Originally Posted by mloc
My usage pattern would vary, I work on picture`s that would be around 5-12ish mb`s, also icons for mobile device`s,theme`s as well, which would`nt be to big.
There would be lots of layers, masks, smart objects,etc so the sizes can vary a lot, I don`t usually stick to one type of routine.
I also want to get into using some 3D with what I do.
Leveling, I`m not familiar with that term, what is it?
My router is far away and to run cables from there to where the PC will be is more hassle than it`s worth, so that`s why a wifi adapter on a motherboard would save me a lot of time and aggro.
Another concern is that the wifi adapter can pick up as much of the signal as possible, I`m not familiar with the range on them adapters.
Your Photoshop usage pattern is about what I expected, and there's hardly a computer this side of 2010 technology that can't do well with that. There are times in my own work where I have lots of images open at once, which consumes a lot of RAM, but there's hardly a stretch for performance relative to workflow.
Now, 3D is an entirely different matter. The software can be very specific about what demands it places on the machine, and usage pattern is far more critical as to what requires compute resources. Sketchup, for example, cares little about the CPU, but requires significant compliance of OpenGL which many low end graphics cards don't handle well. Yet, for simple models there's little need for concern. An architectural firm I consult with, on the other hand, had a dual 2011 sock Dell workstation (12 cores, 24 threads) with 64 GBytes of RAM, previously devoted to 3D Studio Max (and did well there), which had a relatively weak graphics card. When the team moved to Sketchup, their little i3 dual core workstations with good graphics cards (Quadro k2000) ran nearly 3 times faster than the "monster" Dell computer, because Sketchup moves most of the work into the GPU, even at the user interface level.
A lot depends on what software you'll spend time learning for 3D, and what your target is (probably, like me, artwork for web sites, user interfaces, game development). These are usually not demanding targets, unless it's AAA artwork on human(oid) figures with flowing hair, flowing cloth, etc.
Blender, however, is something that works (as well as it ever does) just about everywhere. Practicable limits in 3D (size of models, type of modelling / texturing ) can range widely depending on what the software stresses and what resources you purchase.
Flash drives use "Wear Leveling" to even out the drive's write limitations. Flash technology wears out as you write data to it. The older technologies can only allow about 10,000 writes to a single location before they can no longer function. Newer tech magnifies this value, and it's difficult to know which you get, especially in bargain SSD drives. Wear leveling simply "walks around" the drive, purposefully fragmenting the write locations to even out the number of times each bit is re-written. In typical usage patterns there are some percentage of data which stays put, hardly ever changes. That will "lock" that data into that physical location. As that "rarely changed" data grows in volume, less of the drive is available for wear leveling to "walk around" the drive, limiting the beneficial effect of wear leveling. When SSD's are used as temporary storage, the amount of re-writing can grow to large volumes, especially on smaller SSD's with significant "rarely changed" data. Newer tech with orders of magnitude higher write counts are more expensive for the same relative performance, and the technology is still "in flux" - still changing.
Personally I'm not a big fan of SSD drives. Don't get me wrong, I fully understand the implication and do enjoy the performance implication, but I can't really use them in my usage patter well. I need about 3 TBytes of frequently changing OS information (multiple virtual machines), lots of writing / changing, and too large an information base to be practicable, but that's unique to my case. It's why I suggested that if the SSD is crowding the budget, then skip it. If you're accustomed to them you'll miss it, but the benefit is largely at initialization of the OS, launching programs and other operations whereas when your general data is still on rotating drives - they're not affected. You get considerable boost on rotating hard drives with the advanced cache options turned on, but they are "dangerous" without a UPS (a power failure, for example, can end up ERASING - well, loosing - all content on your drives).
Wifi range can be dictated as much by the router as the card (both are to be combined). 100 feet is typically a good range. Many reach 300 feet. There's an entire hobby of people trying to find neighbors who don't know to lock their WiFi routers with keys, to get free Internet. Some fashion foil into parabolic reflectors to gain up to about 500 feet.
In other words, with a really good router I've seen $15 WiFi cards (with external antennae) reach 500 feet, and I've seen really good cards (expensive, well reputed) fail at 100 ft because the router was weak or poorly placed. A fair indicator is a typical cordless telephone. If you have zero problem with a typical cordless telephone over the range involved, you generally have little trouble with WiFi.
There are repeaters, too. These are devices you can drop in a location between your computer and the router to boost the signal. Many are in the $25 range. Most are fashioned to plug into wall sockets and otherwise require little setup.
I use Wifi on mobile devices when at home. I have two floors. The router is upstairs. Coverage extends to my front yard, back yard, all over the house.
Just, not the kitchen. The kitchen is closer to the router than any other location except the room the router is in. There are two reasons WiFi in the kitchen is lousy. One, the electrical breaker box is in the kitchen. It effectively acts like a large grounded shield. Second, the microwave oven. If it's on, there is no WiFi signal.
Just food for thought about WiFi.Edited by JVene - 10/23/14 at 11:51am