PC not powerfull enough

[kevchard]

Hello
I have been asked to find a system that will be less stressed when processing severly big picture files in Photoshop.
The current system is 3.4GHz Prescott (800MHz FSB) Pentium IV, 1.0Gb DDR 333 RAM, 80Gb 7200RPM H/Drive, 256Mb Graphics card, AS Rok M/board, 19 inch monitor, Windows XP Pro.
Would the option of a dual processor board be a significant improvement, or would double the RAM prove a better spend? If so what speed / type of processors would i pick.
System monitor spikes at 85% CPU useage and 400Mb page file.
Is there any proper software that speeds up systems?
I don't want to waste the blokes money by getting him a minorly faster system.
Any thoughts on 64bit processors and 64bit versions of windows?
Cheers

[wilf]

IMHO, and from experience of watching graphics designers/finished artists at work I would guess that Macs are far better at this type of work than PCs.

[alsuth]

I will have to agree with Wilf.
Anything to do with design and graphics go with Macs. They are also easy to upgrade later.
The software is brilliant as well.
Also far easier to navigate around than a pc.
Slightly biased opinion as I am a mac follower.
Al

[mikey]

Definately a Mac for graphics capability.
Mike

[FatBoy]

Originally Posted by mikey

Definately a Mac for graphics capability.
Mike

I'd have to disagree.
The vast majority of graphics applications for Macs are identical to those used on PCs, the main one being PhotoShop. There is absolutely no difference and the files are binary compatible.
Manipulating large graphics images is typically more demanding of memory than processor and if the processor is only running at 85%, you aren't going to get any improvement by putting another one in. I don't know if PhotoShop will support multi-processing.
I'd go with extra RAM in the first instance as this is a relatively low-cost exercise and you should see an instant result.

That should illicit a response

Paul

[MetaJacko]

How big is 'severly big'
Is there any particular point it seems slow?
Memory is always a help when moving lots of data around.
Processor may help if it is slow when trying to perform any large modification/filter etc
on the image. Faster HD may also help if there is a lot of data movement between memory and HD.
I would agree that putting in some extra memory is the first choice.
400mb page size seems a bit low. Is system sorting out the virtual memory?
I tend to set a fixed page size of at least twice phisical memory size,
quite often on another HD seperate to the system HD.
I dont like the way Windows tries to alter the size all the time

Paul

[kayjayd]

MAC SCHMAC !!!

The OS in this instance has nothing to do with the performance at all. The whole MAC vs PC debate is irelavant these days. MAC's are still used a hell of a lot in design shops and DTP areas, this is more a historic thing than anything else as MAC's used to be FAR FAR better than PC's as far as manipulating graphics were concerned.

Chuck some memory at it first off as Fatboy says, cheap first stab at improving performance. If Photoshop is having to refresh the file all the time it'll eat memory like it's going out of fashion. If you're low on memory it'll start swapping out onto hard disk which will kill your performance. Lots of memory = less swapping = better performance, simple really.

[kenf]

3 Gb processor, 1Gb RAM and 256Mb graphics should be enough. However, if the graphics card is a mickey mouse one then that may be the problem. If you're working on really large image files then you're going to need something like a GeForce 7800 (£350) or GeForce 6600 (£130) and a SATA drive would only help in transferring data to memory quicker. Additional main DDR RAM is the cheapest option, but will not necessarily improve image processing performance - but it will certainly make the rest of the machine fly.

[kevchard]

It is a Quadra graphics card, but from the price he told me that he paid, it must be a 128Mb.
General census of opinion is that a 10,000RPM SATA H/drive and 2Gb Dual channel DDR400 RAM should suffice.
Found some nice twin core AMD 64 bit processors, trouble is that the price is approx £250 + board for a 3.8GHz beast.
Thanks for the input, i will give blokey our combined opinions .
Photoshop is apparently multi threaded.
Cheers

[FatBoy]

[quote:e150d0ed39="kayjayd"]
The OS in this instance has nothing to do with the performance at all. The whole MAC vs PC debate is irelavant these days. MAC's are still used a hell of a lot in design shops and DTP areas, this is more a historic thing than anything else as MAC's used to be FAR FAR better than PC's as far as manipulating graphics were concerned.

QUOTE]

Hi Kev,
I had originally typed the same thing, almost word for word, but I changed my mind and deleted it because I felt it was like lighting the blue touch-paper and waiting for the fireworks
But I do agree 100%.
It would be interesting to know the size of the graphics files involved and what format, bearing in mand that whilst they are being worked on, they will be in uncompressed format, so they could very well be huge.
Cheers
Paul