[hsolatges]

I recommend you to use the new AMD build, and don't bother with priceless DDR3.

[photolady95]

don't bother with priceless DDR3.

Would you care to explain that statement?

[Ratmagiclady]

Hrm, I dunno, PL, maybe something got lost in translation

I build AMD only. I just built my brother a computer for total price of $236. Since he had monitor, mouse and keyboard, plus an external DVDRW, cost was a bit lower. This build was a AMD3 meaning dual core, and used DDR3. I loaned him a harddrive until he can afford to buy a new one. His last computer before the build developed blown caps on the motherboard. It was a older Dell. When the caps blew, it took out everything inside, including his only SATA drive. It was in one of those flat boxes you asked about Ratmagiclady. I don't care for them because of heat build up.

Hrm, thought that might be the, err, case, with the flat ones.

The best way to save energy, turn off your computer when not in use.

I suppose that's ideal: just wondering if all that computing power really sucks up more juice, when it probably won't actually be needed much of the time, or how much difference it makes.

If you decide to have one built make sure you get a standalone video card.

Yep, one was recommended to me just recently, (Got thinking of/talking about all this while making a computer desk for sweetie: thought I'd think ahead to any possibility of using it for said desktop later. Hoping I'll start feeling well enough today to actually assemble this thing before plans get even more elaborate. (Actually, it hardly bears on this project atm, just needed a measurement, actually. But I did get thinking )

Seems like one can do plenty for a few hundred dollars, anyway:

My general target will be to have a machine with a good video card, probably with at least one nice big backup drive for photos right inside (I'm scheduled to pick up a quality external one this coming month, and I'll have external things for redundant backup) And hopefully some clever/convenient way to hook up all the peripheral things.

[hsolatges]

Would you care to explain that statement ?

Not really... My thoughts were 2-years-outmoded.
When DDR3-chip based motherboard were rare and DDR3-modules were too expensive... That was old time and I'm out of the game...

In fact, I was doing my 3 posts needed to PM an administrator...

Have fun !

[Ratmagiclady]

Not really... My thoughts were 2-years-outmoded.
When DDR3-chip based motherboard were rare and DDR3-modules were too expensive... That was old time and I'm out of the game...

In fact, I was doing my 3 posts needed to PM an administrator...

Have fun !

Heehee. Well, it's certainly easy to blink and miss something when it comes to these sorts of things. I usually try to surf a bit behind the curve rather than go for the latest and greatest, (The latter's obviously always the most expensive, and in a few years one can get an idea if some technology's going in the right way for it.

I'm hoping, at least, that image files won't need to be getting too much huger, anyway. It does appear that my net planned camera upgrade will be a K-5, and that's not that much bigger than what I'm using now, so it's probably a good time to get reasonably-caught up, computerwise.

[jolepp]

...
I'm hoping, at least, that image files won't need to be getting too much huger, anyway. It does appear that my net planned camera upgrade will be a K-5, and that's not that much bigger than what I'm using now, so it's probably a good time to get reasonably-caught up, computerwise.

The crux of the issue, pretty much: at 10 MP, say for 16 bits for RGB each this means 10M x 2 bytes x 3 = 60 MB / frame which means 1 GB can hold 16 or so, which is kind of plenty so even with a 1-2 GB overhead for the OS, and, say, a generous 0.5 GB for the PP application that 4 GB limit of a 32-bit CPU or the 2 GB per application (process) limit of 32-bit Windows is not so bad; it is just that Photoshop/Lightroom/<what-have-you> can keep more images snappily available at any given time if there is more RAM directly available to it. Of course, a faster CPU with, crucially, a fast connection to the memory (those MHz figures in, say "1066MHz DDR3") can crunch its way through them faster. Much depends on how well the software makes use of multiple cores or other features such as a fancy graphics adapter (which are essentially a bunch of interconnected processor cores geared for (screen) graphics). If (and only if) the software can make use of the graphics hardware so that the parallel processing power of the multiple cores can be used to its full advantage it could make a drastic difference in the crunching part. OTOH, reasonably modern general purpose cores can still crunch their way through a lot of pictures overnight in batch mode.

[photolady95]

In fact, I was doing my 3 posts needed to PM an administrator.

I thought that to be the case afterward.

Power consumption of newer graphics cards. Thought you might find this handy:

Power Analysis: Average Energy Consumption : What Do High-End Graphics Cards Cost In Terms Of Electricity?

My graphics card isn't the newest and greatest mainly because I can't afford to spend hundreds of dollars for one.

And another way to speed up PhotoShop is having the scratch disk on another separate hard or partition.

[Ratmagiclady]

Hrm, those consumption rates do seem to make a big difference: I'll have to look to that, (though the card I'd had recommended as reliable and sufficient and affordable is probably not too bad this way, I'll look into it. )

Useful stuff, too, Jolepp, helps me understand what's going on. I suppose one worry is I do have a habit of leaving lots of programs and windows running, (I've considered multiple-monitor setups just to have one for the image and one for the rest of the computer: it might actually be more efficient that way, just cause my idea of a desktop is about as cluttered and busy as a physical desk top can be around me. I suffer from a bit of 'out of sight, out of mind' disease and thus tend to leave everything where I hope I can see it. For all the good that does. If I physically-organize a space well, that's my best chance for real organization. ) Anyway, it always seems that just to have a web browser or fight off spyware/etc is taking more and more resources anyway.

Which physical organization is part of why this new desk I'm making for us. (Just tired myself out making some key cuts by hand. OK, whatever kind of cold this is, you can go away, now, darnit. ) And forcing myself to not get impatient and bang this together in a hurry while in such a state. Ah, for a little of the synergy of a proper workshop. And come on, immune system and all. )