Hello beautiful people,
I am building an editing rigs for a customer, and I am wondering if you guys could take a look and give some feedback. We are on a slight budget since he wants 2 PCs, and he wants to buy everything at a local store, microcenter. Here is the updated partlist http://pcpartpicker.com/p/nHQ9P6. Thanks guys!
Quick question: what is the customer editing? This would be a good Photoshop build but I don't know about anything larger than that.
He is going to edit and create manga and maybe in the near future start animating it
You've given no details.. i.e. He's making 4k 24fps 2 hour video, using AE with lots of effects for a budget of $2000... If you are a system builder you should really be asking these questions.
Bring all the details and one of us will come up with the best solution (if possible).
1 Like
the board might be a limiting factor,
if im looking at the info right the board is a
4 + 1 phase vrm.
the 8 cores are recommended for the 8 + 2's
for the power draw and proper heatsinking of the vrm
but this could all depend on
what kind and how heavy of a workload this will be doing
nothing else seems like a red flag to me.
matx seems there isn't alot of the am3+'s in them hmmm...
was going to recommend a different board but atm not sure
Well I am limited to a 1200 to 1300 dollars for 2 pc's. I have already built for this guy a $2000 editing pc. Now he wants 2 pc's with much less power but still capable to run adobe suite. From my understanding he will be using a lot of photoshop on these pc's. I do apologize for not giving more information. My main goal is to get as much computing power out of that budget.
I don't mind going up to a full atx board and getting a bigger case as long as the case is cheap and has USB 3
i don't have any complaints,
the board is heatsinked on the vrm. and is a 8 + 2
sadly the good boards for the 8 cores are so expensive.
the only thing i would say,
if there is video rendering. might want to bump to 1866/2133 if there isn't a price jump.
6+2, actually. It's still enough for a 8350.
+1 on RAM.
If all he is doing is photoshop...why not just skimp on the card and appropriate those funds towards a better board or more RAM?
I would but I know his future plans. But I will double the memory.
While Photoshop can work on an APU it is considerably more sluggish and not ideal for working in deadlines. Also ram usage is really dependent on the complexity of the document, actions taken (e.g. filters), and the number of history states. If Chunky's client has employees cleaning up linework and matte painting it shouldn't be too hard on the ram, if the problem does come up they can limit the number of history states stored in memory, size of cache levels/tiles, and save documents more often. Alternatively there is cheaper 1333 ram as Photoshop doesn't gain significant benefits from faster ram; unlike videogames which have dynamic scenes, tiles and history states just sit unchanged until called or acted upon by the user.
Let me start by saying that "considerably more sluggish" is downright false. I am an enthusiast photographer that's been both taking pictures and using Photoshop for more than 10 years. All of the features that use any sort of graphic acceleration see a marginal increase as far as their return in investment. I know that the Mercury Performance Engine in Photoshop utilizes the CPU cores and the RAM first before looking to a GPU for video acceleration. Is their a performance boost? Yes, I am not denying that but to throw the word "considerably" in there if you're using a modern CPU is flippant. For a graphics card...your typical office performance level card that is around 40-$70 is more than sufficient.
These are the only features that take advantage of graphic acceleration. The list looks long but considering all of what Photoshop does and how little of a performance effect you get vs the money spent on a GPU I thought it'd be fair to list them:
Adaptive Wide Angle Filter
Liquify (accelerated with compatible video card with 512 MB of VRAM)
Oil Paint
Warp and Puppet Warp (accelerated with compatible video card)
Field Blur, Iris Blur, and Tilt/Shift (accelerated with compatible video card supporting OpenCL)
Lighting Effects Gallery (compatible video card required with 512 MB of VRAM)
New 3D enhancements (3D features in Photoshop require a compatible video card with 512 MB of VRAM):
Draggable Shadows
Ground plane reflections
Roughness
On-canvas user interface controls
Ground plane
Light widgets on edge of canvas
IBL (image-based light) controller
Scrubby Zoom.
Heads Up Display (HUD) color picker.
Color sampling ring.
Brush dynamic resize and hardness control.
Bristle Brush tip previews.
Rule of thirds crop grid overlay.
Flick-panning.
Rotate the canvas.
Adobe Color Engine (ACE). Color conversions are faster because the GPU handles the processing instead of the CPU.
Draw Brush tip cursors.
The two in bold are the only features you won't be able to do without a video card and Photoshop can't take advantage of anything larger than 1GB anyway.
With all of that said, if his client is going to be doing any editing in a 3D environment then yes...he might want to consider throwing in a graphics card with 2GB of VRAM. However, if they are not then there is no point in wasting money there. Utilize it for more RAM which Photoshop will take advantage of.