Which CPU and how much RAM for photoshop in 2018?

S

stevierose

Ann Arbor, Michigan
Local time
4:19 AM
Joined
Apr 20, 2014
Messages
187
I'm not sure if this should go in the computer section or Photoshop section. Today they announced the new Mac Mini. This is good news for me because I have a high quality dedicated monitor so didn't want an iMac and can't justify a Mac Pro. My question is this--which CPU and how much RAM do I need to easily do photo editing with the latest software versions? I use Lightroom, Photoshop, and various plug-ins. I shoot RAW with APS and occasionally full frame sensors. I don't shoot MF digital. I also shoot film which I scan. I print to an Epson 800. The CPU choices include a 3.6 Ghz quad core 8th generation Intel i3, 3.2 GHz 6 core i7, 3.0 Ghz 6 core i5 with turbo boost, and a 3.2 Ghz i7 with turbo boost. I don't do any significant amount of video editing. I am willing to spend what I need to configure a good photo editing computer but don't want to waste money buying power I don't need. What do you folks think I should get?

Thanks
Steve Rosenblum
 
My 6-year-old i7 quad-core and 16gb DDR3 ram still can easily handle D800 files like it is nothing. It only starts to chug when I'm working on 30,000-pixel-wide scans from ULF film. Likely any of those options will work fine, or a $400 bargain Lenovo/Dell/whatever too. I even do 3-6 camera video shoots and edit just fine on this computer I built from scratch back in 2012. It renders slower than I'd like but that's about it.

I edit in Lightroom and finish in Photoshop. I don't tend to have 20 layers on an image though or anything silly like that.
 
Which version of Lightroom and Photoshop do you plan to use?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Corran said:
My 6-year-old i7 quad-core and 16gb DDR3 ram still can easily handle D800 files like it is nothing. It only starts to chug when I'm working on 30,000-pixel-wide scans from ULF film.
Click to expand...

That’s interesting. My 2012 MacMini is specced exactly like that, and it has become so slow as to be a real problem with many Photoshop processes. Nik plugins for one. (And I do think it is maintained and cleaned up as much as possible.) 4x5 scans have become nearly impossible to work with, about the only thing which has ever caused the computer to actually freeze up. So, I was crying for a new Mini because, like the OP, I have a monitor I like, didn’t want an imac, knew I wouldn’t pay for next year’s Mac Pro. (Still have the last G5 Pro Tower).
Ordered the new Mini this morning, 6 core i7, 1TB drive, as I have never had a computer which had “too much” processing power. And after a few years it is no longer even enough. Ordered with 8 GB RAM, and will upgrade that on my own, to at least 32GB. Possibly the full 64GB of RAM if I can swallow the cost. You may not need 6 cores, but maxing out the RAM is never a bad move for photo processing. Maybe my files are too big. RX1rii, for biggest digital, but RAW scans of 35mm are large as well.
A side note on RAM for this new Mini: It can be fitted with up to 64GB, but exactly how user replaceable it is, is a matter of some dispute at this time. Apple is saying that it should be done by a “certified technician” , though most are guessing it can be done by a careful owner. Photos of the layout suggest it is easily user replaceable, though it wasn’t in the 2014 Mini. There are two RAM slots, not four, so 32GB uses two 16GB modules, 64GB needs two 32GB modules. 32GB modules of the specified speed were not even available anywhere until about two weeks ago, and they seem really expensive. OWC prices for 64GB spread over 4 16GB modules, like used in a 2017 iMac, is less than $600, but 64GB of the newer modules, (2x32) is over $1,000 appparently. Not listed on OWC’s site as of this afternoon, but they sent out an email notifying new Mini owners that they were taking RAM preorders. FWIW.
 
Not to derail this into a Mac vs. PC thing but I have heard that Photoshop has optimization issues in OSX. It used to be that Photoshop and many other audiovisual editing softwares were optimized for Mac but I believe it's been reversed in recent times. If you like Mac go for it. I can't stand the Mac OS so the nitty-gritty tech details don't really matter. Been a power user on Windows (and DOS before that) since middle school.
 
I'd want a system that was actually a bit more than needed today, so that in 2 years time it's still inside the technology curve, and then only starting to fall outside in 3-4 years.

I think your choice of RAM and SSD will have greater impact than any of the Mac Mini CPU offerings. Start with the least expensive 6-core.
 
Corran said:
My 6-year-old i7 quad-core and 16gb DDR3 ram still can easily handle D800 files like it is nothing. It only starts to chug when I'm working on 30,000-pixel-wide scans from ULF film. Likely any of those options will work fine, or a $400 bargain Lenovo/Dell/whatever too. I even do 3-6 camera video shoots and edit just fine on this computer I built from scratch back in 2012. It renders slower than I'd like but that's about it.

I edit in Lightroom and finish in Photoshop. I don't tend to have 20 layers on an image though or anything silly like that.
Click to expand...
I would agree with the above in general terms and my PC has similar specs to this and is of a similar age. It also has only a mid ranking graphics card - nothing special though I cannot recall how much dedicated RAM it has.

It depends too of course on some other factors such as the above writer suggests - how many layers are there in a given image, to which I would add, whether you work in RAW or JPG. (I always work in RAW but I always flatten my file layers as soon as I am satisfied that I am not likely to need further edits of the already created layers.)

It also depends too on which software package you use for processing. I am not sure about Photoshop but the previous version of Corel Paintshop Pro I used (running either under Lightroom as an "external editor/plugin or in standalone mode) was 32 bit. It chugged badly with even 16 megapixel Sony RAW files which was my main reason for upgrading. As soon as I updated to a 64 bit version of the software, the problem was solved immediately. I am sure present versions of Photoshop are 64 bit. But if you are using old versions be aware that this has a potentially serious affect.
 
I had a PC built specifically for my photography a couple of years ago - it's still blazing fast, and I have no intention of upgrading any components at the moment.

I had a few aims:

• Optimised for photography (Photoshop, Lightroom, Capture One)
• Quiet (can't stand noisy computers, esp. whirring fans!)
• Cost (no point in paying for stuff that makes minimal or no difference).

The key specs are below. An i5 CPU is almost as fast as an i7 but significantly cheaper - in real life, the difference is not noticeable. 16GB is plenty for my 42MP Sony raw files, but if you deal with 1GB Photoshop files with tens of layers, you'll need 32GB. The graphics card is more than enough - again provided you're not dealing with 1GB Photoshop files (it's also fanless, so totally silent!). As seen from the specifications below, the components are all respected brands but not topline - in keeping with my third aim.

The most important components are the drives: the M.2 (not SATA) SSD C drive allows the PC and programs to start blindingly fast, and I have a small but dedicated SSD drive for use as a scratch disk for Adobe software, and where Lightroom and Capture One catalogues live - which speeds up image processing further. I also temporarily copy photos I'm working on to the scratch disk, again speeding things up (the photos are moved to my data drive when done).

The data drive is separate from the main drive for the following reasons: cost and performance - an SSD makes no difference for most data (software is the bottleneck), so separating the data allows a smaller, cheaper SSD whilst not affecting speed; reliability - less hassle if a drive dies. Talking of which, notice I've an eSATA card used for external backup (both my data and operating system are automatically backed up, so I can both retrieve data (incl. older versions of files) and get my system quickly going again if a drive dies).

The two 30 inch screens (since joined by a 21 inch screen) make using the PC a joy - that's equivalent to a 5 foot (1.5 m) wide monitor. Using a laptop is now akin to being locked in a cupboard!

I avoid old 32-bit programs. The operating system is 64 bit, and 64-bit software is much faster.

I don't know much about Macs though I've used them. Presumably you can get one built or upgraded with similar specifications?

Specifications:

CPU: Intel i5 6600
Memory: Corsair DDR4 16GB
Graphics card: ASUS GeForce STRIX GTX 950 OC
Screens: two x Dell 30 inch
Main drive (SSD): M.2 drive - 256GB Samsung SM951
Data drive: 1 TB Seagate ST1000DX001 3.5in Solid State Hybrid Drive
Scratch disk (SSD) for Photoshop, Lightroom, etc.: 120GB Samsung 850 EVO
Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-Z170X-UD3 LGA1151 ATX
PCI card (for external back-up RAID drive): StarTech Dual-port eSATA External 6Gbp
Operating system: Microsoft Windows 10 Home 64-bit

45644419251_69692c59c3_z_d.jpg
 
Larry Cloetta said:
That’s interesting. My 2012 MacMini is specced exactly like that, and it has become so slow as to be a real problem with many Photoshop processes. Nik plugins for one. (And I do think it is maintained and cleaned up as much as possible.) 4x5 scans have become nearly impossible to work with, about the only thing which has ever caused the computer to actually freeze up. So, I was crying for a new Mini because, like the OP, I have a monitor I like, didn’t want an imac, knew I wouldn’t pay for next year’s Mac Pro. (Still have the last G5 Pro Tower).
Ordered the new Mini this morning, 6 core i7, 1TB drive, as I have never had a computer which had “too much” processing power. And after a few years it is no longer even enough. Ordered with 8 GB RAM, and will upgrade that on my own, to at least 32GB. Possibly the full 64GB of RAM if I can swallow the cost. You may not need 6 cores, but maxing out the RAM is never a bad move for photo processing. Maybe my files are too big. RX1rii, for biggest digital, but RAW scans of 35mm are large as well.
A side note on RAM for this new Mini: It can be fitted with up to 64GB, but exactly how user replaceable it is, is a matter of some dispute at this time. Apple is saying that it should be done by a “certified technician” , though most are guessing it can be done by a careful owner. Photos of the layout suggest it is easily user replaceable, though it wasn’t in the 2014 Mini. There are two RAM slots, not four, so 32GB uses two 16GB modules, 64GB needs two 32GB modules. 32GB modules of the specified speed were not even available anywhere until about two weeks ago, and they seem really expensive. OWC prices for 64GB spread over 4 16GB modules, like used in a 2017 iMac, is less than $600, but 64GB of the newer modules, (2x32) is over $1,000 appparently. Not listed on OWC’s site as of this afternoon, but they sent out an email notifying new Mini owners that they were taking RAM preorders. FWIW.
Click to expand...

In a bit of the same boat. I've got a 2010 i7 iMac that I've since maxed out on RAM and upgraded to SSD over the years and it's doing just fine. Last year it started slowing down, even though I was running CS3 and some older version of OSX, which didn't make a whole lot of sense, since I wasn't trying to force new software on it, but updating to Sierra and CC did the trick. Video is a bit slow, but usable. It's handled CAD and 3D modeling well, too.
In comparison, I'm writing this on a 2013 base-model MBP, which begrudgingly got for grad school and has seemingly never been adequate. Lot of freezing and getting very hot, from day one. I've thought of trading in both and getting the Mini (and I too have an old display I'm very fond of-- a G4-era Cinema Display) but I think for the price at the moment, that's not really a necessity.

To OP: If you're just working on still photography, I think your minimum requirements are a lot less taxing than what's needed for video and anything involving 3D (short story: for a final presentation, I once managed to commandeer 3 library iMacs, each running a different render on VRay, and left them overnight; came back 8 hours later, still not finished).
I don't think a graphics card is a tremendous priority as much as RAM and storage, as others have said.

While I run a SSD locally, my files are stored on an external magnetic drive connected via FW800—not as fast as a SSD on some more advanced connection, but I really can't justify the price of solid-state for bulk storage just yet, nor anything Thunderbolt-ready I've seen. It works fast enough in an editing session; presumably, whatever I'm working on gets sucked over and stored in local temp files until it's re-saved, so there's minimal lag in viewing previews or actually editing files.
 
Surely it all depends on file size and level of processing ?

I edit on a MacBook Air with i5 and 4GB RAM with zero issues - but then I'm working on 35mm scans and 16MP m4/3 RAW files
 
Buy Memory

Buy Memory

For OS X my advice is to buy at least 16 GB of memory.

I think this advice also applies to the PC world. But I have not used a PC since 1999.

Larry Cloetta said:
My 2012 MacMini is specced exactly like that, and it has become so slow as to be a real problem with many Photoshop processes. ...
Click to expand...

I also have a late 2012 MacMini. Upgrading to 16 GB of memory made huge difference. When I monitored memory use I judged 16 GB was sufficient.

While I keep a copy of original raw/TIFF files (mostly raw), I only use lossless compressed DNG for post-production work. When I upgraded to Mojave, Fusion drive performance increased because the more efficient APFS file format was supported. Recently (past ~3 years) every time Lightroom (Classic CC) or OS X was upgraded performance improved to some degree.

My Lightroom Catalog is 1.2 GB. I optimize it at the end of each post-production session. The only time LR bogs down is when I do lots of work with the cloning/brush Panel. I typically do this work last so all other rendering adjustments are not affected. For very long post-production sessions I have closed LR and reopened it. This seems to help with the cloning/brush Panel issue. I think the performance issue involves UNIX disk-swap speed. I always log out and shut down so OS X performs all the low-level UNIX maintenance tasks. These can also be done with using Terminal commands or third-party Apps. Since Sierra many of the maintenance scripts are automatically run during usage.

I use Photoshop Classic CC for heavy cloning, healing brush work. This was to eliminate or soften harsh shadows and, or perform selective color temperature parameter optimization in scenes with mixed color temperatures. In this limited case I never experienced performance issues.

The NIK plug-ins have always been fast with LR. I did exposure blending with the Photomatix Pro or Nik HDR Efex Pro. Working with even 5 TIFF images was reasonably fast.

If I was still doing commercial interiors photography I would upgrade to the new MacMini. Now, I can't justify the cost for just working on personal projects.
 
Ste_S said:
Surely it all depends on file size and level of processing ?

I edit on a MacBook Air with i5 and 4GB RAM with zero issues - but then I'm working on 35mm scans and 16MP m4/3 RAW files
Click to expand...

That’s pretty much it. I occasionally end up having 1 GB sized files for one reason or another, so 16GB of RAM is a severely limiting choke point for me. And Thunderbolt3/USB-C file storage combined with an equivalent computer has gone from a pointless luxury to a necessity. Computing hardware has become as much or more financially onerous than any camera/lens set I might contemplate.
Hard to say this makes any more sense than just using a Nikon 1, or a phone. Or a pure film existence which sidesteps digital workflow completely. It’s possible I’m “doing it wrong”. (Not the processing methodology, but the whole bigger, better, more, newer approach to photography.)
 
I am pretty much in the overkill, get it done fast so I don't have to live on a computer all day camp.

My mobile is a 2018 15" MacBook Pro 6 core 2.9ghz w/ 32GB of ram and a total of 5GB of video ram, 2TB PCIe drive. It's considerably faster than the 2010 MacPro 6 core that was my main machine up until last year.

But this is not my main machine...

Earlier this year I moved up big time to a 10x core iMac Pro with 16GB of video ram, 128GB of ram and a 2TB PCIe. I also went to all thunderbolt 3 storage including a 4TB stripe RAID SSD plowing through jobs at over 1,500MBs. I now have a total of 220TB of RAID Thunderbolt storage that is diversified, slowest drive to drive speeds are around 600MBs, max 3,000MBs.

This massive storage system accesses some 25 years of archives, over a million images which is representative of my 24 year history with digital. When using Photo Mechanic to render folders of images on my old machines, a folder of 3,000-4,000 images would render in 4-6 seconds and a larger one around 15,000-20,000 images would take about 30-60 seconds.

Now an entire year's worth of images, usually about 45,000-65,000 or a TB or so renders in 2-4 seconds. Just sharing to show what is possible at the high end.
 
Is the new MacMini more capable than a maxed out version of the previous mini? No i7 processor option or Iris graphics options are available. So extra memory and faster ram can/will give a more capable machine?

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