Need advice on Photo workstation upgrade

[jonathan z]

 

 

 

<p>I could use some advice on what's the best way to invest to get a high performance PC workstation geared to photo processing. Here are my objectives:</p>

<ul>

<li>QUIET for normal use. It’s OK if the PC gets louder under maximum load (in other words, ok if fans pick up speed during high processing)Fast photo processing workstation (photoshop cs6, lightroom 4, Unified Color Expose 2 (fully multi-threaded app), and DxO Optics 8.</li>

<li>Fast photo processing workstation (photoshop cs6, lightroom 4, Unified Color Expose 2 (fully multi-threaded app), and DxO Optics 8. This is especially important for large files (300mb to 1.7gb) in Photoshop and Lightroom.</li>

<li>QUIET for normal use. It’s OK if the PC gets louder under maximum load (in other words, ok if fans pick up speed during high processing)</li>

<li>Runs dual monitors (photo monitor 1920x1200 (built in hardware LUT) and second standard monitor at 1920x1080)</li>

</ul>

<p>My current PC</p>

<ul>

<li>Core 2 Quad e6420 overclocked from 2.6ghz to 3.3ghz</li>

<li>8 Gig DDR2 Ram, running at 420, 5,5, 5, 18 (I’ve seen the ram nearly fully utilized while processing some files)</li>

<li>Video Card: Radeon HD 4550 1199mhz, 1 gig ram, 64bit bus</li>

<li>Motherboard Asus P5B Delux</li>

<li>Thumbdrive used for Readyboost</li>

<li>1 Terabyte of photos stored on homebuilt NAS PC, connected via Ethernet</li>

</ul>

<p>I plan to upgrade in the next month or so because...</p>

<ul>

<li>I’m now processing large panorama files which can hit 1.7GB (!) and I am very tired of how long it can take the various photo applications to complete certain operations (literally 3-5 minutes for a single operation on a single file!)</li>

</ul>

<ul>

<li>In my photo processing, I’ve noticed that only the Unified Color Expose 2 application consistently maxes out all 4 cores of the CPU (the developers have told me that it was designed to be fully multi-threaded). All other photo applications that I have don’t consistently leverage the CPU cores even though it can take quite a while for an operation to complete. That may be an application issue, but it may also have to do with other system bottlenecks (writing to/from NAS, etc.).</li>

</ul>

<p>I'd appreciate advice on where it's best to spend funds: CPU, Graphics Card, SSD Cache to HDD for storage, more and faster RAM etc.<br>

For example, is getting a 6 or 8 core AMD processor for photo work more efficient than a 4 core Intel and a good graphics card?<br>

Thanks in advance!</p>

 

 

 

[peter_e]

<p>This is a Mac discussion but perhaps relevant (my first google hit for "Photoshop multicore processor"..I didn't look any further):<br>

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=993596</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>I'm partial to AMD processors for all-around performance and bang for the buck. My desktop system has an AMD Athlon II quad core 645 3GHz processor, which handles Lightroom 4.3 very capably. The only time I've heard the cooling fan kick in (audibly) was when running Raw Therapee 4.x, which apparently was much more resource intensive than Lightroom. Otherwise my system is virtually silent. And my laptop runs an AMD E2 E-450 APU, which is remarkably good for the money. But it's still a value line processor, not a powerhouse.</p>

<p>But in the current economy there are nearly comparable values in Intel processors. Also, I'm editing only raw files from 10mp digicams and comparable file sizes from film scans. Your described files are far more resource intensive.</p>

<p>Given the conditions you've described, if budget was a consideration I'd go for the highest end AMD Athlon or Phenom processor. But for $50-$200 more, you could get a comparable or more powerful Intel processor. So if budget isn't a primary consideration, get the most potent processor you can.</p>

<p>BTW, I haven't found ReadyBoost to offer any discernible or measurable advantage with my desktop or laptops, both running Windows 7. I've tried 4GB and 8GB SanDisk USB 2.0 drives and can't tell any difference. I'm guessing that only more RAM or an SSD drive would offer any real advantage in photo editing.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Jonathan, my take on some of the questions you have:</p>

<ul>

<li>Adding cores is probably not solving much, but more speed might; you only have one app hitting all cores, but a speed problem (check your specs, though, the Core 2 Quad E6420 does not exist). Newer CPUs are faster in single core scenarios too. But, upgrading the CPU will mean a new mainboard, new RAM. Si it'll be relatively $$$. The high-end AMDs can be interesting, but the Core i5 is probably the best value for money. Memory costs very little these days. You can easily get 32GB at the moment without breaking the bank.</li>

<li>Faster memory is a complete waste of money. Overclocking memory is a waste of warranty. The differences are, if you're lucky, something like 5%. Not worth the effort, money. It's one of those areas where quantity matters, and speed just a lot less. Just get stock memory, at stock speeds, and lots of it.</li>

<li>Graphics card: do not bother too much. PS CS6 can offload some tasks to the GPU, as could CS5. Till today, I haven't seen any decent benchmark showing just how much this is worth. If budget is restricted, I would just use the integrated Intel graphics.</li>

<li>Storage system: I think your main problem is there. Do you use the NAS as your working files, or is it a backup system? If it is your working drive, then there you create a pretty big problem: gigabit ethernet is nowhere near as quick as local SATA hard disk. It causes a lot more overhead. Move 1-2 disks inside your system, and use the NAS as backup (with a sync tool such as MS SyncToy). Second, one of the best upgrades you can give any system at the moment is a SSD for the OS and applications (for data storage, they're not worth the extra money).</li>

<li>Quiet is less of a problem these days; all CPUs will slow down when not in use and cause their ventilator to stop running (at least, on all decent mainboards). The intel supplied coolers aren't very noisy, not sure for the AMD ones, no recent experiences with those. Powersupplies can be noisier, and getting a good powersupply is a must anyway. So take a good look there too.</li>

</ul>

<p>So... well, I am about to build a system for the same purpose. It's goping to be some mainboard with the Z77 chipset and enogh memory slots and SATA connectors, a Core i5-3570K, 32GB of RAM, SSD (probably 256GB, as prices are dropping still) and 2 HDDs of 2TB ('green' drives for less heat); I still have the remaining parts, including a very silent Crucial (SeaSonic) PSU. It's not the cheapest upgrade I could think of, but it should keep me happy another 3 years easily (coming from a 5-year old Core 2 Duo E6420 with Vista).</p>

<p>And BTW2, As Lex, I find ReadyBoost a nice gimmick, but no more. I would not look any further in solutions like that.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>OK, and I need a new keyboard to reduce typos....<br>

(The PSU is a Corsair, not Crucial.... anyway, check Seasonic, they're silent and efficient)</p>

[jonathan z]

 

 

 

Thanks everyone! Here's what I'm now thinking of for the new PC:

 

 

 

 

 

<p>CPU (either Xeon, i5, or i7 (maybe even i7 3770)) with Hyperthreading.<br>

Storage: Local Raid 10 with SSD Cache (intel SRT based). Probably will put os, programs, scratch disk on another SSD. I have the HDDs but not the SSDs<br>

Graphics: <br />- Option 1: I will keep the existing card for now (it does work fine) <br />- Opion 2: use an intel chip with built in graphics for the time being (is this is good/bad idea?)<br>

Memory: 32gb matched set or 2x8gb (16gb) to start with an eye on expanding later. Advice on best choices?<br>

Mobo: This is what I think I need or is important<br />- 6gbps Intel SATA controllers (Intel is supposedly better for certain SSDs) <br />- Enough sata connections for HDD based Raid 10, 2x SSDs, optical drive, other(?) <br />- USB 3 connections for fast interface to external storage <br />- Gigabit ethernet (ideally Intel) <br />- Other?<br>

Cooler: Air cooler, want to overclock CPU but have a stable setup with safe temperatures and safe internal voltages (in other words, not a huge overclock).<br>

I'd appreciate recommendations: which CPU, MOBO, SSD, RAM, Cooler?<br>

Thanks!</p>

 

 

 

 

[Wouter Willemse]

<ul>

<li>CPU: Xeon sounds cool. In real world normal use, however, a single Xeon will work as a Core i7. Not worth the extra money. Core i7-3770K versus Core i5-3570K... I think the Core i5 has a better bang for the bucks (it'll be the one I get sometime soon), the i7 has HyperThreading, but the real-world advantage of HyperThreading is not big enough to justify the cost difference (in my view). If money no objection, then the i7-3770K.</li>

<li>Graphics: Either will do, it really won't make a whole lot of difference. I'd use the intel one to cut down power consumption and eliminate another fan in the system.</li>

<li>Memory: I tend to stick to Micron, Corsair (valueSelect or XMS) and Kingston (ValueRAM), because they just work. The normal DDR3-1600 modules. 16GB modules cost a lot, better of getting 2 pairs of 2* 8GB. I'd get them all together in one buy, more probability that they will all be matched. </li>

<li>Mainboard: all have what you're looking for; I have a preference for MSI and Gigabyte; Asus is good but frequently a bit more expensive. I'd take the Z77 chipset because it's the most rounded offer Intel has.</li>

<li>Cooler: if you want to overclock, you need an oversized cooler. But you also want a silent system... Now, a Ivy Bridge Core i5 or i7 is screaming fast. I'd say: let the overclocking go. Especially when you're not planning on pushing it far, it is not worth the extra noise, extra heat and loosing warranty on all your parts. For a 1-2% gain of performance.. to me, totally not worth the hassle. Start with the supplied Intel cooler, it really is quite good and not noisy. Comes free with the CPU.</li>

</ul>

<p>Back to storage. For workstations and normal use, I really advice against RAID. The problem is: to do it right, you'll be tied to a specific chipset. And that might make disks unreadable on other systems. I prefer to be able to take a disk from a RAID, insert it in a USB enclosure, and use it. With a RAID, you can forget about that.<br>

Second, RAID0 is really just adding risk, for a miniscule gain in speed. On hard disks containing data, it's not really worth your while, unless you do a lot of videowork with large files. For smaller files, too little gain. Consider that Windows 8 Pro has a built-in feature to mirror a drive or folders. I'd take that kind of protection ("software RAID1" of sorts) over a real RAID solution. Yes, there is a bit of overhead, but with the level of hardware you'll have, you'll never notice.<br>

Having a large SSD for your OS and apps is where the huge gain is. Add 2 normal hard disks, use a software mirroring option (like the ones mentioned), and you'll have a darn fast machines. Use the other hard disks in an eSATA external exclosure. eSATA is much faster than USB3.</p>

<p>If you do not mind me saying, your selection is a techie-choice of a PC with overclocking, RAID and so on. It all sounds nice, but most of it yields very small gains, while driving up the price. Real-world, you mildly-overclocked RAID system would be maybe 5-10% faster than everything stock. While producing more heat, wearing out parts faster and adding risk of dataloss in the storage system.And that 10% difference is measured in milliseconds, because everything is so fast, you simply won't notice.<br>

Now, I know if you're and enthusiast and into it, you won't care about these costs (and I've been enough enthusiast to know and understand). But if you want a stable, reliable workstation, then let go of the enthusiast things and build something simpler. Simple usually ends up more reliable. And when it comes to a system holding my own personal data, reliable is the key word. YMMV.</p>

[Mike D]

<p>I just finally upgraded from an older XP PC; decided on the following.</p>

<p > Intel i7-3770 3.5 GHz processor</p>

<p > ASUS Sabertooth z77 motherboard</p>

<p > 16 GB ddr3 RAM</p>

<p ><strong> 3- 2TB Seagate 7200 RPM SATA </strong> (no raid- each drive independent)</p>

<p ><strong> 256 gb SSD (for Photoshop scratch disk only, not for boot up)</strong></p>

<p ><strong> 2- USB 3 / 2- USB 2 / mic / headphone jacks </strong> (in front)<strong> 4- USB 3 </strong>(in back)</p>

<p ><strong> EVGA GeForce GTX 550 1 gb/pcie Video card </strong></p>

<p ><strong> Windows 7 Pro 64 OS</strong></p>

<p > </p>

<p ><strong>I haven't tried any really large 1 GB+ files but my system is very snappy when handling TIFF files from my D800 (36.6) MP. Files are typically 85 MB or several times larger when adding layers in PS,</strong></p>

[jonathan z]

<blockquote>

<p>"If you do not mind me saying, your selection is a techie-choice of a PC with overclocking, RAID and so on. It all sounds nice, but most of it yields very small gains, while driving up the price. Real-world, you mildly-overclocked RAID system would be maybe 5-10% faster than everything stock. While producing more heat, wearing out parts faster and adding risk of dataloss in the storage system.And that 10% difference is measured in milliseconds, because everything is so fast, you simply won't notice.<br />Now, I know if you're and enthusiast and into it, you won't care about these costs (and I've been enough enthusiast to know and understand). But if you want a stable, reliable workstation, then let go of the enthusiast things and build something simpler. Simple usually ends up more reliable. And when it comes to a system holding my own personal data, reliable is the key word. YMMV."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Hmm, on my existing system I've quite successfully overclocked. Litterally in about 1/2 hour I was able to get a 29% faster CPU clock and it's been stable for years. <br>

I've been assuming that I could also get good results with the current chips. Can you explain why you think otherwise? I don't want to waste time/$ if there are barriers I'm not aware of. <br>

<br />Regarding storage...<br>

On my NAS, I already have a mirroring setup and going to Raid 10 is not difficult, it's redundant, and nearly 2x faster. That said, I understand your point about just getting a larger SSD. My problem is that I already have about 1.3tb of photo images and I don't want to have a system where I'm always manually copying over to the NAS. My thought was to setup high volume storage on the workstation and have fast access for working files via the SRT function and a SSD cache. <br>

I definately DO NOT want to tweak for tweaking sake or overinvest just to be an enthusiast. I do need a big improvement but want to spend wisely to get it!</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>With regard to overclocking - mine was just a caution. Some CPU series are great at overclocking, (the Core 2 Quad Q6600; many Celerons). Some other less so (the Core 2 Duo E6420 I've got). So, getting a 29% overclock on your current CPU with ease does not mean it will be equally easy again. Plus, there is sampe variation.<br>

Note that the K-models (core i7-3770K etc.) have unlocked multipliers, which makes overclocking a lot easier. Reading reviews (i.e. http://www.anandtech.com/show/5763/undervolting-and-overclocking-on-ivy-bridge), it's clear there is room to play. They do get warm, though.<br>

There is usually more price to pay. These CPUs already can overclock 1 or 2 cores when not needing all 4 (Turbo); and it will throttle down speed when not needing full speed. This reduces consumption and heat, and hence noise. Usually these features are lost when you overclock it - it will always run at full speed (=more energy consumption, more heat, more noise). In this respect, Your choice of mainboard becomes much more important too. To get good overclocking results, you need a mainboard supporting it well (powergrid for the CPU, BIOS options) - typically means getting the high-end mainboard, adding cost again.<br>

Now, a ~25% overclock sounds great, but do keep in mind this won't translate into an overall 25% performance increase. Worst case, you just have another bottleneck somewhere, best case, you gain 10-15% performance overall. So, that's a bit the balancing act whether it's worth it or not. I'm just putting up my consideration, obviously you're free to proceed as you wish.</p>

<p>With regards to storage, a RAID10 is a mirror of 2 RAID0 configurations. All the risks inherent to RAID0 are there. Given the data you have, I'd get two 3TB disks (they're not horribly expensive anymore) and use the software RAID1 option - you keep two completely normal NTFS disks which you can read in any system. Or 4 drives of 2 TB and have 2 times 2TB in RAID1. But I'd avoid anything RAID0, and hardware and driver dependencies. The speed gains of RAID0 are mostly for reading/writing large files, so it comes into play for video. For photos, much less so.<br>

The SSD cache - nice idea, but optimised for repeatedly reading the same files, so it yields much better results with an OS and applications than it will with a data drive, where you read much more random files. Plus, the SRT setup introduces dependency on a driver again (just as RAID does). For an OS drive, that's OK, reinstalling takes an hour or so, and you're back. With data drives, do you want that risk?</p>

<p>Now, these are just an opinion obviously, and none of the above is the solitary truth. Over the years, I've troubleshooted enough computer issues, solved enough of them to know that simple stuff tends to work best. I've had data-loss myself, I've seen data-loss on other systems, and frankly, it is the worst thing. So, it's coming from such experiences; I can understand it sounds super-cautious, but well, better safe than sorry.</p>

[brad_smith8]

<p>Here's a chart that compares processors in Photoshop:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/cpu-charts-2012/-33-Adobe-Photoshop-CS-6,3169.html">http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/cpu-charts-2012/-33-Adobe-Photoshop-CS-6,3169.html</a></p>

<p>I'm running an older i7 920 @ 3.2Ghz/12GB/four 10,000RPM drives in RAID0 with fast results.</p>

[Stock-Photos]

<p>The increase in speed of read /write times brought on by the right type of RAID set-up will be one of your biggest R/W speed boosts... IHMO.</p>

<p>I've been a fan of RAID 0 with the demanding read/write ops I do with my 35mm slide scanning service. I open over 100 tif files at once, editing and closing each as I go. I understand the associated increase in risk of data loss with two drives acting as one. I back up frequently.</p>

<p>Also, I'm sure your planning on a 64 bit OS and 64 bit PS to access all that RAM. </p>

[brad_smith8]

<p>If I had a grand to spend on storage, I'd get four of these in RAID0:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822136803">http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822136803</a></p>

<p>That should get up around 4 to 500MB/s (two in RAID0 is about 285MB/s - faster than my four drives) and it will give you 2.4GB:<br /><a href="http://www.storagereview.com/western_digital_velociraptors_raid_ssd_alternative">http://www.storagereview.com/western_digital_velociraptors_raid_ssd_alternative</a></p>

<p>RAID is really great at multi-tasking. I keep my images, caches, swap, etc. all on the same array. It works great.</p>

<p>Otherwise I'd get a system based on the Intel i7 3770K ($330)<br>

16GB RAM, etc.<br>

Photoshop is not very demanding on video cards, so your old one should be fine.</p>

<p> </p>