PC specs for Digital Painting?

Bump. Can we still self-bump on /ic/?

File: 1470490128356.jpg (17KB, 604x438px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 604x438px

>>2808581
>66*C
>Radeon HD
>windows 10
change those and you should have better performances, if not then ask /g/

>>2808913
>gpu
>digital painting performance
Fuck off back to /v/

>>2808954
I don't know about other software but Krita uses the GPU for rendering the viewport/canvas

get at least 8 gigs of ram

any video card made in the last 5 years is more than enough.

>>2809082
photoshop is almost entirely cpu dependent, there are some gpu features, but nothing that makes the gpu the primary bottleneck

>>2809125
It's not even about photoshop, any non-retard software will be cpu-based to the point that GPU doesn't matter in the slightest.

Hell, Zbrush doesn't care about your GPU.

>>2808581
Just start over. You're not going to get anything out of that chipset. Buy a new motherboard and a proper quad-core CPU. You don't really need a dedicated GPU but an entry-level card is nice to have if you plan on doing any 3D at all. Adobe recommends 2GB of VRAM for the 3d features in CC 2017, but any Haswell or newer CPU should have integrated graphics good enough for basic hardware acceleration.

>>2809125
>photoshop is almost entirely cpu dependent
Oh shit is that why it's so fucking ass

>>2808581
Make sure the spacing setting on your brushes is higher than 5.

Other than that, you can try using more simple brushes in general, or painting smaller.

Save up for a new machine. Quad core around 4ghz, 32GB RAM, SSD for OS and PS (Crucial MX300 is cheap and decent).

>>2809172
Quite the opposite, anon.

Especially given that many workstations don't bother to have a separate GPU, unless you need it for vidya garbage or things like 3d rendering and processing.

>>2809129
Why doesn't a dedicated GPU matter? I thought it's supposed to be used by graphics intensive applications

>>2809542
>I thought it's supposed to be used by graphics intensive applications
>by graphics intensive applications
There you go, anon, you answered your own question.
Good job!

>>2809554
is digital painting not graphics intensive? Using a 3000px airbrush to block in a 10,000px canvas sounds pretty hardcore to me.

>>2809561
Because you are a moron without any idea what you're talking about.

>>2809571
>without any idea what you're talking about.
that's why I'm asking dipshit, and you didn't answer my questions.

I think that if digital painting applications pushed pixels on a GPU instead of a CPU, they wouldn't be shitting themselves on massive textured brushes and canvases. but i'm obviously wrong and I don't understand why.

64 gig DDR4 Ram.
i7 5820K
Samsung SSD Evo 960 (as your write
Geforce 1060+ I use the 1070 myself.

The bottleneck becomes the software.
15 000 x 10 000 canvas is neat to paint in.


Sure there are other options out there but they all seem to lack those basic tools that photoshop can modify your art with as you paint.

I built this PC for my work in 3D as well.
4TB archive drive.

I use some ancient dualcore and 4gb ram. Don't have much problems with photoshop but then again, I kinda got used to always flattening the image to 1 layer and only ever have 1, max 2 temporary layers up.

File: 3125512116.jpg (31KB, 409x753px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 409x753px

>>2809575
I'll elaborate:
Video games these days can spit out well over 60 frames per second. That is 60 or more monitor-sized images being calculated in the span of a second.

On the other hand, digital painting applications like Photoshop (in my experience) can barely handle themselves when I want to lay down brush strokes with textures that are as big as my monitor. At BEST they seem to only lay down 20 or 30 monitor-sized "dabs" every second.

Why is there a discrepancy? Why do shitty video games get to push pixels faster than digital painting applications?

>>2809576
64 is overkill. ive got 32 at cl14/3200mhz and ive never used a quarter of it.

>>2809125
>>2809171
>>2809171
Thanks. I was worried that this was the case. I inherited this desktop when someone moved out of my apartment, and it seemed odd that it could handle gaming on high settings but not photoshop. Looks like I'm going to have to make a more serious upgrade than I wanted to.

>>2809338
I already checked the spacing (25), and I only use the soft/hard round brushes and a rectangular sketchy brush most of the time.

>>2809826
At what canvas size? Seems pretty odd for you to be getting laggy strokes with those brushes.

>>2808581
Multiple drives help with the performance as well they don't have to be huge you just need them as scratch disks so photoshop doesn't start to slow down when you're working with big files

File: le confused chin man face.jpg (39KB, 350x358px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 350x358px

>>2809082
I wonder if that's why Krita seems appreciably slower on both my 'desktop replacement' high-spec laptop and the Lenovo junker I use at work.

I want to use Krita to animate (because Photoshop's timeline as far as I can tell is retarded) but I'm always worried it's going to crash even though it seems stable enough at first glance.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ItOVVugnexg

>>2809854
8.5"x11", 300ppi, even in greyscale. I'm as baffled as you, so I assume it's a hardware problem. I checked and made sure nothing else was eating the RAM allocated to PS, to the point that I had nothing else running.

>>2809623
>what is the monitor refresh rate
You are a fucking idiot.