Intel i5

[Cantab]

Just to throw this out there, I'm currently editing using a 5 year old, first gen i5 2500, with 8GB of ram and 1GB Radeon 5570 GPU, on an older 830 series Samsung SSD running Win 7. No problems running Photoshop Elements 14, any of the free softwares like RawTherapee, and usually with Chrome running on a second desktop looking at tutorials. No complaints about performance. If I had another $600-$700 to throw away, I might look at upgrading, but there's no need honestly.

I agree. I'm using PS and Lightroom on an even slightly older system (W7 64 bit). Both programs work fine.

[SamRothstein]

All that being said, I'd build the most powerful PC I could afford to, and figure on it lasting many years. Put as much money as you can into a good CPU and MOBO with at least 16GB of ram and an SSD for your programs, a good/cheap GPU and a HDD(s?) for your storage, and you'll be set with a system that can handle most anything you can throw at it currently, and can easily have the RAM or GPU upgraded later on to adjust for demands.

I think the initial outlay for my current setup was $650, with about $150-$200 spent to upgrade RAM (4GB to 8GB), and add the SSD. As said, it's pushing 6 years old.

[Simon Garrett]

All that being said, I'd build the most powerful PC I could afford to, and figure on it lasting many years. Put as much money as you can into a good CPU and MOBO with at least 16GB of ram and an SSD for your programs, a good/cheap GPU and a HDD(s?) for your storage, and you'll be set with a system that can handle most anything you can throw at it currently, and can easily have the RAM or GPU upgraded later on to adjust for demands.

I think the initial outlay for my current setup was $650, with about $150-$200 spent to upgrade RAM (4GB to 8GB), and add the SSD. As said, it's pushing 6 years old.

I'd agree with that, but with a proviso: the latest and greatest is often disproportionately expensive.

For example, the Skylake i7-6700K was until recently about 50% more than the Haswell i7-4790K, but only about 10% faster for most functions (the price gap has recently closed to about 20%, but that's still more than the performance gap). Similarly DDR4 memory was (last time I looked) more expensive than DDR3 for the same performance.

If cost is a consideration, there's an argument for looking at the latest-but-one, or at least waiting 6 or 9 months after launch.

Edit: I've just checked and recently Skylake prices (in the UK) have come down quite a lot. Except for the "K" (overclocked) versions, Skylake is now similar in price to Haswell for processors of similar performance.

[marlunn]

of course there is always AMD multi core proccessors as well, often prefered to Intels offerings, just saying

[Simon Garrett]

of course there is always AMD multi core proccessors as well, often prefered to Intels offerings, just saying

When I built a couple of systems about 10 years ago, AMD were at that time cheaper for the same performance. Then Intel seemed to take over. I've just Googled a bit, and found this on Tom's Hardware (http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/gaming...iew-32901.html from November 2015):

"AMD generally shines in the mid-range and down, while Intel’s strength is mid-range and up."

Looking at performance benchmarks, there are a few AMD in the higher rankings, but not very many. I've not looked at Intel/AMD price/performance comparisons recently.

[marlunn]

fair comments but if looking at mid range (i5) may be worth a look for the cost. I build my latest pc with amd its good and solid - so far

[Simon Garrett]

fair comments but if looking at mid range (i5) may be worth a look for the cost. I build my latest pc with amd its good and solid - so far

Most photo programs don't make very extensive use of multi-threading, so an i5 (4 execution threads) may be as fast as an equivalent i7 (8 execution threads) most of the time.

[SamRothstein]

I'd agree with that, but with a proviso: the latest and greatest is often disproportionately expensive.

For example, the Skylake i7-6700K was until recently about 50% more than the Haswell i7-4790K, but only about 10% faster for most functions (the price gap has recently closed to about 20%, but that's still more than the performance gap). Similarly DDR4 memory was (last time I looked) more expensive than DDR3 for the same performance.

If cost is a consideration, there's an argument for looking at the latest-but-one, or at least waiting 6 or 9 months after launch.

Edit: I've just checked and recently Skylake prices (in the UK) have come down quite a lot. Except for the "K" (overclocked) versions, Skylake is now similar in price to Haswell for processors of similar performance.

Oh for sure, I agree with the "best minus one" mentality. When I built my system the i5/i7 series of processors were fairly new, but it was a couple months after launch before I made my move. The difference between the Sandy Bridge and outgoing Clarkdale was a big jump in performance however.

The system builder section, and "best _component_ for the money" sections on Toms Hardware are very helpful.

[dragon76]

Thank you all for your very informative replies, looks like it's the i5 for me.

Pat.

Good choice, I built mine 3 years ago with an older i5 4570 with 32GB which still works flawlessly. You don't really need i7. What would really help optimizing Photoshop is having separate SSD drives. 120GB SSD drives are cheap these days. You can use 1 for your operating system, 1 for your PS & LR and if you're on a budget a separate HDD drive (1TB and under) for your other programs and as a designated PS scratch discs space. The other important factor is core temperature. I found that cooler core temp is very important for PS speed especially when you have many layers PS file. I always ditch the standard fan and get a budget Noctua CPU fan and keep the core 40 degree & under and that should keep PS processing power at optimum level.

hope this helps

Cheers

Dean

[Black Pearl]

Good choice, I built mine 3 years ago with an older i5 4570 with 32GB which still works flawlessly. You don't really need i7. What would really help optimizing Photoshop is having separate SSD drives. 120GB SSD drives are cheap these days. You can use 1 for your operating system, 1 for your PS & LR and if you're on a budget a separate HDD drive (1TB and under) for your other programs and as a designated PS scratch discs space. The other important factor is core temperature. I found that cooler core temp is very important for PS speed especially when you have many layers PS file. I always ditch the standard fan and get a budget Noctua CPU fan and keep the core 40 degree & under and that should keep PS processing power at optimum level.

hope this helps

Cheers

Dean

The processor temp can affect performance when it reaches 100°c but it is barely measurable and nothing you would be able to detect in real world use. Yes a bigger cooler is a best practice but it won't make PS run any better:

https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/ar...rformance-606/

[Manfred M]

The processor temp can affect performance when it reaches 100°c but it is barely measurable and nothing you would be able to detect in real world use. Yes a bigger cooler is a best practice but it won't make PS run any better:

https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/ar...rformance-606/

Exactly correct, but a bigger cooler will often have a larger fan that runs more slowly and results in a lower noise machine. This is the reason I tend to go that route. The stock coolers are built for a low price point and not much else.

[dragon76]

[QUOTE=Black Pearl;591749]The processor temp can affect performance when it reaches 100°c but it is barely measurable and nothing you would be able to detect in real world use. Yes a bigger cooler is a best practice but it won't make PS run any better:

I never suggested that it would make PS run better. I said it would keep it at an optimum level. Overheating CPU would slow down your operating system and all running programs and eventually shut down. My PC used to shut off PS when CPU get extremely hot but has not done so ever since I changed to a more effective cooling system. I didn't have to Google to know this because It also happened to all my older desktops and laptops that I have had in the past.

I Googled an explanation from someone whom apparently is a former engineer at Intel.

https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlike...u_performance/


Cheers

[Black Pearl]

Can't argue with your experience but I've never had, never known nor (until now) ever heard of a computer shutting down because of running PS with a stock fan. I've used it since version 4 (not CS4 the original 4) on desktop towers and for three years on a Dell laptop without a glitch.

[dragon76]

Can't argue with your experience but I've never had, never known nor (until now) ever heard of a computer shutting down because of running PS with a stock fan. I've used it since version 4 (not CS4 the original 4) on desktop towers and for three years on a Dell laptop without a glitch.

I think this is where it is no longer helpful for the OP. I respect your opinion but at the same time, every consumer electronic devices that I've ever used, decrease its effectiveness or performance once they get over heated. Maybe NASA or some high end military devices are impervious to 100 degree heat but I never heard nor had opportunity to use any to prove otherwise. Maybe you have good vented laptop and it never happened to you but extremely overheated CPU shut computer down all the time (it's a fail safe mechanism & to avoid igniting into flame) and in my case PS drop out. I never used PS4 but perhaps you can try the following and see how your system handle PS. In PS4, open a 30 mega pixels RAW image, process 10 PS layers (high pass over lay, gradient, masks etc) for a prolonged period and then go to file>automate>fit Image>pick a random dimension say 2048 & see how well your system handle it. Mine, when it gets to 85 that is when it drops out.


Cheers

[Manfred M]

Dean - Photoshop does not use a lot of CPU resources. Some operations are a bit more CPU intensive, but they really don't run that long. So far as I know there is little or no multi-threading used in either Photoshop or Lightroom, so most of the cores are idling or running background jobs.

I've been building PCs since the mid-1980s and have never seen anything like what you describe.

If you want a hot machine, try rendering HD video; all 8 streams (2 streams per core) on the i7 are pushing close to 100% utilization and the GPU is chugging along nicely all night (GPU stream processors speed the rendering operation).

I've never had a machine shut down due to overheating, but I generally do not use stock fans because I tend to go for large, quieter cooling solutions. I also ensure I have a very well ventilated case, If you are having shut downs, I would suggest there is more likely a case ventilation problem rather than an issue with the CPU cooling unit as I have had that issue when case ventilation gets clogged because I haven't cleaned out the dust bunnies in a while.

[Black Pearl]

Dean - I do feel this is relevant to the OP as you're saying they will have major issues with their machine shutting down when using PS to process multiple files if they don't fit a high performance fan while others are saying that while it may be best practice to do so it won't cause problems.

I currently run Photoshop CC and Photoshop Lightroom CC on an iMac, which doesn't exactly have the best venting, and while it does occasionally get hot, at which point I can hear the fans step up their cooling (generally you'd be hard pressed to hear them) is has never, ever crapped out due to having processor intensive software running. Its not untypical for me to have Lightroom processing a couple of hundred raw files, exporting them to a folder somewhere while I work a few on an individual basis in Photoshop. Typically I will use Nik plugins so thats another bit of software running and I constantly Hot Corner flick over to Safari to reply to FB comments, Google stuff and interact on Forums. I also listen to music while I work so iTunes will be sitting there chugging away using resources. Now I am not for one second going to say all this runs at blistering speeds but that is due to asking a few year old i5 to run those multiple bits of software at the same time and it simply getting bogged down - it never crashes out though. The worst I get is the spinning beachball when Photoshop chews over something particularly intensive.

Again - to the OP - it may be best practice to fit a good quality fan when you update your system but it won't be the end of the world if you don't.

[dragon76]

Dean - Photoshop does not use a lot of CPU resources. Some operations are a bit more CPU intensive, but they really don't run that long. So far as I know there is little or no multi-threading used in either Photoshop or Lightroom, so most of the cores are idling or running background jobs.

Manfred, I believe there are multi-threaded actions like un-sharp mask & blur overlay etc which always use a bit of CPU %. It's never a problem because mine is hyper threading & most modern Intel CPUs are but in my observation, it does increase the tempt of the CPU depending on how large the file size & much time being spent and how many actions being used with PS. Besides, If Adobe recommends multi-core CPU(to a certain extent) for faster PS processing means that some of its tasks are multi-threading.

I've never had a machine shut down due to overheating, but I generally do not use stock fans because I tend to go for large, quieter cooling solutions. I also ensure I have a very well ventilated case, If you are having shut downs, I would suggest there is more likely a case ventilation problem rather than an issue with the CPU cooling unit as I have had that issue when case ventilation gets clogged because I haven't cleaned out the dust bunnies in a while.

I found out that it was both the ventilation issue (as stock fan get dirty very quickly & lost effectiveness) thermal compound on CPU dried up which lead to overheating of CPU which in turn causing freezes and restart. This happened to my old i3 HP Pavilion Laptop.