Graphics help/advice

[ST1]

Hello all,

I hope you can help me out with this issue. The PC I currently use for post processing my images does not have a separate graphics card, using instead the GPU within the motherboard. I'm contemplating purchasing a Asus GT640 graphics card (or similar) to add to this system.

I just wonder if it will give me better quality of image display to use for post processing, without having to upgrade my current monitors. Or should I look at a better quality monitor to replace the Dell primary monitor either utilising the existing on-board GPU or with the addition of a separate card but...before splashing the cash* any help or advice that the forum member computer guru's could offer with my issue would be appreciated.

My current system is as follows:-

• Win7 Home Premium 64 bit.
• i7-3770k CPU at 3.5Ghz.
• 16GB Ram (DDR3 Corsair)
• Samsung 840 Pro SSD (operating system and Adobe applications) with a second SSD which is effectively a mirror of the first.
• Asus P8Z77-V Pro motherboard, on board graphics Intel HD4000.
• Primary monitor Dell 2209WA connected using DVID.
• Secondary monitor LG IPS235 connected via HDMI (strangely the Intel graphics control panel reports this as a digital TV)
• Three internal SATA HDD (2 @1TB, 1 @ 2TB (partitioned to 2x 1TB) plus 1 EHD Iomega @ 1TB.

* Remember I'm from Yorkshire and us Tykes are renowned for our short arms and long pockets

[Manfred M]

Peter; add-in graphics cards are mainly designed for gamers and their primarly purpose is to do 3-D rendering and an appropriate frame rate. Some very specific functions in Photoshop do use OpenGL and OpenCl functionality (the liquifiy filter and some of the the warp tools, if I remember correctly), but in general, that's about it. If you use more run-of-the-mill editing tools like Lightroom or Elements, you will find that a new graphics card buys you nothing.

I personally would suggest looking at some of the Dell Ultrasharp screens (especially the wide gamut ones) at something larger than the 22" unit you have; the "09" designator means it is a 2009 model, so it still has a couple of years of life, likely. I went to a 27" screen years ago and is probably the best investment I made. Even stepping up to a 24" screen will be a major improvement. That being said, you should also have a look at getting a profiling tool to ensure that the colours that you are seeing are accurate.

So, being tight with the money (my late father-in-law was from Yorkshire), I would recommend that you not waste it on a new graphics card. Spending money on other components are going to give you a lot more value.



If you

[NorthernFocus]

As Manfred stated, a graphics card is mainly for speed, not image quality. If you system is performing slowly opening photos etc. then it will likely speed up that process. But the photos won't look any different once displayed. Investing in a monitor typically makes the biggest difference in viewing images as recently discussed in another thread.

[HaseebM]

You have a i7-3770K cpu. Just go into the motherboard bios and set the clock to 4.20 ghz. Easy for this chip and will make your work and other cpu intensive applications open / load faster. Before you overclock though, get an after market cooler fan like Noctua as the stock fan is useless.

Like said above, only if you are into gaming then a graphic card is must have, otherwise not necessary, especially with your specs.

[Manfred M]

If you system is performing slowly opening photos etc. then it will likely speed up that process. .

Even here, you may find that the bottleneck is your disk storage read tine; loading a large file from a drive into computer RAM usually takes much longer to load than to display it

[ST1]

Thanks all for your assistance with my dilemma, I'm not experiencing any speed issues with my current set up (said he with fingers crossed) so I shall refrain from overclocking the CPU.
I was really looking for a better viewing experience and wondered if a discrete graphics card would help. Having read your responses I suspect that there's two components in the scenario which could affect my viewing experience one the 2009 Dell and secondly my own eyesight. I shall have a look at a 27 inch monitor as suggested by Manfred.
Thanks again for brining clarity my to my dilemma.

[ajohnw]

Your monitor is an IPS type so other than size there is probably little to gain changing - you have 2 anyway.

Looks like you load applications from ssd and store data on disc. You might get some advantage by using intel raid on your 2 hard drives if it's available but it's important to be wary of green drives if you do that. Western Digital Red are one of the few that are really suitable for this. Some green drives keep parking the heads at the slightest opportunity. This can slow things down when discs are used conventionally as well.

As you haven't mentioned it I suspect that your best method of improving the viewing experience would be to buy a colourimeter and calibrate your displays.This is virtually essential if you want others to see shots as you intend and will also ensure the monitors you have are working at their best. I usually mention an Xrite Color Munki Display as it comes with ambient light measurement which saves people worrying about the need for that if they haven't got it. It's also reasonably priced and does it's job.

John
-

[ST1]

John thanks for responding, I have always been vaguely aware of Raid and I believe my current set up has that capability. Strangely I'm just looking at how I use the storage I currently have.

So maybe it's time for me to move out of the way I currently store my data and to utilise raid as part of the change. I shall have a google and investigate implementing this method in my current set up, so thank you for mentioning it.

Could you explain the red/green drives which you made reference to, I think its got to do with energy efficiency but I'm really not that up on these things. My internal drive 1TB HDDs are Seagate ST1000DM003 models and the 2TB is a Toshiba DT01ACA200 model. Though how they equate to red and green is a mystery to me


BTW I do have a Spyder 3 which has the ambient light capability though I don't usually have that on, but..I use the device to calibrate both monitors.

[Manfred M]

Sounds to me that you are all set then; and really the only thing to consider is whether you need a larger screen or not; but is does sound like from a pure editing standpoint, you are well equipped.

I have a RAID-like setup as my backup storage (external RAID), in a different part of the house from where the computer is. I do use the WD green drives in it. because as a backup device, I'm not too concerned about spin-up time and parked heads from a performance standpoint. I use a DataRobotics Drobo FS, rather than a classic RAID unit; the main advantage over traditional RAID is that I can mix different sizes of hard drives in it.

[HaseebM]

Thanks all for your assistance with my dilemma, I'm not experiencing any speed issues with my current set up (said he with fingers crossed) so I shall refrain from overclocking the CPU.
I was really looking for a better viewing experience and wondered if a discrete graphics card would help. Having read your responses I suspect that there's two components in the scenario which could affect my viewing experience one the 2009 Dell and secondly my own eyesight. I shall have a look at a 27 inch monitor as suggested by Manfred.
Thanks again for brining clarity my to my dilemma.

You have everything to gain and nothing to lose with that i7-3770K cpu. Overclocking to 4.20 ghz is ridiculously easy and the reason for K series. You only need to invest in an aftermarket cooler fan. Even your motherboard is Z77 which overclocks easy. You may not see the difference but if you run a benchmark test, the numbers will attest.

[ajohnw]

The problem with the green drives is prolonged use in raid Manfred not just performance. Wear, but that's rumour. I didn't buy any to find out.

I do have one green drive in my HP workstation that came with it. The write rate is appalling and read not much better. Think it's Fujitsu.

The best really for speed and reliability is 10k Enterprise SATA but they went some what unaffordable a couple of years ago otherwise I would run nothing else. Not sure how prices are now. I did run SCSI raid which can be brilliant but I am fed up of not being able to find matching disks if one goes down. After a few years one usually does if they are used all of the time.

My NAS when I get round to it has all WD Red and one spare drive for auto replacement. To get round power consumption problems I will use the OS. I have an SSD in that too and will organise it so that it never gets written too as per my main machine. Which reminds me I must have a look at that to see how it's getting on.

The NAS is actually a small business server box so I will probably load it with one of Ubuntu's pre built server distro's.

John
-

[Manfred M]

John - you've missed the point. When I archive my files on a RAID box, it's a single read / write cycle (hopefully) until the point I get a drive failure and I have to recover from backup. I can go to bed, have a coffee or read a book during the backup process. I don't care as to how long it takes.

That being said, I've used a number of different drive types and really can't say I've noticed a lot of performance issues based on drive classification.