• I want to thank all the members that have upgraded your accounts. I truly appreciate your support of the site monetarily. Supporting the site keeps this site up and running as a lot of work daily goes on behind the scenes. Click to Support Signs101 ...

Building New Computer

Thanks for all the replys everyone, you've all been very helpfull. I really want to thank Casey at Signburst for talking to me on the phone about my computer. It's nice to talk to someone who doesn't try to sell you something just because that's what they sell, he's a class act.
After talking to Casey I think I am going to upgrade my harddrives as well as going to Vista Ultimate which means I have to upgrade Flexi also. I will probably go to 6 or 8gb of ram also but I can do all of this for a little less than I was going to spend on building a new computer. It will be a couple of weeks before I have all of this done but I will let everyone know how it turns out.
Thanks again everyone.
Stuart
 

cptcorn

adad
Please tell me you are joking...? Useless/unrealistic comment IMO.

He's running two programs that are pretty basic.

Not at all...

If he's not designing wraps or anything of that nature he doesn't need it. He didn't specify exactly what he was doing.... $12,000 computer through dell/apple... If you know exactly what you're looking for should cost you about 1/4 to a 1/3 of that... but you get 0 support.
 

Jim Doggett

New Member
I'd probably start with a barebones from TigerDirect

The Flexi isn't a hardware-intensive program. Photoshop CS3 is, but even still, you don't have to go all out. 4GB RAM is ample. Dual monitors, however, is a must with PS: one for the tools; the other for the design window.

My $0.02,

Jim
 

SignBurst PCs

New Member
I like the idea of waiting a little bit on Windows 7. I really like the Release Candidate they have out. It is really slick. But that being said, I would be a little hesitant to recommend it to a customer right after the initial release.

I, for one, will be an early adopter for sure. That is the nature of my biz though. I take the beating so my customers don't have to.

I have to slightly disagree with Jim. We have done a TON of testing on the 64Bit flavors of Windows as it pertains to design software. They are ALL RAM hogs. The more RAM you can afford, the better. IMHO.

Edit: Thanks for the kind words Stuart.
 

Jim Doggett

New Member
Hi Casey,

CS3 uses RAM pretty efficiently. Here's some source material. Sure, more of anything, if you've got a ton of dough to spend, is always great. But spending a bunch to gain a few seconds on rendering a behemoth EPS or applying a complex filter effect (most tasks it'll be hardly noticeable) is questionable from a cost:benefit standpoint, I believe.

Spending on dual monitors is the biggest benefit relative to cost, IMO. The user experience difference is stark.

Best,

Jim
 

Jace161

New Member
When those of you who design wraps and large banners are you using photoshop or similar program for? I try to use illustrator as much as possible to keep down on the file size. I'm using;
Intel core 2 duo 2.8ghz
3gb ddr3 ram
512mb nivida(forget the model off the top of my head)
200gb 7,200rpm HDD
vista 64bit

I have some problems when using photoshop to do large prints but like i said i try to use illustrator mostly b/c it uses less memory. This same computer allows me to edit 720p HD video realtime with no hiccups.

"Dual monitors, however, is a must with PS: one for the tools; the other for the design window."

I agree Jim! I find it hard to do the simplest things with only one monitor after a year of using two.
 

SignBurst PCs

New Member
Hi Casey,

CS3 uses RAM pretty efficiently. Here's some source material. Sure, more of anything, if you've got a ton of dough to spend, is always great. But spending a bunch to gain a few seconds on rendering a behemoth EPS or applying a complex filter effect (most tasks it'll be hardly noticeable) is questionable from a cost:benefit standpoint, I believe.

Spending on dual monitors is the biggest benefit relative to cost, IMO. The user experience difference is stark.

Best,

Jim

Jim,

We do our own benchmarking and testing in Photoshop. I have a wealth of numbers that tell me there is a HUGE difference in basic Photoshop commands between 4GB and 8GB. The difference between 4GB and 16GB is even more unbelievable. Certain Photoshop tasks are hard on the processors and others are hard on RAM, so adding more RAM is often only a portion of the answer.

All that being said, CS3 and CS4 are different animals with the release of 64 Bit Photoshop in CS4. The benchmarks on our new systems in 64 Bit Photoshop are almost too good to be true. But the advantages of more RAM, even for a 32 Bit app like Photoshop CS3 are big.

Think about this:

4GB RAM in your system (probably only able to see 3.5, if you are lucky due to memory space allocated to hardware such as video card memory).

1/2 of that (or 2GB) is reserved for your operating system, unless you are using the 3GB switch (which brings in a whole new set of problems).

That leaves you less than 2GB of RAM for ALL of you applications to share. That includes your security software, printer software, office productivity software (i.e email, word processing, etc), Internet browsers, application update software, and so on.

Now Photoshop CS3 (32 bit app) can use 3GB all by itself before it runs to the hard drive for virtual memory. If it is sharing a measly 2GB with all you other apps, it is starving. You have probably run out of RAM just opening a file. If you doubt that, you can use the efficiency marker at the bottom of each Photoshop window or you can view the size of your Photoshop temp file on your hard drive (virtual RAM). It is amazing to think that many of our wrap customers are equipped with 8GB of RAM and Photoshop is using 500+GB of hard drive space for Virtual RAM in it's temp file when working with larger Photoshop files. When you compare those temp files to a system equipped with 16 or 32 GB of RAM, you start to see the real benefit of more RAM.

We are not talking about seconds here. I recently demo'd one of our systems at a large design facility already equipped with very modern design systems. We estimated that they were losing 45 minutes a day, per designer due to a lack of computing power. In this case, our systems would pay for themselves in less that 8 months. It was a no-brainer for them.

Now not all shops are high-output shops, but if my computer could save me even 1 hour per week, that is 1 hour that I could spend with my daughter, 1 hour to go fishing, or maybe even stay 1 hour ahead of that killer deadline that I stress about.
 

SignBurst PCs

New Member
When those of you who design wraps and large banners are you using photoshop or similar program for? I try to use illustrator as much as possible to keep down on the file size.

I have some problems when using photoshop to do large prints but like i said i try to use illustrator mostly b/c it uses less memory. This same computer allows me to edit 720p HD video realtime with no hiccups.
.

There is a fundamental difference in Illustrator and Photoshop. One is vector and the other is raster. Vector (Illustrator) is usually going to give you smaller file sizes and take less resources to deal with, but raster (Photoshop) is going to give a much larger set of tools in your toolbox. If you are only using a vector application to design, then you are truly limiting you design potential.

Video editing, gaming, or 3D rendering workstations are not designed for graphic design. They are probably great at what they are meant to do, but they don't perform nearly as well as a true graphic design workstation.
 

Jim Doggett

New Member
Hi Jace!

Thanks for getting my back on the 2X monitor thing. Whew! No kidding, going back to one would be tough after using two. I've been using two for about 4 or 5 years, and I think I'd give up chocolate or my oldest child before I'd sacrifice a second monitor. (kidding of course).

Anyway, monitors are amazingly cheap now. I think you'd need a second card, or perhaps a bigger one that supports dual monitors. Maybe not; your card may support 2. 512MB is fine for two monitors if you don't attach it to a megatron.

Now to get everyone laughing until they have ripped abs: Acer AspireOne, Intel Atom, 1GB RAM (video shared), 120 GB HDD, and an Acer (1366 x 768) monitor as an extended desktop. But I do Web and magazine/brochure graphics and have PS7, the best / least overkill version of Photoshop, ever, IMHO. The only time I bring it to a halt is when a have iTunes blasting Stevie Ray Vaughn, with CorelDRAW 13, PS7 and a bunch of Web programs running simultaneously.

For large format, and CS3, 4GB is pretty nice. Above 4GB it goes to system ops and other apps. But if you're working in PS and don't have a bunch of other stuff running, anything above 4GB will be marginally noticeable, I believe.

Good to have you on the board here.

Best,

Jim
 

SignBurst PCs

New Member
Performance

Without giving away too much info, here are some recent results in comparing Photoshop times between a few of our systems and a customers systems.

Mind you, the customer's computer was a Core2Quad Q6600 system with 4GB or RAM.

Please note that all results are in seconds.

The left graph represents the times take to scale a large image to 500%.

The left graph represents the times taken to perform a (100 / spin / best) radial blur on the same image.

But as far as the RAM issue goes, take a look at the 4GB Inferno vs the 8GB Inferno in the "scaling" times on the left. That is a pretty big difference.
 

Attachments

  • times.jpg
    times.jpg
    22 KB · Views: 104
Last edited:

SignBurst PCs

New Member
.jpg
RGB
8Bits / Channel
21" x 8.4" (720 pixels/inch)
15120 x 6048 Pixels
261.6MB Photoshop Document Size
32.2 MB Actual Size on Disk

These are tasking and not everyday commands, but the resizing is a good indicator of RAM performance and the Radial Blur is a good indicator of processor performance.
 

Jim Doggett

New Member
Hi Casey,

No argument. If regularly working in that kind of environment, or even in the same neighborhood, go hog wild. Rent a room full of Crays and it'll cost-justify.

I just tend to think that current-best is a bit of overkill -- and too spendy. Folks spend thousands on tech that'll have a Craigslist value in the hundreds in a couple years; the tech evolves too rapidly.

And I think, for most day-in / day-out tasks, spending on RAM in excess of 4GB is less beneficial than dual monitors, if one has to choose. Moving tools around to see the image is beyond frustrating -- and time-wasting to the max. If you can pay for both, terrific.

Best,

Jim
 

SignBurst PCs

New Member
You are right, tech evolves very fast. But if you are waiting on your computer, then a faster computer can save you time and $$$. Often it pays for itself in time saved way before it becomes obsolete. If it is expensive, but saves you enough time and $$$ to pay for itself, then it really isn't expensive, it is free.

I too enjoy multiple monitors. All of our PCs are dual monitor capable. I am not taking anything away from that at all. I love them!

Most of our customers are producing files well over 1GB. Many are in the 4-5GB arena.

I had a cutomer tell me the other day that he was working in a 16GB file on his SignBurst computer, but wondered why his RIP computer (not a SignBurst) wouldn't RIP it.:help

Every shop is different. Even on this forum, you have a wide array of shops, each with different needs. Some seem to be ok with the "disposable" E-Machines, but others require $10k powerhouse design computers. It really depends on the shop, what files they are dealing with, the level of quality they are comfortable with, and the level of support they prefer.
 

cptcorn

adad
I would gladly give up dual monitors for a single monitor with an insane resolution... High Resolution > Dual Shitty Monitors

Jim, the stuff Casey is talking about isnt latest and greatest stuff... I built a very similar workstation to the ones he sells... 2 years ago... and it's still better than the latest and greatest thing you can buy at Best Buy.

Most of the files I work with are 4-8GB.... On a computer with 4gb of memory it takes about 20-30 minutes to open the file.... on the computer with similar specs to my first post in this thread... 5 minutes...
 

Jace161

New Member
Casey, I agree you can achieve different things with both programs and more with one than the other I was just asking if people use one more than the other because I haven't been doing this as long as others. I use them hand in hand and one more than the other in some cases.

I do believe most gaming computers can't keep up with any graphic or video editing workstation. Now video, when you start adding in a lot of effects and if you are working with high definition then your computer will need to be pretty powerful so I disagree with you there. A well built video editing workstation could keep up with one for graphic design. However, I do more documentary style video so I try to stay away from all the special effects thus why I haven't had to step up my memory yet.
 

SignBurst PCs

New Member
Casey, I agree you can achieve different things with both programs and more with one than the other I was just asking if people use one more than the other because I haven't been doing this as long as others. I use them hand in hand and one more than the other in some cases.

I do believe most gaming computers can't keep up with any graphic or video editing workstation. Now video, when you start adding in a lot of effects and if you are working with high definition then your computer will need to be pretty powerful so I disagree with you there. A well built video editing workstation could keep up with one for graphic design. However, I do more documentary style video so I try to stay away from all the special effects thus why I haven't had to step up my memory yet.

I am sorry. I left out a very important part of the sentence.

Video editing, gaming, or 3D rendering workstations are not designed for graphic design. They are probably great at what they are meant to do, but they don't perform nearly as well as a true graphic design workstation AT GRAPHIC DESIGN.

A well built video editing workstation or 3D rendering workstation will rival a well built graphic design workstation any day. I meant that they are designed for different things and each is specific to it's purpose.

We have built all three types of computers. Each having it's own set of strengths.
 
Top