What computer to easily process D800 files?

Started Jul 30, 2013 | Discussions
physguy88
Regular MemberPosts: 102
Like?
Re: SSD vs RAID
In reply to khaw, Aug 3, 2013

Do you see a nice performance gain with the SSDs in RAID vs HDs in RAID for photoediting?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
turbsy
Contributing MemberPosts: 710Gear list
Like?
Re: What computer to easily process D800 files?
In reply to MTWewerka, Aug 4, 2013

MTWewerka wrote:

Or simply wait for Apple to release their new Mac Pro later this year (http://www.apple.com/mac-pro/).

If that baby can render Pixar movies, a few D800 files should be a cake walk. Not to mention it freaking looks bada$$.

-- hide signature --

And will cost $3000.

 turbsy's gear list:turbsy's gear list
Olympus XZ-1 Nikon D50 Nikon D300 Nikon D800 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 300mm f/4D ED-IF +11 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
moogle73
Forum MemberPosts: 63Gear list
Like?
Re: SSD vs RAID
In reply to physguy88, Aug 4, 2013

physguy88 wrote:

... Also, it's not clear to me that an SSD will be faster than 2 fast hard-drives arranged in a RAID setup. Essentially, you are reading and writing one large file at a time. I wonder if you might have better performance with the hard disk in your usage scenario.

In my experience HDs are more prone to unexpected failures than SSDs, but with a good backup scheme, and monitoring of drive health using a program like SpeedFan, they may be your best bet.

A current good SSD will blow the pants off any home Raid config in terms of read write speeds. Also you need to be clear on what "RAID" as RAID 0 is the only one that will increase your speed significantly, and RAID 1 will decrease your speed significantly compare to just a stand alone HD (As RAID 1 is writing same data to both drives simultaneously) and the other RAIDS fall in the middle of those 2 extremes.

But still, I could never recommend RAID 0 to anyone whose not a "tech" and with a good understanding of what their doing, and have multiple redundant backups. Just as you said "in your experience HD's are more prone to unexpected failures) so if any HD in that RAID 0 config goes, your whole RAID array goes, and you better hope you have backups, its not like RAID 1 where you have a duplicate copy, or RAID 5 where you have stripping / data redundancy across all drives so you just pop a new one in... RAID 0, you lose a drive you loose your data.

But regardless average SSD's now have read write speeds of 500-600mb/s, no house hold RAID array will come anywhere near those speeds using standard Hard Drives.

 moogle73's gear list:moogle73's gear list
Nikon D600 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D Tamron SP 24-70mm F/2.8 Di VC USD Tamron SP 70-200mm F/2.8 Di VC USD
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
SushiEater
Senior MemberPosts: 2,078Gear list
Like?
Run couple of tests....
In reply to hajagosb, Aug 4, 2013

Photoshop:

Open new file 8x10 300 DPI

Filter: Add noise, 400% Gaussian, Mono.

Filter: Blur, Radial Blur. Amount 100, Best, Spin.

My computer runs it in 6 seconds flat.

Second test: Driverheaven Photoshop Bench V3

My result 118.5 seconds.

D800 files are pretty big so I build this computer to handle the workload.

 SushiEater's gear list:SushiEater's gear list
Nikon D800E Nikon D810 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm f/4G ED VR Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 EX DG OS HSM +11 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
SushiEater
Senior MemberPosts: 2,078Gear list
Like?
Re: What computer to easily process D800 files?
In reply to pieces, Aug 4, 2013

If you were offered 4770 for the same price as 3930 you got ripped off. 4770 price is half of 3930 and motherboard is at least $150 cheaper.

 SushiEater's gear list:SushiEater's gear list
Nikon D800E Nikon D810 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm f/4G ED VR Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 EX DG OS HSM +11 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
SushiEater
Senior MemberPosts: 2,078Gear list
Like?
Re: Basics....
In reply to RomanJohnston, Aug 4, 2013

Not everyone does. I JUST finally broke down and got a D800....and only because of the extra pixels for my monster prints for my customers. No one said go backwards...I said 8 gigs is the sweet spot and my benchmarking is proof of that. If you have 16 gigs...by all means...keep it. No one is mandating ANYTHING to you....so you need to chill out. If you want to waste your money on 32 gigs....have at it. Currently I dont know of a MoBo or Processer that will handle 64...so good luck with that.

What kind of IT are you?

Any X79 motherboard with 8 memory slots can handle 64GB.

Asus Sabertooth x79 can handle 64gb for example.

 SushiEater's gear list:SushiEater's gear list
Nikon D800E Nikon D810 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm f/4G ED VR Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 EX DG OS HSM +11 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
AlephNull
Contributing MemberPosts: 845Gear list
Like?
Re: What computer to easily process D800 files?
In reply to moogle73, Aug 4, 2013

moogle73 wrote:

almost all of this is false information lol,

First of all, i7's DO NOT HAVE SLOWER CLOCK SPEEDS, if anything they have faster, some of the top of the line i7 cpu's on the market now base clock speed is 3.5-4ghz or higher depnding on "turbo mode usage", there is NO i3 on the market even close to that clock speed (highest is 3.3ghz i believe). Not to mention the higher end i7's have much more l2 and l3 cache (like 5 times more lol), meaning more programs in the "staging area" to be send to the processors to be processed, meaning faster potential throughputs as its less back and forth to the ram. And current intel cpu's all now are basically based off the same 32mn architecture so thats a mute point now too (as in between new chip upgrades the architecture plays a role in speed and heat as well)

and...

YES - adobe photoshop supports multicore cpu's, and has done so since photoshop 3.0 (forever ago) and with each new photoshop release it gets better and better in supporting multicores / thread. So having more cores WILL increase your photoshop performance, its not all about clock speed (even though clock speed is important) but like I said earlier, you take a 4 core cpu at same clock speed as an 8-10core cpu the 8-10 wil out perform the 4 in photoshop every time... simple as that. But with that being said, there are some 3rd party applications, and or filters, and or add ins that people use in photoshop that are not written to take full advantage of multicore support (because its expensive and time consuming to re-write their software to do so) so with those specific add ins (if you have any, and if they don't support multi cores because some do, just some do not also) then with those specific ones, you wont see an improvement with having more cores... but with everything else in photoshop or lightroom etc you will.

Secondly there is a misconception about multicores and how they work, people seem to think 1 core does the operating system, 1 core does your music in the background you have going, 1 core does your firefox you left open and minimized, and the last few cores work on your current work and that is just not how CPU's works and completely false. Computer cpu's process "1 thing" at a time always have, and always will until we get into quantum computing (which is coming and why its such a big deal and you always hear people talking about it but I am getting off track lol). Now current processors are doing billions of cycles / calculations per second (ghz) so it seems like its doing "multiple things at 1 time" but really its doing them 1 by 1 in sequential order so fast it seems like multiple things at a time.

Now what is dependant on the cores being used is the software being used to run what your doing. So for instance you click on firefox icon, it goes to your bus and system cache which then reads how to run the program, if the program is written to support multi cores it will then delegate what core will process what specific process needed to complete the task at hand, once done it moves onto the next task (such as back ground music) etc etc billions of times per second. Same goes for photoshop, and all other applications on the computer including the OS. The cores are dependant on how the software is written, if its written to support multi cores then multi cores will be used, if not, then only 1 core will be used process the information. Either way, all information is processed in a linear fashion and not "all at once" . So you could have 10 cores, but if your running 5 applications at once that only support 1 core at a time, they will all need to be processed liner 1 at a time through just 1 core (and your performance will suffer) and you will see no benefit from all those additional cores (and all 5 will NOT be processed at 1 time across the 10 cores). Now thankfully, most major programs and software write and or have already been written to support multi cores especially with how long they have been in the market place. And the longer and longer we go on the more and more they will be written for and supported.

There isn't really a polite way to put this. You are very very wrong.

We are talking about Windows (technically, the Windows NT line of Windows operating systems). Windows NT has had multi-processor support from the very beginning (which was Windows NT 3.1 - I was involved in the beta of that version, and several others). Originally, each processor was a chip, and I have assembled multi-processor machines with multiple CPU chips on them. Things have changed, and now we have single chips with two, four, six, or more, processing cores on them. I won't go into hyper-threading - it complicates matters.

Windows does not operate on one process at a time, which appears to be the way you think it works.

The unit of execution in Windows is the thread, and Windows will run threads from different processes simultaneously if it has the hardware to do so (enough cores and enough RAM).

At any time, there may be multiple threads which are ready for execution. There are likely to be many more threads which are waiting for something (waiting for I/O, for example). When an active thread decides to wait for something (for example, it starts an I/O and waits for the result), then the Windows scheduler selects a ready thread and begins executing it. That thread may be from the same process as the one which just started waiting, or it may be from a different process. The scheduler works on the priority of the thread, which depends partly upon the process priority, but not entirely.

Every core in the machine could be working on threads from one process, or every one could be working on threads from different processes.

Surprisingly often, there may not be a ready thread to execute. It may be that the only ready threads are already being executed on other cores. If that's the case, then the core has nothing to do, and it's assigned to the System Idle process. Have a look at Task Manager some time, and switch on cumulative CPU time - it can be astonishing how much CPU time the System Idle process will accumulate over the day  If a core is idle for long enough it may get slowed down, or even powered down (part of the magic that allows Intel Core CPUs to run some cores faster than others, and to save energy by not running all the cores at full speed).

If you have five single thread processes, and five free processing cores, and enough RAM, then they will definitely execute simultaneously except when contending for resources (like disk I/O).

Please don't spread misinformation like this.

 AlephNull's gear list:AlephNull's gear list
Sony RX100 II Nikon D810
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
AlephNull
Contributing MemberPosts: 845Gear list
Like?
Re: Basics....
In reply to SushiEater, Aug 4, 2013

SushiEater wrote:

Not everyone does. I JUST finally broke down and got a D800....and only because of the extra pixels for my monster prints for my customers. No one said go backwards...I said 8 gigs is the sweet spot and my benchmarking is proof of that. If you have 16 gigs...by all means...keep it. No one is mandating ANYTHING to you....so you need to chill out. If you want to waste your money on 32 gigs....have at it. Currently I dont know of a MoBo or Processer that will handle 64...so good luck with that.

What kind of IT are you?

Any X79 motherboard with 8 memory slots can handle 64GB.

Asus Sabertooth x79 can handle 64gb for example.

Be kind - some people don't look past the LGA 115x ranges of motherboards

Of course, I would consider the LGA 2011 range the obvious choice for an application that would use a lot of memory bandwidth...

I happen to be using the ASUS Sabertooth X79 for my current PS box (my previous PS box was LGA 1366 with 12GB of RAM).

If we wanted to get really mean, we could start talking about the Xeon motherboards which can take 16 DIMMs. They tend to be less readily available, though

 AlephNull's gear list:AlephNull's gear list
Sony RX100 II Nikon D810
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
PhotoKaz
Regular MemberPosts: 326Gear list
Like?
Re: I'm using a Mac pro from 2006 and it inhales D800e files with no problem
In reply to The Andy G, Aug 4, 2013

The Andy G wrote:

PhotoKaz wrote:

The Andy G wrote:

Hi:

This is a non-issue.

Mac Pro or Macbook Pro? Both came with 1GB of memory as standard in 2006 so unless yours was a custom build I'm having a hard time with your "no problem" statement.

-- hide signature --

May 26, 2013 19:42:56

I’m using Lightroom 5 on a Mac Pro 1,1 from 2006 and really have no issues processing D800e files apart from it gobbling hard drive space.

My current configuration is a 5 GB of ram, with a SSD for the boot drive. I have also upgraded the video card a few years ago but Lightroom isn’t particularly dependent upon video cards so it’s not really the issue.

The reasons why I suspect most people have trouble with Lightroom are because they don’t understand what happens in develop mode, their catalogues are too big and they’ve moved file locations.

The only real issue that bugs me is the building of previews. I’ll address that below.

Here are three links you may find helpful:

First off, SSDs will help LR in many ways but not much in develop mode. Even less of you've moved the cache to another non-SSD volume. Why? Once the action has been moved into processor and RAM, the volume is out of the process, cache aside.

http://www.computer-darkroom.com/blog/will-an-ssd-improve-adobe-lightroom-performance/

This is why snappy video cards also don’t appear to make much of an impact on your LR performance. In develop mode, it’s all about CPU and RAM.

Secondly, building those 1:1 previews may need planning. Not much for it except to do as Adobe advises.

  • Set your cache to the job size or larger.
  • Keep the catalog and preview cache in the same folder. No, really, don’t move this and do not move it to a slower drive.
  • Build those 1:1 previews on demand. Meaning, if you're rarely using LR, and only working with it on spot jobs, Library/Previews - Standard previews or 1:1 can be chosen on demand as you need. However, you can in preferences choose what your standard previews are. By default, photos being worked on automatically force 1:1 builds so you may have hit a ceiling with your processor/HD combination. Meaning, if the item is in a pokey “Green” drives somewhere, move it onto a 7200 RPM, 10,000 RPM or SSD.

Building the 1:1s is really the only slowness I've noticed on my system but I tend to batch process an import, work on it for two weeks and then move off to the next project.

Thirdly, work order is important.

Adobe's recommended work order is:

  • Spot healing.
  • Geometry corrections, such as Lens Correction profiles and Manual corrections, including keystone corrections using the Vertical slider.
  • Global non-detail corrections, such as Exposure and White Balance. These corrections can also be done first if desired.
  • Local corrections, such as Gradient Filter and Adjustment Brush strokes.
  • Detail corrections, such as Noise Reduction and Sharpening.
  • Use native rather than irregular zooms (1:1/1:2/1:3/1:4 et cetera)
  • Consider going back to the 2010 colour profile for less resource-intensive image processing.

My own work order is to add the lens geometry upon import since I tend to shoot wide and corner brightness is more variable in those lenses I rarely use spot healing apart from jacket lint and acne.

Fourthly, maintenance matters.

Adobe advises keeping catalogues to under 10,000 images. This is not only good practice as it keeps your DB from having a single point of failure but maintenance is also easier. Optimization and back up of the catalogue can be a dog once the number of images gets big.

Random slowdowns I was experiencing and sudden spikes in processor demand went away once I did as Adobe advised and work with smaller catalogues.

One more thing to consider:

If you are shooting 14-bit, and compressed, these will invariably slowdown LR when building previews. I do not know the answer, but probably the decompression may be slowing down the preview builds; added the 25 per cent increase in colour space and there's your slowdown.

I always shoot 14-bit compressed so I don't even think of how much it slows operations down any more. It may be that the decompression is not infinitely thred-able. There are probably bubbles in the pipeline but what they are, I don't know.

Take home points:

  • SSDs only partially boost Lightroom 3/4/5 performance. Activities that are processor and RAM dependent like developing are not likely to see an improvement.
  • Work order matters.
  • Configuration and maintenance also matter

As always, be careful with advice from crazies you meet on the internet!

-- hide signature --

__________________________________________
What do all the buttons and dials do?

From the article you linked to (I added the bold):

So, having established that the use of an SSD offers only marginal improvements to Library preview rendering and photo load times in Develop module where can we realistically see an SSD helping a Lightroom user? Well, Lightroom isn’t just about rendering Library previews or loading photos into the the Develop module editing window. At Lightroom’s heart is a SQLite database, and the very fast access times associated with SSDs means that reading metadata from the catalog, searching the catalog, etc will be noticeably faster than on a conventional disk drive. Likewise, Library module thumbnail and preview scrolling (sometimes referred to as louping) will be noticeably faster and smoother. Other areas where the the use of an SSD will help include application launch times and computer boot time. Overall, installing Lightroom (includes catalog, previews and Camera Raw cache) on an SSD will result in the application feeling more responsive than is the case with a conventional disk drive.

When I build a fast computer, I don't try to simply improve my workflow when using the develop module in LR.  I strive for fast performance in every aspect of photo processing and general computing outside of LR and PS.  My own experience with a D800 and benchmarking shows that both the SSD and a decent video card made a big difference.

1. Having LR and PS installed on the SSD make startup MUCH faster.

2. Having my LR catalog on a fast SSD makes using the library noticeably faster.  I don't even need a benchmark to tell me this, I can see it for myself just through simple use.

3. Having my temp files, cache, and scratch disk on an SSD makes LR and PS perform much faster.

4. Having a lot of RAM helps when opening multiple files.  Having my Windows pagefile on a fast SSD makes it even more so.

5. Adding a good video card made the biggest impact when using the NIK plugins, and for me specifically Silver Efex Pro.  The difference was significant and immediately noticeable.   The money was well worth it as using Silver Efex before resulted in frustration while I waited for the filter effects to be applied.  It was not a long wait, maybe a few seconds but that makes a huge difference when using the sliders.  Sometimes you just make minor changes to the slider to get the effect you want, and you need to adjust one several time, then another, and may go back to the first to tweak it.  If you are waiting two seconds for each adjustment it makes processing each image much more tedious.  Despite having a 4.5GHz CPU, I still wasn't happy with the performance of Silver Efex Pro on my computer.  Adding the video card made the adjustments instant, even on big (80 megapixel) files.

-- hide signature --
 PhotoKaz's gear list:PhotoKaz's gear list
Nikon D800 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED VR Nikon AF-Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8D ED +1 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
physguy88
Regular MemberPosts: 102
Like?
Re: SSD vs RAID
In reply to moogle73, Aug 4, 2013

moogle73 wrote:

But still, I could never recommend RAID 0 to anyone whose not a "tech" and with a good understanding of what their doing, and have multiple redundant backups. Just as you said "in your experience HD's are more prone to unexpected failures) so if any HD in that RAID 0 config goes, your whole RAID array goes, and you better hope you have backups, its not like RAID 1 where you have a duplicate copy, or RAID 5 where you have stripping / data redundancy across all drives so you just pop a new one in... RAID 0, you lose a drive you loose your data.

OP is a professional user so I assume he can get the help he needs to achieve a good set up if all the caveats are mentioned.

But regardless average SSD's now have read write speeds of 500-600mb/s, no house hold RAID array will come anywhere near those speeds using standard Hard Drives.

Isn't that just the speed limit of the SATA bus? So RAID 0 should give you 2x that in theory no?

I guess RAID SSD setup the other poster mentioned may be the way to go if single SSDs are hitting the SATA speed limit on sustained transfers and the drive degradation problems have been solved.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
PhotoKaz
Regular MemberPosts: 326Gear list
Like?
Re: SSD vs RAID
In reply to physguy88, Aug 4, 2013

physguy88 wrote:

moogle73 wrote:

But still, I could never recommend RAID 0 to anyone whose not a "tech" and with a good understanding of what their doing, and have multiple redundant backups. Just as you said "in your experience HD's are more prone to unexpected failures) so if any HD in that RAID 0 config goes, your whole RAID array goes, and you better hope you have backups, its not like RAID 1 where you have a duplicate copy, or RAID 5 where you have stripping / data redundancy across all drives so you just pop a new one in... RAID 0, you lose a drive you loose your data.

OP is a professional user so I assume he can get the help he needs to achieve a good set up if all the caveats are mentioned.

But regardless average SSD's now have read write speeds of 500-600mb/s, no house hold RAID array will come anywhere near those speeds using standard Hard Drives.

Isn't that just the speed limit of the SATA bus? So RAID 0 should give you 2x that in theory no?

I guess RAID SSD setup the other poster mentioned may be the way to go if single SSDs are hitting the SATA speed limit on sustained transfers and the drive degradation problems have been solved.

If you really want the best hard drive performance you can get today forget SATA SSD drives and go for a PCIe SSD such as an OCZ RevoDrive or FusioIO IoDrive.  A standard SSD will get you to about 500MB/s, the PCIe drives are 2-3 times that speed (1500MB/s).  Not surprising, the new Mac Pro has this type of storage.

Going with the high speed PCIe interface gets around the SATA3 connection which was designed for the relatively slow HDD.

-- hide signature --
 PhotoKaz's gear list:PhotoKaz's gear list
Nikon D800 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED VR Nikon AF-Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8D ED +1 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Hasa
Contributing MemberPosts: 523Gear list
Like?
Re: SSD vs RAID
In reply to moogle73, Aug 4, 2013

Good point!

So my minimum RAID configurations are: 3 disks hooked up in RAID 5 deliver maybe 50% faster performance at 2/3 usable disk space of the whole array + backup in case of failure.

This is the config favoured by many data centres.

The other is minimum 4 disks for RAID 1+0 (some call it RAID 10) which are the two options you mentioned combined (i.e. you can NOT loose the whole raid if 1 drive fails) : 100% faster speed at 1/2 usable disk space of the whole array + backup in case of failure. This cost of backup is the same as copying to external drives assuming they all cost the same / GB.

I run RAID 1+0.

When my RAID was empty it was exactly twice the speed of a single disk outside the raid.

I did partition the RAID into two virtual drives after setting it up. Each has a usable space of 1,81TB after formatting. I do not know the amount of net usable space of a single, formatted 2TB drive outside the RAID.

It seems I last ran defragmentation in 2010 and the status is "0% fragmented" on the 85% full drive.

Now at 85% full these are the benchmarks for the RAID and a reasonably fast and CHEAP flash card I use in the D800:

-- hide signature --

CrystalDiskMark 2.2 (C) 2007-2008 hiyohiyo
Crystal Dew World : http://crystalmark.info/
--------------------------------------------------
RAID drive:

Sequential Read : 142.750 MB/s
Sequential Write : 191.288 MB/s
Random Read 512KB : 73.071 MB/s
Random Write 512KB : 185.334 MB/s
Random Read 4KB : 1.301 MB/s
Random Write 4KB : 10.918 MB/s

Test Size : 100 MB
Date : 2013/08/04 2:47:28
----------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------
CrystalDiskMark 2.2 (C) 2007-2008 hiyohiyo
Crystal Dew World : http://crystalmark.info/
--------------------------------------------------
ADATA CompactFlash 533x 32GB on Kingston USB3 flash readerFCR-HS3
Sequential Read : 70.336 MB/s
Sequential Write : 17.009 MB/s
Random Read 512KB : 61.671 MB/s
Random Write 512KB : 11.438 MB/s
Random Read 4KB : 3.351 MB/s
Random Write 4KB : 0.647 MB/s

Test Size : 100 MB
Date : 2013/08/04 11:17:04

-----------------------------------------------------

So I can write twice as fast on the raid as I read from the flash

The importation of files, conversion to DNG, generation of previews, creating entries in the database must be almost entirely down to the limit of the flash card and the CPU. Writing in a blog consumes 3-6% CPU at 800Mhz while the LR operations increases the clock to the max 3200 MHz and spasmodic 100% CPU utilization of all the 6 cores.

I concur that database operations would possibly gain from faster disk as these operations are limited by the available IOPS on the storage system.

Other contributors have pointed out very useful links to articles about Lightroom optimization and it seems there is comparatively little to gain from the actual LR operation by using SSDs and there is a lot to gain from tuning LR itself.

As an example: a Catalog is recommended NOT to exceed 10.000 files by Adobe unless performance is degraded.

I have an app on the desktop displaying ressource consumption all the time. With LR I never use more than 5GB RAM - but the CPU tops out - so for my rig I would prioritize quicker CPU over anything else at 8GB RAM and RAID 1+0.

However the performance is not at all bad for a 2010 rig!

In any case I will check the disk queues in windows ressource monitor to see if I have a problem that can be solved by reconfiguring LR.

Conclusion:

from what I have read up to now I should install LR on the RAID - alternatively buy a 250GB SSD for a new C: - thereby forcing myself to clean out lots of programs I never use - a BIG job. Plus use the optimization tricks recommended by Adobe.

Computer startup time is FAST - I just put it in "sleep" mode - i.e. I do not need an SSD to make the PC start fast.

C: looks like this:

--------------------------------------------------
CrystalDiskMark 2.2 (C) 2007-2008 hiyohiyo
Crystal Dew World : http://crystalmark.info/
--------------------------------------------------

Sequential Read : 74.136 MB/s
Sequential Write : 75.841 MB/s
Random Read 512KB : 29.537 MB/s
Random Write 512KB : 55.409 MB/s
Random Read 4KB : 0.378 MB/s
Random Write 4KB : 0.825 MB/s

Test Size : 100 MB
Date : 2013/08/04 12:02:37

Smile and the world smiles back!

 Hasa's gear list:Hasa's gear list
Nikon D800 Nikon AF Nikkor 20mm f/2.8D Nikon AF-S Teleconverter TC-17E II Sigma 15mm F2.8 EX DG Diagonal Fisheye Carl Zeiss Distagon T* 2/35 +10 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Biological_Viewfinder
Senior MemberPosts: 1,194
Like?
Re: Basics....
In reply to AlephNull, Aug 4, 2013

My problem with Roman isn't his ignorance, but his arrogance.

Look at the title of his post. "Basics..."

I mean, he starts off with 1 single word that says so much about himself.

He talks about how he has 'credentials' because he's in IT, and this stuff is "basic" to him.

That's my issue with him.

I already know I'm not remotely perfect. But this guy is the epitome of the average joe who's been around DPR for awhile. He needed a mirror to see what he looks like, and what better person to show him than the guy who could pull the mirror away and show that he has the same problem. At least I know it. He's just wallowing in self-imposed ignorance about his own sorry state. I know who I am, does he know who he is? Maybe now, he does a little bit better.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Tom Ames
Contributing MemberPosts: 728Gear list
Like?
Re: SSD vs RAID
In reply to khaw, Aug 4, 2013

khaw wrote:

I am using 4 Crucial SSDs in a RAID configuration. Works great.

They generate very little heat and give excellent bandwidth.

Also, newest generation SSDs most likely last longer than hard drives.

K-H.

I have also heard the new SSD last very long.

I have just ordered the new Samsung EVO 1TB, it says it's supposed to last 1.500.000 hours, long enough for me

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/samsung-840-evo-review-1tb-ssd,3567.html

 Tom Ames's gear list:Tom Ames's gear list
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 III Nikon D750 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED Samyang 14mm F2.8 IF ED MC Aspherical Sigma 105mm F2.8 EX DG OS HSM +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
pieces
Regular MemberPosts: 157
Like?
Re: What computer to easily process D800 files?
In reply to SushiEater, Aug 4, 2013

SushiEater wrote:

If you were offered 4770 for the same price as 3930 you got ripped off. 4770 price is half of 3930 and motherboard is at least $150 cheaper.

Thanks for that, uncertain how it pertains to the thread or the OP question.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
SushiEater
Senior MemberPosts: 2,078Gear list
Like?
Re: What computer to easily process D800 files?
In reply to pieces, Aug 4, 2013

You are welcome.

I just thought that I will make the record straight.

 SushiEater's gear list:SushiEater's gear list
Nikon D800E Nikon D810 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm f/4G ED VR Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 EX DG OS HSM +11 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
SushiEater
Senior MemberPosts: 2,078Gear list
Like?
Re: Basics....
In reply to AlephNull, Aug 4, 2013

AlephNull wrote:

SushiEater wrote:

Not everyone does. I JUST finally broke down and got a D800....and only because of the extra pixels for my monster prints for my customers. No one said go backwards...I said 8 gigs is the sweet spot and my benchmarking is proof of that. If you have 16 gigs...by all means...keep it. No one is mandating ANYTHING to you....so you need to chill out. If you want to waste your money on 32 gigs....have at it. Currently I dont know of a MoBo or Processer that will handle 64...so good luck with that.

What kind of IT are you?

Any X79 motherboard with 8 memory slots can handle 64GB.

Asus Sabertooth x79 can handle 64gb for example.

Be kind - some people don't look past the LGA 115x ranges of motherboards

Of course, I would consider the LGA 2011 range the obvious choice for an application that would use a lot of memory bandwidth...

I happen to be using the ASUS Sabertooth X79 for my current PS box (my previous PS box was LGA 1366 with 12GB of RAM).

Same as mine with 32GB. Before was Sabertooth X58 with 16GB. Almost doubled the processing speed of converting D800 RAW files. Photoshop Noise/Blur test went from 9 seconds to 6. Not because of the memory of course.

If we wanted to get really mean, we could start talking about the Xeon motherboards which can take 16 DIMMs. They tend to be less readily available, though

But for Photoshop and RAW Xeon will not do any better. After many years of building and  upgrading computers for personal use and for clients I figured out that speed of the CPU rules (not processing power) in most cases. Now, if 4770K existed when I was upgrading last time I would have probably gone with it.

 SushiEater's gear list:SushiEater's gear list
Nikon D800E Nikon D810 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm f/4G ED VR Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 EX DG OS HSM +11 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
physguy88
Regular MemberPosts: 102
Like?
Re: SSD vs RAID
In reply to Tom Ames, Aug 4, 2013

Tom Ames wrote:

khaw wrote:

I am using 4 Crucial SSDs in a RAID configuration. Works great.

They generate very little heat and give excellent bandwidth.

Also, newest generation SSDs most likely last longer than hard drives.

K-H.

I have also heard the new SSD last very long.

I have just ordered the new Samsung EVO 1TB, it says it's supposed to last 1.500.000 hours, long enough for me

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/samsung-840-evo-review-1tb-ssd,3567.html

Interesting.  Will keep this in mind next time I upgrade.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Steve Bingham
Forum ProPosts: 20,957Gear list
Like?
hajagosb - way beyond basics!!!!!!!
In reply to hajagosb, Aug 5, 2013

I am a little puzzled. ALL I do is 16 bit composites - usually 2-6 images. Rarely do I exceed 20 layers as I often combine some layers as I go. I use PS CS6. I use 16 gig of ram and have yet to run out. i7 at 3.2 and a 250 gb SSD which rarely gets used. Incremental backup done daily - Acronis.

Now I am off to see your work. Love to see it.

Edit:

Ah ha!!! GREAT fashion work!!!!! I just love it. Reason enough for whatever you need. I would certainly invest in multiple LARGE SSD and a very fast processor. Your write time is important.

hajagosb wrote:

Thanks for the lot of helpful responses.

For the others, please let's leave me the right to decide if it's slow for me or not. And it is. I do photography for a living. Luckily sometimes retouchers a working on my images, but on many projects i prefer do do it my own.

I do a lot of composites lately, in 16 bit, with even 50 layers. It can take several minutes to save a 2-4 Gb file. Correct me if i'm wrong, but i call it slow. It also affects simpler task when you have these huge files even with the ssd.

It's not about the Windows, but the hardware. I can understand, for a hobbist i can be okay to wait a bit once in a while, but for daily work it doesn't worth it.

About Lightroom previews, i think it's the best to make 1:1 size, so you can check sharpness too.

-- hide signature --

Steve Bingham
www.dustylens.com
www.ghost-town-photography.com

 Steve Bingham's gear list:Steve Bingham's gear list
Nikon D300 Nikon D7100 Nikon D610 Nikon D5300 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR +21 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
hajagosb
Regular MemberPosts: 205Gear list
Like?
Re: hajagosb - way beyond basics!!!!!!!
In reply to Steve Bingham, Aug 5, 2013

Thanks a lot Steve. I'm glad you like my work.

I think my main problem is caused by the fact that i work on a laptop. These processors are noticeably slower then desktop ones.

Acronis sounds interesting, i'll try it on my new system. I use Dropbox and Backblaze at the moment. Dropbox is expensive, and only good for temporary backup for the ongoing projects. Backblaze is so slow that it can never catch up with me.

Steve Bingham wrote:

I am a little puzzled. ALL I do is 16 bit composites - usually 2-6 images. Rarely do I exceed 20 layers as I often combine some layers as I go. I use PS CS6. I use 16 gig of ram and have yet to run out. i7 at 3.2 and a 250 gb SSD which rarely gets used. Incremental backup done daily - Acronis.

Now I am off to see your work. Love to see it.

Edit:

Ah ha!!! GREAT fashion work!!!!! I just love it. Reason enough for whatever you need. I would certainly invest in multiple LARGE SSD and a very fast processor. Your write time is important.

hajagosb wrote:

Thanks for the lot of helpful responses.

For the others, please let's leave me the right to decide if it's slow for me or not. And it is. I do photography for a living. Luckily sometimes retouchers a working on my images, but on many projects i prefer do do it my own.

I do a lot of composites lately, in 16 bit, with even 50 layers. It can take several minutes to save a 2-4 Gb file. Correct me if i'm wrong, but i call it slow. It also affects simpler task when you have these huge files even with the ssd.

It's not about the Windows, but the hardware. I can understand, for a hobbist i can be okay to wait a bit once in a while, but for daily work it doesn't worth it.

About Lightroom previews, i think it's the best to make 1:1 size, so you can check sharpness too.

-- hide signature --

Steve Bingham
www.dustylens.com
www.ghost-town-photography.com

 hajagosb's gear list:hajagosb's gear list
Nikon D800E Nikon D810 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF Micro-Nikkor 60mm f/2.8D Nikon AF-S Nikkor 85mm f/1.8G +3 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads