Building a Computer for DAW and Photoshop use

[PFDarkside]

First, I have one singular computer. It's over 6 years old and I still run Cakewalk and Fruity Loops on it. Latency is surprisingly not so bad, but I can run any VSTs and trying to manipulate 12MP photos is nearly comedic! It's still running but it seems like the sands of time are beginning to run dry.

If you were to build a general purpose/DAW/Photoshop PC on a mid-priced budget, what would you go for? It seems like we are on a divergance in processors, you have to choose a faster dual core or slower quad core.

Ideally I'd run the max RAM for the Mobo/OS, a "nice" soundcard, maybe Sonar unless you'd recommed something else along with whatever the latest drum track creation VST is. On the Photo editing side I think I'd like to go all out with Photoshop CS4, I'm not sure if I'd need Lightroom.

So... what would you build? Would it be absolutely laughable to think you could get a laptop and USB breakout box to do the above stuff?

[Virtual Kevorkian]

Went through this myself a few months back, ended up with a 2.4ghz quad core (Intel Q6600), 4GBs ram, 3 internal drives, 650W PSU, dvd burner, FireWire and eSATA cards, 512 VRAM (forgot the actual card, GeForce 9xxx series), all for about $700 off Newegg.com.

That said, you can pick up some really nice setups for not much cash at BestBuy/Fry's type stores. They come with Vista, sure, but they now have quadcores and 3-4GB ram stock!

[aleclee]

When building a system, I generally consult the Ars Technica System Guide. Dell refurbs can also be a good value. When I bought my last PC (before converting to Mac for my non-server needs) I came to the conclusion that a refurbed Dell was only a few buck more than a DIY box and the warranty on the hardware was probably worth it.

[supernosher]

Quad cores aren't necessary. It's better to have a faster clock and FSB than it is to have 4 or 8 threads going on, unless VST's and samplers and the recording software can take advantage of the seperate cores, which I don't think is true.

I'll list some things I think are mandatory.

- At least 2 large cache 7200RPM or better HDD's
- Windows XP (much more efficient memory use and latency than Vista)
- No Wifi
- As much RAM as you can afford (at least 4Gigs)
- don't skimp on the PSU

Laptops generally don't have ALL the pieces for a DAW puzzle. Either slow HDD, just one HDD, wrong FireWire chipset, etc.

As far as interfaces go, you could get a Toneport if you're just programming drums and recording guitar. Personally I like to mic the amp, so I would get a used Firepod (8 mic pres) or, NEW - an Echo AudioFire4 and an M-Audio DMP3 (so you have 4 mic pres) at a minimum.

Last and certainly not least, it's important to keep the software you install to a minimum. I don't have Office, or Photoshop installed on my DAW, and I shouldn't even have it hooked up to the internet, but then again it's not a MacPro with a $20,000 ProTools HD3 system installed in it. Installing heavy programs does slow down the computer though. Photshop and Office install services and all kinds of registry entries and fonts (which slow down the computer a negligable amount, so I don't really want it to be on my DAW, but it's probably fine. I have a laptop to do schoolwork on and virus scans on.

Hope that helps.

Corsair supposedly makes a good PSU now:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16817139005

For budget conciousness:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819115037

And a MOBO with nice features:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16813131297

And software settings in XP:
http://www.moozek.com/2008/08/21/def...ing-for-audio/

[PFDarkside]

Thank you for the advice so far. Regarding XP and RAM, I thought XP can only address 4 Gigs max?

Also, it makes sense to go fast Dual Core with fast FSB. The serious Photoshop users seem to use 3 or 4 drives, one semi quick smaller drive for OS/Program installs, one very quick smaller drive for a scratch disk (10,000rpm, WD Raptor 74GB) then a large scale storage. DAW programs use a scratch disk too, right?

Finally, I guess I could buy a micro system or cheap laptop for Internet, music, etc. but my music library is growing quite large and to be honest I don't think I can afford a 1500 - 2000 system just for audio recording! LOL. I don't need an ultra pro setup, but how much will it hurt to utilize the performance and storage for other tasks? (photoshop, DVD ripping, etc.?)

[Virtual Kevorkian]

unless VST's and samplers and the recording software can take advantage of the seperate cores, which I don't think is true.

They can and do - anything that involves multitasking will benefit from more cores, DAW's especially. (PS what happened to firepods not cutting it??)


PFD, you're right - anything over 4GB of RAM is a total waste with 32bit operating systems. Everything is coded to be 32bit, 2^32, which = apprx 4GB. That's 4GB of address space for all components, not just RAM. The most you'll get your system to report as having is around 3.5GB

The reason you'd want seperate drives is so you can have a smaller drive for the OS/Programs, and a few larger drives to store projects, audio files, samples, etc... on. For instance, I've got one system drive (OS and programs), one sample drive (all drum samples, impulses, and virtual instruments), and one audio drive (actual .wav and project files). This keeps strain on the drives at a minimum, and will ensure that things run not only faster and smoother, but for a longer period of time, as well.

[supernosher]

(PS what happened to firepods not cutting it??)

Different applications require different gear...

in B2D's thread, I thought he wanted to record a demo with full drum kit, bass, guitar, vocals, and I thought his budget was higher. Just for messing around, the firepod is great although I am not sure how well built they are.

[supernosher]

Thank you for the advice so far. Regarding XP and RAM, I thought XP can only address 4 Gigs max?

Also, it makes sense to go fast Dual Core with fast FSB. The serious Photoshop users seem to use 3 or 4 drives, one semi quick smaller drive for OS/Program installs, one very quick smaller drive for a scratch disk (10,000rpm, WD Raptor 74GB) then a large scale storage. DAW programs use a scratch disk too, right?

Finally, I guess I could buy a micro system or cheap laptop for Internet, music, etc. but my music library is growing quite large and to be honest I don't think I can afford a 1500 - 2000 system just for audio recording! LOL. I don't need an ultra pro setup, but how much will it hurt to utilize the performance and storage for other tasks? (photoshop, DVD ripping, etc.?)

a DAW could use a "scratch drive" for reading the samples in a project. But velociraptors are expensive, and we're talking budget here. Ideally we'd all have 8 core Mac Pro's w/ 20 gigs of ECC RAM anyways...

You don't need to spend over $1500 for a system if you build it yourself. You can get an "wank box" for like $500, with a monitor easy.

It's hard to answer the question "how much will it hurt to utilize the performance and storage for photoshop, DVD ripping, etc." I don't think ripping DVDs will hurt it at all. Office, and Photoshop - probably hurt performance but how much? I don't know...

I have heard different things about DAW software being able to take advantage of Quad cores, and I haven't been paying attention lately, honestly.

[Virtual Kevorkian]

Different applications require different gear...

in B2D's thread, I thought he wanted to record a demo with full drum kit, bass, guitar, vocals, and I thought his budget was higher. Just for messing around, the firepod is great although I am not sure how well built they are.

I'm not gonna get back into the argument (I did record their demos with full drumkit, etc... and FirePods), but I'm glad you got that I was kidding there, even without a smiley .

[supernosher]

Even a jest deserves a response.

btw, you're growing up nicely!

/me pats VK on the head.

[PFDarkside]

I've been reading more on chips and motherboards, as well as 32/64 bit. It seems that Sonar 8 and Photoshop CS4 both utilize 64 bit OS' and therefore address a lot more RAM than the 32 bit counterparts. It also seems that XP (in both 32 and 64 bit configs) are disappearing from shelves very soon. However, Sonar specifically DOES NOT support XP64.

Then we get into the subject of PC performance. Is Overclocking only for the techies and gamers? Or is there any advantage to buying a badass mobo and cooling system to really crank up the speed? How does noise com into play with DAW computers? Should you replace the case fans with low noise fans, and/or optimize the system for noise in other ways?

(Thankfully my single PC is still running, and as long as it is I have time to plan for the next one )

[supernosher]

There are better DAW softwares than Sonar. But that's up to you, and I can understand sticking with something affordable and that you are familiar with. I would however not put all your eggs in the software basket because who knows, you may find that REAPER is superior to Sonar down the road. (shameless plug)

There are too many reasons to avoid x64 OS's. The drivers just simply aren't there right now.

Overclocking is cool, but sometimes you run into problems such as the RAM and MOBO don't wanna clock at the same speeds, and there are no gaurantees in overclocking. DFI used to make really nice overclocking boards, I'm not sure who does this year, and they are good company to deal with in my experience. For instance they put memtest86+ built into the BIOS, reset and power switches on the board, lots of over-voltage available to the RAM, as well as everything being fully adjustable in the BIOS settings.

I buy the best PSU (which usually relates to quietest and most stable), best fans (based on decibel per CFM), and hugest solid copper heatsink I can find. I have a 4 pound copper tower on my CPU right now. Most fans that come with cases are junk as you would suspect. I also use filters on the intake fans to make my PC last as long as possible. Heat (also a concern with overclocking) and dust are killers.

[Jet-Jaguar]

I hear different things about the 64-bit drivers. Some say their rigs are totally stable, others have had nightmares. I think it's a crap shoot.

Speaking of Crap shoots, the same goes for overclocking. Some people have gotten 3ghz out of 2.2 ghz core 2 duos (or so they say on forums .) I wouldn't do it for audio/video machine.

I really like Seasonic for PSUs. They're not as well known as they should be, but they often make the PSUs that you'll find sold under other names.

As for fans, on my main computer, I'm currently using the ones that came with my case. But it is a really, really nice case.

[Chaos]

Lots of good advice.
My personal recommendations for Photoshop CS4 is still XP32
Video card needs to support dual monitors at at least 3200 x 1200 resolution. Highend 3d video cards & game support is wasted on Photoshop.
Overclocking never pays for itself.

Plan on dropping $300- 500 on a good Wacom tablet

Presently I am running two 3.0Ghz dual-core Xeon processors & 4Gb memory on my Photoshop box.

[PFDarkside]

Can you elaborate more on Video Cards? While I can find good info on the other components for non gaming systems, EVERYTHING I read about for graphics cards is for high end gaming.

[millsart]

Go for a quad core 2.4gig, its by far the best bang for the buck price point right now and more and more stuff is going to take advantage of the 4 cores in the future. its just a smarter buy for for the future and a good variety of apps can take advantage of it now. Asus or Gigabyte mobo with intel chipsets are rock solid with that platform as well

As mentioned, if your running XP, 32bit, 4gigs RAM is the most you can use (viewed as 3some gigs) but frankly I've found that to be plenty for most applications and preferable to 64bit OS and more headaches with Vista etc

Multiple drives can be nice but again, I've noticed no performance advantages in PS using dedicated scratch drives etc these days.

I make my living as a professional photographer and run CS3 and a modern SATA drive on even a modest system works fine. Years ago it was nice to have a dedicated SCSI scratch drive but HD's are so much faster these days you simply dont need it.

Still can be nice to have a seperate HD for backups etc and they are pretty cheap so something like 2 500gig SATA are a good buy

As for video cards, I dont play games so I run the Asus silent line. I HATE the noise from modern vid cards, sound like a darn hairdryer. The Asus cards have no fan, just a big heatsink and are totally quite. I can't tell if my PC is even on which is great. Work fine for driving 28" monitor and are cheap, about $50 or less. You just dont need a high end vid card for PS or music so save your money.

For soundcard, also as suggested, its hard to beat the L6 toneport stuff for the money. If your not going to need a bunch of crazy digital inputs, 8 inputs etc theres no point to buy some high end cards costing 4times as much money.

For about $600 I built my latest 2.4ghz quadcore machine with 4gigs ram, 2 500gig SATA drives (non raid) 16x SATA DVD burner, and 512meg silent vid card, with a Toneport GX USB soundcard.

Lightroom and CS3, as well as DXO, CaptureOne 4 etc run lightening quick and I'v got minimal CPU usage running my DAW of choice, Tracktion.

RUnning something like AMplitube even at highest quality only gets about 15% CPU usage max.


You could go spend twice the money on a system and see maybe a 5% increase in benchmark. Or you could spend maybe $100 less and see a 25% decrease. Its all about finding the best pricepoint and the 2.4ghz quads are defiantly there.


For the most part we are at a point where PC specs far exceed what 99% of uses will ever need and seeing such diminishing returns theres no real point upgrading.

Honestly my old p4 system ran everything I did perfectly fine. I built a new one just because and while way more powerful in actual usage I dont notice the advatnages. Its at least nice being able to know it will run anything I throw at it for the foreseeable future.

[PFDarkside]

Thank you for that post. The find art of balancing money and performance is always the tough part. I have no need to be on the cutting edge, but I don't want to be left out in 2 years.

I've got Light Room on my current PC and it's brutal. I crash a lot, and that's doing ultra basic stuff. I just want something that wi be very comfortable, that will go at a nice clip to eliminate delays as much as possible and provide an "enjoyable" experience. As you know, going by required specs on an application's website isn't going to give you the optimal machine. Finding the price/performance intersection for all components is tough since I've been out of this stuff for years!

[supernosher]

Just find a video card that is fanless and has 2 video outs. Probably something like the 500 series geforce. MSI usually has nice copper heatsinks coming stock on their cards. Search newegg.com.

[Zerberus]

Can you elaborate more on Video Cards? While I can find good info on the other components for non gaming systems, EVERYTHING I read about for graphics cards is for high end gaming.

To put it in a nutshell, if you´re not gaming then the cheapest functioning graphics card you can find should more than be up to the task of studio and graphics apps, unless there´s some freaky 3d rendering going on in the UI, but IRC even Steinberg decided not to touch that with a 10 ft pole..

Geforce MX series for example or a Matrox if you can still find one.... or just grab a Mainboard with a vga chipset onboard. You´ll want to avoid anything with a fan becasue fans cause noise and nose is somethiong you´ll be able to hear in the final recorded product. Depending on your environment a multi display setup may also be a good idea

Reminds me of my programming days, when I got my old mach 32 and almost freaked out because I could finally scroll code faster than I could read it

[supernosher]

To put it in a nutshell, if you´re not gaming then the cheapest functioning graphics card you can find should more than be up to the task of studio and graphics apps, unless there´s some freaky 3d rendering going on in the UI, but IRC even Steinberg decided not to touch that with a 10 ft pole..

Reminds me of my programming days, when I got my old mach 32 and almost freaked out because I could finally scroll code faster than I could read it

I disagree. You want a solid card with solid drivers, and you certainly can't find that with CHEAP. Drivers are so very important to the stability of the system.