# MB & CPU - How fast is needed for decent Lr performance?



## Triggaaar (Sep 10, 2010)

I need to rebuild my PC, specifically for Lr 3. Obviously I could get an i7 with an SSD and plenty of RAM, and marvel at how fast it is. But if possible I'd like a decent setup for a lot less cash. I'll have 3 or 4 HDDs (probably add an SDD next year), and 4GB ram min, on Win7 64bit, with Nvid 66''GT GC (runs 2 monitors fine).

When going through a few hundred images I like to zoom in on them to check sharpness etc, and I don't want to be waiting much more than a second for that, or for changing between shots. I'm looking at PassMark CPU scores (scores listed below) which helps as a guide, but I'd like to know those with real experience of Lr on their machine.

My current PC - AMD 64 35'' - score = 544
Free PC I've been offered - Intel Core2 E66'' - score = 15'2
Free PC +upgraded chip (cheap) - Q66'' - score = 2977
an i7 will cost me a lot (new MB, cooler, memory) - score = 5587 ish

Is something like a Q66'' likely to be fast enough for the requirements I put above (the advantage is it will hardly cost me anything), or should I consider something in-expensive between that and the i7? I don't have spare cash, but if I really had to get an i7 for decent performance (allowing me to work on images all day without getting annoyed) I would.


Thanks

PS - I do appreciate that what is acceptable to one person may not be to another, and there can be other factors, but I have no real way of seeing how fast it'll be until I build it, and someone's experience with Lr and these CPUs is probably a better indication than the PassMark score I have.


----------



## Jim Wilde (Sep 10, 2010)

I can't really help regarding the two 66'' chips, I'm afraid. I went from an AMD 64 42'' to an Intel i7-93', and the difference was chalk and cheese. Obviously the extra RAM helps, as does having multiple internal hard drives to separate the various Lightroom components, but my best advice would always be to get the very best CPU that you can afford as this is where I think the biggest payback will be. You can always add extra memory and hard drives down the road, but the right CPU and MB will be the best option for getting performance now whilst also adding an element of 'future-proofing'.

I render 1:1 previews on import, and moving between images (25mb+) in Library at 1:1 is instant, there is zero delay at all. In Develop, moving between images is obviously slower but even there it is only a couple of seconds to load each image but the sliders are fully available sub-second.

I don't know if either of the two 66'' options can achieve that, but comparing performance between different setups is nigh on impossible without proper benchmark conditions....I guess you need to wait for an existing 66'' user to drop by with their thoughts.


----------



## Triggaaar (Sep 10, 2010)

Thanks for the reply[quote author=TNG link=topic=1'986.msg73894#msg73894 date=128412'169]I went from an AMD 64 42'' to an Intel i7-93', and the difference was chalk and cheese.[/quote]No doubt 



> my best advice would always be to get the very best CPU that you can afford as this is where I think the biggest payback will be.


I know a lot of people feel this way, but it's a philosophy I don't really agree with. I've spent so much on photography gear that almost whatever I get I'll have to borrow. If Lr didn't work on anything less than an i7, I'd get one, and if there was no difference in speed between an old core 2 and an i7 (for Lr), I'd get the cheaper. I do agree with you that it's easier to add memory or an SSD etc, than change MB and CPU, but Lr doesn't require future proofing as much as things like games. Does Lr3 have much higher requirements than Lr1? I doubt 4 will need much more, and if I were to upgrade my DSLR that would only be to another 12mp camera.



> I render 1:1 previews on import, and moving between images (25mb+) in Library at 1:1 is instant, there is zero delay at all.


Ok, now I feel silly. I guess I don't really understand how the previews work. What are the downsides to rendering previews at 1:1 on import? Slower import times + anything else? I don't even know how a preview is stored.



> In Develop, moving between images is obviously slower but even there it is only a couple of seconds to load each image


I'm actually surprised it takes that long with your i7. Is your ACR cache on a separate HD?

Thanks again for the help.


----------



## Jim Wilde (Sep 10, 2010)

Re the 'future-proofing' issue....before I bought my new PC I was running the LR3 beta as well as 2.6 on the AMD 64 PC (4gb of RAM, Win 7 64bit), and I did some comparative timing tests (I think I posted the results here). The difference was startling, some functions such as loading an image in Develop were more than 5 secs slower in the LR3 beta. Granted, it was slow anyway even on 2.6 but there seemed to be a big enough performance demand gap between the two to make me think: get the best I can afford. The other thing to remember is that generally the Adobe-issued minimum specs generally increase between major releases, so I wouldn't be at all surprised to see LR4 needing even more grunt than LR3. Even on the new PC, some aspects of 2.6 are still faster than 3.2...and I can see that trend continuing.

Re 1:1 previews, the upside is of course that zooming into a 1:1 view is going to be a lot quicker than if you had only initially rendered standard or minimal previews. So definitely worth doing, IMO, if you are spending a lot of time in Library at a 1:1 view. Note, however, they are not really used in Develop, so don't bother with them unless you are working in Library for that initial analysis. The downside is that initial rendering of these 1:1 previews takes longer, though as this is a background task you could be working on other stuff while the previews are being rendered. Another possible downside is that 1:1 previews will take up more disk space (all previews are stored in a folder called *yourcatalogname Previews.lrdata* and stored in the same folder as the associated catalog. In your catalog settings, File Handling tab, you can set the period after which 1:1 previews are automatically discarded (mine is currently set to 3' days). You can choose the type of previews to render in the Import dialog.

Re the length of time it takes to load an image in Develop, this is due to the fact that a heck of a lot more stuff is going on here. Another factor is the size of the RAW files...the other day I was taking some pics of the Seven Sisters and Beachy Head and for the first time in months took my 4'D as well as my 5D II....loading the 1'mp 4'D images takes about a second compared to the couple of seconds for the 21mp 5D images. My Camera Raw Cache is on a dedicated internal hard drive, though I suspect that it would be even better on an SSD. John Beardsworth has just built himself a new desktop with a very similar configuration to mine (same CPU, slightly better MB, same amount of RAM etc)....one major difference is that he got himself an SSD and is planning on doing some performance tests to see where the most improvement is to be had, e.g Catalog, Cache, or Pictures. 

Hope this helps.


----------



## Triggaaar (Sep 10, 2010)

[quote author=TNG link=topic=1'986.msg739'2#msg739'2 date=1284129799]generally the Adobe-issued minimum specs generally increase between major releases, so I wouldn't be at all surprised to see LR4 needing even more grunt than LR3. Even on the new PC, some aspects of 2.6 are still faster than 3.2...and I can see that trend continuing.[/quote]Fair point, thanks.

Re 1:1 mapping etc


> Hope this helps.


Yes it does, although it might cost me. Thanks (I think)

Situation update:
I'm no longer getting the free MB, so I'm starting somewhat from scratch.
I'll be needing a new MB, CPU and RAM, with an extra HDD or 2.

I quite like the idea of a quad 83'' (ish) - not expensive, and I hear it is plenty quick enough with Lr3. It'll work with Lr4, but I accept that it may become slower. But it's so cheap compared to the fast alternatives, I could afford to do the same upgrade in another 2+ years. I don't know if it's possible to get memory that will also carry over to the following upgrade (eg, DDR3 that fits a 775 board, and will also fit an i7 1366 board)


----------



## Jim Wilde (Sep 10, 2010)

[quote author=Triggaaar link=topic=1'986.msg73913#msg73913 date=1284144649]

I quite like the idea of a quad 83'' (ish) - not expensive, and I hear it is plenty quick enough with Lr3. It'll work with Lr4, but I accept that it may become slower. But it's so cheap compared to the fast alternatives, I could afford to do the same upgrade in another 2+ years. I don't know if it's possible to get memory that will also carry over to the following upgrade (eg, DDR3 that fits a 775 board, and will also fit an i7 1366 board)
[/quote]

I'm sure that a Q83'' would be fine, but have you researched any prices as yet? Have just had a look at DABS, and the Q83'' plus a good quality MB such as the Asus P5Q Deluxe would set you back just over £2''. At the moment they have a 'bundle' offering of the i7-93' and the awesome Asus P6X58D-E MB at £35'...."only" £15' more. Of course if the budget is tight, £15' may be a step too far.....

Not sure about RAM chips, will see what I can find out.


----------



## ukbrown (Sep 10, 2010)

As much RAM and the fastest CPU is always the right thing to do in your price range. You talk about getting an SSD as an upgrade, these have a fantastic amount of bandwidth, does your cpu then become a bottleneck?

RAM and a modern 64 bit OS, will use all of it to the fullest advantage to save you reading antything off disk, what LR does not use the OS will and it makes everything faster.

Disk, CPU, RAM (to some extent NIC in NAS environment) all have to be in harmony and balance, feng shui anybody. Adding a fast CPU to slow disks (54'') with 2gb RAM why bother.

8GB RAM, mid-high range cpu, 72''K disks maybe h/w mirrored for speed or an SSD for the bits that you can prove need fast access, balance and harmonious operation.

For LR graphics cards don't seem to make too much difference EXCEPT I am no editing small videos off my 7D and with a better graphics card most editing programs can delegate a lot of processing to the graphics card which is really good at doing those sort of operations.

I keep hearing favourable talk about overclockers http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=FS-274-OK


----------



## cpforyou (Nov 23, 2010)

Does anyone know if Lightroom will use all cores available to it?

I thought I've seen some threads that say physical cores help, but virtual cores (like an Core i7 w/ HT on) does not make a major improvement over the same processor with HT turned off.

I'm thinking of going with an AMD Phenom X6. I currently use a Core 2 Duo 1.8Ghz w/ 4GB RAM and it's just sluggish since switching from a Canon 5D to a Canon 5D Mark II.


----------



## Jim Wilde (Nov 23, 2010)

Hi, welcome to the forum.

Yes, Lightroom WILL use all cores available to it. I have an i7-93' with HT on and it uses all 8 cores (see the screenshot from this recent related post: http://www.lightroomqueen.com/community/index.php?topic=11471.msg77187#msg77187).

I can't comment on the difference turning off HT would make, have never been inclined to try it.


----------



## ukbrown (Nov 24, 2010)

Hyperthreading is one of those options that really depends on the app in my experience, you have to see if it makes a difference to the core application that you run.

I have seen it have a bad and good effect on different systems. It usually fails to work where an app can really stretch a system (possibly LR as it does seem well threaded)thus leaving no spare CPU cycles to run HT, so you are robbing Peter to pay Paul. If at any time your cpu's are waiting on something then HT can be beneficial as the overhead in switching execution is a small % of the work the CPU is doing whilst waiting for the other thread to be free and ready to carry on.


----------

