Advice needed - which PC?

I am planning to buy a new computer to have as a dedicated unit for Post processing, storing and managing my photos. I have only Windows based PCs today but I am thinking that I might buy a Mac for this purpose, but i would rather not since I cannot use any of my other programs or applications on an iMac.

I really like the design of the iMac, clean and nice with good performance.

What would be the equivalent on the PC side. Minimum 24 inch screen and same performance as the iMac, small and quiet is a plus.

Thanks for any advice.

Peter
--
peterwis

peterwis said:

I am planning to buy a new computer to have as a dedicated unit for
Post processing, storing and managing my photos. I have only Windows
based PCs today but I am thinking that I might buy a Mac for this
purpose, but i would rather not since I cannot use any of my other
programs or applications on an iMac.

I really like the design of the iMac, clean and nice with good
performance.

What would be the equivalent on the PC side. Minimum 24 inch screen
and same performance as the iMac, small and quiet is a plus.

Thanks for any advice.

Peter
--
peterwis

Click to expand...

Hi, Peter! I have an iMac 24" myself and I can really recommend it. There are various programs that enable Windows program to run on a Mac. All need a Windows as a separate program, but maybe you already have one that is not restricted to a special hardware.

Bootcamp (comes with the Mac): Lets you run the Mac with XP (SP" and higher) Vista but a reboot is necessary if you want to change the operating system.

VMWare and Parallels (about 80(?) US$ each) offer separate solutions that run Windows as an application under Mac OS X. You don't have to reboot and data exchange between Windows and Mac OS is very simple. I think both apps meanwhile fully support graphic cards.
So, Windows an a Mac isn't a problem anymore. Just for consideration.

Best wishes
--
Jan
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rosember/

Very true, thx

So install Vista on an iMac and use a Microsoft Mouse and keyboard. Adds some cost to an already nice computer but it is a good option.

Any other recommendations on a Vista PC that could compare with an iMac?

Peter
--
peterwis

There isn't any other PC (Vista or otherwise) to compare to the Mac.

In your post you said you wanted this as a dedicated PP machine so I wonder why you would want any other software to run on it.

Out of interest I've been working with both for many years and the only time my Macs ever crash is when I'm running Microsoft programs on them. The PCs of course crash whenever they feel like it.

Each have their own strengths but for a dedicated PP I would stick with my Macs without a moment's hesitation.

Good luck

Seamus
--
Shaysart - Capturing your Dreams

Why would you need a M$ keyboard and mouse?
--
Jan
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rosember/

--
Hi All, this has turned into a bit of an essay but here goes:

The nearest PC equivalent would be the HP TouchSmart series or the Dell BluRay. They all look nice but I personally would be wary of the relative lower specifications compared to a custom machine.

Start off with the monitor as it will be the most important item especially for PP work. 24' Minimum - 1920 * 1200 Resolution. So far so good, next the panel type - There are 3 different commonly available options - TN, VA, IPS.

TN - Low cost, High Speed (2ms - 5ms refresh), cheap but colour reproduction is only 6-bit and unable to display the full 16.7 million colours available in 24-bit true colour. This can be helped with a technique called dithering but will not not the gamut of the better panel types. Also viewing angles are pretty shocking.

VA (MVA or S-PVA) - Good viewing angles, medium cost, best contrast for better blacks, Slow Speed (> 10ms refresh) but they can suffer from something called colour shifting which means that the colour can change when an image is viewed from a different angle.

(S-)IPS - Best image quality, viewing angles and colour reproduction but comes at a cost!

Next - Graphics card! Current must have is the AMD / ATI 48** range with the 4850 using slower memory than the 4870 and also slightly slower GPU speed. Personally I have always found ATI IQ to be better than NVidia but again that is my personal opinion. NVidia direct competitors to the above would be the 9800+, the 260 and the 280. Based on the Apple iMac as a benchmark system I would get a ATI(AMD) 4850 with 1GB of ram which would blow away a 8800GS fitted as standard to the iMac.
Storage:

750GB is the sweet spot price wise right now. I have a couple of Samsung F1s setup in RAID 1. Basically this means that when I am writing information it writes to 2 disks, if 1 fails I have the other as backup. When I replace the faulty disk it rebuilds from the working original. Another manufacturer that I would personally recommend are Western Digital.
RAM + OS

Windows XP 32 bit - 4 GB max, Great driver support and application compatibility. Please note that even if you install 4GB you will never see it total amount as the PCI Express chipset will take anything over 3GB

Windows XP 64 bit - 8 GB. Very fast but comes with the following issues - Driver support is woefully lacking
Vista 32bit - 4GB max - Why bother!

Vista 64bit - 4GB minimum, Vista only starts to wake up with 4GB, 8GB very smooth. I personally quite like Vista but it needs ram to breathe. Driver support not as good as XP 32 but it is getting there, Pentax need to give us a 64bit Raw codec.

Linux: Everybody raves about Ubuntu, I use OpenSuse. These would be comparable to Apple's OS X. + They are free.
Platform: Intel or AMD

This is like Nikon verses Pentax or Canon verses Pentax. Both have their pluses and minuses.

Intel - 80% Market share, Hold the performance high ground with any chip over the Core2 Q6600. Forget about the speed as in Ghz, look at the cache setup to find the speed. Core2s need cache like Vista needs memory. They come in Dual Cores (Duo) or Quad Cores (Quad). Do you need or can you use Quad cores? If you use Bibble yes as it will scale. Adobe Photoshop will not scale as well. For a Core 2 Duo get a E8400, just make sure it has 'Wolfdale' in the processor description as this is the latest and greatest. For a Core 2 Quad look for a E9450, make sure it has a 'Yorkfield' in the description for the latest and greatest. Disclaimer: Before a flamewar kicks off, these are what I personally would get if I were in the market for a new Intel Cpu. You can pick up a Celeron, Pentium or even a Core 2 Duo or Quad for a lot cheaper than the two I have specified but I believe that these are the cpus Intel have designed as optimum for their specific ranges before building down to a price or building up for the extremists.

Motherboards to go with above - Forget about the lower end chipsets, this is the easiest and best way to cripple your new cpu. Look at the X38 chipset for best value. They can be bought in either DDR2 or DDR3 specification depending on the memory type you wish to buy.

Memory - DDR2 is really cheap at the moment. DDR3 is the latest and greatest. I would match the cpus with DDR3 running at 10667 (1333Mhz), expensive for 8GB though.

AMD - 19% Market share. Current offerings top out with the Phenom X4 9950 which is roughly equal to an Intel Q6600. 2 product ranges in the desktop market place. Athlon or Phenom. Athlon is dual core and Phenom is either triple or Quad. If I was in the market now, I would get a Phenom 9850 Black Edition which is quite cheap for the performance at around €130. There is a newer version of the Athlon slowly reaching the market place that is a cut down Phenom codenamed Kuma.
Memory - DDR2 only currently. Load it up with 8GB DDR2 8500.

Chipset - 790FX or 790GX. The FX is the highend standalone option wheras the GX has builtin graphics. I would get a GX as it will have the new SB750 accompanying chip which pairs extremely well with the Phenom.

I personally believe that AMD has a significant platform (system) advantage over Intel with its current range. The Phenom while not as fast as the higher end Intel Quads, is plenty quick enough and paired with a 790GX will blow away a comparable Intel platform due to the better graphics GPU + you can also add 1 or 2 more ATI 48** if you utilise the Crossfire technology.

Other notes or observations:
Adobe be it in Photoshop or Lightroom will always be optimised for Intel.
Video encoding / decoding will be quicker on a Intel cpu

NVidia have signed a deal with Adobe to utilise the GPU's on the 260 or 280 for extra processing power. This will be something to keep an eye going forward. ATI (AMD) have a comparable technology but not as much mindshare.

Excellent write-up!
--
Ed Garrard
http://www.pbase.com/egarrard

In my opinion, a Mac is just a trendy piece of marketing, there's nothing special about them over a mid-ranged priced pc...or even a cheap on you can build yourself with good parts. You got to a small computer shop, pick out some decent components and storage and you're ready to go.
--
My photography website: http://www.kemal.ca

You will be hard-pressed to find a system which can compete on every level with the iMac. For the convenience of the all-in-one design I have experience with the Sony LT/LV series and HP TouchSmarts.

The Sony machines I've seen so far are pretty anemic when it comes to CPU and graphics, but beefier than the iMac with regards to RAM. As the RAM in an iMac is a piece of cake to upgrade and cheap, whereas CPUs and GPUs cannot be realistically upgraded in these machines, the advantage goes to the iMac.

The Touchsmarts seem fairly well specced, but feel like they're going to fall apart if you look at them wrong. Build quality isn't a particular strength for the Sony, either. Neither is easy to adjust in terms of viewing angle.

All in all an excellent explanation. One of the best I have seen. I've added a few comments. We haven't been told what level you are working at; advanced amateur, serious enthusiast or pro, and this will probably have a big influence on how much money you want to spend (or can afford to spend).

Robbie Corrigan said:

TN - Low cost, High Speed (2ms - 5ms refresh), cheap but colour
reproduction is only 6-bit and unable to display the full 16.7
million colours available in 24-bit true colour. This can be helped
with a technique called dithering but will not not the gamut of the
better panel types. Also viewing angles are pretty shocking.
VA (MVA or S-PVA) - Good viewing angles, medium cost, best contrast
for better blacks, Slow Speed (> 10ms refresh) but they can suffer
from something called colour shifting which means that the colour can
change when an image is viewed from a different angle.
(S-)IPS - Best image quality, viewing angles and colour reproduction
but comes at a cost!

Click to expand...

See my above comment because there is a significant difference from top to bottom of the quality range. One thing I would add is that it's absolutely essential, no matter how much you spend on a monitor, to use a good calibration tool to keep it tuned up. Calibration will improve the performance of even the cheapest monitors but if you spend a lot of money on a high-end one and then don't keep it calibrated you've wasted your money.

Member said:

Based on the Apple iMac as a benchmark system I would get a ATI(AMD)
4850 with 1GB of ram which would blow away a 8800GS fitted as
standard to the iMac.

Click to expand...

I'm an AMD fan, so yes.

Member said:

RAM + OS
Windows XP 32 bit - 4 GB max, Great driver support and application
compatibility. Please note that even if you install 4GB you will
never see it total amount as the PCI Express chipset will take
anything over 3GB
Windows XP 64 bit - 8 GB. Very fast but comes with the following
issues - Driver support is woefully lacking
Vista 32bit - 4GB max - Why bother!
Vista 64bit - 4GB minimum, Vista only starts to wake up with 4GB, 8GB
very smooth. I personally quite like Vista but it needs ram to
breathe. Driver support not as good as XP 32 but it is getting there,

Click to expand...

Since I am essentially an amateur I only need XP 32 for what I do and have no direct exerience with Vista. From what I have read I do believe that they are getting the bugs out of it and it's become a reasonably stable platform--I know, it's still Windows, but everything is relative. Absolutely agree about the RAM; whatever you buy, give it lots. I think XP would work even better if it could be configured to use more RAM.

Member said:

Platform: Intel or AMD
Intel - 80% Market share, Hold the performance high ground with any
chip over the Core2 Q6600. Forget about the speed as in Ghz, look at
the cache setup to find the speed. Core2s need cache like Vista needs
memory. They come in Dual Cores (Duo) or Quad Cores (Quad). Do you
need or can you use Quad cores? If you use Bibble yes as it will
scale. Adobe Photoshop will not scale as well. For a Core 2 Duo get a
E8400, just make sure it has 'Wolfdale' in the processor description
as this is the latest and greatest. For a Core 2 Quad look for a
E9450, make sure it has a 'Yorkfield' in the description for the
latest and greatest. Disclaimer: Before a flamewar kicks off, these
are what I personally would get if I were in the market for a new
Intel Cpu. You can pick up a Celeron, Pentium or even a Core 2 Duo or
Quad for a lot cheaper than the two I have specified but I believe
that these are the cpus Intel have designed as optimum for their
specific ranges before building down to a price or building up for
the extremists.

AMD - 19% Market share. Current offerings top out with the Phenom X4
9950 which is roughly equal to an Intel Q6600. 2 product ranges in
the desktop market place. Athlon or Phenom. Athlon is dual core and
Phenom is either triple or Quad. If I was in the market now, I would
get a Phenom 9850 Black Edition which is quite cheap for the
performance at around €130. There is a newer version of the Athlon
slowly reaching the market place that is a cut down Phenom codenamed
Kuma.

Click to expand...

Member said:

I personally believe that AMD has a significant platform (system)
advantage over Intel with its current range. The Phenom while not as
fast as the higher end Intel Quads, is plenty quick enough and paired
with a 790GX will blow away a comparable Intel platform due to the
better graphics GPU + you can also add 1 or 2 more ATI 48** if you
utilise the Crossfire technology.

Click to expand...

A lot of this hinges on how much you can afford to spend. More money will buy more power but unless you're processing very large files or very large volumes of files you probably won't notice a lot of difference between systems. I find that as systems have become more powerful the changes have become less noticeable.

Member said:

Adobe be it in Photoshop or Lightroom will always be optimised for
Intel.

Click to expand...

Again, I don't know if, in practical terms, you'll notice any difference unless you're really pushing the system.

If you can find a local computer store/tech that you can work with and build up a good relationship over time I think you will be well served to do so. I have a small local store I trust and buy most of my stuff there and generally find that a custom system is only marginally more expensive than something off the shelf and if I factor in the support I've gotten over the years and the ability to return/exchange components when necessary I wouldn't consider going any other way.

There's a lot of good info in this post but if you're looking for a broader perspective I would post your question in the PC Talk Forum. Lots of very knowledgeable people there...

--
Look at the picture, not the pixels...
http://www.lkeithr.zenfolio.com

peterwis said:

I am planning to buy a new computer to have as a dedicated unit for
Post processing, storing and managing my photos. I have only Windows
based PCs today but I am thinking that I might buy a Mac for this
purpose, but i would rather not since I cannot use any of my other
programs or applications on an iMac.

I really like the design of the iMac, clean and nice with good
performance.

What would be the equivalent on the PC side. Minimum 24 inch screen
and same performance as the iMac, small and quiet is a plus.

Thanks for any advice.

Peter
--
peterwis

Click to expand...

Build one. All commercial P.C.s cheap-out on something, usually power supplies or video cards. Build your own, you can spec everything.
--



'I cried because I had no E-3. Then I met a man with no E-510'

Olympus E-410, E-330, Nikon D100 (IR) & Pentax K20D.
57 lenses of various types from most brands.

exactly what you are looking for.

If you want something that just looks good, perhaps iMac is what you want.

If you want something that is (1) more economical (especially in the long run), and (2) performs better, then custom built PC is what you should get.

I generally advise against any machines that has monitor and CPU in the same unit unless someone really wants a notebook computer. If you really want a Mac, get Mac Pro. Generally, any machine with the monitor and CPU in the same case is a rotten deal.

1. Monitors usually last longer than CPUs. But if you get a CPU and monitor in the same unit, you either have to toss away the monitor with the CPU or are stuck with the CPU a bit longer than you want to.

2. You can get much better monitor and graphics card for the same $$$ if you get CPU and monitor separately.

But whether it's PC or a Mac, the best option is a custom build. But then custom build is not available for Mac because they want competition to chisel away at their profit margin.

But the best bang for the buck is definitely a custom build machine.

1. You know you will have quality components.
2. You will get only what you need.

3. Finally, but not the least important reason is that custom built will cost several hundred $$$ less than what you buy from Dell, etc.

Custom build can look just as nice if not better. It can be quieter than ready made stuff also. It all depends on the component you use. Mass market computers cut corners on components the customers cannot see. So, the mass market computers tend to spend money on the outer casing, on what the customers can see rather than the inside, where it really counts.

Gene

peterwis said:

I am planning to buy a new computer to have as a dedicated unit for
Post processing, storing and managing my photos. I have only Windows
based PCs today but I am thinking that I might buy a Mac for this
purpose, but i would rather not since I cannot use any of my other
programs or applications on an iMac.

I really like the design of the iMac, clean and nice with good
performance.

What would be the equivalent on the PC side. Minimum 24 inch screen
and same performance as the iMac, small and quiet is a plus.

Thanks for any advice.

Peter
--
peterwis

Click to expand...

--
http://genespentax.blogspot.com/
http://flickr.com/photos/genespentax/
Brand New Sigma EF-530 DG SUPER for only $225.
Brand New Tamron 70-300mm Di LD Macro for only $135.

All the guys here are talking hardware, and they seem to know what they are talking about. So you probably can build a faster PC yourself for the price of an iMac.

You should consider the software, too, though. And I am not talking Photoshop, Lightroom etc. The difference won't be too big. I know that my iMac (spring 2008, so not the last generation but the one before) handles photos perfectly fast - whatever you might want to do. And I am shooting DNG and PEF with the K20D - so file size often is 20MB and up. It probably could handle even larger files with ease (say 30MB of a K30D or whatever). Therefore I think, I have enough speed for the next few years to come (BTW it's not unusual to work with one single Mac for 5 and more years - you should take that into consideration, too, regarding the price). But the hardware is not the essential thing.

What really matters is how the entity of software and hardware works together. And you won't find a machine that betters a Mac here. I have used Windows and DOS for twenty years and wrote my first computer programs in times when DOS wasn't even a spot on the horizon. So I think, I know what this is all about, and I am certainly not afraid of digging into a system. But I don't want to do that anymore. And that's the one single reason why I use a Mac now. It's simply fun to work with a Mac. After 5 years with OS X I still find myself sitting in front of my computer (and that's what I do whole day long for work) and smile because so many things work so well and so easy. He, and it's much nicer to sit in front of a beautiful computer...

So, if possible, I'd recommend to visit an Apple shop and let you show what a Mac is like and try it out yourself.
--
Jan
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rosember/

Tag this posting

Robbie Corrigan said:

as this is the latest and greatest. For a Core 2 Quad look for a
E9450, make sure it has a 'Yorkfield' in the description for the
latest and greatest.

Click to expand...

Q9450 is being replaced by the slightly more expensive Q9550 and a lower priced (less cache) Q9400. The newer Q9550 step E0 may be the one to get if there is a possibility of overclocking.

Processing RAW is not too bad. But processing the AVCHD files from my HD camcorder is PITA; and the main reason I am looking for a new computer now.

I worked in computer support since before PCs were invented. I also supported both PC and Mac in the very early stages. I then spent best part of 20 years in PC support both for Windows and Unix based systems. My team looked after literally thousands of computers.

In more recent years I took up photography and design professionally and I have used Apple mac for that work.

The hardware is good but not that different, especially since i now even have an Intel processor in my Mac, but it is the operating system that make the Mac the creative's number one choice.

As has been said before you can usually work with the same Mac for longer than you wold with a PC so the extra purchase cost evens out over the years.

Whatever you choose it will ultimately be what you do with it that matters just like it is with cameras. We could have the same discussion about which brand of camera to use (and in these forums they generally do!) but the same answer applies. You go with what you like and all that really matters is what you do with it because they will all do the job.

GOOD LUCK

Seamus
--
Shaysart - Capturing your Dreams

I recently picked up a 24" refurbbed iMac which I pretty much use just for image processing. I consider it being a different platform to be an advantage, I can run my normal software on my linux boxes, but it gives me something to run mac software on.

--

Shooting in JPEG is like taking your roll of film to the store to be processed, and when you get your prints, throwing away the negatives.
photos at http://flickr.com/ellarsee

iMac - I second all the supporting arguments for it.
I own one.
I love it.

One of the greatest things about it - I can turn it on and get to work. Whereas with a PC I have to wait a half hour while all the security updates are downloaded and installed and Windows Defender runs it scan slowing everything down.

That joy may not last forever... but it is the way it is today.

You won't be disappointed.

--

Fantastic response, I really appreciate it!

I am definitely an amateur/serious Amateur. I will work in RAW with quite a lot of pictures. I will use Lightroom and Elements for my workflow.

I have speced up an iMac 24 with 4GB memory, 750 GB Harddrive and the 512MB Graphics Memory - that seems like a good machine.

Comparing that with any prebuild, or even custom built Dell Studio (I would like the slim version) does not seem possible, although the best spec certainly is cheaper than the iMac.

So custom is the option. Is it possible to get one built with a slim nice design (demand from my wife..) with a better spec than the iMac, and at a better price?

Somebody also commented on the fact that a screen last longer than the CPU..yes, I agree, so the iMac might not be the best option and I really want to get a PC if possible.

Peter
--
peterwis

Thanks,

There seem to be somewhat of an agreement that custom is the way to go. Since that is new territory to me could you maybe (if you have time and energy) gimme a hint on what to buy and where to get a better machine, and equally good looking as the iMac 24, 4GB, 750GB, 512MB that I specced out. It looks great (important for my wife at least).
--
peterwis