Reading mode: Light Dark

Advice on a custom build for photo editing

Go to last post
SushiEater said:
A lot of things you said are wrong.

Lets start with Ht Hyperthreading that i7 has over i5. It allow to simulate 4 extra cores (6 in my case) and add a whopping 20% more performance. 20% is significant.
Click to expand...
Hyperthreading doesn't give an automatic 20% increase in performance. It depends on how may threads the applications you're running can use at the same time. There is a fixed overhead involved in hyperthreading and if you're running applications that can't take advantage of the virtual cores your system will run slower with hyperthreading enabled. Of course applications that can take advantage of the virtual cores will have increased performance. Since cost is a concern to the OP I think the monetary difference between the i5 and i7 would be better spent on more RAM.
Member said:
The power supply I burnt was very highly rated but it had 28A (from memory) per rail and my overclocked CPU draw more so that is why it burnt. It supposedly had joint feature there it supposed to join rails if more power needed.
Click to expand...
What's the brand and model of the PS that died? You sound like you push your system to the edge so you might be someone who needs more power than you had. What was the maximum voltage you were running your CPU at? That will tell us the power level it would have to have been running at to exceed 28 amps. Might as well throw in what CPU so we know what its rated power envelope is.
Member said:
Video card:

It all depends on software. Adobe promised to use Cuda cores for Lightroom and Photoshop in the future. I thing they enabled this feature in Lightroom but not in Photoshop. Since I only have Photoshop CS6 I did not get that benefit. And I am not upgrading to CC.

So since I am not a gamer and my video card is not that powerful i actually running utility to make clock speed slower to save power.
Click to expand...
Lightroom and Photoshop use OpenGL for acceleration. Cuda cores are pretty much about 3D and video rendering. A few functions in Photoshop do really benefit from 3D acceleration, but not many. As far as I know, none do in Lightroom.
Member said:
SSD only benefit is to boot and load software faster. But after software is loaded in memory SSD does not do a damn thing. Anyone can test it with their own computer.

Photoshop for example takes 9 seconds to load from HD and 4 seconds or less from SSD.

Exit Photoshop.

Put you computer to sleep. Wake it up and load Photoshop again. It takes like 2 seconds to load from HD or SSD at least on my fast system. Anyone with several systems can test this.

And if you have software like InDesign with a lot of fonts it takes very long time to load from SSD because that is the way it was designed. It loads and processes a lot of plug-ins so there is absolutely no benefit of SSD on this piece of software.

Also, you can copy 100 RAW files to SSD and try to process them to JPGs and then do the same thing from HD after reboot. You might save 2 seconds if that. Whoopee!!!!

The only benefit I found of using SSDs was to stitch very large multi-row panorama files that are 1GB or larger at expense of ruining SSD. And of course processing videos.

Some people reported benefit running large SQL databases from SSD but I can't verify it.
Click to expand...
Photoshop writes to disk (or SSD) constantly. An SSD is much faster for doing this. I upgraded from a traditional HD to an SSD with no other changes to my system and the improvement was obvious.
Member said:
As far as utility that comes with motherboard for overclocking it will NEVER give you an ultimate overclock because as far as I know it does not automatically increase VCC and that is the only way to increase speed. The best way to do it is through the BIOS.
Click to expand...
First, the OP is clearly not a hard core overclocker.

However the Asus utility does have a setting to find a bleeding edge overclock and it does increase voltages. It runs a series of tests increasing speeds and voltages with reboots in between until the system is obviously unstable. The changes are being made to the BIOS (UEFI really) with each reboot. I chose a conservative overclock because I prefer stability to "ultimate" speed. I've played the maximum overclock game in the past, but I no longer want to spend major amounts of time trying to get every last tiny bit of performance possible. Nothing wrong with going for the max, but I don't want to anymore and the OP sounds somewhat shy of overclocking at all. I was pointing out that it can be done safely and easily without having to understand the technical side of it.
Member said:
--
Photography Director for Whedonopolis.com
Click to expand...
 
John Tait said:
SushiEater said:
A lot of things you said are wrong.

Lets start with Ht Hyperthreading that i7 has over i5. It allow to simulate 4 extra cores (6 in my case) and add a whopping 20% more performance. 20% is significant.
Click to expand...
Hyperthreading doesn't give an automatic 20% increase in performance. It depends on how may threads the applications you're running can use at the same time. There is a fixed overhead involved in hyperthreading and if you're running applications that can't take advantage of the virtual cores your system will run slower with hyperthreading enabled. Of course applications that can take advantage of the virtual cores will have increased performance. Since cost is a concern to the OP I think the monetary difference between the i5 and i7 would be better spent on more RAM.
Click to expand...
Every single test I have ever ran involving photography or video was 20% faster with hyperthreading on. As far as RAM it all depends. 32bit OS will not use more than 3.2GB yet software will still run just as fast. It would all depend on the software and what exactly you are processing. For example my laptop only has 8gb and OS and FF and Bridge plus Photoshop with several files open and many background processes only use 4.5GB.

My main computer has 32GB just because it was cheap at he time I built it. It would be just the same with 16GB.

Also, memory can always be added. HT can't be!!!!
John Tait said:
John Tait said:
The power supply I burnt was very highly rated but it had 28A (from memory) per rail and my overclocked CPU draw more so that is why it burnt. It supposedly had joint feature there it supposed to join rails if more power needed.
Click to expand...
What's the brand and model of the PS that died? You sound like you push your system to the edge so you might be someone who needs more power than you had. What was the maximum voltage you were running your CPU at? That will tell us the power level it would have to have been running at to exceed 28 amps. Might as well throw in what CPU so we know what its rated power envelope is.
Click to expand...
It was 4-5 years ago but I think it was PC Power and Cooling and my research showed it was top of the line company. I think OCZ bought them since. Probably the power supply would be just fine if I did not do extreme overclocking. I had ECT Prometeia Mach II GT modified with different Freon to run under -65C. I don't remember what CPU I was running at the time because I was upgrading like every 6 months. I think it was 6800EX but not sure. I don't use Prometeia anymore and I donated it to the guy who did modification. He incorporated it in to cascade he told me.
John Tait said:
John Tait said:
Video card:

It all depends on software. Adobe promised to use Cuda cores for Lightroom and Photoshop in the future. I thing they enabled this feature in Lightroom but not in Photoshop. Since I only have Photoshop CS6 I did not get that benefit. And I am not upgrading to CC.

So since I am not a gamer and my video card is not that powerful i actually running utility to make clock speed slower to save power.
Click to expand...
Lightroom and Photoshop use OpenGL for acceleration. Cuda cores are pretty much about 3D and video rendering. A few functions in Photoshop do really benefit from 3D acceleration, but not many. As far as I know, none do in Lightroom.
Click to expand...
You need to read:

Loading…

www.nvidia.com

Loading…

www.nvidia.com
John Tait said:
John Tait said:
SSD only benefit is to boot and load software faster. But after software is loaded in memory SSD does not do a damn thing. Anyone can test it with their own computer.

Photoshop for example takes 9 seconds to load from HD and 4 seconds or less from SSD.

Exit Photoshop.

Put you computer to sleep. Wake it up and load Photoshop again. It takes like 2 seconds to load from HD or SSD at least on my fast system. Anyone with several systems can test this.

And if you have software like InDesign with a lot of fonts it takes very long time to load from SSD because that is the way it was designed. It loads and processes a lot of plug-ins so there is absolutely no benefit of SSD on this piece of software.

Also, you can copy 100 RAW files to SSD and try to process them to JPGs and then do the same thing from HD after reboot. You might save 2 seconds if that. Whoopee!!!!

The only benefit I found of using SSDs was to stitch very large multi-row panorama files that are 1GB or larger at expense of ruining SSD. And of course processing videos.

Some people reported benefit running large SQL databases from SSD but I can't verify it.
Click to expand...
Photoshop writes to disk (or SSD) constantly.
Click to expand...
No, it doesn't. If you have enough memory it would not even touch SSD or HD.
John Tait said:
An SSD is much faster for doing this. I upgraded from a traditional HD to an SSD with no other changes to my system and the improvement was obvious.
Click to expand...
No improvement at all. You are doing something wrong. Besides, it all depends on how large your files are, OS and caching. Photoshop has adjustment in setting where you can dedicate more memory to it for processing. I dedicated 24GB.
John Tait said:
John Tait said:
As far as utility that comes with motherboard for overclocking it will NEVER give you an ultimate overclock because as far as I know it does not automatically increase VCC and that is the only way to increase speed. The best way to do it is through the BIOS.
Click to expand...
First, the OP is clearly not a hard core overclocker.
Click to expand...
You never know what she might be in the future.
John Tait said:
However the Asus utility does have a setting to find a bleeding edge overclock and it does increase voltages.
Click to expand...
If you look in to the BIOS you will see that voltage has colors. Safe voltage is blue or green depending on the motherboard. At some point it become pink and "unsafe" becomes red.

Notice the quotes. i have been running at 1.45V which is a first step in RED for many years now without a problem. Overclocking utility will never go even in to pink territory. In my opinion Green territory is a child play.
John Tait said:
It runs a series of tests increasing speeds and voltages with reboots in between until the system is obviously unstable. The changes are being made to the BIOS (UEFI really) with each reboot. I chose a conservative overclock because I prefer stability to "ultimate" speed. I've played the maximum overclock game in the past, but I no longer want to spend major amounts of time trying to get every last tiny bit of performance possible. Nothing wrong with going for the max, but I don't want to anymore and the OP sounds somewhat shy of overclocking at all. I was pointing out that it can be done safely and easily without having to understand the technical side of it.
Click to expand...
I am not running at the max either because there is absolutely no benefit in it. But I could do 4.8GHz on all 6 cores if I increase the voltage to over 1.55V. It will simply consume too much power for absolutely nothing in performance. But at 4.5Ghz at 1.45V I get absolute stability on all 6 cores. I have not had any lock-ups or BSOD for many years regardless how much I throw at it.
 
Ludvig said:
According to the benchmarks at
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_list.php
and
http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/gpu_list.php

...the following are the scores for the CPUs and graphics you talk about:
i5-4690: CPU score 7613 with Intel HD Graphics 4600, Graphic score 710
i7-4790: CPU score 10019 with Intel HD Graphics 4600, Graphic score 710
i7-6700: CPU score 9963 with Intel HD Graphics 530, Graphic score 1027
Click to expand...
cpubenchmark is a simple synthetic benchmark. Hypertheads score better. But that doesn't mean it will do anything for you in photoshop, where the difference between the quad core i5 and the quad HT i7 is more about the slightly different clock speed (or turbo peak).

The i7-4790k is a great processor choice if affordable for Sarah, but more about the 4ghz out of the box, and the potential to boost it later. The i5 runs at 3.4. But if i5 k model can be overclock'd to the same mid 4s, then back to nearly even for her stated need.

Skylark (6700k) seems to have a boost with the most recent Windows 10 release. And the motherboards have better supports for PCIE SSDs and a nice shiny new chipset. But you're certainly paying a premium for it right now - chips are in short supply.

I feel it makes better sense for her to get the K i5-4xxx series and use that extra 100# on other components (ssd, non crappy PS, 16G ram).
 
SushiEater said:
Member said:
So you're measuring over 130W draw running at 1.2GHz? That's completely different from what I measure on my machine.
Click to expand...
No, at 1.2Ghz I measure 120w. That is idle.
Member said:
Prime95 tests are probably slightly more taxing measures than RAW conversion (I've watched both) as Prime95 will run 100% CPU all of the time, whereas RAW conversions have a slight amount of non-maxed CPU due to disk IO. But the difference with regards to actual wattage will be trivial and would be lost in the variance associated with consumer power meter sampling rates.
Click to expand...
Actually OCCT with Linpack will get your computer to 100%. Prime 95 only says 100% but it doesn't utilize all of the hidden features of the CPU like Linpack does.
Member said:
Interestingly, one area where I have found SSD to be slightly useful is in the large batch processing of RAW files. Watching CPU utilisation, the CPU troughs associated with file read/write are much less pronounced when using an SSD vs a hard drive. I didn't time it as it looked like it would be only a handful of minutes saved per hour, and my batch jobs take multi hours so I just walk away from the computer anyway.
Click to expand...
You mean handful of seconds. I did time it and it is in the margin of errors. Actually for any photos even if you process or load from CF card attached with USB reader to USB 2 port the time is about the same. The reason for it is because OS utilizes caching so on the very first file you save few second but then the second file is being cached while first file is being processed. Since the best processing time I can get is 2.5 seconds (depending on the RAW file, the photo with a large amount of one color like sky processes faster) it takes a lot less time to read 36mp file (about 45mb) even from the USB 2 CF card reader. It also applies to just reading small JPGs. That is why I suggest not to bother with large SSD for photo processing. Video on the other hand is another story especially if you have computer like mine which loads CPU 100% while doing video processing.

--
Photography Director for Whedonopolis.com
Click to expand...
Huh, that's weird how we're finding such a big difference in power draw in percentage terms. I had assumed that my PC was fairly power hungry just given the number of drives in it. So I'm guessing that the difference is down to CPUs being overclocked or not, and possibly your generation of CPU just burning more electricity (can't remember what you're running, I'm on a Haswell).

I am wondering about your big batch jobs though- if you process thousands of RAW files on a daily basis, presumably this is for a business so why not run the job across multiple PCs? The only place I've ever worked where graphics was a core part of the business and the processing took a lot of time, we just bought ten identical Dell i7 machines to run the same jobs, which pretty quickly paid for itself in terms of time saved and the amount of output that the graphics team could get through.

For video, I assume that you can't parallel process jobs (I don't know anything about video), but for RAW conversion I would have thought that multiple machines would be a lot easier.
 
Last edited:
SarahBK said:
Sushieater: Yes, I've noted from several other comments, as yours, that overclocking is a great way of getting more speed out of the CPU while spending less. It's just I wonder how capable I would be to do this myself without ruining something. But I suppose with adequate research, helpful advice from knowledgeable individuals like yourself, and of course selecting a good fan, I suppose I should be capable of doing it.
Click to expand...
A minor correction, you are getting more out of your CPU by spending more, not less :) You're spending more on higher quality components (motherboard that can support overclocking, preferably with good voltage control, a K CPU, possibly RAM with better timing figures) and potentially quite a lot of time.
SarahBK said:
Hard to tell as at this stage I'm undergoing a large learning curve :) As for long boot time - oh I definitely know - my laptop (which I'm dying to replace) is over 4 years old and I nearly never shut it down to get it to wake faster (just put it in hibernate). Have been told doing this is not very good for the HDD (non-SSD) but I'm not sure if that's actually the case.
Click to expand...
Hibernating or sleeping a laptop has no effect on the hard drive, this is the first time I've even heard of this idea so no idea why someone might have told you this.
SarahBK said:
StIves: Good to know that the graphics does not play a big part when it comes to photo editing. Also, good point re the USB slots for the motherboard. I'll probably need a handful of those, so I'll keep that in mind.

Are decent coolers really that heavy?
Click to expand...
A decent and commonly mentioned entry level cooler would be a Cooler Master 212: http://www.coolermaster.com/cooling/cpu-air-cooler/hyper-212-evo/

It's half a kilo. It's not that heavy, the tricky bit is that it hangs off your motherboard in a perpendicular fashion so any shocks to the system are leveraged onto the CPU.

A high end air cooler would be about a kilo.

An alternative is water cooling, which has in the last couple of years hit almost mainstream, but the thing to be aware of here is that there is a pump that circulates the coolant which sounds like a fish tank pump. It might be loud, it might be quiet, but it's a pump. I've known a couple of people who have gone this route only to get annoyed and move back to giant air coolers because they don't like the noise of the pump in an otherwise quiet room.
SarahBK said:
RyanBoston: With adequate tutorials, guides and information (if youtube is a good source for even more, I'll do some good looking around on there - so far it's been just written articles - thanks!) I don't see why I couldn't give it a go! So far the hardest bit seems to be picking the right set of components, but from all the feedback I've received here and reading online, I already have a much broader idea of what's available and possible :)
Click to expand...
Not sure what this in answer to, but does this mean you've not built a PC before? Building a PC is very easy these days, but there are still plenty of areas where there can be gotchas, and once you get stuck it can be very frustrating.

If that's the case, try to make sure that you have a PC knowledgeable friend on hand who is willing to bail you out if necessary. And if you do get help, pay him/her back in food and beer, which is universally appreciated by tech guys who get roped into home troubleshooting.
SarahBK said:
edispics: See my second paragraph to John Tait for a slight more elaboration of what I plan on doing with my computer :) As for lifespan... I'd like to get as many years out of it as possible doing pretty much the above.
Click to expand...
Frankly, if you're running an oldish laptop at the moment, almost anything new and semi-serious would be a big improvement, including just ordering a Dell and slapping an SSD into it and using the existing hard drive as a data partition.

A highly overclocked i7 still sounds to me like overkill, but if you want to learn a bit and enjoy tinkering, go for it. Here's a good guide, there are many more like it: http://www.tweaktown.com/guides/7481/tweaktowns-ultimate-intel-skylake-overclocking-guide/index.html

Anyway, good luck and have fun with the build.
 
Last edited:
StIves said:
SushiEater said:
StIves said:
So you're measuring over 130W draw running at 1.2GHz? That's completely different from what I measure on my machine.
Click to expand...
No, at 1.2Ghz I measure 120w. That is idle.
StIves said:
Prime95 tests are probably slightly more taxing measures than RAW conversion (I've watched both) as Prime95 will run 100% CPU all of the time, whereas RAW conversions have a slight amount of non-maxed CPU due to disk IO. But the difference with regards to actual wattage will be trivial and would be lost in the variance associated with consumer power meter sampling rates.
Click to expand...
Actually OCCT with Linpack will get your computer to 100%. Prime 95 only says 100% but it doesn't utilize all of the hidden features of the CPU like Linpack does.
StIves said:
Interestingly, one area where I have found SSD to be slightly useful is in the large batch processing of RAW files. Watching CPU utilisation, the CPU troughs associated with file read/write are much less pronounced when using an SSD vs a hard drive. I didn't time it as it looked like it would be only a handful of minutes saved per hour, and my batch jobs take multi hours so I just walk away from the computer anyway.
Click to expand...
You mean handful of seconds. I did time it and it is in the margin of errors. Actually for any photos even if you process or load from CF card attached with USB reader to USB 2 port the time is about the same. The reason for it is because OS utilizes caching so on the very first file you save few second but then the second file is being cached while first file is being processed. Since the best processing time I can get is 2.5 seconds (depending on the RAW file, the photo with a large amount of one color like sky processes faster) it takes a lot less time to read 36mp file (about 45mb) even from the USB 2 CF card reader. It also applies to just reading small JPGs. That is why I suggest not to bother with large SSD for photo processing. Video on the other hand is another story especially if you have computer like mine which loads CPU 100% while doing video processing.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
kelpdiver said:
Ludvig said:
According to the benchmarks at
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_list.php
and
http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/gpu_list.php

...the following are the scores for the CPUs and graphics you talk about:
i5-4690: CPU score 7613 with Intel HD Graphics 4600, Graphic score 710
i7-4790: CPU score 10019 with Intel HD Graphics 4600, Graphic score 710
i7-6700: CPU score 9963 with Intel HD Graphics 530, Graphic score 1027
Click to expand...
cpubenchmark is a simple synthetic benchmark. Hypertheads score better. But that doesn't mean it will do anything for you in photoshop, where the difference between the quad core i5 and the quad HT i7 is more about the slightly different clock speed (or turbo peak).

The i7-4790k is a great processor choice if affordable for Sarah, but more about the 4ghz out of the box, and the potential to boost it later. The i5 runs at 3.4. But if i5 k model can be overclock'd to the same mid 4s, then back to nearly even for her stated need.

Skylark (6700k) seems to have a boost with the most recent Windows 10 release. And the motherboards have better supports for PCIE SSDs and a nice shiny new chipset. But you're certainly paying a premium for it right now - chips are in short supply.

I feel it makes better sense for her to get the K i5-4xxx series and use that extra 100# on other components (ssd, non crappy PS, 16G ram).
Click to expand...
The Skylake i5 6600K costs £206, with the i5 4690K being only slightly less than its newer counterpart at £186. There is a similar smaller price difference between the Haswell i7 4790K (£283) and the Skylake i7 6700 (£300). For such a small price difference between the 'old' and new, I'm not sure how much sense it makes to go for either of the 4th Gen CPUs over the 6th gens. Hence why I'm thinking it's more about deciding between the Skylake i5 and i7, where the price difference is somewhat more significant. On Amazon UK, that's where the premium cost lies. I suppose we are looking at very different pricings, which significantly changes the way we go about considering the best deal.

The added benefits you and some other sources mentioned with the Skylakes only further push towards this idea.

Rather than simply wishing to be considerate about the total expense (because it seems like we're playing with a hundred or so difference between one and the other, which is not a lot considering how many years I'd be using it for), it's more about not getting what is absolute overkill, or would be power hungry and result in permanent more expensive bills :P I've been getting plenty of mixed opinion on this, such as you feeling that the i5 may well be enough. And in truth, it might be - but I can't really tell - it's hard deciding on something that to me is so arbitrary. The benefit is that with the i7 I'd have the higher clock speed right out of the box, but yet again the i5 still has the potential to be as good (from the sound of things) if I feel I could do with an upgrade. It seems that the overall speed matters more than the i5/i7 from the comments I've received.

Question - would an overclocked i5 6600k require a more powerful (and hence more expensive) cooling system than a non-overclocked i7 6700k? Because if the answer is yes, then the difference between the price of these two becomes ever less insignificant. If not, I suppose I'd only be paying off the difference in price with time to learn how to overclock (not that I wouldn't like to learn how to though!) But there's always the scenario that the i5 is simply more than enough...
 
Last edited:
StIves said:
SarahBK said:
Sushieater: Yes, I've noted from several other comments, as yours, that overclocking is a great way of getting more speed out of the CPU while spending less. It's just I wonder how capable I would be to do this myself without ruining something. But I suppose with adequate research, helpful advice from knowledgeable individuals like yourself, and of course selecting a good fan, I suppose I should be capable of doing it.
Click to expand...
A minor correction, you are getting more out of your CPU by spending more, not less :) You're spending more on higher quality components (motherboard that can support overclocking, preferably with good voltage control, a K CPU, possibly RAM with better timing figures) and potentially quite a lot of time.
Click to expand...
I was comparing an overclocked i5 to a non overclocked i7 giving the same speed, but of course there are other minor added expenses to consider with doing the former so yeah not overall cheaper! Thing is even if I went for an i7 that I wasn't initially going to tinker with, I'd probably still go for the higher quality components that you pointed out... because if I did want to overclock that it would be better using what I have than buying new components afresh. It would only be small initial savings
StIves said:
StIves said:
Hard to tell as at this stage I'm undergoing a large learning curve :) As for long boot time - oh I definitely know - my laptop (which I'm dying to replace) is over 4 years old and I nearly never shut it down to get it to wake faster (just put it in hibernate). Have been told doing this is not very good for the HDD (non-SSD) but I'm not sure if that's actually the case.
Click to expand...
Hibernating or sleeping a laptop has no effect on the hard drive, this is the first time I've even heard of this idea so no idea why someone might have told you this.
Click to expand...
Good to know :) Not sure really...
StIves said:
StIves said:
StIves: Good to know that the graphics does not play a big part when it comes to photo editing. Also, good point re the USB slots for the motherboard. I'll probably need a handful of those, so I'll keep that in mind.

Are decent coolers really that heavy?
Click to expand...
A decent and commonly mentioned entry level cooler would be a Cooler Master 212: http://www.coolermaster.com/cooling/cpu-air-cooler/hyper-212-evo/

It's half a kilo. It's not that heavy, the tricky bit is that it hangs off your motherboard in a perpendicular fashion so any shocks to the system are leveraged onto the CPU.

A high end air cooler would be about a kilo.

An alternative is water cooling, which has in the last couple of years hit almost mainstream, but the thing to be aware of here is that there is a pump that circulates the coolant which sounds like a fish tank pump. It might be loud, it might be quiet, but it's a pump. I've known a couple of people who have gone this route only to get annoyed and move back to giant air coolers because they don't like the noise of the pump in an otherwise quiet room.
Click to expand...
Yes, I noted some others mentioned that specific cooler.

That sounds quite bulky, but it's a desktop pc so I suppose it doesn't matter much. Ah, do you mean physical shocks, so if the computer was carried around it has the potential of breaking off with the movements? I guess this wouldn't be an issue for me as I don't intend carrying it around, but it's good to know for potential moves with it. As long as when it's fixed on and not being moved around it works and stays there, that's good!
StIves said:
StIves said:
RyanBoston: With adequate tutorials, guides and information (if youtube is a good source for even more, I'll do some good looking around on there - so far it's been just written articles - thanks!) I don't see why I couldn't give it a go! So far the hardest bit seems to be picking the right set of components, but from all the feedback I've received here and reading online, I already have a much broader idea of what's available and possible :)
Click to expand...
Not sure what this in answer to, but does this mean you've not built a PC before? Building a PC is very easy these days, but there are still plenty of areas where there can be gotchas, and once you get stuck it can be very frustrating.

If that's the case, try to make sure that you have a PC knowledgeable friend on hand who is willing to bail you out if necessary. And if you do get help, pay him/her back in food and beer, which is universally appreciated by tech guys who get roped into home troubleshooting.
Click to expand...
No, I haven't. Many years ago I'd watched my father piece my first computer together... but we're talking quite some time ago... we'd installed Windows 98 on it! Not sure I'll have any expert help around as I plan on doing this build upon moving to the UK, and I don't think I'll have many friends at that point :) Offering something in return for someone's help goes without saying though... :)

I can imagine there are many potential points for getting stuck, which is why nothing really beats experienced individuals in their field.
StIves said:
StIves said:
edispics: See my second paragraph to John Tait for a slight more elaboration of what I plan on doing with my computer :) As for lifespan... I'd like to get as many years out of it as possible doing pretty much the above.
Click to expand...
Frankly, if you're running an oldish laptop at the moment, almost anything new and semi-serious would be a big improvement, including just ordering a Dell and slapping an SSD into it and using the existing hard drive as a data partition.

A highly overclocked i7 still sounds to me like overkill, but if you want to learn a bit and enjoy tinkering, go for it. Here's a good guide, there are many more like it: http://www.tweaktown.com/guides/7481/tweaktowns-ultimate-intel-skylake-overclocking-guide/index.html

Anyway, good luck and have fun with the build.
Click to expand...
I'm sure anything would at this point, but once I'm investing in a system I'd like it to be worth the expense in the long run (i.e. a good computer, not just slight upgrade... but that's probably not too hard considering how poorly this performs).

Thanks for the article and for your help :) Will give it a good read!
 
SarahBK said:
The Skylake i5 6600K costs £206, with the i5 4690K being only slightly less than its newer counterpart at £186. There is a similar smaller price difference between the Haswell i7 4790K (£283) and the Skylake i7 6700 (£300). For such a small price difference between the 'old' and new, I'm not sure how much sense it makes to go for either of the 4th Gen CPUs over the 6th gens. Hence why I'm thinking it's more about deciding between the
Click to expand...
I'd agree - if you can get the Skylakes for those prices, it's the better move. The price difference between DDR4 and DDR3 is pretty slight these days (at least in the US), unlike a year ago. Soon the DDR4s will be the cheaper choice as production shifts to it.

i5 versus i7- if you can afford it and it's just a value question, then the i7 is the better call. It's a 10% or less increase in the system with more than 10% improvement (at least if you ignore overclocking). And you're correct that with OC'ing the need to spend well on the cpu fan (not intel's stock) and the power supply increase.

But if getting the i7 means you have to make compromises elsewhere, I'd rather have the i5.
 
SarahBK said:
I was comparing an overclocked i5 to a non overclocked i7 giving the same speed, but of course there are other minor added expenses to consider with doing the former so yeah not overall cheaper! Thing is even if I went for an i7 that I wasn't initially going to tinker with, I'd probably still go for the higher quality components that you pointed out... because if I did want to overclock that it would be better using what I have than buying new components afresh. It would only be small initial savings
Click to expand...
Think of it this way, if the difference is $100 and you already spending $1000 would $100 make a huge difference if you are possibly getting 20% more performance.
SarahBK said:
SarahBK said:
SarahBK said:
Hard to tell as at this stage I'm undergoing a large learning curve :) As for long boot time - oh I definitely know - my laptop (which I'm dying to replace) is over 4 years old and I nearly never shut it down to get it to wake faster (just put it in hibernate). Have been told doing this is not very good for the HDD (non-SSD) but I'm not sure if that's actually the case.
Click to expand...
Hibernating or sleeping a laptop has no effect on the hard drive, this is the first time I've even heard of this idea so no idea why someone might have told you this.
Click to expand...
Good to know :) Not sure really...
Click to expand...
Hibernating involves saving all memory state to a hard drive or SSD. Sleep does not save anything. Hibernating does not save that much so even if you hibernate 100 times a day not much will be written to SSD anyway so not much effect there. Sleep is faster though because nothing is saved but if you lose power (I have UPS so I am not worried) you will lose your work in progress. I disabled hibernation.
SarahBK said:
SarahBK said:
SarahBK said:
StIves: Good to know that the graphics does not play a big part when it comes to photo editing. Also, good point re the USB slots for the motherboard. I'll probably need a handful of those, so I'll keep that in mind.

Are decent coolers really that heavy?
Click to expand...
A decent and commonly mentioned entry level cooler would be a Cooler Master 212: http://www.coolermaster.com/cooling/cpu-air-cooler/hyper-212-evo/

It's half a kilo. It's not that heavy, the tricky bit is that it hangs off your motherboard in a perpendicular fashion so any shocks to the system are leveraged onto the CPU.

A high end air cooler would be about a kilo.

An alternative is water cooling, which has in the last couple of years hit almost mainstream, but the thing to be aware of here is that there is a pump that circulates the coolant which sounds like a fish tank pump. It might be loud, it might be quiet, but it's a pump. I've known a couple of people who have gone this route only to get annoyed and move back to giant air coolers because they don't like the noise of the pump in an otherwise quiet room.
Click to expand...
Yes, I noted some others mentioned that specific cooler.
Click to expand...
Get this one or something similar.

Loading…

www.coolermaster.com

The pump is quite. I have non-submersible aquarium pump in my system and I don't hear it.

SarahBK said:
That sounds quite bulky, but it's a desktop pc so I suppose it doesn't matter much. Ah, do you mean physical shocks, so if the computer was carried around it has the potential of breaking off with the movements? I guess this wouldn't be an issue for me as I don't intend carrying it around, but it's good to know for potential moves with it. As long as when it's fixed on and not being moved around it works and stays there, that's good!
Click to expand...
Recently there were cases that people put heavy coolers on the Skylake CPU and because Skylake is thinner than previous CPUs it actually got bent. These large coolers are heavy and if you transporting your computer it is recommended to remove the cooler before transport.
SarahBK said:
SarahBK said:
If that's the case, try to make sure that you have a PC knowledgeable friend on hand who is willing to bail you out if necessary. And if you do get help, pay him/her back in food and beer, which is universally appreciated by tech guys who get roped into home troubleshooting.
Click to expand...
No, I haven't. Many years ago I'd watched my father piece my first computer together... but we're talking quite some time ago... we'd installed Windows 98 on it! Not sure I'll have any expert help around as I plan on doing this build upon moving to the UK, and I don't think I'll have many friends at that point :) Offering something in return for someone's help goes without saying though... :)

I can imagine there are many potential points for getting stuck, which is why nothing really beats experienced individuals in their field.
Click to expand...
The most difficult part is to mount motherboard in the case. You need to make sure that you use 9 mounting holes in the right location and nothing is touching contacts on the motherboard. The backplate (connectors plate) also has to click in position for proper grounding and alignment. But once that is done it gets much easier.
 
You need to read:

http://www.nvidia.com/object/adobe-lightroom-cc.html

http://www.nvidia.com/object/adobe-photoshop-cc.html

I've looked at them and concluded that nvidia wants to sell me very expensive graphic cards.
Member said:
Member said:
Photoshop writes to disk (or SSD) constantly.
Click to expand...
No, it doesn't. If you have enough memory it would not even touch SSD or HD.
Member said:
An SSD is much faster for doing this. I upgraded from a traditional HD to an SSD with no other changes to my system and the improvement was obvious.
Click to expand...
No improvement at all. You are doing something wrong. Besides, it all depends on how large your files are, OS and caching. Photoshop has adjustment in setting where you can dedicate more memory to it for processing. I dedicated 24GB.
Click to expand...
I guess the writes to disk I see are due to only having 16GB of RAM. Shows that 32GB of RAM could be the way to go in a new system. Seriously, I'm not being sarcastic.
Member said:
Member said:
Member said:
As far as utility that comes with motherboard for overclocking it will NEVER give you an ultimate overclock because as far as I know it does not automatically increase VCC and that is the only way to increase speed. The best way to do it is through the BIOS.
Click to expand...
First, the OP is clearly not a hard core overclocker.
Click to expand...
You never know what she might be in the future.
Click to expand...
Obviously this will be up to her. If she's thinking that way already she should plan for it. But if she isn't I wouldn't recommend making choices based on the possibility if it costs significantly more to do so. It's easy to spend a little more here and a little more there in a system "just in case", but it can add up to a lot of money. When you start improving components in a low end system you should get a fairly big increase in performance for not a lot more money. There will be a point where you start having to spend a lot more money for a small increase in performance. I try to find that point.
Member said:
Member said:
However the Asus utility does have a setting to find a bleeding edge overclock and it does increase voltages.
Click to expand...
If you look in to the BIOS you will see that voltage has colors. Safe voltage is blue or green depending on the motherboard. At some point it become pink and "unsafe" becomes red.

Notice the quotes. i have been running at 1.45V which is a first step in RED for many years now without a problem. Overclocking utility will never go even in to pink territory. In my opinion Green territory is a child play.
Member said:
How do you know? The process can be initiated within the UEFI and isn't isn't OS or software dependent.
Click to expand...
I am not running at the max either because there is absolutely no benefit in it. But I could do 4.8GHz on all 6 cores if I increase the voltage to over 1.55V. It will simply consume too much power for absolutely nothing in performance. But at 4.5Ghz at 1.45V I get absolute stability on all 6 cores. I have not had any lock-ups or BSOD for many years regardless how much I throw at it.

--
Photography Director for Whedonopolis.com
Click to expand...
Now that I know the CPU you're using I can see how you might blow a well made power supply by overclocking the CPU. That's not a normal CPU, though. Very expensive and very power hungry at a rating of 135 watts before overclocking. Part of the consideration when pushing overclocking is that other components can get driven into areas they weren't designed for.

Regarding hyperthreading, as far as I've been able to find out only a handful of Photoshop's filters/capabilities use more than one or two threads. Those that can use more seem to reach peak performance at five threads. I think one filter can benefit from more than five. The takeaway is that almost everything Photoshop does only uses one or two threads so hyperthreading might or might not give an improvment, but for most things it won't. Last time I looked into it, Lightroom maxed at using two threads. If a hundred pounds extra cost isn't an issue, an i7 is the way to go, but it wouldn't be worth it to me. It appears that it would be to you. This is a choice based on goals and judgement, so lets agree to disagree.

I doubt either of us will change the others mind about anything at this point. We have different goals in a system. In the spirit of disclosure, one of my major goals is for my PC to be very quiet. As a result I make component and configuration choices designed to keep heat down. This lets me use very quiet fans running at low rpm.
 
Last edited:
John Tait said:
You need to read:

http://www.nvidia.com/object/adobe-lightroom-cc.html

http://www.nvidia.com/object/adobe-photoshop-cc.html

I've looked at them and concluded that nvidia wants to sell me very expensive graphic cards.
John Tait said:
John Tait said:
Photoshop writes to disk (or SSD) constantly.
Click to expand...
No, it doesn't. If you have enough memory it would not even touch SSD or HD.
John Tait said:
An SSD is much faster for doing this. I upgraded from a traditional HD to an SSD with no other changes to my system and the improvement was obvious.
Click to expand...
No improvement at all. You are doing something wrong. Besides, it all depends on how large your files are, OS and caching. Photoshop has adjustment in setting where you can dedicate more memory to it for processing. I dedicated 24GB.
Click to expand...
I guess the writes to disk I see are due to only having 16GB of RAM. Shows that 32GB of RAM could be the way to go in a new system. Seriously, I'm not being sarcastic.
John Tait said:
John Tait said:
John Tait said:
As far as utility that comes with motherboard for overclocking it will NEVER give you an ultimate overclock because as far as I know it does not automatically increase VCC and that is the only way to increase speed. The best way to do it is through the BIOS.
Click to expand...
First, the OP is clearly not a hard core overclocker.
Click to expand...
You never know what she might be in the future.
Click to expand...
Obviously this will be up to her. If she's thinking that way already she should plan for it. But if she isn't I wouldn't recommend making choices based on the possibility if it costs significantly more to do so. It's easy to spend a little more here and a little more there in a system "just in case", but it can add up to a lot of money. When you start improving components in a low end system you should get a fairly big increase in performance for not a lot more money. There will be a point where you start having to spend a lot more money for a small increase in performance. I try to find that point.
John Tait said:
John Tait said:
However the Asus utility does have a setting to find a bleeding edge overclock and it does increase voltages.
Click to expand...
If you look in to the BIOS you will see that voltage has colors. Safe voltage is blue or green depending on the motherboard. At some point it become pink and "unsafe" becomes red.

Notice the quotes. i have been running at 1.45V which is a first step in RED for many years now without a problem. Overclocking utility will never go even in to pink territory. In my opinion Green territory is a child play.
John Tait said:
How do you know? The process can be initiated within the UEFI and isn't isn't OS or software dependent.
Click to expand...
I am not running at the max either because there is absolutely no benefit in it. But I could do 4.8GHz on all 6 cores if I increase the voltage to over 1.55V. It will simply consume too much power for absolutely nothing in performance. But at 4.5Ghz at 1.45V I get absolute stability on all 6 cores. I have not had any lock-ups or BSOD for many years regardless how much I throw at it.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
I just went through this in the last couple of weeks. I did a ton of research in to building a computer, and was about to, but ultimately caught a deal that I couldn't pass up. I found the Dell XPS8900 with the Skylake i7-6700 (not K) processor, 8GB memory, 1TB hard drive, Nvidia GT 730 2GB video card for $699.00. At that price, the whole computer was roughly just double the processor by itself. My logic here was that I could later upgrade the memory, hard drive, and video card, but still have plenty of raw horsepower to start off with. I am not a gamer, and have zero interest in overclocking. The i7-6700 is arguably a monster processor. Photoshop was not an issue......but I have a teenage daughter (who borrows my camera, lights, etc. to make videos) taking classes and is about to become Adobe certified in Premier Pro, so after a few weekends of paying gigs......

I have added another 16GB Ram ($85), and replaced the NVidia GT730 card with the much larger and faster Asus NVidia 4GB GTX 960 ($214) video card (needed for 4K encoding and decoding), and two SSD drives (250GB Samsung 840 EVO for the boot/Windows drive, 1TB 850 EVO for data). Admittedly this much this quick is out of the reach of a lot of people all at once, but piecemeal is doable over a period of time while starting out with enough power t
 
John Tait said:
Obviously this will be up to her. If she's thinking that way already she should plan for it. But if she isn't I wouldn't recommend making choices based on the possibility if it costs significantly more to do so. It's easy to spend a little more here and a little more there in a system "just in case", but it can add up to a lot of money. When you start improving components in a low end system you should get a fairly big increase in performance for not a lot more money. There will be a point where you start having to spend a lot more money for a small increase in performance. I try to find that point.
Click to expand...
This thread does remind me a bit of what was discussed in another current thread (about why people buy ILC cameras but stick to a kit lens for the rest of the camera's life).

Buying a PC on the possibility of an overclock is a bit like buying an SLR 'just in case I want to change lenses in the future'. Some people end up doing it and find it really helpful, but most people just end up with a bit of gear capability that they never end up using.

I think that overclocking is even less common than normal amongst professional IT people (who in my experience value reliability/stability or ease of maintenance). In my circles (heavily skewed towards techies), I know exactly two people who run overclocks as standard. And these are people who also run multiple physical servers/appliances and virtualised environments at home.
 
Last edited:
paradisephoto said:
I have added another 16GB Ram ($85), and replaced the NVidia GT730 card with the much larger and faster Asus NVidia 4GB GTX 960 ($214) video card (needed for 4K encoding and decoding), and two SSD drives (250GB Samsung 840 EVO for the boot/Windows drive, 1TB 850 EVO for data). Admittedly this much this quick is out of the reach of a lot of people all at once, but piecemeal is doable over a period of time while starting out with enough power
Click to expand...
Have you updated the firmware on the 840 EVO? There's a known problem with that model where the NAND loses state data over time and the whole drive slows down. There's a firmware workaround for it, but you have to apply the firmware manually.
 
John Tait said:
Now that I know the CPU you're using I can see how you might blow a well made power supply by overclocking the CPU. That's not a normal CPU, though. Very expensive and very power hungry at a rating of 135 watts before overclocking.
Click to expand...
I paid very little for it actually because it was previous generation.

My current CPU is also 135w TDP but my PS is over 60A on the rail.
John Tait said:
Part of the consideration when pushing overclocking is that other components can get driven into areas they weren't designed for.

Regarding hyperthreading, as far as I've been able to find out only a handful of Photoshop's filters/capabilities use more than one or two threads. Those that can use more seem to reach peak performance at five threads. I think one filter can benefit from more than five.
Click to expand...
RAW conversion!!!! All 12 cores are loaded.



47ffda638a11402b804a406efafb092c.jpg

John Tait said:
The takeaway is that almost everything Photoshop does only uses one or two threads so hyperthreading might or might not give an improvment, but for most things it won't. Last time I looked into it, Lightroom maxed at using two threads. If a hundred pounds extra cost isn't an issue, an i7 is the way to go, but it wouldn't be worth it to me. It appears that it would be to you. This is a choice based on goals and judgement, so lets agree to disagree.

I doubt either of us will change the others mind about anything at this point. We have different goals in a system. In the spirit of disclosure, one of my major goals is for my PC to be very quiet. As a result I make component and configuration choices designed to keep heat down. This lets me use very quiet fans running at low rpm.
Click to expand...
Cooling at low fan speeds is not a problem. I use large radiator with 4 fans in push-pull and I can't hear them at all. Plus two more fans inside not including one in PS. It is not how fast fans are running but how much air they move.

--
Photography Director for Whedonopolis.com
 
The fact that this thread has got to 60 replies suggests a problem and that you've got too many people arguing amongst themselves on small details. These people are generally young, also gamers, take pride in their obsessive knowledge of the latest gear and overestimate the differences between it.

You could just buy a cheap computer from older parts like server chips out of fashion to put more money towards a really good monitor which will make the main difference to your experience, rather than obsessing over a 10-20% difference in a linear performance metric. Not much good processing your files two seconds faster if people on the internet complain they're the wrong color.

Personally I find Adobe Camera Raw the most intense single operation on my files and slap a system with as many cores for the money as I can on it. https://forums.adobe.com/thread/1358970 (be aware that the thread winds up people who started out as gamers first who are used to chasing single-threaded game performance)
 
Last edited:
fishy wishy said:
The fact that this thread has got to 60 replies suggests a problem and that you've got too many people arguing amongst themselves on small details. These people are generally young, also gamers, take pride in their obsessive knowledge of the latest gear and overestimate the differences between it.

You could just buy a cheap computer from older parts like server chips out of fashion to put more money towards a really good monitor which will make the main difference to your experience, rather than obsessing over a 10-20% difference in a linear performance metric. Not much good processing your files two seconds faster if people on the internet complain they're the wrong color.

Personally I find Adobe Camera Raw the most intense single operation on my files and slap a system with as many cores for the money as I can on it. https://forums.adobe.com/thread/1358970 (be aware that the thread winds up people who started out as gamers first who are used to chasing single-threaded game performance)
Click to expand...
Yeah, a lot of information has accumulated here. I understand much more than I did a week ago, but it hasn't made my choice of what to do any easier :P Combining it with some more reading on what is getting mentioned has been very helpful though.

Yes, my main priority is in fact the monitor. Of course other components are also relevant and important, because I wouldn't like PS and Camera Raw to lag, even if I have other programs open in the background. And what initially had me confused was the idea of the older HDMI not allowing the resolution of the monitor I had set my mind on (the Dell u2515h, which looks like a fantastic monitor and doesn't seem terribly overpriced either) to be maxed out, meaning I had to look for components supporting a displayport.

I'm not sure I can agree with you with buying outdated components. If I was only intending on getting a year or two out of it, or if my current budget was very small and I needed this new computer RIGHT now, then maybe. But I'd like this thing to last me many years so it makes more sense to make a single big investment that will carry on to do the job for years to come, and would only require small upgrades if at all (like buying more RAM). In the long run, I'd end up spending more doing the former.

I think at this point in time, from all the information I've received, that my priorities should be:

- Getting the highest cores for the CPU. I am aware there are higher end options out there, not that anyone has mentioned them much here (the link you mentioned does though), but perhaps those do cost quite a substantial bit more and really do seem like overkill (I wouldn't be using 3D functions and the like). The Skylake 6700K, for about 100 more than the i5 6600K, seems like the best option since:

- Out of all the Skylake processors it's got the highest clock speed out of the box without actually having to go down the overclocking route (which I wouldn't like to rule out as yet, but it does seem like a very time consuming thing that MIGHT end up being more of a frustration than fun endavour, and runs the risk of messing something up). Even if I never ended up overclocking the 6700K, it's the only one I can buy that runs at 4GHz without overclocking (the 6700 is at 3.4GHz; the 6600K at 3.5GHz). I presume even the i5 would still be great and a vast improvement over what I have, but the price difference between it and the i7 does not seem to be too much... and that price difference is getting me more right out the box anyway, and looks like ACR which I use very frequently would benefit from it too.

- Going for 16gb of ram, most likely in the form of 2x8gb, in the case I discover 16gb is still not enough. But for the time being 16gb sounds like more than plenty. DDR3 and DDR4 RAM costs the same.

- I'll probably still go for a motherboard that allows overclocking, as well as has all the features I'd like and are important, discussed in earlier comments (like 4 slots for RAM etc). Don't have a specific one in mind as yet, but I'll come to a conclusion eventually.

- I don't think I'll get a graphics card in the first instance - my final impression is that it does not play a major role in photo editing. Can always add it on later anyway, but likely can do without it.

- I think I'll stick with the Samsung 850 EVO for the primary SSD. For the secondary HDD, it doesn't seem like I'd benefit much from getting this as an SSD. More actual memory to store images is more important here, so it would be a 2TB HDD and ability to add on more as time goes by.

- As for noisy vs more silent computer... I usually have music playing so unless some fans get ridiculously noisy I don't think this is too much of an issue. The fans and coolers look like they can get REALLY expensive, and I've seen many mixed suggestions which I cannot wrap my head around. This might be the one thing I'd probably get that would not be powerful enough for overclocking, and would be sufficient for a non overclocked 7600k at first. I would of course change this when I changed my mind and felt confident enough about overclocking. The most common mentioned budget option that was mentioned is the Cooler Master 212.

- I know I should go for a good quality PSU, but I still don't know at what wattage to get it, or what brand to go for.
 
SarahBK said:
- I know I should go for a good quality PSU, but I still don't know at what wattage to get it, or what brand to go for.
Click to expand...
The brand name is often less important than the OEM that actually makes the PSU; a relatively few OEMs make a vast number of branded PSUs.

There are a lot of reasonable choices, but to keep it simple, if you look for a Seasonic-made PSU of approximately 500 watts I don't think you'll go far wrong. But I wouldn't be surprised to find contrary opinions here, :-)
 
At this point you should start using pcpartpicker.

https://uk.pcpartpicker.com/parts/partlist/

It will help you identify all the parts, show compatibilities/incompatibilities, calculate approx power supply size and show you part availability and pricing. It also helps you do a lot of what-if calculations quickly and simply.

I believe you said you were moving to the UK. If you have the option, consider buying a Dell XPS with the 6700K and 256GB SSD.

My most recent build uses the 6700K, liquid cooling, 32GB mem, GTX960 with 4GB, and Samsung EVO SSDs - for OS, Photo working sets and cache, catalogs, etc. I use WD Blacks for photo storage and 4TB WDs for external backup. The system is mildly overclocked at 4.6 and you can do this easily just using something like the ASUS Z170 motherboard and using its OC utility. It's a no brainer. It cranks up the settings and tests automatically.

My cousin just bought a Dell XPS with the 6700K, air cooled, 32GB, 256GB SSD, GTX960. We added an extra internal spinner for storage. He's running it not overclocked, it's very quiet, it cost less than my build and in normal day to day processing - PS, LR and a ton of plugins, you can't really see much of a difference, if at all. I set it up for him and it was a no effort proposition - works like a charm with Win 10. Just like this one:

http://www.costco.com/Dell-XPS-8900...phics-|-Blu-ray-Player.product.100232616.html

It replaces an older Dell XPS he's been running 24/7 since 2010.

So, if you build, use pcpartpicker. But also consider buying a Dell, most of the goodness at a lower price point and a lot less drama. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top