where there’s smoke there’s forum fire
I know this is a simple question...I'm in the boat for either more HDD storage (D800 files) or getting a solid-state drive. I have a custom built PC with core i7 2700k (unlocked of course) and 8GB 1866 Ram.
Golf007sd will probably chime in because I know he uses an SSD. Just wondering if photo editing speed will greatly improve....or just the speed in which files are accessed once they are imported, etc....I use Lightroom 4.1 currently
Yes there is an improvement, the extent of the improvement is subjective but now that SSD is cheaper, you are unlikely to be disappointed.
Ram would add more if you already have a 7200 rpm HDD. Much easier upgrade as well. Depending on what you have running in the background, your Ram will get ate up without you knowing it.
@birdman: Having a SSD will without question vastly improve your ability to access your files as well as running your applications. With that said, I have two hard drives in my MBP. My SSD has my OS and application. I store all my images on my other hard drive. I import and edit all my files on the SSD and them once finished I move them to the other non-SSD drive.
TTJ is right however, if you need to speed up editing, RAM is the key. But given that you have 8GB you are fine...get a mic OWC SSD and your will be pleasantly pleased with the performance.
I have exactly the same set-up as you Golf and I got an 'OK' speed-up not a 'vastly improved' one (which is why I said it is subjective).
I am wondering about moving the catalogue onto SSD too.
SSDs are generally faster than HDDs, however, there are differences, as with all, in regards to read/write speed. I think an increase by factor 5-10 is possible, depending on how much you spend and what you're already using. However, that only concerns I/O operations from and to the disk, like importing an image or saving it after processing. USB port speed / LAN speed is a limiting factor here too!
Editing is done inside the RAM anyway, unless your RAM is so low that the OS is swapping constantly to the disk, in which case even a fast disk drive will slow you down.
spraynpray said:
I have exactly the same set-up as you Golf and I got an 'OK' speed-up not a 'vastly improved' one (which is why I said it is subjective).I am wondering about moving the catalogue onto SSD too.
If you are using Lightroom that would help a great deal. Due to my "laziness" and as a gap fill before I get a new computer I had to move my older files catalogue to an external drive - Now it feels like I am trying to walk though 4 feet of mud to edit anything. That just showed me the extreme on the slow side where speed improvements can exist.
The difference will be massive with a new-ish ssd. Especially when importing+exporting. One thing to bear in mind, ssd is not a "safe storage" for files. I've lost some data because of ssd malfunction.
+1 to ssd upgrade (considering You have already an adequate amount of ram). Though I wouldn't suggest You to use ssd for long-term storage, as it's not price effective. What I do, if I'm in hurry. I copy the files from my cards to my box, do the editing and than copy it to external USB 3.0 hdd for storage. After that I just update the file reference in Apperture. This will allow me to do fast editing on one hand and save money on ssd on the other.
As I understand it:
Best is Program, images and catalogue on the same SSD. That can't happen for me as I have only 64Gb SSD for OS and editing software.
Next best is Program and catalogue on SSD and image on 7200RPM HDD that way initial display of image is slow but editing is OK (this is what I have got).
Worst is everything else.
That all assumes the computer has enough fast RAM, fast enough processor and enough cores.
Do I have that wrong? If there is a way I could improve my speed short of spend a lot of money I'd sure like to hear it.
spraynpray said:
That all assumes the computer has enough fast RAM, fast enough processor and enough cores.
Do I have that wrong? If there is a way I could improve my speed short of spend a lot of money I'd sure like to hear it.
The ram speed is not really significant, I would bet a lot of ppl wouldn't even notice the difference 1333mhz vs. 1866mhz ddr3s. It's measurable if you are playing a computer game or running 3dmark, then you gain a few fps sure, but when you are doing photo editing the difference is very close to null.
Right, but that's the detail Gabbb. What I'm asking is about the
"Best is Program, images and catalogue on the same SSD. That can't happen for me as I have only 64Gb SSD for OS and editing software.
Next best is Program and catalogue on SSD and image on 7200RPM HDD that way initial display of image is slow but editing is OK (this is what I have got).
Worst is everything else."
Do I have that wrong? If there is a way I could improve my speed short of spend a lot of money I'd sure like to hear it.
I've tried every combination of SSD and HDD for the program, catalog and images and found a noticeable advantage in overall performance with at least the program and catalog on the SSD - as expected. I currently have the program and catalog on a fast SSD, but my images live on a RAID 1 array and backed up on an internal redundant HDD (more or less the equivalent of a RAID 10 array) and an external HDD. I also back up to the cloud.
I also import all new images to the SSD and take care of sorting and initial PP there before I transfer them to the HDD array.
I have 8Gb of ram and monitor ram usage, HDD access and CPU use real time and never see more than 4 to 4.5 Gb RAM used by lightroom. However, CPU use constantly taps out on all 4 cores (AMD 965 BE overclocked to 4.1mHz). I'm planning on upgrading to an i7 3770 s, but will stay with 8gb RAM. The only time I see 7+ Gb of RAM used is when I have PS build large panos in the background.
Maybe I'll try Hawks suggestion and move to HDD after PP.
spraynpray said:
Right, but that's the detail Gabbb. What I'm asking is about the"Best is Program, images and catalogue on the same SSD. That can't happen for me as I have only 64Gb SSD for OS and editing software.
Next best is Program and catalogue on SSD and image on 7200RPM HDD that way initial display of image is slow but editing is OK (this is what I have got).
Worst is everything else."
Do I have that wrong? If there is a way I could improve my speed short of spend a lot of money I'd sure like to hear it.
Mac or PC?
The only other HD option that is out there is a 10,000rpm drive. They are almost as pricey as SSDs now as well.
I think realistically that is about as good as you are going to get. Ram is the quickest way, if you have some headroom. If you are like me and use your PC for more than just photo editing, there is probably 3 dozen programs working in the background (most you don't even know of but need to run) and eat up ram fast.
10,000 RPM drive suck up way to much power and heat to be inside a laptop. I would not recommend such a combination. You are far better off with a SSD. I have the OWC 240Gig Pro 6G and it rocks.
Also, it is important to note the hard drive controller on your mother board will also have a hug impact on your hard drive data throughput. For example the controller on my MBP max's out at 3Gig-bit per sec..it has the 5 Series Chipset. But those with the 6 Series Chipset get twice the read/write speed than I get.
TaoTeJared said:
Mac or PC?
PC
TaoTeJared said:
If you are like me and use your PC for more than just photo editing, there is probably 3 dozen programs working in the background (most you don't even know of but need to run) and eat up ram fast.
No, that one is editing only so it has Windows 7 64, LR, PS, Photomatix and a few plug-ins on it.
golf007sd said:
10,000 RPM drive suck up way to much power and heat to be inside a laptop.
I have a desk-top.
golf007sd said:
Also, it is important to note the hard drive controller on your mother board will also have a hug impact on your hard drive data throughput. For example the controller on my MBP max's out at 3Gig-bit per sec..it has the 5 Series Chipset. But those with the 6 Series Chipset get twice the read/write speed than I get.
Now that is interesting. I will have to try to find out what speed mine transfers. It was new with the AMD Black CPU about 4 months ago.
Most all PCs are 6gb/s and have been for years. That is one of the "apple" secrets that they still use old tech - kind of like no blu-ray anything. ;)
I have a 6yr old machine and it has it. Now whether your drives are 6gb (including your SSD) that could be a good question.
ps-the 5 series/ 6 series is only an Apple distinguishing name.
TaoTeJared said:
Most all PCs are 6gb/s and have been for years. That is one of the "apple" secrets that they still use old tech - kind of like no blu-ray anything. ;)
I have a 6yr old machine and it has it. Now whether your drives are 6gb (including your SSD) that could be a good question.
With all do respect, Apple does not use "old-tech" they use and incorporate many of the newest tech within their computers. As for Blue-ray, I have not found a need for any optical drive for many years. Hence, why I pulled mine out and put in the second hard drive. If I want to watch a Blue-Ray movie, that is what my home theater is for. On my laptop, I find the ripped version of the video in 1080P and I'm all set.
SATA Ver 3.0 /w 6 Gbit/s data throughput was introduced in July 2008, and it was fully adopted by computer manufactures in May 2009, thus I question your 6 years old motherboard in having it. Moreover, it was not until late 2009 that hard drives were introduced that could take advantage of such read/write speeds.
Apple uses the latest Intel chipsets in new machines, just like any Intel based Windows PC, so this nonsense about Apple using old tech is simply BS. SATA3 chipsets (6GB/s) have only been shipping in 2009, so it is impossible for your 6 year old machine to have a chipset that supports SATA3. It likely has SATA2 (3GB/s), but nice try.
As for Blu-ray, who cares? I haven't bought a DVD in years, let alone have any interest in Blu-ray. When there are digital services like Netflix (for example) who needs a crap load of disks filling up their house?
Actually, its not BS at all. Apple is consistently behind on upgrading their chipsets, their MOBOs, and ESPECIALLY their graphics cards.
Apple excels at using the latest in what the user directly experiences, and pushing their software to get the most out what the user doesnt directly experience. It is a fallacy that apple uses the latest technology though. Think about how long it took them to upgrade to i5/i7. Especially in their desktop models. Their laptop models might/are a different story because they realease updates so much more often than the desktop lines. But because apple doesnt tend to support the new chipsets until they release the new model, it means upgrading apples is a pain in the ass.
Who cares about BluRay? Well, depsite what you think, a lot of people still deal directly with discs. Apple has chosen not to support BluRay for whatever reason. It took apple a LONG time to accept that HDMI was something they had to support. The reality is when you buy apple (and i do, i have both apple and PC), you are buying into their vision of the future. They havent always been right. They were when it came to smartphones and tablets, they were wrong when it came to other things. When they are wrong it takes them a long time to admit it.
Also their hard drives are almost always substandard.
one thing about SSD. Its important to remember, that while its ALMOST as reliable as HDD technology, two things you need to consider before using it: 1. there is almost no warning sign that it will go. 2. when it goes, its EXTRAORDINARILY expensive to recover data, and its much more difficult. I do all my editing on SSD as well, but its important to keep that in mind.
Just a minor nit, but 15,000rpm HDDs are available and offer 50% better seek latency (obviously). SSDs are still faster, but as many have mentioned, limited by bus speed. Thunderbolt on the apple is rated for 10 gigabits/s. (technically 20, but the other channel is used for display). Third party blu-ray players work fine on the Mac.
Just clouding the issue with a few facts :-)
Now to the actual topic of this thread: if you could somehow separate the catalog and the data onto separate I/O channels, that would be the best performance. On a desktop this would mean buying an additional PCIe card to drive an SSD just for the catalog and using the embedded I/O channel for the rest of the data.
Backups are essential no matter what physical media is used. I've seen plenty of catastrophic HDD failures without any warning.
You must log in to post.
