laptops versus desktops (also monitor Q)

Moon-Crickets wrote in post #5734676
How about the iMac 24 inch. Is that any good?

The latest iMacs are very nice, and the display on the 24 inch is great for color correcting. Though steer clear of the latest 20 inch. For some reason Apple got stupid on that one.

Otherwise they're very nice bang for the buck, will be able to do everything you need, etc.

I have an oldish MBP for stuff away from home, and a overpowered desktop with TBs of space for when i'm in town, both can be connected to my 30 inch moniter

Thanks DN !

My head is spinning! What does quad core do that a non-quad core cannot do?

why only 3 GB and not a 4 GB for a 32 bit (notice how I act like I have any bloody clue what I am talking about...)

thanks for the advice, I think I will print this out and take it to a computer store.

How about this one:

http://www.newegg.com …aspx?Item=N82E1​6883103140

More and more things are becoming "multi-processor aware" through the use of threading, etc. but I digress... Each "core" is basically another CPU that can get things done. A dual-core is good. A quad-core is better... Sometimes. You'll notice the improvement most if you're batch-processing your images that can keep all the cores busy. Unless you need the horsepower for that, a dual-core will likely be more than enough.

skywalkerbeth wrote in post #5737503
How about this one:

http://www.newegg.com …aspx?Item=N82E1​6883103140

q6600 is great processor, I have mine OCd to 3.2GHz on air cooling
But, I would build my own PC, it really is quite easy, just screw in some pieces, and plug some plugs where they fit, pretty much it only fits one way, and if you don't overdo the force, and if it doesn't feel right try the other way, and RTFM, it is really easy

Sorry, just read you don't know what quad core is

Yeah, basically quad core allows smart programs to use your one CPU as four CPUs, a core is pretty much a CPU, but it is integrated into one package with others.
This means that instead of having one 2.4GHz cpu you pretty much have four, so four things can be done at once, making a huge difference!

pcunite wrote in post #5733254
I like to maximize my dollars... have a computer built to these spec's will only cost you a $1,000 or less and give great computing power... (you can always spend more...)

Intel Q6600 (great, overclocks awesomely, just great)
Asus P5K-E (had one and it died in one week, got gigabyte p35-ds3p, and has worked ever since, I highly recommend p35-ds3p)
Crucial 4GB or more $$$ (just get 4gb)
XP Pro x64 or Vista 64 (don't put 4GB in a 32bit OS, only 3GB) (don't go vista, it sucks bad)
7200 RPM hard drive or faster $$$ (7200RPM whatever size you want, don't bother with faster atm, don't forget external backup)
Any nVidia 8800 chip, a 8600GT is fine for photos really... get dvi output and 256 RAM (probably don't need that good gfx for photos, but 8600gt should be ok)
Antec P182 quiet case (great, have one, very quiet)

I would say building it yourself, or getting it built by a place that has good part prices, and charges for parts and labour seperately (so they don't gouge you overall claiming parts cost)

But, if you want it to just work no matter what, whenever, exactly as you want it to, get a mac

skywalkerbeth wrote in post #5737473
What does quad core do that a non-quad core cannot do?

Why only 3 GB and not a 4 GB for a 32 bit

Quad core will allow PhotoShop and Canon's DPP to run much faster. I am able to make jpeg's from many raw files in under 20 minutes with a Quad.

Concerning my recommendation of only 3GB with a 32bit OS is because of certain incompatibles with various software packages. It works for some people based on the software they have installed, but I spare you trouble. I will avoid a lengthy discussion of why this is. It would need a thread all to itself.

For now just go 64bit because Vista or XP x64 will run 32bit software just fine and making excellent use of 4GB or greater ram.

skywalkerbeth wrote in post #5737503
How about this one:

http://www.newegg.com …aspx?Item=N82E1​6883103140

As far as on paper it looks good although it only comes with 32 XP, not x64 XP so you would need to purchase that. Here is an interesting article. My PC is based on this one (can't believe everything you read on the internet but this looks legitimate)

http://goffconcepts.co​m …s/systems/bestp​c2008.html

skywalkerbeth wrote in post #5737503
How about this one:

http://www.newegg.com …aspx?Item=N82E1​6883103140

Not a bad unit.

To answer your previous question about quad-core performance, here is my experience processing RAW images. My PC was an Intel P4 3.4 GHz w/hyperthreading with 2 GB DDR RAM. It took an average of just under 3 minutes to process a 16 MB CR2 file from my 5D using DxO Pro V.5.1 to a finished image. I literally just upgraded to this same quad-core CPU that you are looking at, just over-clocking it. This past weekend, I took 90 CR2 RAW files from my son's recent H.S. graduation and processed them as above. The quad processed three images simultaneously (instead of just one), taking a total of just over 12 minutes to process the batch! The old PC would have taken 4+ hours.

My PC was rebuilt my PC with components purchased from Newegg using this same Intel Q6600 CPU. I purchased a motherboard that gamers use to over-clock their CPUs (ASUS P5K-Pro). My PC is now a Q6600 quad running at 3.6 GHz, 8GB DDR2/800 Mhz RAM, 2-500 GB SATA hard drives, older Radeon 1600 video card. However, the stock non over-clocked Q6600 CPU will give similar gains in processing ability.

Best Wishes

Regarding your first post -- you keep saying your laptops HD's keep "filling up" -- are you backing everything up to a good external HD? I have a 500gb and a 750gb external hard drive and back up all of my photos there.

Thank you so much everyone! I'm a computer idiot - as long as it works, I am happy.

I do have an external HD but so far haven't deleted much of anything from my laptop. I'm going to back up one more time and then delete it all - which will buy some time.

Just for perspective - since I don't know what speeds to look for or what they even mean... what is the slowest I'd want to even consider (if nothing else, it helps me weed out what is on newegg). By slowest I don't mean slow! Just what the floor should be.

I don't think I'm going to build now, since I cannot troubleshoot.

Silly question about processing - I can only do one photo at a time, how do you all manage to process several at one time?

skywalkerbeth wrote in post #5746301
Just for perspective - since I don't know what speeds to look for or what they even mean... what is the slowest I'd want to even consider (if nothing else, it helps me weed out what is on newegg). By slowest I don't mean slow! Just what the floor should be.

Silly question about processing - I can only do one photo at a time, how do you all manage to process several at one time?

Hi,

Regarding CPU speed, here is a link to Intel's current Core 2 Duo (i.e. CPUs with 2 CPU cores):
http://www.intel.com …id=prod_core2du​o+tab_spec

This one is for their Core 2 Quads:
http://www.intel.com …e2quad/specific​ations.htm

Personally, I would look at their 65 nm CPUs as these are the best values right now. The only real advantage that the new 45 nm CPUs give is lower power consumption. IMHO, any of the two fastest 65 nm Core 2 Duos (E6850 or E6750) or any quad (E6600) will be fine performers for digital still image processing using Photoshop CS3 or a DxO-type application. Differences in CPU clock speed of 10% will not really be detectable in these applications, so go for the best deal on the PC or upgraded hardware that you may need.

Regarding processing more than one image at a time, the application I was using was DxO V.5.1, a image processing application that allows batch processing of a large number of image files. This is a unique application that is very CPU intensive, so I thought that it would be a good example as to what a multi-core processor can do vs. a single CPU. You would not process more than one image at a time with Photoshop!

Hope that this helps.

Best Wishes

rhom, thank you so much! I'm not completely sure what that means yet, but it's a good start. If I look at HPs, for instance the below, how can I tell that a certain Intel processor is inside of it?

http://www.newegg.com …aspx?Item=N82E1​6883107653