Graphics Cards

34 posts
11 Sep 2014
EdT
Photographer
EdT
Not sure who that was meant for. If it was for me, I'm had 20 page faults in about 20 minutes. So a isn't going to save much SSD there. The log gives an average of 12mS for each page fault, so 240mS waiting for data to be paged in 20 minutes.

Posted 14 Sep 2014
Pict
Photographer
Pict
I have two windows 8 machines. The main one has 250gb SSD 32gb of ram, I5 processor and 2MB of dedicated graphics. The second is exactly the same but only has 16GB of ram and no dedicated grafix card (this is the newer machine).
The first scores 6.9. The second 4.7.

Both machines batch process 36mp raw files regularly in LR and I have noticed no difference in the time to do so!

Oh and I'll need a 3rd machine soon which will as a result be the same spec as the more recent PC

Posted 14 Sep 2014
Edited by Pict 14 Sep 2014
PHP_Photography
Photographer
PHP_Photography
Graphics card wont make a huge difference in LR, money is better spent to buy more memory to get 16Gb.

Problems is that bc you have now 6Gb and depending how many memory slots your motherboard has, you probably have to remove 1 bank of the memory ( I'm assuming you have 4Gb + 2Gb ). Then add 3 banks of 4Gb memory.

If your motherboard has only 2 slots then you have to get 2 8Gb memory sticks.

Posted 14 Sep 2014
mph
Photographer
mph
EdT
Not sure who that was meant for. If it was for me, I'm had 20 page faults in about 20 minutes. So a isn't going to save much SSD there. The log gives an average of 12mS for each page fault, so 240mS waiting for data to be paged in 20 minutes.
Yeah - but just think what you do with an extra 240 mS a day!
Posted 14 Sep 2014
paule
Photographer
paule
My Lightroom was running a little slow so when I upgraded my PC I went from Win 7 64 & 8gb ram 4gb graphics. New PC is: Win 7 - 64 - 16Gb Ram - i5-4690K @ 3.50GHz, 4 core. [ even with Photoshop, Lightroom, several explorer windows open and sometimes even Fundy Album Designer - ALL running at the same time... I never use up my 16Gb.. C: 750gb SSD for system & apps... PC now boots real quick and apps launch quickly too (no spinning disks to slow the read times) D: images go on 2x7500rpm 3gb disks (mirror raid) quick enough.. V: 256 SSD for scratch files: Lightroom Cache, 32Gb page file and a temp location for non-essential files... New setup works great, my previously slow'ish Lightroom now works fine: switching modules is instant though I never had it crash previously or now. My graphics is my slow point: 5 on the index but I'm not needing anything whiz bang.. and works a treat for me..
Posted 14 Sep 2014
RedChecker
Photographer
RedChecker
People should stop paying attention to Windows' Experience index as it's only a guideline for general performance and most likely geared towards letting home users know whether they can play games or not (which is the most demanding thing for video cards).  Each application behaves differently and will have different demands upon the system.

Lightroom/Photoshop performance is dependent on memory followed by hard disk performance (for scratch/catalogue files). Processor and video card performance are of secondary concern IMO for a smooth running system with these two applications in particular.

Video editing on the other hand is VERY processor intensive and somewhat video card intensive (assuming it's accelerated for GPUs as well), and also puts a fairly heavy demand on hard disk performance.  They're not so demanding on memory though due to the way they simply process streams (rather than storing in memory).
Posted 14 Sep 2014
Edited by RedChecker 14 Sep 2014
EdT
Photographer
EdT
paule
My Lightroom was running a little slow so when I upgraded my PC I went from Win 7 64 & 8gb ram 4gb graphics. New PC is: Win 7 - 64 - 16Gb Ram - i5-4690K @ 3.50GHz, 4 core. [ even with Photoshop, Lightroom, several explorer windows open and sometimes even Fundy Album Designer - ALL running at the same time... I never use up my 16Gb.. C: 750gb SSD for system & apps... PC now boots real quick and apps launch quickly too (no spinning disks to slow the read times) D: images go on 2x7500rpm 3gb disks (mirror raid) quick enough.. V: 256 SSD for scratch files: Lightroom Cache, 32Gb page file and a temp location for non-essential files... New setup works great, my previously slow'ish Lightroom now works fine: switching modules is instant though I never had it crash previously or now. My graphics is my slow point: 5 on the index but I'm not needing anything whiz bang.. and works a treat for me..
The question remains, how little of that could you have done and still got the same results?
Posted 14 Sep 2014
RedChecker
Photographer
RedChecker
EdT

The question remains, how little of that could you have done and still got the same results?


The way Photoshop & Lightroom work is that they'll just massively slow down (rather than stop altogether), you just need a lot of patience.

Like I said earlier, on my machine I'm on 4GB ram with physical hard drives and yes it's bloody slow (especially as I typically use ~15-20 layers per image in 16-bit) but still useable.
Posted 14 Sep 2014
EdT
Photographer
EdT
RedChecker
The way Photoshop & Lightroom work is that they'll just massively slow down (rather than stop altogether), you just need a lot of patience. Like I said earlier, on my machine I'm on 4GB ram with physical hard drives and yes it's bloody slow (especially as I typically use ~15-20 layers per image in 16-bit) but still useable.
My point was he's changed a lot of things. Maybe just one of those things would have been sufficient to get the improvement he talks about. Judicious use of forensic tools can save a lot of money on upgrades in not changing things that will make very little difference.
Posted 14 Sep 2014
Chandos
Photographer
Chandos
I've crossed over to Mac. Others may disagree but I find PC & Windows to be somewhat unstable to work with. I'm into video editing.

Posted 14 Sep 2014
Edited by Chandos 14 Sep 2014
paule
Photographer
paule
How little could I have changed for the same, better, results: just the SSD disks ( which I did prior to my main upgrade ) ram was already maxed out & CPU was good for the chipset on the motherboard.

Adding SSD's as boot & cache resulted in faster boot time, faster launch of applications.

I also doubled the ram to 16gb... which in my experience (lots) is often the best place to start.. if you want to waste several weeks creating perflogs and load testing.. knock yourself out... I'd rather upgrade the obvious bottlenecks: RAM availability & disk read/write times.

You'll get the best info via google, adobe and some independent sites...

Posted 15 Sep 2014
Plymjack
Photographer
Plymjack
paule

How little could I have changed for the same, better, results: just the SSD disks ( which I did prior to my main upgrade ) ram was already maxed out & CPU was good for the chipset on the motherboard. Adding SSD's as boot & cache resulted in faster boot time, faster launch of applications. I also doubled the ram to 16gb... which in my experience (lots) is often the best place to start.. if you want to waste several weeks creating perflogs and load testing.. knock yourself out... I'd rather upgrade the obvious bottlenecks: RAM availability & disk read/write times. You'll get the best info via google, adobe and some independent sites...


+1


RAM first - 16Gb is good and cost effective
SSD - for swap file and data  - OS if you can reinstall.  (2 small SSD are better than one large)
larger/faster Graphic card will be more noticable with Video

Yes MAC is proable better for Video.
Posted 16 Sep 2014
LaurenceJPower
Photographer
LaurenceJPower
Having done some more digging I find that Lightroom does not use graphics cards to do any processing, thus I have decided against installation on my main PC. I have however added another 8Gb of system ram and increased the cache to 20gb which has improved things dramatically.

For my work PC which goes out with me on every job, I am looking at replacing the normal hard drive with an SSD, and moving the operating system, programme files and catalogue onto that, leaving just the image files on a standard drive. I did think about using a hybrid drive instead of an SSD, but don't think it would give me any advantage since my need here is to constantly add more files which are immediately accessed then deleted after a few days, thus the drive would never "learn" that these files were needed, and the SSD part of the drive would never be enough to include programme files, operating system, and catalogue.

Posted 19 Sep 2014
RedChecker
Photographer
RedChecker
It would be safer to simply add an SSD as a second drive rather than fully change over (there's all sorts that could go wrong).

I'd have to say that I added an SSD to my aging system about a year or two ago and having the Lightroom catalogue on that did speed things up (certainly loading thumbnails and sifting through image sets). It was only a small one (64GB) but was cheap even then and more than big enough for my lightroom catalogue to fit on. May be worth a try rather than getting a massive SSD (which would also be expensive) that would be big enough to replace a primary drive, cheap ones (128GB) can now be had for under £50.
Posted 19 Sep 2014
Edited by RedChecker 19 Sep 2014
LaurenceJPower
Photographer
LaurenceJPower
I was looking at 128Gb max, leaving a standard hard drive for the image files

Posted 19 Sep 2014
To reply to this thread you must be a member. Click here to join