CPU's, GPU's, memory and PP software

[swifty]

One of the questions many of us encounter when upgrading/replacing our computers are the right specifications to opt for in order to meet our needs (wants).
Typically these might include questions about higher CPU clock speed vs number of cores, GPU acceleration, how much memory, effects of cache, HT and turbo boost etc. I have omitted some specification choices such as the hard drive since SSD should universally improve performance vs spinning HDD.

However, when doing a some quick research there appears to be quite a lot of variation depending on your software of choice.
I have not come across a resource page that outlines the computer specification goodies that would enhance particular software performance. They tend to be very generalised or you have to trawl the boards of the specific software forums for specific info.

So I was wondering if anyone knew of such a resource page and if not, maybe we can pool one together here.

Some major photographic software to consider with some very preliminary personal notes (perhaps misconceptions too so please correct if required):

Photoshop:
- higher CPU clock speed most of the time
- improvement with 2-3 cores but appears to plateaus after (although task specific).

Lightroom:
- likes more memory (but does it max out at some point?)

Capture One:
- more cores (for exports)
- higher clock speed (for creating previews)
- GPU acceleration supported (for what operations?)

DXO PhotoLab

Affinity



For the purpose of this discussion, I'm limiting things to still photography processing and omitting video.

Or is this too difficult a task due to wide variation in number and size of files and the processing task that each of us are doing?

[tandeejay]

I like the idea of this, but I think it would need someone to consolidate any info back into the original post... otherwise people will need to trawl though lots of posts to find the info...

Having said that... a problem with a page like this is that any information on it is going to be time based... that is, in 6/12/18 months time, it may well be out of date.

And something important missing, I think is the screen...


For current version of lightroom, with my usage of it, 16gb RAM seems to be fine.

Keep in mind though, that you probably don't want to size your computer only for current usage, you need to allow some spare capacity so that future application upgrades/OS updates/etc don't max out your capacity too soon... (just think of when your kids were growing... you didn't buy shoes that just fit them nicely now, as they would then be too small in a couple of months...)

- - - Updated - - -

it would need someone to consolidate any info back into the original post... otherwise people will need to trawl though lots of posts to find the info...

Would that be something to go in the "Library" then?

[ameerat42]

I think your last sentence hits the nail on the head but a second blow is needed to drive
it home. - That is that there is such variation in program requirements and in hardware
compatibility that any such listing would not last very long. Possibly - and even - a minimum
requirement listing might be more useful.

Aside: sometimes, the specs people put up for new computers to "do graphics work" sound like overkill.
If I may offer a humble observation: UNLESS you're doing high-level batch processing, working with at
least a score of layers in Photoshop, or more of the same, a basic minimum setup to which you can add
"the more the better" could pan out as:

Core I5 or equivalent CPU.
8 GB DDR3 or higher RAM (This changes so much it's hard to keep up)
A decentish motherboard with decentish on-board GPU (again these change so much!!!) that yields a min of
1366 pixels across and at leas 24-bit color depth.
A primary HDD of at least 250GB that's not more than 50% full of software and that contains no images AND
that is not used for a Photoshop scratch disk.
A 2ndary HDD either fixed or as an external drive for the last two functions listed above...
...
...

I'm saying that this is perhaps what many people have already got. Any improvement on this would be more than
adequate. Anyway, Swifty. I'd be asking you about this (and Tannin)

[Bear Dale]

My PC is getting a little old and hasn't been updated for a few years (I did put in a large SSD drive that made for impressive boot times).

I was a little worried that the PC would struggle with the large Nikon D850 files in LR & PS, its not Speedy Gonzales, but it handles them ok.

Would more RAM do anything or is the only way to get faster responsiveness a new board and faster CPU?

Specs -

[swifty]

Yea I knew I was potentially opening up a can of worms when I posted this thread.

Tandeejay: Yes, I missed the screen altogether and depending on what type and number of screen/s you intend to drive could impact greatly on what specifications you need.

In regards to how up to date such a list would be, I got the feeling these software tend to evolve slowly over time so a master list can also slowly evolve based on user input.
But you're right, it might get messy quickly.

Am: Actually I'm a bit out of touch from the days when I used to build my own PC setup.
For the reasons already stated by Tandeejay and yourself, such a resource page would be too messy for the resource library due to constant changes. But many individuals here might have good insights into computer requirements for their chosen software so even if it requires a bit of scrolling, an on-going thread might still be useful but maybe not.

JimD: I guess that was where I was going with this thread. Given your software of choice LR, if the resources were available then we might know whether CPU or GPU upgrades would make much of a difference, and perhaps more specifically where the difference will be. Eg. I care about preview and rendering of processing changes but care little about export times.
I'd guess in your situation 8GB memory might be a bit of a bottleneck. But then I don't know if its a case of more the merrier or whether there's a practical limit. But you'd be able to figure that out for yourself if we could build a more comprehensive resource page.

[ameerat42]

...Would more RAM do anything or is the only way to get faster responsiveness a new board and faster CPU?...

Jim. So it "don't look broke" from what you say about handling files.
Re RAM: Possibly...
Re other: guaranteed - but is it necessary?

You might be able to squeeze some more performance from it for some applications, like Pshop.
Is that SSD your only drive? How much "stuff have you got on it"? A mix of images + programs?
See points on HDDs in previous post. Shifting the PS scratch disk sure helps. Mine's on D: drive.

Here's a bit more info:

Your computer is "not much less than mine", which is this...
Comp-Properties.jpg

For a rough comparison I use a free program called ChrisPC Win Experience Index.
(It gives you back an interface that MS took out in Win 8 - uselessly! There is a small survey you can fib about on installation.)

The results for my computer (done today) are...
ChrisPC_WEI_Scores_2018_01_10_155512.jpg

If yours are near these then you may laugh.

[Bear Dale]

Swifty, interesting you mention LR and CPU and GPU accelerating. I read this article the other day -

https://photographylife.com/gpu-acce...n-in-lightroom

- - - Updated - - -

Thanks AM,

I have the SSD and 3 other HDDs.


Just did a check -

[ameerat42]

PHWRRRRR!!

--And you're worried?!

[swifty]

Lightroom
- likes more memory (but does it max out at some point?)

- GPU acceleration supported but may be buggy. User need to enable/disable to test performance of specific card.

Recommended cards:

• AMD Radeon Pro 555+ (for mobile)
• AMD Radeon RX 480+, 550+, Vega 56+ (for desktops)
• NVIDIA GTX 960+, 1060+, QUADRO P4000+ (for mobile and desktops)

Recommended: Larger screens (4k+) but avoid HDMI connection
Affects: "Develop" module
Possible bug:

• Extremely sluggish brush performance
• Image previews disappearing and showing as black or some other color
• Black image when zooming in or panning the image
• Slow performance when jumping between images
• Overall reduced Lightroom performance

Source: https://photographylife.com/gpu-acce...n-in-lightroom

*New info in bold

Thanks for the link Jim.
I edited your response and included a summary just to try out how users could add input, whilst copying and pasting some 'accepted' previous advice.
Let's just see how it would work

[tandeejay]

A primary HDD of at least 250GB that's not more than 50% full of software and that contains no images AND
that is not used for a Photoshop scratch disk.
A 2ndary HDD either fixed or as an external drive for the last two functions listed above...

I'm guessing you meant a primary SSD?

[ameerat42]

No, I meant just any HDD. It can be an SSD, but the point was that it didn't act as a
Johnny Factotum.

[swifty]

Lightroom
- likes more memory (but does it max out at some point?)

- GPU acceleration supported but may be buggy. User need to enable/disable to test performance of specific card.

Recommended cards:
AMD Radeon Pro 555+ (for mobile)
AMD Radeon RX 480+, 550+, Vega 56+ (for desktops)
NVIDIA GTX 960+, 1060+, QUADRO P4000+ (for mobile and desktops)

Recommended: Larger screens (4k+) but avoid HDMI connection
Affects: "Develop" module
Possible bug:
Extremely sluggish brush performance
Image previews disappearing and showing as black or some other color
Black image when zooming in or panning the image
Slow performance when jumping between images
Overall reduced Lightroom performance

Someone tried to build a machine optimized for LR. Its very long and TBH I don't have the time to read it all.
Source: https://paulstamatiou.com/building-a...to-editing-pc/
CPU - higher clock speed more beneficial than more cores
Camera RAW cache - increase to at least 20GB. More if possible. But the rest of the LR optimization tips comes from Adobe.
https://helpx.adobe.com/lightroom/kb...lightroom.html


However Lightroom Classic is getting a performance update apparently where it would make better use of mult-cores so some of the above tips might be obsolete already??
https://www.dpreview.com/news/694730...-got-to-try-it


*New info in bold