Hardware Question

[vab423]

Hello helpful Lightroom Forum members. I had such great response from my last post, I thought I'd try another dilemma on you all.

My photo editing software (Photoshop Elements 5) works fine on my Thinkpad, but Lightroom has really slowed things down to an unbearable crawl. I am looking to get a new computer (PC) and was looking at something with an Intel Dual-Core Processor. However, some people have told me I wouldn't be happy unless I had the new Intel I7 processor, which is about $4'' more than I planned on spending.

If I get something that has more than 3GB RAM, I need to be running Vista 64-bit since 3GB is the max that XP recognizes. My question is will I notice a huge difference using the I7 with gobs of RAM (6GB) or would I do just as well with the Dual-Core and 3GB of RAM?

Thank you so much for your feedback.

 

[Evan]

I guess it depends what your performance expectations are.

I have a dual-core intel system running 32-bit Vista and I have found lightroom performance pretty acceptable. When I upgraded to the Canon 5Dii I did notice some slowdowns but nothing unusable. It takes about 2 seconds for the sliders to be available in develop where before it was pretty close to instant.

If the Pentium 4 is your benchmark than almost any modern CPU will be a lot faster.

 

[sizzlingbadger]

Hardware is a bit of balancing act... My 'very basic' take on this....

Lightroom is not generally RAM intensive in my experience. Faster processors will render images faster. If you want to open more applications at once then more RAM is helpful. If your using other image editors like Photoshop and want to use them at the same time as LR then you will need more RAM. I run with 4GB and LR & CS4 run well in this.

As an example when I last upgraded my machine from on old White iMac to the new Alu iMac the only real performance difference was in rendering the images as the CPU is much faster. Disks aren't much faster and RAM speed isn't all that noticeable at the user end either.

Having more RAM (I went from 2 to 4GB) just allowed me to open more applications or images in Photoshop before the machine started to slow down.

LR & Photoshop would probably run fine with the Dual Core and 3GB RAM as long you didn't have other resource intensive apps open at the same time.

The i7 and 6GB would perform better under some conditions but you could buy a nice lens for $4'' which may prove a better investment :lol:

 

[sizzlingbadger]

also.... you may want to consider Graphics card options... I don't know how much difference it make with LR but Aperture and PS CS4 use the GPU engine on the graphics cards to off-load graphics computations from the main CPU. This means graphics cards have quite an impact on their performance. I'm sure someone here can answer this as I haven't had chance to dig into LR's GPU capabilities yet....

 

[Denis Pagé]

...I'm sure someone here can answer this as I haven't had chance to dig into LR's GPU capabilities yet....

Lightroom do not use the GPU at the moment as Photoshop does.

 

[Scott O]

I don't like to buy new computers and do it as infrequently as possible. So when I do I try to get as far ahead of the curve as possible. At present on a laptop that means at least a dual core processor and 4 gigs of RAM. A desktop would be quad core and 8 gigs of RAM. Both should have 64 bit processors. I currently have one of each of these and they work flawlessly. As an aside, (I know others have differing experiences), I never edit on a laptop. The screen is too small and not as sharp as a high quality desktop monitor. I find the small size restrictive also.

 

[Replytoken]

My photo editing software (Photoshop Elements 5) works fine on my Thinkpad, but Lightroom has really slowed things down to an unbearable crawl.

Are there specific tasks that seem slow in LR, or is the program feeling slow overall? I would try to better understand the specific problem before seeking a specific solution. And, I personally try to stick as close as possible to my budget, and buy only when needed. There will always be something faster and more powerful, unless you have few budget constraints. I, too, hate to buy things twice, but technology changes at such a rapid rate that it sometimes seems like CPU's are almost becoming disposable. I7 may be the thing today, but who knows what is hot on its heels. Only you know your current and future budgets.

I am also looking to replace my laptop (which will be given to my spouse for light-duty office work), which has similar specs. to your model, and am hoping to buy a budget system. It seems that few systems seem to last more than a few years at best, so I would rather tie up my money in good lenses, as was mentioned above.

Good luck,

--Ken

 

[vab423]

This is *exactly* the type of feedback I was looking for. This computer will be used primarily for photo editing and my banking stuff, so I don't see myself doing a lot of multitasking. The I7 is a bit more than I wanted to pay but if the hardware doesn't crap out unexpectedly, it should meet my needs for a while. I know the video card is important; the card in this machine is a good one.

@Ken, the slowness is when I'm trying to use the Develop module. Everything in that module seems to lag big time. I think it's just a combination of things. While I agree that a new lens would be a better investment, a lens won't help me catalog my photos or manage my financials. I think I'll probably get more mileage out of a new computer. Hopefully this will last longer than my eMachine I bought a couple years ago. I've had pretty good experience with Dells and it comes with a 2-year warranty so I think I'll be fine (knock wood).

Besides, I just spent a bunch of $$ on a 1''-3''mm lens and can't justify getting another one just yet. ;-)

Thanks people!!

 

[Replytoken]

This is *exactly* the type of feedback I was looking for. This computer will be used primarily for photo editing and my banking stuff, so I don't see myself doing a lot of multitasking. The I7 is a bit more than I wanted to pay but if the hardware doesn't crap out unexpectedly, it should meet my needs for a while. I know the video card is important; the card in this machine is a good one.

@Ken, the slowness is when I'm trying to use the Develop module. Everything in that module seems to lag big time. I think it's just a combination of things. While I agree that a new lens would be a better investment, a lens won't help me catalog my photos or manage my financials. I think I'll probably get more mileage out of a new computer. Hopefully this will last longer than my eMachine I bought a couple years ago. I've had pretty good experience with Dells and it comes with a 2-year warranty so I think I'll be fine (knock wood).

Besides, I just spent a bunch of $$ on a 1''-3''mm lens and can't justify getting another one just yet. ;-)

Thanks people!!

I cannot specifically comment on slowness in the Development module (perhpas somebody else will chime in here), but I am sure that an upgrade will help. I would never advocate buying a lens at the expense of a needed equipment upgrade, but its easy to buy more than we need. For example, having a good graphics card is nice, but do take note of Denis' comment above. LR does not take much advantage of a dedicated GPU, so spending money to upgrade to a top-line card will yield little in performance gains. I personally would not spend an additional $4'' for a CPU upgrade, but that's me. Moving from my Pentium M to an affordable Core 2 Duo chip should yield me enough speed gains to keep me happy for some time. Buy YMMV. Let us know what you decide.

--Ken

 

[reidthaler]

I was in a similar position of few months ago and opted for a Q945' and 8 GB RAM, and Vista (bad move) 64 bit. I was upgrading from a P4 and just didn't feel the additional cost of the I7 was worth the premium cost.

The speed isn't instant but it's reasonable. I can use the adjustment brush now and couldn't with my old system.

Reid

 

[sizzlingbadger]

I would never advocate buying a lens at the expense of a needed equipment upgrade, but its easy to buy more than we need.
--Ken

Neither would I, it was a bit of a tongue-in-cheek comment

 

[vab423]

I was in a similar position of few months ago and opted for a Q945' and 8 GB RAM, and Vista (bad move) 64 bit.

Is it because it's Vista that it was a bad move or because it's 64-bit? While I am not a fan of Vista (hate it), I need the 64-bit OS to access memory greater than 3GB. I have no experience whatsoever with the 64-bit version of Vista, but I checked at Microsoft's web site and it looks like my software and hardware are compatible.