What's new
By:
Photoshop Gurus Forum

Welcome to Photoshop Gurus forum. Register a free account today to become a member! It's completely free. Once signed in, you'll enjoy an ad-free experience and be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

New Graphics Card for Photoshop CS5


hi
GeForce GTX 780 Ti is the champion at the moment and cost around 700 USD
GeForce GTX 770 is still at top 10 but cost half less 300 USD
for a single high end graphic card you will need PSU of 500W or greater so you should upgrade that to for stable system operation.
 
To be honest, unless you are going to use plugin or PS features or PS / CC features that make use of the graphics acceleration (ie, mathematical) capabilities of your video card, IMHO, the Ti model is probably a lot more than you need. The files you mentioned are not particularly big. Personally, I would spend the money on an SSD and more RAM.

OTOH, if you intensively use the above features, Nik Color Efx Pro, or other plugins by them, the 3T and its very fast PCIe 3 bus connection to the MOBO of that card will serve you well.

Tom M
 
Id prefer to have a lot more than I need than risk having too little

Saves needing to upgrade sooner, and youve got that extra power there, just in case you come to need it.

Sorry if the text is a bit big not used to my phone
 
I upgrading my RAM and SSD instead a graphic card and guess what, my photoshop is faster and more stable to work although i open more pts files than before. But a graphic card is still good when u already upgrade both of things i said.
 
Don't get me wrong - a good video card is important, but if someone hasn't yet upgraded to SSD drives and enough system RAM, I would put these well above a better video card for still photography applications.

T

PS - BTW, I use the Gtx 770 ( non - Ti ) in my PS machine.
 
the drives in "SSD drives" is unnecessary, it's just SSD, as in Solid State Drive.

I'm still keeping it old school and using a 500gb HDD, and a 1tb ExHDD, they run perfectly fine with photoshop, the program loads in 2.46 seconds with a fair few plugins in there, files as large as 200-250mb might take a little longer to save, but they are certainly within a decent time sensitivity threshold.

I mean, the RAM is good enough, in my opinion, 16gb is plenty for processing large 150mb files, considering even 8gb is more than capable of handling it and with good performance
but SSDs? naah, I'm still struggling to get my head around them, they're great as a boot drive for windows because they can access files quicker, and to some margin they may be more reliable, but programs like photoshop, in all honesty won't see much of a boost in boot up times, save times, yes, but really, it takes a miniscule amount of time to save a 150mb file onto an HDD anyway.
I suppose I'm not one to believe the hypes.

Using an AMD radeon HD7850 GPU in mine, I wouldn't recommend it for super duper graphics intensive stuff, that's where Nvidia comes in, but if it's general filter application with photos, then it'll be okay for that. runs alright with 3ds too.
 
8 gbs of ram will be faster than 16 gbs of ram on windows 8 and 7 because that is the sweet spot in which windows is optimised for, anything bgger will be slower until it reaches a certain level of usage.

Just like a dual core is faster than a quadcore, the quadcore will only out do the dual core on heavy multi core tasks such as rendering but the everyday operations of running an OS and using basic programs such as email the dual core will be considerably faster.
 
Back
Top