[m3thods]

Hey everyone,

I'm looking to ditch my 6yo Athlon 3200+ desktop for something to essentially handle Lightroom as the primary program. I have a pretty strict budget of about 600, and would prefer to build myself.

My dilemma is whether Lightroom (I think i use V2.3) is able to support >2 cores. Looking at NCIX, my 2 candidate processors are the Athlon II X4 620 ($109), or the Phenom II 550 BE ($99). There's about 500mhz difference (and a huge cache difference) between the two, and as you can see a 10 dollar difference in price. The Phenom potentially could be unlocked to a quad, but this is basically a 50/50 chance and I'm not really factoring that in unless a DC is better for LR.

My question is, from your experiences with LR, is it actually better to get a faster dual core than a slower quad? Does LR actually utilize cores 3 and 4 properly? This build will have 8gb of ram, so this is simply a CPU question. I couldn't find anything recent and convincing when I searched google for an answer- so I thought I'd get your takes before buying.

Thanks in advanced!

[bcedhk]

it should, cause im using it now on a x4.

but lightroom is not like PS, doesn't really need much processor speed. my x2 computer runs smooth with 2 gb of ram

[hoking]

http://macperformanceguide.com/Optimizing-Lightroom.html

[m3thods]

I don't want to sound like a dick, but I know that it will run on the quad. I was just wondering whether LR actually uses the other cores properly (i.e. equal-ish cpu usage across all cores)

And since my upgrade cycle is about every 5-6 years, I want to get the most I can out of this purchase. I hear that LR and CS4 (which I use very scarcely) are memory hogs, hence the reason I'm getting 8gb regardless. Just wondering if it's speed or cores that LR likes, since I could always OC a cheaper dual-core if cores 3 and 4 are not even being used.

[keitaro]

here is a list of the general requirements from LR2 from adobe's website
http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshoplightroom/systemreqs/

On my old notebook (dell i8600) LR was more intensive than PSCS3.

I am now running a mbp and everything works amazingly fast, so i can't comment on newer pc systems with LR/PS.

I would try to take advantage of running with more ram, and if budget allows a SSD for drastic improvements in performance.

i just did a quick search, and here are some thread that maybe helpful:
http://photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00LsCo
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=284933
http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=28970 <- link in this thread might be helpful. (http://aphotogeek.wordpress.com/2008/10/04/lightroom-on-quad/)

[m3thods]

Thanks for all the input. I came across most of those links but they were pretty old (2007-2008). I must've missed Hoking's link but that pretty much summed up my dilemma. Looks like I'll invest in the quad even though the performance benefits are smaller; quads seem to run faster and it's only 10 dollars more.

[SkinnyPupp]

Within the same price range, your choice is usually

-Dual core, but higher clock speed
-Quad core, but slower clock speed

For things like 'pure math' functions, such as audio/video encoding, 3D rendering, archive extractions, you will want the faster core.

But for more 'general' functions, such as web browsing, office productivity, video games, multitasking, it's better to go with the slower CPU with more cores.

I haven't tested LR specifically, but almost all digital manipulation (including PS, which LR uses components from I'm sure) benefits greatly from more cores.

So long answer short, I would recommend a quad core.

If you have an extreme budget ($2000 or more) then wait a while for the 6-core CPU's to come out ;)

AMD's will be in May, and they will offer a better price.

[hoking]

^ yup, and by the time the retail version of LR3 comes out, you'll be better equipped.

I know LR2 ran fine on my macbook, but after installing LR3 (beta), it was slow as hell and frustrating. Only reason I used it was because LR2 won't support small/medium raw files from my Canon 7D.

[keitaro]

if quad is only $10 more, its a cheep and worthwhile investment. heck i'd even pay $20 more :)

[keitaro]

^ yup, and by the time the retail version of LR3 comes out, you'll be better equipped.

I know LR2 ran fine on my macbook, but after installing LR3 (beta), it was slow as hell and frustrating. Only reason I used it was because LR2 won't support small/medium raw files from my Canon 7D.

do you only have a macbook? or is is a macbook pro?

[keitaro]

http://macperformanceguide.com/Optimizing-Lightroom.html

that was an interesting read, and some interesting tips on utilizing multiple cores.

[m3thods]

if quad is only $10 more, its a cheep and worthwhile investment. heck i'd even pay $20 more :)

yeah since I'm decided on the quad it's definitely a better deal, but if LR only required a higher clock speed and didn't use the other cores I'd probably go the other way and OC the Phenom II.

and as for the 6-cores, I read about them today- definitely eye-catching but at 1000 for the intels and probably around 7-900 for the AMDs, I just can't afford them :cry:

[Senna4ever]

How big are the files you're working with in LR?

[roastpuff]

I definitely noticed a speed improvement from my 3.2Ghz Athlon X2 7750+ BE's switching to a Phenom II X4 955BE running at the stock 2.6Ghz. LR2 is multi-threaded, so it will make use of multi-core processors if you have them.

So... go quad-core if you can.

[m3thods]

How big are the files you're working with in LR?

They would be 15mp RAW files- I'm not sure about the actual size on disk I never really noticed.


I definitely noticed a speed improvement from my 3.2Ghz Athlon X2 7750+ BE's switching to a Phenom II X4 955BE running at the stock 2.6Ghz. LR2 is multi-threaded, so it will make use of multi-core processors if you have them.

So... go quad-core if you can.

Thanks for your answer roast. That definitely makes my decision more concrete.

[Senna4ever]

After doing some research as your question piqued my curiosity, I'd say go for the 4 core. Get the best system you can afford.

[m3thods]

Awesome. Thanks everyone! :thumbsup:

[keitaro]

also loaded up as much ram as you can get..

[m3thods]

also loaded up as much ram as you can get..

yeah definitely I have 8gb so far.. if prices of parts lower I may go higher but I think 8 is sufficient for my use as I'm not a professional just want to have a better post-production time :p

[Senna4ever]

4GB is the minimum you should have if you're going to work with multi-layer files.

[roastpuff]

They would be 15mp RAW files- I'm not sure about the actual size on disk I never really noticed.


You're welcome. Also, have a fast storage system if possible - 21mp RAW files are so much easier to handle when you have gobs of RAM and a RAID 0 array to fetch your files!

Thanks for your answer roast. That definitely makes my decision more concrete.
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

[Senna4ever]

Oh, and if you're going to use external HD for storage or back-up, don't bother with USB 2.0. Use at least Firewire 800, or better yet, eSATA.

[m3thods]

Oh, and if you're going to use external HD for storage or back-up, don't bother with USB 2.0. Use at least Firewire 800, or better yet, eSATA.

yup already gots a 1tb esata backup. with this computer i'll also be designating my old athlon to become a windows home server, so I'll be getting double redundancy there.

[ForbiddenX]

Also, don't forget that if you don't use a 64bit OS, having more than 4GB of ram is pointless.

[Mananetwork]

Thanks for posting this, I was looking into getting a new laptop soon.

[m3thods]

Thanks for posting this, I was looking into getting a new laptop soon.

If you're using a laptop, your processor choices are pretty limited. I suppose a macbook pro would be ideal- or the pc equivalent spec-wise if budget is limited.

[rwong2k]

Oh, and if you're going to use external HD for storage or back-up, don't bother with USB 2.0. Use at least Firewire 800, or better yet, eSATA.

I'm not familar with esata and I just did some googling,
Do I need to get an esata card like an additional firewire or usb card to support esata?

I just checked my external drive enclosure it has a esata port

thanks
Raymond

I'm guessing i need something like this for esata if my current computer doesn't have this
http://www.ncix.com/products/?sku=49049&vpn=PCIESATA2I&manufacture=Startech%2Ecom%20Ltd

[Senna4ever]

Thanks for posting this, I was looking into getting a new laptop soon.
Wait until those new Macbook Pros come out soon. They might be worth looking into. I've got the 17" 3.06Ghz Macbook Pro, and the thing just flies through 5DmkII files, not to mention the amazing screen!

[Senna4ever]

I'm not familar with esata and I just did some googling,
Do I need to get an esata card like an additional firewire or usb card to support esata?

I just checked my external drive enclosure it has a esata port

thanks
Raymond

I'm guessing i need something like this for esata if my current computer doesn't have this
http://www.ncix.com/products/?sku=49049&vpn=PCIESATA2I&manufacture=Startech%2Ecom%20Ltd
Yes, you need to get an eSATA card. I think it's worth it, as I have a Western Digital Scorpio Blue 500GB HD in a WiebeTech drive enclosure, it can transfer about 3GB/minute. The only bad thing about eSATA for mobile use is the lack of bus power.

[rental_metard]

Also, don't forget that if you don't use a 64bit OS, having more than 4GB of ram is pointless.

+1