Gaming computers still good for Photoshop

Has been at least 5 years since I bought a computer for images. Main concern was FAST processing as it is an imaging computer with Photoshop as the main use. Never, ever online so that was not a concern. Fast graphics card and all geared to speed for gaming.

Works very well for images.

Will be looking before long at getting a newer computer. Are Gaming computers still some of the best for this type of use - again with it not going online?

Yes and no, if you buy a store bought "gaming" pc it's probably crap.

If you put together your own gaming pc it will be good for games and photoshop.

Photoshop doesn't really require the crazy graphics cards that games do but still nice to have a decent one.

http://www.logicalincr​ements.com/ Scroll down until you find your budget, 16GB RAM, 240GB SSD minimum (480GB+ preferred as a working drive to import photos onto, work on them and also photoshop scratchdisk).

In terms of graphics card you probably won't need anything above a GTX1060 or RX480 for photoshop, unless you *really* want to play the top end games.

Actually, I don't play any games at all. Just images on the computer. Never online and won't ever be.
One big advantage was the lack of all the add on junk programs Compaq, Dell and the like stick in their new computers. None of that was on the gaming models I looked at.
The graphics card may be overkill but it has lasted and performed well for 5 years now. Just looking to get newer before something finally happens. Yes, I do have backup files of the images in separate locations so if the computer dies I don't lose everything.

Deardorff wrote in post #18178869
Actually, I don't play any games at all. Just images on the computer. Never online and won't ever be.
One big advantage was the lack of all the add on junk programs Compaq, Dell and the like stick in their new computers. None of that was on the gaming models I looked at.
The graphics card may be overkill but it has lasted and performed well for 5 years now. Just looking to get newer before something finally happens. Yes, I do have backup files of the images in separate locations so if the computer dies I don't lose everything.

Three years ago, I built my own system. Bought the case, power supply, processor, ram, hard drives, everything else and slapped it all together. It did cost me a lot more to do it this way but I got exactly what I wanted and the way I wanted it. As long as I can afford to do it this way, I'll never buy an off the shelf PC again.

I'm on an extremely tight budget. I have a solution for $150.89 after rebate. It's at Microcenter; I tried something similar on NewEgg and Amazon, but couldn't come close to the price. This is what I want to build. I already have a case with a hard drive; old Linux system. It's pickup only, no shipping. LOL, as I'm writing this up I noticed the processor dropped $5.

$44.99 - Gigabyte GA-F2A68HM-H FM2+ ATX AMD Motherboard
$54.99 - AMD A6 7400K Black Edition Steamroller 3.9GHz Dual-Core Socket FM2+ Boxed Processor
-40.00 - bundled discount for the above
$89.99 - Ballistix Sport XT 16GB DDR3-1866 (PC3-15000) CL10 Desktop Memory Kit (Two 8GB Memory Modules)
-10.00 - mail-in rebate
$10.92 - Sales tax
---------
$150.89 Total

This AMD build is similar to an i5 3.5GHz at half the price. It has 16GB which is ideal for Photoshop; memory is more than half the cost. This has an Integrated AMD Radeon R5 GPU in the processor but can add your favorite graphics card for gaming. I already have a small HD, but will probably buy a 3TB internal eventually; I need tons of space.

the difference is that all the desktop i5 have 4 cores
the amd may have similar single core performance but programs that utilize more than two cores should perform better with the i5

FuturamaJSP wrote in post #18179058
the difference is that all the desktop i5 have 4 cores
the amd may have similar single core performance but programs that utilize more than two cores should perform better with the i5

The similar Intel system I put to together cost $321.79:
Intel Core i5-4690K 3.5GHz LGA 1150 (quad core)
The AMD is dual core.

as i said before you are comparing a high-end i5 with 4 cores and 4 threads with an AMD cpu that only got 2 cores and 2 threads

you should probably compare it to one of the i3 cpus
yes the AMD is cheaper and may be good enough for applications that only utilize one to two cores but the i5 is still significantly faster when running on just one core

http://cpuboss.com …-i5-4690K-vs-AMD-A6-7400K

I wasn't trying to find the fastest, I was going for the cheapest Photoshop/Lightroom upgrade for an unemployed photographer. I've already designed my ultimate machine and it cost $855. Since I'm crawling along post-processing photos on a Celeron, I can buy this AMD system next month and when I sell enough photographs then upgrade to my dream machine.

PalaDolphin wrote in post #18179140
I wasn't trying to find the fastest, I was going for the cheapest Photoshop/Lightroom upgrade for an unemployed photographer. I've already designed my ultimate machine and it cost $855. Since I'm crawling along post-processing photos on a Celeron, I can buy this AMD system next month and when I sell enough photographs then upgrade to my dream machine.

Get a Skylake i3 ~$100 and grab a H110 board for ~$50. When the time comes you can toss in a i5/i7 and have DDR4 RAM available for current and future builds. I doubt that AMD can hang with anything Intel has current generation.

Deardorff wrote in post #18178745
Has been at least 5 years since I bought a computer for images. Main concern was FAST processing as it is an imaging computer with Photoshop as the main use. Never, ever online so that was not a concern. Fast graphics card and all geared to speed for gaming.

Works very well for images.

Will be looking before long at getting a newer computer. Are Gaming computers still some of the best for this type of use - again with it not going online?

I'd ditch "Gaming" branded computers from stores. They tend to carry a higher price tag for the "gaming" in the title. They tend to give you little hardware return for the extra money spent. IE: +$200 for a GTX 745 when a GTX 750Ti comes in at $115 and gives 2x performance over the 745. It doesn't make sense.

As mentioned above, CPU (i5/i7 are great) and high RAM (16GB+ Preferably) and fast storage (HDD 7200RPM good but SSD best) are going to be what you want. A GPU will have little to no impact on your editing. Also being online/offline has no impact, it's a useless factor to this although if your using Adobe CC that could be a different factor.

A prebuilt Dell/HP/Lenovo/ETC with a i7 is generally not a bad buy and if you're worried about bloat then you can always download windows and reinstall with a clean slate. Also if you purchase a Business/enterprise/wo​rkstation they tend to come bloatware-less compared to their general consumer line.

As for computer "dying" and saving images, you'd have to research backup solutions, extra HDD? add a NAS? internal HDD? Cloud? That is a whole bucket of fish on it's own.

There is no way in the world I am building anything electronic. Overhaul a gas or diesel engine, fine. Replace tie rods or CV joints, fine. Cut down or trim trees, fine.

Nothing to do with electronics - I hate the thought of it.

Just buy a good, fast machine without all the bloatware on it. A machine that will never hook up to the internet. Just be used for image processing and editing.

Deardorff wrote in post #18180748
There is no way in the world I am building anything electronic. Overhaul a gas or diesel engine, fine. Replace tie rods or CV joints, fine. Cut down or trim trees, fine.

Nothing to do with electronics - I hate the thought of it.

Just buy a good, fast machine without all the bloatware on it. A machine that will never hook up to the internet. Just be used for image processing and editing.

That wasn't my point. I am not saying to build one but the difference in a gaming machine vs a non-gaming usually is a GPU and "Gaming" in the title.

wow they are charging 1000 bucks for a non overclocked Founders Edition gtx 1080 as if 900 bucks for a very basic pc with a non-K i7 isnt overpriced enough

Deardorff wrote in post #18180748
There is no way in the world I am building anything electronic. Overhaul a gas or diesel engine, fine. Replace tie rods or CV joints, fine. Cut down or trim trees, fine.

Nothing to do with electronics - I hate the thought of it.

Just buy a good, fast machine without all the bloatware on it. A machine that will never hook up to the internet. Just be used for image processing and editing.

please choose between

In my opinion, and personal experience, there are diminished returns above a certain level of computer specs regarding PS/Lightroom. Games, top games, are designed to utilize a powerful system. So with games, especially the latest-greatest, you can actually see nice improvements when played on a higher-end system (faster fps, capable of higher resolution, better details, etc.). DISCLAIMER: I don't ever do games But I know that games can utilize a powerful system.

Photoshop/Lightroom/AC​R however, not so much. There are some improvements in editing/processing speed on a higher end system but the difference is not night and day. The newest version of ACR actually lets you use the GPU to help out but it's not a huge deal, especially if you have a fairly good processor.
I just posted in another thread that after upgrading my decent system (i7-4771, 16gb RAM, GTX 750 Ti, HDD) to a better one (i7-6700K, 32gb DDR4 RAM, GTX 1060 6GB, Samsung SSD) I just didn't see a big jump in performance in Photoshop and ACR. I didn't expect one either though since I had researched and found that PS/Lightroom/ACR is not very good at utilizing higher end powerful systems. For example it's almost a waste of money to buy an expensive 6 or 8 core processor for Photoshop/Lightroom since most processes only utilize up to 4 cores. So generally a 4-core but high clock-speed processor may be better for PS/Lightroom than a 6 or 8-core processor but at a lower clock speed.
Video editing and encoding/rendering is different though, more cores are better there.