Help review my PC workstation build list, please and thanks.

[Hammerskjold]

Just an FYI, if Photoshop is the primary usage, the latest Photoshops have mercury engine, which heavily accelerate Photoshop use based on your GPU.

From adobe's website itself: http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/...ngine.html

Yeah, I'm somewhat on the fence from what I've read from the 'trenches'. I know that the latest versions of PS is benefiting more from GPU, and about time I say. But the stickler seems to be CUDA vs OpenCL. Adobe seems to be moving more towards OpenCL, but CUDA is still supported.

Though really, I don't want to fall into paralysis by analysis, so I usually look at what other graphic artist rigs are like, how well (or not) they run, and crib that. So right now I'm probably sticking to that Geforce 650 type\range. Unless there's something better for the bang to buck ratio, but in general I haven't had\seen any complaints with most mid range gaming vid card.

Your RAM/Speed usage is heavily dependent upon your workload, which we don't know about. More ram won't affect your stability, but as a reminder regular internal dusting is recommended.

While the bulk of the work will be 2D work, there is a strong possibility of 3D stuff on the side as well.

But again, I'm going with the chatter from the trenches. The blood thirsty and all consuming Adobe PS God, likes the following offerings ranked from most pleased, very pleased, to a passable 'meh...it's ok...I guess.'

1) RAM. Tasty, and no such thing as too much. PS appetite for RAM is fully unleashed in CS6 afaik. I currently run an older version that is maxed at 4 gigs, and I have 4 gigs on my machine. It starts showing it's age when I get to double high res stuff. If I want to make this machine last a while, I'm planning to put most of the bucks in RAM.

One of the big box stores is selling a high end gaming rig, with 32 gigs of RAM, at a higher price than what this work rig specs out at 64 gigs. So I'm drinking the kool-aid on this one, and most likely stuff this ship with maxed out phaser banks. (As much as my current budget allows me to at least.)

2) SSD temple where the PS God can reside.

3) Lower priority regarding CPUs: #of Cores and speed. No significant advantage beyond 4 cores, I don't necessarily want the slowest speed but most current quad core CPUs seems to be good enough for my usage.

The only monkeywrench that hit me at the moment is this Xeon vs i7 thing. I do know artists that use an i7 based workstation, and I have used PS and 3d programs on machines which was nothing more than a modified gaming rig.

While I want a workstation rig that is reliable, I also have to juggle that with some relative performance speed, and definitely cost.

I'm reading different stories whether or not a Xeon based setup can use non ECC RAM, (It's optional! It's required!) because if it can't then I might have to roll the dice and go with an i7 based rig instead.

I reallllly like what I'm reading so far about user reports with Xeon based workstations, but if the cost \ compatibility\availability of using ECC RAM becomes a problem. Then chances are I'll just roll with an i7.

Personally, I would recommend the WD Caviar Red. Better capacity for price and built for 24/7 use. You can get a 3 TB for less than you'd pay for the 2 TB. Comparable speeds.

Yeah, I changed it to WB Red on the previous posts. But good to hear another recommendation on it. Unless that's another different thing, WD Red = WD Caviar Red yes?

Your primary access speed will be from the SSD anyway. I do recommend a higher capacity SSD. You can typically get a Samsung 840 Pro for a better price, but everything varies. I have a Intel 520 240 Gb myself, and am plenty satisfied, but today's prices typically favor Samsung.

It's the Canadian prices vs US prices, I'm just glad I'm not using euro.

If everything works out in that I -can- use regular non ECC RAM on a Xeon based setup, and everything else is compatible, then I might be able to put the saved bucks to a higher cap SSD.