# PC self builders out there?



## johnbeardy (Jul 23, 2010)

I'm trying to put together a shopping list for a self build PC optimised for image editing (not games). I've never built one before but have happily swapped hard drives and graphics cards etc so feel I can handle it.... 

My goal is 12Gb of RAM on Win7 64 bit on an Intel multi-core processor. 4 core seems to be the sweet spot for me.

I've tried my best to get my head around which processor needs which motherboard and which type of RAM. So any thoughts?

John

*Case  *Antec 3'' Three Hundred Case Black
*Power  *Antec CP 85' Continuous Power 85'W PSU
*System drive  *Western Digital 5''GB Caviar Black SATA-II 32MB
*DVD drive*  LG Electronics 22 x DVDRW SATA blackbare + sw
*Chip  *Intel Core i7 93' 2.8GHz 8MB Cache LGA1366 Socket
*Motherboard  *Asus P6X58D-E, Intel X58, 1366, 6DDR3, 3PCI-Ex16, CrossfireX/SLI, 8CHHD Sound, USB3 & SATA6 ATX
*Graphics  *Gigabyte GeForce GT 24' 6''Mhz 1GB PCI-Express 2.' HDMI
*12Gb RAM*Two x 6GB kit (2GBx3), 24'-pin DIMM, DDR3 PC3-1'6'' memory module
*OS*  Windows 7 64 bit Professional


----------



## ukbrown (Jul 23, 2010)

As no one else has chipped in yet. 

Graphics card, From what I have seen in LR this does not really get stressed, most (all) graphics cards can display static images pretty quickly. This may be contentious but until I see otherwise I am not too sure that you need a super duper graphics card, what does anybody else think?

Disk's get two so you can separate Catalog from other files, Keep your OS on one etc. Two disks usually better than one for most PC's. Maybe get a fast smaller one for system/programs and a big beefy one for your data


----------



## johnbeardy (Jul 23, 2010)

Thanks - I should have added that I already have three 1.5Tb internal drives plus a pair of 5''Mb ones which will go into the machine.

I am happy with the overall spec but my main doubts are the graphics card, where I have used the same logic as you and allocated money to RAM, and also whether I have chosen the processor that works with the motherboard (I believe that's the 1366 socket is about).


----------



## ukbrown (Jul 23, 2010)

It's been soooooo long since I looked at processor specs, I7 at 2.8ghz sounds pretty fast to me. More RAM is definitely better, and faster and more disk spindles really helps to keep the CPU fed with data. It looks like it should fly. Going 64 bit also is much better.


----------



## Jim Wilde (Jul 23, 2010)

John, nice project! 

Flirted with the idea of doing a self-build earlier this year when putting the spec for my replacement desktop together, but chickened out and went back to PC Specialist....had been very pleased with the job they did last year for my son's gaming PC, and they did not let me down either.

Screenshot attached of the spec I went with in the end, although it was modified to increase the size of drives 3 and 4 to 64'gb from 25'gb (think it cost me an extra £8 per disk!), you will see lots of similarities with your chosen spec. The Asus P6T motherboard has now been replaced at PC Specialist by the P6X58D so you should have no worries about it working well with the i7-93' CPU (it's the default base combination for PC Specialist's top end systems).

Re Graphics card....as you can see I went the ATI route, choosing a 'middle of the top end road' card....diehard gamers would probably sneer a little (but not that much), but for my usage of LR it is way more than adequate. The GTX24' is in the same class I think (costs about £3' less than the ATI 575') and I honestly can't see why you would have any problems with it.

I was going to say get more drives, but see you've got that covered...your power supply should be ample. The only thing I would consider adding would be a CPU cooler, for about £6' they really do take any overheating worries away.

Have fun!

PS....don't forget the Card Reader!!


----------



## johnbeardy (Jul 23, 2010)

Thanks Jim, I remember you getting the machine. I do see a lot of similarities there and it's good you're confirming the motherboard/processor combo. PCSpecialist was a new name to me, but I like how their site sets out the combinations - but I don't know how someone who seems so sensible chooses a case that seems to light up. 

Hm, it's becoming hard for me to chicken out of finally doing a PC build

John


----------



## Jim Wilde (Jul 23, 2010)

[quote author=johnbeardy link=topic=1'5'2.msg7'83'#msg7'83' date=12799'488']
....but I don't know how someone who seems so sensible chooses a case that seems to light up. 

[/quote]

LOL John, sad I know! :-[

In my defense, they are quite subdued(ish) LEDs, and the rest of the case is black!


----------



## sizzlingbadger (Jul 23, 2010)

If you intend to use Photoshop (and Aperture) then the graphics card would need to be reasonable.


----------



## johnbeardy (Aug 2, 2010)

So, this is what should be sitting in bits here next weekend:

Intel Core i7 93' 2.8GHz 8MB Cache LGA1366 Socket Intel Core i7 93'
Asus Rampage III Extreme Intel X58, 1366, 6DDR3, 4PCI-Ex16
Kingston HyperX 12GB DDR3 DIMM 16''Mhz (6x2)
Antec 3'' Three Hundred Case Black
Antec CP 85' Continuous Power 85'W PSU
LG Electronics 22 x DVDRW SATA blackbare
Microsoft Windows 7 Professional

And the indulgence:
Corsair Memory 12'GB 2.5" Reactor Series Solid State Drive

Let's see if it's still in bits on Monday!

John


----------



## Jim Wilde (Aug 2, 2010)

Sounds good!

Graphics?


----------



## johnbeardy (Aug 2, 2010)

Sorry, should have included that - I've been given a XFX ATI Radeon 575' HD 7''Mhz 1GB PCI-Express 2.', so same as you I think.

I'm busy this weekend so I expect to put it together next week sometime. The SSD is going to have programs and the LR catalogue, and I intend to run some tests comparing its performance with an identical catalogue on the conventional HD.

John


----------



## Brad Snyder (Aug 3, 2010)

John, sounds great to me. Hope it flies..... 

FYI, I tripped across this on flickr's Lr discussion forum, where the OP blames his SSD for poor Lr performance. Only negative report I've encountered. http://www.flickr.com/groups/adobe_lightroom/discuss/72157624569955532/?search=ssd


----------



## Jim Wilde (Aug 3, 2010)

John, interesting that you are choosing to put both programs and catalog on the SSD. I went a different route (although I have no SSDs of course) and left programs on the 'local' disk with the OS and used three other internals discreetly for catalogs, cache and pictures.

So, have I missed a step here? Would I have been better co-habiting the catalogs and programs, although my instincts were against this?

Interesting article, Brad....looking forward to John's performance testing with lots of interest!


----------



## johnbeardy (Aug 3, 2010)

I'm going to start out that way and see how it goes - space-wise I will be OK. But I'm not averse to using a regular HD for the OS and then reserving the SSD purely for the catalogue and images I'm working on, or doing things the other way round. I'll probably write a crude plug-in to thrash the catalogue and log the results, then decide which way I want to go. This all assumes that the computer works when I put it together....

Have you seen Dan Tull's notes here?

John


----------



## Jim Wilde (Aug 3, 2010)

Thanks John...really interested to know how your testing goes.

Yes I had read Dan's notes, again some interesting observations and somewhat counter to the guy in Brad's article. Sounds like it might be a case of (the right) SSD will improve performance....the key being to find the right one.

Out of curiosity, what made you choose the Corsair Reactor?


----------



## edgley (Aug 3, 2010)

When I was a PC lad, I used Intels Matrix RAID to get the best from my disks; I got up to 3''-4''MBs with it.
Best of all, so long as your motherboard supports it, its free!

http://www.intel.com/design/chipsets/matrixstorage_sb.htm


----------



## johnbeardy (Aug 3, 2010)

[quote author=TNG link=topic=1'5'2.msg71421#msg71421 date=128'8284'']
Out of curiosity, what made you choose the Corsair Reactor?
[/quote]
Combination of size and price (£175) and faster maximum write speed than Intel equivalents.

John


----------



## ukbrown (Aug 4, 2010)

Did you profile your current lightroom to see where you needed the IOPS most. Read/Write. Random/Sequential ?


----------



## johnbeardy (Aug 12, 2010)

I didn't profile, but I had a word with someone who does this for a living and it's the random access that I'm addressing.

The machine is now built, worked almost first time, and is lovely and quick / quiet. What's more, I enjoyed the exercise. For anyone reading this, the point of this isn't to big myself up but to say that if you have occasionally wondered about doing this (and pretty well on your own), if I can do it....

John


----------



## Jim Wilde (Aug 12, 2010)

Excellent John....definitely think I'll bite the bullet myself next time. Did you source all your 'bits' from the same place or did you shop around for the best deals? How long do you think it took to build?

BTW, bit disappointed not to see Law and Scholes on the drive-names list!  And no 'Wor Bobby' or Nobby either?


----------



## Brad Snyder (Aug 12, 2010)

Excellent, John. 

I should have read the blog comments before I spent some time googling the drive names. When I was a network admin, all the servers were guitar players.


----------



## johnbeardy (Aug 13, 2010)

Everything came from Dabs, apart from the CPU which was Novatech (simply because it was out of stock at Dabs). 

As for time, it took the best part of two days, of which more than half a day was wasted on the auto start fan issue. I wasn't in a hurry, but now I could do it very much faster if I built one again.

John


----------



## johnbeardy (Aug 19, 2010)

Less than a week into using "Ferguson", I'm just enjoying it for a while. It's quiet, stable, and my raws files take a fraction of a second to open. I'll do those tests before too long.


----------



## Jim Wilde (Aug 20, 2010)

Sounds very fast, John.....but when you say a fraction of a second for your raws to open, how do you mean? Moving from file to file in Library, or in Develop? If the latter, does that fraction of a second include the full 'loading' time or just until the sliders are released. If you're going to say that's the full loading time I'll probably be sourcing a couple of SSDs before the day is out! :icon_mrgreen:

"Ferguson", John? Surely if it's that fast you need to give it a different name? Was trying to think who was lightning fast, but can't readily recall anyone. John Aston maybe?


----------



## johnbeardy (Aug 20, 2010)

I'd hold off on that order. "Fraction of a second" is deliberately vague, but I meant going from selecting a thumbnail in grid, hitting D and then being able to drag Develop sliders. But it's hard to know whether that's the effect of the SSD (eventually called Ronaldo rather as one might still have affection for a former girlfriend), the chip, the RAM.... 

Before long I'll do a crude test - something like rendering 1''' 1:1 previews with the catalogue on the SSD vs hard drive, and with images in different locations. 

John


----------



## Jim Wilde (Aug 20, 2010)

OK, panic over then! Just done a comparison and, being equally vague, I'd say that jumping from Library to Develop with sliders released is "sub-second"....which is technically a fraction of a second, I suppose, but in this case definitely not a small one! Nearer the full second probably.....


----------



## johnbeardy (Aug 20, 2010)

One thing you have to watch is that you test with images that have not recently been loaded in Develop. LR makes allowance for the likelihood that people will G, D, damn, G, E, ah!, now D and keeps recently-loaded raw date in memory.

But the better test will be generating those previews. I may also write a plug-in that could run through the catalogue, grabbing info via the file system and writing top a log file. Other thrash the catalogue ideas would be welcome - I'll share the plug-in.

John


----------



## Victoria Bampton (Aug 20, 2010)

FWIW, a guy called Chad has been testing on another forum this week. A true geek, in the nicest most complimentary way possible. 

Anyway, he was testing image to image time in Develop module, and by way of comparison, the catalog and ACR cache on the SSD was '.57 to sliders being available and 1.61 to loading overlay disappearing, whereas the same on a shortstroked empty hard drive was '.78 to sliders available and 1.97 to fully loaded, with more 'average' hard drive setups (i.e. not short-stroked, with stuff on them) being a fair bit higher.

I'm watching this one with interest, because new specs are on my horizon over the next few months too.


----------



## ukbrown (Aug 20, 2010)

I just checked my old HDD machine and would say it worked about 2.6s with a fairly full only 54'' rpm drive. I do get the need for speed, but if I cut it down to the times quoted, do I care. I might spend say 12's editing a photo, playing around doing different things. So I have "saved" 1% of my editing time. Now some people may be able to edit etc in 5s so you would have saved 1'% of the total time (but I am so much slower than that). My maths is rubbish, but the point is there, shaving fractions off in this way will not save you that much of your total editing time.

Now then if you could cut down the time it takes to import convert to dng and generate previews using SSD that would be great.

I asked about profiling your machine earlier on in this thread, much of the develop module on my machine appears processor bound.

Going through a photo collection in develop mode holding down the right arrow key, disk reads go to 2'MB/s, A copy between drives in windows 7, I see speeds up to 7'MB/s. CPU on the other hand goes to 6'% across all four cores (great multi-threaded app).

Bottom line for me is, yes it is faster and faster is better, but do you save that much time, really, over a normal HDD

So would I put one in a new machine, hell yeah, why wouldn't you at the ever decreasing prices, but not necessarily justified for me if it was just for LR.


----------



## johnbeardy (Aug 20, 2010)

Which is why I wrote about testing the generation of 1'''s of previews. I may include whacking out a few hundred JPEGs, something I do frequently. The speed to loading in Develop is indeed a distraction, at best an indicator of the expected performance in those and other tasks. Perhaps its main impact is removing the mental disruption from waiting for an image to load .


----------



## ukbrown (Aug 20, 2010)

Sorry John missed all the timings, would be interesting to see the difference on the same PC with a SSD and with just a normal HDD to see the difference. 

I look at performance all the time (servers etc at work) trying to work out why they are slow, but nothing I have seen so far actually quantifies a measurable improvement on EXACTLY the same tin with and without the SSD. New tin, new CPU, faster memory -&gt; faster than it was whatever. What contributes to this speed is anybodies guess. Maybe Victoria's guru will do a proper write up on how much faster you can import edit and export say 1'' photos. I reckon you might save 2% of your time, tops.


----------



## Mark Sirota (Aug 20, 2010)

Even if editing time dominates the total time spent, that doesn't eliminate the value of faster importing, exporting, or rendering performance. These are all factors in the frustration level of the user, and minimizing frustration is at least as valuable as minimizing time.


----------



## b_gossweiler (Aug 20, 2010)

Also, a good part of the faster rendering will be attributed to a stronger CPU, which will also help in all other develop activities (more or less, as we know). Of course, this is outside the SSD discussion, but it counts when you say I'll "only" save 1% of my develop time.

Beat


----------



## Victoria Bampton (Aug 21, 2010)

[quote author=ukbrown link=topic=1'5'2.msg72513#msg72513 date=1282334615]
Maybe Victoria's guru will do a proper write up on how much faster you can import edit and export say 1'' photos. I reckon you might save 2% of your time, tops.
[/quote]
It's on my to do list over the winter, but too busy at the moment, and I know Chad is too.

There's also the debate of how much time you'll save depending on the kind of thing you're doing. For example, for me, even '.2 seconds to sliders freeing up would be HUGE. Over 15'k-2''k pics per year, it would more than pay for the SSD in the first year and I'd get another day and a half off per year!! But for those processing a few pictures each day and spending 1' minutes on each photo, '.2 seconds is nothing.


----------



## ukbrown (Aug 21, 2010)

Done some quick testing and found something I think is very interesting., reference what to put on your SSD once you get one. Catalog?, Cache?, Programs?, no real answer but I may have found it (tada - trumpet blowing)

*Putting your lightroom CACHE not the CATALOG on SSD will yield the best results based on how my system works.*

The picture below shows data read whilst moving from picture to picture in the develop module (right click, wait for sliders, right click) and the files that are being accessed. 

Reads from cache:catalog, 3'':1 (for ten pictures)

If somone else could verify this, ten minutes in windows 7, task manager, resource monitor, disk, tick lightroom.exe and then use lightroom, it would be useful


----------



## Victoria Bampton (Aug 21, 2010)

ukbrown, that fits with the conclusion that Chad came to too, on his Mac Pro. He wasn't seeing much difference whether the catalog was on a fast normal drive or the SSD, but the ACR cache was a significant different. 

The catalog might be different if you're doing database intensive stuff - importing at the same location, maybe doing batch metadata, that kind of thing.

Nice job!


----------

