# LR3 hardware requirements - need something new!



## questionesse (Sep 14, 2010)

Hey there!
I just upgraded to LR3 - and what can I say - my old desktop is WAY to weak to work with it and my netbook also not quite all right.

So I need something new. The thing is that recommendations are in a really broad range from dual core with about 4GB Ram up to quad core with nearly double the RAM, SSD 64 bit System etc.

The thing is that the only use for such a fast system would be lightroom. I'm not a gamer, I don't edit video, everything I do on a computer except lightroom can be done on a netbook or a really old desktop.
That is why I am somehow not motivated to spend big on a superduper system, but limit it to - let's say bearable or kinda fluid working process.

The question is how to achieve this.
-new Laptop or Desktop Upgrade? (it is so old that I'd probably have to replace everything except for the tower itself and the power supply)

-I am running a home server where I store my pics, so a large hard drive is not an issue.
-I want to buy a new big screen anyways, so I would use that for a laptip as well as for a desktop.

Could you give me a guess of what kind of laptop - or what kind of hardware for a desktop i would need? and maybe a rough guess for how much i would need to spend? maybe one of the two options dissappears then anyways.

just as side info to help narrowing what i would need. I am a microsoft person - no apples 
i am doing the whole process in lightroom from Raw through organizing and editing to exporting in jpg.
It would be important to me to be able to work flawlessly in editing mode - a faster rendering of previews or something - so the need of an SSD is not much of a priority I'd say.

thx a lot for your attention - now shock me with how much i'd have to fork out :'(


----------



## ukbrown (Sep 15, 2010)

Buy, As fast a processor as you can afford, as much RAM as you can afford. This is then your base system, that you can upgrade as and when you can afford it.

A low end graphics card one 3.5" HDD nothing fancy. 

Decent display.
Monitor Calibration unit
External USB drive as large as you can afford for backup.

8'' pounds should cover it.

This is what I did 3 years ago, the core system is still more than fast enough for LR, q66'' quad core. I have added more drives, bought more external storage. Looking at SSD's but predict in 12 months time they will be much faster, 3 times, larger and cheaper (and don;t really need them currently).

If you don;t want to keep upgrading then IMHO, buy the fastest CPU and as much RAM as you can afford, preferably so that you can still double the RAM in a few years as well (4 slots, get two 4's not 4 two's).


----------



## clee01l (Sep 15, 2010)

You have two choices: Build your own custom or Start with a Mfg package. Last Fall, after pricing Quad Core Macs at $3'''+USD, I got the same level of Intel hardware from HP for $8''USD. It could have used Bluetooth, Wireless Ethernet and a 1 Gigabit Ethernet card, but those can always be added on later along with a faster Graphics Card. I did not need a monitor, so I got a great jump in LR for only $8'' Far cheaper than any machine that I could have built myself or had built to spec.


----------



## questionesse (Sep 16, 2010)

to my understanding "buy what you can afford" does not cover it.
If I am thinking I can't afford enough, I'll be still struggeling with the work experience of lightroom.
And vice versa - why should I buy more than needed cause I could afford it?

To me the question is how much and what precisely do I need to afford to have LR3 running in a decent way?
 weather a new laptop, or in components for my Desktop (extra Monitor, calibration and external HDD not included)

An advice I have heard frequently is don't buy hardware ahead. It is only getting cheaper and better. I am not planning anything fancier in the future - LR3 is the only performance hungry software I need that hardware for, it should be possible to narrow the needs down, no?


----------



## clee01l (Sep 16, 2010)

Since we are not (yet)  able to peek into your bank book, It is difficult to recommend what you can afford. But generally it goes like this: 

 [li]PCs are cheaper than Macs[/li]
 [li]Desktops are cheaper than Laptops. [/li]
 [li]Quad Cores are more expensive than Dual Core which are more expensive than a single core CPU.[/li]
 [li]More RAM is always good. But a 32 bit OS will limit the amount of RAM that is useful.[/li]
 Almost any new Desktop offered by the major brands will outperform what you now have.
If a 3 GB dual Core 32-bit Win 7 computer is all you can afford, it will perform acceptably. However if you pocketbook can see you clear to something better than a 3 GB dual Core 32-bit computer, you should not limit yourself to that minimum.


----------



## questionesse (Sep 16, 2010)

why not? if it works acceptably, I see no reason to go higher ???


----------



## clee01l (Sep 16, 2010)

[quote author=questionesse link=topic=11'35.msg74268#msg74268 date=128465''99]
why not? if it works acceptably, I see no reason to go higher ???
[/quote]I have a laptop and a desktop. The Laptop is that "3 GB dual Core 32-bit Win 7 computer". I bought it three years ago. While it still works acceptably, it does strain to run LR and additional heavy-duty applications simultaneously. I'm guessing that in three more years, it will be struggling to keep up with the advances in software (LRv5 probably won't even be able to run on that ancient H/W standard)

A bicycle works acceptably, but it won't get you down the road much faster than 25 mph. If you want to do more and go fartherand faster, you need a car or a motorcycle. If a bicycle is all that you can afford, you can certainly live within its limits. 

Most people do not just replace a CPU and MoBo. If the CPU becomes the constraint to performance, then most folks will upgrade the whole box. You are sitting there running a 9 year old OS with 2GB RAM. You probably can not even conceive the quantum leaps that have been made in processing power and the demands for resources now bwing made by software.


----------



## ukbrown (Sep 16, 2010)

> why not? if it works acceptably, I see no reason to go higher



This generally works out to be more expensive, it just about works until they upgrade lightroom. It is a way to do it.

2.5 years ago, I bought a factory refurb dell with a q66'' (quad core) for 3'' dollars (22' pounds). I already had a Dell IPS tft. 

Since then I have upgraded the RAM from 2 to 6, upgraded disks twice, new one + new 2tb, upgraded graphics card for 2' dollars, a cast off from a mate and now thinking about SSD's in the next two years possibly.

This is only doable because I had a good base machine to start from. I reckon this PC will last me another 5 years, so i get 7 years of computing for 1''' dollars.

If I had bought a machine just good enough, I would now be replacing it. 

I did not buy the fastest PC 2 years ago, I bought the best I could afford, I generally want to keep a pc for 5-7 years and for it still to be pretty quick. 

You pays yer money you takes you choice.


----------



## questionesse (Sep 16, 2010)

I could agree on a good basis, yes. Especially if it comes to possible compatibility issues for future stuff. But I'm definitely not going to buy hardware I might eventually possibly need in the future if etc. etc.
Speaking in images, which I am not a big fan of - I'm not looking for a bike, I'm looking for a car that gets the job done that I am acquiring it for - which is LR3.
I could buy a porsche - but the speed limit - or LR3 - is all I need, so it's obsolete.
Some people would maybe buy it anyways, just in case the speed limit falls or lightroom gets upgraded AND they then could possibly decide that they need that upgrade. 
But I personally think that is humbug. Even if would want a change in the future - I'd prefer the porsche of that date than one from years ago. Because the state of the art of that day will be way better at the same price as the state of the art from years ago which was useless for all the time and is outdated when it's needed. 
So I don't want to invest in eventualities but in what I know I need it for.

That's why I'd like to draw the circle back to the beginning of - what do I need to run LR3 in a liquid way while doing edits?


----------



## Jim Wilde (Sep 16, 2010)

Although I can't speak for everybody else on this forum, my own view is that you are asking a question that is impossible for any of us to answer *with the exactness that you seem to be demanding.*

Trying to encapsulate your various posts as succinctly as possible, I think the question you are asking is: "What is the minimum hardware I require to run LR3 in an acceptably fluid way? Because that is all I'm prepared to buy at this stage".

For a start, that is way too vague....what may be acceptable to you may be totally unacceptable to me, or vice versa. How are we to know what you deem to be "acceptable"?

Secondly, there are also too many "unknowns" in both your workflow and basic setup that could greatly influence LR performance. For example, you mention that your pictures are kept on a "home server"....do you mean a simple router-attached NAS or a full-blown PC acting as either a file or network server? If the former, what is the speed of the router, gigabit or 1'' megabit? How fast is the drive? Where is the ACR Cache located? How big is it? Do you shoot RAW or JPEG? What size files are they?

For these reasons I think it is not possible to identify *exactly* what hardware you might need....all we can do is generalise, which has been done though this seems unacceptable to you. 

From my own experience all I can say is that if you want "fluid" performance in Develop, with no or little lag when loading or switching from image to image, you will need to address the following:

1. Many of the functions in Develop can be very CPU intensive, so a fast processor is required. Remember also that LR makes excellent use of multi-core CPUs. But how fast? I don't know other than to say something faster than you have at the moment, but not as fast as I have at the moment (as my CPU is never 'red-lined" other than occasional spikes, ergo I have built-in "spare capacity"). Cletus has suggested a Dual Core as a minimum, that's as good as suggestion as any, I guess.

2. I sometimes see my system using in excess of 4mb of RAM, but I am only a hobbyist so very rarely shoot more than a couple of hundred pictures at a time. Significant numbers in excess of that could easily drive the RAM requirement higher, I would think....so I would say 4mb as a minimum, 6mb may be safer (though there is a risk that you may not use that much of course!). A 64bit OS is therefore needed in order to use that RAM.

3. Your original pictures AND the ACR Cache need to be on fast drives. Slow access, such as may be found using network volumes, may well equal "excessive" loading times in Develop. You dismissed SSD in your first post, though there is some emerging evidence that using an SSD for the ACR Cache has the most beneficial impact on LR performance.

My own approach to configuring my current system was fairly straightforward, in the sense that I asked around (here mainly) for information as to how to best configure a Lightroom-dedicated system for optimum performance. The answers I got were similar to the ones you have received, though in my case I *did* buy the best that I could afford knowing full well that it would be more than sufficient to get the speed that I wanted. That may be profligate in your eyes, but I rationalised it quite simply: I have spent literally thousands of pounds on camera equipment so that I can enjoy my hobby, and there was no way I was going to skimp on a PC to help me manage and develop the pictures that I had taken (which still cost a heck of a lot less than the camera gear). Trying to build a PC that would be *just good enough* was too big a risk in my eyes, and the few hundred pounds I might have saved became inconsequential in comparison to the risk that I would have been taking with my sanity. 

I hope the above helps you. There may well be braver souls here that can tell you exactly how much capacity you will need....though I really don't know how.


----------



## Victoria Bampton (Sep 19, 2010)

Questionesse, the other essential question is how many pictures are you dealing with? Your requirements are likely to be different if you shoot 1' photos on an afternoon out as opposed to 1'''. And where are you finding you're frustrated with the speed of your current system?


----------



## Braders (Sep 19, 2010)

May i suggest some serious bang for some buck!

http://www.falcon-nw.com/desktops

The configurations are endless. Spend as little or as much as you want.

Priorities:
Processor - quad core
RAM - 4+
Graphics


----------



## questionesse (Sep 19, 2010)

Jim, thank you for your detailed reply! this is finally something I can work with!
I understand that I maybe gave a little less input on where I stand and what I expect.

In summing up my needs you are correct.
What is the minimum hardware I require to run LR3 in an acceptably fluid way? Because that is all I'm prepared to buy at this stage

I am also a hobyist. 
I shoot RAW with my D8' - an RAW file has about 8-9Mb. 
I might upgrade one day, not sure if a newer DX cam has WAY bigger RAW Files.

I sort, organize and edit in Lightroom, develop to JPG and that's about it.
My throughput...i'm mostly a travel shooter. Id I come back from a week, it can be 5-8'' pics, but after sorting maybe half to two thirds.
But I don't have this amount of pics once a week - maybe every 1-2 months roundabout. This is calculated generously as my maximum - it's rather less.
I generally render 1:1 previews first - but my workflow isn't fixed as of by now. I am storing the previews locally, I guess that's makes them accessible the fastest way?

My picture storage:
I am taliking about an acer easy store h34'.
It is a small computer built especialy as a home server.
My network is on gigabit level, the drives are WD caviar green with 8MB cache.
Correct me if I'm mistaken, but if the 1:1 previews are rendered, the RAW files are not touched for editing, so this is rather unimportant before it comes to developing, isn't it?



> How are we to know what you deem to be "acceptable"?


this also related to Victorias question to what bothers me most with my current system.
What i'm looking for at first is fluid editing in development mode when the 1:1 preview is readily loaded. So if I move the scroll bars, I expect the effect to show immediately cause otherwise it's impossible to determine the right amount.
I guess that is determined by CPU and RAM - but how much?
Is that sufficient to answer what I need the system to do?


Regarding how fast the picture is loading to be ready for editing. or when swithing images It shouldn't take forever as of by now even though I rendered 1:1 previews which are stored locally, not on the server, but I guess I'll be fine with what a new machine has to offer since this old brick still has IDE drives - and it is mainly the CPU load that is full when loading an image, not even the 2GB RAM.
So I don't worry much about that aspect - you think i'm ok with that?
I don't need the image to be there within a blinking, so that's why I think I can start with a normal modern SATA drive - and even when I realize it still takes too long, this is a hardware part that is easily changeable and the regular SATA drive isn't a huge investment if changed for an SSD.
I think comparing images or before and after images - this depends on the same parts so this applies to that part as well i'd say.

what is absolutely unimportant for me is how long the preview rendering takes or the developing. i'm even ok with this with my current system - I don't need to be present for that.

For my three options - laptop, ready made desktop and upgrading
So for portability I'd like a laptop, but what do you think how much I need to spend for something that does the job? I'd be willing to spend a bit more than for a normal desktop for the benefit of portability.

You think a ready made desktop can outrule an upgrade? I need to mention that my current system is built as a quiet system, passive graphic cooling, quiet fans etc. So I would need that for a new desktop as well, if ready made or regarding the upgrades.



Like Jim I also think that CPU and RAM are the issues that need to be adressed.
currently my CPU load is at max most of the time I work in lightroom so that not even the 2GB RAM can be in use completely.
From what i'm reading - there is no sense with less than a dual core and 4GB RAM - am I right?
If so, then the decisive question is 
-Dual or quad
-4GB or more
How much difference does that make financially? do I need to consider different hardware like motherboard etc. for the one than for the other?

like I said - my old system is hardly upgradeable, so except for maybe the power supply and the case.
So what else is of importance? the graphic is rather unimportant from what i read.


thank you all for your participation and patience!


----------



## ukbrown (Sep 19, 2010)

Back to where we started, the fastest processor you can afford with as much RAM as you can buy. Computing is not like a sports car, there are no speed limits, if you pay more you go faster, all the time.



> So if I move the scroll bars, I expect the effect to show immediately cause otherwise it's impossible to determine the right amount.


 I have a quad core and 6gb RAM, but it's not always immediate and in your words "fluid"

Laptop, read a few reports recently that give the opinion that laptop screens are not always of the same quality as a standalone monitor, this should be no surprise when you can buy a laptop for 35' pounds and a good monitor will set you back over 2'' pounds.

I don't give fluffy answers about PC's, or anything, my answers are, as my wife would say, black or white, you could spend as little as 2'' pounds on a second hand PC or 8'' pounds on a new one they will work. Do yourself a favour and buy the best you can afford.

Do you buy the cheapest camera ?
Do you buy the cheapest car?
Do you buy the cheapest food?

See you bought a gigabit network.....for your easystore 34', now was that a cheap purchase ???

I wouldn't store any working files on your easystore, even though it's gigbait, lightroom makes big demands even on local disks.

My philosophy is always to buy the best you can afford (best is a loosley defined word) but in this case it is the fastest processor, with the most RAM


----------



## Victoria Bampton (Sep 20, 2010)

[quote author=questionesse link=topic=11'35.msg74482#msg74482 date=1284934195]
What i'm looking for at first is fluid editing in development mode when the 1:1 preview is readily loaded. So if I move the scroll bars, I expect the effect to show immediately cause otherwise it's impossible to determine the right amount.
[/quote]

Once the picture is loaded, I agree you're looking at processing power. I regularly see my machine hitting 5 or 6 cores on a slider movement, so I'd go quad core minimum.

If you're not worried about image to image speed, I wouldn't be as concerned about disc speed, but just make sure your ACR cache is big enough for comfort so that photos you've recently rendered previews for are cached on the internal drive rather than having to constantly read from the NAS.

One comment, while I think about it - do you realise that 1:1 prebuilt previews are not used in the Develop module? They're only really useful if you're needing to zoom in Library module. Everywhere else, a suitable standard size preview is plenty. Develop shows the standard size preview first, and then reads either the cached data if it's in the ACR cache, or the raw data.


----------



## questionesse (Sep 21, 2010)

no, I wasn't aware of that! I did some research - the ACR cache is at least built while rendering presets. thx for that hint! But for dealing with my new system it doesn't change much if the ACR cache is big enough and stored locally as the previews would be.


----------



## MarkNicholas (Sep 21, 2010)

I am in the same boat. I am using LR3.2 and paddling upstream with my 1GB and core duo laptop !! Surprisingly It is useable most of the time. LR2.6 was a little faster, LR3 was clunky but LR3.2 is just ok. As long as I don't batch apply lens correction to 5'' photos (which I tried once !!) I am ok


----------

