hlpeterson

I suspect that the MAC is the best computer for displaying photos. What PC desktop would you recommend, and/or what graphics card would be the best to displaying high quality photos?

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

That depends on what you mean by "best." I'm using a Dell desktop with an old Dell monitor, and I'm satisfied with what I see. There is a certain type of monitor that is very good for photography, but it is pricey. I'm sure someone will know the term.

As for the graphics card, I'm no expert, but I think gaming puts more demands on a graphics card than simply displaying photos.

dpullum Loc: Tampa Florida

In January I built a "kick-ass" computer for my photo work. AMD 8 core CPU, very good reviews MoBo, 16 gig of fast DDR3 memory. Each component involved a lot of component research to achieve a balance between cost,performance, of course intended use. Oh left out "budget" Cost was about $750.

Graphics Card: Looking for $150 range the MSI GTX 750Ti was chosen. True not a fast "gaming card" but it is in the family. Lots of bang for the buck... next better b/$ was $300... too much $$ for my pocket.
http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/gpu.php?gpu=GeForce+GTX+750+Ti

"If I wanted a new video card right now for use with Photoshop CC and newer releases that took better advantage of the latest Smart Sharpen filter (which places far more demand on the GPU compared to older filters used in Photoshop), I'd probably grab a GTX 750 Ti for that purpose."
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/53566914

This MSI GTX 750Ti has 2 gig of GDDR-5 memory the type specifically designed for graphics. Too often you see DDR-3 memory used in cards, not the same... slow!

Tech discussion of memory type:
http://www.goldfries.com/computing/gddr3-vs-gddr5-graphic-card-comparison-see-the-difference-with-the-amd-radeon-hd-7750/

scsdesphotography Loc: Southeastern Michigan

There is no difference between a Mac and PC when it comes to rendering still images. They both use the same hardware. There is a difference in monitors, some Mac displays are better than the cheap one's offered with low budget PC system. But, to my knowledge Mac does not offer a monitor that supports the full Adobe RGB gamut, while there are non-Mac one's that do, for a price.

All modern video cards support the full Adobe color spectrum, if your monitor can display it. But, as dpullum, points out the speed with which your processing changes are rendered in Photoshop or Lightroom does depend on the amount of memory on the card. While there is a difference between DDR3 and DDR5, more memory trumps type when it comes to real world results for photo rendering, not true for video encoding or gaming.

hlpeterson

Thanks to you and to the several others who responded to my question. Next stop is computer store!

brucewells Loc: Central Kentucky

Your suspicions are not necessarily founded, but I will tell you that I prefer nVidia cards. Very efficient and well supported. AMD Radeon cards would be my second choice.

To finish off, you'll need a monitor. I have the Dell U2410 that is capable of rendering the complete sRGB and AdobeRGB gamuts. The rendering of the images is really quite sweet. Other companies make these types of monitors, as well. Asus has one that is supposed to be really nice. Be prepared, however. These monitors will be priced around $500.

pmackd Loc: Alameda CA

Depending on your computer processor you may not need any graphics card to display photos and do quite advanced processing. Intel's i7 series has their HD 4600 graphics or better. HD 4600 can power even the latest Dell 4K IPS 27 inch monitor P2715Q with 8 bit color (or equivalent monitor from another maker). However you need to use a Display Port connection as found on modern motherboards. To get 10 bit color you would need a specialized graphics card such as a high end Nvidia Quadro.

dpullum Loc: Tampa Florida

scsdesphotography said in part: " While there is a difference between DDR3 and DDR5, more memory trumps type when it comes to real world results for photo rendering, not true for video encoding or gaming."

Yes, scsdesphotography, perhaps true in some benchmarks, but not true in bandwidth calculations... comparing 1 gig of GDDR5 vs 2 gig of GDDR3 the GDDR5 is significantly superior according to one of the references**, also the GDDR5 may indicate a better build. The referenced card has 2 gig which is quite good. The reference is a bit complicated but the result summaries for each table shows GDDR5 superior. But admittedly we may be talking about a few hundred micro second of time... and yep 16 gig of high-speed DDR3 is over kill ... aaaa for now, so when you buy then get two matched sticks. Who know what maro brings and at my age... baring lightening strikes this will be my last computer .... gulp.... 79 next week!!!

**http://www.goldfries.com/computing/gddr3-vs-gddr5-graphic-card-comparison-see-the-differe...

hlpeterson

Thanks. 75 last month. Let's hope that neither of us is on his last computer.