Spec me a photography build...£1500 (maybe Light gaming too?)

Associate
Joined
9 Oct 2018
Posts
4
I'm currently typing this out on a 2015 MBP - i7 2.2ghz/16gb 1600mhz /1.5gb intel iris pro/250gb SSD - Photoshop and Lightroom CC run fine but Lightroom can be a little choppy.

My budget is approx £1500 and I need everything.

Ideally, I would love a big 30+ inch monitor (Love the Idea of a 34"), SSD for scratch disk, SSD for OS and a big HDD to store files. I'd love a GPU that could game but I'm not going for 100+ FPS at 4k.
Also... is 16GB Ram enough nowadays? or should I be aiming for 32GB?
Am I right in thinking Intel would be a better choice? I've been googling it for some time and from what I can gather, an overclocked i7700k seems to be a favourite. Or is there a better CPU? Maybe an overclocked i5? Do I even need an OC'd build?

At the same time, I wouldn't mind a little bit of gaming if possible. It won't be AAA titles as I have an Xbox one X and even then, I barely touch that at the moment. It's an added bonus if I can play a few games on it though since I have a steam library with a few games in it from years gone by.

I was torn on getting a second hand 27" iMac with the fastest CPU I could find but a custom built PC would fare me better. Or am i wrong there?

Will m2 SSDs for certain things be that much better than standard SSDs?
It's been a long time since I've used a pc outside of work so I'm really not too up to date with current hardware.

I may be able to stretch a little more than £1500 if it means I will see noticeable performance gains but bonus points if I can get it for 1500 or less.

Oh...probably a biggie here...but I have no idea how to build a PC. There may be one or two people near me who can probably help me out but if not, would it just be a better idea to buy a prebuilt system?



Thank you
 
Soldato
Joined
1 Dec 2015
Posts
18,509
@popnfresh

your right with Intel being the king for Adobe programs, it will run faster then ryzen due to clock speed and IPC - but ryzen is better value for money and Adobe will hopefully adopt multi thread coding better as its cheaper/free rivals all have now !

key question, is this system your bread and butter ? if so- gaming will be a bit hard due to the need/want to drive a true 10 bit display which is currently only done by workstation grade cards- you wouldn't need a £2k card but least a Quadro etc . 10 Bit displays normally sell around for £700+ and come in HDR and 100% Adobe RGB scale .

above monitor is actually damn good.

https://www.benq.com/en/monitor/video-enjoyment/ew3270u/specifications.html

https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/benq-ew3270u-ultra-hd-hdr-monitor,5587-4.html

but hasnt been mapped to Adobe RGB scale such as (below) and thats £700 vs £450- the 4k version is £1k!

https://www.benq.eu/en-uk/monitor/video-post-production/pv270/specifications.html

VA panel is nice but IPS is better- also monitor above has a greater brightness- HDR Range

this is their 4K bad boy !

https://www.benq.eu/en-uk/monitor/video-post-production/pv3200pt/specifications.html

and 10bit monitors- you'd need this

https://www.overclockers.co.uk/amd-...gb-gddr5-512-stream-processors-gx-02a-am.html

or

https://www.overclockers.co.uk/pny-...s-card-2gb-gddr3-192-cuda-core-gx-044-pn.html
 
Associate
Joined
9 Oct 2018
Posts
4
Thank you for the replies.
I'm so used to just use the retina display on this MBP that I don't know a whole lot about which screens are best.

Photography isn't my full-time job but I do make a little bit of money on the side.
I only photograph dogs so it's a bit of a niche market anyway :)

Would the AMD build fare me better than an intel?
I want to squeeze as much as I can out of it for as long as possible (I won't be upgrading everytime something new comes out) so would an OC benefit me?
Also, would it make sense to cram another 16gb of ram in there?

I might also post this in one of the other forums as I see a lot of people asking for spec builds there too so the more knowledgeable people I can ask the better.
Thanks.
 
Soldato
Joined
22 Apr 2016
Posts
3,235
If I were buying now I would probably go AMD 2700x. I’d prefer an intel butbthe 8 core ones are pricey.

That said as it stands a four core intel will be faster in apps like LR and PS unless batch processing but then it’s a cup of tea time regardless of cpu.

I thought 16gig was enough and it probably is but opening a D810 file in PS and using a brush I went over last week so am now rocking 32.
 
Associate
Joined
9 Oct 2018
Posts
4
I shoot with a 1dx so raw files are approx 20-25mb. All imported into LR, adjustments etc then one at a time over to PS, more adjustments, save and back into LR. Once I've done them all I then export. I don't ever batch process. The closest I do on a few pictures at a time is copy & paste adjustments on a few photos but then as the photos change I go back to doing it one at a time.

Am I right in thinking the 7700k is old tech now and it would be silly to buy into? Its extremely unlikely I'm going to venture into video anytime soon either so I feel like all the extra cores would just be overkill.
 
Permabanned
Joined
2 Sep 2017
Posts
10,490
I shoot with a 1dx so raw files are approx 20-25mb. All imported into LR, adjustments etc then one at a time over to PS, more adjustments, save and back into LR. Once I've done them all I then export. I don't ever batch process. The closest I do on a few pictures at a time is copy & paste adjustments on a few photos but then as the photos change I go back to doing it one at a time.

Am I right in thinking the 7700k is old tech now and it would be silly to buy into? Its extremely unlikely I'm going to venture into video anytime soon either so I feel like all the extra cores would just be overkill.

It isn't so much that it is old tech but that its days are coming to an end. It will fade away much sooner.
Regardless of the software that doesn't use the proposed 16-thread Ryzen 2700 (for now).
When you give so much money, you don't want it to be based around an overpriced midrange platform, just because it is an intel...
 
Soldato
Joined
1 Dec 2015
Posts
18,509
I shoot with a 1dx so raw files are approx 20-25mb. All imported into LR, adjustments etc then one at a time over to PS, more adjustments, save and back into LR. Once I've done them all I then export. I don't ever batch process. The closest I do on a few pictures at a time is copy & paste adjustments on a few photos but then as the photos change I go back to doing it one at a time.

Am I right in thinking the 7700k is old tech now and it would be silly to buy into? Its extremely unlikely I'm going to venture into video anytime soon either so I feel like all the extra cores would just be overkill.


E
My basket at Overclockers UK:
Total: £1,544.20 (includes shipping: £15.30)

vega 64 can drive some games at 4k, actually fairs better then gtx 1080, loses out to 1080ti/2080ti - but you have freesync to keep smooth refresh rate.
would recommend gamign at 1440p though, which is nice on a 32" screen

have 240gb ssd for OS and NVMe drive for scratch

 
Last edited:
Associate
Joined
9 Oct 2018
Posts
4
Thank you for your input. I have so many questions! I wish there was somewhere near me (Bournemouth) that I could go in to and ask them all. Hopefully, Adobe software will one day make use of more cores than it does right now. I also thought that Adobe stuff favoured Intel or is that just a myth?

thanks.
 
Soldato
Joined
16 Sep 2005
Posts
7,654
Location
What used to be a UK
Thank you for your input. I have so many questions! I wish there was somewhere near me (Bournemouth) that I could go in to and ask them all. Hopefully, Adobe software will one day make use of more cores than it does right now. I also thought that Adobe stuff favoured Intel or is that just a myth?

thanks.
AMD has made great improvements with the new 2nd generation Ryzen CPUs that really closes the gap between AMD and Intel for Photoshop users. In the $200-250 price range you can easily justify either brand so it is likely going to come down to which platform offers you the features you need and any sales you may be able to find. However, at the higher end the Intel Core i7 8700 edges out over the Ryzen 7 2700X (especially in general tasks) while also retailing for a slightly lower cost. And if you are looking for the best possible performance, the Intel Core i7 8700K is still the overall king and the current go-to recommendation for Photoshop.
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
1 Dec 2015
Posts
18,509
Thank you for your input. I have so many questions! I wish there was somewhere near me (Bournemouth) that I could go in to and ask them all. Hopefully, Adobe software will one day make use of more cores than it does right now. I also thought that Adobe stuff favoured Intel or is that just a myth?

thanks.

Due to intel clock speed and IPC . But ryzen will improve over time, regardless of Adobe updating its coding and will claw back some of Intel's lead
 
Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
11,816
Location
West Midlands
Thank you for your input. I have so many questions! I wish there was somewhere near me (Bournemouth) that I could go in to and ask them all. Hopefully, Adobe software will one day make use of more cores than it does right now. I also thought that Adobe stuff favoured Intel or is that just a myth?

thanks.

Just make a list of your questions and post it here, you should for the most part get sensible answers. Happy to help where I can with answering them as well, no where near Bournemouth though. :)

As for the Adobe working on Intel better, presently that is very much the case, due to the superior clock speeds of Intel and the way that Adobe have been developing their products for the last decade. You should find that if you were to buy either, then core for core, and MHz for MHz, they'll end up performing the same over the next year or two.

The real negative if you want to go with an Intel system now is the huge amount of cost you'll need to put in to a CPU, if you wanted to get the newest Intel 9600K/9700K that's £400-500 just for the CPU, if you grab the AMD equivalent 2600X is £199, and the 2700X is £289, but they are not going to be 50% faster for the 50%-100% more cost you spent. If you are looking for best performance per £ spent then AMD presently is the obvious choice, as a 2700X is about 7-10% slower in Photoshop than the 8700K, with Lightroom the difference may be slightly larger but they would all be a heck of a lot faster than your current setup.

Main thing you should think about is ensuring that you get the monitor you want, as once you've got it you are stuck with it, you can't make it bigger or have a better colour gamut etc. That is the one major advantage of the iMac, with the 27" screen, it is absolutely fantastic but you pay in the form of having a machine that costs a lot more, can't be upgraded and will perform worse in the applications you use. For me if you only want a single monitor, and it needs to be a big size, but at a fair price then you could do a lot worse than the BenQ PD3200U (£600-700), it's a 32" 4K display designed for graphic design work without the massive price tag of some others, I'd put it on your short list.
 
Soldato
Joined
16 Sep 2005
Posts
7,654
Location
What used to be a UK
In addition to the above I'm left wondering what the difference using 32-64 gig of ram is going to have on overclocked CPU speed with reference to the bundles OCUK provide? If there is a reduction in performance then that will affect value for money even more.

I think you need to consider the extra cores since optimizations coming from software will have a marked effect further down the line concerning performance.

I don't know about Light room because I could never take to it but Photoshop has no issue with speed using a clocked 2600k dealing with the file sizes mentioned so anything above this ought to be giving a marked improvement regardless.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom