Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Mar 26, 2004, 3:49 PM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 5
Default Now I Need a New Computer?????

Seems my system just can't deal with those big TIFF and RAW files. But with the new hard drive and CD Burner ect ect I really don't want to just buy a new computer. So I am thinking of a new motherboard and and CPU. All I am going to use this for is photography. Does anyone have opinions on which processor and processor speed would be best? Any minimum memory size?
Thanks
tomdzi is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Mar 26, 2004, 4:05 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 365
Default

AMD or Intel would be just fine. I have an AMD 1.8GHZ (Opteron) I think and it works fine. In addtition to your processor, you may need to upgrade your graphics card and add more memory. I have 384MB in memory and that seems fine, but I don't do a lot of editing either. I'd reccommend you probably have 512MB. As far as video cards, I don't have a reccomendation on it, but go with a good one, 64MB or more of memory, etc, as it can significantly impact the your monitor speed if it is a cheap one.

Having said that, you may be better of just buying a new computer if it is more than 3 or 4 years old. New computers are really cheap now adays and you can always put your hard drive, cd drive, etc into your new computer
mdparker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 26, 2004, 4:08 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Indian Rocks Beach, FL
Posts: 4,036
Default

Get as fast a processor as you can afford with two 512Mb sticks in a dual RAM configuration as a minimum. I have a GIG in a dual RAM setup and one of the RAM modules went bad. I wrote to the hard drive a lot while the second stick was on RMA.

If you want to upgrade the processor cooler and case fans the Athlon 2100 is a bargain for overclocking. With state of the art processors I think a P4 is a better buy. I went with a 2700 Athlon when I put my most recent system together because of the MB choices at the time. I would likely build a P4 today despite the 64 bus.

You need a hot video card only for games. A problem you are likely to encounter is that your old video card is likely 3.3v and the new MBs will not run the old 3.3v cards.
slipe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 26, 2004, 4:45 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
Onyx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 402
Default

AMD or Intel are fine, depending largely on your loyalties. What NOT to get: Celeron. Reason: poor performance. If you want Intel, go the fully fledged P4. If you're restricted by price, AMD's are better value.

Also, consider setting up RAID array. It's a bit complicated (I'm sure there are simple guides around), but you will achieve a measureably difference in speed of just about everything on your computer - more so than extra memory or faster CPU.
Onyx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 26, 2004, 5:50 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 162
Default

before we make assumptions- could you list your system's specifications to us?

The works, OS, memory, cpu, drive space, mobo, etc

Raid doesn't speed anything up; Raid is NOT meant for imaging or anything remotely close to it. Raid is out there for guys running big rackmount servers- internet servers, internal LAN servers, database servers etc etc-

If you plug in a SCSI drive ( a high RPM hard drive with a large cache )
you will see faster write times/transfer times for your data on the hard drive. But you don't need scsi either- that's more meant for servers as well
huckle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 26, 2004, 5:56 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 162
Default

To add onto the AMD/Pentium debates-
For imaging, I couldn't esteem a Pentium any better in terms of memory management. Athlons are sloppy in comparison to pentiums when it comes to memory- Gamers like athlons because they can choke the life out of the poor CPU by making it run faster than it should- with the expense of heatsinks and case fans.

Also, tomdzi, how big are these raw format files in terms of KB/MB?
huckle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 26, 2004, 6:32 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
BillDrew's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Hay River Township, WI
Posts: 2,512
Default

The key word in RAID (Redunant Array of Inexpensive Drives) is Redunant. Error checking and recovery. Might or might not be worth the money to you, but having had hard drives fail (they all do sometime), I am thinking very seriously about it for my next machine.

Not just for servers. RAID is for anyone who has a large amount of data they really don't want to lose - like photos. I am still fishing about in my stack of back-up CDs and would rather not have to do much of that.
BillDrew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 26, 2004, 7:16 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Indian Rocks Beach, FL
Posts: 4,036
Default

There are two basic RAID setups for two hard drives, 0 & 1. I think huckle was referring to RAID 0 which actually increases your chance of losing data but speeds up hard drive transfers. RAID 0 “stripes” the information onto both drives so that you have two drives reading or writing parts of the data at the same time on parallel channels. The downside is that if you lose either drive you lose the data on both, so you double your chances of data loss due to hard drive failure.

RAID 1 mirrors the same data on two drives. If one fails you just disconnect it and run on the other until you can replace and mirror another drive. It won’t protect against file damaging viruses but is excellent backup otherwise.

RAID 0 doesn’t speed up anything but hard drive speed. Working with Photoshop that should only affect the time it takes to open or save files unless you don’t have enough RAM and have to use the scratch disk.
slipe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 26, 2004, 8:01 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 383
Default

I agree with slipe that a RAID can be set up to emphasize speed or data integrity and if set up for speed it would only be beneficial when writing to or reading from the RAID. Not during photo processing, where you need adequate RAM.

I also agree with huckle that before anyone can give you sound advice we need to know what kind of system you currently have. For all we know you may have a motherboard with everything integrated onto it...and in that case it would be foolish to consider an upgrade over a new purchase.

Since you posed this question in the first place, my bet is that you will be better off buying a new system or at minimum a bare bones system from a local shop where you can reuse the monitor, key board, mouse and other ancillary stuff and then just have them harvest your old computer and throw the HD and burner in.

Good Luck
PKchopper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 26, 2004, 9:07 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
Mr_Saginaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 552
Default

Why not splurge a little...

Go with the Sun Fire E25K... 72 Processors (actually they're dual... 2 cpus on a single chip so it's really like 144 processors). Up to 1/2 TB of memory (that's 500 GB of memory!). Full Hardware redunandy... Starting price a cool million..



That's a full height 74 inch cabinet...
Mr_Saginaw is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 7:04 PM.