N97972 Loc: Chelan County, Washington

I found this article a very interesting comparison.

https://www.slrlounge.com/best-desktop-computer-for-photo-editing/

pixbyjnjphotos Loc: Apache Junction,AZ

Would have been interesting if they had tried an AMD Ryzen threadripper 32core 64thread processor running at 4.4Ghz instead of the I9.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Interesting, but totally out of my price range. My well-equipped homemade computer cost a little over $1,500, and that works fine for me. I'd hate to work at a job where saving a few seconds is essential.

lbrande

I9~$450
64Gb Ram ~$270
Video Card ~$460
Hard Drives ~$400
Someone is getting ripped off.
I built my I9 with new MB 64Gb and a new SCSI III card for $2500. I still have my original 5x1Tb hd's and my 250Gb system drive. I am still using the original case.

wrangler5 Loc: Missouri

Sounds like a production machine. When you run a factory, the payback for faster equipment is a relatively easy calculation, especially when all you have to do is replace the machine and plug it in. But for what I suspect is the "normal" process that most of us put our computers through with our images, these kinds of comparisons are interesting but not terribly relevant. (And I DO find 'em interesting - for when I win the lottery and stop worrying about what most things cost.)

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

The iMac will be faster for video editing if they compare Apple Final Cut Pro X with Adobe Premiere.

Premiere is optimized for Windows, so the iMac loses that Premiere vs Premiere race.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

Agreed - AMD is back in a big way with Ryzens and Threadrippers

RRS Loc: Not sure

Very interesting. I am contemplating a Puget machine as the Dell I am using is equipped with an intel i5 core and is slow when using some of this new AI software. I have had thought of stripping out the insides and building my own or just upgrading the video card and adding an SSD. One of my problems is that my 14 year old grandson wants this machine as it is. He's taking PS in school this year and is an avid photographer of wildlife. Over all not a bad machine and I'm not trying to save a few seconds but I think it's time for a better machine for what I'm doing.

alx Loc: NJ

Build your own if you know what you are doing!

RRS Loc: Not sure

Thanks, I've built a 5,000 watt RF amp around a 3cx3000a7 broadcast tube and some surface mounting projects among other things. I'm starting to look more on line at what parts to use, my Dell box is too tall for where I want to set things up. I do like the dimension's of the cube that Puget uses. I'll look at Newegg for starters. My original idea of just updating what I now have is more like putting a band aid on a major wound.

alx Loc: NJ

I tend to go with towers, but I am usually looking to maximize the number of hard drives I can squeeze in. Video recording eats GB's. Also like cases with built in SATA docking stations.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

Well, it’s kind of fun to do the planning, have all the boxes arrive and assemble it. With modern cases and drive mounting HW, it doesn’t take long. If I were building a new machine, the first question would be AMD or Intel. A couple of years ago, that would have been a no-brainer, but AMD has upped the ante with their high core count devices (asssuming your SW is parallelized enough to use them). The AMD Ryzen 5s and 7s seem to be offering the highest performance/$, but again, depends on the benchmark.

Btw, as a fellow builder of vacuum tube RF amps (but nothing as big as the 3cx3000), I’d love to see some pictures of that big boy.

Cheers

dwermske

I know you're only speaking in terms of a single PC but seconds do count! It merely depends on your point of reference. I worked for a major oil company many years ago and they justified a 12 million dollar IBM computer mainframe plus 8 million in peripheral devices for 250 developers, in a single location, strictly based on the fact that the new computer would decrease response times from 1.5 seconds to a sub-second response time. The productivity gained over a 3 year period, was the only justification for the purchase. At the time, I was skeptical of the justification but the increased productivity, based on actual throughput, proved to be will worth the money. It only took 1.5 years to cover the initial cost and additional maintenance. When you're paying for productivity, every split-second does count in big $$$. There were also systems that would cost the company $25 million an hour when they went down. Oil rigs that cost the company $1-15 million an hour to run. The deep wells cost even more. If you have to support one of these multi-million dollar an hour projects you would understand why seconds count. I was one of the individuals that had to support the data center OS that managed numerous systems like I described above. In my world, seconds do count especially where productivity and/or throughput is concerned.

Sorry for the diatribe. My job was to reduce response times and increase throughput in mainframes and PCs across our network. So I'm probably a little too sensitive when it comes to saving seconds.

RRS Loc: Not sure

Thanks for all the info, I'll get some shots out today . Look for a PM.