where there’s smoke there’s forum fire
Stationary setup: iMac 2011 with Mountain Lion, 3.4GHz i7, 16GB ram, 2GB GPU, OCZ Vertex III 120GB SSD - DIY mod + Dell U2711 + Dell 2406WFP + 2 x Lacie Minimus HDD - but I'm changing my boxes every 4-6 years so I need a little bit more power at the beginning, previously I was using DIY MacMini
Mobile setup: MBP Retina 15.4" - basic specs
bjrichus said:
We do need this in a separate thread, don't we?@TTJ also raises a good point about robustness - all my DIY builds are cases made out of lower quality (thin) tin-like metal but our servers at work are solid steel that don't flex when you pick them up and have all named components inside, not low spec unbranded parts. As you say; Entry level vs pro build quality.
As for CPU's lets keep the differences simple:
Core i (then a number) CPUs from Intel are designed for desktops and Xeon CPUs are designed for servers. The Xeon CPUs do more, run hotter, have stuff that interfaces internally that is more likely to be in server gear than in end user gear, they are supposed to do more, be faster and so on, but also cost more.
Clock speed isn't the only thing that helps with performance. With the Xeon range where you have more cores, you also need more top speed cache RAM on chip too or the thing maxes out earlier and you don't realize the throughput potential. This costs more to make - way more to make - and lets also not forget that they are also charging for gear that will go into a $8,000 box that will run 100 concurrent users, not a $700 home-brew single-user machine.
Being cynical, remember in the capitalist system, someone has to make obscene profits too! Bwahahahah....
I can't disagree with any of that. After traveling for years, used so many desktops, so many laptops, that I have seen $600 business machines out last $2,000 "gamer" systems from over heating etc. Upgraded power supplies, chassis, robust chips, vibration reduction mounting hardware, drives made for abuse or massive write/rewrites, etc. Panasonic, HP and Lenovo(thinkpad) business class PCs laptop/desktops seem to be the best with Thinkpads having the only options for "super user" mix in them. You pay more, but with less down time.
Here is a link I think everyone would like. Someone tests most all processors - Laptop and Desktop. It is really interesting to see that my 5yr old processor (based on CPU benchmarks) by this out performs some early i7s mobile processors. It is the only easy info site where I have found Laptop processors lined up against desktops. My processor is highlighted. Neat info really.
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_lookup.php?cpu=Intel+Core2+Quad+Q8200+%40+2.33GHz
Now there is a ton more that goes into a good running machine than just processors but for me, I want to at least double the "whole" machine when I upgrade. The "other" numbers for me are easier to understand speed increases - processors are rather cryptic I find. I haven't taken the time in years nor really care that much to learn it either. I'll rely on others to do that for me, and get the results from them.
For those with PCs, I have been reading that Windows 8 is going to need 8gb to run, and is best with 24gb+ of ram with sata 6gb/s drives. I'm sure they will sell machines with less but one thing we can always count on is when Microsoft releases a new OS, that very few mid-lower end current machines can run well with it. XP and Vista support will be dropped at that point as well. It sounds like Win 8 will also require many software vendors to re-write their programs. No clue where Adobe fits into that.
Thinking of stuff, anyone have a good link to a article on using two machines (laptop/desktop) using LR4 and how to transfer the edits from one to the other? Example: traveling with a laptop, edit some files on the road, but then wanting to transfer all the work to a master LR4 on a desktop. I wouldn't mind a 13" ultra book and use a desktop for major stuff. Anyone do something like that?
When my PC was running slowly recently (3GHz dual core CPU, 8GB DDR3, 7200RPM HDD) I had many recommendations from people on how to improve it that were not based on any examination of my machine and the way I used it.
The best advice I got was to a/ keep my Lightroom catalogues a sensible size (had 5500 images in one cataloge before that) and b/ to (and this was the biggy) start the task manager and watch the performance monitor while I worked. It became apparent pretty quickly that the processor was the problem - spending a lot of time flat out at 100%, not the RAM (4GB looks enough), HDD or Graphics card. I upgraded to an AMD A8 Black and now it flies.
HTH.
sevencrossing said:
I have a Precision T7500
12 GB ram and 2 Xeon E5520 @2.27 GHzfrom time to time LR will slow down which can be fixed by a reboot
my gut feeling is to double the RAM, but my techie friend says, I also need a faster processors, which I suspect will also mean a new mother board eg a new computer
your thoughts please
I have noticed LR4 bogging down a ton after major editing 10-20 files as well. Not sure but I have been convinced by a few of the computer engineering friends that the processor is really the last thing that slows a machine down. They insist that a 3-4yr old processor can match almost anything you run.
What they told me, is that it is a mix of:
-software utilizing processor cores (LR4 does),
-Ram (they say 16gb should work fine as long as they are highest MHz, low latency and ECC?),
but then the REAL bog down points are the bandwidth throughput between the
-hard-drives (Adobe Scratch disks-ding ding ding),
-networked drives (gigabit needed),
-External drives (eSATA must - hurry up thunderbolt for PCs),
-USB3 is a joke (didn't figure out why),
-any 1-2gb video card, and
-Stop running Farm-vile, DropBox & email in the background.
They actually put the processor at the low end of "needs" and amount of ram, types of hard-drives, and what was running at the same time much higher. They told me for a primarily photo editing system to go with a 3rd gen i7, 32gb ram, 128gb SSD 6gb/s boot drive and raid 0(speed) 512gb 6gb/s SSDs. They said that would kick-a$$. Kick a hell of a hole in your wallet is what it would do. After how I explained to them I wanted external drives, they then changed it to a single 512gb 6gb/s drive with using eSATA drives for "Current" edits and a gigabit NAS on the network for "older" catalogues. I'm not sure if that works for anyone else but I thought I would mention it.
Is anyone utilized a LR catalogue on a network or external drive?
Evidently there is a newer motherboard for desktops that can be loaded with up to 64GB of ram where you can actually "cut off" a ram bank or two from processes and utilize it as a super-man speed hard-drive for a scratch disk. Evidently it was designed in mind for Hollywood video and animation machines that needed the fastest throughput possible. Never heard the Intel model # or price (e-gads bet that is high) for that.
sevencrossing said:
I have a Precision T7500
12 GB ram and 2 Xeon E5520 @2.27 GHz
my gut feeling is to double the RAM,
your thoughts please
as i said, you are only using 4GB of that ram if you are running a 32bit os. are you on 64bit?
Thanks Tao
My "work" computer is used for just that
all the the other things, i should not be looking at, or using, are on my clapped out laptop
I don't use external drives or a network for editing
Looks like I need to double my RAM
I would say before anyone doubles their RAM there are options and things to look at instead. I have a gut feeling if you have over 8 GB of RAM and you are getting slow processing that you have either been using the computer for a while without a restart or something else is the problem. There are programs you can run to free up RAM without having to restart the computer, but if you start to get bogging down I would hit alt+ctrl+del and look at your task manager to see what it is saying. If your memory usage is way up there then RAM might be your problem. It will also give you basics on your CPU usage. I rarely have a problem with 4 gigs of RAM and I play occasional games and use LR4 for all my editing. Not saying I couldn't benefit from more or faster RAM...just saying you might take a look at why your computer is slowing down before just buying random stuff or pumping tons of money into expensive equipment you don't need.
Granted the TTJ spec recommendations are nice, but I could build a sub $1000 computer with 24'' LED monitor that would be smoking fast and stay pretty relevant for 5+ years...just takes a little research and time. We all do it for camera gear so why not the CPUs?
the set up worked fine with the D700 and LR3 it is still Ok with LR4 and the D800 but if have to edit a shoot with over 500 shots or have stitched 10 shots together I get impatient
TaoTeJared said:
For those with PCs, I have been reading that Windows 8 is going to need 8gb to run, and is best with 24gb+ of ram with sata 6gb/s drives. I'm sure they will sell machines with less but one thing we can always count on is when Microsoft releases a new OS, that very few mid-lower end current machines can run well with it. XP and Vista support will be dropped at that point as well. It sounds like Win 8 will also require many software vendors to re-write their programs. No clue where Adobe fits into that.I'm running Win8 on an i3 box with 4GB RAM. I have Adobe Reader and Adobe Flash Player running on it (as well as Office 365 and other programs). It does just fine. I also have installed print drivers for Savin and HP printers (using Win7 versions), and everything is doing fine.
Win XP support will end April 2014 and Vista support will end April 2017.
Wow - I messed up that post.
tcole - indeed You can build a sub $1k but You will have to justify on: screen, original software, hdd.
generally, if You guys need a fast and "cheap" box get:
- good motherboard - for stability
- good power supply (not cheap one)
- ssd for startup drive - nothing fancy, 64GB should be enough, 120 for more convenience
- 64bit OS
- at least 12GB RAM - but no more than 24GB
all other things doesn't matter, if You using PS extensively, add a little bit more towards better GPU - 2gb ram as some of the work can be done by GPU
R8R said:
I use a Dell Studio XPS that I got from the outlet for $500
That outlet store has some great bargains. We got a laptop for daughter-in-law a few years ago that was top of the range back then (I think in spew pink - which is probably why it was there in the first place), for something *under* a third of the full price.
She still has and uses it!
warprints said:
Wow - I messed up that post.
I had the preview version of 8 and the Metro interface (now called whatever Microsoft won't get hauled into court about), utterly stinks. Unless you are using it on a touch device like a 10" pad of some sort, it is almost an epic fail! Windows 7 got it right after the debacle of Vista, now Microfart (sorry), are going to screw it up again, all in the name of the "Consumer" because those without decent computing ability or needs, prefer to touch a pane of glass when they update their Facebook status or issue a new tweet. Sorry those of us that "work" with computers, we matter far less (mass market capitalism again).
Where I work we have around 3,000 PCs and we had the Microsoft sales guys in to try and sell us some server software a few weeks ago... Once he got through his presentation and we had our 10 minutes of questions with him the subject turned to Win8 and Metro.
Only one word for it from the IT department guys ... VENOM.
The poor Microsofties was visibly shaken when they left...
We had some other companies sales guys in for this purchase project too and when we rais the subject of forward compatibility to Windows 8 with them they all roll their eyes and sigh. These ISVs at least don't like it and one major company was suggesting we skip it entirely for at least the first two years as "the market" isn't showing any signs of moving to it.
Of course, the reality of what happens remains to be seen, but I bet if the ISV people don't support it, it'll not last too long before windows 9 comes out....
I'm going to stick with my Win/7 64bit corporate install for at least the lifetime of this here machine right now (two years) ... We'll have to wait and see how Vista2 (sorry - Windows 8) ends up and if all the options to boot to the desktop (not the tiled interface) remains in there.
I'm certainly not advocating Win8. Was just mentioning that it runs well on 4MB RAM and it doesn't seem to have problems with Win7 compatible drivers or software. Actually, so far, it's been a PITA to navigate around - stuff hidden and buried. Took me a few minutes to even find the control panel. However, one of our least computer savy employess was forced to use the Win8 machine when her XP machine blue screened, and she loved it. Go figure.
warprints said:
However, one of our least computer savy employess was forced to use the Win8 machine when her XP machine blue screened, and she loved it. Go figure.
"It looks just like my phone but there is more of it" is (in my view) the exact market for Metro.
Not computer savvy, un-demanding users, people with iPads/phones etc who never image edit except to include a comment like "OMG" and "Do they make it in pink?" are who it is aimed at.
Unless the finished article (at least after SP1 is out) is faster than windows 7 or offers substantial extra features built-in and at the same license cost as windows 7, or they kill off windows 7 too soon, it'll fail in the corporate world.
DISCLAIMER: I only have 30 years of employment in corporate/commercial and non-commercial worlds in I.T. and computer sales/support spanning both sides of the Atlantic, as well as 15 years of self employment (including aspects of photography), so WTF do I know? Windows 8 will probably be a roaring success... ;-)
bjrichus said:
DISCLAIMER: I only have 30 years of employment in corporate/commercial and non-commercial worlds in I.T. and computer sales/support spanning both sides of the Atlantic, as well as 15 years of self employment (including aspects of photography), so WTF do I know? Windows 8 will probably be a roaring success... ;-)
I know what you mean. I've been dealing with computers since 1971. I'm still surprised with what the public accepts vs what is out there or what could be.
TaoTeJared said:
I have yet to meet an IT department that hasn't said that for ever single Microsoft release since DOS (:
HAHAHAHA ... I remember using a PC/XT with VGA graphics for Lotus 1-2-3 and Wordstar when all around me only had green screen mainframe terminals. I was cursed by our "computer people" because I wanted to hook up to a printer - which was one of those noisy impact devices in a room all to itself because it was so noisy. In the end I got a buffered switch box and cable put in (at the end of 600' of cable with signal boosters at each end) at huge expense - $800.
Everyone in the office then wanted the same because with the PC, I could get my work done in a third of the time it took them on the mainframe and the printed output was identical to the stuff they produced (well dur - it was on the same printer)... After a year I hooked my PC into the corporate network via an RS232 to whatever the bizarre protocol the mainframe used through another converter box and all hell was let lose... email (well text file copies really) and I suddenly had more offline storage than everyone else; all 20Mb of it on the old XT hard drive.
We then had some nut case come in and say that CP/M would rule computing forever.
Oh yes and what was that about Unix and snake oil?
Windows? Pah!
:-)
Using a Mac Pro 17" i7 2.66, 8Gig RAM with two hard drives installed. I pulled out the DVD and replaced it with a 340 OWC SSD. I love the way Apple builds their laptops. Once I get my D4, the next toy will be to up-grade to the new 17" Retina unit. 15" just doesn't do it for me.
I would say that the last good software from MS was XP, everything later is a mistake - though I haven't used W7 extensively as once the Vista arrived I've moved to Mac.
@golf007sd - the MBP Retina really rocks :)
Great info here. Now don't laugh I have a AMD XP2500 and 2 gigs of RAM. I was going to get rid of it but I put win7 on it and it works fine for web, email and word processing but right now I'm scanning some Polaroids I shoot this week.....so I have lots of time to surf NR.
Time to up grade but I'm looking for the sweet spot in the intel line up. What's going to give me the the best performance on a tight budget? Any ideas?
Vista was horrible. I upgraded right away when 7 was released and it is tons better. I like it much more then XP which is severely dated now, but we still use at work. I think one of the best features in 7 is the ability to just drag a window to the side and have it auto re-size to half the screen.
andrewz said:
Great info here. Now don't laugh I have a AMD XP2500 and 2 gigs of RAM. I was going to get rid of it but I put win7 on it and it works fine for web, email and word processing but right now I'm scanning some Polaroids I shoot this week.....so I have lots of time to surf NR.Time to up grade but I'm looking for the sweet spot in the intel line up. What's going to give me the the best performance on a tight budget? Any ideas?
Check out http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html#cpuvalue it gives you a comparison of CPU performance vs price...overall value. It is missing prices on some, but it at least gives you an idea of some of the better prices per performance of chips. The Intel Core i7-3770 @ 3.40GHz looks pretty good for $300.
sevencrossing said:
Win 7 is a big improvement on XP (I never used vista)
Windows XP is a big improvement on Vista (I've never used Win7).
Does anyone else go in to msconfig, and use selective start up? I find limiting the apps that boot up when turning the machine on, realy improves responsiveness.
You must log in to post.
