PC Spec

[agh55]

Hi, I now have to replace my aging 8 year old PC. Can anyone offer guidance on the processor, Video card and power unit I should be using to run photoshop and Lighroom. I have a spec from a UK based supplier which is showing the I5 7600 processor and the 4GB AMD Radeon video cardp ( another quote is showing the Geforce 6 GB 1060 card. my budget is £1100 max.

[Tikcus]

If I was building a new PC today

 

I'd try to get an AMD Ryzen R7 1700 8 core CPU into the budget, with 16GB RAM (or at least an R5 1600 6 core CPU), both are much better for content creation than any i5 or i7 in the same price bracket.

which AMD video card have they priced?

[BobJ]

It depends on your budget of course. I am a retired computer engineer and I find it a minefield. Fit 16GB of ram if you can but don't go below 8. The graphics card is not very important for Photoshop and Lightroom as they do not work it very hard at all. However, if you are going to process video then the graphics card is important. Make sure it has at least least 2GB of memory for stills though. The C drive should be an SSD and be sure it is big enough to double as the lightroom catalogue and Photoshop scratch (unlike with hard drives these can be on the same SSD as the OS without much of a performance hit). So 256GB or larger. You can use a separate hard drive for your files. If you have the money go for the fastest processor. The best value for money though will be a model one or two levels below that spec. I am not up to speed with the latest processors so I can't be specific.

[BobJ]

P.S. I forgot to mention - leave room in your budget for a good monitor. That is more important than a little extra speed.

[agh55]

Hi, thanks for the responses, I have a quote for Ryzen 1600X ( also the Series 7 I5 7600) processor, comes in within my budget. They have quoted for 4GB AMD RADEON RX550- HDMI, DP,DVI,-DX 12. The quote is also for a 250 GB SSD,Samsung 850 and 16 GB RAM DDR4 2133 Mhz. A new monitor will come later.

[quincy]

If I was building a new PC today

 

I'd try to get an AMD Ryzen R7 1700 8 core CPU into the budget, with 16GB RAM (or at least an R5 1600 6 core CPU), both are much better for content creation than any i5 or i7 in the same price bracket.

which AMD video card have they priced?

 

 

Why are Ryzen better for content creation than Intel's Core i processors?

I'm asking because we have several high-end workstations here for simulation purposes, and we do have some Ryzen 7 1800X. While Passmark (~15400 points) says they should be faster than most of our Intel based systems (e.g. Core i7-6800k ~13800 points), tests have shown that they need even more time to solve the same problem than our 'slower' Core i7-6700 (~9900 points). And they absolutely don't stand a chance against the Xeons.

 

This might be the fault of the mainboards we use, but here is the next problem with the Ryzen system: a very limited choice concerning mainboards.

 

I want AMD to succeed and become a big player again, and I still have my trusty Thunderbird at home (still running @80°C when I boot it), but sadly this was their last competitive CPU in my eyes.

 

 

 

To the OP:

If your use case is just photo and video editing, without gaming involved, you can get yourself a used Xeon based workstation from HP or Dell easily within your budget. They usually have a Xeon E3 (comparable to high end i7) or E5 (>i7), 16 GB RAM or more, professional graphics cards (nvidia quadro or amd firepro), and if you need to upgrade it with an SSD you have more than enough budget left.

[Tikcus]

Why are Ryzen better for content creation than Intel's Core i processors?

I'm asking because we have several high-end workstations here for simulation purposes, and we do have some Ryzen 7 1800X. While Passmark (~15400 points) says they should be faster than most of our Intel based systems (e.g. Core i7-6800k ~13800 points), tests have shown that they need even more time to solve the same problem than our 'slower' Core i7-6700 (~9900 points). And they absolutely don't stand a chance against the Xeons.

 

This might be the fault of the mainboards we use, but here is the next problem with the Ryzen system: a very limited choice concerning mainboards.

 

I want AMD to succeed and become a big player again, and I still have my trusty Thunderbird at home (still running @80°C when I boot it), but sadly this was their last competitive CPU in my eyes.

 

 

 

To the OP:

If your use case is just photo and video editing, without gaming involved, you can get yourself a used Xeon based workstation from HP or Dell easily within your budget. They usually have a Xeon E3 (comparable to high end i7) or E5 (>i7), 16 GB RAM or more, professional graphics cards (nvidia quadro or amd firepro), and if you need to upgrade it with an SSD you have more than enough budget left.

 

For your Ryzen troubles make sure bios and software is up to date, there were a lot of day 1 fixes

 

For content creation (anything that uses cores) for me rendering, the Ryzen 7 CPUs with 8 cores (16 threads) are a lot more productive than a 4 Core i7 (8 threads), or a 4 core i5  (4 threads) (Ryzen 5 CPUs are either 4 core (8 thread) or 6 core (12 thread) depending on model 1600 is a 6/12)

 

As more and more software can address more and more cores, things will only get better with the more cores you have.

 

Review and comparison at AnandTech - links to rendering but review is a good read regardless

 

http://www.anandtech.com/show/11244/the-amd-ryzen-5-1600x-vs-core-i5-review-twelve-threads-vs-four/6

Edited August 14, 2017 by Tikcus

[quincy]

Thanks for your answer. Our systems are up to date, and we are in contact with AMD to solve the problems (although it doesn't look good). At this point I should add that a lot of software is written for intel architecture, so it's not completely "AMD's fault".
Anandtech's benchmark report shows that - computational power for money - AMD seems to do good (which makes me happy, in a way), and that's a sector I honestly didn't have on my mind. But sadly they didn't include i7 or XEON processors, which is the sector I'm interested in (maximum raw power).

 

Anyway, I don't want to derail the thread too much or confuse the OP.

I think that both CPU manufacturers can probably offer the base for a system that is more than enough for image processing. But I stick with my advice for a used workstation, and I, personally, would wait for the second generation of threadripper to build an AMD system. I have high hopes that they will overcome their theething problems until then 

Edited August 14, 2017 by quincy

[Tikcus]

Thanks for your answer. Our systems are up to date, and we are in contact with AMD to solve the problems (although it doesn't look good). At this point I should add that a lot of software is written for intel architecture, so it's not completely "AMD's fault".

Anandtech's benchmark report shows that - computational power for money - AMD seems to do good (which makes me happy, in a way), and that's a sector I honestly didn't have on my mind. But sadly they didn't include i7 or XEON processors, which is the sector I'm interested in (maximum raw power).

 

Anyway, I don't want to derail the thread too much or confuse the OP.

I think that both CPU manufacturers can probably offer the base for a system that is more than enough for image processing. But I stick with my advice for a used workstation, and I, personally, would wait for the second generation of threadripper to build an AMD system. I have high hopes that they will overcome their theething problems until then 

 

I linked that one review as it was comparing CPU's in the price bracket of OP. AMD UK are normally pretty good at replying and helping with issues, i can't speak for the rest of the world though. Hope you get the issues fixed though

[BobJ]

A definitive answer to how many cores Photoshop utilises seems to be elusive but I think that four is about the maximum except for liquify and a few of the filters and 3D rendering. I don't know about Lightroom. In any case more cores usually means a slower clock speed.