New computer planned, but how best to spend the money

[roadcone]

Hello,

I am intending to purchase a new computer and use it principally for processing RAW files with Affinity (and other similar software).

My budget is not unlimited so it would help me to understand what would benefit Affinity and RAW processing the most. Should I spend my money more on a higher specification processor, on a bigger, better dedicated graphics processor or on a larger amount of system memory.

It would help me greatly if a knowledgeable user could rank Processor, GPU and Memory as '1', '2' and '3' in respect of how each benefits Affinity. I am trying to avoid a mistake whereby I get the biggest and best of one thing to discover I should have got a bigger and better something else! The operating system (W10) and Affinity would be installed on a solid state disk and the images stored on a separate spinning disk in the same computer.

Basic spec is 8GB or 16GB of system memory; a dedicated GPU (but a basic one with 2GB or a better one with more?); then the processor options are many - AMD Ryzen or Intel and the '3', '5', '7' or '9' range. My present seven year old laptop manages with 8GB, Intel i7 4300 and Nvidia GT870 with 2GB ram.

Thank you. Kind regards, Clive

[Blende21]

Sequence of importance:

1. RAM, at least 16GB
2. GPU / again with enough RAM, 4GB dedicated RAM 
3. CPU, usually a current i5-type will do, if the GPU takes the load. Currently the advantage of performance/$ is with AMD.
4. Fast interfaces, USB 3.2 or even better Thunderbolt 3. USB-C alone says nothing about performance, and Gigabit LAN is sloooow.

Rethink the Disk issue, 1TB of internal SATA SSD is currently appr. 100 €/$ only. And it makes working much smoother. More modern SSD will be more expensive, but a lot faster than SATA as well.

P.S. I am working on a Mac, where GPUs are supported. So I just saw „no GPU support currently on Windows“. Then skip pos.2 and go for a strong CPU. Or get yourself a Mac ...

[roadcone]

First of all, thank you for your reply and comments. I left it a while to see if anyone else added any views. 

Secondly, I am iPhobic. I am fairly Windows phobic also but Affinity (and other similar software) does not come on my OS of choice (Linux). 

Windows does support dedicated GPUs; Intel chips have them embedded but will support a second dedicated one while AMD does not have one embedded so a dedicated one is necessary. 

I am rethinking the image storage disk. In any case it would be in the computer on a SATA connection rather than USB or NAS and remote.

I asked the same question of DxO and their software is processor hungry and uses the GPU 'only' for rendering so they put processor first and GPU third (odd, we sit and watch as each image renders but can often batch process in the background or go away and leave it take its time). They too added a remark about the need to get the images to the software quickly which is solely down to storage disk capability. 

Thank you again, and have a good one. 

Clive

[walt.farrell]

1 hour ago, roadcone said:

Windows does support dedicated GPUs; Intel chips have them embedded but will support a second dedicated one while AMD does not have one embedded so a dedicated one is necessary. 

AMD CPUs do not have embedded graphics. AMD APUs do.

Note that Affinity on Mac makes much more use of the GPU today than Affinity on Windows. This gives better performance on Mac for a number of tasks than you may get today on Windows. Serif have said that they're working on better GPU support for Windows, but it's a hard task as the number of hardware options for graphics is larger on Windows.

 

[R C-R]

4 hours ago, walt.farrell said:

AMD APUs do.

Affinity Processing Units? 

[tafkab76]

Maybe I can hang on this thread instead of starting a new one, for I have a similar question.

I am also planning on upgrading my desktop computer and I am struggling which CPU to buy. To be more precise I am thinking about getting an AMD cpu for the first time. Are there any cpu brand recommendations regarding Affinity photo for WIndows?

 

 

[roadcone]

Hello tafkab76,

Happy for you to hang on this thread. I can't offer a recommendation but I can share some information. I approached PC Specialist online for a recommendation for both a laptop and desktop. The laptop offer includes an Intel chip but the desktop does not.

Desktop spec is:

Mini case
AMD Ryzen 7 3700X Eight Core CPU (3.6GHz-4.4GHz/36MB CACHE/AM4)
Gigabyte B450 I AORUS PRO WIFI (DDR4, USB 3.1, 6Gb/s)
16GB Corsair VENGEANCE DDR4 3200MHz (2 x 8GB)
4GB NVIDIA GEFORCE GTX 1650 SUPER - HDMI
2TB Samsung 860 QVO 2.5" SSD, SATA 6Gb/s (upto 550MB/sR | 520MB/sW) [image storage]
8TB SEAGATE BARRACUDA SATA-III 3.5" HDD, 6GB/s, 5400RPM, 256MB CACHE [backup for many things]
1TB SAMSUNG 970 EVO PLUS M.2, PCIe NVMe (up to 3500MB/R, 3300MB/W) [boot/program disk]
CORSAIR 550W TXm SERIESTM SEMI-MODULAR 80 PLUS® GOLD, ULTRA QUIET
1 x 1 Metre UK Power Cable (Kettle Lead)
Corsair H60 2018 Hydro Series High Performance CPU Cooler
STANDARD THERMAL PASTE FOR SUFFICIENT COOLING
ONBOARD 6 CHANNEL (5.1) HIGH DEF AUDIO (AS STANDARD)
GIGABIT LAN PORT + Wi-Fi (Wi-Fi excluded on H310I-PLUS)
MIN. 2 x USB 3.0 & 4 x USB 2.0 PORTS @ BACK PANEL + MIN. 2 FRONT PORTS
Windows 10 Home 64 Bit - inc. Single Licence [KUK-00001]

The total price is just over £1,600 without monitor, but that includes an 8TB disk for backup so take off, say, £200.

PC Specialist advice was for a very fast boot/program disk but a modest spec storage (after all, if a photo loads in 200ms with a modest disk, do you need to pay twice as much to get it to load in 100ms).

Just to close loop ... laptop was from their Fusion Pro series, 15.6" FHD OLED screen, 100% sRGB, no 8TB disk but otherwise same basic spec. CPU: Intel® CoreTM i7 Six Core Processor 9750H (2.6GHz, 4.5GHz Turbo). Total cost £1,475. To be frank, this would be a no-brainer had it have had an IPS not OLED. I have experience of TN and IPS but not of OLED (except on my phone). I wonder if the highly saturated screen will cause me to process images to suit that screen but when viewed on less 'colourful' screens the processing may be found wanting. Given that one can't just pension off the screen (as you can with a desktop) if it proves unsatisfactory, the expenditure of this much money for something which might not be suitable is not something I will do. Dell and Mesh Computers prices for this spec. of laptop are both higher. Generally it is difficult to find a laptop that will offer a 2TB disk, or even an empty SATA bay. And if you then go to M.2 you need one that has two slots. Far easier if one is happy to have images on a remote drive.

TTFN

Clive

[SrPx]

Okay... I believe RAWs is mostly CPU. Only the devs here know for sure, but if they'd reply every hardware question, then no time to code, lol. I'd prioritize mostly on CPU. Yep, AMD all the way. Simply put, you can scale up cheaper, upgrade later on better than with intel, and quite more cores. Affinity uses well multiple cores, unlike some other competitors. And if is for fear of till what point could you upgrade, with a good B450 motherboard , you can even get (once those get cheaper) a 3950X. And the difference even with an already powerful 3700x is ...HUGE. Heck, slower clock, yet, for work, even better than an intel i9 9900K or KS (the heck of a machine, tho, but way fewer cores...this shows dramatically in render tests). 

So, me applauds the 3700X choice.  It's 8 cores, 16 threads. And with all the improvements in generations since Ryzen made its estelar 1700 release. 

The only doubt is that AMD is now launching, pretty soon the 4000 series. I mean... if it'd be possible...I WOULD WAIT. Not necessarily to get a 4000 cpu, but as eveyrthing else can get cheaper. Some stuff not really significantly cheaper, but a lot will. In the opposite side, the super low end, a 1600 has got 100$, or 80$ in some places. While is a six cores, 12 threads machine that in my books is not a poor CPU. And the 2700x, an 8c/16 thread machine, I believe is 130$, which is crazy. Probably the best deal in years for a CPU. So, what deals would bring the 4000 series release..No idea. But this release is expected now, first moments of the 2020... It was scheduled for much later, but AMD seems to be "in the zone", lol.

The GPU of choice, that 1650, is the one I typically am recommending for work in "affordable" budgets, as is definitely better than the 1050 ti 4GB, and I have a 1050 2GB version (there are more differences than the memory, in that one, happens often with nVidia) which is surprisingly fine for many GPU based apps. I would NOT go AMD for the graphic card. IMO, they offer better deals for the price almost across all the spectrum, but still the professional apps are much better prepared for CUDA, so you would end up getting quite less for your work; in some cases, even no compatibility at all (CUDA only apps). If was for gaming, I'd just get an AMD RX 570 (am cheap, I know...), or 590. Or some other more recent good cards. But I don't play anymore... So, the 1650 is fine. Beyond that, I'd go to a 1660 (similar in performance to an old 1070), it has 6GB, so, that's good for rendering, both 3D and video (depending on the app). Further considerations is if you do a lot of 3D rendering and with what. In general, for 3D you end up needing both, a good cpu and a good gpu. For video... Premiere is increasingly using more the GPU, but is mostly CPU. Although until 10 cores, beyond that, not much of a gain as the app still not capable of utilize effectively more (and how much time will be so is sth we never know with Adobe). In that scenario, the 3700x, a good fit, imo. Now, if using Davinci Resolve for video, then yes or yes is the card, it mostly uses that. But a poor CPU would be a bottle neck. If heavily using video and Davinci, the focus (as an ideal situation, as these cards are super expensive) would be a 1080 or even 2080, to get the most of it.  Not that is needed for a lot of workflows. I know even dedicating a lot of time to video projects I wouldn't go past a 1660 or a RTX 2600.

Blender benefits a lot from a good card in the viewport, now with EEVEE. Also for rendering in Cycles scenes that fit in your card VRAM. So, for Blender is quite important the card's memory. Unless they've already been able to use system memory for those cases, am not sure (am only illustrating and designing, late months). Neither in how it'd be an impact in rendering speed if  that happens.

All this considering Windows PCs, no Mac platform, as is not my cup of tea.

For RAWs editing, well, is not my field (tho I handle often huge files), but I'd be to bet in CPU, RAM (you can even get 32 GB to play safe) and disk. I'm still wary on the limited writes of an SSD, no matter if the limit is around 2 petabytes, as people working with huge press files (my case) and video (often my case) do write tons of GBs to the disk per month. But, if happy to be ready to change the SSD from time to time (they've become a tad cheaper, so...and I believe they just brick before going out of duty...), IMO is a total must for tasks as heavy as RAW editing. I have no clue on how much can last an  SSD used as  cache and for storing the working file. Obviously with a good 4, 6 or 8 terabytes internal disk also in the machine to store the files you are not working with (and surely counting also on USB external disks for backup). Those, I'd prefer them to be Seagate Barracuda at 7200 rpm. Some people uses yet 5400 rpm (a lot of old laptops) disks, and I do notice them quite slower. I have never used a 10.000 rpm disk, so I dunno how good they are. Still, WAY slow compared to SSDs, that for sure. The SSD do heat up a lot, too.

But yeah, CPU, RAM, Disk, GPU, that'd be my priority order for a situation like this. And unless there's solid data of Affinity working better on intel (frankly, no clue. They'll know...), is a total win for AMD Ryzen here. As... Well, for really serious stuff, I'd go with the incoming (some already released) Threadripper models, WAY more powerful. Even in mainstream, the (top in that range) beast that is a 3950X (the one I told you that could be the last upgrade of the AM4 platform you'd get. For example, in 1 or 2 years) is like the lil brother of those machines performance wise, all more powerful than this one (so, having carefully checked a lot of 3950X benchmarks... geez, can't even imagine...) . So I can easily imagine (judging on mentioned benchmarks' data) that a 3960x (so, threadripper) and above is the way to go if you need a lot of power for an amazing capability/cost ratio. Speaking of power, these 3960x and 3970x are said to be super power efficient, and that's no small deal in the pro ranges in both AMD and Intel, as at those levels the machines tend to have much higher electricity usage. And I don't mean TDP, but what they really pull out from the wall. So, great news there, too.  Now, that's a different kind of money, yet extremely cheaper than going for a Mac Pro (globally 6k the most basic, but the CPU....) . But not the kind of budget we're handling here, as you already said the Dell's (my favorite brand in PC, I always get Dell for the family and friends, but I mount my machines by pieces, no Dell, no HP, nor anything) offers were already too expensive. 

Unless you have a strong need for a laptop, I'd skip that , and focus on getting a great desktop. But I'm known for hating anything other than a desktop for work... laptops offer way less cooling capability, smaller chips, and so, top speeds, capability and performance can't beat a desktop with same specs in any way. There's less room for everything. And quite pricey compared with a desktop solution of same specs. I'd save my bucks solely for one desktop and keep using whatever mainstream laptop or tablet you already have... Unless the mobile factor is really essential in your workflow, and not just a preference. And if one is handling RAWs and other large files and heavy tasks... It might be by far the best to do. Like using the most recent Threadripper. I believe the 3960x and 3970x can be already purchased, but it's 1400 and 2000 $ ONLY for the CPU. So, yeah, is another range of prices.But the rest of the machine is similar in cost to mainstream. Still, I'd opt for that instead of for a laptop and a desktop, if willing to do heavy work of the RAW editing level. You would get so a mother board (thge only really different component, and not crazily expensive) that could use in the future a 3990x. And rent it to the NASA later on, to recover from the investment.

So, it depends. I don't know the requirements of your workflows. I know a 3700x is the heck of a machine, and quite enough to stay in AM4 (mainstream AMD) for now, but it always depends. Also, the 4000 series are going to be great: You could wait just a bit... 

TLDR version, even for this case I'd get me a 3700x, 32Gb RAM, an SSD (at least 0.5 TB) AND at least a 4 TB HDD (surely configuring the OS and the apps in the SDD, saving only the current working file in the SSD, but being ready to swap the SSD for a new one after some time), and a nVidia 1650 or 1660. Or the 3900X if want a CPU that rivals with the intel i9 9900K in certain professional scenarios where the single core top clock is more important (which is something becoming more and more of the past). But really, the 3700x is quite good. Note that difference between the 3950x and anything else AMD mainstream, or intel mainstream, is quite larger than, say, the 3900x and the 3700x. The 3950x is sth I have a VERY hard time calling mainstream, tho technically, is.  

EDIT: BTW, CES is I believe the 7th this month, the day after tomorrow? I also think AMD might show a first desktop series 4000 (Zen 3)  there, or advance some info about it. It's just 2 days of waiting... If it were like waiting till October or half the year, I'd understand an immediate purchase of whatever. But not only for the series , also as everything else could lower the prices. Even intel. In some bits I've read the performance increase over series 3000 is 17%, in other places, that it will mean much more.

[roadcone]

SrPx,

Thank you for your full and helpful post, particularly the comments about the AMD GPU. The price is close enough to the GTX to not be a deciding factor. I was edging towards the AMD _only_ because it has twice the RAM. Because I do not play games, all the games-playing features are not needed. I'll rethink the card based on your observations - many reviews rate the AMD as faster, but they qualify it with a 'last year's technology' caution.

A conversation with PC Specialist has prompted a slight change to their quote. The boot disk was originally quoted as 1TB SAMSUNG 970 EVO PLUS M.2, PCIe NVMe (up to 3500MB/R, 3300MB/W) but is now a 1TB CORSAIR MP600 GEN 4 PCIe NVMe (up to 4950MB/R, 4250MB/W) for pretty much the same price. So, I think I am there: AMD Ryzen 7 3700X, ASUS® PRIME B450-PLUS, 4GB NVIDIA GEFORCE GTX 1650 SUPER, 1TB CORSAIR MP600 GEN 4 PCIe NVMe. Just have to decide if the budget will stand 32GB RAM or put in 1x16 and add 16 later. The rest of the spec. is noise and less emotive.

Clive