PhotoRealism wrote:
How many GHz of processing power, and how powerful of a graphics card, would I need to do basic RAW file editing without the irritating delays when the computer is making and saving my edits?

define your length of delay at the transition point when it would become "irritating".

first there is more to "irritating" delays than Ghz and graphic card. I have a old laptop that is now being used for only bookkeeping and letter writing that loads images so fast, people are amazed. also have a video workstation with two xenon 6 core 2.8 ghz processors and 48G three channel ecc ram and a graphics processor that will handle 4k 3d video.

there are modern "powerful" desktops i've seen that are very slow because the user has itunes, nikon, chrome, adobe, cloud, microsoft office, antivirus, old printer drivers, un-installed old unused software loaders, os update all running in the background. then there are mm users who want to browse tens of thousands of images at once instantly.

most of my photoshop/still image work is done on a dual core 1.8 ghz pentium with 8G ram and the 24 and 50 megapixel  images with 5-10 layers load and edit with no problems. it has more to do with how much junk you have loaded and how well the box has been optimized.

Ad Alex wrote:
For Photoshop CPU and RAM are the things you don't want to skimp on. It can also use GPU for additional processing power, but that can be turned off. Also to make it run faster install it on SSD and set the scratch disk to be SSD as well.

As for what's needed, any modern high-end (ish) CPU will do, but more powerful the better of course. I have built mine few months ago, Intel i7 7700k watercooled and overclocked, 32 GB of 3000Mhz RAM, ASUS ROG 1080, ASUS Maximus IX motherboard, plus lots of storage. Everything is smooth.

EDIT: Sorry, but you have added the Apple bit after I started my reply. It will have to be somebody else to help you with Apple products.

I really appreciate your input, and the specifics you provided will be of help as I compare the cost savings of going with a Windows setup instead of Apple. I like Apple software, but you pay for it...

Leonard Gee Photography wrote:
define your length of delay at the transition point when it would become "irritating".

first there is more to "irritating" delays than Ghz and graphic card. I have a old laptop that is now being used for only bookkeeping and letter writing that loads images so fast, people are amazed. also have a video workstation with two xenon 6 core 2.8 ghz processors and 48G three channel ecc ram and a graphics processor that will handle 4k 3d video.

there are modern "powerful" desktops i've seen that are very slow because the user has itunes, nikon, chrome, adobe, cloud, microsoft office, antivirus, old printer drivers, un-installed old unused software loaders, os update all running in the background. then there are mm users who want to browse tens of thousands of images at once instantly.

most of my photoshop/still image work is done on a dual core 1.8 ghz pentium with 8G ram and the 24 and 50 megapixel  images with 5-10 layers load and edit with no problems. it has more to do with how much junk you have loaded and how well the box has been optimized.

Delay... If an image takes more than a few seconds to open or save after I initiate the command, it gets irritating over the course of many hundreds of photos. Also, I am currently dealing with a computer that requires sometimes 5 or 6 seconds to apply an edit to the photo. I'm not super tech savvy, so I consulted several friends who gave me fairly vague recommendations to look into faster processors and better graphics cards, as well as SSD hard drives. From what you're saying, it sounds to me like a sub-3 GHz processor on a clean, unjunked computer would probably be sufficient for photo editing. I appreciate all your advice, I'm definitely taking notes.

clide wrote:
Well, anything is better than a ten year old laptop. You pretty much have two smart options, build a PC or buy one of the recent Mac desktop computers (2015-present year is the range you should be looking at). Building a PC will usually give you more room for customizing it to your specific needs, but if you have no idea what how to get around to building one or you don't know how to use windows, just ditch this idea. Macs on the other hand are pretty fool proof, the main problem with a Mac is that if you need to repair it, it becomes slightly expensive. Anyways to your original question, you can get away with a processor that is 2.4 ghz and use photoshop. I would be looking into getting a computer that has at least 8-16gb of ram because most of photoshop relies on ram and there is only a couple of tasks in photoshop that require cpu like liquify.

I appreciate your straight-forward advice! The company for which I work at my day job runs Windows 10, so I am familiar with both that and Apple systems -- I just prefer the Apple OS and I've had extremely good reliability and longevity from my old Apple laptop. Thanks for the info on the RAM and processor!

PhotoRealism wrote:

I appreciate your straight-forward advice! The company for which I work at my day job runs Windows 10, so I am familiar with both that and Apple systems -- I just prefer the Apple OS and I've had extremely good reliability and longevity from my old Apple laptop. Thanks for the info on the RAM and processor!

I have an 11 year old Windows laptop that I am using for this reply.  It still works good but is slower than my Windows 10 laptop.   

clide wrote:
...or buy one of the recent Mac desktop computers (2015-present year is the range you should be looking at).(...) Macs on the other hand are pretty fool proof, the main problem with a Mac is that if you need to repair it, it becomes slightly expensive.

I beg to differ. I'm doing a fair amount of compositing work, with file sizes between 1-2gb. And I'm very happy with my 2012 Macmini. Relatively easy/cheap to repair: wifi card,  ram & hard-drive can be replaced. Fan is easy to clean/replace. Of course, if the motherboard was damaged, it'd need to be replaced. But that's the case with any computer.

System specs:
2.3 GHz Intel Core i7
16gb RAM
internal 512gb SSD (system)
internal 1tb HD (storage)
external 128gb SSD on USB3-port (scratch disk)

At the time of purchase, I made a conscientious decision NOT to go for the 2.6Ghz i7 model:
The 2.6 i7 models have a dedicated graphics card. And graphic cards tend to break/overheat on high loads (Apple has a bad history of GPU problems with lots of Macbooks and iMacs). I learnt it the hard way when the GPU in my late 2011 MBP died. That's when I decided that the on-board GPU is good enough for my needs (single screen setup, no gaming, no 3d rendering, etc...).

As for connectivity: The 2012 Macmini has everything I need. 4 usb3 ports, firewire, thunderbolt/screen, HDMI
I would not buy a current MacMini from after 2012: ram is soldered on, so can't be replaced. And: Apple ditched the high-end i7 models. Which is the reason why the 2012 MacMini hasn't lost much value since 2012.

Because I like to choose my own screen, I also would not buy an iMac. And the MacPro's added value/price only lies in video-editing and 3d work. Or if you want more RAM.
For Photoshop, the 2012 MacMini's quad-core i7 is fast enough. The rest depends on RAM, SSD and a scratch SSD.

Ikiri wrote:
I beg to differ.

Uh, besides my mac choices the specs you have are very similar to what I recommended. I only recommended Mac's recent models because they are easy to use and if you don't know how to upgrade a computer part by part, I don't think a soldered in ram would really deter someone from not buying one at that point.

Little Box Graphics wrote:
Don't built a windows machine ever. that's for gamers.

1. An Intel CPU in an Apple box does not run faster than the same Intel CPU in a PC box
2. There is a reason why gamers prefer PC to Mac and that is: you can build a custom system which is more powerful for less money and you are not restricted to something ready-packed for you. So considering the similar high demands of graphic designers... you know what this means.
3. You don't "build a windows machine", you build a custom desktop PC on which you can install any software, preferably free software.

Also, if you mainly are using it for photoshop I fully suggest you get apple, windows are a hassle with keeping everything in order and mac are 99% of the time without any trouble.. Windows are getting closer but mac still is way less complicated to use and the new osx releases are getting better and better.

You seem to evaluate software only from the viewpoint of convenience and that is quite limited because there is much more to it. Today software freedom is becoming more and more important and neither Apple, nor M$ are your friends. If you understand what Snowden and Stallman did/do, you will look at it from a completely different perspective.

@OP recently I found https://puri.sm/ - I haven't bought anything from them but I like their approach. I am unaware of any others who sell computers with Coreboot.

anchev wrote:

1. An Intel CPU in an Apple box does not run faster than the same Intel CPU in a PC box
2. There is a reason why gamers prefer PC to Mac and that is: you can build a custom system which is more powerful for less money and you are not restricted to something ready-packed for you. So considering the similar high demands of graphic designers... you know what this means.
3. You don't "build a windows machine", you build a custom desktop PC on which you can install any software, preferably free software.


You seem to evaluate software only from the viewpoint of convenience and that is quite limited because there is much more to it. Today software freedom is becoming more and more important and neither Apple, nor M$ are your friends. If you understand what Snowden and Stallman did/do, you will look at it from a completely different perspective.

@OP recently I found https://puri.sm/ - I haven't bought anything from them but I like their approach. I am unaware of any others who sell computers with Coreboot.

Thanks for your post!   

clide wrote:

Uh, besides my mac choices the specs you have are very similar to what I recommended. I only recommended Mac's recent models because they are easy to use and if you don't know how to upgrade a computer part by part, I don't think a soldered in ram would really deter someone from not buying one at that point.

Uh, no. Specs might look similar, but the current line-up only offers i5 processors, no i7. Also: the OP mentioned "cutting costs", and a decent used 2012 model will work out cheaper than the new ones.
Old Macminis are as easy to use as current models. And unsoldered ram is as easy to replace as tying shoelaces. Literally takes 10 seconds. If you've ever had ram fail on you, you'll appreciate that quick-swap option.
If you don't want to upgrade "part by part", the system SSD can also be put into a USB3-enclosure and attached externally – i.e. done in 5 minutes, no need to open the Macmini. And works nearly as fast as an internal SSD.

clide wrote:
I don't use mac so the safest option I would give besides building a computer is to buy a recent mac.

If you don't use Macintoshes: Why do you give advise on which Mac to buy? (Genuine question – I don't mean this in a bad way! I just don't understand it... I mean, I don't use PC and therefore I wouldn't give advise on which PC to buy).

clide wrote:
I can't advise someone who isn't that tech savvy to buy a used 2012 mac mini and once the hard drive or ram fails to just expect them to handle that.

If you don't know the 2012 Macmini: How do you know if someone needs to be tech savvy to replace/upgrade the ram?
Anyone can handle this:
https://www.ifixit.com/Guide/Mac+Mini+L … ment/11726

clide wrote:
Also, I'm not sure if all the recent mac towers have only i5s, but the newest laptops that Mac has have i7s in them.

Sorry... my fault. I was talking about MacMinis. The MacPros are XEON E5. But that really is overkill unless you do heavy video or 3d.

clide wrote:
If you want ease of use and convenience, 2015-up Macs.

2012-up
I still don't understand why you've decided for 2015?

Chester Nguyen wrote:
i just want to add a question.
Would 1 512GB SSD be better than 2 256GB SSD?

The company from which I buy hardware explained to me that SSDs which have gigabyte capacity multiple of two (128, 256, 512 etc) are lower grade. They recommend using SSDs which have capacity 120, 240 etc. because of the additional over-provisioning they have.

I'm currently using 2 128GB SSDs (1 for system only, 1 for Lr Catalog and Scratch Disk) and looking for an upgrade.
I use Lr and PS intensively equal.

If you don't want to shorten the life of your SSD it is recommended not use it for intensive scratching/swapping (and to always over provision it). Unlike HDD SSD as a technology has limited write cycles, so write to it as little as possible. Storage hosting providers replace their SSDs every few months.

For best performance - get a lot of RAM and put all scratching on a ramdisk. RAM is much faster than SSD. For OS and programs - SSD. For durable storage - HDD. For durable backup - LTO.