any computer guru's here?

[IPT]

T5 at those prices they better scream. It almost makes me scream .

Ter -that SSD seems pricey. Esp if it is just gonna store the OS. This is another one that was recommended at half the price: Kingston SSDNow V Series SNV425-S2BD/64GB.

So basically I would load the Adobe Suite and the Windows 7 on the SSD? I guess I could also use that as the primary scratch disc since it would be fast and then spill over onto the main internal HD for the second scratch disc (where all the images and data would be stored including the LR catalogs).

new info on LR3 and CPU's someone referred me too.
http://www.foto-biz.com/Lightroom/Cpu-for-lightroom3

 

[blasterman789]

Well, I'd highly recommend my rig (although it's getting a little old now), but it would completely blow your budget.

Is that the IBM based G5 that's supposedly "3x faster" than the newer Intel based Macs, or the Intel / Woodcrest based Mac Pro that's "3x faster than previous Macs" (and costs 3x as a similiar performing Core Processor given nobody on the Windows side wants to use a Xenon on their desktop because they are a waste of money). I don't speak Marketing and brand fetish so you Apple users will have to translate for me. :hmm5:

i7 architecture and a fast Quad would be my vote. Jack it up full of RAM, and spend the rest on a killer monitor.

 

[Quickcord]

I would say it depends on how CPU intensive your programs are. AMD is a better choice for some people because they are not as expensive as their Intel counterparts. The cost savings can be redirected at more RAM, better GPU, liquid cooling, etc..

Quickcord

 

[fatrip]

WOW -who knew all these computer guys lurking here!!

Yeah, most of the peeps on these computer forums go with the AMD stuff. Say dollar for dollar you get more bang for your buck. Here is an example of a build up that was suggested.

This is true for low and mid range proccessors but there is a visable differece in the speed of AMD's quad architecture vs the i7. Since this is going to be used the most when proccessing photo's the AMD would be the bottle neck of the system.

Edit: also with that foto-biz site, the i7 has larger cache sizes so if anything the i7 would run about the same as the larger gigs i5. also the mother board's chip set and architecture of the mother board will have a big impact of the efficiency of the processor used.

 

[BlueCorn]

So basically I would load the Adobe Suite and the Windows 7 on the SSD? I guess I could also use that as the primary scratch disc since it would be fast and then spill over onto the main internal HD for the second scratch disc (where all the images and data would be stored including the LR catalogs).

Personally, I'd use the SSD purely for scratch. If you're got OS and application land stuff hitting it as well you're negating benefit.

Adobe loves RAM, the more the merrier.

 

[phenom5]

*Edit*

No sense in sending IPT's thread off in another direction arguing over Mac Vs. Windows. Proceed...

 

[fatrip]

Personally, I'd use the SSD purely for scratch. If you're got OS and application land stuff hitting it as well you're negating benefit.

Adobe loves RAM, the more the merrier.

+1 you don't want your OS to be on the SSD because it will be constantly accessing it when you are doing things in LR or in any other application.

*Edit*

No sense in sending IPT's thread off in another direction arguing over Mac Vs. Windows. Proceed...

lol...good idea, cause You would win. Also it isn't easy switching from one OS to another...

 

[terahz]

Ter -that SSD seems pricey. Esp if it is just gonna store the OS. This is another one that was recommended at half the price: Kingston SSDNow V Series SNV425-S2BD/64GB.

Also half the storage and slower speed. Yes SSDs are pricey but I think they are worth it.

So basically I would load the Adobe Suite and the Windows 7 on the SSD? I guess I could also use that as the primary scratch disc since it would be fast and then spill over onto the main internal HD for the second scratch disc (where all the images and data would be stored including the LR catalogs).

Yes, you put your OS and Apps on it. You don't need scratch because you'll have 12G of ram

Seriously though, I don't think lightroom uses scratch disks. Ss for Photoshop, it goes to the scratch disk only if you run out of RAM. In CS5 that is not as big a problem since it can address more than 3G (unlike <= CS4), that's why you need as much RAM as you can afford. Unfortunately 24G is not reasonably priced yet, so 12G should do.

new info on LR3 and CPU's someone referred me too.
http://www.foto-biz.com/Lightroom/Cpu-for-lightroom3

True, LR will use 1 CPU per task, but how about using lightroom and photoshop at the same time, or just using lightroom while importing/exporting. With multiple cores you don't have to run the export and stop what you're doing.

Personally, I'd use the SSD purely for scratch. If you're got OS and application land stuff hitting it as well you're negating benefit.

+1 you don't want your OS to be on the SSD because it will be constantly accessing it when you are doing things in LR or in any other application.

I'm exactly opposite to what you guys prefer. I think the entire system will benefit if the OS and the app are on the SSD. My reasoning is that most of the hits to the drive will be very short because of the very fast seek times and is unlikely that it will degrade the performance of something else using the drive (unless both are doing long reads and writes, which is unlikely for an OS operation unless it is doing swapping and is still faster than regular drive). It is true that once the app is loaded it is mostly operating from ram, but when it performs operations it is making system calls that, I think, greatly benefit from faster seek times on the SSD drive.

Either way, as I pointed out earlier, for photoshop and lightroom I doubt either will ever hit the HDD for scratch if there is enough RAM

Back to plumbing...

 

[fatrip]

I guess, I am just used to the old slower SSD's. I haven't really used a new one. As well I didn't misinterpreted what the scratch disk was for and I agree about enough RAM being the answer to that but 12gigs will be more than half his budget...lol..

 

[terahz]

... but 12gigs will be more than half his budget...lol..

There are plenty of options of 12G triple channel DDR3 for less than $300. I still can't believe how much has memory gone up in the last year. I got my 12G kit for less than $200... Very strange for computer technology to not only keep but even increase its value in a year.

24G, on the other hand, will be 3/4 of his budget

 

[BlueCorn]

You don't need scratch because you'll have 12G of ram

Sorry, but depending on your cache levels, and number of history states. You can, very easily, hit the scratch disk on a system with that much RAM. Especially when printing, with both PS and LR running.

 

[fatrip]

IDK, I have been looking around due to my integument and I don't know how you could with the cache levels on the i7 and a motherboard with QPI 6.4GT/S FSB it would take a lot to fill that, I don't think you could click things on the screen fast enough to make it scratch. FYI Now this is just from what I've been reading. I don't know it from experience.

 

[Recty]

Just one of my HDR photos (32 bit before downsizing them to 8 bit) will be 600-700MB, with a couple of those open, plus Photoshop and Lightroom and who knows what else he will have running... I think you could easily fill up on RAM.

It isnt as if you have 12GB free if you have 12GB total RAM, as soon as he boots up Windows he is only going to have 10GB free.

Anyway, I said earlier I would have three disks, one for OS and program installs, one for scratch and one for storage, I stick to that It's not going to add much price to buy another HDD and I think the performance difference when working with lots of files would be noticeable.

 

[fatrip]

but those programs open and not doing anything except having a picture up won't take up that much ram. Now if you were making 3 HDR images at the same time and exporting in lightroom you'd be full but I can't click that fast. Also Win 7 at idle with more than 4 gigs in the system it should only use 1gig of memory and like .1 or .2 more if you are running peripheral apps.

 

[Recty]

Hmmm, I've got a 64 bit Windows 7 PC at work with 8GB of RAM and almost immediately after start I'm down to about 6GB useable.

I dont use Photoshop on that PC, so I have no experience with it in that environment.

Photoshop support completely and totally recommends setting one drive as a scratch volume and having nothing else on it, no storage, no swap files, nothing... and they state Photoshop will use it. I tend to trust them as they arent in the business of selling hard drives so they arent making money off you going out and buying another HDD, they want you to have the best performance.

I can already hear you saying that only applies to people who dont have enough RAM, but I dont agree Photoshop maybe be coded such that some tasks take place on the HDD, not in the RAM, no matter how much you have.

 

[BlueCorn]

IDK, I have been looking around due to my integument and I don't know how you could with the cache levels on the i7 and a motherboard with QPI 6.4GT/S FSB it would take a lot to fill that, I don't think you could click things on the screen fast enough to make it scratch. FYI Now this is just from what I've been reading. I don't know it from experience.

The problem is that you're confusing PS's use of scratch disk with swap. It's not the same thing.

 

[IPT]

The problem is that you're confusing PS's use of scratch disk with swap. It's not the same thing.

Hey Doug, I am trying to learn about and grasp a better understanding of all this, care to elaborate on your comment? How is it different?

What configuration of hardware would you use if you were building a new PC system with a budget say under 2K somewhere (with the financial sweet spot being $1500 or less unless it really made a performance difference).

Is there any validity to some posts I ahve read that LR3 for some reason ran slower on a 64 bit system than the 32bit (LR Adobe forums)?

 

[BlueCorn]

They do similar things but swap is system-wide, scratch disks are just PS.

http://kb2.adobe.com/cps/404/kb404439.html

 

[IPT]

Thanks Doug .

 

[fatrip]

They do similar things but swap is system-wide, scratch disks are just PS.

http://kb2.adobe.com/cps/404/kb404439.html

I might be misunderstanding this but scratch disk is for when the system allocated ram is all used up CS4-5 will use a space on the HDD as temp mem????
Also I guess I don't know what you are doing to these photo's at the same time to use ram up cause I just had 15 photo's up with all my other programs running and i was only using 1.5gigs

So it really doesn't matter any ways cause it won't let you not have a scratch disk any ways.

Recty

"Hmmm, I've got a 64 bit Windows 7 PC at work with 8GB of RAM and almost immediately after start I'm down to about 6GB useable."

you must have some crazy programs that start up with you comp. Probibly your anti virus depending on company.

I am running win7 64 with starting programs of rocketdock, avast, advanced system care, utorent, steam and now chrome while typing this and I have 6.5 gig avalible out of 8gig.


EDIT:
Assigning scratch disks

When your system does not have enough RAM to perform an operation, Photoshop uses a proprietary virtual memory technology, also called scratch disks. A scratch disk is any drive or drive partition with free memory. By default, Photoshop uses the hard drive on which the operating system is installed as the primary scratch disk.

http://help.adobe.com/en_US/Photoshop/11.0/WSfd1234e1c4b69f30ea53e41001031ab64-7489a.html

So it does use up RAM before using scratch disk.