Fast Enough For Lightroom 5?

Started Jul 15, 2013 | Discussions
REShultz Senior Member • Posts: 1,108
Fast Enough For Lightroom 5?
GideonW Contributing Member • Posts: 822
Re: Fast Enough For Lightroom 5?

Fast enough is relative and depends on what you're willing to tolerate.

That machine will run LR5, but it'll be slow and most likely not very enjoyable.

OP REShultz Senior Member • Posts: 1,108
Re: Fast Enough For Lightroom 5?

Thanks for the feedback.

Would this be a better option or do I need to buy a tower?

http://www.amazon.com/Apple-Mini-MC815LL-Desktop-VERSION/dp/B004YLCLM6/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1373926049&sr=8-6&keywords=mini+mac

Jim Cockfield Forum Pro • Posts: 16,338
No... That's a very slow processor

You don't want to try running Lightroom with an Atom CPU. It's a "dog" for anything other than casual use (internet browsing, etc.). Heck, I've got a PC with P4 CPU that I purchased around 8 years ago for about the same price as the box you're looking at that's probably as fast for most purposes.

What I'd suggest doing is giving members here more info on what you're trying to accomplish, along with a desired budget.

On the surface, it looks like you're looking for a smaller computer. That's great. But, I sure wouldn't pay that much for a computer with a processor that slow (as you could buy a small desktop that's dramatically faster for around the same price).

Heck, even Intel offers bookshelf style boxes about that size with much faster Core i3 CPUs in them for under $300 now, where you just add some memory and a hard drive to complete the PC.

Dell also offers mini style systems (where you can get even faster Core i5 and Core i7 CPUs that are designed for lower power draw), and some will even mount on the back of an LCD Display they're so small.

There is little reason to limit yourself to a slower CPU like that Atom, as there are many other choices that wouldn't cost you any more than that box is listed for.

Again, I'd give members here more info on what you're looking for and your desired budget.

It appears you want small -- why, and how small would be my first questions, as there are drawbacks to smaller PCs when you look at price/performance ratio (depending on the CPU the box has in it), and expandability (ability to add more storage, memory, video cards, etc.).

-- hide signature --

JimC
------

kelpdiver Veteran Member • Posts: 3,481
Re: Fast Enough For Lightroom 5?

the EEbox concept was fine for a tiny profile web browsing unit, similar usage to what people do with tablets.  But as noted, for photo work it's a really bad idea, particularly at over $400.   For not terribly much more you can get a Mac Mini and run Windows on it.  It's still got a slow hard drive, but the CPU is vastly better.  New that would be at least 599 + the windows tax, but if you can get a recent refurb or have a line to a cheaper windows license, then this could be only a bit more than the Asus choice.   Or if Lightroom is the key program of interest to you - you could run the OSX version and avoid the $100 windows tax entirely.

I've been trying to encourage Asus to create a beefier mini computer, but I sense that they see the market as a bit small.  Part of Apple's success is sticking to higher margin business, but their other is limiting the number of products SKUs sold.

OP REShultz Senior Member • Posts: 1,108
Re: No... That's a very slow processor

Very informative, thank you.

About me: I simply want something to hook up to a new 24inch monitor and run Lightroom/browse internet. Until now I've used laptops because of their mobility (I travel and live abroad, thus the emphasis on form factor). But now I've bought a monitor to do proper post processing, and hooking a laptop into a monitor limits resolution to my understanding.

So, a small computer between 300-600 that can run LR would be great. Small form factor a plus if possible. I'm brand agnostic, just want it to do its job.

tarzan1234 Regular Member • Posts: 168
Re: No... That's a very slow processor

The Mac Mini should do the job just fine. My friend owns one, he upgraded RAM to 8GB, added an SSD and the machine flies through Lightroom and Photoshop. If you don't upgrade, probably it won't be as snappy but I believe it still works quite well. Adding RAM to the Mac Mini is supper easy and cheap though, you at least should consider that. However, I don't see any reason for spending 100 bucks on a copy of Windows. Mac OS works just as well, if not better if you don't plan on running something that is only available for Windows (and I'm saying this as a Windows person). Stay away from any Atom-powered computer, it's not worth it.

Update: I just noticed you linked to the old Mac mini (Sandy Bridge with HD 3000 video). This one still works but there is no reason to get it unless you can get it really cheap. Take a look at the newest one with Ivy Bridge CPU and HD 4000 graphics.

 tarzan1234's gear list:tarzan1234's gear list
Canon EOS 6D Canon EF 70-200mm F4L USM Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM Canon EF 16-35mm F4L IS USM +5 more
Tom_N Forum Pro • Posts: 13,933
Re: No... That's a very slow processor

REShultz wrote:

Very informative, thank you.

About me: I simply want something to hook up to a new 24inch monitor and run Lightroom/browse internet. Until now I've used laptops because of their mobility (I travel and live abroad, thus the emphasis on form factor). But now I've bought a monitor to do proper post processing, and hooking a laptop into a monitor limits resolution to my understanding.

24-inch monitors typically have a resolution of 1920 x 1200 pixels.  A single-link DVI connection or low-resolution HDMI connection can handle that.  If the resolution is being forced down to a setting below 1920 x 1200, make sure that you are running the screen in extended mode and not mirroring the contents of the internal LCD screen.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads