Computing Power for RAW files

C

Clark.EE

Well-known
Local time
7:55 PM
Joined
Oct 19, 2007
Messages
325
Looks like I am going to have to invest in a New PC if I am going to shoot RAW files on the Xpro1.
The Old Dell Dimension E520 (Max Memory) takes about a day & a half to import 30 files.
Well maybe a bit of an exaggeration, but its certainly go & make lunch while you wait sort of time scale!

How powerfull a computer do I need for this process to be within reasonable bounds?

Quad Core I assume. What generation?
How many GHz etc etc.
£300.00 Max
 
Which software are you going to use? They usually specify minimum amounts of memory etc so if you comfortably exceed those you will have a smooth experience and be safe for a few "upgrades". When you have that spec. import should be no problem, bt you need a decent reader. Many are USB2 and 3 is faster and is now std. on new boxes, I think.
 
Clark.EE said:
...
How powerfull a computer do I need for this process to be within reasonable bounds?

Quad Core I assume. What generation?
How many GHz etc etc.
£300.00 Max
Click to expand...

Actually, the processor is not the most important thing to consider.

#1: fast I/O - this means both a fast HD and USB3 for the memory card reader.

#2: lots of ram: 8gig or more is recommended.

#3: processor: the faster and newer the better, but #1 and #2 are more important. I would recommend a 4th gen i7 unless you are needing a portable with long battery life.

At home I have a 4th gen i7 box (Dell XPS8700) with 8gig runnign Win8.1u1 and find RAW uploading from card and processing in LR and PS decently brisk. Some of the monster PSD & PSB files (1-3gig with 10-20 layers) I bring home from the gallery where I work are a bit slow at times and I'm planning on adding another 16gig RAM later this year. My personal images rarely top 300meg after RAW>PSD conversion and various layer additions and upsampling so memory upgrade is something I want primarily for working on the gallery's images.

At work I stuck with an now "elderly" 2009 vintage MacPro with dual quad-core processors and 12gig RAM. It handles the monsters as well as the Dell once loaded, but its elderly HD subsystem and slower USB2 (even with a very fast USB3 card reader attached) make loading a card full of D800 RAW files something I do while taking a lunch break. Even opening one of the "monsters" takes twice as long as it does on my 2013 vintage Dell.
 
USB3 (don't forget about the card reader speed)

Memory, Memory, Memory (related to the what software do you plan to use question above)

An expensive, high-speed SDHC card for the X-Pro 1.
 
It's apples and oranges, but seven years ago I was running LR on a 2x1GHz Power Mac with maxed out RAM with no problem.
Granted, that was 7 years ago, and Lightroom was still in beta…


I can't speak for Windows, but I'm running an iMac with an i5 2.5 GHz, 4GB RAM right now and processing RAW, both from a Nikon D3 and an M8, as well as huge scanned TIFFs, without any trouble.
 
Running LR 4.4.
M8 dng files the old girl coped with.
Upgraded to 4 to get support for Nikon 1 & Olympus raw files. Mistake!
I have to say the further down the line LR goes, the less I like it.
Every incarnation seems to halve its speed.
The D200 was 10 Mp after all. So is the Nikon 1!
Any other suggestions?
Specifically for Fuji raw?
Shooting jpeg at the moment.
Quite liberating.
 
They process pretty well on an i5 macbook air (2011).
I have also an older windows vista 32-bit laptop on which the fuji raw files take plusminus a minute to open. My take is having a 64-bit operating system will make a huge difference for fuji raws. (Both machines have 4gb ram by the way.) Maybe try upgrading to a 64-bit windows version if the hardware is capable of running it - if it's still worth it.
 
"Fast" is a relative term for most of us, probably based on out individual tolerance for how much we're willing to spend on "speed." But in general, RAM and processing power will have the greatest impact on performance when it comes to responsiveness.

I'm primarily a LR 5 user, with Aperture in the mix when I need it.

According to the internet, multicore CPUs do not appear to positively impact LR performance when you are making edits (Preview Rendering). Having not used a powerful single-core then a multicore setup back to back, I can't confirm or deny this claim personally, but some very smart-sounding people with some very convincing looking benchmarks have made this claim. Just give it a google, here's a what I found:

http://www.slrlounge.com/lightroom-lr5-lr4-hardware-performance-test-review

It appears that LR's Develop mode doesn't necessarily benefit from multicore CPUs (the "bottleneck" being waiting for a settings change to render as a preview), and the same goes for image export.

Take all of this benchmarking with a grain of salt though; Adobe claims that LR supports multicore processing. Of course, Adobe says that their LR software can use multiple cores, but Adobe doesn't say that LR actually benefits from being used on a multicore system. Don't you just love marketing spin?

Here are a few tips for optimizing LR, I gave them a try and yes, they did help:

http://helpx.adobe.com/lightroom/kb/optimize-performance-lightroom.html

Buying as much RAM as possible, increasing LR or your image editor of choice's disk cache size, and the use of SSDs instead of hard drives will also help, perhaps more than buying the fastest multicore system you can find. If you're keeping your system for longer though, I'd buy a solid multicore system. I imagine it is only a matter of time till all software makers find ways to make better use of multithreading.

Purchase the best you can afford and it will be faster. A lesson that is as old as the computer itself. Ha.
 
When looking at new computer.. Order of true bang for the bucks
- more cores than 4 is not needed unless u are using sw that has been designed to use as many cores as possible, For example, profession video editor.. In some situations a dual core w/ faster CPU for the same price as a quad core w/ slower CPU maybe better for some people. These days I would look at an i7, prices seem to be reasonable.
- memory.. Min. Of 4gb.. But 8-16gb is about optimal for average user. If u go w/ quad core or higher setup, u need a min. Of 8 gb.
- ssd for performance and HD for storage capacity (2 disk drive system). 120gb ssd seems to be sweet spot right now. Sata 3 interface would be best way to go.
-- your operating system, applications and user space is on the ssd
-- media like your music, etc.
- external storage interface usb2 & 3, esata, and FireWire 400/800
-- min. Of USB 2/3.
-- your backup path for both ssd and HD drives
--- I put my Aperture photo library on one external HD and the Aperture backup volume on a different one and have my music and videos for everyday usage on the internal HD for example.

Good luck
Gary
 
honozooloo said:
"Fast" is a relative term for most of us, probably based on out individual tolerance for how much we're willing to spend on "speed." But in general, RAM and processing power will have the greatest impact on performance when it comes to responsiveness.

I'm primarily a LR 5 user, with Aperture in the mix when I need it.

According to the internet, multicore CPUs do not appear to positively impact LR performance when you are making edits (Preview Rendering). Having not used a powerful single-core then a multicore setup back to back, I can't confirm or deny this claim personally, but some very smart-sounding people with some very convincing looking benchmarks have made this claim. Just give it a google, here's a what I found:

http://www.slrlounge.com/lightroom-lr5-lr4-hardware-performance-test-review

It appears that LR's Develop mode doesn't necessarily benefit from multicore CPUs (the "bottleneck" being waiting for a settings change to render as a preview), and the same goes for image export.

Take all of this benchmarking with a grain of salt though; Adobe claims that LR supports multicore processing. Of course, Adobe says that their LR software can use multiple cores, but Adobe doesn't say that LR actually benefits from being used on a multicore system. Don't you just love marketing spin?

Here are a few tips for optimizing LR, I gave them a try and yes, they did help:

http://helpx.adobe.com/lightroom/kb/optimize-performance-lightroom.html

Buying as much RAM as possible, increasing LR or your image editor of choice's disk cache size, and the use of SSDs instead of hard drives will also help, perhaps more than buying the fastest multicore system you can find. If you're keeping your system for longer though, I'd buy a solid multicore system. I imagine it is only a matter of time till all software makers find ways to make better use of multithreading.

Purchase the best you can afford and it will be faster. A lesson that is as old as the computer itself. Ha.
Click to expand...

Most sw is still designed to work w/ at most two cores..unless the vendor has stated otherwise. For example, Apple's professional grade video editing Sw was redesigned to work w/ more than two cores about two or three years back. As I remember, they said it was a pretty big rewrite.

But on the otherhand, having more cores than two and making the most use of them also depends on the operating system ability to make good use of it when more than one application is open and running.

For example, kicking off the creation of a DVD image from that 30 minute vacation home video u created is something that is very resource and time consuming while that is going on, if u have unused CPU cores, one could edit a picture or surf the web w/o slowing down the video work. Modern os will handle this w/o issue..

It is just a matter of deciding what level of performance u are willing to pay for.

Gary
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom