Jump to content
You must now use your email address to sign in [click for more info] ×

Recommended PC Hardware for affinity photo and affinity designer!


Recommended Posts

If you are going to study graphic design (I understand that in a year or so ?) you will really need more space for large and complex compositions. Independently that they may tell you that you need to learn (and make projects) also other software (non existing on the iPad, as a major number of professional software apps aren't there) , even while being AD and AP absolutely amazing (who knows, maybe some day they'll replace CC in universities and companies/jobs. Not yet there, tho....You are the opposite case of a 100% freelancer, specially a seasoned one that already learnt everything with the big machines... for that person, IMO the iPad+AP and AD is absolutely ideal.... (for short sessions)) . "The experience is better"  , I wouldn't agree, in any ways,  but hey. You tell me that when you spend 1 year doing 10 hours a day graphic design of all sorts, illustration, 3D, motion, and whatnot... But it is fine, just buy the iPad, I suspect you'll get whatever you need (pc, scanner, pro monitor, printer, etc) later on, that you will be able to purchase it in one year.

AD, AP and APub. V1.10.6 and V2.4 Windows 10 and Windows 11. 
Ryzen 9 3900X, 32 GB RAM,  RTX 3060 12GB, Wacom Intuos XL, Wacom L. Eizo ColorEdge CS 2420 monitor. Windows 10 Pro.
(Laptop) HP Omen 16-b1010ns 12700H, 32GB DDR5, nVidia RTX 3060 6GB + Huion Kamvas 22 pen display, Windows 11 Pro.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SrPx said:

If you are going to study graphic design (I understand that in a year or so ?) you will really need more space for large and complex compositions. Independently that they may tell you that you need to learn (and make projects) also other software (non existing on the iPad, as a major number of professional software apps aren't there) , even while being AD and AP absolutely amazing (who knows, maybe some day they'll replace CC in universities and companies/jobs. Not yet there, tho....You are the opposite case of a 100% freelancer, specially a seasoned one that already learnt everything with the big machines... for that person, IMO the iPad+AP and AD is absolutely ideal.... (for short sessions)) . "The experience is better"  , I wouldn't agree, in any way,  but hey. You tell me that when you spend 1 year doing 10 hours a day graphic design of all sorts, illustration, 3D, motion, and whatnot... But it is fine, just buy the iPad, I suspect you'll get whatever you need (pc, scanner, pro monitor, printer, etc) later on, that you will be able to purchase it in one year.

i think so , thank you so much for your reply!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
On 6/6/2018 at 10:49 AM, MEB said:

Hi Ghaeth wardeh,
Welcome to Affinity Forums :)
Affinity apps take advantage of both the clock speed and number of cores of a CPU. So the more cores at higher speeds you have the better. An Intel Core i7 3/4 GHz (quad core) or equivalent is more than enough for learning purposes. The graphic card is mostly used to render things on screen (panning/zooming). It will not have a great impact on Affinity's performance. Any regular/modern graphic card will do it. 16 GB of RAM are enough for your requirements.

 

Hi,

I was thinking of changing my graphics card to improve performances in connection with the change of my camera (from Nikon D300 to D810) and increase of NEF files size. But if I understand you well, this would have little impact on the performances as AP is not really exploiting the graphics card parallel processing capacities. Am I right ?

My PC config is Intel Core i7-2600 + ATI Radeon HD6950 810 MHz GPU 1 GB + 16 GB memory + 2 screens - all that dating from 2011 and working well. Would I improve significantly the loading and processing times with a more recent/powerful hardware?

Many thanks in advance for your advices.

Pierre

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have got through loads of PCs over the years, each one a bit faster but never really noticed much improvement. Usually because Microsoft strangles it with the latest OS.

The only time I noticed a “huge” jump in performance was when I moved to an SSD drive. Windows and Photo both load in a few seconds,  everything is much faster. 

Windows PCs. Photo and Designer, latest non-beta versions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's all in the wording, "Blazing Fast", "Lightning Fast", "Next Gen"  ¬¬

What does that actually mean in relation to the last processor, SSD HD or Graphic card? how many nano seconds have I gained so that I can get on with my "RAD",  "high energy", "par'tay", "I have a hundred grand a year job and no financial commitments TV AD lifestyle" lol!

@Ghaeth wardeh Save yourself some money and time and buy an off the shelf tower and a reasonable Monitor, keyboard and mouse, or better yet get a second-hand iMac 27" anything after 2012 will be good 

iMac 27" 2019 Somona 14.3.1, iMac 27" Affinity Designer, Photo & Publisher V1 & V2, Adobe, Inkscape, Vectorstyler, Blender, C4D, Sketchup + more... XP-Pen Artist-22E, - iPad Pro 12.9  
B| (Please refrain from licking the screen while using this forum)

Affinity Help - Affinity Desktop Tutorials - Feedback - FAQ - most asked questions

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Staff
11 hours ago, PO Pellegrin said:

 

Hi,

I was thinking of changing my graphics card to improve performances in connection with the change of my camera (from Nikon D300 to D810) and increase of NEF files size. But if I understand you well, this would have little impact on the performances as AP is not really exploiting the graphics card parallel processing capacities. Am I right ?

My PC config is Intel Core i7-2600 + ATI Radeon HD6950 810 MHz GPU 1 GB + 16 GB memory + 2 screens - all that dating from 2011 and working well. Would I improve significantly the loading and processing times with a more recent/powerful hardware?

Many thanks in advance for your advices.

Pierre

Hi PO Pellegrin,
Welcome to Affinity Forums :)
Yes, you are right. Currently there's no point in getting a better graphic card to improve Affinity's performance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/25/2018 at 8:40 AM, firstdefence said:

It's all in the wording, "Blazing Fast", "Lightning Fast", "Next Gen"  ¬¬

What does that actually mean in relation to the last processor, SSD HD or Graphic card? how many nano seconds have I gained so that I can get on with my "RAD",  "high energy", "par'tay", "I have a hundred grand a year job and no financial commitments TV AD lifestyle" lol!

@Ghaeth wardeh Save yourself some money and time and buy an off the shelf tower and a reasonable Monitor, keyboard and mouse, or better yet get a second-hand iMac 27" anything after 2012 will be good 

thank you so much for your reply

Yes, I bought a laptop from Lenovo with core i5 and 8gb ram ... and it goes great 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Thanks for the info on recommended PC size etc.

I have been using Affinity Photo on a Surface Pro 3 with Core i7 @1.7GHz, 8GB RAM, 256GB SSD, integrated graphics, and Windows 10/64 bit. Things like focus stacking and HDR merge are unbearably slow, especially during adjustments once the initial merge operation is complete.

Today I bought a new PC - a laptop with Core i7-7700, 16GB RAM, 256GB SSD, NVIDIA GeForce 1060 with 6GB RAM, and Windows 10/64 bit.

After setting the new system up I did a focus merge with 10 24Mpxl images.

Surface Pro: 8 minutes 31 seconds to complete the operation.

New PC: 3:23.

I'm pleased that the new PC is faster, but still I'm surprised at how long the operation takes (I had never timed this before so I didn't really know how long I've been waiting ...). I also note a significant lag if I choose one of the source images to clean up the merge ... its performance looks nothing like what I've been seeing in the tutorial videos (are Macs really that much faster?).

I can return this PC and exchange it for a desktop version with Core i7-8700, 16GB RAM + 16GB Optane memory, 7200rpm spinning HDD, NVIDIA GeForce 1050Ti with 4GB RAM, and again Windows 10/64 bit. 

Alternatively I can spend more and get an even faster system. However it looks like the next step beyond the Core i7/8700 is a Core i9, which will add about $2,000 to the PC cost.

Any suggestions for getting the most PC for the money, for use with Affinity? Photo editing will be the primary and overwhelming use case for this PC. I don't game, or do anything else that stresses even my Surface.

Suggestions?

Thanks, Karl

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any reason why you don`t want a pc build with AMD Ryzen or Threadripper CPUs?
They are imo offering much more for the money and Affinity Photo/Designer/Publisher can distribute many tasks onto the many available cores.

16GB of RAM can be sufficient depending on your projects but more RAM is obviously better.
The real bottlenecks are going to be the HDD(slow transfer speeds) and the 1050TI which only has 4GB of GPU-RAM and
is even 65% slower than a GTX 970 which is by now outdated and had the 3.5GB+slow 500MB bandwidth debacle.

Have you also looked into getting an NVME SSD? higher write and read speeds could help in slashing of more time for the temporary files which Affinity Photo/Designer/Publisher are writing while you are working on a project.

Sketchbook (with Affinity Suite usage) | timurariman.com | gumroad.com/myclay
Windows 11 Pro - 22H2 | Ryzen 5800X3D | RTX 3090 - 24GB | 128GB |
Main SSD with 1TB | SSD 4TB | PCIe SSD 256GB (configured as Scratch disk) |

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/1/2018 at 9:06 PM, PLShutterbug said:

I'm pleased that the new PC is faster, but still I'm surprised at how long the operation takes (I had never timed this before so I didn't really know how long I've been waiting ...). I also note a significant lag if I choose one of the source images to clean up the merge ... its performance looks nothing like what I've been seeing in the tutorial videos (are Macs really that much faster?).

I don't think that Macs are faster

 However, I think they have one GPU-based function that Affinity can use that can perform some operations faster. On PCs Affinity is more limited in how it can use a GPU, and performs most operations in the CPU, from what I've read.

-- Walt
Designer, Photo, and Publisher V1 and V2 at latest retail and beta releases
PC:
    Desktop:  Windows 11 Pro, version 23H2, 64GB memory, AMD Ryzen 9 5900 12-Core @ 3.00 GHz, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 

    Laptop:  Windows 11 Pro, version 23H2, 32GB memory, Intel Core i7-10750H @ 2.60GHz, Intel UHD Graphics Comet Lake GT2 and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Laptop GPU.
iPad:  iPad Pro M1, 12.9": iPadOS 17.4.1, Apple Pencil 2, Magic Keyboard 
Mac:  2023 M2 MacBook Air 15", 16GB memory, macOS Sonoma 14.4.1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

are Macs really that much faster?

Well, Mac are faster than PCs, PCs faster than Macs, Linux faster than Windows, iOS faster than whatever....

Is a to vague consideration. It's all in the details. It seems the latest mac book pro has focused too much on the thin and aesthetics to a point that tried to embed there a very high end i9 without possibility of the actual cooling that beast needs under heavy work, and it throttles more than it should. They will fix that (some firmware update seems did not cut it) or just will produce a better model next time, with an impact in sales in this one, "stuff" happens to every brand.... They have resources for whatever, I wouldn't worry. Macs in the desktop are really powerful, it depends on the kind of tasks planned, if the apps to use are more GPU based, more CPU, etc.PCs with good config are very powerful these days. But like the extreme branch in intel PCs,  macs are in my  (very personal) opinion overpriced. Still, you get great machines, in both cases, if money doesn't matter.

I would also vote specially for Ryzen 2700X, I do worry for the SSDs lifespan, but if you really want the fastest performance, is the way to go. I only say it wouldn't hurt a hybrid configuration, like having a mechanical HD for large storage, as well, the cost added of an HD is minimal these days, and they last eons, at least in my experience. And I love that.SOme people do this to have the SSD almost for ever: configure the OS so that is never used for caching by any application (this isn't as trivial as it sounds, at least in Windows, of what I know) , not using it to save user files (but then, defeats the purpose of working with huge files like RAWs...), or at least, only for work files. (not regular downloads, web browsing and mail cache, etc). It is very personal, per case. I'm sticking with HDs until I get to need badly SSDs, which indeed, make your machine feel as an entire new one.(I'm used to extract liquid gold from very low and old hardware, that's why). 

HDR operations, seen lately in some benchmarks, seem to do very well in the Ryzens, but I believe this could be for the multi core aspect. Consider a 7700 is still 4 cores,  8 threads, which is kindda getting old already, even in games...Or soon will.  A 8700K has the huge advantage of 2 cores more, still, a cheapo Ryzen 1700 is 8 cores + 16 threads ! . Same as the 2700x, but WAY faster than the 1700, both in applications and games. To me, is a golden purchase in PCs, today. The i7 8700k is WAY better than the 7700k. Is just not a marginal difference. Consider than in several Blender Cycles render(what I use, very much) the AMD Ryzen 7 1700 did beat the 7700k from intel. While with 2 cores less than the ryzens 7, 8700K beats the 1700 (I don't remember right now what happens with the 2700X, but could be that is faster in rendering than the 8700K). Which with two cores less, is impresive. But there are more advantages than pure clock or IPC, seems the 8700K has several tech advantages even over the 7700K. Is a very good purchase, but keeps being two cores less, is not cheap at all, and the main issue for me is that the platform is a dead end. No more better CPUs u could instal in that mobo, while in the Ryzen case you still could install a beast of a Threadripper of highest gamma, which could beat several models of i9. So, one other reason why for my 2d/3D heavy applications usage, the Ryzen 2700X, or Ryzen in general, beats it.

Consider that (from company replies around here) it seems Affinity apps to rely mostly in CPU, not so much in GPU. So, I'd be to believe (in PS (Photoshop) is mostly single thread highest clock what makes the difference, not the cores,  except in some filters, so, in PS if overclocked at 5ghz, will do better than any other thing) that a powerful CPU, specially with more cores, shall do better than a lower cpu and putting the bucks in the graphic card. IMO.

BUT... in video rendering, 3D rendering (unless the app is GPU based for that, or that in the option of GPU rendering is faster than with the CPU),  compressing/decompressing.... is all about cores. But NOT only that. Other factors weigh in, too. That is why intel's six cores with very high clock and IPC, still beat the the ryzens in some tests. It also is never the same a ryzen 3, than 5, or 7. And big differences between different models in each rank.

Before going the largely overpriced i9, I'd go threadripper, but is a jump in money tho being cheaper than intel's, and there have been some issues in recent benchmarks (mostly driver/firmware,  etc related, in Windows, not really machine's fault, and is only for some games benchmarks...But kind of feel the "mainstream" like the current 2700X could be a bit safer from that...), while the the Ryzen 2700X is really triumphant in practically every benchmark I have found. Is my next machine, yes or yes. 8 cores, 16 threads (ideal for rendering, I don't do simple scenes most of the time, would need a lot of gpu ram) at finally a nice clock speed. I don't like overclocking, and while you do that easily (better stock cooling than intel) without extra money in Ryzen, you don't usually get as higher clocks as when overclocking intels. I dislike doing that to my machines. I do everything to make them last, and I know is a bit irrational, but I prefer to leave them at the speed they were tested in the labs as good to go, activating turbo when is the case, of course.

IMO, generally Ryzen is best bang for the buck, in every use, except games. And even you can run games very well with that 2700X. Those 2k more foran i9, save 'em, imo, put them in a good SSD, a good card (don't get crazy there, tho). A 1060 for application work, quite enough unless you are doing very GPU based workflows (ie, shaders stuff for games, etc). A fast ram speed benefits typically Ryzen machines a lot. I'd get 2666 MHZ at least (B350 mother boards wont allow more than that, I believe). Or 3200 ones if getting a bit more expensive mother board. It is said not to affect that much in intel, and the gain is not as big in games, so, many gamers go for more memory but at 2400. IE, if I were aiming to a 8700k, I'd buy more ram, but 2400 one, if into ryzen, well, I'm a cheap bastard, I'd buy a A320 mobo, or B350, so it'd be 2666 Mhz  for me. I know I wouldn't go for 2133, as well, IMO, RAM speed, disk speed, CPU clock (usually in reverse other, but depends on the app), these are important factors for most 2D applications. There is a trend in some 2D apps to go GPU centric (Rebelle, Paintstorm Studio, etc) if this trend grows, you have time later on to invest in a really powerful card, if you get tied a lot to one of those apps. Meantime, I'd focus mostly in CPU, disc and RAM...

PD: I'm getting really short in RAM (8GB), lately. Mostly as updated apps are using more and more memory, and I am not referring now to Affinity. 32 GB scenario is a tad of money, tho would be ideal, but imo, with 16 GB of average-fast ram you are good to go (even with 2400 Mhz one...But I'd advice to get faster, even if 8gb for now, and then add some later, not too late as that ram disappearing from the market, or only available overpriced as a rarity, of course. Maybe just getting more in some months, easier to put money so, in chunks)

About the 2k more.... for an i9.... heck, I'd put those bucks for a better drawing tablet (if you are into illustration, or anything else like photography devices, if you are more into that... or a great monitor..... :D

EDIT :  Is important to state that I was referring to 8700K, not 8700 (I just read again your PC possible config). There's a difference in performance, benchmarks, etc. Bottom line tho, 8700K is a great purchase, AMD Ryzen 2700X might be even better : more cores, and the mother board offers an upgrade path for other CPUs, not the case of intel's Coffee Lake platform. Also consider that you can stall ANY machine with a bad workflow.... ;) 

Edit: Oh, and  I did a focus merge with 10 24Mpxl images, that's quite a task.  :)   (24 Mpx is 6016 x 4000 px per each, if I am not wrong)

Yet another edit: Also, laptops often have less options for powerful cooling, and often this results in less performance than a desktop equivalent. Also is the case that many cpus for laptop are trimmed down to counter the overheat and etc. (in general, is the case of the ended in "U" series, in intel processors. Some are called i7 just for the heck of it, but are severely trimmed down/low versions)

Yes, that 8700 desktop should be much faster than the other two. But I would go with a 8700K, no big difference in price with the 8700. And probably better going with the Ryzen 2700x (as mentioned, you could place there a more powerful cpu if that becomes short in te future). And for these operations, I don't believe the GTX 1050 is really affecting.  I have one non Ti, which is quite lower, even, and does fine in some high load situations. Again, if doing something verry GPU based, is kind of low end (not a 1030, but low).

 

AD, AP and APub. V1.10.6 and V2.4 Windows 10 and Windows 11. 
Ryzen 9 3900X, 32 GB RAM,  RTX 3060 12GB, Wacom Intuos XL, Wacom L. Eizo ColorEdge CS 2420 monitor. Windows 10 Pro.
(Laptop) HP Omen 16-b1010ns 12700H, 32GB DDR5, nVidia RTX 3060 6GB + Huion Kamvas 22 pen display, Windows 11 Pro.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@myclay, no reason at all, I just don't know much about AMD. I've been working with Intel for many years but have not done anything with AMD, though I know they are very reliable and as a second offering behind Intel they offer a lot of features at a very good price. Looking at a couple of sites I see competitive offerings with either 2700 or 2700x processors.

The 2700x offers a bit more speed but its specs show it uses almost twice the power: 105 watts vs. 65 from the 2700. Is there some performance increase that I'm not seeing on the AMD site that accounts for its almost doubled power consumption?

Regarding SSDs: yes, I'll probably go that route sooner or later but the pre-built PC I looked at didn't offer it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the 2700 without the X is perfectly fine. Both versions can be overclocked and due to the slightly lower stock speed, the gains are more significant for the 2700 version but the main selling point which is the low energy consumption will be thrown out of the water and will have similar watt consumption like the 2700x version.

Sketchbook (with Affinity Suite usage) | timurariman.com | gumroad.com/myclay
Windows 11 Pro - 22H2 | Ryzen 5800X3D | RTX 3090 - 24GB | 128GB |
Main SSD with 1TB | SSD 4TB | PCIe SSD 256GB (configured as Scratch disk) |

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Been reading about it... As are two of the processors I'll aim at some point if this dinosaur finally breaks (fingers crossed, as would like to keep it for a backup machine, anyway). Long story short after a lot of reading, yep, seems 2700 is really energy efficient. It "might" also be more silent than 2700x, but it seems my computer is already way more noisier than 2700x, so, no issue there. Also, I'm often with headphones, listening to music or some podcast...

Edit: below my own findings about the matter, if some1 is interested.

 

I dislike overclocking as a concept, have the feeling it does not go with the maximum durability of the piece (I mean, I prefer to keep it at the settings that the labs established) if we are very strict, and to be honest, I dislike a lot messing with that , voltages, hard crashes until getting the fine point, etc. Was never geek for that. Without overclocking, tho, the 2700 is WAY lower. Still kind of powerful, tho (3.2 ghz base stock, close to what was 1700). Have seen a lot of data now. Specially in single core & high clock scenarios, like mostly CC PS and AI, a humble intel i5 8400 can outperform a stock 2700, for example, in Photoshop. 2700x stock, totally different situation, always top of the table even in single core scenarios.  Overclocked, it seems both machines are almost the same, if at same clock, the 2700x sometimes very slightly better ( I've read that if paired with high speed RAM, not much point in overclocking the 2700x). In multi threaded applications, these two beat easily all intels, 8700k included in almost all cases, thanks to the 2 extra cores. (+4 threads). The 2700x is able to maintain, in its stock form, quite higher speeds when using more threads. While the clock really drops in the 2700 (non OC) as you use more cores. Again, of course in stock situation. 

I have not read in detail how the energy efficiency is in the 2700 once over clocked, but there's tons of info about the matter. (will paste some link later, below)

Some things very interesting found, tho. In some tests, the 8600 k outperforms 8700k, both stock and overclocked in CC AI. No idea why.  2700x is better ranked in benchmarks than any intel or ryzen stock solution in Photoshop light load tests, illustrator and After effects, in certain Tom's Hardware benchmarks, which do seem to be well made. In the heavy load Photoshop test is only slightly below 8700k. Again, all this with the 2700x stock. That said, overclcoked 8700k and 8600k, both are six cores, and with other improvements over kaby, are consistently in number 1 and 2 in all the CC apps list (again, as I believe the use of multiple cores is small in several of the CC apps). 2700x tends to come next, and 2700 overclocked to 4.2, very near, below. In multi threaded scenarios, like cinebench multi threaded, or any 3D rendering scenario, or video rendering, the ryzens beat all intels easily (number of cores). In compression, is a mixed bag as the clock in single core is a factor there, I guess.This might be important for certain operations in 2D? (image compression algorithms) I don't know.

So, my main issues with the 2700x "could" be noise... I think is 40 - 44 db, but seems my 860 is around 51 db, and I put it in the floor...... so I think am used to that... heat is just fine... again, better situation than my current "heater", by far. TDP is 95 in the 860, and this would be ~100, but today computers are much more efficient, in general...

If I were ok with overclocking, probably would go with the 2700, as you get the option to use more energy by overclocking, or not doing that at all... It has a less beefy cooler than the 2700x's, but I'd expect also that the 2700 one is more silent. Important for a full day work computer, or 24/7 server, etc. Seems is the same or very similar to the legendary 1700's one.  Which is told to not be noisy. To overclock and reach over 4 ghz tho, you need another cooler, so defeats the purpose of the 30 bucks difference. So.... advantage left, for me, with the type of user that I am, would perhaps just be the energy efficiency, that seems to be so good in the 2700 case.

One could dig quite these pages, maybe reach some conclusions, then ( I haven't, yet )  :

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_7_2700/17.html

And in this matter, might be interesting to read some notes in their conclusion (but I'd read the data, first) :

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_7_2700/20.html

One area where the Ryzen 7 2700 managed to surprise us is energy efficiency. Its multi-threaded power-draw is over 50 W lower than that of the 2700X (141 W vs. 199 W), while offering performance that is not that much lower. The underlying reason is that the 2700X boosts very high, into a region where the processor is faster, but not operating as efficiently anymore. The Ryzen 7 2700, on other other hand, runs at lower clock and lower voltage in this scenario, resulting in higher efficiency. Our new energy efficiency testing, which doesn't just measure power, but also takes into account how quickly tasks complete due to higher performance, shows the processor's amazing lead. This makes the Ryzen 7 2700 the most energy-efficient processor we ever tested.

(emphasis of the above last sentence is mine)

But is important to consider the type of usage each one is going to make, as all have its influence.

IMO, for what is aiming to @PLShutterbug , unless being very concerned with energy efficiency (well, we all should be...)  or noise (again, if can stand an i7 860 or 920 stock cooling noise, I guess the 2700x's  stock cooling is quieter) , if is not interested in overclocking the 2700, the clear winner is the 2700x. If knows how to overclock and is ok with doing it, the 2700 is an amazing option, but in the benchmarks I saw, in most cases in single core 2700x beats the overclocked 4.2  OC 2700, as 2700x has single core of 4.3, and also is often  very slightly above the OC 2700 in multi threaded, with few exceptions.  But I don't know, frankly, how much multi threaded are the Affinity apps. If they mostly make use of single core, highest clocks, like PS and some other applications do at least in Windows, then I'd say that you are then better off with an intel i7 8700k.  But if Affinity uses the several cores even a bit, I guess the decision is clear in favor of the two Ryzens. Plus, dunno other people, but I do video rendering and 3D rendering often (no streaming + gaming, but sometimes a video conference while am doing tasks in the background, and am a very heavy multi-tasker), and there the cores help a lot. Still, do not think the 8700k is a bad performant there. But for example, in Cinebench, and most renderers, the 2700x or 2700 OC @ 4.2 do really beat any other option (I have not seen benchmarks with i9s or threadrippers, that's another league, of course.

IMO.... Is about a matter of KNOWING what is taking more hit in processing those large images with whatever the filters or operations, or, in processing raw images. Seems people have very different approaches while editing in photography, and different parts of the software might be making different use of the hardware resources, I have no clue. If someone knows, feel free to chime in and bring some light.

If it is all about single clock speed, clearly is intel 8700k. Or 8600 k. Both WAY much better than the 7700k, btw. And that counting on desktop only, as I suspect many i7 laptop CPUs are really trimmed down for not counting on good cooling possibilities (the "U" series, etc). There are even i7s being JUST ONE core in laptops!!!! So, if if was only about single core, a close second would be 2700x and 2700 overclocked to 4.2 GHz. (seems higher than that clock speed, the temps and other stuff start to be a problem , there).

If these operations in Affinity are using heavily multiple cores, then I would (wild guess) suppose 2700X and 2700 OC "could" win (as a better IPC in intel could affect, it depends a lot on each case, and we do know nothing about Affinity apps in that regard. Or I don't.)

I'd be really surprised if a 2700x, 2700 overclocked, or intel i7 8700K (the 8600k is GREAT in single core, and seems performs better than the 7700ks when not multi threaded, but is 6 cores/ 6 threads (instead of 6c/12t or 8c/16t), might not be as good in some situations(rendering, video..) would be a bad choice. The three of them seem to me fantastic CPUs.

I still would opt by a Ryzen (upgrade path and liking more the brand lately), personally. But if would find a great discount on a 8700k, that'd be my machine.

https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ryzen-7-2700-2700x-review,5606-8.html

https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-7-2700x-review,5571-10.html

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_7_2700/17.html

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_7_2700/20.html

 

 

AD, AP and APub. V1.10.6 and V2.4 Windows 10 and Windows 11. 
Ryzen 9 3900X, 32 GB RAM,  RTX 3060 12GB, Wacom Intuos XL, Wacom L. Eizo ColorEdge CS 2420 monitor. Windows 10 Pro.
(Laptop) HP Omen 16-b1010ns 12700H, 32GB DDR5, nVidia RTX 3060 6GB + Huion Kamvas 22 pen display, Windows 11 Pro.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would have to be a bad/sad day when I ever go back to a Windows, or I suddenly feel the need to start gaming again lol!

You can have a great spec for a windows system but a lot of the hardware seems to be, buggy with flaky BIOSes, bottlenecks and unattainable claims made by manufacturers. SSD's have saved Windows systems to a point.

I've just been doing battle with my sisters system (I told her to buy an iMac, mainly to save me the hassle of fixing windows every 5 minutes, but that failed) She has an Asus Prime X370 Motherboard, it was quick to start with but now its mediocre at best, choked by the OS and all the startup paraphernalia and then there is the mandatory AV and Malware software to tighten that noose. For the money she spent on this system she'd have a very nice 27" iMac steaming along nicely. The BIOS was the issue in this instance. I have a 2011 iMac that runs better than the majority of windows systems and my 2015 iMac system just flies.

Unless you are an avid gamer or use sage accounting get an iMac

iMac 27" 2019 Somona 14.3.1, iMac 27" Affinity Designer, Photo & Publisher V1 & V2, Adobe, Inkscape, Vectorstyler, Blender, C4D, Sketchup + more... XP-Pen Artist-22E, - iPad Pro 12.9  
B| (Please refrain from licking the screen while using this forum)

Affinity Help - Affinity Desktop Tutorials - Feedback - FAQ - most asked questions

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's true that Macs are of high quality, durability and stability - mostly. But it is also true, that despite all the junk that is sold in the name of Windows there are also superb machines build for it. I am referring to workstation and laptops built for professional use, favouring stability and quality over hyped claims on paper for apparently little money. In short, if You want a smooth and stable, mostly worry-free system, it's probably gonna cost You a bit more, regardless which OS or ecosystem You prefer. I've learned to get along with whatever tool does the job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, PLShutterbug said:

@srpx: how can a processor be loud or quiet?

a big da

I meant the stock cooler (I think 2700x comes with the Wraith Prism, 2700 with Wraith Spire, which I understood is less capable, and similar or the same than those in the 1700. Edit: yes it is, check here, at the bottom :  https://www.amd.com/en/technologies/cpu-cooler-solution  ) and how it all resulted under a usual test machine, reported by some review site.. Only got data about the 2700x stock noise situation. I'm never fiddling with the cooling solutions,  purchasing other than the one which it comes with, neither do overclocking...

The Spire is not noisy, from what I could read later here :

http://www.relaxedtech.com/reviews/amd/wraith-max-and-wraith-spire-cooler/2

So, I'd be to think that the 2700 is energy efficient , and its stock cooler, not noisy.

But seems the difference is about 3 db between the two stock coolers ? 44 db vs 41 db.... My old card used to be 20 times louder under load....

AD, AP and APub. V1.10.6 and V2.4 Windows 10 and Windows 11. 
Ryzen 9 3900X, 32 GB RAM,  RTX 3060 12GB, Wacom Intuos XL, Wacom L. Eizo ColorEdge CS 2420 monitor. Windows 10 Pro.
(Laptop) HP Omen 16-b1010ns 12700H, 32GB DDR5, nVidia RTX 3060 6GB + Huion Kamvas 22 pen display, Windows 11 Pro.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is extremely rare, but one day it'd have to happen, firstdefence.... I don't agree in this one with you.

Is like with cars...it's all in the parts.

I always buy computers by parts, being carefully with every brand (well, most of the parts, not all). OR...purchase from some brands which I trust (in general! even Apple has had its bad support cases...or the fiasco with the recent MacBook Pro throttling with that intel i9 beast, embedded there with poor cooling...). I'm quite a Dell fan. All my family members have a Dell, my little sister had an HP once ( now has an Acer). Right now it is two dell desktops, NEVER EVER give a problem, hardware related or OS related. And it has been about 8 years by now in one, 7 for the other. A fast dual core (despite its age) and an i5. I installed in both a Win 10 very long ago. My younger sister, an Acer, very humble laptop machine, tho huge 18.3" laptop screen, works nice, no issues at all, Windows 10 ( it has had a win Vista, performance was low, but could be handled for basic stuff. Then a win 7, it became more bearable. Then a win 8.1, and since then, it flies despite the very low hardware (2gb ram, very low cpu), now with WIn 10. My older sister, a Dell laptop 17" which I have right now on the table, just to discover that all her issues with the "speed" of the machine going down, that was her claim, is just that she has a 1.8 ghz very low CPU, and a 2GB RAM ! . She has updated all her software which obviously is more demanding now than a ton of years ago. This happens with Macs too, and my iPad 1 was made obsolete in way less time than any desktop machine I've had. Neither would I try to work right now with very high end software, a Mac Classic or Quadra like those I used in my first job in the '95.

So....no issues... If well handled, in OS (warezing the OS is about one of the worst things anyone can do, it just ain't worth it for the pains and issues, besides the moral aspect) no issues at all, if know what to do to prevent stuff. And hardware, if the pieces are good, is not common to see constant failures, or any failure at all. Is mostly rare. Is just like any other thing.  Is more about the user. Some users tend to install every freakin' app , game or thing they find without questioning or making a virus scan of the file, never suspecting about anything. Or doing crazier things. I've even removed a mining malware app from machines, killed virus rootkits, and all these happening without the users noticing. The sites where they get into to get some game hack or crack are dangerous by themselves... None of my closer friends or family have these issues, I give them advice about certain matters. 

I've had this machines many years without formatting or reinstalling, and so happens with the other machines which OS I installed in its day for other people (if they follow very basic advice. And I don't mean teaching them a thesis or sth). Usually with the users I can at least give advice (and if they follow it. Which is most closer friends, and family, or just random but sensible people ) I tell you, it does not consume my time anymore.  (and if so, typically nicely compensated :D. But also with mac people, and believe it or not, some linux users )

Trust me, these users would be a disaster under linux. And with a mac... if one neglects fully dealing with anything, there's a point when you are gonna have an issue, even with a mac (I've fixed issues of mac users, too...and have seen ridiculous situations of hearing  users at shops, both in Mac and PC shops...IE, heard what one tech guy told a woman what it was gonna cost to fix her Mac, and I had heard what was the thing to "fix" ( really dumb), and couldn't believe my freakin' ears when he said the cost.... man....) , and gonna put quite some money  to fix it, when surely is not necessary. I never carry my PC machines to repair to any place. In decades. Well, since the start with a 286. Also, to repair a mac if the warranty time is gone, you are mostly tied to mac support, is very different to PC world, where also, you can plug or unplug pieces much more easily. Less stuff soldered where they shouldn't and somehow hard tied or embedded in a way that you could do little  about it. Often, only Apple could do sth (because still within warranty period and could be lost if hasn't expired yet) and wouldn't be cheap. The apple machines are not cheap, the support if warranty period is gone, aint cheap either, neither flexible.

Look, I love macs, and iOS devices. But is not wonderland either.

I think an iMac is a good option, though a expensive one, and it also depends in the software apps you need. But strongly disagree that is cheaper than a PC, or one is buying at some crazy place... Not everyone is gonna be willing to deal with sites like newegg or similar, but neither should go to over expensive local shops. ( I build per parts in a pair of local shops, or order to a site that lets me "build" my machine (choose the parts as I rarely install physically other thing than the graphics card, RAM, or disks, lol.  Usually, only for upgrading reasons.)

On 9/5/2018 at 11:46 AM, firstdefence said:

It would have to be a bad/sad day when I ever go back to a Windows, or I suddenly feel the need to start gaming again lol!

You can have a great spec for a windows system but a lot of the hardware seems to be, buggy with flaky BIOSes, bottlenecks and unattainable claims made by manufacturers. SSD's have saved Windows systems to a point.

Like in Linux, or Mac OS, if you know well your OS, no issues. And I'd be wary of any shop , if that happens often (about the computer parts coming badly) . Don't buy there fridges or hair dryers, either :D 

The claims from manufacturers of a pretended performance or functionality being quite a different thing finally, are a constant in most things today... one needs to have some in depth info about anything before purchasing if really want to avoid any sort of surprise... 

Quote

I've just been doing battle with my sisters system (I told her to buy an iMac, mainly to save me the hassle of fixing windows every 5 minutes, but that failed)

 

Huh... sth wrong there. I tell you... If I'm called for computer reasons by the family, is more to them not knowing how to use an application.  Which is often Libre Office, MS Office itself. Or how to deal with certain site. Both groups of things unrelated to the OS.Or how to fill some public admin form, etc. Or that they don't know how to handle the gmail or yahoo interface in some new feature.... I can't remember in a decade, anything failing in hardware. Well, yep, once. But it was a high electricity shock or sth, huge wave, it fried everything, but I had tension protectors at their home , so, one of those saved the expensive Sony TV (the little grey thing got literally melted, poor thing),  but a pair of machines had the power supply fried. Crazily, it didn't fry the HDs or any other internal components. A printer power supply was fried, fully toasted, some weird liquid coming out of it and dense smoke . And also a fridge, and many other electric home devices. Well treated, hardware can last, using any OS. And some shops sell faulty stuff, does not happen only with computers. But this is easy to be aware of or detect.

Quote

 

She has an Asus Prime X370 Motherboard, it was quick to start with but now its mediocre at best, choked by the OS and all the startup paraphernalia and then there is the mandatory AV and Malware software to tighten that noose. For the money she spent on this system she'd have a very nice 27" iMac steaming along nicely. The BIOS was the issue in this instance. I have a 2011 iMac that runs better than the majority of windows systems and my 2015 iMac system just flies.

Unless you are an avid gamer or use sage accounting get an iMac

 

That's a nice board.

The OS and the startup stuff can be tuned to great levels. Most people don't know how to do this though it is extremely simple.

 

On 9/5/2018 at 11:46 AM, firstdefence said:

mandatory AV and Malware software to tighten that noose

Avira antivirus is pretty low in resource usage (otherwise it'd be a nightmare in this arcane i7 from 2009 ) , and malwarebytes, you install the free version , and so you can perform a check from time to time. Yes, the real time shields, if you activate them, or left them on as is by default, for while you browse or do anything, they are heavy, because you are telling them to review all of your actions and stay in the middle consuming resources. IMO, avoid the shield, and just be careful where you browse. A professional usage of a machine avoids this. But people like playing, and apparently, feel the urge of doing so by warezing stuff and going to certain sites :/ . And even kids do this. Some friend in the class tells 'em go here or go there, and that's the prob. Well one of the several related with the usage.

On 9/5/2018 at 11:46 AM, firstdefence said:

For the money she spent on this system she'd have a very nice 27" iMac steaming along nicely.

LOL ! 

Where does she buy computers ? At my local shop I mount a machine for around 460 -470 euros, for pro usage. For an average Jane/Joe, 350 - 370 would suffice. Without the monitor, that is (most cases I know, the monitor survives at least 2 or 3 machines. And in some cases, more. My mother has yet a super nice Sony TFT. It's often due to wanting a bigger one, or newer, as being good brands, you rarely have issues. Is like with any component, or more than with others. )

Do the iMacs now cost around 400 bucks without the monitor ? Or even 600 ? 

On 9/5/2018 at 11:46 AM, firstdefence said:

The BIOS was the issue in this instance.

Not that common. And usually pretty fast to fix. Really worth for the so many saved bucks.

On 9/5/2018 at 11:46 AM, firstdefence said:

I have a 2011 iMac that runs better than the majority of windows systems

Every Windows I have seen, if installed and maintained by someone knowing how to at basic-intermediate level, is rock solid and very stable. I've worked at 10 companies using mostly Windows. (but also macs and lnux machines of many flavors) And a disk can go kaput in a Linux machine, too, hardware is hardware for all machines.

On 9/5/2018 at 11:46 AM, firstdefence said:

Unless you are an avid gamer or use sage accounting get an iMac

If you have the bucks, is not a bad option. But is not always the best for every user case possible.

Edit: I purchased in 2009 this machine , no hardware or software issues in all this years, at a very very cheap shop, per parts, no brand like Dell or anything behind it. I just sat with the shop person, go with my list of selected parts, and that's it. It has been just as solid as the Dells. No issues with the two type of products. (I dunno pricing now, but back then a mac was extremely more expensive for equivalent result in work)

 

AD, AP and APub. V1.10.6 and V2.4 Windows 10 and Windows 11. 
Ryzen 9 3900X, 32 GB RAM,  RTX 3060 12GB, Wacom Intuos XL, Wacom L. Eizo ColorEdge CS 2420 monitor. Windows 10 Pro.
(Laptop) HP Omen 16-b1010ns 12700H, 32GB DDR5, nVidia RTX 3060 6GB + Huion Kamvas 22 pen display, Windows 11 Pro.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 years later...

I am using an i5 4th generation PC, a little slow but if you are on a tight budget, it is the way to go. I have alot of storage space because affinity project files can get quite large. 16 GB of RAM is overkill for these latest versions of Affinity. I'm using both Affinity photo and publisher, they both run quite well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Guidelines | We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.