[00silvergt]

Originally Posted by 00silvergt

If you are NOT running Vista 64 bit, then >4GB will be wasted. RAM is now cheap, unlike 10 years ago when it was selling for about $15 a MB (yes, not a typo, MB) and 15 years ago, when it was $30 a MB. So if you need RAM later, it would be a cheap upgrade. For most applications, a dual core is sufficient, since an application would need to scale before using the multiprocessor. PS CS4 scales, so a quad maybe in order, but for the most part a dual core should suit just fine. Buy as much HDD space as you can possibly afford now, since these RAW files are getting larger. If you can afford it, I say get a Bluray writer, a good video card, even if you don't plan to game since CS3 and newer can take advantage of the GPU. So I think 3.0GHz dual or Quad, processor, Intel, 4GB RAM or more if running Vista 64, Nvidia Quadro NVS 450/420 512MB video card, 1 TB or more HDD, Bluray Writer/Reader.

Originally Posted by 00silvergt

You are of course taking about the bus speed, not the CPU clock speed right? As for the memory, that may have been true years ago(2-6 years ago), but things have changed, a lot. We now have easily and affordably hit the limit of addressable space within a 32-bit OS, whether it is Windows, OS X, Linux, etc. The Maximum addresses the 32-bit OS can address or use is 4GB.With Windows, this is a little different, since the system "reserves" the first GB for caching and other system related functions. It will also reserved the first 640K (remember DOS) for 16-bit and legacy applications + it needs the space to address memory that is on your peripherals such as your 512MB video card, if you tweak the boot.ini you can force windows to address 4GB, but your true usable space will be 3.5GB max with a 512MB Video card. At least that's what will be available, your real usable memory will be around 3GB. So why buy as much RAM as you can afford, if you planning to run a 32-bit OS, like XP or 32-bit Vista? RAM is cheap( I just bought 4GB, 2X2GB DDR2 CAS 5-5-5-12 for $39.99), so you can always buy it later when and if you decide to upgrade to a 64-bit platform, but this may not be for awhile. Spend the money on the storage (HDD) and/or video and/or other peripherals instead. BTX form factor has been cancelled by Intel (HEXUS.net - Beans :: HEXUS.beans :: Intel shuffles BTX in to its deep dark closest. : Page - 1/1) so it may not be an option, albeit Dell has been using it for years now, the newer boards may not be BTX. BTX also can not help AMD or Newer intels (i7) since the northbridge is located on the die, and not on the motherboard, so it will not help these systems.

BTW, saying Windows 7 is the same as Vista with a different name and some improvements is like saying Windows XP is like Windows '98 with a different name and some improvements. Windows 7, naturally would look like Vista, since it uses a lot of the same interfaces, Longhorn looked a lot like XP before it released and became vista. Windows 7 is a 64-bit OS (build 7000), uses a more familiar XP-like Start menu, has virtual hard disk support and other "improvements" over Vista. Windows 7 is still Beta, so it is way too soon to dismiss it. It is understandable that many of your peripherals didn't work in Windows 7, it is a 64-bit environment so you would need the 64-bit drivers. Of course you are entitled to your opinion, and I just want to caution everyone else from dismissing the next Windows, even before it becomes final.

Originally Posted by TheRileyFactor

There is lot of talk on this thread about Intel processors, but no one has said anything about AMD. You can get a great AMD Phenom II for cheap and while it can't compete with the Core i7 (what can other than the new Xeons?) or most Core 2 Quads, it is a much better processor than the Core 2 Duos, and for about the same price. I am going to assume that you have never built a pc before? If you have, then definitely build it yourself, thats is BY FAR the route with the MOST bang for your buck. Also, if you're planning on getting more than 2gb of RAM, then you're going to need a 64-bit OS. A 32-bit OS can only handle a maximum of 4gb, but you have to subtract all other system memory from that number before you get to your RAM, so if you have a video card with 1gb of memory, then you can only use around 2.8 or so GB of RAM.



The Core i7 is an incredibly processor, but you have to pay for more than just the processor because the motherboards that accept it are MUCH more expensive because they have the newest X58 chipset and only take DDR3 memory, which is also more expensive than the cheaper DDR2. As far as Duos being more bang for your buck than quads, applications are moving toward muti-threading and using multiple cores in a single application. With this direction the benefits vastly outweigh the cost difference between a duo and a quad. CS4 already supports multi-threading, and I'll just about guarantee that the next version of Lightroom will support it as well.

As far as the discussion between computer brands, the brand is the name on the case. They all use about the same components, so the big difference is in customer service and support. I haven not had a lot of experience with HP/Compaq in that respect (although I have owned a couple computers from them and never had any problems) I know Dell has some of the best service around. They have great warranties, and they use really good components (Western Digital Hard Drives, Intel motherboards, name-brand video cards, etc), and GREAT warranties, tech support and service. Given, Dell used to be the best with no one competitive, but now pretty much all of the big pc manufacturers are very competitive, which makes Dell look lesser than before, as tekdiver said.

As a reference, my old computer crapped out about a month ago (hence why I haven't posted any photos in a while b/c all I have is my old laptop that turns running lightroom into a waiting game) and I just got my new system finished being built a few days ago. Things that will be pertainable to configuring a computer from a big manufacturer:

Intel Core 2 Quad Q9400
Western Digital Black 640gb HDD 7200 RPM 32MB Cache
LG DVD+-RW 22x
Sapphire ATI Radeon HD4670 1gb GDDR3 (tons of video memory, plenty fast, power efficient)
500W Dual 12v-18a Rail Power Supply

As was stated above, heat is the end of all computers. Make sure no matter what that you get a computer with good cooling. I don't know about HP or other manufacturers, but Dell's XPS series has really great cooling with plenty of fans. All of this also depends on how much you were planning/wanting to spend, and if you need a monitor.

Basic price structure would be:

$250-500: AMD Athlon 64 X2, Celeron, Pentium Dual Core (slower clocked Core2Duo with less cache)

$750-1000+ AMD PhenomII X4, Core 2 Quad with a good video card and 4+ GB RAM

$1200+ Core i7 920 with 6GB RAM (6gb RAM or MORE works best with the Corei7, much better than 4gb b/c of the way the chipset and memory is set up on X58 motherboards) The higher up the Core i7 goes, the more it costs. 920 is the base processor and it has models that run in price up to $1500 for the processor alone.

That turned into a much longer post than I had intended. I hope at least some of it was useful!

-Daniel

Hey, Daniel, it's me chopped liver...LOL...I didn't recommend AMD, because by their own admission in a seminar, when compared to the i7 or the Nehalem, their processors are still performing a little behind, but that's because the are clocked much slower than the intels due to the process they use 45nm and the heat limitations, the new Shanghai core (opteron) has Intel nervous since it will scale to an Octo-core before Intel can and AMD has been doing the integrated Northbridge first, something intel is just now implementing with the i7 and Nehalem. So when AMD takes it's next step up (according to AMD, it will be 3rd quarter 2009 or 1st quarter 2010), AMD's will be clocked up as fast or faster than the Intels. AMD is also doing this mind you with DDR2 800, from the seminar I attended, AMD has no plans to go to DDR3 1066 as Intel has done. They figured the modest gain in performance v. the High cost would offset the system cost. (they mentioned going to DDr3 when the prices drop) Which is AMD's strongest selling point, they are a cheaper, yet valid alternative to Intel. At least for now, anyway.