[Johnboyas]

Hi everybody. As the title states, I'm thinking about building my own PC to handle PP and just for basic home usage/maybe some online classes. Do any of you guys have any suggestions on specs I'd need to handle Photoshop and Lightroom. I more than likely will not be doing much if any video editing and probably no graphics intensive gaming. Any suggestions on processor, RAM, graphics card(I have seen some people saying you don't really need a great graphics card for just processing images), hard drive. I'm hoping to build one in the $500 range, hopefully no more than $750. If this is the wrong place to post a thread like this I'm sorry, otherwise any and all help/opinions will be appreciated. Thanks in advance!

[NicoleC]

I have a 3rd gen i5-2500 cpu. (They are selling 4th gen now.)
I have 24GB of RAM. The stuff is dirt cheap performance. Load up on it.
I have a 256GB SSD boot drive and I keep my Lightroom catalog on an older 128GB SSD. Big storage is via a NAS device, but you could add a >1TB drive quite affordably.
My 1GB graphics card has an AMD Radeon HC 6670 chipset. Fairly old tech, nothing special.

My comp barely ticks over using LR or Photoshop and I built it over 2 1/2 years ago for $800 but I added RAM and a larger SSD boot drive later. You do not need expensive hardware to get there.


I'd suggest:

• Current mid/high end Haswell i5 processor like the i5-4670. These tend to be the best bang for the buck.
• Choose a motherboard that handles at least 32GB of RAM. Install at least 16GB of high quality RAM.
• SSD hard drive

The current onboard graphics are probably fine for your needs. If trimming the bottom line, I'd start with using the onboard video instead of a dedicated graphics card.

[08amczb]

i5-4670 is fine, I suggest minimum 8GB RAM, and get some more if you run ot of it often. An SSD (Samsung 840 EVO for example or 850 PRO on more budget) gives you speed, much speed, get at least 250GB. You will need a big HDD also, 2 or 3 TB is fine. (I suggest to get a NAS also whith 2x 3TB HDD in raid 1 - mirroring mode, I'am using the DLink DNS320L.)
Photoshop can use your video card so i suggest to get a dedicated one, but don't spend too much on it. I suggest AMD, because Photoshop uses OpenCL. (AMD Radeon R7 250 or NVidia GeForce 750 are fine.)

[ablundon]

I just built a system for my parents for about $650 Canadian using a Canadian computer parts supplier (they price match so if you find the same component cheaper somewhere else, they will match). I built it myself (takes a couple of hours).

Take off $100 for Windows makes it a $550 system. 1 TB WD Blue HDD. 128 GB Crucial SSD. i3 4160 processor. ASRock MB. 8 GB GSkill RAM. DVD writer (for the odd DVD/CD) that still exists. Corsair 430 Watt PS. Fractal Design Mid Tower Case. It's a pretty fast system with room for expansion. It uses an onboard graphics but I think for LR that is probably fine. You may wish to have a larger HDD if you are storing mass quantities of Photos (especially RAW files). Try without a dedicated video card first. If it is too slow, it is easy to add one.

I would also recommend some form of backup. A NAS with mirrored drives is nice. I personally use a nightly backup system to an onsite storage system and to an offsite storage system.

[esrandall]

Intel Core i5-4440, Asus GeForce GTX 750 Ti, Corsair Graphite Series 230T Grey - Mitch basic build - agent38ddd's Saved Part List - PCPartPicker

Notes:

LR doesn't use the GPU, but PS does. You can see how PS performs with onboard graphics, and then add a dedicated card when you can afford it.

You can dump the SSD to save cost, but their speed, low power, and low heat factors are great.

Your budget is really tight, so that's why I went with a 1TB drive. In all reality, you should run at minimum a RAID 1, or look into some sort of cloud storage/NAS box setup.

Case and PSU are cheap -- but good performers. Don't be tempted to save more money by going with an off-brand PSU, as it should be the cornerstone of any build that you care about.

Motherboard is basic in features, but plenty for the non-gamer/non-overclocker (sounds like you)

Low-end Intel quad proc is preferable over it's AMD counterpart, as they are faster.

When working with PS -- the more RAM, the better. You can drop this to 8GB to save money, but just make sure that if you do, you go with a single 8GB stick. A few people will say that's a bad idea because you'll lose the little performance boost from running dual-channel, but in the real world, that performance boost is negligible, so you're much better off preserving your upgrade path (you only have 4 RAM slots) by using a single 8GB stick, and then adding more 8GB sticks as you can afford it.

[robthebloke]

Fast ram (2133mhz), at least 8gb. Install it in pairs - it's daft not too!

Fast hard drive (ssd preferably, hybrid 7200mhz drive otherwise)

Best monitor you can afford (because it will outlast the rest of the PC). IPS is usually best for decent colours, although the newish Samsung 4k monitor isn't bad at all.

Decent motherboard (I'd recommend asus myself). Make sure it has 4+ ram slots, and lots of usb3 + sata iii ports.

Get a case with 12cm fan bays (it will be quieter than ones with 8cm fans)

As for CPU, go for a haswell/broadwell i5 if you can afford it (i7 if you're loaded), or if budget is an issue, an AMD A10. (Switching out an amd CPU + motherboard two years down the line for Intel, is a better option, than having an Intel CPU now, but at the expense of the other components).

Get a hybrid-modular power supply (the lowest power that will meet your needs)

Last but not least, cable ties. The last thing you want are messy cables blocking the airflow through your case.

[tvdtvdtvd]

A dedicated graphics card will give you noticeable improved performance with rendering tasks, (sharpen, color correction,
curves, etc). I have two computers, a four year old Dell and a 6 month old Mac Book Pro.

Dell:
i5
4GB RAM
dedicated Nvidia graphics card, (don't have the specs in front of me)

Mac Book Pro:
i5
16GB RAM
integrated graphics only

The Dell handles PP rendering tasks noticeably faster than the Mac Book Pro. The Mac is not so slow to be
frustrating, but it will be the last time I buy a computer without a dedicated graphics card.

[emalvick]

Everyone has covered a lot.

There is what you budgeted and then what you might need. Computer building becomes economical the more you're willing to spend and the higher end of a PC you get out of it. Building seems to be geared towards gamers and realistically, the cost of building computers from a low end computer to a high end computer aren't that different. What ends up happening is that you can't build a low end system for nearly as cheap as what a build low end system might cost. If you plan your costs, you'll find that items such as the operating system, wi-fi card, CD/DVD drive, power supply, case, etc have a certain cost that can end up eating $200 out of a PC budget before you've even gotten to the truly important components.

Of course, you can save on some of those items (perhaps use Linux or get the bargain bin prices for those components), but you do get what you pay for, and I've found that trying to cut costs at the network card or DVD drive doesn't pay off too well. Those cheap items rarely last past their warranty period, and customer service for some of those companies is about as good as the $20 you paid for the component in the first place.

Then when you go to buy the motherboard, RAM, hard-drives, CPU, etc, you quickly find that the difference in cost from some of the lower spec'd items isn't that different than if you put in a little bit extra for a mid-range component. For instance, getting 16 GB of RAM isn't that much more than 8 GB. Getting a 1 or 2 TB hard-drive isn't that big of a difference in cost. Getting an SSD is expensive, but it can be worth it as that made the biggest difference in system performance on my current PC.

I also think it is worth building or leaving room for a little more than you think you need. My current PC has room to go out to 32 GB of RAM, which is great because now that I have the K-3, I think I might need it. The file size makes everything lag just a bit.

Good luck.

[NicoleC]

I just want to add, please do not compare performance with any laptop. Laptops have a different class of processors and are optimized for speed vs. battery performance. Laptop processors are generally much slower.

[Merts]

My two cents worth. I reckon most people would get a much bigger performance gain from an SSD for OS and programs rather than going for 32MB RAM (instead of 16). I've just ordered a new system, and that's what I decided on. The 250GB SSD was actually a bit cheaper than the extra RAM would have been. SSDs have gone up in size and come down in price significantly in recent times.

I also went for a BENQ 27 inch IPS display which can be accurately colour calibrated, and a Gigabyte GTX750 TI 2GB graphics card. Whilst on board graphics might be okay (most of the time) for photo editing, if you ever want to muck around with video you will need a half decent graphics card.

As far as network cards and DVD drives go, I'd be surprised if you could find a current motherboard which didn't have a LAN port built in, and DVD burners are cheap regardless of the brand.

[MadMathMind]

There is what you budgeted and then what you might need. Computer building becomes economical the more you're willing to spend and the higher end of a PC you get out of it. Building seems to be geared towards gamers and realistically, the cost of building computers from a low end computer to a high end computer aren't that different. What ends up happening is that you can't build a low end system for nearly as cheap as what a build low end system might cost. If you plan your costs, you'll find that items such as the operating system, wi-fi card, CD/DVD drive, power supply, case, etc have a certain cost that can end up eating $200 out of a PC budget before you've even gotten to the truly important components.

This is my recommendation as well. If you're looking to spend $1000, then building your own will get you a LOT more than buying a prebuilt one. If you're looking to spend $500...it's best to invest in a refurbished one and then upgrade as you see fit. RAM can be upgraded very cheaply, for one. Hard drives are cheap.

The OS is what really will kill you. If you have one lying around you can install (or are willing to go Linux), then it's much better. Otherwise, you're looking at $100 for a new OEM copy of Windows. The cost of Windows as part of a prebuilt system...something like $15 or $20. HUGE difference. The CPU cooler is another one. Many processors come bundled with them, but the stock coolers are pretty loud. If you want a quiet one, it will set you back $30-50 or more.

Another area that chews your budget is the case. When you buy a system, you don't have to care since you don't have to work in it. Working in a bad case is a nightmare. A good case will cost $75-100, especially if you want one made of aluminum and/or one that has 120mm fans to avoid making your system sound like a jet plane about to take off. A good case will include decent fans you won't want to replace. A cheap one will have loud 80mm fans with the cheapest bearings. If you've built before, you can recycle the case (helps a lot), of course.

So, to summarize:
OS: $100
Case: $75
CPU cooler: $35
DVD drive: $15

We're at $220 and we don't have a motherboard, CPU, RAM, or power yet. Power is the one thing people often chinse on. If you buy a $50 power supply, you will probably get the pleasure of buying another one in a couple years. Of all components I've had fail, it's been the power supplies that cut out after 3 years. I usually get a small one because I've never had a big graphics card that needed anything big, but even the $80-100 ones die. I've bought major brands...Antec, Thermaltake, OCZ. Probably should have sprung for a better one than those, even.

---------- Post added 12-15-14 at 10:24 PM ----------

Fast ram (2133mhz), at least 8gb. Install it in pairs - it's daft not too!

Fast RAM isn't going to make a huge difference for still images. The amount matters a lot more. Fast RAM is needed in applications where bursts of bandwidth are needed--games are the big one. Keep in mind that enterprise-class workstations use ECC RAM, usually at speeds significantly slower than the fastest RAM available. The ECC itself slows it down a lot as well. In the end, there's no real performance loss because even the bandwidth that the slower ECC RAM provides is overkill.

[emalvick]

Of all components I've had fail, it's been the power supplies that cut out after 3 years. I usually get a small one because I've never had a big graphics card that needed anything big, but even the $80-100 ones die. I've bought major brands...Antec, Thermaltake, OCZ. Probably should have sprung for a better one than those, even.

And I think one of the issues with power is that people don't factor in the power consumption of all components. Of course the video can be a big power suck but each drive you add, each ram module, fan, motherboard, USB ports, etc take a little bit of Wattage. Couple that with the fact that power consumption is not constant despite being reported as such. As a result, a custom built power supply should err with more wattage than you need by at least 10% or maybe 50 watts. Then, you have to also allow for the possibility of expansion. If you add a hard drive later then you might need more power than you use at first.

All this led to a dead power supply on an older computer, and now I've been in a much better place with the past two computers that I bothered to construct appropriately.

While computer building has gotten fairly simple, it is far from trivial because of all the added things.

[robthebloke]

Fast RAM isn't going to make a huge difference for still images. The amount matters a lot more. Fast RAM is needed in applications where bursts of bandwidth are needed--games are the big one. Keep in mind that enterprise-class workstations use ECC RAM, usually at speeds significantly slower than the fastest RAM available. The ECC itself slows it down a lot as well. In the end, there's no real performance loss because even the bandwidth that the slower ECC RAM provides is overkill.

Nonsense.

If you have a Xeon based PC with ECC, it will be quad channel (rather than dual channel found in consumer grade hardware). You're also ignoring the ridiculous amount of CPU cache that xeons ship with (20mb for each of the two CPUs I use at work). Comparing the two is just a bit silly.

If, as the op's budget implies, you are going for integrated graphics, get the fastest ram you can afford. It will be shared between CPU/GPU, so skimping there is just insane. Shovelling pixels at a full HD monitor is a task that will benefit from faster ram.

Fast ram is useful when you are consistently working on a data set larger than your CPU cache. A 24mp raw image fits this bill, and you'll notice the difference as soon as you throw a few layers at Photoshop.

[Merts]

I was under the impression that to run 2133 RAM you need a more expensive motherboard. When you take that and the extra cost of the RAM into account, wouldn't you just be better off to get a separate graphics card?

[robthebloke]

Can't talk about US prices (since I'm a Brit), but on the intel side, you'll need a 'z97' rather than a 'h97' that may cost £10 more. On the amd side, the cost difference is about £5 (just get an A88). As for ram costs, the difference between 1333mhz vs 2133mhz ram is £6 per 8gb.

So for essentially £16 (or £11 on amd), you get a 60% improvement in you integrated gpu performance. If it's an intel z97/z87 (preferably z97) or amd A88 motherboard, all should be good.

Well, kind of. You will need to set the ram speed manually in the motherboard bios (on intel anyway).

Buying a cheap gpu card isn't worth it these days. You'd be better off buying a decent £150 ish graphics card a couple of years down the line.