Advice on a custom build for photo editing

[SarahBK]

I'd like to ask a few questions with regards to customising a desktop computer which I would be using for photo editing as a hobbyist. I am starting everything from scratch - I have no components to influence my choice with regards to compatibility. Main limitation would be budget, so I'm after good value rather that gets the job done rather than the outright and absolute best out there. I'm not into gaming. If it makes any difference, I would likely be making purchases from the UK (so recommended shops etc would also be welcome). I apologize in advance for any inaccuracies in the way I word my questions as my computer knowledge is rather basic.

From advice I have received, I would prefer to have an Intel CPU. I am unsure how much of a difference deciding between the i5 and i7 would make though (and the different subtypes) - any advice in this regard? (I presume i7 would be better, and have my eyes on the Intel i7 4790 (4 x 3.6 GHZ) - Haswell, but for no very specific reasons.)

The motherboard then depends on the above choice... don't know if there is any specific suggestion?

My main priorities are 1. to have a good monitor and 2. run Photoshop (and other programs simultaneously) without lag. I have my eyes on the Dell u2515H which, from what I've read on this forum and elsewhere, seems like the kind of monitor suited for me (25" seems plenty, good colours, reasonable price, factory calibrated etc). Due to its native resolution (2560x1440), I've been reading about how the usual HDMI ports do not allow the maximum resolution of the screen to be maximized, and that ideally the graphics card selected should have a DP port available. From what I've seen, this means I'd need one of the higher end graphics cards, but these seem to be aimed at gamers (powerful, but also pretty expensive and consume a lot of power). I suppose I don't need the power gamers are after, just the display quality. Which is the cheapest graphics card that would support the native resolution of this monitor? The cheapest NVIDIA graphics cards that I could find that have a DP port are the Quadro K240 (1GB), the GeForce GTX 950 (2GB) and the Geforce GTX 960 (2GB), but I have no way of confirming if any of these are compatible with the monitor's resolution. Does the 1GB/2GB make much of a difference in terms of performance for my needs?

How much RAM do I really need? Would 8gb be sufficient, or would 16gb be significantly better?

Does having the OS (Windows 10 in my case) and programs installed on a primary 240gb SSD as opposed to a 1TB normal HDD (comparable price) make a big difference with regards to how fast everything runs? I'd still get a secondary 2TB or so regular HDD for saving photos and documents of course...

Thank you so much for reading and looking forward to receiving your advice.

 

[larry55279]

Overclock the 4790k. Samsung SSD's (two) for OS, and for swap/cache files.

 

[SarahBK]

Overclock the 4790k. Samsung SSD's (two) for OS, and for swap/cache files.

So you're suggesting I go for the most powerful CPU available? That's also the most expensive, and requires more expensive components to go with it... how would you justify that?

Also, why two separate SSDs as opposed to one?

 

[Bob Collette]

As Larry mentioned, I would suggest getting a "K" version of whatever i5 or i7 CPU you get. The K versions have an "unlocked" multiplier, meaning that they can be easily overclocked if you're so inclined. Of course, if you do decide to overclock, you'll need to get a decent heatsink (stock Intel heatsink/fan just won't cut it). While there are a number of heatsinks available covering a range of prices, you don't have to buy an expensive heatsink to get good cooling. I'm running an older i5 CPU (i5-2500) using a CoolerMaster Hyper 212+ heatsink (typically <$30). I'm running my CPU at 4.6GHz (stock is 3.3GHz), and the system is very stable and has been for the 3 years since I built it.

As for memory, 8GB is probably sufficient. However, if you typically have multiple large files open at the same time, or run VM's (Virtual Machines), you probably will do better with 16GB. I have 16GB in my computer and there have been times when Task Mgr has reported memory usage of more than 8GB.

 

[SarahBK]

As Larry mentioned, I would suggest getting a "K" version of whatever i5 or i7 CPU you get. The K versions have an "unlocked" multiplier, meaning that they can be easily overclocked if you're so inclined. Of course, if you do decide to overclock, you'll need to get a decent heatsink (stock Intel heatsink/fan just won't cut it). While there are a number of heatsinks available covering a range of prices, you don't have to buy an expensive heatsink to get good cooling. I'm running an older i5 CPU (i5-2500) using a CoolerMaster Hyper 212+ heatsink (typically <$30). I'm running my CPU at 4.6GHz (stock is 3.3GHz), and the system is very stable and has been for the 3 years since I built it.

As for memory, 8GB is probably sufficient. However, if you typically have multiple large files open at the same time, or run VM's (Virtual Machines), you probably will do better with 16GB. I have 16GB in my computer and there have been times when Task Mgr has reported memory usage of more than 8GB.

Hmm I see - it would be better to get say, the Intel i5 4690K (4x3.5GHz) that overclocks to 4.4GHz, than it is the get the more expensive Intel i7 4790 (4x3.6Ghz) that does not overclock?

The sites I have seen have rather expensive options for CPU heatsinks for the overclocked CPUs... good to know there are decently priced and functional alternatives out there

I have 8GB of RAM on my current laptop, and it lags quite a bit when editing a set of 10 pictures in Camera Raw... but of course I cannot attribute the slowness I am used to to just the RAM since my laptop is at best mediocre Checking my Task Manager at this point in time with Camera Raw and a few other applications open, it says I'm using 4.6 of my 8gb RAM at the moment.

 

[Simon Garrett]

Lightroom likes lots and lots of processing power, but doesn't need more than about 8G of RAM memory (though 16G is a sensible choice these days). It also likes a fast disk (i.e. SSD) for its catalogue, caches and previews. Images can be on a conventional hard drive.

Photoshop likes RAM. Oh, how it likes RAM! If you have 24M pixel images (or larger) and create multi-layer images then it will use all of 16G (but 16G is generally enough unless you run a lot of other RAM-hungry applications at the same time).

Neither makes much use of a powerful graphics card. For many purposes, on-board graphics on the motherboard may be enough. If either makes more use of graphics processors in future, then you can get a graphics card then. If you do get a graphics card, I would suggest a $150 card would be fine, e.g. one based on NVIDIA GEForce 750 Ti. One based on 970 or 980 chips will cost 2-3 times more (and use so much power that the sun dims when you turn it on) but probably make no difference in performance of Lightroom or Photoshop. Of course, if you play graphics intensive games...

Choice of processor: latest Intel is Skylake i7-6700. However, latest generation is always disproportionately expensive. The i7-6700 is 50% more expensive than the i7-4790, but only about 10% faster for most purposes.

--
Simon

 

[Austinian]

Neither makes much use of a powerful graphics card. For many purposes, on-board graphics on the motherboard may be enough. If either makes more use of graphics processors in future, then you can get a graphics card then. If you do get a graphics card, I would suggest a $150 card would be fine, e.g. one based on NVIDIA GEForce 750 Ti. One based on 970 or 980 chips will cost 2-3 times more (and use so much power that the sun dims when you turn it on) but probably make no difference in performance of Lightroom or Photoshop. Of course, if you play graphics intensive games...

Minor suggestion: for around $150 I'd be inclined to get the newer GTX 950 like the OP mentioned in her first post; just looking on Newegg shows them as low as $130 after rebate.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...lt=True&SrchInDesc=gtx 950&Page=1&PageSize=30

I personally would read the reviews and buy the quietest model; as you say, the OP doesn't need mega graphics power, but silence is often appreciated.

BTW, the power demands of even the faster GTX 9xx cards are actually quite modest at idle; they're good at regulating their power draw to match the demand. It's when playing demanding games that my system power draw nearly quintuples.

 

[SarahBK]

Lightroom likes lots and lots of processing power, but doesn't need more than about 8G of RAM memory (though 16G is a sensible choice these days). It also likes a fast disk (i.e. SSD) for its catalogue, caches and previews. Images can be on a conventional hard drive.

Photoshop likes RAM. Oh, how it likes RAM! If you have 24M pixel images (or larger) and create multi-layer images then it will use all of 16G (but 16G is generally enough unless you run a lot of other RAM-hungry applications at the same time).

Neither makes much use of a powerful graphics card. For many purposes, on-board graphics on the motherboard may be enough. If either makes more use of graphics processors in future, then you can get a graphics card then. If you do get a graphics card, I would suggest a $150 card would be fine, e.g. one based on NVIDIA GEForce 750 Ti. One based on 970 or 980 chips will cost 2-3 times more (and use so much power that the sun dims when you turn it on) but probably make no difference in performance of Lightroom or Photoshop. Of course, if you play graphics intensive games...

Choice of processor: latest Intel is Skylake i7-6700. However, latest generation is always disproportionately expensive. The i7-6700 is 50% more expensive than the i7-4790, but only about 10% faster for most purposes.

--
Simon

Thanks for your input

My idea with regards to my specific selection for a graphics card was because I was looking for options possessing a displayport (to be able to view at the max 1440p resolution of the monitor I'd like to buy). I only recently noted that Intel's CPUs have got integrated graphics, as well as a displayport, meaning that as far as my knowledge goes, I could get away without a graphics card at all and simply use that of the CPU. I do not know how to tell if the graphics of the i7 4790k are for my needs however (and no gaming for me!)

I don't know if a graphics card without a displayport can be used to 'optimize' that of the CPU, if that makes any sense (i.e. plug the monitor to the CPU's displayport but utilize the graphics card simultaneously...?) If this is not the case, then my only options would be to get a graphics card with a displayport.

I just read a little about the Intel's new Gen 6 i7 processors (which I believe is synonymous with Skylake) which you've mentioned. I suppose that's the usual trend for new stuff isn't it? It seems to use different RAM too (DDR4). I would only really be able to justify the price difference if the graphics provided by these new processors is superior to the i7-4790, making a graphics card redundant.

 

[StIves]

Just a couple of comments as it's late here:

Don't bother overclocking unless you are a PC enthusiast*- there is a lot of configuration tweaking, stability testing, excess heat and power involved and the slight risk of frying your motherboard if you don't know what you are doing. Don't get a K version CPU unless you know you are going to overclock, and even then you can overclock non-K CPUs. Better save the money now and use it for a future upgrade- K is bleeding edge/enthusiast stuff and it's never cost effective to go this route, it's mainly fun.

If i5/i7 cost doesn't matter, go with the i7.

There was some recommendation to get 2 SSDs. There is no reason to do this- more components, less flexibility in space allocation, slightly less cost efficient. I can only imagine that two were suggested for RAID0/performance, and I have tested this (using batch RAW converters as my test) and isn't worth the bother.

Always run your OS and apps off SSD, it makes a vast difference in performance (bootup and load times). For most use cases, you don't need more than 240GB for OS programs. The only common case is if you have a lot of games.

RAM: I'd go 16 because RAM is cheap. I currently run 16 and Lightroom + my RAW converter blow past 8, but if I only had 8 the programs would run fine too. I imagine Photoshop is heavier on RAM than Lightroom though.

* If you were, you would not be asking these questions in the first place

 

[SarahBK]

Just a couple of comments as it's late here:

Don't bother overclocking unless you are a PC enthusiast*- there is a lot of configuration tweaking, stability testing, excess heat and power involved and the slight risk of frying your motherboard if you don't know what you are doing. Don't get a K version CPU unless you know you are going to overclock, and even then you can overclock non-K CPUs. Better save the money now and use it for a future upgrade- K is bleeding edge/enthusiast stuff and it's never cost effective to go this route, it's mainly fun.

If i5/i7 cost doesn't matter, go with the i7.

There was some recommendation to get 2 SSDs. There is no reason to do this- more components, less flexibility in space allocation, slightly less cost efficient. I can only imagine that two were suggested for RAID0/performance, and I have tested this (using batch RAW converters as my test) and isn't worth the bother.

Always run your OS and apps off SSD, it makes a vast difference in performance (bootup and load times).

RAM: I'd go 16 because RAM is cheap. I currently run 16 and Lightroom + my RAW converter blow past 8, but if I only had 8 the programs would run fine too. I imagine Photoshop is heavier on RAM than Lightroom though.

* If you were, you would not be asking these questions in the first place

Not late at all.. Appreciate every bit of information and advice, as well as personal opinions!

I think it's pretty obvious as to where my knowledge stands with regards to computers But I am keen on learning and improving my understanding (and hence all the questions and reading!) If overclocking is that fiddly however, and basic knowledge and experience does not suffice for avoiding any damage to other bits of the computer, then I'd probably have to agree with you that going for an overclockable cpu is not exactly necessary for me.

From the sites I've been seeing, there's unfortunately a much larger price difference between the choice of an i5/i7 Haswell rather than K and non-K model. From one of the replies I received, it seems that I could consider getting by without a graphics card. This means my choice with regards to a CPU would be based on that with the best integrated graphics for my needs (unless the cost of said CPU was pricier than say, the i7 4790K and a graphics card!)

I'm now convinced about the SSD - I'll probably go for a single 240-250GB one, and dump all my files on a large regular HDD

I could consider getting 16GB of RAM then Does the speed of the RAM matter quite a bit though? I've seen some options ranging from speeds of 1333MHz to 2440Mhz...

 

[SarahBK]

Neither makes much use of a powerful graphics card. For many purposes, on-board graphics on the motherboard may be enough. If either makes more use of graphics processors in future, then you can get a graphics card then. If you do get a graphics card, I would suggest a $150 card would be fine, e.g. one based on NVIDIA GEForce 750 Ti. One based on 970 or 980 chips will cost 2-3 times more (and use so much power that the sun dims when you turn it on) but probably make no difference in performance of Lightroom or Photoshop. Of course, if you play graphics intensive games...

Minor suggestion: for around $150 I'd be inclined to get the newer GTX 950 like the OP mentioned in her first post; just looking on Newegg shows them as low as $130 after rebate.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...lt=True&SrchInDesc=gtx 950&Page=1&PageSize=30

I personally would read the reviews and buy the quietest model; as you say, the OP doesn't need mega graphics power, but silence is often appreciated.

BTW, the power demands of even the faster GTX 9xx cards are actually quite modest at idle; they're good at regulating their power draw to match the demand. It's when playing demanding games that my system power draw nearly quintuples.

Unfortunately I'm not from the US, so prices and rebates would be a little different (i.e. more expensive!). Checking Amazon UK and it's priced at £134 ($194) :/

My choice of graphics card really depends on 1. the actual need for it solely for editing and general purpose use (still unsure if the CPUs being mentioned - i5/i7 Haswell and possibly i5/i7 Skylake have good enough graphics to do away with one) and 2. the availability of a displayport (to support the full resolution of the Dell u2515H I have my eyes on). Of course being silent and not using up too much power would be welcomed features

 

[Austinian]

Neither makes much use of a powerful graphics card. For many purposes, on-board graphics on the motherboard may be enough. If either makes more use of graphics processors in future, then you can get a graphics card then. If you do get a graphics card, I would suggest a $150 card would be fine, e.g. one based on NVIDIA GEForce 750 Ti. One based on 970 or 980 chips will cost 2-3 times more (and use so much power that the sun dims when you turn it on) but probably make no difference in performance of Lightroom or Photoshop. Of course, if you play graphics intensive games...

Minor suggestion: for around $150 I'd be inclined to get the newer GTX 950 like the OP mentioned in her first post; just looking on Newegg shows them as low as $130 after rebate.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...lt=True&SrchInDesc=gtx 950&Page=1&PageSize=30

I personally would read the reviews and buy the quietest model; as you say, the OP doesn't need mega graphics power, but silence is often appreciated.

BTW, the power demands of even the faster GTX 9xx cards are actually quite modest at idle; they're good at regulating their power draw to match the demand. It's when playing demanding games that my system power draw nearly quintuples.

Unfortunately I'm not from the US, so prices and rebates would be a little different (i.e. more expensive!). Checking Amazon UK and it's priced at £134 ($194) :/

Sorry, I forgot about the UK. Much of the world seems to pay more for electronics than the US, but we get ripped off for medical care and drugs, so I guess it evens out in the end.

My choice of graphics card really depends on 1. the actual need for it solely for editing and general purpose use (still unsure if the CPUs being mentioned - i5/i7 Haswell and possibly i5/i7 Skylake have good enough graphics to do away with one) and 2. the availability of a displayport (to support the full resolution of the Dell u2515H I have my eyes on). Of course being silent and not using up too much power would be welcomed features

Well, the nice thing about desktop PCs is that most of them can be upgraded easily.

So if you get a PC that includes a suitable DisplayPort on the motherboard, it seems quite reasonable that you not buy a separate graphics card unless you find you need one. Many users don't.

 

[StIves]

Not late at all.. Appreciate every bit of information and advice, as well as personal opinions!

I think it's pretty obvious as to where my knowledge stands with regards to computers But I am keen on learning and improving my understanding (and hence all the questions and reading!) If overclocking is that fiddly however, and basic knowledge and experience does not suffice for avoiding any damage to other bits of the computer, then I'd probably have to agree with you that going for an overclockable cpu is not exactly necessary for me.

From the sites I've been seeing, there's unfortunately a much larger price difference between the choice of an i5/i7 Haswell rather than K and non-K model. From one of the replies I received, it seems that I could consider getting by without a graphics card. This means my choice with regards to a CPU would be based on that with the best integrated graphics for my needs (unless the cost of said CPU was pricier than say, the i7 4790K and a graphics card!)

I'm now convinced about the SSD - I'll probably go for a single 240-250GB one, and dump all my files on a large regular HDD

I could consider getting 16GB of RAM then Does the speed of the RAM matter quite a bit though? I've seen some options ranging from speeds of 1333MHz to 2440Mhz...

RAM speed is another one of those (frankly silly) enthusiast things that doesn't matter in the real world. I've read some analysis of RAM speeds and the conclusion seems to be that faster RAM does nothing as CPU-based cache is effective enough to take the high 90s% when it comes to memory requests. I haven't looked at server RAM closely for several years, but when I did, server RAM speeds were nowhere near what the marketing branches of RAM manufactures are managing to flog off to desktop enthusiasts by attaching brightly anodised heatsinks and big numbers. My most recent geek friend to build a new PC (massively overclocked i7, K variant) didn't bother with fancy RAM, and I never have.

Overclocking: It is not hard, you'd have to be a bit of a klutz to damage anything, but it is fiddly. The standard stability test is running a 100% CPU load for 24 hours successfully, so it's also time consuming. It's fun, do it if you want to try it, but don't tell yourself now that 3 years down the road you'll do it to extend the usable life of the PC (because you probably won't). There are a slew of good overclocking guides on the net.

SSD- the standard good choice is the Samsung 850 EVO. Cost effective, reliable, fast.

Can't comment on graphics cards as I don't run Photoshop, sorry. If you're using integrated graphics I doubt there's any major difference between what comes with an i5 and an i7. I used integrated until I started playing computer games again.

Heh, looking back, some of my best money spent on PC hardware has been a high quality case! It's outlasted a couple of motherboards, it's easy to work on and quiet Very unexciting from a gadget perspective though.

 

[SarahBK]

Unfortunately I'm not from the US, so prices and rebates would be a little different (i.e. more expensive!). Checking Amazon UK and it's priced at £134 ($194) :/

Sorry, I forgot about the UK. Much of the world seems to pay more for electronics than the US, but we get ripped off for medical care and drugs, so I guess it evens out in the end.

I guess you could look at it that way...!

My choice of graphics card really depends on 1. the actual need for it solely for editing and general purpose use (still unsure if the CPUs being mentioned - i5/i7 Haswell and possibly i5/i7 Skylake have good enough graphics to do away with one) and 2. the availability of a displayport (to support the full resolution of the Dell u2515H I have my eyes on). Of course being silent and not using up too much power would be welcomed features

Well, the nice thing about desktop PCs is that most of them can be upgraded easily.

So if you get a PC that includes a suitable DisplayPort on the motherboard, it seems quite reasonable that you not buy a separate graphics card unless you find you need one. Many users don't.

Yeah that's one of the reasons in fact that I would much prefer a desktop over a laptop - the ability to customize and add on as the need arises. I'll have a good look into Intel's incorporated graphics and see what would work best for me

 

[Ludvig]

Unfortunately I'm not from the US, so prices and rebates would be a little different (i.e. more expensive!). Checking Amazon UK and it's priced at £134 ($194) :/

Sorry, I forgot about the UK. Much of the world seems to pay more for electronics than the US, but we get ripped off for medical care and drugs, so I guess it evens out in the end.

I guess you could look at it that way...!

My choice of graphics card really depends on 1. the actual need for it solely for editing and general purpose use (still unsure if the CPUs being mentioned - i5/i7 Haswell and possibly i5/i7 Skylake have good enough graphics to do away with one) and 2. the availability of a displayport (to support the full resolution of the Dell u2515H I have my eyes on). Of course being silent and not using up too much power would be welcomed features

Well, the nice thing about desktop PCs is that most of them can be upgraded easily.

So if you get a PC that includes a suitable DisplayPort on the motherboard, it seems quite reasonable that you not buy a separate graphics card unless you find you need one. Many users don't.

Yeah that's one of the reasons in fact that I would much prefer a desktop over a laptop - the ability to customize and add on as the need arises. I'll have a good look into Intel's incorporated graphics and see what would work best for me

According to the benchmarks at

Loading…

www.cpubenchmark.net

and

Loading…

www.videocardbenchmark.net

...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

If you buy a motherboard with a bulit in Displayport and 4 memory slots, you can add 2x 4Gb Ram now (for a total of 8Gb) and add another two later if you feel you need it. Also, if you are not happy with the graphics performance from the CPU, you can add a separate graphic card later (but you will probably be happy with the built-in graphic processors).

The cheapest motherboard I found with Displayport is about 70€. The i5-4690 for appr. 220€ and 2x 4Gb DDR3 1333Hz ram for 40€. Add a fast 128 or 256Gb SSD for the operating system and programs and a larger one for saving the photos and other stuff, and you will have a pretty fast system for photo editing.

 

[Simon Garrett]

Unfortunately I'm not from the US, so prices and rebates would be a little different (i.e. more expensive!). Checking Amazon UK and it's priced at £134 ($194) :/

Sorry, I forgot about the UK. Much of the world seems to pay more for electronics than the US, but we get ripped off for medical care and drugs, so I guess it evens out in the end.

I guess you could look at it that way...!

My choice of graphics card really depends on 1. the actual need for it solely for editing and general purpose use (still unsure if the CPUs being mentioned - i5/i7 Haswell and possibly i5/i7 Skylake have good enough graphics to do away with one) and 2. the availability of a displayport (to support the full resolution of the Dell u2515H I have my eyes on). Of course being silent and not using up too much power would be welcomed features

Well, the nice thing about desktop PCs is that most of them can be upgraded easily.

So if you get a PC that includes a suitable DisplayPort on the motherboard, it seems quite reasonable that you not buy a separate graphics card unless you find you need one. Many users don't.

Yeah that's one of the reasons in fact that I would much prefer a desktop over a laptop - the ability to customize and add on as the need arises. I'll have a good look into Intel's incorporated graphics and see what would work best for me

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

If you buy a motherboard with a bulit in Displayport and 4 memory slots, you can add 2x 4Gb Ram now (for a total of 8Gb) and add another two later if you feel you need it. Also, if you are not happy with the graphics performance from the CPU, you can add a separate graphic card later (but you will probably be happy with the built-in graphic processors).

The cheapest motherboard I found with Displayport is about 70€. The i5-4690 for appr. 220€ and 2x 4Gb DDR3 1333Hz ram for 40€. Add a fast 128 or 256Gb SSD for the operating system and programs and a larger one for saving the photos and other stuff, and you will have a pretty fast system for photo editing.

I agree with all of this.

When it comes to motherboards the choice is enormous. Having chosen a processor (and thus processor socket and chipset), each make of motherboard will still have a range of maybe 6 or 7, varying mainly in the number and speed of ports and sockets. Check the motherboard you want has enough SATA ports (for disks, SSD and DVDs) and USB ports for your needs.

If you're chosing between Haswell (e.g. i7-4790) and Skylake (e.g. i7-6700) remember that not only is Skylake 50% more expensive for around 10% more speed, but many Skylake motherboards use the newer DDR4 RAM rather than DDR3. Same thing: DDR4 is little faster (though can be tweaked a bit more) but is rather more expensive than DDR3.

I admit that I recently indulged myself with an i7-6700K and 32G of DDR4 memory!

As always, Google for best prices. In the UK, Amazon can be good for complete systems and assembled components (e.g. graphics cards) but people like www.scan.co.uk may be cheaper for components (chips, memory, heat sinks, cases, power supplies).

 

[larry55279]

Overclock the 4790k. Samsung SSD's (two) for OS, and for swap/cache files.

So you're suggesting I go for the most powerful CPU available? That's also the most expensive, and requires more expensive components to go with it... how would you justify that?

Also, why two separate SSDs as opposed to one?

You came here asking for advice. If you are poor, you should have stated that in your post.

Two SSD's for performance.

 

[SarahBK]

Unfortunately I'm not from the US, so prices and rebates would be a little different (i.e. more expensive!). Checking Amazon UK and it's priced at £134 ($194) :/

Sorry, I forgot about the UK. Much of the world seems to pay more for electronics than the US, but we get ripped off for medical care and drugs, so I guess it evens out in the end.

I guess you could look at it that way...!

My choice of graphics card really depends on 1. the actual need for it solely for editing and general purpose use (still unsure if the CPUs being mentioned - i5/i7 Haswell and possibly i5/i7 Skylake have good enough graphics to do away with one) and 2. the availability of a displayport (to support the full resolution of the Dell u2515H I have my eyes on). Of course being silent and not using up too much power would be welcomed features

Well, the nice thing about desktop PCs is that most of them can be upgraded easily.

So if you get a PC that includes a suitable DisplayPort on the motherboard, it seems quite reasonable that you not buy a separate graphics card unless you find you need one. Many users don't.

Yeah that's one of the reasons in fact that I would much prefer a desktop over a laptop - the ability to customize and add on as the need arises. I'll have a good look into Intel's incorporated graphics and see what would work best for me

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

If you buy a motherboard with a bulit in Displayport and 4 memory slots, you can add 2x 4Gb Ram now (for a total of 8Gb) and add another two later if you feel you need it. Also, if you are not happy with the graphics performance from the CPU, you can add a separate graphic card later (but you will probably be happy with the built-in graphic processors).

The cheapest motherboard I found with Displayport is about 70€. The i5-4690 for appr. 220€ and 2x 4Gb DDR3 1333Hz ram for 40€. Add a fast 128 or 256Gb SSD for the operating system and programs and a larger one for saving the photos and other stuff, and you will have a pretty fast system for photo editing.

Thanks for that The graphics score of the Intel HD Graphics in the newer Skylake processors do seem significantly improved over the 4600 in the 4th Gen processors - I was thinking perhaps going the middle road and going for a 6th Gen i5 (the highest range would be the 6600K, with a score of 7808... or the 6600 with a score of 7548). The price difference between these two and the i5-4690 on Amazon UK are not that much different:

i5-4690K - £180

i5-6600 - £180 (Score 7548)

i5-6600K - £210 (Score 7808)

With none to a slight increase in cost, I'd get the apparent greatly improved graphics offered by the HD 530 of the Skylake processors, which would mean I'm more likely to do away with a separate graphics card. Of course Skylake would require a different motherboard and different RAM (which I imagine would also contribute to improved performance). Not sure how much more the newer required motherboard and DDR4 RAM would cost in comparison...

That seems like a reasonable solution - starting off with 8gb and adding on more as needed. I presume having 4x4gb vs 2x8gb wouldn't make any difference to performance?

Besides 4 RAM slots, a DP port and obvious compatibility with the processor (which would be a Z170 from what I've gathered for the Skylake, or a Z97 for the i5-4690k) ... are there any other features of the motherboard which may be important in deciding which one to go for?

Could I also ask where you got those prices from? (I'm more likely to buy from within Europe than I am from the US. Would consider ordering from where I currently am in Malta if prices were better than those I could find online in the UK).

That's the plan for the HDDs - I'll go for a Samsung 850 EVO 250GB for the primary SSD

 

[SarahBK]

Overclock the 4790k. Samsung SSD's (two) for OS, and for swap/cache files.

So you're suggesting I go for the most powerful CPU available? That's also the most expensive, and requires more expensive components to go with it... how would you justify that?

Also, why two separate SSDs as opposed to one?

You came here asking for advice. If you are poor, you should have stated that in your post.

Two SSD's for performance.

I did state in the OP that 'Main limitation would be budget, so I'm after good value rather that gets the job done rather than the outright and absolute best out there'.

That said though, I really asked that question to see what your justifications/opinions were for suggesting the best and most expensive option out of all the 4th Gen processors available over everything else outright, that's all I don't actually have a specific budget in mind at the moment, and will spend as much as is necessary to get a decent system for its cost I suppose... It's a whole different story if an increased price gives a massively improved performance over lower priced options... it's another if it's just spending hundreds more for very little improvement or simply overkill for my needs... which is why I asked in the first place, because I am inexperienced and can't tell.

 

[SushiEater]

To process photos fast you need speed of the CPU regardless how many cores it has. The best way to get speed is to overclock. These days it is very easy to do and it is basically free as long as you get good cooler. Getting a good cooler is way cheaper than getting more expensive CPU.

You might not get the top speed but most current CPUs get get up to 4.5 GHz stable even on air. Going higher is not even worth it.

As far as SSD just get one and only install OS and programs on it. 256GB should do it. And get one Large fast HD for everything else. Contrary to some believing SSD does not give you any performance boost besides faster boot which can be also be achieved by putting your computer to sleep. It takes only few seconds to wake it up and it doesn't eat much power while asleep. It is faster to wake up than to boot. Once awaken previously loaded programs will load even faster than if you boot your computer and try to load from scratch again. If you have old computer now you can see it for yourself.

Photos are loaded in exactly the same time from SSD as from HD. I made videos on that because people started arguing about it. Don't believe synthetic benchmarks because these benchmarks are targeting SSD only without consideration of the process of loading or saving the photos and caching that is built in to OS. But SSD is good for reliability and prices are pretty cheap these days anyway not to have one.