new system recommendations, please?

  • Thread starter Thread starter hxl7
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
H

hxl7

Guest
Hi Everyone,

Please, I'm looking for recommendations for an optimal system for running Lightroom and Photoshop.

On my current (older) system with 2 GB RAM, LR runs pretty slowly. To me, this likely means that memory is not the main issue. But, I don't know whether rendering slowness is CPU or graphics card related or ... what?

I can afford quad core and 64 bit, but don't know if it is really worth it or necessary.

I sure would appreciate any recommendations for CPU, graphics card, graphics card memory amount, and RAM, etc.

Thanks so much.
Bill
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
People will need to know if you are interested in Windows or OS X. I assume because you list components separately you are talking about a Windows machine, but clarification might help.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Thanks so much, guys.
It would be a Windows system.
I've used computers for over 2' years and my home business uses a lot of custom built software for the WIndows environment.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
In that case, I'm out of the conversation. I used to be on top of things, but having gone Mac (and never lookin' back!), I know squat about PCs these days. Best of luck to you, though.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You mention CPU, graphics, memory... But you leave out the biggie -- Disk I/O. You need fast disks, fast I/O busses, and a design that minimizes contention on those disks and busses.

Ideally, you want the original image files on one fast I/O subsystem, and the catalog and previews on another. For even faster performance, you can try gobs of memory and then use a memory filesystem for temp files (by setting the TMP and/or TEMP environment variables before running Lightroom).
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I don't have any issues with performance on either LR or CS3 with my system(specs in my signature) and it's almost a year old. If building today, I'd get a quad-core CPU and at least a 1'66mhz MB and memory setup. I'm very happy with the RAID ' Raptor setup for OS and temp/scratch but I'd go for some larger data disks. And a 64-bit OS to fully use the 4G of memory, I can only use 3.2G currently.

The only thing LR seems slow on is importing and converting the D3'' raw files to DNG but that's probably a processor function. I don't know if it's a Windoze thing or LR, but LR consistently reports 717Mb of memory available while CS3 shows 172'Mb. Maybe that'll get a tune-up in 2.' when they optimize performance.

HTH,
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
hxl7;131'6 said:
.....

I can afford quad core and 64 bit, but don't know if it is really worth it or necessary.
....
Bill
Click to expand...

Even though I'm a Mac guy I know some things about Windows...:roll:

On the Windows side...

Lightroom and Photoshop will take advantage of all cores available...so don't be penny wise and pound foolish and go for a single dual core computer...you'll be shooting yourself in the foot.

Same with a 64 bit system...you'll need it to access more than 3-4 Gigs of Ram per app. Lightroom is built for 64 bit, not sure if Windows Photoshop CS3 is written to take advantage of 64 bit, but the next release will be for sure.

Bottom line: Get as many cores as you can afford and install at least 8 Gigs of Ram, if not more. Don't get the base video card, buy the next one up with more vram.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I've just upgraded for the same reasons.
I went for a Q66'' quad core, and overclocked it from the stock 2.4 to 3.3 with not problems. I also have a lot of fast ram, but not got round to clocking that.

My GPU is an XFX 88''GTX XXX, but thats cos I also game. I have been running Windows X64 since it came out and love it.

I did a lot of reading about disk systems. The best is the SSD by Mtron; but its expensive. Next is a RAID ' setup. I started thinking that it needed to be Rapters, but it turns out they are no longer fast than the new disks that are coming out and make a heck of a lot of noise.

Then I found out about Intel Matrix RAID. In essence, this lets you set up a RAID ' and 1' on the same group of disks. I dont have the numbers to hand but the speeds it gets upto is amazing.

This thread gives more details: http://www.ocforums.com/showthread.php?t=467848

And this one gives you details on an exact system, that I based my one, for overclocking:
http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=9615&page=1
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Upvote 0 Downvote
JohnnyV;1315' said:
Windows CS4 will be 64 bit...but us Mac lovers will not be getting 64 bit. Not until CS5...yikes!
Click to expand...
This is what I was referring to but couldn't remember at the moment.
Thanks for recalling where this info is coming from...
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
RAM is one of the biggest issues. I could hardly work with photoshop on my old 2GB system, but with 4GB (and some tweaking) photoshop gets to play with nearly 2.9GB and is very much happier. Vista grabs nearly 1GB just to operate. Lightroom seems to work pretty good, too. One key element was getting a ramdisc driver and creating a 4''MB ramdisc and telling photoshop that was the main scratch disk. Having a really fast scratch disk is really critical. I have also built a shortcut that starts up photoshop in higher priority mode, and then it really zips along.




I was an Apple fan through and through, but when they came out with the Mac and closed off all 3d party innovation, well, that was a bit much for me. I will agree that up until the last year or so, the Mac was definitely the machine to have for graphics work, but the newer (open architecture) and much faster boxes built for windows have pretty much eliminated the native assembler level advantage Macs used to have fro graphics work.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
someothername;1323' said:
......up until the last year or so, the Mac was definitely the machine to have for graphics work, but the newer (open architecture) and much faster boxes built for windows have pretty much eliminated the native assembler level advantage Macs used to have fro graphics work.
Click to expand...

I dunno...the latest Macs run Windows faster than Windows machines.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/reviews/4258725.html?page=1

Also price wise....last year I was looking for a laptop and compared a cheap $6''+ Dell to a Macbook. By the time I upgraded the Dell to match the specs of the Macbook the Dell cost about $2''+ more.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
JohnnyV said:
I dunno...the latest Macs run Windows faster than Windows machines.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/reviews/4258725.html?page=1

Also price wise....last year I was looking for a laptop and compared a cheap $6''+ Dell to a Macbook. By the time I upgraded the Dell to match the specs of the Macbook the Dell cost about $2''+ more.
Click to expand...

I'm not surprised that a Mac could run Windows faster than a pc since most pc's come with a slew of extra junk stuff already loaded that it takes an expert to get rid of. The downside of open architecture, :-(

I like the photo on that page -- the Mac had a Pepsi next to it, the PC had Coca Cola. I've always preferred Coke.

In terms of a new system, that basic choice should go toward what the original poster is used to. Lots of RAM, dual processor, fast hard drives are probably more important than brand. And video display. It took me no time at all to become completely enamored with my 24" wide display.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Mark Sirota said:
Ideally, you want the original image files on one fast I/O subsystem, and the catalog and previews on another. For even faster performance, you can try gobs of memory and then use a memory filesystem for temp files (by setting the TMP and/or TEMP environment variables before running Lightroom).
Click to expand...

Thank you, Mark, for your input. Just so that I understand (your terminology), by I/O subsystem, do you mean a HD ? Are you saying to place original images on one HD and the catalog and previews on a different HD ?

Also, do you set the TMP/TEMP via autoexec.bat upon boot up ?

Thanks, Again. -Bill
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Disks are just a part of the I/O subsystem. The other major component is the bus (for example, the USB chain to which the disk is connected). What else is happening on that bus, what architecture it is, and how it is connected to the CPU and memory also matter.

So yes, originals on one disk, catalog and previews on another. You might be better off having these on separate buses as well, depending on your system architecture and what else is happening on those buses.

As for how to set environment variables in modern versions of Windows, well, it's been a long time since I was a Windows guy. That's how it would have been done back when I know how to do it, but I can't confirm whether that's the best way today. Perhaps someone else can help with that one...
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
re-setting default Temp/Tmp Folders

It depends upon the OS - Vista, XP Pro - but, as LR won't run on anything earlier, it's likely that you have one or t'other and DOS [Autoexec.bat] is inadvisable/obsolete/dodgy (delete as necessary).

Make sure that you've created a Temp Folder in your root of C:\

You then need to get to Advanced System Properties - in Vista it's Control Panel/System and Maintenance/System, click on Advanced system settings on the left.

You ought to be presented with the System Properties dialogue at the Advanced Tab.

Click on the Environment Variables... button, at the bottom, and you are presented with (at the top) User variables and (at the bottom) System variables.

Make a note of the original Paths to the first Temp/Tmp folders.

Selecting each one of Temp & Tmp Variables in turn will activate the Edit button, in the following Edit User Variable dialogue and in the Variable value: field, type c:\Temp. Do exactly the same with the Tmp value and the Temp and Tmp value in the Systems variables section. Reboot.

The process is similar in XP but getting to the dialogue may be a little different. This is where making a note of the original Path variables comes in, after rebooting 'delete' the files that were there by moving them to another Folder. If the machine doesn't grumble after a few days just delete them - back them up if you aren't too confident about this option. You may be surprised at the amount of space these little monkeys take up. :D
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Not a geek, but....

I just got a new computer. I ordered the parts and a friend assisted me in assembly. To be honest, I know how to assemble but I am a klutz. I've never broken a screwdriver but I know I can.

I live in Mexico so some parts are, because of taxes, prohibitively expensive.

I got a dual-core P655' processor. I like it but I'm sure I would have liked a quad-core even more.

I realize it's gratuious but I do enjoy the humor from some. Popular Mechanics for computer information. That's great.

I got 4Gb of RAM. It's really rather inexpensive now.

Since graphics performance isn't critical for 2-D I kept my old graphics card. My main requirement for the graphics card is that it have two DVI connectors. I'm addicted to dual monitors.

I got two hard drives but I'm not going to run a RAID array.

Lightroom2 runs a little snappier but the difference doesn't knock my socks off. I'll admit I don't run any sort of benchmarks and just go by feel.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
patrickt said:
Lightroom2 runs a little snappier but the difference doesn't knock my socks off. I'll admit I don't run any sort of benchmarks and just go by feel.
Click to expand...

Give it time... Lightroom 2 is still being coded as it's currently a BETA, so the speed will improve as code is optimized for the release.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Ian, I wasn't being critical. When I installed software on my new build I didn't bother with Lightroom and simply loaded Lightroom2. I had been running Lightroom2 for weeks on my old computer and switching computers did not make a great difference. Some, but nothing to knock my socks off. I realize the final version may be faster but then it would be on my old computer, too.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Boy where do I even start. I build PC's and I know Mac’s very well. I would say since 1983 when I worked on the very first binary computer, as a very young boy I understood the potential of how this could transform the world. I mean after all I did was put in a bunch 1's and ''s to create a very simple program that was spit out on a Telex roll, take that roll and feed it into the computer to give it's programming. Mind you this computer was the size of a small room. So with that said fast forward 25 years. And in the computer business 25 years is the equivalent of 1'' years.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Software, PC's and Mac's....

I will add more to this, and hopefully shed some light to those of you who are asking about the best set-up for Adobe Lightroom. And so you all know for now that Lightroom is processor heavy (meaning it uses more of the Chip than it does Ram) program. So later tonight I will post what my intake, knowledge of computers and various programs to help anyone I can.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
patrickt;1429' said:
Ian, I wasn't being critical. When I installed software on my new build I didn't bother with Lightroom and simply loaded Lightroom2. I had been running Lightroom2 for weeks on my old computer and switching computers did not make a great difference. Some, but nothing to knock my socks off. I realize the final version may be faster but then it would be on my old computer, too.
Click to expand...

I didn't take your comments as critical, so I was just commenting that speed should improve one LR2 is released into the wild.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top