| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/08/2007 08:37:46 PM · #1 |
Thinking of swapping puters and was wondering what people have found with LR as far as making it run (or crawl faster at least)......
Does anyone know if a faster graphics card would make it faster OR is it CPU bound hog (I am obviously going to whack the fast memory anyway, at least 2Gb @800 but maybe 3Gb if I stay with 32bit)? If yes... How much should I whack the GC (This will not be a game machine, so I ain't doing the whole hog okay).
What about PhotoShop CS2? My understanding is CS2 is still a CPU hog and within reason a fast GC is less useful for it. I am still reviewing the duo vs. quad (slower cycles on a quad for similar price obviously). Since it's pretty bad at parallel stuff, a faster Duo would obviously still be better for CS2 over a quad. |
|
|
|
09/08/2007 09:26:28 PM · #2 |
| This is a question I'm interested in myself. I need to build a new 'pooter in the next 6 months, and I want to make sure that LR runs as well as it can. I've seem folks report snappy performance, and others report it as being a dog; my experience has been in the latter camp. I seem to remember seeing information that it was GPU-intensive, but I have nothing to substantiate that. |
|
|
|
09/08/2007 09:33:08 PM · #3 |
I don't have any direct evidence, but I have my doubts that the GPU is doing much for Lightroom. I think most of the sluggishness that it experiences is in the database! It hits the hard drive pretty hard when loading images. And when exporting it is CPU intensive (GPU doesn't even come into play).
But the export in LR is actually pretty fast... not quite as fast as RawShooter, but faster than some of the other raw converters I've tried. My guess is, that's where RSP's technology went ... into the export engine.
|
|
|
|
09/08/2007 10:03:11 PM · #4 |
| I have Lightroom running on a 24 inch iMac, 2.16Ghz Core 2 Duo, and it is quite quick. Standard configuration with only 1GB RAM I haven't tried it on the Windows partition I might just take a look at it there as well. In a book I am reading about Lightroom it says it is pretty lean and mean compared to other programs like Photoshop and Aperture. Let you know more when I see the Windows side of my iMac with Lightroom. |
|
|
|
09/08/2007 10:17:56 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by dwterry:
I don't have any direct evidence, but I have my doubts that the GPU is doing much for Lightroom. I think most of the sluggishness that it experiences is in the database! It hits the hard drive pretty hard when loading images. And when exporting it is CPU intensive (GPU doesn't even come into play).
But the export in LR is actually pretty fast... not quite as fast as RawShooter, but faster than some of the other raw converters I've tried. My guess is, that's where RSP's technology went ... into the export engine. |
Thankfully they didnt use Rawshooter sharpening engine.. As much as I loved Rawshooter, the `gritty` look to their sharpening was dreadful.
I use LR with a Core Duo with 1gb RAM and 7200RPM Sata HDD and its pretty quick. Something I found out, accidentally, tonight was that if you import to DNG, then scanning through and working with images is miles faster than working in your cameras native RAW format - importing takes longer though (due to the conversionin process).. I am still not comfortable to move to DNG just yet. |
|
|
|
09/08/2007 10:32:40 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by slaakso:
....In a book I am reading about Lightroom it says it is pretty lean and mean compared to other programs like Photoshop and Aperture..... |
What book - So I can put it on my never buy list. Twaddle... It's far from any of those things (I have a pair 7200/8Mb (lotsa free space) cache for drives with windoze on 1 and LR on the other with @1.4Gb of memory - it is only a single processor @2.6 and the GPU is just whatever they threw into it). I obviously suspect the GPU based on what I see but this is windoze, so could be just a red herring.
I obviously want to put the $ towards the biggest bang but seems to be confusion around the place as to what helps the LR pig. Unfortunately, I still prefer LR over the others at this point (apart from RSP). |
|
|
|
09/08/2007 11:04:57 PM · #7 |
LR is not video card intensive. What it is is CPU and memory intensive.
|
|
|
|
09/09/2007 12:42:05 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by robs:
Originally posted by slaakso:
....In a book I am reading about Lightroom it says it is pretty lean and mean compared to other programs like Photoshop and Aperture..... |
What book - So I can put it on my never buy list. Twaddle... It's far from any of those things (I have a pair 7200/8Mb (lotsa free space) cache for drives with windoze on 1 and LR on the other with @1.4Gb of memory - it is only a single processor @2.6 and the GPU is just whatever they threw into it). I obviously suspect the GPU based on what I see but this is windoze, so could be just a red herring.
I obviously want to put the $ towards the biggest bang but seems to be confusion around the place as to what helps the LR pig. Unfortunately, I still prefer LR over the others at this point (apart from RSP). |
OK, you seem quite upset by my response so I will give you a link to go to in order to see what others have to say. Seems there is a lot of info regarding the library size and performance. Sorry it is from another site but I value knowledge from everywhere and have not let myself get so opinionated in my own views that I am not open to other possibilities. Been in the biz too long to think I know everything there is to know.
//www.flickr.com/groups/canondslr/discuss/72157601827153712/
The book states that Lightroom has a much smaller footprint than PS and is less CPU intensive. Maybe it is not a GPU issue. I haven't found anything to support that theory yet. The book is 'Adobe Photoshop Lightroom, for Digital Photographers Only' by Rob Sheppard. From what I've read so far he seems to know his subject matter.
Good luck in your search for the holy grail of Lightroom speediness. |
|
|
|
09/09/2007 12:51:41 AM · #9 |
One thing I have noticed is that lightroom is quick when I only import one photo at a time... 4 photos and it gets really slow. I tried 20 photos once, and got frustrated after about 45 minutes and only accomplishing changing the white balance of one photo so I ctrl-alt-del'ed it. Which of course didn't work fast enough so I shut off my PC and restarted it.
This leads me to believe it has much to do with the size of your photo library. Therefore it could be the HD, RAM, or CPU. I don't think it is the GPU... even low end ones these days are capable of insane amounts of graphics processing. I don't see any 2d application taxing them that much unless it's a ridiculously high resolution and unheard of 2d special effects. |
|
|
|
09/09/2007 12:56:57 AM · #10 |
While it's definitely slow to import (again, my belief is that the database is what slows LR down), and while it's true that it takes longer to import multiple photos than it does to import one photo, I don't believe it's anything more than a linear increase in time.
Yesterday, in between the wedding and reception, I imported 690 photos (from the wedding) into my growing database. I had to hurry and scan through the 690 to pick out and process my favorites in time to create and run a slide show at the reception.
The slowest part is the import. But it only took maybe about 20 minutes to import all 690 photos and I was eating lunch while it did that.
|
|
|
|
09/09/2007 01:00:44 AM · #11 |
What kind of hardware are you running David?
|
|
|
|
09/09/2007 01:03:39 AM · #12 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
What kind of hardware are you running David? |
My fancy desktop machine died on me last month. So I'm running a laptop with Core 2 Duo processor w/2G of ram and whatever nvidia card came with the thing (I don't think it's anything special).
|
|
|
|
09/09/2007 01:07:54 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by dwterry:
While it's definitely slow to import (again, my belief is that the database is what slows LR down), and while it's true that it takes longer to import multiple photos than it does to import one photo, I don't believe it's anything more than a linear increase in time.
Yesterday, in between the wedding and reception, I imported 690 photos (from the wedding) into my growing database. I had to hurry and scan through the 690 to pick out and process my favorites in time to create and run a slide show at the reception.
The slowest part is the import. But it only took maybe about 20 minutes to import all 690 photos and I was eating lunch while it did that. |
For me, if I only have one photo imported the entire process speeds up drastically, from start to finish, not just the import part. |
|
|
|
09/09/2007 01:45:50 AM · #14 |
Originally posted by slaakso:
OK, you seem quite upset by my response so I will give you a link to go to in order to see what others have to say. Seems there is a lot of info regarding the library size and performance. Sorry it is from another site but I value knowledge from everywhere and have not let myself get so opinionated in my own views that I am not open to other possibilities. Been in the biz too long to think I know everything there is to know. |
LOL.... Far from it actually... I read that thread you referenced along with a lot of other stuff. I ain't looking for any cup, just an acceptable solution from a product that is clearly not ready for prime time on more then a handful of images - shame really. |
|
|
|
09/09/2007 01:54:44 AM · #15 |
Originally posted by robs:
just an acceptable solution from a product that is clearly not ready for prime time on more then a handful of images - shame really. |
As mentioned above, I processed (or at least loaded) 690 images in between wedding and reception yesterday. That's, IMO, a bit more than a "handful of images".
Do I think it could be faster? Heck yeah. Is it ready for prime time? I've been using it on production work since the 1.0 release. Even used it for some of my work during the initial beta (the 1.0 release sped things up considerably).
|
|
|
|
09/09/2007 01:55:51 AM · #16 |
//www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822136074
get a fast Hard drive there pritty cheep right now, western Digital is an awsome company, i had a HD from them and it was on the final month of its warranty and it blew out after three wonderful years, i mailed it to them and they paid snh and i had a new one in a week,
Grab a gig of ram, 2 if you wanna make yourself feel lucky,
//www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814102086
pick that up, its cheep and has a high clock speed, and away you go, for less than $300 you have an amaizing, shit yourself cause your so excited, running comp, if you already have all the other jibble jabble that is
Message edited by author 2007-09-09 02:17:40. |
|
|
|
09/09/2007 01:31:46 PM · #17 |
| I downloaded the Lightroom trial to the Bootcamp, Windows partition of my iMac and adjusted some images and it seemed to be quite fast here as well. I didn't have time to try larger images so I'll do that and see what happens. |
|
|
|
09/09/2007 01:55:49 PM · #18 |
I am not getting this thing about LR being slow, maybe the import part is a tad slow, but I use LR to import from my flash card adding keywords as it goes along. I can manage and sort 1500 images from a wedding in around 4 hours with LR, thats from import to exporting RAW to JPG and all the other stuff inbetween. As an all-in-one solution it is by far the best on the market, and I have used a lot of them (PC Based), granted you do need the horsepower to run it, but if you want to use the latest and greatest, dont expect to work well on an older PC.
(based on an average wedding shoot of 1200-1600 images - more than 50,000 in its entire library).
Originally posted by Atropos:
Originally posted by dwterry:
While it's definitely slow to import
(again, my belief is that the database is what slows LR down), and while it's true that it takes longer to import multiple photos than it does to import one photo, I don't believe it's anything more than a linear increase in time.
Yesterday, in between the wedding and reception, I imported 690 photos (from the wedding) into my growing database. I had to hurry and scan through the 690 to pick out and process my favorites in time to create and run a slide show at the reception.
The slowest part is the import. But it only took maybe about 20 minutes to import all 690 photos and I was eating lunch while it did that. |
For me, if I only have one photo imported the entire process speeds up drastically, from start to finish, not just the import part. |
Message edited by author 2007-09-09 17:25:08. |
|
|
|
09/09/2007 05:15:32 PM · #19 |
I have LR, running on a Athlon 64 3000+ 1GB and a 256MB ATI x850 pro.. and LR flies on my PC ;)
based on 500 + RAW images
Message edited by author 2007-09-09 17:16:17. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 12/31/2025 05:38:38 PM EST.
