One computer is a dual core with 6GB of RAM and 2.5TB total of internal hard drive space. This is my primary PC computer.
For my wife, I built a totally unnecessary quad core AMD machine with 16GB of RAM and a 1TB SATA 3 hard drive. Here internet surfing screams, and the boot time is very quick.
My laptop (as far as photography is concerned) is a MacBookPro with 4GB of RAM and a 500GB hard drive.
All do the job as far as Photoshop is concerned, but my wife's computer has the decided edge in speed. I have numerous external drives, probably about 8-10GB worth. So space isn't a big problem for me.
My HP desktop is starting to show it's age, and I just spec'd out a computer with an 8 core AMD chip (I think), 32GB of RAM, a 256GB SS drive for the OS and large programs, and two-four 3TB SATA 3 hard drives. Then I would have something that should last quite a while without choking and exceed my wifes computer (always a goal when I build a new one!) It would be pricey, but I'm considering it anyways. If I do take the plunge for the D800, this build would probably handle the files just fine.
12 cores (i.e. dual 6-core Xeon processors) with Hyperthreading (Windows Task Manager shows 24 processors), 72G RAM, a couple of SSDs, and a set of internal and external RAIDs, some directly connected and some on a storage server to hold everything.
I don't think a comparison based on cores is ideal.
For example, my i5-2500k overclocked to 4.8Ghz will destroy any 6 core AMD processor and most 8 cores that haven't been overclocked. Also hard drive space is important but so is hard drive speed. I store files on a 7200rpm 1TB hard drive but boot my os, photoshop and other programs from a ssd drive.
you don't use any multithreaded apps then, i take it. Lightroom and Photoshop are mostly multithreaded now including many plugins. the time it takes to load or save a file (which is single threaded still) doesn't amount to much of the time that is spent doing things that are multithreaded.
Herb...
tjpenton wrote:
I don't think a comparison based on cores is ideal.
For example, my i5-2500k overclocked to 4.8Ghz will destroy any 6 core AMD processor and most 8 cores that haven't been overclocked. Also hard drive space is important but so is hard drive speed. I store files on a 7200rpm 1TB hard drive but boot my os, photoshop and other programs from a ssd drive.
HerbChong wrote:
you don't use any multithreaded apps then, i take it. Lightroom and Photoshop are mostly multithreaded now including many plugins. the time it takes to load or save a file (which is single threaded still) doesn't amount to much of the time that is spent doing things that are multithreaded.
Herb...
Bingo, Herb
Feb 09, 2012 at 03:46 PM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
I upgrade my lap tops every year they are always getting faster and cheaper since the desk tops dont go to the speedways they dont get replaced that often
Seems speedway dust has something to do with replacing them every year
Right now three of my great nieces have my older lap tops and my old desk tops (2) the great nephews love them
i got a 12 core system because the thing that i do that requires the most processing power is my large panorama stitching and other multi-image techniques. in my stitching testing, rendering speed is proportional to the number of cores i have times the raw processing speed of a core. it's an example of an application that scales well with the number of cores. Lightroom and Photoshop are no where near as efficient but they are still pretty good and will use as many cores as possible. there are some photography related applications where raw core speed matters most but there are a lot where number of relatively fast cores matter more.
I've always found the right software the most important factor in fast processing of images. My few year old c2d 2.9 8gig works fine. Autopano pro flies with big files and c nx2 and 40-50mb files are a couple maby 3 sec slower that 14mb.
Good software (LR3 currently) with a cruncher (8+ ram or better, quad core or better, 3hz processor or better) machine should be fine, but will seem sluggish compared to processing D700/D3/D7k files.
I won't be getting the D800 (if I can resist), mostly because I don't need 36mp files. I may get one for studio work eventually, but I currently use a D7k for that, and it's fine to print big (20x30 range), or for very detailed product stuff. So I don't see the need to upgrade my computer at this point.
If I were getting ready to move on to new camera's AND a newer mating right now anyway, I would seriously be considering the D800 files within that purchase/planning.
IMO 4 cores is plenty. I'd focus more on MoBo's and RAM. I've been at 16GB for the last two years with an OC'd i7. I'd also want faster/miltiple HD's before I worried about a six core processor unlees you can go six with out stretching the budget. Over the last 20 years I've found about the most I can get out of any system and not feel like I'm in the dark ages is five years.
For a laptop I use a 17" MBP, 256gb SSD, i7, 8GB ram. Not expecting to make any changes in the next few years.
HerbChong wrote:
you don't use any multithreaded apps then, i take it. Lightroom and Photoshop are mostly multithreaded now including many plugins. the time it takes to load or save a file (which is single threaded still) doesn't amount to much of the time that is spent doing things that are multithreaded.
Herb...
tjpenton is correct on this one. Eight core processors actually benchmark worse than a 4 core. Multi-threaded programs are very hard to write and do not scale with more processors very well, at least not outside of a server-type environment. Also, even raid spindle drives are going to bottleneck as you work multiple D800 files as an HDR or pano. You'll need raid ssd drives to escape that bottleneck.
I would say that opening a file is the only thing that really chokes up a system right now (baring 36mp files of a D800.) i5's and up can perform pretty much any photographic task so quick that lag is mostly imperceptible. It takes me longer to open a single raw file in PS than it does to process 6 bracketed HDR's already loaded in ram. I don't even have a HT enabled processor, just a mid-range i5 OC'd to 4.5.
loading the file is a negligible part a pano stitch. lots of RAM, no swapping, and lots of cores is what works. Autopano Pro scales pretty much linearly with the number of processors and that is the time i care about having so many processors, not to mention which i can have several renders going on at the same time. disk access speed isn't relevant.
Herb...
Steezus wrote:
tjpenton is correct on this one. Eight core processors actually benchmark worse than a 4 core. Multi-threaded programs are very hard to write and do not scale with more processors very well, at least not outside of a server-type environment. Also, even raid spindle drives are going to bottleneck as you work multiple D800 files as an HDR or pano. You'll need raid ssd drives to escape that bottleneck.
Sandy Bridge i7 2600k, 16GB DDR3 1600, EVGA GT550 Graphics card, Samsung 256GB SSD Boot Drive, 1TB 7200 rpm data drive in a Thermaltake case that will handle up to eight hot swappable drives with water cooling if I wanted it. All running Windows 7 64bit. Could upgrade the GPU and add HDD when necessary.
