Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Computer Horsepower for Digital Photography

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
January 30, 2005 8:16:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I build computers, and my current pc for digital photography is:

AMD Athlon XP2500+ cpu (Barton core) overclocked to 2.4ghz
ATI Radeon 9800Pro 128mb video card
Abit NF7 motherboard
1gb PC3500 RAM at 166mhz
80gb Samsung 7200rpm hard drive

For the most part, this computer serves me well. What are others using?
And, specifically, has anyone upgraded from a similar machine to an AMD
Athlon 64 cpu? If so, did you realize a performance increase?

Thanks.

jakesnake
Anonymous
January 30, 2005 8:16:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Jake wrote:

> I build computers, and my current pc for digital photography is:
>
> AMD Athlon XP2500+ cpu (Barton core) overclocked to 2.4ghz
> ATI Radeon 9800Pro 128mb video card
> Abit NF7 motherboard
> 1gb PC3500 RAM at 166mhz
> 80gb Samsung 7200rpm hard drive
>
> For the most part, this computer serves me well. What are others using?
> And, specifically, has anyone upgraded from a similar machine to an AMD
> Athlon 64 cpu? If so, did you realize a performance increase?

I haven't upgraded for a couple of years now.. It doesn't take long
to get left behind :-)

I have an 'old' Intel P4 running at 1.8Ghz with 512Megs of RAM. It's got
a pair of 120 Gig Drives

I find it adequate for editing the 16bit TIFF files I get from the
6MP RAW files my Canon 10D produces.. I've never found myself wishing for
more horsepower.

When I do find myself needing more punch.. Then I know it's time to
upgrade again :-)

(I think a standard PC with 64 bit architecture is just around the
corner.. I'm waiting for that).
Anonymous
January 30, 2005 8:16:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 17:16:56 GMT, "Jake" <jake@yahoo.com> wrote:

>I build computers, and my current pc for digital photography is:
>
>AMD Athlon XP2500+ cpu (Barton core) overclocked to 2.4ghz
>ATI Radeon 9800Pro 128mb video card
>Abit NF7 motherboard
>1gb PC3500 RAM at 166mhz
>80gb Samsung 7200rpm hard drive
>
>For the most part, this computer serves me well. What are others using?
>And, specifically, has anyone upgraded from a similar machine to an AMD
>Athlon 64 cpu? If so, did you realize a performance increase?
>
>Thanks.


Very similar to yours. Abit AN7 motherboard,
which has SATA RAID onboard. 160G of hard
drive space (mirrored) and 1.5G of RAM.
Matrox G400 video card, Pioneer DVD burner.

rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
Related resources
Anonymous
January 30, 2005 8:16:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Jake wrote:
>
> I build computers, and my current pc for digital photography is:
>
> AMD Athlon XP2500+ cpu (Barton core) overclocked to 2.4ghz
> ATI Radeon 9800Pro 128mb video card
> Abit NF7 motherboard
> 1gb PC3500 RAM at 166mhz
> 80gb Samsung 7200rpm hard drive
>
> For the most part, this computer serves me well. What are others using?
> And, specifically, has anyone upgraded from a similar machine to an AMD
> Athlon 64 cpu? If so, did you realize a performance increase?
>

I went from the same processor, but not OC'd, to an Athlon 64 3200+, and
I noticed a good performance boost for digital imaging. I think you
would see enough of a difference to easily notice.

I feel that the choice between Socket 754 and Socket 939 isn't as clear
cut as some like to think. While 939 is clearly the future, there
aren't that many 939 MoBos out yet, while there are quite a few really
excellent 754 MoBos. For 754, I like the Asus K8V SE Deluxe. One great
feature is all the drive ports: 4 SATA ports, and three IDE busses. You
can even set up a RAID 0+1 using two SATA and two IDE drives, although
it's a bit slower than a RAID 0 with just the SATA.

You might also consider going to a Raptor for your system drive, as that
would no doubt speed up any PS swap operations.

Lisa
January 30, 2005 8:16:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 17:16:56 GMT, "Jake" <jake@yahoo.com> wrote:

>I build computers, and my current pc for digital photography is:
>
>AMD Athlon XP2500+ cpu (Barton core) overclocked to 2.4ghz
>ATI Radeon 9800Pro 128mb video card
>Abit NF7 motherboard
>1gb PC3500 RAM at 166mhz
>80gb Samsung 7200rpm hard drive
>
>For the most part, this computer serves me well. What are others using?
>And, specifically, has anyone upgraded from a similar machine to an AMD
>Athlon 64 cpu? If so, did you realize a performance increase?
>
>Thanks.
>
>jakesnake

Custom built full tower "MONOLITH"
P4 o'clocked to 2.70Mhz
1Gb matched RAM
ATI Radeon 9700 Pro
Twin flatscreen monitors
x2 120mb HDD's (System/Data drive and the back up drive)
x4 200mb HDD's on a hardware RAID array (mostly for high-res video
capture and editing)
"Callisto" video capture card (analog and digital)

The whole thing is tweaked in every way I know how, runs great!

Eventually everything will get settled with the 64bit stuff and then
I'll probably upgrade, but there sure isn't any hurry right now.


Drifter
"I've been here, I've been there..."
January 30, 2005 8:16:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

---Snip---
>(I think a standard PC with 64 bit architecture is just around the
>corner.. I'm waiting for that).

I'm with you on that. My current machine is just dandy for both video
capture/editing and working with photographs. I've decided at this
point I'll only be upgrading after the next generation of stuff is
out.

Of course the big deal with my current machine is that I have more
storage than any sane person needs at home (just shy of 1TB) on a
RAID, mostly for the video capture/editing side of things.


Drifter
"I've been here, I've been there..."
Anonymous
January 30, 2005 8:16:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <o7kqv0dv96sliog06ktt3vcaanmhlg534a@4ax.com>, Drifter
<zespectre@askme.com> wrote:

> Custom built full tower "MONOLITH"
> P4 o'clocked to 2.70Mhz
> 1Gb matched RAM
> ATI Radeon 9700 Pro
> Twin flatscreen monitors
> x2 120mb HDD's (System/Data drive and the back up drive)
> x4 200mb HDD's on a hardware RAID array (mostly for high-res video
> capture and editing)
> "Callisto" video capture card (analog and digital)
>
> The whole thing is tweaked in every way I know how, runs great!
>
> Eventually everything will get settled with the 64bit stuff and then
> I'll probably upgrade, but there sure isn't any hurry right now.

You amateurs are so cute when you overclock your processors.
January 30, 2005 8:44:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Jake wrote:
> I build computers, and my current pc for digital photography is:
>
> AMD Athlon XP2500+ cpu (Barton core) overclocked to 2.4ghz
> ATI Radeon 9800Pro 128mb video card
> Abit NF7 motherboard
> 1gb PC3500 RAM at 166mhz
> 80gb Samsung 7200rpm hard drive
>
> For the most part, this computer serves me well. What are others using?
> And, specifically, has anyone upgraded from a similar machine to an AMD
> Athlon 64 cpu? If so, did you realize a performance increase?
>
> Thanks.
>
> jakesnake


This is sufficient. Are you building from scratch? If so, why not
consider Athlon64. The CPU's not that expensive.
January 30, 2005 8:49:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Jake" <jake@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cE8Ld.66684$re1.59947@fe2.columbus.rr.com...
>I build computers, and my current pc for digital photography is:
>
> AMD Athlon XP2500+ cpu (Barton core) overclocked to 2.4ghz
> ATI Radeon 9800Pro 128mb video card
> Abit NF7 motherboard
> 1gb PC3500 RAM at 166mhz
> 80gb Samsung 7200rpm hard drive
>
> For the most part, this computer serves me well. What are others using?
> And, specifically, has anyone upgraded from a similar machine to an AMD
> Athlon 64 cpu? If so, did you realize a performance increase?
>
> Thanks.
>
> jakesnake
>
>

AMD Athlon 64 3000+
ATI 9600 video card
ASUS K8VSE deluxe motherboard
1GB PC3200 (DDR 400mhz) RAM
2 x 160GB (one maxtor + one samsung) 7200 rpm HDD, both SATA

lot faster than my Athlon 800mhz was !!
Anonymous
January 30, 2005 9:03:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

My computer is old and I have been waiting so long to upgrade. Now I am
musing about getting an HP Media Center with the AMD Athlon 64 3400 +. I
wonder if this is good choice for digital Photography?

"Jim Townsend" <not@real.address> wrote in message
news:10vq74al7gg5q1f@news.supernews.com...
> Jake wrote:
>
> > I build computers, and my current pc for digital photography is:
> >
> > AMD Athlon XP2500+ cpu (Barton core) overclocked to 2.4ghz
> > ATI Radeon 9800Pro 128mb video card
> > Abit NF7 motherboard
> > 1gb PC3500 RAM at 166mhz
> > 80gb Samsung 7200rpm hard drive
> >
> > For the most part, this computer serves me well. What are others using?
> > And, specifically, has anyone upgraded from a similar machine to an AMD
> > Athlon 64 cpu? If so, did you realize a performance increase?
>
> I haven't upgraded for a couple of years now.. It doesn't take long
> to get left behind :-)
>
> I have an 'old' Intel P4 running at 1.8Ghz with 512Megs of RAM. It's got
> a pair of 120 Gig Drives
>
> I find it adequate for editing the 16bit TIFF files I get from the
> 6MP RAW files my Canon 10D produces.. I've never found myself wishing for
> more horsepower.
>
> When I do find myself needing more punch.. Then I know it's time to
> upgrade again :-)
>
> (I think a standard PC with 64 bit architecture is just around the
> corner.. I'm waiting for that).
>
>
Anonymous
January 30, 2005 9:03:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Denis Marier wrote:
> My computer is old and I have been waiting so long to upgrade. Now I am
> musing about getting an HP Media Center with the AMD Athlon 64 3400 +. I
> wonder if this is good choice for digital Photography?


MOre than adequate. Be sure to get plenty of ram, and a large HD.
Anonymous
January 30, 2005 9:10:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Randall Ainsworth" <rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote in message
news:300120051423239068%rag@nospam.techline.com...
> In article <o7kqv0dv96sliog06ktt3vcaanmhlg534a@4ax.com>, Drifter
> <zespectre@askme.com> wrote:
>
>> Custom built full tower "MONOLITH"
>> P4 o'clocked to 2.70Mhz
>> 1Gb matched RAM
>> ATI Radeon 9700 Pro
>> Twin flatscreen monitors
>> x2 120mb HDD's (System/Data drive and the back up drive)
>> x4 200mb HDD's on a hardware RAID array (mostly for high-res video
>> capture and editing)
>> "Callisto" video capture card (analog and digital)
>>
>> The whole thing is tweaked in every way I know how, runs great!
>>
>> Eventually everything will get settled with the 64bit stuff and then
>> I'll probably upgrade, but there sure isn't any hurry right now.
>
> You amateurs are so cute when you overclock your processors.

I am amazed at how much more intelligent you are than everybody else. Keep
letting people know - lest they forget. :) 

Don
January 30, 2005 9:29:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Denis Marier" <marierdj@nb.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:6k9Ld.221931$Np3.9287191@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
> My computer is old and I have been waiting so long to upgrade. Now I am
> musing about getting an HP Media Center with the AMD Athlon 64 3400 +. I
> wonder if this is good choice for digital Photography?
>
> "Jim Townsend" <not@real.address> wrote in message
> news:10vq74al7gg5q1f@news.supernews.com...
> > Jake wrote:
> >
> > > I build computers, and my current pc for digital photography is:
> > >
> > > AMD Athlon XP2500+ cpu (Barton core) overclocked to 2.4ghz
> > > ATI Radeon 9800Pro 128mb video card
> > > Abit NF7 motherboard
> > > 1gb PC3500 RAM at 166mhz
> > > 80gb Samsung 7200rpm hard drive
> > >
> > > For the most part, this computer serves me well. What are others
using?
> > > And, specifically, has anyone upgraded from a similar machine to an
AMD
> > > Athlon 64 cpu? If so, did you realize a performance increase?
> >
> > I haven't upgraded for a couple of years now.. It doesn't take long
> > to get left behind :-)
> >
> > I have an 'old' Intel P4 running at 1.8Ghz with 512Megs of RAM. It's
got
> > a pair of 120 Gig Drives
> >
> > I find it adequate for editing the 16bit TIFF files I get from the
> > 6MP RAW files my Canon 10D produces.. I've never found myself wishing
for
> > more horsepower.
> >
> > When I do find myself needing more punch.. Then I know it's time to
> > upgrade again :-)
> >
> > (I think a standard PC with 64 bit architecture is just around the
> > corner.. I'm waiting for that).
> >
> >

I'll be glad to help you choose components when you decide to upgrade. I
built over a hundred pcs in '04, and I always try to keep up with the
technology (NOT easy, as you can imagine). I think the Athlon 64 is the
best choice. FWIW, my current machine is an upgrade from precisely what you
are running: P4 1.8ghz, 512mb PC100 Ram, with two hard drives. I realized
*some* improvement with digital pictures, and a *lot* of improvement for 3D
FPS games. I haven't been able to find reviews of the A64 compared to the
Athlon XP w/Barton core in digital picture editing, although it seems pretty
clear that at similar clock speeds, the A64 is an overall faster cpu. Worth
upgrading from an oc'ed Barton? I don't know.

jake
January 30, 2005 9:35:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"chris" <someone@somewhere.net> wrote in message
news:R19Ld.2691$S3.1531@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> Jake wrote:
> > I build computers, and my current pc for digital photography is:
> >
> > AMD Athlon XP2500+ cpu (Barton core) overclocked to 2.4ghz
> > ATI Radeon 9800Pro 128mb video card
> > Abit NF7 motherboard
> > 1gb PC3500 RAM at 166mhz
> > 80gb Samsung 7200rpm hard drive
> >
> > For the most part, this computer serves me well. What are others using?
> > And, specifically, has anyone upgraded from a similar machine to an AMD
> > Athlon 64 cpu? If so, did you realize a performance increase?
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > jakesnake
>
>
> This is sufficient. Are you building from scratch? If so, why not
> consider Athlon64. The CPU's not that expensive.

Yes, I would build from scratch and re-use as many components as possible.
The A64 is what I'm considering. It would require a motherboard replacement
too, to one that supports either socket 754 or 939, depending on which A64
cpu I go with. The issue is what type of performance increase I would
realize over my Athlon Barton core at 2.4ghz. I try to wait on a
significant performance enhancement between upgrades. I'm not sure an A64
2800 - 3200 would justify it, although an overclocked socket 939 3400 might.

jake
Anonymous
January 30, 2005 9:48:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Jake" <jake@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cE8Ld.66684$re1.59947@fe2.columbus.rr.com...
>I build computers, and my current pc for digital photography is:
>
> AMD Athlon XP2500+ cpu (Barton core) overclocked to 2.4ghz

huh? 2.5GHz overclocked to 2.4GHz?

:|
January 30, 2005 10:19:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Harvey" <harvey@not.ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:JZ9Ld.204$CF5.172@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
>
> "Jake" <jake@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:cE8Ld.66684$re1.59947@fe2.columbus.rr.com...
> >I build computers, and my current pc for digital photography is:
> >
> > AMD Athlon XP2500+ cpu (Barton core) overclocked to 2.4ghz
>
> huh? 2.5GHz overclocked to 2.4GHz?
>

Harvey, the XP2500+ Barton core is not a 2.5ghz cpu. Its default clock
speed is 1.83ghz. AMD rates their cpu's differently, so their model names
do not correspond to their clock speed. I have this cpu overclocked by
virtue of its unlocked multiplier (it's a mobile Barton, meaning it was
designed for laptops). For an $85 cpu, it's a tremendous price/performance
value if you know how to configure it.

jake
Anonymous
January 30, 2005 10:19:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <ZqaLd.67210$re1.37492@fe2.columbus.rr.com>, Jake
<jake@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Harvey, the XP2500+ Barton core is not a 2.5ghz cpu. Its default clock
> speed is 1.83ghz. AMD rates their cpu's differently, so their model names
> do not correspond to their clock speed. I have this cpu overclocked by
> virtue of its unlocked multiplier (it's a mobile Barton, meaning it was
> designed for laptops). For an $85 cpu, it's a tremendous price/performance
> value if you know how to configure it.

Oh yeah, there's intelligence. Overclock your CPU. At least when it
dies you won't be out much money.
January 30, 2005 10:20:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Jake" <jake@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cE8Ld.66684$re1.59947@fe2.columbus.rr.com...
> I build computers, and my current pc for digital photography is:
>
> AMD Athlon XP2500+ cpu (Barton core) overclocked to 2.4ghz
> ATI Radeon 9800Pro 128mb video card
> Abit NF7 motherboard
> 1gb PC3500 RAM at 166mhz
> 80gb Samsung 7200rpm hard drive
>
> For the most part, this computer serves me well. What are others using?
> And, specifically, has anyone upgraded from a similar machine to an AMD
> Athlon 64 cpu? If so, did you realize a performance increase?
>
> Thanks.
>
> jakesnake
>
>
You will need a bigger disk long before you need a more powerful CPU.
Jim
January 30, 2005 10:23:41 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Jim" <j.n@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:bsaLd.11986$2e7.5842@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "Jake" <jake@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:cE8Ld.66684$re1.59947@fe2.columbus.rr.com...
> > I build computers, and my current pc for digital photography is:
> >
> > AMD Athlon XP2500+ cpu (Barton core) overclocked to 2.4ghz
> > ATI Radeon 9800Pro 128mb video card
> > Abit NF7 motherboard
> > 1gb PC3500 RAM at 166mhz
> > 80gb Samsung 7200rpm hard drive
> >
> > For the most part, this computer serves me well. What are others using?
> > And, specifically, has anyone upgraded from a similar machine to an AMD
> > Athlon 64 cpu? If so, did you realize a performance increase?
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > jakesnake
> >
> >
> You will need a bigger disk long before you need a more powerful CPU.
> Jim
>

Jim, I failed to mention that I have a server on which I store my digital
photos (and other important files) that contains 4 large hard drives. I've
got about 700gb of storage there. Therefore, the size of the native disk is
not that important. I chose the Samsung because it's very quiet and runs
cool, the latter of which is an important consideration with an oc'ed cpu
and 9800Pro in the case.

jake
Anonymous
January 30, 2005 10:31:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 14:20:25 -0800, Randall Ainsworth

>As for Samsung...I wouldn't buy anything with their name on it whether
>it's a hard drive or a VCR. They're cheap and have a high failure rate.


Typically ignorant post, Randall.

Samsung is the fifth largest semiconductor
company in the world, and the largest maker
of LCD panels in the world. Their net income
in 2004 was approx $10 billion. Their market
cap is approximately $70 billion.

Chances are you own some gear made by
Samsung... without even knowing it.

I've worked with Samsung engineers, and
they were first-rate.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
Anonymous
January 30, 2005 10:32:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 14:21:38 -0800, Randall Ainsworth
<rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote:


>AMD a pretty decent 287 & 387 math-co clone but their CPUs have done
>nothing for me since. I've seen their current lineup...maybe that's why
>my personal equipment is Mac.


Yep, Macs are the first choice for small minded,
ignorant people such as yourself.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
Anonymous
January 30, 2005 10:45:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 14:23:23 -0800, Randall Ainsworth
<rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote:

>In article <o7kqv0dv96sliog06ktt3vcaanmhlg534a@4ax.com>, Drifter
><zespectre@askme.com> wrote:
>
>> Custom built full tower "MONOLITH"
>> P4 o'clocked to 2.70Mhz
>> 1Gb matched RAM
>> ATI Radeon 9700 Pro
>> Twin flatscreen monitors
>> x2 120mb HDD's (System/Data drive and the back up drive)
>> x4 200mb HDD's on a hardware RAID array (mostly for high-res video
>> capture and editing)
>> "Callisto" video capture card (analog and digital)
>>
>> The whole thing is tweaked in every way I know how, runs great!
>>
>> Eventually everything will get settled with the 64bit stuff and then
>> I'll probably upgrade, but there sure isn't any hurry right now.
>
>You amateurs are so cute when you overclock your processors.

You "pros" who don't understanding overclocking are frightening.
Your clients (if any) must be dumb.

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"
Anonymous
January 30, 2005 11:34:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 00:29:00 GMT, "Jake" <jake@yahoo.com> wrote:


>Look, I don't mean any of this personally. I'm very sincere when I say that
>I'm sure there are many topics on which you are very competent. However,
>computer hardware is not one of them. You can change that, however. If you
>will open your mind and do the necessary research you can be as informed as
>anyone on the subject.


Alas, a closed mind is part and parcel of
being Randall Ainsworth. You really have
to feel sorry for the guy.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
January 31, 2005 12:12:16 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Lisa Horton" <Lisa091704@lisahorton.net> wrote in message
news:41FD3956.EAB4AF66@lisahorton.net...
>
>
> Jake wrote:
> >
> > I build computers, and my current pc for digital photography is:
> >
> > AMD Athlon XP2500+ cpu (Barton core) overclocked to 2.4ghz
> > ATI Radeon 9800Pro 128mb video card
> > Abit NF7 motherboard
> > 1gb PC3500 RAM at 166mhz
> > 80gb Samsung 7200rpm hard drive
> >
> > For the most part, this computer serves me well. What are others using?
> > And, specifically, has anyone upgraded from a similar machine to an AMD
> > Athlon 64 cpu? If so, did you realize a performance increase?
> >
>
> I went from the same processor, but not OC'd, to an Athlon 64 3200+, and
> I noticed a good performance boost for digital imaging. I think you
> would see enough of a difference to easily notice.
>
> I feel that the choice between Socket 754 and Socket 939 isn't as clear
> cut as some like to think. While 939 is clearly the future, there
> aren't that many 939 MoBos out yet, while there are quite a few really
> excellent 754 MoBos. For 754, I like the Asus K8V SE Deluxe. One great
> feature is all the drive ports: 4 SATA ports, and three IDE busses. You
> can even set up a RAID 0+1 using two SATA and two IDE drives, although
> it's a bit slower than a RAID 0 with just the SATA.
>
> You might also consider going to a Raptor for your system drive, as that
> would no doubt speed up any PS swap operations.
>
> Lisa

Good obserations. It's certainly a strange time for AMD. One can build a
legitimate machine utilizing any of 4 separate architectures - socket A
T'bred (133mhz fsb), socket A Barton (166mhz fsb), socket 754, and socket
939. I used to get frustrated at Intel for being all over the map, but AMD
is setting a new standard. For 754 that Asus board you mentioned is a good
one, as is the MSI K8T NEO-FSR and Biostar K8VGAM. There's an Asrock board
out now that supports both the A64 sockets! Talk about covering the bases.

I yearn for more speed during large batch conversions and applying filters.
Does the 3400+ improve those actions noticeably?

Thanks!

jake
Anonymous
January 31, 2005 12:12:17 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Jake wrote:
>
> "Lisa Horton" <Lisa091704@lisahorton.net> wrote in message
> news:41FD3956.EAB4AF66@lisahorton.net...
> >
> >
> > Jake wrote:
> > >
> > > I build computers, and my current pc for digital photography is:
> > >
> > > AMD Athlon XP2500+ cpu (Barton core) overclocked to 2.4ghz
> > > ATI Radeon 9800Pro 128mb video card
> > > Abit NF7 motherboard
> > > 1gb PC3500 RAM at 166mhz
> > > 80gb Samsung 7200rpm hard drive
> > >
> > > For the most part, this computer serves me well. What are others using?
> > > And, specifically, has anyone upgraded from a similar machine to an AMD
> > > Athlon 64 cpu? If so, did you realize a performance increase?
> > >
> >
> > I went from the same processor, but not OC'd, to an Athlon 64 3200+, and
> > I noticed a good performance boost for digital imaging. I think you
> > would see enough of a difference to easily notice.
> >
> > I feel that the choice between Socket 754 and Socket 939 isn't as clear
> > cut as some like to think. While 939 is clearly the future, there
> > aren't that many 939 MoBos out yet, while there are quite a few really
> > excellent 754 MoBos. For 754, I like the Asus K8V SE Deluxe. One great
> > feature is all the drive ports: 4 SATA ports, and three IDE busses. You
> > can even set up a RAID 0+1 using two SATA and two IDE drives, although
> > it's a bit slower than a RAID 0 with just the SATA.
> >
> > You might also consider going to a Raptor for your system drive, as that
> > would no doubt speed up any PS swap operations.
> >
> > Lisa
>
> Good obserations. It's certainly a strange time for AMD. One can build a
> legitimate machine utilizing any of 4 separate architectures - socket A
> T'bred (133mhz fsb), socket A Barton (166mhz fsb), socket 754, and socket
> 939. I used to get frustrated at Intel for being all over the map, but AMD
> is setting a new standard. For 754 that Asus board you mentioned is a good
> one, as is the MSI K8T NEO-FSR and Biostar K8VGAM. There's an Asrock board
> out now that supports both the A64 sockets! Talk about covering the bases.
>
> I yearn for more speed during large batch conversions and applying filters.
> Does the 3400+ improve those actions noticeably?
>

I agree, AMD is at a strange point. But anything below Socket 754 is
kind of under my radar these days :)  The big thing that convinced me
about the Asus K8V was the number and kinds of disk interfaces. I'm
running a 400GB RAID 0+1 2x2 array, backed up to external drives and to
CD, and I'm feeling really safe these days :) 

For batch conversions, IO can be more of a limiting factor than CPU.
When I set up this system, I went from the Athlon XP with a slowish
drive to the A64 with an SATA RAID 0 array, and batch conversion time
was cut almost in half. With the 0+1 Array, conversion times are a
little slower, but not by much.

For filters and similar manipulations, CPU is of course the limiting
factor, and those kinds of operations are clearly (and thankfully!) much
faster, although I couldn't quantify the difference for you.

I guess if I were building a digital imaging machine right now, I'd
probably go with Socket 754, with the same board. Not that much has
changed since I built this system this last summer.

OTOH, for a gamer, I'd go 939 for sure.

Lisa
Anonymous
January 31, 2005 12:33:22 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <it6rv0ti2hs2h3k1be8gk0i4e5845ht7k5@4ax.com>, Big Bill
<bill@pipping.com> wrote:

> You "pros" who don't understanding overclocking are frightening.
> Your clients (if any) must be dumb.

I understand how to ruin a CPU and create hardware and software
problems.
January 31, 2005 1:03:14 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Drifter" <zespectre@askme.com> wrote in message
news:o 7kqv0dv96sliog06ktt3vcaanmhlg534a@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 17:16:56 GMT, "Jake" <jake@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >I build computers, and my current pc for digital photography is:
> >
> >AMD Athlon XP2500+ cpu (Barton core) overclocked to 2.4ghz
> >ATI Radeon 9800Pro 128mb video card
> >Abit NF7 motherboard
> >1gb PC3500 RAM at 166mhz
> >80gb Samsung 7200rpm hard drive
> >
> >For the most part, this computer serves me well. What are others using?
> >And, specifically, has anyone upgraded from a similar machine to an AMD
> >Athlon 64 cpu? If so, did you realize a performance increase?
> >
> >Thanks.
> >
> >jakesnake
>
> Custom built full tower "MONOLITH"
> P4 o'clocked to 2.70Mhz
> 1Gb matched RAM
> ATI Radeon 9700 Pro
> Twin flatscreen monitors
> x2 120mb HDD's (System/Data drive and the back up drive)
> x4 200mb HDD's on a hardware RAID array (mostly for high-res video
> capture and editing)
> "Callisto" video capture card (analog and digital)
>

Drifter, what kind of monitors are you using? Happy with them? Does your
Radeon have the dual outs - one VGA and one digital?

jake
January 31, 2005 1:03:15 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 22:03:14 GMT, "Jake" <jake@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>"Drifter" <zespectre@askme.com> wrote in message
>news:o 7kqv0dv96sliog06ktt3vcaanmhlg534a@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 17:16:56 GMT, "Jake" <jake@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >I build computers, and my current pc for digital photography is:
>> >
>> >AMD Athlon XP2500+ cpu (Barton core) overclocked to 2.4ghz
>> >ATI Radeon 9800Pro 128mb video card
>> >Abit NF7 motherboard
>> >1gb PC3500 RAM at 166mhz
>> >80gb Samsung 7200rpm hard drive
>> >
>> >For the most part, this computer serves me well. What are others using?
>> >And, specifically, has anyone upgraded from a similar machine to an AMD
>> >Athlon 64 cpu? If so, did you realize a performance increase?
>> >
>> >Thanks.
>> >
>> >jakesnake
>>
>> Custom built full tower "MONOLITH"
>> P4 o'clocked to 2.70Mhz
>> 1Gb matched RAM
>> ATI Radeon 9700 Pro
>> Twin flatscreen monitors
>> x2 120mb HDD's (System/Data drive and the back up drive)
>> x4 200mb HDD's on a hardware RAID array (mostly for high-res video
>> capture and editing)
>> "Callisto" video capture card (analog and digital)
>>
>
>Drifter, what kind of monitors are you using? Happy with them? Does your
>Radeon have the dual outs - one VGA and one digital?
>
>jake

Jake, the monitors are both JTX (Microtech) V7s (17" running at
1280x1024). The Radeon has one analog and one digital out (with which
I'm using the converter for 2 analog out).

I'll be honest, I bought the first V7s because my 2'nd monitor (CRT)
died in the middle of a project and I needed something fast and it was
on sale for a good price. Much to my surprise the V7s was bright,
clear, and calibrated up nicely. It quickly became my primary monitor
and then I went out and bought another. Since then JTX/Microtech has
stopped making that model (I don't know why) but I can tell you that
the 5V and 5vs (the 15 inch models) WERE TERRIBLE. My wife liked my
17" ones and thought she'd get a smaller one for her desk. No matter
what we did her's always looked fuzzy/distorted and we finally
returned it for a viewsonic that she likes much better.


Drifter
"I've been here, I've been there..."
Anonymous
January 31, 2005 1:23:09 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Jim wrote:
> "Jake" <jake@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:cE8Ld.66684$re1.59947@fe2.columbus.rr.com...
>
>>I build computers, and my current pc for digital photography is:
>>
>>AMD Athlon XP2500+ cpu (Barton core) overclocked to 2.4ghz
>>ATI Radeon 9800Pro 128mb video card
>>Abit NF7 motherboard
>>1gb PC3500 RAM at 166mhz
>>80gb Samsung 7200rpm hard drive
>>
>>For the most part, this computer serves me well. What are others using?
>>And, specifically, has anyone upgraded from a similar machine to an AMD
>>Athlon 64 cpu? If so, did you realize a performance increase?
>>
>>Thanks.
>>
>>jakesnake
>>
>>
>
> You will need a bigger disk long before you need a more powerful CPU.
>

Excellent point.

Phil
January 31, 2005 1:50:09 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 10:42:39 -0600
In message <10vq74al7gg5q1f@news.supernews.com>
Jim Townsend <not@real.address> wrote:

> I haven't upgraded for a couple of years now..
> It doesn't take long to get left behind :-)
>
> I have an 'old' Intel P4 running at 1.8Ghz with 512Megs of RAM.
> It's got a pair of 120 Gig Drives
> <snip>

We are in similar boats. My PC is an IBM A31p laptop of the
same vintage with similar configuration and a pair of 160G external
firewire drives. Sigh...how did it all of a sudden get so slow? :) 

Last year I got a 12" 1Ghz G4 512MEG 80GIG PowerBook to use as
a "portable" laptop for all-around photography and communications on
the go. Adding/networking the MAC solved several problems and created
one big can of worms. :) 

NO ONE mentioned the stress level that would arise when my new
dSLR hobby progressed to the proper care and preparation of images for
multiple output devices. I'd like to slap ALL the people who said a
mid 2004 PowerBook would do everything I need to do including handle
Photoshop CS. pftftftftf. I didn't expect it to do that, but even
elements 2 is a dog on the box, and even iViewMedia Pro has more bugs
and problems than most catalog programs on the PC side of the fence.

It will be interesting to see the total solutions that arise
in this discussion (complete software+hardware systems). I never shot
film, but definitely thinking of switching... prints from Kodak
disposable cameras are looking very nice these days...

Jeff
Anonymous
January 31, 2005 1:51:32 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <cE8Ld.66684$re1.59947@fe2.columbus.rr.com>,
"Jake" <jake@yahoo.com> wrote:

> I build computers, and my current pc for digital photography is:
>
> AMD Athlon XP2500+ cpu (Barton core) overclocked to 2.4ghz
> ATI Radeon 9800Pro 128mb video card
> Abit NF7 motherboard
> 1gb PC3500 RAM at 166mhz
> 80gb Samsung 7200rpm hard drive
>
> For the most part, this computer serves me well. What are others using?
> And, specifically, has anyone upgraded from a similar machine to an AMD
> Athlon 64 cpu? If so, did you realize a performance increase?

Me? A dual processor 2.25Ghtz Mac G5 with 1GB RAM and an Apple 23"
Cinema Display with PS CS. I am very happy with this configuration.
Anonymous
January 31, 2005 3:35:24 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Thanks, at this stage I am only musing about. I should notice the
difference from a Pentium 266 to an AMD Athlon 64 3400 +. The HP comes with
only 512 MB of RAM and 200 GB HD. Later when I know a little more and have
more dough I can always add another 512 MB of RAM and an extra HD. I also
wonder if an LCD monitor with a 12 ms response will be better than 25 ms.
The prices are coming down and I may make the move soon.

"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
news:6ieLd.6077$us3.4706@fe06.lga...
> Denis Marier wrote:
> > My computer is old and I have been waiting so long to upgrade. Now I
am
> > musing about getting an HP Media Center with the AMD Athlon 64 3400 +.
I
> > wonder if this is good choice for digital Photography?
>
>
> MOre than adequate. Be sure to get plenty of ram, and a large HD.
>
Anonymous
January 31, 2005 4:03:19 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <cE8Ld.66684$re1.59947@fe2.columbus.rr.com>, jake@yahoo.com
says...
> I build computers, and my current pc for digital photography is:
>
> AMD Athlon XP2500+ cpu (Barton core) overclocked to 2.4ghz
> ATI Radeon 9800Pro 128mb video card
> Abit NF7 motherboard
> 1gb PC3500 RAM at 166mhz
> 80gb Samsung 7200rpm hard drive
>
> For the most part, this computer serves me well. What are others using?
> And, specifically, has anyone upgraded from a similar machine to an AMD
> Athlon 64 cpu? If so, did you realize a performance increase?
>
> Thanks.
>
> jakesnake
>

On the opposite end of things, I upgraded from a 200 Mhz P6 to Athlon XP
2600 (over 10X speed increase, plus faster FSB), and noticed a quite
nice increase in speed, but nowhere near 10X (subjectively 2-3 times as
fast). Based on this, I would assume anything less than doubling the
processor speed would have a negligible effect on real performance.
Don't know what the jump from 32 bit to 64 bit would do, though. Be
interesting to hear from others.
January 31, 2005 4:04:55 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Randall Ainsworth" <rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote in message
news:300120051422215318%rag@nospam.techline.com...
> In article <ZqaLd.67210$re1.37492@fe2.columbus.rr.com>, Jake
> <jake@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Harvey, the XP2500+ Barton core is not a 2.5ghz cpu. Its default clock
> > speed is 1.83ghz. AMD rates their cpu's differently, so their model
names
> > do not correspond to their clock speed. I have this cpu overclocked by
> > virtue of its unlocked multiplier (it's a mobile Barton, meaning it was
> > designed for laptops). For an $85 cpu, it's a tremendous
price/performance
> > value if you know how to configure it.
>
> Oh yeah, there's intelligence. Overclock your CPU. At least when it
> dies you won't be out much money.

Dude, you're not doing yourself any favors with the continuing displays of
ignorance. Do you really expect me to believe that you've built "hundreds"
of computers, when you obviously have no concept of overclocking - if you
truly believe that it can't be done safely, with no measurable harm done to
the chip? I've got many oc'ed computers that are functioning perfectly in
their 2nd, 3rd, 4th years, etc. In fact, I've never lost a single cpu to
overclocking at any point in its life. Not one. That goes for both Intel
and AMD. And, btw, I have no real preference between the two brands *where
the state of the technology is concerned*. Both Intel and AMD make
excellent products. It's very simple with me: AMD is more bang for the
buck, more importantly (for me) on the low to mid end. And on the high end
they are leading the way *at this time*. This doesn't make Intel "bad." It
just makes them a little "behind" at this point. It's a see-saw. Intel no
doubt will respond as they always do. But at this point AMD is poised to
lead the way into 64-bit.

jake
Anonymous
January 31, 2005 4:23:04 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

My home desktop (Dell Dimension 8400) has a 3.4 GHz Intel Pentium 4
processor, 512 MB of dual-channel SDRAM and a 128MB video card. It seems
speedy enough for working with RAW files with Capture (I haven't installed
my PSE3 software yet).

I just ordered a notebook with an Intel Celeron M 330 1.4 GHz processor,
256MB of DDR SDRAM and shared video memory. Will Capture or PSE3 run on
this notebook at all, or acceptably (or prettty well)?

Good shooting,
Bob Scott
Anonymous
January 31, 2005 5:17:03 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Denis Marier wrote:
> Thanks, at this stage I am only musing about. I should notice the
> difference from a Pentium 266 to an AMD Athlon 64 3400 +. The HP comes with
> only 512 MB of RAM and 200 GB HD. Later when I know a little more and have
> more dough I can always add another 512 MB of RAM and an extra HD. I also
> wonder if an LCD monitor with a 12 ms response will be better than 25 ms.
> The prices are coming down and I may make the move soon.
>

>
>
I am sure you will be blown away by the speed of the new machine. Be
sure to securely fasten your seatbelt before booting!

I have found 512 meg to be adequate for most tasks. If your usage
triggers frequent swapfile use, then you can always add more ram.

A faster respons on an LCD is always a good thing, as long as other
specs remain adequate. If you do gaming, this is much more important.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
January 31, 2005 5:18:40 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Robert Scott wrote:
> My home desktop (Dell Dimension 8400) has a 3.4 GHz Intel Pentium 4
> processor, 512 MB of dual-channel SDRAM and a 128MB video card. It seems
> speedy enough for working with RAW files with Capture (I haven't installed
> my PSE3 software yet).
>
> I just ordered a notebook with an Intel Celeron M 330 1.4 GHz processor,
> 256MB of DDR SDRAM and shared video memory. Will Capture or PSE3 run on
> this notebook at all, or acceptably (or prettty well)?
>
> Good shooting,
> Bob Scott
>
>
I am running PSE3 on a 1.4ghz Celeron M laptop with 512 meg of ram. It
runs quite nicely. Editing is somewhat slower than on my desktop, but
not terribly slow. For light work, it is more than adequate.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
January 31, 2005 5:20:35 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Randall Ainsworth wrote:

> In article <it6rv0ti2hs2h3k1be8gk0i4e5845ht7k5@4ax.com>, Big Bill
> <bill@pipping.com> wrote:
>
>> You "pros" who don't understanding overclocking are frightening.
>> Your clients (if any) must be dumb.
>
> I understand how to ruin a CPU and create hardware and software
> problems.

I agree. While some people may think they "get away with it" for many
people it just causes head aches, weird lockups and software problems they
blame on anything/everything but overclocking. You think "pro" computer
builders overclock their clients systems? And if it was "safe" to run them
at those speeds, you don't think intel/AMD would be doing it? Yea they want
to lower the clock speeds to boost sales.... I can maybe see it for playing
games looking for frame rates but why oclock a digital darkroom? Just buy
decent hardware and it will have WAY more performance than you'll need for
this application.
--

Stacey
Anonymous
January 31, 2005 5:22:19 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Jake wrote:
> "Randall Ainsworth" <rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote in message
> news:300120051422215318%rag@nospam.techline.com...
>
>>In article <ZqaLd.67210$re1.37492@fe2.columbus.rr.com>, Jake
>><jake@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Harvey, the XP2500+ Barton core is not a 2.5ghz cpu. Its default clock
>>>speed is 1.83ghz. AMD rates their cpu's differently, so their model
>
> names
>
>>>do not correspond to their clock speed. I have this cpu overclocked by
>>>virtue of its unlocked multiplier (it's a mobile Barton, meaning it was
>>>designed for laptops). For an $85 cpu, it's a tremendous
>
> price/performance
>
>>>value if you know how to configure it.
>>
>>Oh yeah, there's intelligence. Overclock your CPU. At least when it
>>dies you won't be out much money.
>
>
> Dude, you're not doing yourself any favors with the continuing displays of
> ignorance. Do you really expect me to believe that you've built "hundreds"
> of computers, when you obviously have no concept of overclocking - if you
> truly believe that it can't be done safely, with no measurable harm done to
> the chip? I've got many oc'ed computers that are functioning perfectly in
> their 2nd, 3rd, 4th years, etc. In fact, I've never lost a single cpu to
> overclocking at any point in its life. Not one. That goes for both Intel
> and AMD. And, btw, I have no real preference between the two brands *where
> the state of the technology is concerned*. Both Intel and AMD make
> excellent products. It's very simple with me: AMD is more bang for the
> buck, more importantly (for me) on the low to mid end. And on the high end
> they are leading the way *at this time*. This doesn't make Intel "bad." It
> just makes them a little "behind" at this point. It's a see-saw. Intel no
> doubt will respond as they always do. But at this point AMD is poised to
> lead the way into 64-bit.
>
> jake
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Jake,
My problem with the idea of overclocking is that the gain isn't
proportionate to the potential risk. The actual performance increase is
downright trivial compared to the increase in cooling required, and the
risk of failure. But, hey, it's your hardware, abuse it if you wish.
It's not like a fried processor is a major cost item these days.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
January 31, 2005 5:25:27 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

rafe bustin wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 00:29:00 GMT, "Jake" <jake@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Look, I don't mean any of this personally. I'm very sincere when I say that
>>I'm sure there are many topics on which you are very competent. However,
>>computer hardware is not one of them. You can change that, however. If you
>>will open your mind and do the necessary research you can be as informed as
>>anyone on the subject.
>
>
>
> Alas, a closed mind is part and parcel of
> being Randall Ainsworth. You really have
> to feel sorry for the guy.
>
>
> rafe b.
> http://www.terrapinphoto.com

Randall's problem is that if something doesn't have Apple's logo on it,
it is junk. That's fine for him, but a PITA for the rest of us.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
January 31, 2005 5:30:49 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Don Dunlap wrote:
> "Randall Ainsworth" <rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote in message
> news:300120051423239068%rag@nospam.techline.com...
>
>>In article <o7kqv0dv96sliog06ktt3vcaanmhlg534a@4ax.com>, Drifter
>><zespectre@askme.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Custom built full tower "MONOLITH"
>>>P4 o'clocked to 2.70Mhz
>>>1Gb matched RAM
>>>ATI Radeon 9700 Pro
>>>Twin flatscreen monitors
>>>x2 120mb HDD's (System/Data drive and the back up drive)
>>>x4 200mb HDD's on a hardware RAID array (mostly for high-res video
>>>capture and editing)
>>>"Callisto" video capture card (analog and digital)
>>>
>>>The whole thing is tweaked in every way I know how, runs great!
>>>
>>>Eventually everything will get settled with the 64bit stuff and then
>>>I'll probably upgrade, but there sure isn't any hurry right now.
>>
>>You amateurs are so cute when you overclock your processors.
>
>
> I am amazed at how much more intelligent you are than everybody else. Keep
> letting people know - lest they forget. :) 
>
> Don
>
>

Don't worry, Don, he will. Hasn't changed.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
January 31, 2005 7:34:46 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Jake <jake@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I build computers, and my current pc for digital photography is:
>
>AMD Athlon XP2500+ cpu (Barton core) overclocked to 2.4ghz
>ATI Radeon 9800Pro 128mb video card
>Abit NF7 motherboard
>1gb PC3500 RAM at 166mhz
>80gb Samsung 7200rpm hard drive
>
>For the most part, this computer serves me well. What are others using?

A camera. I find that taking pictures is far more effective at
producing photographs than is spending time obsessing over the
details of computer hardware.

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
Anonymous
January 31, 2005 8:31:26 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3664i3F4s50h8U3@individual.net...

> > I understand how to ruin a CPU and create hardware and software
> > problems.
>
> I agree. While some people may think they "get away with it" for many
> people it just causes head aches, weird lockups and software problems they
> blame on anything/everything but overclocking.

This is when they put the blame on Windows.


Rita
Anonymous
January 31, 2005 10:34:52 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <D0mLd.939$xW.363@fe06.lga>, Ron Hunter
<rphunter@charter.net> wrote:

> Since 1995 I have had several computers, and all but my current laptop
> were AMD processors. Not one of them has given me a single problem.
> Surely if they were half as bad as Randall implies, I would have had
> SOME kind of problem by now.

Well, I've been into computers since 1983 and have seen pretty much
every flavor of PC out there. Maybe you just don't know any better.
Anonymous
January 31, 2005 10:41:53 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Shawn Hearn <srhi@comcast.net> wrote:

> "Jake" <jake@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > I build computers, and my current pc for digital photography is:
> >
> > AMD Athlon XP2500+ cpu (Barton core) overclocked to 2.4ghz
> > ATI Radeon 9800Pro 128mb video card
> > Abit NF7 motherboard
> > 1gb PC3500 RAM at 166mhz
> > 80gb Samsung 7200rpm hard drive
> >
> > For the most part, this computer serves me well. What are others using?
> > And, specifically, has anyone upgraded from a similar machine to an AMD
> > Athlon 64 cpu? If so, did you realize a performance increase?


FWIW Jake - - can you list some pseudo-benchmarks on this system?

For example, if a ~17MB TIFF file produced from a generic 6MP camera is
an adequate baseline for everyone to compare against, how long does it
take to load up from the hard drive, do various Photoshop tasks, etc,
etc.


Otherwise, we're just all making "vroom, vroom" noises.




> Me? A dual processor 2.25Ghtz Mac G5 with 1GB RAM and an Apple 23"
> Cinema Display with PS CS. I am very happy with this configuration.


Same applies here, Shawn. FWIW, here's some pseudo-benches I ran a week
or so ago:

(quote)

Geek details:  2003 ('Rev 1') Mac G5 SP 1.8GHz, 900MHz frontside bus,
1.5GB RAM.  Running OS 10.3.7 and Photoshop 7.0.1 w/G5 plug-in.  


The 1GB Photoshop file I referred to was slightly larger; around 1.2GB,
with an image size of (17433 x 11551).  It took 1:20 to read it in from
the hard drive, then a very long 6:60 to do a simple "AutoLevel" on it.
 
Resampling it to (3018 x 2000) took 1:35.  


Comment:  clearly, for day-to-day productivity tasks, this is too slow.
 
Granted, we also have to keep in mind that this image is roughly
equivalent to a 2013 MegaPixels...not exactly routine either.


Dropping to a much smaller 120MB Photoshop file (8717 x 5778; = 50
MegaPixels equivalent), it took :05 to load, :02 to AutoLevel, ~:01 to
do a 180 degree rotate, ~:01 to run a sharpen filter.


Comment:  I consider this to be pragmatically fast enough performance:
the hardware won't generally going to impede the workflow.  Obviously,
smaller (4, 6, 8, 12 MegaPixel) images can only have better response
times which will perceptually approach "instant" much of the time.  As
such, I consider this hardware to be adequate both for today as well as
for the reasonably foreseeable future...eg, until digital cameras
approach 50 MP.  

(/quote)

FWIW, I've just re-run the same basic "open, rotate, autolevel, sharpen"
on a 6MP file and found it to be around the same speed as the above
"50MP" file (5sec, then ~1sec for most tasks)...which is kind of
surprising result in a way (slower than I expected), but IMO its good
news because it indicates no near-term concern over scaling up to larger
files over the next 2-5 years, plus this was basic seat-of-the-pants
timing (merely watching the system clock), so relatively small
variations wouldn't be noticed.



-hh
Anonymous
January 31, 2005 11:24:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <vmsLd.993$Hr7.714@fe06.lga>, Ron Hunter
<rphunter@charter.net> wrote:

> Apparently not.
> Why don't you give us some documentation, or at least ancedotal
> information, to explain your disdain for AMD, which seems to serve most
> of us quite well.

I worked in a computer store for a number of years building and
repairing systems. I've worked on pretty much every brand name you can
think of along with a lot of no-name clones. AMDs were always the
worst.
Anonymous
January 31, 2005 11:37:28 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 17:16:56 GMT, "Jake" <jake@yahoo.com> wrote:

>I build computers, and my current pc for digital photography is:
>
>AMD Athlon XP2500+ cpu (Barton core) overclocked to 2.4ghz
>ATI Radeon 9800Pro 128mb video card
>Abit NF7 motherboard
>1gb PC3500 RAM at 166mhz
>80gb Samsung 7200rpm hard drive
>
>For the most part, this computer serves me well. What are others using?
>And, specifically, has anyone upgraded from a similar machine to an AMD
>Athlon 64 cpu? If so, did you realize a performance increase?
>
>Thanks.
>
>jakesnake
>
I find a Pentium 4 2.6Ghz with 2G of RAM is plenty fast enough for
Photoshop, as long as you use two monitors for working space.

My particular fetish is having enough hard disk space and backup. I
use slide-out IDE drive trays. There are three of them in the
computer proper, so I have a 250G Drive C:, 160G Drive D, and 300G
Drive E online at all times. I also have two USB 2.0 drives with
slide-out trays (because they're hot-swappable under Windows XP), so I
can slide in a drive or two and make backups of entire disks if need
be. All modified image and other data files are automatically copied
to another drive four times a day for temporary backup. I have two
DVD drives attached, too, for permanent archiving of the original RAW
files. Archives go into a fireproof safe.

It may be overkill, but I'm happier having more storage space than I
would be with a slightly faster computer.


-------------------------------------
Everything I know, and then some:
http://www.auctionmyths.com
Anonymous
January 31, 2005 12:02:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I use an IBM Thinkpad at 1.5 ghz.
January 31, 2005 12:23:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

rafe bustin <rafeb@speakeasy.net> wrote:

> On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 14:21:38 -0800, Randall Ainsworth
> <rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote:
>
>
> >AMD a pretty decent 287 & 387 math-co clone but their CPUs have done
> >nothing for me since. I've seen their current lineup...maybe that's why
> >my personal equipment is Mac.
>
>
> Yep, Macs are the first choice for small minded,
> ignorant people such as yourself.
>
>
> rafe b.
> http://www.terrapinphoto.com

Why is usnet full of rude people? Would you react like this in person?
Anonymous
January 31, 2005 12:40:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Randall Ainsworth wrote:
> In article <D0mLd.939$xW.363@fe06.lga>, Ron Hunter
> <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Since 1995 I have had several computers, and all but my current laptop
>>were AMD processors. Not one of them has given me a single problem.
>>Surely if they were half as bad as Randall implies, I would have had
>>SOME kind of problem by now.
>
>
> Well, I've been into computers since 1983 and have seen pretty much
> every flavor of PC out there. Maybe you just don't know any better.

Gosh, Randall, I feel like a newcomer to your vast experience. Of
course, my computer experience is only since 1965, so what would I know?


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
!