gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.2 #19 · UPDATED: Lightroom Benchmarking: M2 and M1 Macs and PCs | |
jhapeman wrote:
This is mostly true, although it also depends on someone's use cases.
That's why I began with ""quite a few people who believe..." ;-)
In particular I see far too many recommendations to skimp on RAM then I think is wise; while it's never good to overspend, on a machine that can't be upgraded one needs to take a slightly longer view of things. The other issue is testing in vacuum; sure something like Lightroom might be just fine with say 16GB of RAM, but if you're someone who love to multitask things can change rapidly. Point in case--I tend to have Lightroom, PS, Safari and Mail all open at once. I also run a few background applications, like MS OneDrive, and a few business applications I need to have open 24x7. Its not uncommon for my computer to be using 40-50GB of memory just running all of things, and when I start doing tasks in Lightroom that require more, it will spike right up to as much as it can take.
So there's no simple answer--it's not "just buy the base model" or "buy everything you can." Unless the money doesn't matter, then by all means buy all you can.
 ...Show more →
A couple of important things:
1. The amount of ram is a different consideration that what I was writing about. (Though there is a way in which it could be related. Hang on...)
What I'm thinking of here are people who buy the fastest processor model because "I have to have the fastest computer," when there will be little or no significant advantage (often not even a noticeable advantage) over buying something like the next model down or, in some cases, a system that isn't the most expensive type. In general, using Apple as an example, if you dig into the configurable options on many models, you'll see that you can spec various processors, all the way up to a "fastest" model that costs quite a bit more. Too many folks think, "That's the fastest one. I want a fast computer. That's the one I have to get." But in the great majority of cases (honestly, nearly all) they would never even notice the difference between that very fastest processor and the merely very fast processor — in particular if they are not doing work that pushes systems to the edge.
This can also be true of models. There are plenty of us who prefer to work with well-spec'ed iMacs with 27" screens, for example. They are very good performers, and we don't feel any loss in functionality on account of using them. (For some of the folks looking at the very nice Studio model... the same holds true.)
2. As I mentioned above, the amount of ram (or SSD storage) is a different matter. Here it is probably better to over-spec a little bit, especially if you are the sort who doesn't upgrade computers too often, especially with the models that don't allow users to upgrade such things after sale. But no need to overdo it. If it looks like 16GB would be just fine for what you do now, you might get 24GB or 32GB now... not necessarily pump things up to the maximum possible. Same with SSDs, and especially for photographers! Most of us have way too many photograph files to fine on any of the reasonable available internal SSD configurations, so what one needs is perhaps double what you need to run the computer (OS, applications, scratch space) today.
I rarely recommend the "base model" of these things to anyone who does photography.
Alan321 wrote:
I agree, but nearly all of those users have few or no backups and almost certainly never test their backups let alone do it often. When you factor in regular system and data backups and ongoing integrity tests, the better hardware can be a relatively big time saver with its SSDs, multi-threading, PCIe data access, etc. However, I'm in a tiny minority on that issue because most people do not have adequate backups.
I have also come to realize that once a sufficient performance level has been attained, there is less merit in getting faster gear and more merit in having reliable gear. Often, slower is inherently more reliable and so over a long period it is also faster on average; probably not on any particular day or for any particular activity, but overall. It doesn't take a lot of downtime to spoil the overall performance and, lets face it, much of our active computer time is spent reading, typing, mousing or listening....Show more →
I completely agree that most people do not have adequate backups. This is a major problem. Some have NO backups, and others have perhaps only one, and they don't have a regular backup schedule. (I have... a lot of backups... using multiple backup strategies. I can recover from — knock on wood — almost any issue.)
In fact, most folks would be using their finances better if they purchased and set up the equipment to do reliable, automated backups (note the plural) using more than one backup application. (I do hourly Time Machine backups, daily SuperDuper backups, periodic backups to a separate pair of backups, one of which is always stored off-site... and when I travel I carry a copy of all of my photoshop files.)
When the crisis hits — and it will — and the volume(s) holding years of your photographic work crashes and can't be revived... owning a system that is 10% faster won't mean much... but investments in backups will be priceless.
|
