Any Suggestions?

[akula45]

Hello. I'm trying to build a system to edit large photos and videos for my airshow photo company. I am looking at a very large case. But I am not sure about processors. This system will never see a game other than poker. But my dell struggles with just browsing the dir with the photos in it. I am looking at the following processors:

http://www.buy.com/retail/product.asp?sku=10390299&hdwt=0&loc=2043&sp=2
http://www.buy.com/retail/product.asp?sku=10378307&hdwt=0&loc=2043&sp=2
http://www.buy.com/retail/product.asp?sku=10365067&hdwt=31302&loc=2043&sp=1
http://www.buy.com/retail/product.asp?sku=10382130&hdwt=31302&loc=2043&sp=1
http://www.buy.com/retail/product.asp?sku=10364762&hdwt=31302&loc=240&sp=1

Cost is really not a problem for us as the ten of us have set aside 20 grand for equipment. We plan on building a rack file server for storing our raw images and prints. One of the guy's brothers is a security contractor so he is going to build us a computer and storage room with halon fire extinquishers. We already have (this is an est) 22 tb of sellable photos. We just need a machine to edit them into postcards, get a website going, and scan film.

So:

Any favorite processors for a high end photo and video editing workstation?

Dual or single processors?

Thanks Guys.

Hey, gimme a break, I'm a photographer first, animal rescue driver second, then computer nut. I try to stay up to date so forgive me if I ask a stupid question.

 

[schuy1]

If it helps , most of the time p4's outpreform AMD equivalants in applications dealing in things other than gaming.

 

[endyen]

Memory will be very important. A 64 bit system, wether from Intel, or Amd may be very usefull. The EM64T chips should be here in a couple of months.
An opteron system or a xeon system may be of real value.

 

[slvr_phoenix]

But my dell struggles with just browsing the dir with the photos in it.

Browsing files on your hard drive is not so much a CPU aspect as it is a hard drive aspect. So if you view your performance as an aspect of how quickly you can browse, then you should look more at faster hard drives than at faster processors.

We plan on building a rack file server for storing our raw images and prints. One of the guy's brothers is a security contractor so he is going to build us a computer and storage room with halon fire extinquishers. We already have (this is an est) 22 tb of sellable photos.

And now you've gone in a completely new direction. If your browsing is of files stored on a network then your performance is really going to depend on your network speeds (and to a lesser degree your 'server' hard drive speeds) more than your 'client' hard drive speeds. What kind of networking gear are you using?

We just need a machine to edit them into postcards, get a website going, and scan film.

<i>That</i> you could do on a 486 so long as you had a lot of RAM and a decent hard drive. A 1GHz Pentium3 would be overkill for that. You don't need a high end machine for any of that.

From someone who's working in a field where a lot of files are generated, let me give you a tip: When you have tons of files in one directory and you're tired of how slowly browsing goes, just split the files into multiple subdirectories. That way Windows isn't struggling with a gigantic list of files and browsing will work much faster.

<pre>I just want to say <font color=red>I wuv you</font color=red>.
And I mean it fwom the <font color=red>bottom of my hawt</font color=red>.</pre><p>