We are getting a new PC for another graphic designer (print) We used to use MAC but now swtiching to PC. What type and how many memory, harddrive, grade of PC would you recommend for print graphic designer? Thanks in advance! A
Learn how to rescue details, remove flyaways, add volume, and enhance the definition of hair in any photo. We break down every tool and technique in Photoshop to get picture-perfect hair, every time.
Aug 6, 2004
"We are getting a new PC for another graphic designer (print) We used to use MAC but now swtiching to PC."
We are getting a new PC for another graphic designer (print) We used to use MAC but now swtiching to PC. What type and how many memory,
harddrive, grade of PC would you recommend for print graphic designer? Thanks in advance!
A
Both PC and MAC need lots of memory and big disks. Neither PC nor MAC need the very fastest CPU; gamers need them. Neither PC nor MAC need the very fastest graphics; gamers need them. Both PC and MAC need DVD+-R drives for (somewhat) archival storage.
I won’t enter in the argument… (resist) (grr, what a stick you gave us)
Autumn, what kind of prints do you produce? Usually, one recommends to max out the ram at 2Gb, to have several hard drives, and a reasonably fast processor 2.6Ghz+ or equivalent P.-rating…
The video card is not an issue as it was (in the past some brands did produce images with a lack of clarity, but with current models, it is not an issue anymore) I chosed a cheap fanless one. (32Mb is more than enough, expensive ones are useless instead the designer intends to play of produce complex 3D scenes)
BUT I’d focus more on the input/output than on the computer itself. Most modern machines are sufficient for Photoshop, but having consistent and accurate colors on a calibrated monitor is priceless! A good scanner and proofing printer will be more valuable than a couple more hundreds of megahurtz (no typo) and a wacom tablet is more than a need once you’ve used one…
For graphics, choose something that can produce clear picture, Matrox or Ati.
Any 2+ GHz processor should offer a good performance, preferrably Pentium4/AthlonXP rather than Celeron/Duron due to their small cache memory sizes.
Memory 1-2 Gugabytes. Prints are large stuff so no compomize here.
Hard drive is important. SCSI system is expensive, but I’ve recently read Western Digital has 10,000rpm IDE hard disks, that perform almost up to the level of SCSI. So double WD Raptors are probably a good choice.
Monitor. Trinitron/diampndtron all the way. They say LCD can still not be used due to the color distortion appering in different view angles.
And the wacom tablet. Can make your work times more effective. I’ve used wacom more than 4 years now, indispensable assistant.
then comes the calibration between devices, and software tuning for optimal performance.
Thanks for some useful advice. I, too, am about to get a new computer (Dell PC), PS-CS or PS 6.0, and a Nikon scanner for my 35 mm slides. I will be printing photos (Epson 2200?) for sale in local galleries.
Will 3.06 GHz be noticeably better than 2.4 or 2.8 (Pentium 4)? What difference would I notice with 2 GB memory rather than 1 GB?
Dell has either .24 dp 19" CRT monitor (Trinitron?), but also a Viewsonic at .21 dp. Will I see an improvement with the latter? Is there some other brand I should consider? (Cost is a significant factor, but so is the final quality of the prints.)
some of newer intel pentium 4 processors should use the HT (hyper threading) technology which should give an advantage in speed compared with the non-HT P4-s. I think the difference btw 2,8 & 3,06 is not significant.
as with the memory I just saw a good point somewhere in other thread here which said smth like that: I’ve never met a man who wails to have too much memory on board. if you have large i mean LARGE pictures to process, like some 30-50 megapixels or more, 2Gb won’t hurt.
also many things to keep an eye on, with monitors. first is accurate colors, trinitron can do it. but larger monitors tires your eyes dramatically more. I’ve worked with 17", 19" & 21". 19" is a good compromize, unless you do some CAD/3D/engineering works where the viewable high-res. area is important. I now work with 17" set at – i’m satified with it. I think in a professional design/photo studio, the sandard begins at 19 inches though. you never know when you need the extra resolution like 1600×1200 or more.
not sure about the dp (dot pitch?) stuff. is this the smallest screen pixel size the monitor can produce?.. 🙂
dp (dot pitch) is the distance (e.g., .24 mm) between similar-colored elements. But if you set your monitor resolution to 1152×864, rather than 1600 by 1200, does that mean your resolution is good enough without a lower dp?
Think dual for your monitors (Matrox will support dual head…best one IMHO) get a great 19"Trinitron (Sony) or Diamondtron (NEC/Mitsubushi) then use a 15-17" el-cheapo for your second monitor to store palettes in,check e-mail etc. What’s nice is you can ignore the second screen except when you need it.
Learn how to optimize Photoshop for maximum speed, troubleshoot common issues, and keep your projects organized so that you can work faster than ever before!
Related Discussion Topics
Nice and short text about related topics in discussion sections
