Refurb workstation for editing?

My current computer was built in 2012, and is showing it. The new Topaz AI software does a great job, but this machine takes 15+ minutes to process one image. I'm at the RAM limit (16GB DDR3 non-ECC) and cannot upgrade from the Radeon HD 7470 GPU. I figure that by the end of this year, I will really need a new desktop. I am looking at some of the used/refurb Dell or HP workstations that proliferate on eBay. This one, for example. (Usual disclaimer.) While these are older, they use Xeon processors that support multi-cores and huge amounts of RAM. Would one of these with a more recent 4/8GB graphics card do the job as well as a new "consumer" machine that would probably run over $1,000 with added RAM, etc. (A note: I have several 2TB and 3TB SATA drives already that could go into a new box.) Is this an option, or are there other things I need to consider? (I have to run Windows for my dayjob, so no Mac or Linux please.) I could build a machine if the savings were real, but I'm not sure they are.

 

Thanks all,

Les

My current computer was built in 2012, and is showing it. The new Topaz AI software does a great job, but this machine takes 15+ minutes to process one image. I'm at the RAM limit (16GB DDR3 non-ECC) and cannot upgrade from the Radeon HD 7470 GPU. I figure that by the end of this year, I will really need a new desktop. I am looking at some of the used/refurb Dell or HP workstations that proliferate on eBay. This one, for example. (Usual disclaimer.) While these are older, they use Xeon processors that support multi-cores and huge amounts of RAM. Would one of these with a more recent 4/8GB graphics card do the job as well as a new "consumer" machine that would probably run over $1,000 with added RAM, etc. (A note: I have several 2TB and 3TB SATA drives already that could go into a new box.) Is this an option, or are there other things I need to consider? (I have to run Windows for my dayjob, so no Mac or Linux please.) I could build a machine if the savings were real, but I'm not sure they are.

 

Thanks all,

Les

Does you heart sink a little because nobody replies to your posts (I do)? I’m still running an older Dell workstation that has not slowed down enough to enable me to convince my spouse that I must invest in another pc. I’ve been looking at Dell XPS systems and there may be used/refurbished ones but I have not checked. I’ll start with new because it will be a long term investment and I want to choose cpu, ram, storage and graphics. But cost is a consideration. I think intel i9 will be great for me and 32 gb ram. I’m not a gamer so graphics will be selected carefully. I noticed Apple’s recently announced high end graphic design systems utilize AMD cpu’s

You NEED to study the performance monitor, to see where the choke point(s) is/are.

 

I'm in a similar boat but with a newer PC. When processing hundreds of RAW files, 30 extra seconds per image * 900 images = 7.5 HOURS of idle wait time.

I have a Dell Optiplex. with a 3.2GH quad core i7, 24GB RAM, SSD primary drive, HD secondary drive (where the images files are stored), no graphics card.

In watching the performance monitor,

• RAM was not an issue. I did not get near maxing the RAM usage.
   
  
• However, the CPU was pushing 100% as it was exporting and converting the RAW file to JPG.
  
• Disk throughput to the HD did not seem to be a bottleneck.
  

This tells me that I need to address the CPU, not the RAM or HD.

• Will the computer support a 6 or 8 core CPU? Does the editor make use of the multi cores?
   
  
• Will a graphics card with a GPU help? IF the photo editor will make use of the GPU.
  

I also need to make sure that I am not running anything else at the same time which will put a load on the CPU.

So NO multi tasking with other programs.

I think it's a decent computer.

I am not familiar with Topaz software, but usually imaging aplications are more dependent of single thread performance than number of cores. In best scenario Topaz could utilize all cores. Building a PC these days often does not bring much savings, but atleast components are new and usually standard format and easily replaceable.

 

The computer behind link is rather heavy duty, to build better, one could choose amd ryzen 2700 or similar. Home build PC would have much higher price, but might consume less electricity, if power is expensive, this might come into play.

 

I would like to mention SSD disks, they move image processing bottleneck to processor, while with spinning sata drives bottleneck is in disks.

OP, can't say. I'm no computer whiz. But I feel your pain. I got a basic computer and it takes 3 hours+ to process 2+ hours of video. And when I do a long run like this it gets very hot so I use a household fan to shove more air in the vent.

 

...keep buying lotto tickets but it never cooperates.

You NEED to study the performance monitor, to see where the choke point(s) is/are.

 

I'm in a similar boat but with a newer PC. When processing hundreds of RAW files, 30 extra seconds per image * 900 images = 7.5 HOURS of idle wait time.

I have a Dell Optiplex. with a 3.2GH quad core i7, 24GB RAM, SSD primary drive, HD secondary drive (where the images files are stored), no graphics card.

In watching the performance monitor,

• RAM was not an issue. I did not get near maxing the RAM usage.
   
  
• However, the CPU was pushing 100% as it was exporting and converting the RAW file to JPG.
  
• Disk throughput to the HD did not seem to be a bottleneck.
  

This tells me that I need to address the CPU, not the RAM or HD.

• Will the computer support a 6 or 8 core CPU? Does the editor make use of the multi cores?
   
  
• Will a graphics card with a GPU help? IF the photo editor will make use of the GPU.
  

I also need to make sure that I am not running anything else at the same time which will put a load on the CPU.

So NO multi tasking with other programs.

 

Second on this advice. I've been an IT guy since the early 90s, and buying the right computer has always been about knowing your workload. Some general advice:

• If you are disk I/O bound, look at a system that can take multiple M.2 NVME drives
  
• If you are single-thread CPU bound, look for the highest clocked (base, not boost) Intel CPU
  
• If you are multi-thread CPU bound, consider the new AMD Ryzen 3000 series
  
• If your software requires or can use any special CPU functions (AVX-512 for example), select a CPU with those functions
   
  
• If you are RAM bound, look at an entry-level Xeon - they can generally support more RAM and possibly more RAM channels
  
• If your software can be GPU accelerated, buy whatever GPU they support. Probably NVidia.
  

If you don't know, and don't know how to find out, consider hiring someone like me for an hour or two :)

A few different things:

• 16gb ram is usually enough. Check Task Manager to see how much the software is using and if you’re up against capacity, having more will help, but if you’re not, more ram won’t do anything.
  
• Most image processing is done by the cpu. For most applications, a better cpu is the best thing you can do.
  
• “Workstation” is a marketing term. It’s the hardware inside that counts. For most of our purposes an i7 is as good as a Xeon with the same specs.
  
• The gpu has two purposes: to put images on the screen and to run processing for apps that are specifically designed to use the gpu. The new Topaz package does use the gpu but yours doesn’t meet the requirements so it’s probably not being used. If you check their list and get something that’s recommended it will give Topaz a good speed boost. For software that isn’t designed to use the gpu, a better gpu will have no effect. This is all 2d work and putting 2d images on the screen is easy - there’s no noticeable difference in how quickly a Radeon from 2012 will do that vs a new gpu, unless you want to use a display resolution the old gpu doesn’t support. (Just an educated guess but a 2012 gpu probably won’t handle full res on a 5k display, for example.)
  

At present, with the existing machine (Acer M3420), the CPU is most often the problem. Disc use can sometimes get heavy, but an SSD could fix that. With the Topaz software, the GPU is totally insufficient. Unfortunately, the mobo only supports minimal upgrades to the CPU, currently an AMD A10-5700 (2 physical cores, 2 virtual). Worse, the GPU is an AMD Radeon HD 7470 2GB which has a truly pathetic benchmark. It cannot be upgraded. The BIOS cannot be flashed to anything other than the original non-UEFI crap. Newer graphics cards are not recognized--I don't even get a POST beep. Other people have reported the exact same problem. The new machine would have two Intel Xeon processors (total 12 cores), 48 GB RAM and support for RAID. It would need a better GPU--internet indicates newer GFX 1050 or similar woks perfectly.

At present, with the existing machine (Acer M3420), the CPU is most often the problem. Disc use can sometimes get heavy, but an SSD could fix that. With the Topaz software, the GPU is totally insufficient. Unfortunately, the mobo only supports minimal upgrades to the CPU, currently an AMD A10-5700 (2 physical cores, 2 virtual). Worse, the GPU is an AMD Radeon HD 7470 2GB which has a truly pathetic benchmark. It cannot be upgraded. The BIOS cannot be flashed to anything other than the original non-UEFI crap. Newer graphics cards are not recognized--I don't even get a POST beep. Other people have reported the exact same problem. The new machine would have two Intel Xeon processors (total 12 cores), 48 GB RAM and support for RAID. It would need a better GPU--internet indicates newer GFX 1050 or similar woks perfectly.

 

Sounds like it is time for a new computer.

 

12 cores . . . droooool. :p

 

For home use, I would use a SSD and not bother with RAID. You really need to know what you are doing with RAID to make good use of it, and it gets expensive because of the number of drives.

Fifteen minutes? Heck, I wouldn't use software that takes 30 seconds for anything. Never used Topaz so tried downloading the demo. Crashes instantly, so I can't make any comparison. Probably Nvidia driver related and I'm not rolling back drivers to make something work. This is basically a CAD workstation, but mostly I do image editing. Nothing fancy, i7-6700K w/ 16GB of ram, 4 GHz and an SSD. Windows 7. Same system with a Kaby Lake and Windows 10 at home. Some things I work on are huge- video from a high speed camera at 7000 fps, 16 hour long sound files. None of it takes more than 30 seconds for any operation. Stuff like RAW conversions is maybe 8 seconds to rebuild thumbnails and 3 seconds for a jpeg conversion (Qimage). Admittedly my antique Nikon will be far faster than something like a D850, and I don't do full length DVD stuff, but it might be wise to compare software and don't reward companies that write bloatware. Now, AI is probably more processor intensive, so I don't know how painful it can get!

At present, with the existing machine (Acer M3420), the CPU is most often the problem. Disc use can sometimes get heavy, but an SSD could fix that. With the Topaz software, the GPU is totally insufficient. Unfortunately, the mobo only supports minimal upgrades to the CPU, currently an AMD A10-5700 (2 physical cores, 2 virtual). Worse, the GPU is an AMD Radeon HD 7470 2GB which has a truly pathetic benchmark. It cannot be upgraded. The BIOS cannot be flashed to anything other than the original non-UEFI crap. Newer graphics cards are not recognized--I don't even get a POST beep. Other people have reported the exact same problem. The new machine would have two Intel Xeon processors (total 12 cores), 48 GB RAM and support for RAID. It would need a better GPU--internet indicates newer GFX 1050 or similar woks perfectly.

Honestly unless making a lot of money depends on processing images very quickly I think this is strong overkill, and if you're not a full-time pro I wouldn't be looking at dual-CPU systems at all, considering the price/performance. What you have now is pretty weak by today's standards, but you can easily triple or quadruple the performance you're getting using consumer hardware. A Dell gaming PC with a Ryzen 2700x, 16gb, and a Radeon RX580 would run most photo apps as quickly as what you're looking at and would be more than enough for running Topaz with GPU, for $1000.

Honestly unless making a lot of money depends on processing images very quickly I think this is strong overkill, and if you're not a full-time pro I wouldn't be looking at dual-CPU systems at all, considering the price/performance. What you have now is pretty weak by today's standards, but you can easily triple or quadruple the performance you're getting using consumer hardware. A Dell gaming PC with a Ryzen 2700x, 16gb, and a Radeon RX580 would run most photo apps as quickly as what you're looking at and would be more than enough for running Topaz with GPU, for $1000.

 

Except that the older "workstation" machines are about 200-300 USD--maybe cheaper, since current wisdom is that dual-CPU machines don't really help with Photoshop.

Except that the older "workstation" machines are about 200-300 USD--maybe cheaper, since current wisdom is that dual-CPU machines don't really help with Photoshop.

Oh, maybe I'm confused - I thought you were looking at buying a new high-spec dual-Xeon system that sounded expensive.

Wogears, check out the PC build that is updated annually on PhotographyLife by Nasim Mansurov. It a good guide and he provides a simple rational for each hardware decision. Good hunting.

I consider myself reasonably tech-savvy but perhaps I'm not. I don't understand much of this conversation so far. I use Lightroom/Photoshop with Topaz plugins on a Laptop with 16MB RAM and no noticeable delays. I do post-process image by image. I also PP video's with no noticeable delays. I'm not quite sure what what Topaz AI is or much computer resources it consumes.

 

It could well be that your processor - after 7 years - is long overdue for an update. SSD would speed things up. I agree with @joe_hodge that it''s worth checking where the bottlenecks are (processor, memory, disk) before investing in a new PC.

 

FWIW, I would personally advise against buying a refurbished model from e-bay, except from established and trustworthy dealers .Dealers who provide a guarantee and right of return. If it was me, I'd go to a local store, explain what you want to able to do and ask advice.

mike

I consider myself reasonably tech-savvy but perhaps I'm not. I don't understand much of this conversation so far. I use Lightroom/Photoshop with Topaz plugins on a Laptop with 16MB RAM and no noticeable delays. I do post-process image by image. I also PP video's with no noticeable delays. I'm not quite sure what what Topaz AI is or much computer resources it consumes.

 

 

"Topaz AI" is a new series of software (plugin and standalone) just introduced a few months ago. They are incredibly GPU-intensive. Topaz Denoise 6 takes about one minute to process a 24 MP TIFF. Topaz Denoise AI needs at least fifteen minutes, and often longer. They work incredibly well when they don't hang the GPU completely.

"Topaz AI" is a new series of software (plugin and standalone) just introduced a few months ago. They are incredibly GPU-intensive.

 

I took a look at the HP Workstation you referenced in you original post. It has an FX580 GPU (if I read the specifications correctly). According to NVIDIA the FX580 has 5122 MB of DDR3 memory. That is a small amount of memory and slow memory at that. The memory path is only 128 bit. Topaz recommend 6 GB of graphics card memory - 12 times the amount on the FX 580 card. I suspect they mean GDDR5 memory which is much faster than plain DDR 3 memory. You say the software is incredibly GPU intensive. No, it would not make a good platform to run the software. It would be a miserable platform to run the software.

 

What to do? See if the software improves in a year or so. This is the first cut. There is an old adage, "Never buy anything that ends in .0 (dot zero)". On the other hand, many software developers find it easier to throw hardware at the problem than try to optimize code. In that case, if the software is multithreaded, the new AMD processors, faster memory, coupled with PCIe 4 and a PCIe 4 graphics card (not available yet) may be the solution (note the word "may").

 

Any way you look at it, you will be well into 2020 to get a good hardware solution at a "reasonable" price.

 

Remember TANSTAAFL - There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. There is a reason that workstation is selling for under $300.

I see the source of my confusion now. I somehow missed that there was a link in your original post. (I viewed it on my phone and they don’t show well.)

 

That’s a computer from 2010. Its 12 cpu cores are very slow by today’s standards. The 48gb may look tempting, but what you’d have wouldn’t be a good allocation of resources - 12 cores not being utilized efficiently most of the time and a bunch of ram unused. Do some research to find out if it can even take a new high end video card.

I am patiently doing my research. I expect anything I buy will kick the current mess down the road. The Topaz software will certainly improve, given the reactions of early acquirers. I will eventually hit the right price/performance ratio. Thanks to all, and if you have any better ideas, I am open to listen.

5122 MB of DDR3 memory

 

Sorry that was a typo. It should read 512 MB of memory, a very small amount by present day standards.

I bought one. HP Z230, Core i7 4790, 32GB DDR3, Nvidia Quadro K620 2GB, 256GB SSD, 4TB 7.2K HDD. Price was excellent, eBay seller had 99% and several thousand feedback items.

Please let us know how it works out.

Please let us know how it works out.

 

I will. I'm really interested in the boot time with the PCIe SSD.

I will. I'm really interested in the boot time with the PCIe SSD.

 

Compared to a spinning HD, you will be happy.

I have to upgrade my wife's computer from HD to SSD, cuz the Window-10 boot time is long, and worse, the windows update runs LONG, and the computer is useless during the update.

I have come to the conclusion that Win10 needs to run on a SSD for the system drive.