One Man's Idea of the Ultimate Computer to Run Lightroom

Here is a link to an article describing one man's idea of the ultimate computer to run Lightroom:

 

 

https://petapixel.com/2018/01/24/guy-built-ultimate-lightroom-battlestation-6000/

 

And here is the link to the man's blog post about the computer:

 

https://paulstamatiou.com/building-a-windows-10-lightroom-photo-editing-pc/

 

Interesting, but the cost of the graphics card has at least doubled and the cost of memory has also increased>

Great. 32GB is nice. But $6K seems an overkill.

Interesting, even avid mac users who have compared machines believe that the iMac Pro does not have much advantage if any over a regular hi-spec iMac for photography. Its just overkill. This machine likewise is the same. But it seems like he had fun putting it together, so that's great. Not needed for photography though. Agreed that 32mg of ram is better for today's large files.

"Agreed that 32mg of ram is better for today's large files."

 

- I don't know what the specific density of memory is, but 32 milligrams doesn't seem like a lot!

 

Adobe's memory management is poor to say the least. I used to have to completely shut down Photoshop and re-start it every few images, otherwise my PC would come to a grinding halt.

32 milligrams

Believe he meant 32GB as the unit has. I'd like my desktop to have 64gb if it was available then when I bought it.

Believe he meant 32GB as the unit has. I'd like my desktop to have 64gb if it was available then when I bought it.

 

 

What are you running that requires so much memory? How many Windows do you have opened at one time?

 

My computer is about 8-years old, has a "mere" 8 GB of RAM, and is running Windows 7 SP1. Running Photoshop CS5 and Lightroom 6 I very seldom use more that 1/3 of the memory.

What are you running that requires so much memory? How many Windows do you have opened at one time?

 

My computer is about 8-years old, has a "mere" 8 GB of RAM, and is running Windows 7 SP1. Running Photoshop CS5 and Lightroom 6 I very seldom use more that 1/3 of the memory.

32GB is generally enough, to be honest. 64GB would be nicer, of course. :)

Back in 2016 I built custom computer for image processing. I had budget around 1600 euros not 6000 dollars. Documented process with 651 words not 32000 words. Funny thing was that in 2017 my brother bought used computer with same generation parts and nearly equal performance for 130 euros on auction site. Both computers still serve well.

It's a good looking PC for a home built.

It looks like I mis-wrote. I opened Lightroom and Developed a NEF taken by my D750, a 20 MB file; I also opened a 238 MB PSD file in Photoshop CS5 (a 4000 PPI scan at 16 bit color of a 35mm negative). My memory usage went to 47% of 8 GB. Here is a snip Resource Monitor.

 

 

Still not bad for a machine with a "mere" 8 GM of RAM. Note, no hard page faults. If I had 16 GB, I would be using less than 25% of the available memory; 32 GM would put usage at about 12%

even avid mac users who have compared machines believe that the iMac Pro does not have much advantage if any over a regular hi-spec iMac for photography. Its just overkill.

 

If you mean the Mac Pro, the beautiful carbon cylinder, what a wonderful overkill it is.:rolleyes:

Great. 32GB is nice. But $6K seems an overkill.

 

Yes, particularly when you consider that it'll be obsolete in 18-mos.

If you mean the Mac Pro, the beautiful carbon cylinder, what a wonderful overkill it is.:rolleyes:

 

Both would be, but nah, wasn't talking about the ash tray :)

What are you running that requires so much memory? How many Windows do you have opened at one time?

 

My computer is about 8-years old, has a "mere" 8 GB of RAM, and is running Windows 7 SP1. Running Photoshop CS5 and Lightroom 6 I very seldom use more that 1/3 of the memory.

 

I run my 9yr old Intel Q8200 with 6GB now. 2x2GB mine and I added 2x2GB China eBay but one broke. Only runs out of RAM when you do things like HDR or Pano stitching or you are running Photoshop instead of Lightroom. These days, computers more than fast enough for day to day stuff. The challenge for me is photography and if we hold a system for 5yrs at least, I think 16GB at least should be the minimum and in the future as you need and as they get cheaper you get get more. Newer Windows and newer more megapixel files ..... In 1yr looking at a new one cos the CPU and RAM is limiting it, I cannot do HDR at all and have to use my 2011 laptop to do that.

 

But hey .. some people might also enjoy having nice stuff, rather than just getting the job done.

 

A well well spec'ed out system is really for 4k and 8k video editing ..... Re: Apple. They are well built and look nice. One can get the 99% the same more quality, good looking on Windows but it is just as expensive. Apple doesn't sell cheap ugly looking student computer for eg .. or that cheap family computer. I guess with Apple, you need to the expensive iMac Pro to have the SSD because here in New Zealand at least the more expensive option of iMac only has a Fusion (hybrid) drive. And you need the Mac Pro which is some years old so hopefully it would be updated soon to get your PCIe SSDs. The thing with Apple is that unlike Windows, you cannot customise it. So you cannot get a SSD and then use consumer hardware. With Apple, to get a standard SSD you need the iMac Pro and but it also has ECC RAM and Intel Xeon etc etc. With a Windows system, you could get a $50-70US motherboards and it supports PCIe SSDs. To Apple's credit, if a Windows user wanted 5k display, SSD or PCIe, Intel Xeon, ECC RAM etc etc .. looks good and workstation quality hardware the Windows system would cost just as much.

That's on the small. Side mine are just some security software, Skype etc .. and some Internet webpages.