/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

[Anonymous No.3217397]

Anyone tried painting in PS with Ryzen? How is it?

[Anonymous No.3217426]

no, I hear picasso tried painting with his own poop

[Anonymous No.3217468]

>>3217397
There's probably no distinctive difference

To >>3217426 point, I've worked with graphic arts who have been able to churn out work on the oldest piece of shit Core 2 Duo Mac Book Pro's--the processor simply determines the speed of the program, ie. how many things you can have open at once before it bogs down, but that is also determined by your overall system, ie. RAM, HDD/SDD, etc. But at the end of the day, a new computer isn't going to make you any better of an artist.

The poop analogy isn't entirely correct--it's like saying a new easel or canvas is going to be any better than the easel and canvas you were already using. If there's something wrong with it, fix or replace it, but don't blame the canvas for your own lack of skills.

[Anonymous No.3217472]

>>3217468

No distinctive difference compared to what?

That's why I need to hear from people who have Ryzen. Like what CPUs they had before and how is it different.

[Anonymous No.3217474]

>>3217468

> But at the end of the day, a new computer isn't going to make you any better of an artist.

Feels like you're talking to a beginner artist.

I'd like to be able to paint using 8k-10k resolution, 5k is a maximum that I can use now, anything higher lags way too much.

[Anonymous No.3217476]

>>3217472
Let me be direct then--you're not going to notice any difference whether it's AMD or Intel.

People can show you benchmarks all they want and swear to you it opens at a fraction of a second faster, but in the real world you're not going to notice the difference. In fact, for general productivity, the processor is usually last for determining speed, next to the hdd/ssd and RAM.

The only thing I can say about AMD is that they''re budget-oriented, so if you're looking for a new computer, you're going to get a lot more for the same price than if you went with Intel.

Otherwise, again, there's no difference, you're not going to see a difference.

[Anonymous No.3217481]

>>3217474
Yes. there are artists that require insane resolutions and millions of different layers--for the scope of 80-90% of artists, 16GBRAM, a decent-sized SSD and a modern quad core processor should suffice.

I swear though, the uber high-end, high resolution guys, no matter what industry, are obnoxious to talk hardware about.
>No, you don't understand
>I need a 4TB array to edit these RED raw files
>It's not MY fault the company's infrastructure can't keep up with the 8K camera
Maybe you should have considered that BEFORE purchasing the $250,000 camera.

[Anonymous No.3217483]

>>3217481
Just to be clear on my example, I think it was actually a 16TB SSD array, and that was simple to use a 'scratch disk' ie, a temporary, active working space for his files. iterally the company had to come up with this giant, tiered storage infrastructure that numbered in the Petabytes(?) all because the photo department decided to buy a 6K camera without talking it over with the IT department first.

[Anonymous No.3217489]

>>3217468
I wasn't trying to make any clever analogies, I was just saying that picasso mixed poop into his paint sometimes

[Anonymous No.3217492]

It wont make a difference unless your current pc is a potato.

[Anonymous No.3217634]

>>3217397

bump, still waiting to hear from some Ryzen users

[Anonymous No.3217639]

>>3217634
Try /g/, /3/ or /v/, specs are more important there. As said above having the strongest computer parts and gadgets won't make you a better artist.

[Anonymous No.3217642]

>>3217639

I am a decent enough artist already. And I have a potato pc, need an upgrade, not sure if I should pay a lot more for intel or not.

[Anonymous No.3217658]

>>3217634
I think if you're looking for the best performance you're better off buying an Intel core if you have the appropriate motherboard, their prices is roughly equal and you will get a better experience.
I'm using a Ryzen 5 1600X with a GTX 1080 and it works fine without much delays but you'll get better results and ~10%/20% faster loadings with an Intel core. Ryzen chips are always multi core but PS is a single threaded program so it doesn't benefit much from it.

[Anonymous No.3217660]

>>3217642
Then again as said above it isn't as important as RAM. You can do great work with low-end PCs, but if you have the money to blow just get whatever you want. It's not like we can stop you.

If I were you I'd get a decent CPU (doesn't have to be the newest shit because you're not gonna upgrade it in years), 16GB+ RAM and a decent GPU (again doesn't have to be the strongest or newest shit because art programs don't need that shit. If you do video editing, gaming or 3D then it would have been important, but for basic art you DON'T need any of that.

[Anonymous No.3217664]

As >>3217658
Ryzen is more suited for multitasking.
So if you plan on painting and streaming with a webcam at the same time, you'll get better results with Ryzen.

However if it's pure painting, the most important aspects is the amount of ram you have, your hard drive speed then followed by your CPU then GPU.

I have used photoshop on a i7 CPU and an onboard GPU and it still worked fine, had an old tower that had an AMD CPU, good dedicated GPU but didn't run well until I upgraded the ram and afterwards installed an SSD.

RAM>HARD DRIVE>CPU>GPU

[Anonymous No.3217666]

>>3217397
I have Ryzen 7, 16gb ram and 250gb SSD. I'm not professional, this is a home PC. I'm no fa/g/ot either.

The appeal of Ryzen is multiple cores which Photoshop doesn't even make use of. It's not going to make your work faster. It can handle those large multilayer files just fine. It probably can with just Ryzen 5.

Maybe if your workflow has the entire Adobe suite open at the same time it will make a difference between Ryzen vs Intel.

[Anonymous No.3217670]

>>3217642
https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Adobe-Photoshop-CC-2017-AMD-Ryzen-7-1700X-1800X-Performance-907/
Prices are almost identical.

[Anonymous No.3217702]

How many cores does Clip Studio/Manga Studio use compared to Photoshop?

[Anonymous No.3217712]

>>3217702
From 1 to all the cores.

They work more so in threads, depending on the filter or how a particular process is programmed, and split those threads on as many cores as needed.

[Anonymous No.3217732]

>>3217702
I have old Q9400 and dying GTS250.
In PS I can draw around 6-10 minutes before system down.
Meanwhile CSP works without any problems. Seems like it doesn't use GPU at all.

[Anonymous No.3217733]

Not everyone is a furfag who draws gay wolf men in sai on a 1000x1000 px canvas. If you need to work with high resolutions and have bad performance because of your potato computer it WILL affect the quality of your work.

[Anonymous No.3217750]

>>3217733
>it WILL affect the quality of your work.
That's why no one was able to draw in 7000x7000 resolution in 2006, right, genius?

[Anonymous No.3217753]

>>3217702
Check the preformance tab and see for yourself. It doesn't matter.

Drawing software needs RAM over anything else. All of you thinking you need to buy a high end PC to draw could simply upgrade your RAM or allow the program to use more than what it currently uses. It'll speed your shit up quickly.

[Anonymous No.3217769]

>>3217753

RAM helps working with big files, but sadly does little to improve brush lag. I think it's more GPU based.

[Anonymous No.3218117]

>>3217753
Was this something you learned when you upgraded your 2GB machine to 16GB?

[Anonymous No.3218122]

>>3217769
I've got an nvidia 1060gtx graphics card and 12 gigabytes of ram but I experience pretty significant brush lag in photoshop epending on the brush. I try using kyle's animator pencil brush for example and the lag is just super fuckin' irritating so I just don't.

The fact my relatively high-end pc has any issues with art software of all things is very curious and I wonder if there's some underlying problem I'm not aware of. Krita really runs like shit on it, too, even at very modest resolutions

[Anonymous No.3218123]

>>3217769
>photoshop
>any drawing software ever
>gpu
yes, goy, better buy that $3000 workstation to slightly change the color of a couple hundred pixels per second

[Anonymous No.3218128]

>>3218122
>fast CPU
>non-shit tier frequency RAM
>SSD scratchdisk (if using photoshop)
literally it

also, actually let photoshop use memory
optionally, don't use CC, it's the retarded bloatware edition of the retarded bloatware software that photoshop always had been

[Anonymous No.3218157]

>>3218128
I actually have more RAM than I thought. I wouldn't be surprised if it's ghetto shit though. At any rate, it seems like it's ONLY that brush that has any lag. It's not so bad if I just draw with my wrist but it still triggers me when I'm making a big ellipse or something like that. I guess I'm just a neurotic fuck more than anything.

[Anonymous No.3218158]

>>3217397
>will one of the best cpus be good enough?

[Anonymous No.3218162]

>>3217474
>I'd like to be able to paint using 8k-10k resolution
Why? What is your target medium?

[Anonymous No.3218165]

>>3218162

Simon Stålenhag works with 10-20k canvases if I recall correctly. It's not that uncommon bruv

[Anonymous No.3218320]

Just get ryzen, intel is for retards.

[Anonymous No.3218334]

>>3217769
>>3218122

That is because brush lag depends 100% on your CPU single core performance.

[Anonymous No.3218338]

Pro artists use 90k resolutions. You need gaming PC for drawing or NGMI. In 2008 Crag Mullins used rig with eight GTX280.

[Anonymous No.3218381]

>>3217750
not
>no one
but more than today

[Anonymous No.3218423]

>>3218117
No? just a simple google check would tell you what the programs require to preform well. Again, check the preformance tab in any program and change the default RAM settings, it'll do wonders.

Honestly baffled by artists that think they should get all that expensive shit to draw digitally.

[Anonymous No.3218448]

Always had a shitbox but now I have an 1800 with 32Gb ram. Feelsgoodman

[Anonymous No.3218547]

hardware hasn't mattered since the start of the decade, probably before

>yfw Intel's current uarch is only 20% faster than stuff circa 2009/2010

[Anonymous No.3218565]

>>3218448

Do you have brush lag in PS? What resolutions you use, how many layers?

[Anonymous No.3219211]

>>3218165
That doesn't answer the question, why do You want to work at that stupid size?

[Anonymous No.3219216]

>>3219211

Not him, but it's not stupid. It's pretty standard actually.

[Anonymous No.3219217]

>>3218334

>brush lag depends on CPU
>"hardware is not important lol!"

pick one