Photo editing and possible upgrade advice

Agent WD40 · 6 Mar 2007 at 03:54

Hi All,

Let me paint a scene here..

My manager at work likes taking photos with his lovely Canon D5 camera and loves to edit them. In fact its a part-time hobbie / job which he does ok from.

I specced a PC for him about a year and a half ago and am he is asking if there is any way to make it go faster..! (NO! Not going to OC! Tuh, how dare you even think it *mutters to self*

)

Current spec;
P4 3.4ghz
2Gb Corsair, CAS2 stuff
DVD-RW
Some cheapo mobo
250Gb WD SataII drive with 16Mb cache.

Would it make much difference slining in another 2Gb of ram or going to the lovely conroe?

Thanks chaps.

Agent.

melbourne720 · 6 Mar 2007 at 10:18

Format hard disk, reinstall windows, do this every 6 months - 1 year. Otherwise he/you has to overclock, or build a new system.

Firegod · 6 Mar 2007 at 10:55

...but if he has money to spare, I think the C2D would be a wise choice. :cool:

rpstewart · 6 Mar 2007 at 11:06

Agent WD40 said:
I specced a PC for him about a year and a half ago and am he is asking if there is any way to make it go faster..!

Find out what he reckons needs speeded up. I'm using a 4400X2 with 2Gb of RAM and that's plenty quick enough for my editing and I've been known to come back from a day's shooting with 1500 RAW images to process :eek:

Chances are he's just using naff software and there are better options out there for him.

Firegod · 6 Mar 2007 at 11:51

rpstewart said:
Find out what he reckons needs speeded up. I'm using a 4400X2 with 2Gb of RAM and that's plenty quick enough for my editing and I've been known to come back from a day's shooting with 1500 RAW images to process

Chances are he's just using naff software and there are better options out there for him.

Don't forget though, you are using a dual-core CPU. So no doubt that is why it's plenty quick for you. It could be naff software though...

Agent WD40 · 6 Mar 2007 at 12:45

Firegod said:
Don't forget though, you are using a dual-core CPU. So no doubt that is why it's plenty quick for you. It could be naff software though...

I believe a dual core will do quite nicely. I'm using a 6600 BUT I game and I love it..

He uses the latest (and legal!) version of Adobe photoshop but uses XP home. However I don't think the XP home edition should be an issue..?

I will get him to re-install windows and lets see what happens.

If that doesn't work its time for a C2D.. YEAH!

But just to check, is there going to be a performance boost going to 4Gb from 2Gb or RAM?

Firegod · 6 Mar 2007 at 12:47

Agent WD40 said:
But just to check, is there going to be a performance boost going to 4Gb from 2Gb or RAM?

I don't think so, but I have only seen stuff relating to gaming, not sure with regards to intensive photo work if it will improve things. I think Vista can take advantage of 4Gb but not too sure with regards to XP Home.

melbourne720 · 6 Mar 2007 at 13:42

Firegod said:
I don't think so, but I have only seen stuff relating to gaming, not sure with regards to intensive photo work if it will improve things. I think Vista can take advantage of 4Gb but not too sure with regards to XP Home.

Only 64Bit operating systems can take advantage of 4GB of RAM.

Fr0dders · 6 Mar 2007 at 13:48

melbourne720 said:
Only 64Bit operating systems can take advantage of 4GB of RAM.

incorrect XP supports 4gig. He'd need a 64bit operating system to use more than 4 gig.

Agent WD40 said:
However I don't think the XP home edition should be an issue..?

I will get him to re-install windows and lets see what happens.

If that doesn't work its time for a C2D.. YEAH!

But just to check, is there going to be a performance boost going to 4Gb from 2Gb or RAM?

your correct

XP Home supports dual core processors so this wont be an issue.

as for a boost from 4gig of ram. He'd see a bigger boost from dual core processing tbh. Then when he is applying a filter in PS, and maxing out 1 core, he still has another to go off and do something else. Rather than having to go make himself a cuppa

and thats even assuming he's not using true SMP applications. of which i believe photoshop is one. So it can fully utilise both cores.

in photoshop, he should see a allmost 100 % inrease in performance from dual core, because photoshop is SMP

Agent WD40 · 6 Mar 2007 at 15:20

Hay all,

Thank you for your replies. By the looks of things the easiest thing to do is to bump it up to a dual core (while changing the mobo) and to re-install the OS.

Cheers,

Agent.

Fr0dders · 6 Mar 2007 at 15:32

that would be my way to go

the performance boost isnt quite double

but its a good 80% or whatever extra performance for properly coded applications such as photoshop.

melbourne720 · 6 Mar 2007 at 15:45

MrLOL said:
incorrect XP supports 4gig. He'd need a 64bit operating system to use more than 4 gig.

The problem is 32 bit OS has a memory limitation, it can only use 4 gig of memory, this includes video memory and the memory I/O devices are loaded into memory by the motherboard. The 4 gig is there it's just after calculating devices and video there's only enough room left to see 2.8 gig. If you where using a 64 bit OS you would see all 4 gig

Cosimo · 6 Mar 2007 at 15:58

MrLOL said:
that would be my way to go

the performance boost isnt quite double

but its a good 80% or whatever extra performance for properly coded applications such as photoshop.

A fast dual core and 2Gb (see my spec) is sufficient for a good CS2 workflow on either XP or Vista.

Energize · 6 Mar 2007 at 22:20

melbourne720 said:
The problem is 32 bit OS has a memory limitation, it can only use 4 gig of memory, this includes video memory and the memory I/O devices are loaded into memory by the motherboard. The 4 gig is there it's just after calculating devices and video there's only enough room left to see 2.8 gig. If you where using a 64 bit OS you would see all 4 gig

I think that actually on xp only 2gb or 3gb (if specifically programmed to do so) of ram could be used for applications, with the rest being used for system processes, and that xp 64 bit supports 3gb and 4gb (if programmed for) for applications.

melbourne720 · 6 Mar 2007 at 22:34

Energize said:
I think that actually on xp only 2gb or 3gb (if specifically programmed to do so) of ram could be used for applications, with the rest being used for system processes, and that xp 64 bit supports 3gb and 4gb (if programmed for) for applications.

Basically you can't see all of it in XP 32Bit.