSD scratch

[John Rodriguez]

Raid 0 - Work is split up between the drives in the array. Two drives in a Raid 0 configuration will be faster then a single drive. No backup or fail-over functions.

Raid 1 - Same data is written to both drives simultaneously. Write performance goes down slightly while read performance goes up slightly. If one drive fails the other one goes full time.

Scratch disk size - Adobe supports up to 64 billion GB of scratch disk space (not kidding), but they don't provide guidance over optimum size. The best way to tell is to look at your current scratch disk usage when working on your largest files/slowest processing requests. One suggestion I've seen is 3x your largest file size.

I highly recommend you read this, it goes over most of this stuff - http://blogs.adobe.com/crawlspace/2011/05/how-to-tune-photoshop-cs5-for-peak-performance.html

One thing to consider, you can save yourself a bunch of money and time if you use the "guide file" approach. It's really simple -

- Open your original scan file
- Resize it to a manageable size. I use 8x10 inches at 360ppi.
- Save the resized "guide" file. Close the original file without saving changes.
- Do all of your work and test prints on the resized file.
- When you've got it perfect, resize the file back up to it's original file size and ditch the background layer.
- Open the original scan back up, and drag the layer over to the guide file - making it the new background layer. All adjustment layers will be perfectly lined up.

Using this method I'm able to work on 4x5 drum scans using a standard MacBook with 4 gigs of RAM.



Anyways, as to your Bang for the Buck question - being the gear geek that I am I'd be tempted to go with the 32GB expandable to 64GB option. However, as I use the guide file approach I outlined above, I'd probably just go for the base config and buy a new lens.

[Nigels]

I have a vague recollection that Win7 x64 Home Prem edition will only address 16Gb of RAM. If you have more then you'll need to pay more for Win7 Pro or Ultimate which can address up to 192Gb. Not 100% sure on this, so should check out.
In November I upgraded and got an i7 quad core, 16Gb RAM, Gforce 1024Mb graphics card, Win7 x64 Home Prem, 1Tb HHD + 1Tb external backup HDD and CS4. Scanning from Epson 2450 at 2400 dpi with Vuescan. Printing to Epson 3880 at native resolution of 360 dpi gives a print of approx 31" wide - plenty!

[sraichur]

John,

Thanks for the info. I've browsed the link you sent. It's very helpful!
Also I will try you guide file approach. I have tried it in the past, but i couldn't figure out how to get it to work with adjustment layers on specific selections. But i hadn't thought about the resizing the file then replacing the background layer. That's a great tip!

As for seeing how large my scratch disk requirements are that would be difficult as right now I only have an old laptop (1.5GB max memory) and don't even bother trying to process my largest files. It's to painful. But maybee i can load it up just to see how much it's using.
How do you find out how much scratch disk space is being used?

Thanks

Nigels
I will try to find out about win7 and 16gb max.
Thanks

[sraichur]

Nigels,

You were right,
Win 7 Home premium is still limited to 16gb.
You would have to bump up to professional for 192Gb supported.

Thanks for the tip.
Sandeep

[Kirk Gittings]

But they cost significantly more. A 250gb SSD drive will run you $300-400. You can get a 500 GB hard drive for $125 to 150. A 500 GB SSD enterprise drive will run you $1200.

So you're better off getting more RAM and a cheaper drive.

Maybe. I am maxed out on RAM and run the fastest regular drives available all sata or esata. The only way I have to go for more PS speed is SSDs. I have not done that yet largely because of the expense, but with the next round of PS/LR upgrades I will probably have to go to a faster computer or the SSD option (which is a shorter term fix than a new computer).

[Brian K]

Maybe. I am maxed out on RAM and run the fastest regular drives available all sata or esata. The only way I have to go for more PS speed is SSDs. I have not done that yet largely because of the expense, but with the next round of PS/LR upgrades I will probably have to go to a faster computer or the SSD option (which is a shorter term fix than a new computer).


How much RAM do you have and what files sizes do you work with?

[Kirk Gittings]

8gb Ram and I routinely work on vast quantities of 80MB files for my business and 1-2GB files for my B&W work.

[Brian K]

8gb Ram and I routinely work on vast quantities of 80MB files for my business and 1-2GB files for my B&W work.

8 GB is pretty small today, although more than big enough for an 80 MB file. If your computer is 32 bit then there are limitations on how much RAM PS will use. If it's a Mac the limit I believe is a little more than 2.1 GB. The thing is that if you have enough RAM then PS will not be using your HD as virtual RAM which is a PS bottleneck. RAM has gotten quite cheap today. Check out OWC.

[Kirk Gittings]

8gb RAM is max for this machine, W7 64bit, and I have a separate internal regular drive for scratch.

[sraichur]

Brian,

Do you think 16gb is enough for 2 GB files or is 32gb required if you don't want to go to scratch disk?

[sraichur]

The sweet spot for memory right now is 16GB for $100
But 32GB 4x 8gb is $330. (triple the price)

you can get 4gb x8 for $170 or so, but then you need a motherboard with 8 slots.
The only ones i can find all are the latest intel and require you to also $600 processor!

[Brian K]

Brian,

Do you think 16gb is enough for 2 GB files or is 32gb required if you don't want to go to scratch disk?

It's all about what you can afford versus the level of performance you need. If you are considering an SSD, which is far more expensive than a hard drive, because of the increased scratch disk speed, then maybe spending $230 more on RAM and not needing to use a scratch disk at all (although you still have to pick one in PS) seems reasonable.

Keeping as much of the image in RAM as possible, and never having to go to the virtual RAM Disk is much faster and you are allowing your processor to work at it's full speed potential. And remember that even with 16 or 32 bit your system software will use a good portion of that, and you might have some other applications running and using it, like a scanner, so ultimately you may be using 2-5 GB of your RAM on non PS uses.

The more RAM the more undo's, the more you can add layers and affects without causing the files size to choke the computer. Check out OWC RAM. I just bought 32 GB of RAM (8x4gb) for $250. And even the guys at APPLE recommended OWC.

[Brian K]

8gb RAM is max for this machine, W7 64bit, and I have a separate internal regular drive for scratch.

Kirk you're not going to see a radical speed improvement by using an SSD as compared to a HD. How old is your current computer? When were you thinking of getting a new one? Can you tough it out with your current computer for awhile?

Also are you certain that the 8 GB limit is accurate? That would suggest either that your computer is pretty old, or a belief that the RAM configurations available at that time were the limit. i.e you have 4 slots and only 2gb dimms were available.

[Peter De Smidt]

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ssd-review-benchmark,3115.html

Personally, I wouldn't currently spend money for an ssd drive, or for a raid, for a scratch disk, although I'd consider an ssd for the system drive. As others have said, I'd max out my ram, and then get a decent regular hard drive for my scratch disk.

[Kirk Gittings]

Kirk you're not going to see a radical speed improvement by using an SSD as compared to a HD. How old is your current computer? When were you thinking of getting a new one? Can you tough it out with your current computer for awhile?

Also are you certain that the 8 GB limit is accurate? That would suggest either that your computer is pretty old, or a belief that the RAM configurations available at that time were the limit. i.e you have 4 slots and only 2gb dimms were available.

Thanks for your thoughts on this. I have actually researched this in some depth and gotten more confused. It is 2 years old. The builder of my machine says it has an 8 gig limit, but some of the ram sites say it will take 16. I guess I could role the dice and just buy the ram as it is so cheap right now and see if it works.

[Preston]

Kirk,

The person who built your machine should know the make and model of your mother board. If you have this info, you can go to the manufacturer's web site and check the specs. That should tell you the max RAM you can install. It might save you an expensive roll of the dice.

--P

[Kirk Gittings]

Here is the problem-there was an early (8gb) and later (16gb) version of my board. Later version has an "a" on the end of the model name. The builder has no record of which version he put in there (really lame I know-i won't go back to them) and there are no obvious model/version markings visible on the board.

I find it hard to believe though that it would have 16 bit capacity and they would only advertise it as 8-since 16 would be a big selling point. Unless they are morons.:)

[Greg Miller]

Kirk - go to www.crucial.com, click to the "memory" page, and then "scan my system". This tool will tell you how much RAM each slot will take, and what your total system RAM capacity is. Crucial is very highly regarded, has good prices, and a guarantee that their RAM will work.

[sraichur]

Check out OWC RAM. I just bought 32 GB of RAM (8x4gb) for $250. And even the guys at APPLE recommended OWC.

Brian,

I could buy 32gb in 8 chips of 4gb each and that is only $180.

However the only intel motherboards that have 8 slots also only use LGA2011 socket and require a $600 i7 chip! total cost of motherboard and chip = $900. Too much.

Does your motherboard have 8 slots?

Anyway i'm assembling a PC not Apple.

[sraichur]

It's all about what you can afford versus the level of performance you need. If you are considering an SSD, which is far more expensive than a hard drive, because of the increased scratch disk speed, then maybe spending $230 more on RAM and not needing to use a scratch disk at all (although you still have to pick one in PS) seems reasonable.

Keeping as much of the image in RAM as possible, and never having to go to the virtual RAM Disk is much faster and you are allowing your processor to work at it's full speed potential. And remember that even with 16 or 32 bit your system software will use a good portion of that, and you might have some other applications running and using it, like a scanner, so ultimately you may be using 2-5 GB of your RAM on non PS uses.



Brian,

I could spend the extra $230 for 16gb ram, = $14 per GB
or for $93 could get a 80GB SSD. = $ 2.3 per Gb

Much more cost effective to get 16GB memory + 40 Gb SSD (For scratch disk only)

I just don't know if I spend the extra money and get 32Gb RAM can I avoid the Scratch disk altogether. Then as you say it might be worth it. But if PS still needs the scratch disk (even with 32GB installed) then the advantage is reduced I think.
What do you think?

[Greg Miller]

One rule of thumb is to multiply your file size by 10 to calculate how much RAM you should have (plus add some more for the OS, Photoshop, and other apps that will be running). So if the files you will be working on are 1GB, the you want at least 10GB of RAM. If you will be working on files much bigger and 1GB, then adding more RAM than 16GB will show some benefit.


Regarding SSD drives, I have never tried it, but I'm thinking that an SSD drive would show benefit if paging occurs. It would be way faster reading/writing scratch to an SSD drive then a SATA drive. If you have enough RAM to never page, then this is a moot point. probably makes the most sense if you max out on RAM, but still see latency from paging.

[sraichur]

Thanks Greg.
Most of my files will be 1gb, but a few could be up to 4gb (2 stitched layered 4x5 at 4000 dpi)

So maybee I should bite the bullet and spend the extra money for RAM.

[Brian K]

Brian,

I could buy 32gb in 8 chips of 4gb each and that is only $180.

However the only intel motherboards that have 8 slots also only use LGA2011 socket and require a $600 i7 chip! total cost of motherboard and chip = $900. Too much.

Does your motherboard have 8 slots?

Anyway i'm assembling a PC not Apple.


Sandeep, I'm on a MacPro, it has 8 slots and can take up to 128 GB of RAM.

I'm confused do you have 4 or 8 slots?

[sraichur]

Brian,

I haven't built anything yet.

Most all the intel motherboards i've seen have 4 slots only.

The one with 8 slots is socket LGA 2011 and requires a $600 i7 chip.

So I'm stuck with 4 slots unless i spend $280 for MB and $600 for i7 chip!

[sraichur]

Brian,

I wouldn't mind switching to MAC but I already have CS2 in windows and just ordered CS5 upgrade.

Is there a way to run windows programs on Mac?
And would that slow things down considerable to make it a disadvantage?

thanks

[sraichur]

Sandeep, I'm on a MacPro, it has 8 slots and can take up to 128 GB of RAM.

I'm confused do you have 4 or 8 slots?

Brian,

Which macpro do you have?
I can't see one that had 8 slots and can take 128gb?

[Ben Hopson]

The link is to OWC and shows the memory each MacPro will accept.
http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/memory/Mac-Pro-Memory#1066-memory


Brian,

Which macpro do you have?
I can't see one that had 8 slots and can take 128gb?

[Kirk Gittings]

Kirk - go to www.crucial.com, click to the "memory" page, and then "scan my system". This tool will tell you how much RAM each slot will take, and what your total system RAM capacity is. Crucial is very highly regarded, has good prices, and a guarantee that their RAM will work.

Thanks for that suggestion. Interesting, Crucial says I have a capacity of 16gb. Can I take this to the bank you think?

[Peter De Smidt]

I've bought from them. The service was good. With the memory adviser, don't the options that pop up come with a guarantee that they'll work? You should read the fine print, but it should be fine. I'm thinking of doing the same thing. I have 12 gb in, but the memory adviser says that 24gb will work. Your motherboard manufacturer probably has a list of tested memory available.

[Brian K]

Brian,

Which macpro do you have?
I can't see one that had 8 slots and can take 128gb?

A MacPro 5.1. It has 8 slots, I just added 8 dimms to it.

http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/memory/Mac-Pro-Memory#1333-memory

[Greg Miller]

Thanks for that suggestion. Interesting, Crucial says I have a capacity of 16gb. Can I take this to the bank you think?

Yes. I order from Crucial all the time. I have never had an issue and their customer support is very good. They have a 45 day money back compatibility guarantee - so if you order based on their advisor tool, and it doesn't work, you can return it and get your money refuinded.

[Kirk Gittings]

Yes. I order from Crucial all the time. I have never had an issue and their customer support is very good. They have a 45 day money back compatibility guarantee - so if you order based on their advisor tool, and it doesn't work, you can return it and get your money refuinded.

I just ordered 16gb 4x4 from Crucial. Thanks for your advice on this. You might have saved me X-hundreds of dollars over the next year not having to upgrade my system for awhile.

[Greg Miller]

I just ordered 16gb 4x4 from Crucial. Thanks for your advice on this. You might have saved me X-hundreds of dollars over the next year not having to upgrade my system for awhile.

I'm happy to have helped. Enjoy!

[sanking]

Regarding SSD drives, I have never tried it, but I'm thinking that an SSD drive would show benefit if paging occurs. It would be way faster reading/writing scratch to an SSD drive then a SATA drive. If you have enough RAM to never page, then this is a moot point. probably makes the most sense if you max out on RAM, but still see latency from paging.

I have a Macbook Air with an SSD drive and a Macbook Pro. The Macbook Pro has a faster processor and twice the Ram of the Macbook Air, but the Air is way faster with many reading, writing and loading operations. I probably won't replace the drive in the Macbook Pro with an SSD because of cost of a 500 gb SSD drive, but I am sure that doing so would be a great enhancement.

Sandy