haring
Established
I would love to make my pc faster for photo and video editing. Adobe is trying to help us with some ionstructions on their website but it is not clear how much processing power I gain via replacing one or two components of my desktop. I have read tons of threads on the issue however but I don't seem to find the right way to do it... I would like Lightroom to respond faster when I switch between two images. I would love Portraiture to finish processing the photo I am working on faster in Photoshop, etc My PC: Windows 7, CPU: i7 3770K, Memory 16GB
My questions:
- How much speed do I gain by upgrading the memory to 32GB?
- Would an expensive video card help? Which one?
- Should I upgrade my CPU? Which one do you recommend? Have you done these modifications before?
What is your experience? Which upgrade yielded the best results? Thanks so much!
My questions:
- How much speed do I gain by upgrading the memory to 32GB?
- Would an expensive video card help? Which one?
- Should I upgrade my CPU? Which one do you recommend? Have you done these modifications before?
What is your experience? Which upgrade yielded the best results? Thanks so much!
YYV_146
Well-known
1. 32g RAM will help, but only marginally if the current RAM isn't being filled when Lightroom/Photoshop is on. My guess is that this isn't a necessary upgrade, but LR is known to be extremely RAM-consuming. You could check the task manager during editing to see how much is currently being used.
2. Video cards have a marginal effect on photo processing. Video editing is a whole other matter - but this is a topic that needs an article on its own. Sufficient to say, grading anything above 1080p calls for a profession graphics card. This question will mostly depend on the resolution of the video files that you typically work on.
3. The CPU should be more than good enough. I would try to OC it before looking at new chips.
The best options, IMO, is to upgrade to an SSD as the main work drive if you don't have one. All of my computers are on solid state, with HDDs used only as backup and for permanent file storage. Speed benefits from an SSD can be enormous if you work on high-resolution, high-bit files.
Edit: I have portraiture on both my Surface Pro 3 (8g RAM, i7 ULV, Single solid state drive) and my Razer Blade 2015 (16g RAM, i7 4720HQ, SSD with a slightly faster interface). On both machines the rendering process is virtually instantaneous.
Edit: Also check the speed of the RAM sticks. If you're using something ancient like 1100mhz, it might make sense to replace the sticks.
2. Video cards have a marginal effect on photo processing. Video editing is a whole other matter - but this is a topic that needs an article on its own. Sufficient to say, grading anything above 1080p calls for a profession graphics card. This question will mostly depend on the resolution of the video files that you typically work on.
3. The CPU should be more than good enough. I would try to OC it before looking at new chips.
The best options, IMO, is to upgrade to an SSD as the main work drive if you don't have one. All of my computers are on solid state, with HDDs used only as backup and for permanent file storage. Speed benefits from an SSD can be enormous if you work on high-resolution, high-bit files.
Edit: I have portraiture on both my Surface Pro 3 (8g RAM, i7 ULV, Single solid state drive) and my Razer Blade 2015 (16g RAM, i7 4720HQ, SSD with a slightly faster interface). On both machines the rendering process is virtually instantaneous.
Edit: Also check the speed of the RAM sticks. If you're using something ancient like 1100mhz, it might make sense to replace the sticks.
btgc
Veteran
You don't mention what disk currently is used. SSD for OS and PS working files (forgot the right term they use) is a must de facto.
RAM depends on files process, but I'd say once you start upgrading it's worth only if you have some special build, otherwise just replace whole PC.
For now I feel disk is old spinning thing.
RAM depends on files process, but I'd say once you start upgrading it's worth only if you have some special build, otherwise just replace whole PC.
For now I feel disk is old spinning thing.
Kate-the-Great
Well-known
Agreed on SSD. If you already have an SSD for OS and apps, get a second one for dedicated photo storage- that more than anything will help Lightroom switch between images faster. If you already have SSDs, then it's hard to say what to upgrade. The i7 3770K is still a really good CPU and is not greatly outperformed by the 4770K or Broadwell equivalent (if there is one yet?). The only way to boost CPU performance in a worthwhile way would be to jump right up to a higher-clocked 6 or 8-core chip, but $$$
16GB ought to be plenty of RAM, though going to 32 wouldn't cost a ton if you have spare slots. YYV_146 makes a good point about memory speed. If it's 1066mhz it may be worth upgrading, but only if you go all the way up to 1866 or preferably 2133mhz to get see a real performance difference.
16GB ought to be plenty of RAM, though going to 32 wouldn't cost a ton if you have spare slots. YYV_146 makes a good point about memory speed. If it's 1066mhz it may be worth upgrading, but only if you go all the way up to 1866 or preferably 2133mhz to get see a real performance difference.
wafflecakee
Well-known
SSD's forever!
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
AND it is debatable whether that will help. Lightroom does not seem to benefit that much from a higher number of cores - going by my computers, two fast cores will speed it up by more than eight average ones, even if the latter have more than twice the cumulated processing power, by spec sheet. And Lightroom is more often I/O than CPU bound - watch the system load statistics before you decide what to upgrade...
Dwig
Well-known
Lr:
- upgrade to the newest Lr6 or Lr/CC. They now can leverage the GPU for some operations.
- alway have Lr create 1:1 previews when importing new images.
- keep the Lr database on an SSD.
- use a second HD or preferably SSD for the scratch disk. This must not be the same logical or physical drive used by the OS or where Ps is installed.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Expensive video card makes sense only for 3D gamers. You'll see the difference with bellow $100 card. Where are new, smaller, but as effective as old big ones in this price range now.
For fast processing you need more CPU cores, check if you could double yours.
Also check what is going on in the task manager. Sometimes CPU gets constantly eaten with something stupid. RealPlayer is one of the biggest craploads in Windows, will take it to 100% in no time.
For fast processing you need more CPU cores, check if you could double yours.
Also check what is going on in the task manager. Sometimes CPU gets constantly eaten with something stupid. RealPlayer is one of the biggest craploads in Windows, will take it to 100% in no time.
photomoof
Fischli & Weiss Sculpture
Photoshop is not going to get much faster, unless you were to go to workstation level CPU.
And even then, you might not find it all that much "faster" in your actual experience using Photoshop.
Upgrading to something like the Mac Pro is VERY expensive, starts at $3999, with only a 6-Core and Dual GPU. Upgrading to something significant like an 8-core is going to up the price by $1500. Add ram to 32, and you are at a lot of dollars. And of course that is not the best video, or flash storage. You will need at least 512 at an extra $300.
DELL and others selling Intel Xeon E5 based workstations, even more than the Mac.
Are they worth it, in many cases yes, especially for video. Any Intel Xeon will tend to amaze.
While I have access to a Mac Pro, most of the time I use a Mac Mini -- 3 GHz Intel Core i7, 16 GB 1600 MHz DDR3, nothing to write home about Intel Iris 1536 MB. SSD fusion drive. And it is just fine.
And even then, you might not find it all that much "faster" in your actual experience using Photoshop.
Upgrading to something like the Mac Pro is VERY expensive, starts at $3999, with only a 6-Core and Dual GPU. Upgrading to something significant like an 8-core is going to up the price by $1500. Add ram to 32, and you are at a lot of dollars. And of course that is not the best video, or flash storage. You will need at least 512 at an extra $300.
DELL and others selling Intel Xeon E5 based workstations, even more than the Mac.
Are they worth it, in many cases yes, especially for video. Any Intel Xeon will tend to amaze.
While I have access to a Mac Pro, most of the time I use a Mac Mini -- 3 GHz Intel Core i7, 16 GB 1600 MHz DDR3, nothing to write home about Intel Iris 1536 MB. SSD fusion drive. And it is just fine.
DrTebi
Slide Lover
As mentioned already, an SSD and a faster processor will improve your photo editing speed.
Another thing to try, although probably inconvenient, is simply a different application. Photoshop/Lightroom is not necessarily the fastest photo editing application from my experience. I find e.g. Photoline to be much faster when it comes to opening and saving large files, which is usually my biggest bottle neck. Just something to keep in mind.
Another thing to try, although probably inconvenient, is simply a different application. Photoshop/Lightroom is not necessarily the fastest photo editing application from my experience. I find e.g. Photoline to be much faster when it comes to opening and saving large files, which is usually my biggest bottle neck. Just something to keep in mind.
View Range
Well-known
Turn on the CPU and RAM monitors to see what amount of resources you are using. I think Windows 7 still supports gadgets; there are nice monitors available as gadgets to leave open on the Desktop. You can also see usage in the system manager Ctl+Alt+Del.
The answers above apply to Photoshop, but not to video editing. I use a new MacPro and Adobe Premiere Elements for modest video work. Premiere uses my 4 cores 100% and 16GB of real RAM and 16GB of virtual RAM.
Photoshop is set up to use processors on certain high end video cards, such as nVidia Quadros. I don't know how measurable the impact is.
You seem to be a professional. So why not get fully up to date with a Dell Precision T7910, if you want to stay with Windows, rather than patching up an old machine.
The answers above apply to Photoshop, but not to video editing. I use a new MacPro and Adobe Premiere Elements for modest video work. Premiere uses my 4 cores 100% and 16GB of real RAM and 16GB of virtual RAM.
Photoshop is set up to use processors on certain high end video cards, such as nVidia Quadros. I don't know how measurable the impact is.
You seem to be a professional. So why not get fully up to date with a Dell Precision T7910, if you want to stay with Windows, rather than patching up an old machine.
photomoof
Fischli & Weiss Sculpture
I are you referring to the "MacBook Pro" or "Mac Pro?"
Just for those who aren't familiar with it, this is a Mac Pro https://www.apple.com/mac-pro/.
stompyq
Well-known
You have a K version of the I7 meaning the multiplier is unlocked. You could try to OC but I doubt you'll see a huge gain. As others have stated check the speed of the ram and either OC them or replace with faster sticks. I doubt you'll see a huge performance gain with 32MB vs 16MB. I would really spend my money on getting a fast SSD and moving the OS to that
JoeV
Thin Air, Bright Sun
I'm obviously in the dark ages, but I use an ancient version of Photoshop, don't use Lightroom but instead manage my files via Windows Explorer and my own method of file and backup management, and process raw files via Silky Pix. And I'm using an ancient dual core Pentium running XP. And my system is adequate, I see no immediate need to upgrade my hardware.
It amazes me how bloatware succeeds in keeping up with the latest hardware and OS improvements such that the overall user experience remains about the same.
~Joe
It amazes me how bloatware succeeds in keeping up with the latest hardware and OS improvements such that the overall user experience remains about the same.
~Joe
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
LR6/CC is slower than ever, in spite of the GPU support (which only speeds some editing commands, not the database operations that make up most of the time it takes). On slow computers (like a road notebook) you might want to go back to an earlier version - the best ratio of features to speed was around V3 or V4.
Ronald M
Veteran
SSD. RAM is only temporary storage space when main drive fills. Read and write from ram takes time.
CLEAN OFF THE HD YOU HAVE FOR A START. Then computations can perform on it. This is what external storage is for.
SSD does not depend reading/writing to a disk, therefore faster.
If you are serious, get a new MAC Pro with fast processor and Thunderbolt external drives where you keep your files.
I definitely would use a dedicated photo computer
and keep it off the internet. It will work as new forever.
CLEAN OFF THE HD YOU HAVE FOR A START. Then computations can perform on it. This is what external storage is for.
SSD does not depend reading/writing to a disk, therefore faster.
If you are serious, get a new MAC Pro with fast processor and Thunderbolt external drives where you keep your files.
I definitely would use a dedicated photo computer
and keep it off the internet. It will work as new forever.
Dwig
Well-known
Personally, I would never recommend that anyone go back to or to continue to use v1 through v3. They use an earlier conversion engine that just doesn't yield as good a final image as the engine introduced in v4 and also used in v5, v6, & CC.
Also, some non-editing functions, like switching from Library to Develop, are burdened with the need to create previews and not with any significant database parsing. These can be improved by having Lr pre-build the larger previews either at import time or as a batch operation, perhaps run while you're off getting diner. Once built, Lr merely has to find and load the preview instead of reading the RAW file and generating one from scratch. Having the database and its associated preview collection on a very fast drive (read: SSD) can help a good deal.
Bill Clark
Veteran
I wanted to say you have a very good web site.
I like how the description including your phone # and email that comes up by clicking your url.
People are busy, especially those who have the money to spend, desire, on good photography.
I'm retired but as far as computers go, you would laugh at what Apple products I used. But I do have a fair amount of APPL stock. They have paid me much more than any computer sitting on my desk!
Good luck with your business.
I like how the description including your phone # and email that comes up by clicking your url.
People are busy, especially those who have the money to spend, desire, on good photography.
I'm retired but as far as computers go, you would laugh at what Apple products I used. But I do have a fair amount of APPL stock. They have paid me much more than any computer sitting on my desk!
Good luck with your business.
ferider
Veteran
- any memory added will help.
- consider different software. I use PS Pro for years because of speed. The newest versions are even 16bit capable.
SSDs are cool, but performance degrades over time.
Roland.
- consider different software. I use PS Pro for years because of speed. The newest versions are even 16bit capable.
SSDs are cool, but performance degrades over time.
Roland.
Mackinaw
Think Different
Plus, contrary to popular opinion, SSD’s can die too. The SSD on my 2011 Macbook Air conked out after three years. I lost everything. Luckily my Air is my travel computer so nothing of importance was stored on it. I will say the SSD was easy to swap out and replace with a new SSD. I reinstalled the operating system and have been good-to-go for the past two years (fingers crossed).
Jim B.