PC for photo editing?

ajf · 25 Nov 2006 at 00:16

Still not decided for sure what to do about a new photo editing PC but hopefully get something sorted before Christmas and may have a bit more cash to spend than originally planned.

Was going to go for Core 2 Duo 1.86Ghz, Asrock Xfire, 2Gb 667Mhz RAM, 7600GS etc.
Given its usage of photo editing and very little (if any) gaming would there be much advantage in spending the extra and going for the Core 2 Duo 2.4 Ghz with the extra 2mb (4mb total) cache?
Would I find improvements in going for 800Mhz memory over 667Mhz?

Thanks
Andrew

UNiQU3 · 25 Nov 2006 at 00:23

If your not gaming then I would say that there is no need for 2GB of RAM or the higher spec processor. Also you wont need the 800Mhz RAM if you are using the E6300 processor because you wouldn't see a difference if photo editing.

Hope this helps

Jotun · 25 Nov 2006 at 00:32

UNiQU3 said:
If your not gaming then I would say that there is no need for 2GB of RAM

There most definately is, I've had photoshop using 1.3gig of memory. Don't skimp on the RAM if you're going to be doing serious image processing!

Amp34 · 25 Nov 2006 at 00:51

Yes ram is one of the most important parts of the PC for photo editing, equal to the CPU at least.

UNiQU3 · 25 Nov 2006 at 00:51

Evil-Penguin said:
There most definately is, I've had photoshop using 1.3gig of memory. Don't skimp on the RAM if you're going to be doing serious image processing!

Your probably right because I only use it for small images, thanks for correcting

Jotun · 25 Nov 2006 at 00:55

UNiQU3 said:
Your probably right because I only use it for small images, thanks for correcting

No worries

I've got 2gig of ram in my PC and that is barely enough for some of the more intensive work I do, I'm waiting for some more RAM to be on this week only till I order again

Of course it all depends on what the OP intends on editing. If it is just holiday snaps then 1 gig would probabaly suffice and as you say 2 gig would be more than required.

Raikiri · 25 Nov 2006 at 00:57

Looks good, personally I would get the 6400 rather than the 6600 as it is only a slight cost increase and would easily overclock to 2.66 (333mhz x 8). Might be worth getting a 7300gt to save a few quid as the graphics card seems to play little part in PS.

UNiQU3 · 25 Nov 2006 at 00:59

yeh I agree, I have the E6400 and it's eailsly overclockable, definatly worth doing if you want to get the most out of your money.

ajf · 25 Nov 2006 at 13:33

Thanks for the feedback.
I will definitely be going for 2Gb of memory as although I do only edit photos for general use I also want to use VMWare which can be memory hungry.

I was thinking of the E6600 mainly for its extra cache rather than simply the mhz increase over the E6300 - I assume from comments about going for the E6400 instead that the cache will not have much impact?

Andrew