PC Hardware for Fast Image Editing...

[steve_c.5]

I'd like some advice from those of you who are computer hardware-savvy about

PC hardware that will make for rapid RAW and JPEG image editing. I'm using an

ASUS A8R-MVP motherboard with 2 gigs of ram and an AMD 3000+ processor on

Windows XP. It's certainly been a good combo for me, but I really need

something faster. I'm spending way too much time waiting on images to process.

If I had a new MB/processor that was lickety-split fast and crunched through

these images faster, I'd spend less time sitting here staring at an hourglass.

 

Now, for you Mac folks, I know you think they're superior, but I have no

penchant for archaic one-button mice and paying 3 times what I'd pay for PC.

And, I'm not going to abandon my existing sofware investments for one of

those.

 

I typically assemble my own machines, so I'd love some suggestions on

motherboards, processors, ram, and anything else that would help me grind

through these 12 megapixel files faster. I have no specific allegiance to

Intel or AMD, so whichever is faster. Thanks for any help you can offer.

[bill_clark___minnetonka_mi]

I use CS3. Whilst one computer does the conversion I can use another or do something else.

It doesn't take very long.

 

Assembling my own computer isn't part of my game plan as I spend time doing other things.

 

Software does have a bearing on how a computer works.

[jeffreyc]

I also assemble most of my boxes, Steve.

 

When we had the AMD FX-60 2.6GHz + 4GB RAM, the system booted (to Start Menu) in about 45 seconds. Since you already have a Socket 393, you could swap out your RAM (bring it to 3-4 GB) and processor and try an FX-60. Like I said in a previous post, we had issues with the CPU or Mobo and RAM, but we think there was a short on the MoBo, or a bad copy of the processor, coupled with crappy RAM which caused the problems.

 

We're currently running an Intel Core 2 Deo @ 2.4 GHz Duo w/ 4GB RAM and it also does a nice job, I do not get to use it as much as Jessica but she has not complained about speed.

 

Hope that gives you some thoughts to go on.

[dawn_kelly]

A big part of your speed issue will be hard drive speed. You may want to consider keeping your hardware and switching to a high speed SATA drive. Much better performance than an EIDE drive.

Here is a link showing read and write comparisions on the Seagate drive:

http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/08/24/seagate_500_gb_external_hard_drive_goes_esata/page5.html

 

TomsHardware.com is where I go when it is time to build a PC to figure out what motherboard and other components to buy when it is time to build a new PC.

 

Mark

[hooman_b]

"Now, for you Mac folks, I know you think they're superior, but I have no penchant for archaic one-button mice and paying 3 times what I'd pay for PC. And, I'm not going to abandon my existing sofware investments for one of those."

 

I've been a PC/Windows user since I was a kid, when windows 3 was on like 15 diskettes. I switched to a mac this and will never go back. its not a matter of being superior. it is a matter of it really does just work.

 

I got tired of the never ending crashes, the insane amount of time it took to load raw images into lightroom, and the endless freezes when trying to use lightroom and PSCS2 at the same time. And forget trying to PS, LR and IL at the same time. And yes, I know all about cleaning the reg, the HD, the spyware, blah blah.

 

The Mac Pro desktop I now am using is beyond night and day difference. I no longer wait for the computer. It is faster than me. In 6 months, I've never turned it off, only reset once for a lightroom update, and have never crashed or had anything freeze. I can run PS, LR, IL, FF all the same. Its not that I want you to get a Mac, its just the idea that to you Mac means 1984 and an ad from the superbowl. Oh, and my mouse has two buttons...

[randmcnatt]

The biggest boost to image processing speed is memory. Start with the OS. "Ordinary" XP versions only handle 4 GB of memory, but XP x64 will swallow a lot more, up to 128GB, I think. If you can use it on your chosen hardware you can get a huge increase by limiting the time the OS has to go to disk cache. I'm not sure about Apple, but most Linux distros will handle whatever you toss at them in terms of memory. Then it's up to your motherboard: make sure it will control enough memory for your needs. Even going up to 4 GB will be a big improvement.

 

After that, spindles, spindles, spindles. If you can give the OS, Photoshop, and, say, Lightroom their very own disks for cache/swap/scratch space they will be very happy and so will you.

 

There are 10,000 RPM ATA disks now, at sorta reasonable prices. They are noisy and aren't really any better at transferring large files, but for cache/swap/scratch they can really sing.

 

A dual-core processor will get you about a 25% increase in speed, in some but not all cases: whoopie, I say (sarcasm intended). If you can afford quad-core you'll see closer to 100% more speed.

 

For ultimate workflow improvement, I try to rely on the 1 stage = 1 computer principle. That is, a separate box for each step or the process, like acquisition, RAW capture, retouch, export, and output. Currently I only have two machines in service, but it still lets me do human-intensive operations, like posting stuff to forums and designing next month's advertising graphics, while the other box is importing and generating a few hundred full-size previews in Lightroom.

[bruce_rubenstein___nyc]

I had an AMD based system similar in configuration to yours, and it was very slow for RAW conversions. I did a gut job rebuild and got a E6600, Core 2 Duo and new MB (the particular brand and model doesn't make any speed difference. Both the old and new systems have 2 gig of RAM. The difference in speed is major: probably a factor of 5. With the new system OC'd to 3.1 ghz, from standard 2.4, Lightroom can convert around 1600 files an hour (Nikon D200 & D80).

 

Right now you can either get a E6850, dual core running at 3 ghz, or the Q6600, quad core running at 2.4 ghz, for $280. For photo editing CPU clock speed is more important and the E6850 would be faster.

[steve_c.5]

Thanks for the responses so far, folks! BTW, my drives are 3 gig/sec SATA and an external USB 2.0 for backup. I have debated simply getting the hottest Socket 939 processor I could fit in my motherboard and see the results, but I'd almost rather spend the money and go quad core. I use CS3 and ACDSee Pro 2 for image management and most editing functions.

 

I knew I'd jostle at least one Mac user into a response. I know modern Macs are this and that, but I'm not going to spend the money on one, along with all new software. Anything you can do on a Mac, I can do cheaper and just as fast on a PC, operating system differences aside. Thanks anyway.

[kelly_flanigan1]

The actual transfer rate thru-put on a properly settup HDA-controller system is governed by the HDA's limit; not the contoller. The new maxtor and seagate and WD drives here in both IDE and Sata versions transfer at the same rates; about 70 megs/second on my 133 ide controllers and fatser SATA controllers. The faster SATA controllers give one headroom for when HDA's become faster. No drives transfer at 3gigs per second. A disturbing trend is that folks USB 2.0 externals are usually pokey; slower in transfer than a pentium II with a added pci 133 ide contoller. Here our 10 year old dual processor Pii 333 overdrive transfers to a 320 gig hda at 70megs/second with its 133 ide pci card; faster than my neighbors new dream machine with the typical usb 2 external. <BR><BR>32bit plain windows XP doesnt use 4 gigs of ram. The switch for above 2 gigs works somewhat; but in a clunky way. The ram from 2 to 3 gigs is used in a less effective way; one thats more fragmented; abit more hokey. The 4 gig limit is ancient. There are holes in ther memory map for the I/O; 4 gigs won't be used; somtimes the hole is 1 gig. Thus the extra ram is more like boobs on a boar hog. 2 to the 32 power gives 4,294,967,296. Divide this by 1024 twice and you have 4096 megs. This value is like having no overhead; no rent to pay; no taxes, no cable bill, no sloppy coding, perfect software, a super best case number. With the different zoo's of motherboards, video cards, bios, what ram is actually available between 2 and 4 gig and usable on a 32bit windows box varies. Its sort of like a re-hash of the old dos 640k and 1 meg memory maps. The XP ram switch for using above 2 gigs is worth exploring; but its not a slam dunk that that extra 1 gig is all used; or the extra 2 is used; or a boar hog event. The extra ram going from 3 to 4 gigs has *issues*. But then one can brag that one has 4 gigs of ram; whether it really helps requires tests. <BR><BR>In hardware the 386DX could address 4 gigs of ram; the Pentium Pro of 1995 64 gigs; but the NT software is 32 bits; ie 4 gigs the limit.<BR><BR>The mentioning of the problems with using above 2 gigs of ram on a 32 bit computer is that extra ram doesnt always help *as much*; as a clear 1 gig to 2 gig upgrade. The jump from 1 gig to 2 gigs on a NT/2000/XP/Vista box is a great upgrade which gives one a clearly larger usable ram area for Photoshop. The 2 to 3 upgrade for XP/Vista is not a 3/2 improvment like a 1 to 1.5 gig ram upgrade; it abit more hokey. The 3 to 4 gig upgrade is many times like polishing a riding mower to improve gas mileage.

[kelly_flanigan1]

With Intel sometimes 768megs of your 4 gigs of ram on your PC is used by the motherboard as resource memory.

[kelly_flanigan1]

Even with a Mac having many gigs (above 4 )of ram is not directly used with photoshop; but at least its used as scratch:<BR><BR><a href="http://kb.adobe.com/selfservice/viewContent.do?externalId=kb401089"><b>Optimize performance in Photoshop CS3 on Mac OS</b></a>

[dawn_kelly]

>>Bruce Rubenstein - the particular brand and model doesn't make any speed difference.<<

 

This isn't true. Look at Tomshardware.com for comparisions on motherboards that support one particular processor and you will see there are big differences in motherboard performance.

 

Mark K

[bruce_rubenstein___nyc]

Dawn - I've been reading Tomshardware for 10 years. For motherboards using the same chipsets there is minimal measured difference (a couple of percentage points at most) that wouldn't be noticed when using the computer. Personally, I think that after deciding what CPU, memory type (DDR2/DDR3) and features/ports reliabililty, stability and CMOS updates are the most important thing.