Advice on a custom build for photo editing

[StIves]

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).

Off memory, graphics benchmarking scores are more relevant for gaming than for displaying static photos or playing back video (for the latter two anything will do), but if the K versions are only a handful of pounds more, then they are probably worth getting.

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?

There is no performance downside to this at all. It's a good suggestion.

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?

If you end up attaching a lot of peripherals, get one with lots of USB slots as adding slots via an expansion card is a bit of a pain. It's cheaper just to get more slots to start than an add-on card.

If you do plan to overclock get one with good voltage regulation.

Oh, and if you do overclock you need a decent non-stock cooler. If get an air cooler for the CPU this will be big and hang off your motherboard at 90 degrees, which means if you ever move your PC you need to be aware of the stresses it places on the motherboard. e.g. for the top of the line coolers which weigh ~1kg, you'd probably want to dismount it before ever transporting the computer by car.

Don't go crazy on power supplies, which some enthusiasts will push you towards. My non overclocked system with a midrange graphics card and 4 hard drives consumes 130W at load, so IMO get a PSU in the 500W range and you're good (enthusiast PSUs go to 800W or above).

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

 

[SushiEater]

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).

Off memory, graphics benchmarking scores are more relevant for gaming than for displaying static photos or playing back video (for the latter two anything will do), but if the K versions are only a handful of pounds more, then they are probably worth getting.

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?

There is no performance downside to this at all. It's a good suggestion.

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?

If you end up attaching a lot of peripherals, get one with lots of USB slots as adding slots via an expansion card is a bit of a pain. It's cheaper just to get more slots to start than an add-on card.

If you do plan to overclock get one with good voltage regulation.

Oh, and if you do overclock you need a decent non-stock cooler. If get an air cooler for the CPU this will be big and hang off your motherboard at 90 degrees, which means if you ever move your PC you need to be aware of the stresses it places on the motherboard. e.g. for the top of the line coolers which weigh ~1kg, you'd probably want to dismount it before ever transporting the computer by car.

Don't go crazy on power supplies, which some enthusiasts will push you towards. My non overclocked system with a midrange graphics card and 4 hard drives consumes 130W at load, so IMO get a PSU in the 500W range and you're good (enthusiast PSUs go to 800W or above).

Somehow I have hard time believing you. At least your definition of load.

My system at idle consumes that much at idle. 3930k but at 1200hz, midrange video card, one HD and one SSD. Your 4 HDs will consume 40w under load or more. Your video card will consume just as much if not more.

Under load 3930k at 4.5Ghz would by itself consume 300w. Total around 430w under load but only CPU is really under load.

I have blown 700w PS once. so am using 850w now. And just in case I bought 1200w as a backup.

As far as efficiency there is not much difference between 850w Platinum and 1200w bronze. At idle I get about 7w difference. Since my computer is constantly asleep that is minuscule amount.

So i would recommend 600w minimum. These can be had way under $100 on sale.

Loading…

www.newegg.com

That is $70 for 750w AR

Oh, and I would recommend a single rail PS. Like one above is +12v 62A single rail.

I ma sure this kind of deal can be found in UK.

 

[StIves]

Somehow I have hard time believing you. At least your definition of load.

My system at idle consumes that much at idle. 3930k but at 1200hz, midrange video card, one HD and one SSD. Your 4 HDs will consume 40w under load or more. Your video card will consume just as much if not more.

Under load 3930k at 4.5Ghz would by itself consume 300w. Total around 430w under load but only CPU is really under load.

I have blown 700w PS once. so am using 850w now. And just in case I bought 1200w as a backup.

As far as efficiency there is not much difference between 850w Platinum and 1200w bronze. At idle I get about 7w difference. Since my computer is constantly asleep that is minuscule amount.

So i would recommend 600w minimum. These can be had way under $100 on sale.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...27502&SID=direct_dealdetail_Newegg_0208_40696

That is $70 for 750w AR

Oh, and I would recommend a single rail PS. Like one above is +12v 62A single rail.

I ma sure this kind of deal can be found in UK.

--
Photography Director for Whedonopolis.com

I just pulled out my meter again, measured the PC running a graphically demanding game (for the GPU) which boosted CPU to about 80%. Watts went up to 155, and goes back down to 90 at idle. I think my previous mention of 130W was with a Prime95 measurement, so no significant GPU load but I don't have Prime95 on the PC anymore so can't kick it off without downloading it again. My memory could be wrong here for what load conditions were as this was tested over a year ago.

Systems specs: i5 not overclocked, 4 hard drives, 2 SSDs, AMD270 GPU. 16GB RAM. RAM and SSD contribute close to zero power draw, it's all down to the other components.

I know that people say hard drives consume 5W each, but hard drives don't get hammered 100% all the time, so don't really contribute to system load unless you're running a serious database server or something along those lines (my home server has six drives and the whole thing runs at 40W, including motherboard draw). I don't think it's really possibly to fully load CPU/graphics AND the disk subsystem in a real life usage case, so I always drop out disk as other components will draw far more power over longer periods of time.

Blown PSUs happen all the time and seem to be independent of power draw. In a big computing environment (I've worked with/around datacentres most my career), they are the second most common part to fail after hard drives, and that's possibly because hard drives outnumber PSUs by a factor of 5-10. Further to this, I wouldn't recommend getting a cheap PSU, I'd recommend getting something with a reputation for reliability.

Annoyingly, when I rebooted my PC to measure this stuff I interrupted a backup job that'd been running for 2 days so have to start over again

Edit: Are you overclocking? You mention 1200MHz but that figure looks way below what a CPU normall runs at. I've overclocked in the past but found that it increases power draw dramatically, which is why I stopped doing it. The PC generated so much heat that the room was heating up too much.

 

[SushiEater]

Somehow I have hard time believing you. At least your definition of load.

My system at idle consumes that much at idle. 3930k but at 1200hz, midrange video card, one HD and one SSD. Your 4 HDs will consume 40w under load or more. Your video card will consume just as much if not more.

Under load 3930k at 4.5Ghz would by itself consume 300w. Total around 430w under load but only CPU is really under load.

I have blown 700w PS once. so am using 850w now. And just in case I bought 1200w as a backup.

As far as efficiency there is not much difference between 850w Platinum and 1200w bronze. At idle I get about 7w difference. Since my computer is constantly asleep that is minuscule amount.

So i would recommend 600w minimum. These can be had way under $100 on sale.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...27502&SID=direct_dealdetail_Newegg_0208_40696

That is $70 for 750w AR

Oh, and I would recommend a single rail PS. Like one above is +12v 62A single rail.

I ma sure this kind of deal can be found in UK.

--
Photography Director for Whedonopolis.com

I just pulled out my meter again, measured the PC running a graphically demanding game (for the GPU) which boosted CPU to about 80%. Watts went up to 155, and goes back down to 90 at idle. I think my previous mention of 130W was with a Prime95 measurement, so no significant GPU load but I don't have Prime95 on the PC anymore so can't kick it off without downloading it again. My memory could be wrong here for what load conditions were as this was tested over a year ago.

Systems specs: i5 not overclocked, 4 hard drives, 2 SSDs, AMD270 GPU. 16GB RAM. RAM and SSD contribute close to zero power draw, it's all down to the other components.

I know that people say hard drives consume 5W each, but hard drives don't get hammered 100% all the time, so don't really contribute to system load unless you're running a serious database server or something along those lines (my home server has six drives and the whole thing runs at 40W, including motherboard draw). I don't think it's really possibly to fully load CPU/graphics AND the disk subsystem in a real life usage case, so I always drop out disk as other components will draw far more power over longer periods of time.

Blown PSUs happen all the time and seem to be independent of power draw. In a big computing environment (I've worked with/around datacentres most my career), they are the second most common part to fail after hard drives, and that's possibly because hard drives outnumber PSUs by a factor of 5-10. Further to this, I wouldn't recommend getting a cheap PSU, I'd recommend getting something with a reputation for reliability.

Annoyingly, when I rebooted my PC to measure this stuff I interrupted a backup job that'd been running for 2 days so have to start over again

Edit: Are you overclocking? You mention 1200MHz but that figure looks way below what a CPU normall runs at. I've overclocked in the past but found that it increases power draw dramatically, which is why I stopped doing it. The PC generated so much heat that the room was heating up too much.

Yes, I am overclocking 3930k to 4.5 GHz but at idle it only runs at 1200Mhz because I enabled CPU power savings. I think newer CPUs can run even lower. There is no reason to run at full speed unless I am processing RAW files which is what I mostly do. Thousands of them at the time. Sometimes I process videos which applies constant load on the CPU and consumes even more power. Normal speed of 3930k is 3.2Ghz under load. I was able to push it reliably to 4.5GHz on all 6 cores. It takes split second to ramp up to 4.5GHz.

At 3.2Ghz it takes 5-5.5 seconds to process single RAW file. A 4.5Ghz 2.5-3 seconds so it is significant speed increase considering. And converting videos are really fast too but it loads CPU like crazy so I use liquid cooling with custom block and dual radiator with 4 fans in push/pull.

Measure your computer power consumption converting 36mp RAW files at least 10 of them at the time and open them at the same time in Photoshop.

The power supplied I burnt was not a single rail, big mistake. I think it only had 28A on the CPU rail.

--
Photography Director for Whedonopolis.com

 

[StIves]

Yes, I am overclocking 3930k to 4.5 GHz but at idle it only runs at 1200Mhz because I enabled CPU power savings. I think newer CPUs can run even lower. There is no reason to run at full speed unless I am processing RAW files which is what I mostly do. Thousands of them at the time. Sometimes I process videos which applies constant load on the CPU and consumes even more power. Normal speed of 3930k is 3.2Ghz under load. I was able to push it reliably to 4.5GHz on all 6 cores. It takes split second to ramp up to 4.5GHz.

At 3.2Ghz it takes 5-5.5 seconds to process single RAW file. A 4.5Ghz 2.5-3 seconds so it is significant speed increase considering. And converting videos are really fast too but it loads CPU like crazy so I use liquid cooling with custom block and dual radiator with 4 fans in push/pull.

Measure your computer power consumption converting 36mp RAW files at least 10 of them at the time and open them at the same time in Photoshop.

The power supplied I burnt was not a single rail, big mistake. I think it only had 28A on the CPU rail.

--
Photography Director for Whedonopolis.com

So you're measuring over 130W draw running at 1.2GHz? That's completely different from what I measure on my machine.

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.

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.

 

[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
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

If you are going for the 170 chpset/Skylake, you may consider a motherboard with a M.2 SSD connection. The Samsung SM951 M.2 SSD has a read/write performance of 2150/1200 Mb/sec compared to the Samsung 850 Evo that has 540/520 read/write speeds. Your whole sytems will probably be a bit more responsive/quicker with the faster M.2 SSD, especially if you are using large files (like video). I use the Samsung SM951 M.2 256Gb SSD myself.

The ASRock H170M Pro4 motherboard has Displayport, 4 memory slots and a M.2 connection on the motherboard, priced at 109€ (from the spanish computer shop I'm using: www.pccomponentes.com, but I don't think they send to other countries, haven't checked).

It seems like a pretty good price for the i5-6600K from amazon.uk. I guess you know you can shop from all the european countries with the same Amazon account (just in case you find a better price in another country).

You wouldn't see any difference from 4x4Gb or 2x8Gb ram. Some of the Skyake motherboards are running the ram in 4 channels (compared to dual channel), so it would be best to use 4 memory modules, but I don't think this would be a lot of difference.

Your question about new features of the Skylake chipset (on some of the motherboards):
* M.2 SSD connection
* USB 3.1 and/or USB-C connection (I'm copying at about 370-380Mb/sek from a CFast 2.0 memory card via the USB 3.1 port)
* Faster built-in graphic processor
* Latest generation PCIe chipset (for graphic cards etc).
* Support for DDR4 ram from 2333Hz and up
* More USB 3.0 ports
* Support for HDMI 2.0 (that can run 4K in 60Hz, same as Displayport ver 1.2).

...and I guess some more that I haven't checked.

 

[RyanBoston]

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...

Are you thinking of building your own PC? It's not that hard.

Take a look at YouTube videos and it will give you a better idea of what parts you want.

pcpartpicker.com is a great source of built pc's you can choose to build. Great site.

The i7-4790K will run fast and rip through files fast. I just bought a custom built pc from a friend that has an i5-4690k and that even runs fast. I was a Mac user and this computer has turned me back to a happy pc user. I was going to change the i5 to the i7, but I honestly am very happy with it's speed now. If I do upgrade it will be on the X-99 platform with the 5930K or 5960X.

SSD's make the huge difference here too.

 

[RyanBoston]

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...

Their is a big difference between Haswell E, and the Devils Canyon chips. They both require a different motherboard along with different memory.

Devils Canyon chips are: i5-4690 /i7-4790 4 cores. These are the best all around performers. They are based off of the Z97 1150 motherboard.

Haswell E chips are: 5820k 6 core, 5930k 6 core, 5960X 8 core. They are built for the heavy user with heavy workloads such as PS with lots of files trying to blend and video production. These chips are for the X99 platform motherboard.

If you are on a budget, stick with the Devils Canyon chips. Still great performers.

 

[SushiEater]

Yes, I am overclocking 3930k to 4.5 GHz but at idle it only runs at 1200Mhz because I enabled CPU power savings. I think newer CPUs can run even lower. There is no reason to run at full speed unless I am processing RAW files which is what I mostly do. Thousands of them at the time. Sometimes I process videos which applies constant load on the CPU and consumes even more power. Normal speed of 3930k is 3.2Ghz under load. I was able to push it reliably to 4.5GHz on all 6 cores. It takes split second to ramp up to 4.5GHz.

At 3.2Ghz it takes 5-5.5 seconds to process single RAW file. A 4.5Ghz 2.5-3 seconds so it is significant speed increase considering. And converting videos are really fast too but it loads CPU like crazy so I use liquid cooling with custom block and dual radiator with 4 fans in push/pull.

Measure your computer power consumption converting 36mp RAW files at least 10 of them at the time and open them at the same time in Photoshop.

The power supplied I burnt was not a single rail, big mistake. I think it only had 28A on the CPU rail.

 

[SushiEater]

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

If you are going for the 170 chpset/Skylake, you may consider a motherboard with a M.2 SSD connection. The Samsung SM951 M.2 SSD has a read/write performance of 2150/1200 Mb/sec compared to the Samsung 850 Evo that has 540/520 read/write speeds. Your whole sytems will probably be a bit more responsive/quicker with the faster M.2 SSD, especially if you are using large files (like video). I use the Samsung SM951 M.2 256Gb SSD myself.

Somebody just made a post about it a week ago. He installed M.2 and compared boot time to a regular SSD. He found no difference.

 

[John Tait]

I expect it's hard for you to know what to think about the conflicting advice in this thread. No special reason for you to believe me more than others, but I'll throw out my opinion. I've been building my own systems and have worked in IT support at a university for over 25 years.

The reason power supplies tend to die, including "high power" PS's, is because so many of them are made from poor quality components and are unrealistically rated. Unless you are running one or more very power hungry graphic cards a quality 500w to 600w PS is more than enough power. I've used and reused the same 550w Seasonic PS for over ten years with no problems. You don't need very high power, but don't go cheap. I can't imagine what the person is doing who reported such very high power usage on their system.

Photo editing does not require a power hungry graphic card. I have a lower mid-range graphic card that cost around $100 five years ago and it doesn't slow me down at all using Lightroom or Photoshop. It would be useless for games, but I don't play games.

The difference between an i5 and an i7 is that the i7 can simulate eight cores when it physically only has four cores. Most applications do not benefit from this. The most expensive i7 has a higher clock speed than the most expensive i5, but getting the K version of an i5 and overclocking it makes this irrelevant. I'm using an overclocked i5 2500K in a system I put together five years ago. I've been looking at upgrading this year, but my system's performance isn't really laggy so I'm going to think about it again in another year. I have an Asus MB that came with a utility that tests different clock speeds and sets up the overclocking for you. You can tell it whether you want a conservative overclock or a bleeding edge overclock. I went for conservative and it's been stable for five years. I would guess other brands have something similar.

Sixteen gigs of RAM will make a significant difference in performance over 8 gigs of RAM. There is a performance advantage to only using two RAM slots over using four RAM slots. Not a big one, but it is there. Get two 8GB RAM modules, this leaves room to add more later. More RAM is probably your most effective performance enhancer for the money.

Using an SSD for the OS and applications will make a significant difference in performance.

I'd recommend getting a Skylake CPU if you can. It will use less power and should run cooler. On board graphics wasn't good enough when I made my last build, but it should be now and Skylake has the best on board graphics. Getting the current generation CPU should give you one or two more years before you feel the need to upgrade again.

John

 

[edispics]

Folks keep referring to photo editing as though there was one single type of that everyone practices. In truth you have people like Sushi who plow through thousands of 35mp raw images in batch and you have folks who are content to flip a few sliders and call it a day.

For the slider flippers, a lot of the more esoteric suggestions in these posts are just not necessary.

The OP stated the requirement is to run PS and some other programs without lag.

If all someone is doing in PS is flipping a few sliders, get 16GB of memory, make sure the Adobe video requirements for video are met and make sure the system has an SSD for overall system snapiness. Let the budget determine the rest of the components.

If you are into many of the third party plugins for PS, you will quickly discover that some of them will quickly grind PS down to its knees, and then some. There are folks here who often work with 60 or more layers on a single photo. Like Sushi, I will often batch process hundreds (not into thousands yet like Sushi) of raw photos in batch with Oloneo. I like Filter Forge - sure way to kill any system. Try some of the Topaz filters on anything less than the overclocked, watercooled systems that we run and you will be pulling your hair out in no time. See how long it takes to run LR merge to HDR on 5 or 7 or more bracketed raw files. Better still, see how long it takes to run LR merge to panorama with multiple, raw files. There are many other photo editing-related software packages which can place demands on any system. You get my drift.

So it all depends on what you are doing, and what you plan on doing during the foreseeable lifespan of your system. Depending on your answer to this question, the solutions being presented here might be serious overkill, or woefully inadequate.

 

[SushiEater]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[SushiEater]

Every time i read these threads I find some jams people post about new software I never heard of.

What is Oloneo? Is it fast? Do they upgrade for newer cameras? What is your experience?

I decided not to upgrade to CC so if I buy D5 I will not have support for it in ACR.

So I am looking for new RAW converters especially if they are faster than ACR.

 

[edispics]

Every time i read these threads I find some jams people post about new software I never heard of.

What is Oloneo? Is it fast? Do they upgrade for newer cameras? What is your experience?

I decided not to upgrade to CC so if I buy D5 I will not have support for it in ACR.

So I am looking for new RAW converters especially if they are faster than ACR.

 

[SushiEater]

Every time i read these threads I find some jams people post about new software I never heard of.

What is Oloneo? Is it fast? Do they upgrade for newer cameras? What is your experience?

I decided not to upgrade to CC so if I buy D5 I will not have support for it in ACR.

So I am looking for new RAW converters especially if they are faster than ACR.

 

[edispics]

Every time i read these threads I find some jams people post about new software I never heard of.

What is Oloneo? Is it fast? Do they upgrade for newer cameras? What is your experience?

I decided not to upgrade to CC so if I buy D5 I will not have support for it in ACR.

So I am looking for new RAW converters especially if they are faster than ACR.

--
Photography Director for Whedonopolis.com

I have been using Oloneo for some years now. It was originally marketed as "HDR" software but is now also marketed for "raw recovery". I prefer it in many cases to Photomatix because I find it easier to use and it's easier to get subtle effects. It does a good job micro aligning hand held bracketed exposures. It has very good batch facilities.

http://www.oloneo.com/

I used to use it for most of my raw conversion but these days I typically use LR 6.4 more than Oloneo, but it all depends.

Oloneo has free trials so best to try it out. Yes they do update for new camera models.

LR 6.4 has kept up to date with new camera models and I front end PS CS6 with LR 6.4 - let LR do the raw conversion and then pass on to PS to continue the processing chain. In both cases, no rent and 6.4 is very fast, esp for photo merge.

Thanks

I usually have sets of photos (hundreds of them) taken with exactly the same setting in exactly the same light with in like 20 minutes or so. I process one photo and apply setting from that photo in ACR to others. After that I label all photos I choose, select them all and convert to JPGs for publishing.

Can Oloneo do that?

--
Photography Director for Whedonopolis.com

Destination files types are jpeg or tiff, Color space choices are sRGB, AdobeRGB or Prophoto RGB. For the processing you select either a predefined preset or one that you have created based on your preferred settings, which would then appear under presets at the bottom right of that selection screen. The batch can be autorun or interactive. I believe you would have to do your own renaming, although the batch process could convert them all to jpeg and applying a standard group of settings is handled by creating and applying a preset. The batch process even applies when you have bracketed exposures since you can specify the number of exposures per bracket set, auto alignment and ghost removal.

 

[SarahBK]

I appreciate all the replies - I've read them all thoroughly, but it's become a bit too complex to reply to each comment in separate replies! So I'll fit all my replies here:

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. 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.

I will definitely get an SSD for the OS though - I have no reason not to at this stage and it seems there's plenty of advantages.

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?

As for PSU, I think I will have to come to a conclusion as to what parts I will go for first, and how much overclocking I'd be doing on it... from your discussion with Sushieater it seems the choice is a little more complex than my current understanding...! (Sorry for being the reason to mess up your backup!)

While mentioning all these values for power usage though, I suppose one thing I should mention is that I wouldn't like to blow electricity fees through the roof

Ludvig: Unlikely that I would be editing video (I rarely take videos to start with), but it's good to know about the availability of faster SSDs to complement such newer motherboards. Price-wise, are they a lot more than the Samsung 850 EVO?

The issue is usually with shipping rather than the account - a lot of sellers (on Amazon UK at least) don't ship to Malta at all, or charge high shipping fees :/ To be quite honest, I've never done any in-depth searches on all the different Amazon sites, but I might do so once I've come to a conclusion as to what components I'd like to get, since you're suggesting so.

From what I've seen, there isn't such a massive price difference between the top end Haswell and Skylake i5 and i7 (in the case of the i5s, they're nearly identical on Amazon UK!). The biggest price difference remains between the top end i5 and top end i7 of both generations. Not surprisingly the most expensive option overall is the i7 6700K. I still need to establish if this price difference is worth choosing one over the other, for my needs. There seem to be quite some benefits of the Skylake and related components (thanks for that list re the chipset!), so at the moment that's what I have a slight preference for.

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

Nice to see you're happy with an i5! For that to make you convert from a Mac user... it must be significant...

So far I didn't look into the Haswell E series - they seemed to be super high-end (as you said) and thought they'd be a waste for my intended use. I think at this point in time it's more of a choice between the Devils Canyon and top end Skylake equivalents, although from what I've seen the latter are not that much more than their 4th gen counterparts, so might as well go for the Skylake being newer and some other things mentioned by other users. The Devil's Canyon chips do have a good reputation indeed though. Also wonder whether the choice should be between Skylake i5 6600K or the Haswell i7-4790K (or a bit more and just simply go for the best - the i7-6700K).

John Tait: I was expecting that everyone has their own experience, ideas and input. It's interesting to read and learn, and I think it's all relevant to consider. I'm sure there is no outright straight single answer, which is why I enjoy getting all the information and suggestions and condensing that into a final conclusion.

My conclusion re the graphics card at the moment seems to be that I might not need one at all to start with, and just make use of the inbuilt graphics of the CPU. I definitely don't intend on using it for any games - it's really just:
- Photo editing: Adobe Bridge, Photoshop and Camera Raw with a number of photos open at once. Possibly might get back to using Lightroom again but I've given up using that on my laptop at the moment as it lags TOO much - I open a smaller number of photos in Camera Raw at one go, but even this lags. The max set of photos I'd usually be working on is about 200-300, which I'd like to load all at once in Lightroom, but not necessarily in Camera Raw. I certainly won't be editing thousands of photos at once. When I'm using photoshop, it's usually about 2 images open at any one time and perhaps about 20 layers each. If I had a more powerful computer, I'd probably push this a little more. I have also done occasional panorama stitches on PS (about 5 photos), but it takes so long I'm rarely tempted to get working on them.
- Simultaneous general PC usage: Browser with multiple tabs, music, PDFs and slideshows for studying, programs like Skype which alone makes the CPU of my poor laptop hit the roof, etc etc.

That said, with no power hungry graphics card... I don't know what PSU would be ideal for the time being. I will ensure it's of good quality though, that's definitely good advice, so it lasts me a good while But I suppose it wouldn't hurt to get a power supply that would allow for the adding of a low-mid end graphics card later on if the need DID arise though. Does going for a higher wattage power supply than the set-up I would have at any moment in time contribute to higher power usage, or does the computer only 'draw out what it needs' accordingly?

Yes, a lot has been said about the over-clocking. Getting the highest end i5 (most likely Skywell) and over-clocking if I find that I need more speed sounds like the best way to go at the moment. For all I know the i5 without over-clocking would be good enough as it is...! But it seems good to leave that option open by getting an unlocked i5.

Same for the RAM. I think I will indeed go for 16GB RAM since it seems to make quite a big difference to the overall performance. I did initially think 8GB would be enough, but many have stated as yourself that 16GB does help quite a bit. Getting 2x8GB would indeed leave room for even more...!

Yes - the best graphics, and issue of future compatibility with releases over the next few years are indeed a couple of the reasons why it makes more sense to go with the latest Skylake, especially with the price difference between the respective Haswell CPUs is minimal. The impression I have is it's the way forward, but then again things change so much in the world of technology. But there's also a lot of experience and happy users of the Haswells...

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. Unsure of how much things will change in the next few years, but I doubt it would be much. If it works well, even when what I eventually buy starts being considered old tech, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't stay buying repeated upgrades just for the sake of it. Indeed, I'm just trying to find what works well for my needs without being overkill (both in terms of price and of course power usage).

I don't use any third party plugins.. never really heard of them to be honest! And it sounds like I don't want to be trying them without a new computer...

 

[SushiEater]

Thank you.

 

[SushiEater]

I appreciate all the replies - I've read them all thoroughly, but it's become a bit too complex to reply to each comment in separate replies! So I'll fit all my replies here:

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. 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.

No, not hibernate. Sleep. It wakes up exactly where you left off. Hibernate takes longer.

I will definitely get an SSD for the OS though - I have no reason not to at this stage and it seems there's plenty of advantages.



Are decent coolers really that heavy?

No, you can get a liquid cooler where light block is mounted on CPU and small radiator is mounted where back fan would go. It is self contained so you never have to refill it.

As for PSU, I think I will have to come to a conclusion as to what parts I will go for first, and how much overclocking I'd be doing on it... from your discussion with Sushieater it seems the choice is a little more complex than my current understanding...! (Sorry for being the reason to mess up your backup!)

While mentioning all these values for power usage though, I suppose one thing I should mention is that I wouldn't like to blow electricity fees through the roof

Nothing difficult about it. Just make sure that you get around 600w, single 12v rail and good brand. Maybe lifetime warranty. Don't worry about efficiency color rating. The saving in electricity between Platinum and Bronze is minuscule.

Ludvig: Unlikely that I would be editing video (I rarely take videos to start with), but it's good to know about the availability of faster SSDs to complement such newer motherboards. Price-wise, are they a lot more than the Samsung 850 EVO?

Not only they are more expensive but if you are going to be doing videos occasionally don't bother with SSD for that.

The issue is usually with shipping rather than the account - a lot of sellers (on Amazon UK at least) don't ship to Malta at all, or charge high shipping fees :/ To be quite honest, I've never done any in-depth searches on all the different Amazon sites, but I might do so once I've come to a conclusion as to what components I'd like to get, since you're suggesting so.

From what I've seen, there isn't such a massive price difference between the top end Haswell and Skylake i5 and i7 (in the case of the i5s, they're nearly identical on Amazon UK!). The biggest price difference remains between the top end i5 and top end i7 of both generations. Not surprisingly the most expensive option overall is the i7 6700K. I still need to establish if this price difference is worth choosing one over the other, for my needs. There seem to be quite some benefits of the Skylake and related components (thanks for that list re the chipset!), so at the moment that's what I have a slight preference for.

You also have to take in consideration price of the memory DDR3 vs DDR4.

Just simply Google your CPU and overclocking. You will find detailed explanation on how to do it.

Just simply read what people did as stable setup and you are done. With K CPU all you do is change number of the multiplier and maybe just maybe bump the voltage. In other words if you want 4.2 GHz you set adjustment on manual and set multiplier to 42. Done. If not stable you bump voltage .01 until stable. So for example if voltage is 1.2V you bump it to 1.21V and continue doing it until stable.

Once you reach 4.5Ghz just stop cold. No reason to go higher. Do not go crazy about it and change base frequency if you are not comfortable.

So far I didn't look into the Haswell E series - they seemed to be super high-end (as you said) and thought they'd be a waste for my intended use. I think at this point in time it's more of a choice between the Devils Canyon and top end Skylake equivalents, although from what I've seen the latter are not that much more than their 4th gen counterparts, so might as well go for the Skylake being newer and some other things mentioned by other users. The Devil's Canyon chips do have a good reputation indeed though. Also wonder whether the choice should be between Skylake i5 6600K or the Haswell i7-4790K (or a bit more and just simply go for the best - the i7-6700K).

As explained above and in many other threads and in many articles you want high frequency regardless of CPU. You might not get all the benefits in real life computing if you go for more expensive CPUs. Just ignore the synthetic benchmarks because they don't represent real life.

Lets put it this way, I am using SandyBridge CPU at 4.5Ghz and happy with it. That is 3 generations old. Newer CPUs will be just total waste of money for me.