Need new computer for Lightroom CC (Lightroom 6). Please advise.
January 25, 2016 3:07 PM Subscribe
Hello all. I'm looking to build or buy a new rig for photo editing in Lightroom CC (6). I'm dealing with some rather large .dng files around 60-90 MB in size and it's just killing my current rig.
My current computer is a 5 year old HP Pavilion Elite HPE-170f with an Intel Core i7 920 2.66 GHz, 15 GB Memory, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 260 with 1.8 GB Memory and a 500 GB Samsung EVO 850 SSD for my OS (Windows 7) and my Camera Raw Cache (currently set at 25 GB). My images are currently stored on a separate internal HDD. It's a pretty slow WD Green drive.
I don't think upgrading this machine with a new CPU would make that much of a difference. The motherboard supports the following processor upgrades: Intel Core i7 9xx series (Bloomfield, includes Extreme Edition). I do know that moving all of my images to a much faster 7200 drive could help however. Where things really start to bog down is when moving the screen around at 1:1 in the Develope module and painting in local adjustments with the adjustments brush.
Like I said earlier, I can build or buy a new machine. I'd prefer to buy, but I've built three or four machines in the past.
Thanks for your thoughts and suggestions.
I don't think upgrading this machine with a new CPU would make that much of a difference. The motherboard supports the following processor upgrades: Intel Core i7 9xx series (Bloomfield, includes Extreme Edition). I do know that moving all of my images to a much faster 7200 drive could help however. Where things really start to bog down is when moving the screen around at 1:1 in the Develope module and painting in local adjustments with the adjustments brush.
Like I said earlier, I can build or buy a new machine. I'd prefer to buy, but I've built three or four machines in the past.
Thanks for your thoughts and suggestions.
Interesting. Photo and video editing is one of the few times where more memory (over 8 gig) can make a difference, but you have plenty already. Without doing any research my gut feeling is the i7 should be plenty capable for that kind of thing, even an old one. Do you have any overclocking options?
Your video card is old, but afaik they don't affect things like photo editing much. Maybe faster memory? I'm normally dubious about how useful it is but this might be a corner case where it's worth upgrading?
To give more useful advice, have you tried to lock down where the bottleneck is? Run task manager and see what is maxing out when everything bogs down, it should be clear whether it's processor or memory. I'm dubious you'll get much of a boost from improving the HD apart from a few seconds off initial load time, you're already doing most of the work on the SSD.
posted by Sebmojo at 3:44 PM on January 25, 2016
Your video card is old, but afaik they don't affect things like photo editing much. Maybe faster memory? I'm normally dubious about how useful it is but this might be a corner case where it's worth upgrading?
To give more useful advice, have you tried to lock down where the bottleneck is? Run task manager and see what is maxing out when everything bogs down, it should be clear whether it's processor or memory. I'm dubious you'll get much of a boost from improving the HD apart from a few seconds off initial load time, you're already doing most of the work on the SSD.
posted by Sebmojo at 3:44 PM on January 25, 2016
My first port of call would be software actually - drivers up to date, windows reinstall, software reinstall.
posted by Sebmojo at 3:45 PM on January 25, 2016
posted by Sebmojo at 3:45 PM on January 25, 2016
Also, install Lightroom on the SSD to see if it makes a diff - I have my windows install on a 120 gig, you should have plenty of room.
posted by Sebmojo at 3:49 PM on January 25, 2016
posted by Sebmojo at 3:49 PM on January 25, 2016
My number one suggestion would be to have lightroom create preview images at 100%. It's some up-front computing cost, but it really speeds up things afterwards. I also want to suggest putting the lightroom database (not the photos) on the SSD.
posted by stratastar at 3:51 PM on January 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by stratastar at 3:51 PM on January 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
Your GPU is a bit weak, although I'm not sure how intensively Lightroom uses the GPU (also, make sure GPU acceleration is enabled, although I think it is by default). Make sure you're running the official Nvidia driver instead of the stock Windows WDDM one. Make sure it's not accidentally using the stock GPU built into your motherboard.
RAM speed might be an issue, although you don't say what you have already. If you're on DDR2 then yeah, probably upgrade the whole base system.
Enabling 100% previews is a good idea too. I don't use Lightroom, but I do use Bridge sometimes, and this really helps. At the very least, making Lightroom read the entire file for the preview means it's in the disk cache for next time.
Also, if you have the memory allowance for Lightroom and/or Photoshop cranked up (don't remember if Lightroom does this, but Photoshop still does), that'll leave less room in memory for the disk cache. If you have both open at the same time, they could collectively be hogging a bunch of RAM that could be better used by the OS.
posted by neckro23 at 4:01 PM on January 25, 2016
RAM speed might be an issue, although you don't say what you have already. If you're on DDR2 then yeah, probably upgrade the whole base system.
Enabling 100% previews is a good idea too. I don't use Lightroom, but I do use Bridge sometimes, and this really helps. At the very least, making Lightroom read the entire file for the preview means it's in the disk cache for next time.
Also, if you have the memory allowance for Lightroom and/or Photoshop cranked up (don't remember if Lightroom does this, but Photoshop still does), that'll leave less room in memory for the disk cache. If you have both open at the same time, they could collectively be hogging a bunch of RAM that could be better used by the OS.
posted by neckro23 at 4:01 PM on January 25, 2016
Are you running 32-bit Windows or 64-bit Windows? And if it's 64-bit, are you running a 32-bit version of Lightroom or a 64-bit version?
That makes a huge difference. If you are running 32-bit Windows, or 64-bit Windows but 32-bit Lightroom, then you are wasting most of the capability of your hardware. For instance, Windows limits 32-bit apps to 2 GB of memory, no matter how much is in your computer.
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 4:19 PM on January 25, 2016 [2 favorites]
That makes a huge difference. If you are running 32-bit Windows, or 64-bit Windows but 32-bit Lightroom, then you are wasting most of the capability of your hardware. For instance, Windows limits 32-bit apps to 2 GB of memory, no matter how much is in your computer.
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 4:19 PM on January 25, 2016 [2 favorites]
To find out which version of Windows you are running, open the control panel and run the "System" app. Find the line labeled "System Type" and see what it says.
To find out what your app is, start running it. Then right-click on the task bar and start the task manager. Select the "processes" tab and find your app. If the "Image Name" entry for it ends with "*32" then you're running the 32-bit version of your application.
Considering what you have and when you bought it, it's almost certainly 64-bit Windows, but if not, you can update it online. In the control panel, select "Windows Update" and click "Windows Anytime Upgrade". (You'll have to pay; it isn't free.)
If your app is 32-bit you'll have to deal with the software publisher. You might have to buy a new copy, or there may be some sort of upgrade which probably won't be free.
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 4:31 PM on January 25, 2016
To find out what your app is, start running it. Then right-click on the task bar and start the task manager. Select the "processes" tab and find your app. If the "Image Name" entry for it ends with "*32" then you're running the 32-bit version of your application.
Considering what you have and when you bought it, it's almost certainly 64-bit Windows, but if not, you can update it online. In the control panel, select "Windows Update" and click "Windows Anytime Upgrade". (You'll have to pay; it isn't free.)
If your app is 32-bit you'll have to deal with the software publisher. You might have to buy a new copy, or there may be some sort of upgrade which probably won't be free.
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 4:31 PM on January 25, 2016
Ooh good point re 32 vs 64 bit.
It just feels like your hardware should be fine, and there's something you're missing in software.
(though maybe make sure your cpu isn't underclocking itself or something weird like that?)
posted by Sebmojo at 5:23 PM on January 25, 2016
It just feels like your hardware should be fine, and there's something you're missing in software.
(though maybe make sure your cpu isn't underclocking itself or something weird like that?)
posted by Sebmojo at 5:23 PM on January 25, 2016
Response by poster: To follow up on a few points/questions brought up since my post. Here they are...
In regards to the drive that is hosting my .dng files (the slow WD HDD Green) I have about 200 GB of files there at the moment. So a 1 TB SSD would do fine right now. I agree that other than the initial loading of the .dng files, a faster storage drive wouldn't provide all that much of an improvement. But to check that out, I could always move a folder from the WD HDD to my SSD and see if that moves things quicker in Lightroom.
I do believe the bottleneck is the CPU. Using Task Manager on my second screen while using Lightroom, I can see that the CPU is being taxed fairly well while my memory still has 4-5 GB free. The memory is DDR3. Using the local adjustment brush is pretty laggy on these large .dng files.
Lightroom is already installed on the SSD along with my OS. Also my Camera Raw Cache is also on the SSD.
While it's true that the video card doesn't play a huge role in Lightroom, it's starting to. With the current release of Lightroom, Lightroom is now starting to hand off some tasks to the GPU from the CPU. How much and to what degree of sucess is still a mystery.
Both the OS and Lightroom are 64 bit.
Motherboard has no built in graphics, so I know I'm using the video card. I know I'm using the official NVIDIA drivers, and they are updated. I'll have to look into the other system drivers using HP's app.
I rendered 1:1 previews for my current working folder set that I started on today. I'll see tomorrow if/how much that helps.
That's all for now. Thanks for the help. I'll report back tomorrow or the next day with any results. Feel free to ask more questions and I'll try and answer them.
posted by Jackie_Treehorn at 5:46 PM on January 25, 2016
In regards to the drive that is hosting my .dng files (the slow WD HDD Green) I have about 200 GB of files there at the moment. So a 1 TB SSD would do fine right now. I agree that other than the initial loading of the .dng files, a faster storage drive wouldn't provide all that much of an improvement. But to check that out, I could always move a folder from the WD HDD to my SSD and see if that moves things quicker in Lightroom.
I do believe the bottleneck is the CPU. Using Task Manager on my second screen while using Lightroom, I can see that the CPU is being taxed fairly well while my memory still has 4-5 GB free. The memory is DDR3. Using the local adjustment brush is pretty laggy on these large .dng files.
Lightroom is already installed on the SSD along with my OS. Also my Camera Raw Cache is also on the SSD.
While it's true that the video card doesn't play a huge role in Lightroom, it's starting to. With the current release of Lightroom, Lightroom is now starting to hand off some tasks to the GPU from the CPU. How much and to what degree of sucess is still a mystery.
Both the OS and Lightroom are 64 bit.
Motherboard has no built in graphics, so I know I'm using the video card. I know I'm using the official NVIDIA drivers, and they are updated. I'll have to look into the other system drivers using HP's app.
I rendered 1:1 previews for my current working folder set that I started on today. I'll see tomorrow if/how much that helps.
That's all for now. Thanks for the help. I'll report back tomorrow or the next day with any results. Feel free to ask more questions and I'll try and answer them.
posted by Jackie_Treehorn at 5:46 PM on January 25, 2016
I'd give overclocking a whirl, maybe? Minmaxing it is very involved, but you should be able to get a quick and dirty boost without too much trouble if your mobo supports it.
posted by Sebmojo at 5:55 PM on January 25, 2016
posted by Sebmojo at 5:55 PM on January 25, 2016
Seeing a lot of answers here that aren't making much sense. Use your own judgement on which advice to take.
Here is my suggested upgrade path for your situation:
1) Upgrade the CPU to the highest GHZ speed you can afford; cores matter less in this case (for now). Consider that in the future that will likely change. I would be looking at no less than 8 cores if I was buying today.
2) Move the photos to the SSD; at least while you're in edit mode; you can archive to HDD later. I don't think this will make as significant of a difference for the problems you describe, but should help with initial loading.
3) The GPU is something to consider updating in the future. Personally, I have not see any noticeable improvement updating from a 10+ year old GPU to an AMD 280x; but this will be changing.
You can actually do #2 first, as it's free. But with the amount of memory you have, the photos are likely already sitting in RAM by the time you are processing them, which sounds like the area where you're having slowness is.
posted by Sonic_Molson at 8:32 PM on January 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
Here is my suggested upgrade path for your situation:
1) Upgrade the CPU to the highest GHZ speed you can afford; cores matter less in this case (for now). Consider that in the future that will likely change. I would be looking at no less than 8 cores if I was buying today.
2) Move the photos to the SSD; at least while you're in edit mode; you can archive to HDD later. I don't think this will make as significant of a difference for the problems you describe, but should help with initial loading.
3) The GPU is something to consider updating in the future. Personally, I have not see any noticeable improvement updating from a 10+ year old GPU to an AMD 280x; but this will be changing.
You can actually do #2 first, as it's free. But with the amount of memory you have, the photos are likely already sitting in RAM by the time you are processing them, which sounds like the area where you're having slowness is.
posted by Sonic_Molson at 8:32 PM on January 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
Using the GPU acceleration may be slower than just using the CPU.
You should absolutely be using an SSD to hold the RAW files. Throwing in a 500-1000GB SSD drive or using the existing SSD as a landing pad for your incoming files will give you an immediate improvement. But it sounds like your pain point is doing processing of the photos and your CPU just doesn't have the horsepower to work with huge RAW files. The computer may only be five years old, but that processor first came out in 2008 - that's forever ago in computer years.
I'm using a late 4th generation (circa 2014) i7 desktop and 5th generation i7 laptop and they both handle 40GB RAW files fairly well. At this point you should go for something with a 6th generation i7 or Xeon equivalent. If you're doing much work in Lightroom, doing so will cumulatively save you hours of time waiting for a sluggish system to finish.
My personal recommendation for "it just works" packages with good bang for the buck are the Dell XPS systems. They go on sale fairly regularly at prices that I don't think I could beat trying to build systems from parts.
And one other thing you might consider is lowering the resolution that you're shooting at, at least some of the time when you're doing work that's not going to benefit from the highest resolution. If you're not using top quality glass and on a tripod, you're not going to be getting 50 megapixel's worth of image most of the time. I struggle with this too - if the amount of time it takes to process and finish files is enough that you never get around to doing so, it doesn't matter how high quality they are. For casual friend and family shots, I can happily drop down to 15 megapixel mode, which is more than sufficient for web/mobile device and home photo printing purposes and they're so much faster to work with that I'm more likely to finish them rather than letting them just sit in my todo folder. Your needs may differ, but it's something to consider.
posted by Candleman at 9:17 PM on January 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
You should absolutely be using an SSD to hold the RAW files. Throwing in a 500-1000GB SSD drive or using the existing SSD as a landing pad for your incoming files will give you an immediate improvement. But it sounds like your pain point is doing processing of the photos and your CPU just doesn't have the horsepower to work with huge RAW files. The computer may only be five years old, but that processor first came out in 2008 - that's forever ago in computer years.
I'm using a late 4th generation (circa 2014) i7 desktop and 5th generation i7 laptop and they both handle 40GB RAW files fairly well. At this point you should go for something with a 6th generation i7 or Xeon equivalent. If you're doing much work in Lightroom, doing so will cumulatively save you hours of time waiting for a sluggish system to finish.
My personal recommendation for "it just works" packages with good bang for the buck are the Dell XPS systems. They go on sale fairly regularly at prices that I don't think I could beat trying to build systems from parts.
And one other thing you might consider is lowering the resolution that you're shooting at, at least some of the time when you're doing work that's not going to benefit from the highest resolution. If you're not using top quality glass and on a tripod, you're not going to be getting 50 megapixel's worth of image most of the time. I struggle with this too - if the amount of time it takes to process and finish files is enough that you never get around to doing so, it doesn't matter how high quality they are. For casual friend and family shots, I can happily drop down to 15 megapixel mode, which is more than sufficient for web/mobile device and home photo printing purposes and they're so much faster to work with that I'm more likely to finish them rather than letting them just sit in my todo folder. Your needs may differ, but it's something to consider.
posted by Candleman at 9:17 PM on January 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
Just saw this article on building a high end/professional video editing workstation from scratch. Some of the similar issues so there may be hints.
posted by sammyo at 7:53 AM on January 26, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by sammyo at 7:53 AM on January 26, 2016 [2 favorites]
Response by poster: I've done some informal testing this morning and have had a few interesting results.
I have two identical 100 MB .dng files. One is on my OS SSD. One is on my WD HDD Green data drive. Both images have had 1:1 previews made already.
1. There is no noticeable difference in loading times. There is also no noticeable difference in working with the images. Interesting. I would have thought it would be quicker using the SSD image.
2. Using my graphics card vs. not using my graphics card (turning it off or on in preferences) makes a substantial difference. NOT using the card is about 33%-50% faster at the tasks I've quickly tested. To be clear, things are still pretty slow, but better. Much better in fact.
Examples:
1. In the develope module, zooming into to 1:1 view takes about 4 seconds to see the clear, rendered image NOT using the GPU. Doing the same test with GPU enabled in LR takes about 9 seconds.
2. In the develop modual using the adjustment brush, selecting an adjustment pin and pressing O on the keyboard to display or hide the overlay: With GPU it takes 3 seconds to see a response. WITHOUT the GPU it takes 2 seconds.
That's all for now.
posted by Jackie_Treehorn at 10:15 AM on January 26, 2016
I have two identical 100 MB .dng files. One is on my OS SSD. One is on my WD HDD Green data drive. Both images have had 1:1 previews made already.
1. There is no noticeable difference in loading times. There is also no noticeable difference in working with the images. Interesting. I would have thought it would be quicker using the SSD image.
2. Using my graphics card vs. not using my graphics card (turning it off or on in preferences) makes a substantial difference. NOT using the card is about 33%-50% faster at the tasks I've quickly tested. To be clear, things are still pretty slow, but better. Much better in fact.
Examples:
1. In the develope module, zooming into to 1:1 view takes about 4 seconds to see the clear, rendered image NOT using the GPU. Doing the same test with GPU enabled in LR takes about 9 seconds.
2. In the develop modual using the adjustment brush, selecting an adjustment pin and pressing O on the keyboard to display or hide the overlay: With GPU it takes 3 seconds to see a response. WITHOUT the GPU it takes 2 seconds.
That's all for now.
posted by Jackie_Treehorn at 10:15 AM on January 26, 2016
There is no noticeable difference in loading times. There is also no noticeable difference in working with the images.
You were probably loading out of the RAM cache, not actually off the drive.
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 10:58 AM on January 26, 2016
You were probably loading out of the RAM cache, not actually off the drive.
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 10:58 AM on January 26, 2016
There are all kinds of complaints about Lightroom 6/CC performance. Folks have tested older versions of Lightroom with SSDs vs HDDs and found no difference in performance.
Based on the very limited research I did here, it looks like 1:1 previews only affect the Library module and not the Develop module. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
Here's a specific performance complaint using the Develop module on an i7 3770K overclocked, which is one of the fastest consumer CPUs you can buy.
You're not likely to make performance instant. Due to issues with Lightroom 6/CC, short term performance may not even improve enough to justify the additional cost.
posted by cnc at 11:32 AM on January 26, 2016
Based on the very limited research I did here, it looks like 1:1 previews only affect the Library module and not the Develop module. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
Here's a specific performance complaint using the Develop module on an i7 3770K overclocked, which is one of the fastest consumer CPUs you can buy.
You're not likely to make performance instant. Due to issues with Lightroom 6/CC, short term performance may not even improve enough to justify the additional cost.
posted by cnc at 11:32 AM on January 26, 2016
Response by poster: I decided to purchase a new machine today rather than mess around with overclocking or trying to further upgrade the old computer.
For those interested, here is what I have coming:
HP ENVY 750se
•6th Generation Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-6700K processor quad-core [4.0GHz, 8MB Shared Cache]
•24GB DDR4-2133 DIMM (2x8GB+2x4GB) RAM
•6GB Nvidia GeForce GTX 980Ti
•500W Power supply
•2TB 7200 RPM SATA 6G Hard Drive (I'll use my Samsung Evo 850 SSD for my OS)
•SuperMulti DVD Burner
•Windows 10 Home 64-bit OS
•HP Wireless 802.11 a/b/g/n/ac 1x1 with Bluetooth M.2 NIC (Stone Peak 1)
•7-in-1 Media Card Reader, 4 USB Ports (Top), Audio [Top 2USB2.0, 2USB3.0]
I think I got a pretty good deal on this at just over $1300 shipped. Plus a bit of tax.
posted by Jackie_Treehorn at 5:33 PM on January 26, 2016
For those interested, here is what I have coming:
HP ENVY 750se
•6th Generation Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-6700K processor quad-core [4.0GHz, 8MB Shared Cache]
•24GB DDR4-2133 DIMM (2x8GB+2x4GB) RAM
•6GB Nvidia GeForce GTX 980Ti
•500W Power supply
•2TB 7200 RPM SATA 6G Hard Drive (I'll use my Samsung Evo 850 SSD for my OS)
•SuperMulti DVD Burner
•Windows 10 Home 64-bit OS
•HP Wireless 802.11 a/b/g/n/ac 1x1 with Bluetooth M.2 NIC (Stone Peak 1)
•7-in-1 Media Card Reader, 4 USB Ports (Top), Audio [Top 2USB2.0, 2USB3.0]
I think I got a pretty good deal on this at just over $1300 shipped. Plus a bit of tax.
posted by Jackie_Treehorn at 5:33 PM on January 26, 2016
I hope you play the occasional game because that's a monster of a video card. I can recommend Witcher 3.
posted by Sebmojo at 1:04 PM on January 31, 2016
posted by Sebmojo at 1:04 PM on January 31, 2016
This thread is closed to new comments.
(and if it doesn't help, carry it forwards into whatever you build/buy next)
posted by andrewcooke at 3:38 PM on January 25, 2016 [2 favorites]