[Ex Finn.]

m.2 of any size for a boot drive with an unlocked Intel processor, no less than 16 GB memory and as much nvme SSD of memory as you think you might use in the future? Plus the mandatory spinners for storage. Just a thought,.

[RAART]

You can start looking for a PC with those specs:
CPU - i5, even i3 will do the job but need to have high clocked CPU over 3.0
RAM - 16GB or even more if you do panoramic landscape shoots
HD - SSD (best); HHD (a middle, Hybrid Hard Drive with 8GB SSD) and regular Hard Drive with 2TB (I trusted with this WD Red HD) for storage or NAS solution to be added later
Graphics - If you are not gaming then I will recommend Radeon Pro WX 4100 or middle priced nVidia solution
Display - BenQ SW2700PT and add calibration device to it

That's my recommendation for the new PC and this will be good for at least next 5 years... Just remember that you can go with any IE: Dell, Lenovo, HP etc. and add what is necessary after or let someone build you a PC and make sure that PSU (power supply unit) is big enough to cope with all of this, especially if you getting straight from store (or online) PC.

Pay attention that all hardware is compatible with OS you plan to use.

[dafbp]

Get the best you can afford, but have a minimum of a 256gb ssd for the OS and programs, another 3tb for storage, and try to get either an i7 or Ryzen processor. Also, minimum of 8gb ram, 16 is better. Don't listen to people who tell you to go for a system that is the equivalent of 5 year old tech.

Excellent advice.
Just add a Good monitor (essential), IPS or similar, preferably with factory calibration (or you can buy a decent calibrator for around 100).
27" for WQHD (also called QHD), or 32" minimum for 4k/UHD.
Look for tests online giving small DeltaE (color deviation).


I've just upgraded to a Ryzen 5 1500x and I can now browse 16MP RAW files in real time. And my games aren't complaining.
Still haven't seen more than 8G used (out of 16), no matter how many tabs I have open (and with FHD+QHD monitors I do open Lots of them). 16GB is the unofficial minimum, but very rarely do you need more.

---------- Post added 11-14-17 at 12:44 PM ----------

And a normal SSD is fine, don't need NVME unless you're into video editing.
The big differences you see in tests don't show when running/launching programs. Your programs won't load in 1/4 of the time.
Save the money to go above 250GB, or improve something else in the system.

[Lord Lucan]

What ever you get, get a SSD (solid state drive) , it will speed up your processing and file transfers immensely.

SSDs are a storage medium, and the advantage they have over hard drives is that they speed up transfers from storage to memory, and back. They do not speed up processing. If you find your processing seems faster with SSD, I suspect your memory is paging to and from storage because the memory is not big enough for the job, and the delay is not actually in the processing - it is in the paging. The best (and the more economical) answer to that is to fit more memory.

If I am going to spend 5 minutes (or longer) post-processing a picture, I don't really care whether it takes 0.1 seconds or 2 seconds to load into memory from storage.

[honey bo bo]

Ideapad 300 (15") | Configurable 15.6" Laptop | Lenovo US
15" screen has very good Photo screening. I use lap tops rather than desk top because they are much more mobile of course and take up a lot less space. We used lap tops exclusively in our business for years because of that and the fact that they have their own battery back up in case of power failure giving us more than enough time to shut down without losing our work and even giving us an hour to work until power was restored. We added of course wireless key boards, mouses, all-in-one printers and large monitor screens to this configuation.

[dsmithhfx]

SSDs are a storage medium, and the advantage they have over hard drives is that they speed up transfers from storage to memory, and back. They do not speed up processing. If you find your processing seems faster with SSD, I suspect your memory is paging to and from storage because the memory is not big enough for the job, and the delay is not actually in the processing - it is in the paging. The best (and the more economical) answer to that is to fit more memory.

If I am going to spend 5 minutes (or longer) post-processing a picture, I don't really care whether it takes 0.1 seconds or 2 seconds to load into memory from storage.

They also do not speed up "file transfers", the speed of which depends on your network.

[jatrax]

It's a good thing that no one even heard of image processing until the SSD came along then, isn't it! The nice thing about it is, you can start just fine without an SSD, and, if you still feel you can't live without one, you can add it later. With 8GB of RAM, you aren't going to notice any benefit after an image is loaded. Think of it this way: your cpu is going to sit idle for long periods while you decide stuff and go deal with interruptions and distractions, then you are going to tell it to execute various instructions in short bursts. Do you really think it's going to matter to you if the processing takes 4-seconds instead of 2? Unless you are some kind of maniac with a stopwatch, probably not.

Have you actually ever used an SSD? Regardless, I disagree with you. Of all the elements that can be changed in a computer the SSD has made the most impact for me. Unlike the CPU it is used all the time and with the operating system on the SSD the over all speed of the computer is noticeably faster for all operations. And no I have no stop watch. If I needed a stop watch to see the difference I would not call it noticeable.

We are talking a $100 addition that visibly improves performance 24/7. And adding an SSD later is not simple for the untrained. Windows adapts itself to to an HD or an SSD when installed and swapping out the HD for an SSD later leaves you woth an SSD system optimized for an HD. That can be fixed after but requires a level of expertise not everyone has.

I respect your opinion, I just disagree with it.

[dsmithhfx]

Have you actually ever used an SSD? Regardless, I disagree with you. Of all the elements that can be changed in a computer the SSD has made the most impact for me. Unlike the CPU it is used all the time and with the operating system on the SSD the over all speed of the computer is noticeably faster for all operations. And no I have no stop watch. If I needed a stop watch to see the difference I would not call it noticeable.

We are talking a $100 addition that visibly improves performance 24/7. And adding an SSD later is not simple for the untrained. Windows adapts itself to to an HD or an SSD when installed and swapping out the HD for an SSD later leaves you woth an SSD system optimized for an HD. That can be fixed after but requires a level of expertise not everyone has.

I respect your opinion, I just disagree with it.

Respectfully suggest you review the O.P.

[mohb]

Nobody seeems to be curious about what the OP will be doing PP on, if it's only jpeg then surely any modern PC will do the job, if its K1 Raw files then it's a different story.

[jatrax]

Respectfully suggest you review the O.P.

Did. And in my personal experience the addition of an SSD would take priority over money spent on CPU, GPU, MB or memory. Again I respect your opinion, I just do not agree. Mine is based on personal experience building computers from MB up to run Lightroom. My rig is far more than the OP wants or needs but the relative contribution to overall speed and ease of use by various components is not going to change because the budget is smaller. I remain firmly convinced that an SSD should be the foundation of any new build computer.

Since we seem to have strayed from the purpose of helping the OP perhaps we can just disagree and let the OP make his own decision.

[tegual]

Realistically SSD vs HDD is irrelevant, it boils down to can the OP afford it. If he can afford one he absolutely put one in as general usage, start up, shut down will all feel and be snappier/faster. People can debate the merits of one over the other till the cows come home but as others have said it the most important part to photo editing is the monitor.

I will make a side note that if the OP is intending to do lots of work with layers when editing then editing then the benefits of an SSD come into play far more as does more ram. I have gotten files with hundreds of layers and opening then is painful when off a HDD and just not possible without a large amount of RAM.

Starting specs one might consider
CPU: i5 (cheaper and quite capable), i7 (more cores and higher clock speeds are better but at a cost), Ryzen is good but i don't have experience with these i think the 1500/1600 would be pretty good from what other people have said.
RAM: 8gig (perfectly fine for the average user), 16gig (much more "future proof and allows bigger files and more filters/layer etc)
Storage: 128/256gig SSD (great for working off and general speed for windows, using your SSD as your scratch disk will improve the speed of photoshop at the possible expense of longevity ), 2-4tb HDD (more storage means more photos you can keep)
Graphics card: Not actually necessary but depending on the cpu you might need one, any decent modern day card will do ie 1060
Motherboard: The cheapest you can find with everything you need (wifi/bluetooth/USB3,3.1/etc)
PSU: NEVER EVER cheap out on the PSU it is the single most import thing inside of you computer a good quality 550/650 watt EVGA, Corsair, SeaSonic
Monitor: Really depends on you budget as screen go from a few hundred to tens of thousands but the factory calibrated Dells are a good start, and if that is too much a good quality IPS with a calibration tool can be almost as good (be aware that the more often you calibrate the more your screen stays the right colour, as screens get older their colour changes subtly)

[Ex Finn.]

Graphics card: Not actually necessary

Graphics card: Not actually necessary but

An absolute necessity to drive a 4k monitor. You have very good other points.

[tegual]

An absolute necessity to drive a 4k monitor. You have very good other points.

You are mostly right and I didn't consider a 4k monitor, some inbuilt gpus can do 4k just not well, either way I would suggest a cheap graphics card as they give you more options especially multi monitor setup.

[Blackwolfe]

Thanks for all the replies folks. There's a lot of information here to read, comprehend, and digest. I saw some references to video, so thought I would ad that I don't have any interest in video, so don't see a reason for a higher end system capable of video work. I'm not a gamer either, so don't need a gaming computer, though from what I understand gaming computers would be capable of photo editing functions. I'm just getting into this, so not sure how in depth into photo editing and post processing I'll get. As far as budget goes, I don't really have a budget yet. I figure a certain minimum amount of dollars will need to be spent to meet the minimum configuration necessary to do the job. I think there may be a benefit to getting a desktop computer that somewhat exceeds the bare minimum requirements at an expected greater cost, but just don't want to overspend on a system that grossly exceeds what is necessary.

[Alex645]

I think there may be a benefit to getting a desktop computer that somewhat exceeds the bare minimum requirements at an expected greater cost, but just don't want to overspend on a system that grossly exceeds what is necessary.

I'd agree with you there. Getting the minimum will work for a year or two, but it's a false economy as you'll need to reinvest in keeping up with new minimums for newer OS, more demanding software and larger files. Getting top gear is a luxury unless you've got money to burn. The smart money is usually in the mid-tier technology that isn't overpriced, but exceeds today's minimums to match tomorrow's.