Recommended spec for a 'decent' spec for photo work

[Rob_B]

I've seen a lot recently on putting an older Xeon in a build, a possibility?

You can pickup a E5-2670 v3 (12C 24T) for ~ £70 which might be good for your use case and although potentially 'slower' in some cases (I can't find good comparisons to the CPUs mentioned above) it's so cheap it has to be worth thinking about.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Here's an example of the kind of issue I really need advice on, and some of my own comments (like future-proofing) probably aren't helping. I'll come back to that in a minute.

Suggestions so far include :-

R5 3600 £180-ish
R7 3800X £320-ish
R7 5800X £424-ish (currently).

So clearly, there's a whopping difference in price between first and last, but my concern (mentioned it earlier) is "sweet spot", and not paying high end for it's own sake. That's not what I meant by future-proofing.

What I do mean is perhaps better explained by saying :-

- first priority = good (but not necessarily stellar) spec for my needs

- second priority = "don't spoil ship for a h'appeth of tar".

That is, if I spend £x on, in this case, CPU, do I get significant gain by spending, say £x+10%, or £x+£50?

So if I need to go as far as 5800X and in my actual usage, there are real gains not theoretical or benchmark performance gains, then I can and will spend what it costs to do that.

But, if the undoubted speed benefits of 5800X over, say, 3600 aren't going to make £250-ish difference to my day-to-day experience, then I'm happy (happier, even) at £180 than £430.

I'm still not sure I'm explaining what I'm after. Video-editing, or photo-editing, when it's large files on a grossly under-powered machine can be frustratingly slow, to the point it becomes unpleasant. I will throw that extra £250, or £1250 extra at it to avoid that if it makes a real difference to me, in use. But I'd rather not, because that difference will probably constrain my camera purchase to what will do, not what I really want.

The overall budget is pretty decent, but not bottomless and I'm after camera, a variety of accessories, some software, and the PC. It'll fit, but there won't be a lot of breathing room.

So .... I'm after optimum bang-for-buck to get a good enough PC for that photo and video stuff. I certainly don't care about clock speeds, or even cores/threads, or even benchmarks other than in when they point to real world usage benefits. I'm not, for instance, after a CPU for willy-waving purposes (not suggesting anyone here is recommending that) but for differences to my real world experience.

I will pay significantly more to change my usage experience to avoid frustration, but not to get a task to finish in 18 seconds rather than 20 seconds. My guess (and this is where real world advice would be really helpful) is that either the 3600 or 5800X would be entirely usable.

I might, however, benefit from 64GB of RAM rather than 32GB and I think 32GB rather than 16GB has already been suggested. But I don't know. That is the kind of future-proofing I meant. Maybe adding a second SSD. That can be done for moderate cost, without wasting anything already installed. But I don't want to be changing mobo or CPU (hopefully, ever, because I don't see my requirements rising drastically in the future).

Very much the same logic applies to video card/gpu. I will want to drive two monitors. I doubt that's a problem. If I end up adding a third, I'll add another card if I need to, but don't want to take out a fairly expensive card to put a bit more expensive card in. Again, I'll spend a bit more, if need be, to future-proof that.

One thing I absolutely don't want is hassle. Taking bits out, selling them, and upgrading is hassle.

So I'm after that sweet-spot of powerful-enough, versatile-enough to avoid mucking about with cpu/gpu changes in a year or two, and will spend what I need to to take reasonable precautions against it. I just don't know where it is.

For a comparison between £x and £x+50 for a processor, I'm not really bothered. If the extra is justified, fine. It's a trivial difference. But while £430 as opposed to £180 is doable if I need to, that's not so trivial so it needs to make a very real difference to my actual usage experience.

Oh, and this is entirely a home, hobby project. There is no business case, ROI, commercial justification, etc., to think about.

I hope that narrows down what I'm after from this.

Its why I made suggestions of those bundles,as the effective prices of the CPUs are dropped. So the Ryzen 9 3900 non-X becomes £335 and the Ryzen 7 5800X becomes £370.

In my case I have a 8C/16T Ryzen 7 3700X,as I wanted a good all round general purpose CPU,ie,enough grunt for games,decent image and video editing performance and a reasonable price. 6C is perfectly fine TBF and better price/performance,but I personally think 8C is the way to go if you don't upgrade often.

[Zhaoman]

It depends on your use case Saracen. If it's mainly photo editing then 3600 will break no sweat. But you mentioned DaVinci Resolve which is where these higher core count 3700X, 5800X and 3900 come in. If you don't care about your video encode taking 60s instead of 120s because you rarely do it then a 3600 would be more than adequate and is probably the 'sweet spot' you are looking to hit right now.

CAT's bundles are decent deals though if core counts matter, especially the 3900. But you won't see any difference in single thread so it's up to you based on your use case if they are value or not.

[DanceswithUnix]

The 5600X also has a poor cooler though which is where some of the value of the 3700X comes in (assuming you can find either at sensible prices). I mean you're right, the 5600X is fantastic but then you could argue the 3600 is actually probably the best value for money out of all. I was thinking you could conceivably use the 3700X cooler with the 5950X in future (with a bit of undervolting) but definitely not the 5600X/3600 cooler.

Not dissing the 3700X, I'm typing this on one at the office and have one at home. But it comes with a cooler rated for double the power output it actually has, and yet at home I ended up with a cheap aftermarket one anyway to reduce the noise. The cooler has value, but not to the point that I would spend £10 more for the 3700X than the 5600X. My wife's 5600X is still on the box cooler, as it is quite low profile and she has a small shoebox case.

I would put a 12 core under that 3700X cooler in a pinch, but not a 16 core. If you are spending that sort of money on a CPU, it makes no sense to put an under performing cooler on it as it would be thermally throttling all the time.

Could the 3600 be argued to be the best value? Well a few posts back I linked £180 for a 3600 and a B550M motherboard for £87 because I think they will do fine. The question is whether it is worth spending another £100 to add two cores or get those 6 cores bumped up to the latest Zen 3. If balancing against spending money on camera bits the good enough 3600 would look mighty tempting.

It looks like the chosen software does video rendering with CUDA when available, so 3600 and put some money towards a 1660 or similar might be the best bet.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Well the Q6600 was considered overkill 10 years ago,so I would make an argument going with some extra capacity is a good idea,and as mentioned:

"decently future-proofed as this may well be my last major PC replacement".

An E8400 was easily faster than the Q6600,but the Q6600 no doubt has lasted longer. Its why I wouldn't get a Ryzen 5 5600X for a 10 year lifespan at nearly £300,and my experiences with the Wraith Stealth were not good. It was quiet,but the temperatures were horrendous,so much so in my mini-ITX system I chucked it away and used a Wraith Spire and saw a 20C reduction in speed when under video encoding and heavy RAW transcoding load,and less noise. Boost was also higher.

Also GPUs are just utterly overpriced now - even the GTX1660 Super if you are lucky to find one in stock is nearly £300,if you can find one. It's so bad Nvidia is apparently bringing back the GTX1050TI. I would say get a GT1030 for now,and when GPUs are easier to get plonk in a better GPU then.

Plus IMHO,those two bundles from AWD-IT,have the Ryzen 9 3900 non-X for £335 and the Ryzen 7 5800X for £370. Saracen isn't really gaming that much AFAIK and in terms of longevity I think those two options they are better than a Ryzen 5 5600X. The Ryzen 7 3700X isn't really worth it at nearly £300 either,if the Ryzen 9 3900 non-X is around £335(plus £25 for a cooler if you need it) in a bundle,and a Ryzen 7 5800X is £350~£370.However,there are scenarios where you can get the Ryzen 7 3700X for £250 or less,its worth it especially as the cooler is literally selling for £20~£30 secondhand now. I got my Ryzen 7 3700X for around £215 with a damaged box.

The Ryzen 5 3600 is OTH definitely worth it at under £200 because its cheap.

One of my mates who works at a university,upgraded to a Ryzen 9 3900 non-X bundle from AWD-IT last year. It flies through video transcoding,image editing tasks,etc which they need for their online lectures. It has more cores than you can shake a badger backside at. Its also only a 65W TDP CPUs so is reasonably easy to cool.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Double post?!

[Saracen999]

Photography has been a love of mine for, oh, 50 years or so, since I got my first SLR. I still have some darkroom kit.

I've been into digital photography since the days of digital cameras being so new the vast majority of people had never seen anything like it and the notion of taking a picture and having it appear in the screen on the back (Kodak DC-25, IIRC) was akin to magic.

That's where the emphasis lies. Video, in any serious fashion, is very much Johnny-come-lately to me. I have a few things in mind and might end up doing a lot more than in the past .... or might not. I want to keep the door open with this PC but I don't expect it to be anything more than the junior partner to photography.

All the help so far noted and gratefully received. It's all helping me get things sorted in my head.

[DanceswithUnix]

It was quiet,but the temperatures were horrendous,so much so in my mini-ITX system I chucked it away and used a Wraith Spire and saw a 20C reduction in speed when under video encoding and heavy RAW transcoding load,and less noise. Boost was also higher.

Yeah, but it sounds like Saracen has nice big roomy cases with plenty of airflow rather than stuffing it into a little shoebox with a 1080ti.

3900 is a nice chip. I don't like that is seems to be available basically from that one supplier where I always struggle to find a bundle that I can live with and always end up buying elsewhere.

The other possibility is the 4750G, starting with one of these boxes: https://www.ebuyer.com/990072-xenta-...sktop-xr-d5161
Not the ultimate performer, but decent and not a bad price given it has 8 cores and reasonable integrated graphics.

I guess someone should come up with an Intel IGP spec build.

(Kodak DC-25, IIRC) was akin to magic.

Ooh nice one. I joined the fun some years later with a DC215 with an entire megapixel. Damned nice little camera that, and would probably still work just fine if I dug it out

[Pob255]

I don't know which generation of surface pro you have or what cpu it has (there's quite a wide range) but have you tried editing on that?
That would be my first step, as it'll give you and us a better idea in terms of expected performance, I mean that more core will be better/faster but not necessarily needed and I think some suggestions may be over spec'd.
If you have a pen for your pro then you might find that is better for doing hand touch ups anyway.

[Zhaoman]

It looks like the chosen software does video rendering with CUDA when available, so 3600 and put some money towards a 1660 or similar might be the best bet.

Only the paid version of Resolve can use GPU rendering so I assume it's the CPU that will be doing it. I think either way, any of these modern processors will give a great experience for photo editing and the occasional video render. The 4750G is also a great suggestion and probably what I would go for as a set and forget option but OP has so many cases that seems a waste not to reuse. The 3600 and 3900 look the best value to me right now and at least gives the option of an upgrade path to Zen3 or Zen3+ in future. But there's so little in it you could easily make a strong case for 5600X or 5800X (or indeed as Pob suggests, we might be overspecifying the whole thing!).

[ik9000]

given the slowdown in innovation etc things aren't what they used to be and kit can last longer. Let's say you only need a computer for x years:

• 2 years? No need to consider upgrade paths, they're irrelevant just get what works now
  
• 5 years? upgrade paths become a nice-to-have, and a new cpu, better RAM can give it a performance boost and keep you higher up the foodchain, but the machine bought now will last 5 years without changes.
  
• 10 years? If you want something for 10 years then it's either complete replacement at 5 years or plan now for good upgrade paths CPU,RAM, faster NVMe etc in 5 years via the 2nd hand market. Given the cusp of DDR5 and pcie5 I'd say stuff upgrade path and plan for complete replacement at that point tbh.

[DanceswithUnix]

I bumped into these bundles with a 4750G and thought of this thread:

https://www.quietpc.com/sys-bundle-ryzen-atx
https://www.quietpc.com/sys-bundle-ryzen-uatx
https://www.quietpc.com/sys-bundle-ryzen-itx

Decent quality motherboards, near silent Noctua cooling, 8 cores.

[Zhaoman]

The 10700F is supposedly getting a price cut of 25% https://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-....519859.0.html
That would make it very decent value if you have a good cooler (and the price translates over to UK market).

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

The 10700F is supposedly getting a price cut of 25% https://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-....519859.0.html
That would make it very decent value if you have a good cooler (and the price translates over to UK market).

Its already happening:
https://www.hotukdeals.com/deals/107...ad-cpu-3667024

The Core i7 10700F for £241.

Core i9 9900 non-K for £280:
https://www.hotukdeals.com/deals/int...cooler-3662879

Has an IGP.

Core i9 10900F for £365:
https://www.hotukdeals.com/deals/int...cessor-3657985

[Saracen999]

given the slowdown in innovation etc things aren't what they used to be and kit can last longer. Let's say you only need a computer for x years:

• 2 years? No need to consider upgrade paths, they're irrelevant just get what works now
  
• 5 years? upgrade paths become a nice-to-have, and a new cpu, better RAM can give it a performance boost and keep you higher up the foodchain, but the machine bought now will last 5 years without changes.
  
• 10 years? If you want something for 10 years then it's either complete replacement at 5 years or plan now for good upgrade paths CPU,RAM, faster NVMe etc in 5 years via the 2nd hand market. Given the cusp of DDR5 and pcie5 I'd say stuff upgrade path and plan for complete replacement at that point tbh.

Sorry about the delay in responding. got a bit distracted by matters in real life.

While I take that stance as valid generically, I doubt it is for me.

I'm coming at this from the perspective of "I need to do job X. What do I need to do job X satisfactorily." And, if what I get does job X now, I don't see why it won't still do it in 5 or 10 years. Oh, and obviously, repair/replacement of something that dies is different. That, if it happens, I'll do if I need to.

But as an example, if I set my video editing needs at, say, 1080p, then despite the world having moved to 4k, 8k, 16k, 32k and 64k by 10 years time, I'm not planning on followig along. 1080 will do me. Okay, if I can I might dabble in 4k for the hell of it but do I need 4k, or much care if I can't do iy Nope. Not now, and certainly not in 10 years.

Ditto for photo editing. And for sound work too. I'm putting together a sort-of mini studio capability. That covers everything from mirophones to a simple mixer, to ADC, to some audio gear (speakers, etc). I might knock out a few YT videos on a subject or two but if I do it's for my amusement, it's for a fun project to do, it's for the sake of playing with it. I'm not trying to be the next internet sensation, or an "influencer". Frankly, the thought of me doing that makes me shudder. I'm certainly not doing it with a view to making money from it. On the contrary, that's the last result I want. (*see note)

It's a hobby. It's for my amusement, and the fun of doing it, and only that.

Which is why I take the view that the job I want done isn't likely to evolve over 10 years. I'm aiming at satisfying my "have fun" hobbyism, and the ambition stops there, so if the world (and internet expectations) moves on (as it no doubt will), it does so without me trying to keep up.






(*note)

Not wanting to make money from a YT channel (if I stick anything online, which is not a given)? And I mean, I actively don't want to make money. No really, I don't.

It's like this. I don't need the money. I'm effectively retired, and the very last thing I want is to unretire. I'm certainly not wealthy, but nor are my needs very high. We own our home (so no rent, no mortgage) and, after years of struggle of get there, are at the point where, short of a significant capital purchase, montly income > monthly outgoings and the same is true for annual in/out. Largely, this is because outgoings are pretty small, and anything bigger is discretionary.

So, all that => no accountants, no accounts, no VAT hassle (de-registered several years back now), no tax complications, a 30-minute tax return almost all of which says "zero", no HMRC faffing about, no such pain-in-the-chuff hassles.

In other words, a nice, quiet, easy-going and hassle-free existance.

If I accidentally started making money because my sparkling, shining personally, rugged handsomeness and alpha-male character suddenly had the girls swooning and TV producers banging my door down, it would shatter my hassle-free lifestyle and beggar-up my peace and quiet totally.

So if it even looks like I might start making money (about as likely as a lottery win) I would immediately stop uploading anything at all, delete any online accounts and go find a monastery I could join.

So okay, maybe I got a smidge carried away there, but suffice it to say, this is just about a fun hooby/personal project, and my ambitions wil not exceed those limits.

[Jonj1611]

For youtube videos, you have to monetize your channel and for that you need to turn that on and sign up to it etc, they don't automatically pay you for youtube videos, so if you don't sign up to monetization you can have a video with a billion views and not earn anything from it.