Computer processor / set up for post processing?

johncook

johncook

Messages
103
Name
john
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi guys,

Just wondering what people use (computer spec wise) for post processing their images. I'm using a one year old intel core i5 PC with windows 7 , 6 GB RAM and its a bit sluggish working on RAW files (approx 25MB size each) in Lightroom 4.
Only got a 22 inch screen. Bigger would be kinder on my eyes


Think my computer needs a fresh re-install of windows, that usually speeds things up.

Got me thinking what spec computers people use to PP, especially if working on huge RAW files from say a D800.

Cheers
 
You may have had more response if you posted this in the computers section?
As far as my PC goes, it is a similar spec to yours, and it's fine for D700 & D7000 files, but I am going to have to upgrade when I get a D800.
Have a look in the computer section, this question has been discussed several times.
 
Latest generation Adobe software makes good use of the computing power of modern graphics cards. If you're looking to big-up your PPing, check to see if your graphics card is compatible and, if not, look to upgrade there. If it is compatible, but isn't a processing beast, you might still be able to ramp up your PPing by upgrading to the next gen. graphics card.

HTH :)
 
Do you know what toffee type of RAM you have ?

Might help, most say 8 is about minimum for pp.
 
Since getting the new camera I had no choice but to upgrade the PC. The set up is

Windows 7 (x64)
Intel Core i7 3.5Ghz Quadcore Processor
Gigabyte Z68XP-UD4 Motherboard
20G's of RAM
Nvidea GTS250 Graphics (not upgraded).

Working with the D800 files now is no problem at all.
 
Last edited:
6G of RAM is probably OK if you're only running Lightroom. The problem is peoples expectations on what is quick differ. Do you have the data/catalogue on an SSD? Beyond processing power, data I/O is what matters for quick response.
 
I have a nearly identical pc spec wise and it works fine with RAW files on LR from a Canon 7D

Would imagine it would struggle with files from a D800 being that they are twice the size, just as well i'm not getting one then
 
SimonH said:
Latest generation Adobe software makes good use of the computing power of modern graphics cards. If you're looking to big-up your PPing, check to see if your graphics card is compatible and, if not, look to upgrade there. If it is compatible, but isn't a processing beast, you might still be able to ramp up your PPing by upgrading to the next gen. graphics card.

HTH :)
Click to expand...

??? Photoshop doesn't really use the GPU for any image processing.. you get smooth scrub zooming.... that's about it. Any GPU will do.
 
neil_g said:
its still a very limited amount of GPU accelerate features.
Click to expand...

Yup. Sure. But it's there for some of the more memory-intense features, and it will be there for more features over time. The changeover from CPU to GPU is incremental, but is happening, and is an obvious and better use of system resources.
 
Hmm... methinks you underestimate the number-crunching computing power of the modern GFX processor. ;)

Interesting video comparison between a GPU and a six-core CPU:
[YOUTUBE]tfGfUwwll1w[/YOUTUBE]
 
neil_g said:
granted for 3D rendering, 2D shouldn't need anywhere as near as much GPU in my opinion
Click to expand...

Hmm.. not really the point, though. The GPU is not *less* capable when it comes to 2D image number crunching, compared with the CPU crunching 2D images. It's still the more capable, more number-crunching (as opposed to the CPU's instruction set/executive prowess) workhorse specifically designed for image processing. :shrug:
 
SimonH said:
Hmm.. not really the point, though. The GPU is not *less* capable when it comes to 2D image number crunching, compared with the CPU crunching 2D images. It's still the more capable, more number-crunching (as opposed to the CPU's instruction set/executive prowess) workhorse specifically designed for image processing. :shrug:
Click to expand...

GPUs. Come on leaps and bounds and so has the software utilising them, graphics cards are no longer a means to see stuff on screen, they are a major player in the whole process now.
 
Studi0488 said:
they are a major player in the whole process now.
Click to expand...
No they aren't.

Unless you are using them for something that is accelerated.... Which is pretty minimal right now - as Neil (and the link to Adobes site) has pointed out.
 
arad85 said:
No they aren't.

Unless you are using them for something that is accelerated.... Which is pretty minimal right now - as Neil (and the link to Adobes site) has pointed out.
Click to expand...

PC hardware architecture is moving this way. Software applications are following in due course. The point we're making is the direction things are going, not that we're at the peak of innovation.
 
SimonH said:
PC hardware architecture is moving this way. Software applications are following in due course. The point we're making is the direction things are going, not that we're at the peak of innovation.
Click to expand...
And when the s/w catches up in 2 years time, then that'll be the time to worry about graphics card performance. Not before ;)
 
This is often the problem with threads like these.
A discussion starts on a specific element of the PC (in this case graphic cards' cpu ) and I get a bit confused, and end up being non the wiser !
The most helpful thread to me was thread #6 by Digifrog, which actually answered the question !!
 
arad85 said:
And when the s/w catches up in 2 years time, then that'll be the time to worry about graphics card performance. Not before ;)
Click to expand...

The OP was looking for options on an upgrade path to accelerate his workflow. You're obfuscating. I don't get why.
 
My main machine is an i7 3960K @ 4.2ghz (six hyperthreaded cores) with a 128GB SSD, 8GB ram and twin AMD 6950 graphics cards. I upgraded from a first generation i7 940 (four hyperthreaded cores at 2.9Ghz) and I'm disappointed with the upgrade, I knew not all applications could use all the available real/virtual cores (12 in total) but I expected some of the more processor heavy software to be able to but that's not been the case. There's not really been any improvement with Lightroom as it doesn't actually seem to hit the cores or the memory that hard, in hindsight I would have gone for another quad core i7 as even with two 1080p video encodes in progress and a large batch export from Lightroom the processor still doesn't reach 100%.

If your i5 is a quad core one then performance should be good with Lightroom, one upgrade I'd consider if you're not using one is to go for an SSD as a 256GB SSD is under £150 (Crucial M4 or Samsung 830 are both proven and quick drives) which gives a decent amount of room to install software and some space for photos which are being worked on.

John
 
I've got a home built computer with an AMD Quad core 3.4Ghz, 8Gb of DDR3 1600Mhz Ram, Nvidia GeForce GTX560 1Gb graphics card, 1.5Tb of hard drives (1x 1Tb and 1x 500Gb), I can't remember what motherboard it's all on though and it runs Windows 7 Ultimate on a new 24" Dell IPS monitor.

I don't seem to have any problems with running Elements 9 or Canon DPP on it and it's certainly quick enough for me in opening large files and it cost me less than £400 to build the tower just over a year ago but I've just updated the graphics card to the above so it's a bit more than the £400 worth now.
 
Last edited:
Ssd and add more ram.... Problem solved

Ram is very cheap now so getting 16gb should be simple
 
SimonH said:
The OP was looking for options on an upgrade path to accelerate his workflow. You're obfuscating. I don't get why.
Click to expand...
Because any recommendation to spend any £ on a graphics card is wasted right now as the software can't really use it.

EOS_JD said:
Ssd and add more ram.... Problem solved

Ram is very cheap now so getting 16gb should be simple
Click to expand...
Extra RAM is unlikely to help with Lightroom when you have 6G to start with.
 
The SSD was the single biggest increase in speed. Adding more ram helped when running both Lr,Photoshop and OnOne together
 
Thanks guys, I think a reinstall and maybe SSD will help.

It's a laptop, not sure of gfx card, was decent when I bought it 12 months ago.

Really should build another home PC suitable for the job!

It used to seem quicker then slowed down recently.
 
You don't need to re-install....although it wouldn't hurt if you are adding a new SSD anyway.

If a windows 7 system is 'getting slower' it's because of software that you have installed. Check what is in Windows/CurrentVersion/Run in the registry and the Startup folder and delete anything you don't absolutely need running constantly. Uninstall any apps you don't use.
 
You don't need to re-install....although it wouldn't hurt if you are adding a new SSD anyway.

If a windows 7 system is 'getting slower' it's because of software that you have installed. Check what is in Windows/CurrentVersion/Run in the registry and the Startup folder and delete anything you don't absolutely need running constantly. Uninstall any apps you don't use.
 
Thanks andy for completing my point (as normal) :lol:

As said, LR doesn't use much ram on its own and it is much more CPU and disk intensive. The i5 should be capable (although laptop versions can be duel core rather than quad) so that leaves disk.. Andy did quite an informative thread about LR and disk use, it seems that having catalogue and at least your working files on an ssd is very beneficial (and yes andy I have finally tested it).
 
johncook said:
Thanks guys, I think a reinstall and maybe SSD will help.

...

It used to seem quicker then slowed down recently.
Click to expand...

If you are worried about what gets started at boot time, Start->msconfig (type this into the box) and have a look at the Startup tab (and services tab). This shows what is booted at startup (and where it is booted from).
 
An SSD will speed things up significantly. Not only in boot speeds but in access times too. I have an SSD for my operating system and copy files that I am working on the SSD before moving them to a hard disk for storage.

My specs for running LR4

AMD FX8150 3.6Ghz
Windows 8
Lightroom 4.3
120GB SSD
16GB RAM
AMD 6970 2GB
 
You can use a program called SOLUTO that analyses your start up and provides the time taken for every program on your PC to start and gives the overall boot time.

Quite useful.
 
If it's then I suggest we have solved the problem... ;)

Most laptops are either sold with an SSD (expensive ones) or a slooooow 5400rpm hard drive. If its the latter then changing that to even a 7200rpm disk drive would speed it up massively but it would definitely he recommended to upgrade to an SSD even though it will be quite a bit more for a lot less storage. If you are running a 5400rpm drive then that upgrade will boost your speeds significantly more than anything else (and unless you plan to spend £1k+ on a laptop you're probably still going to get the same bottleneck even with a more powerful machine).
 
A hybrid hard disk would work. A portion of it is SSD the other mechanical.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top