To Increase Ram Or Not To Increase Ram....

[weepete]

My understanding of PS and LR was they are both heavily CPU dependant. If I remember correctly LR only uses the GFX card for library previews and PS for some filters though you will need a GFX card for some tools to work, an entry level card should be enough to run these programs.

Photoshop does eat RAM though, so the more you have the better, bearing in mind that you would probably see a bigger speed increase with a slightly better processor and slightly less RAM than a slightly worse processor and slightly more RAM. 8GB is probably the minimum you'd want just now though so an upgrade to 16GB would not be a bad choice.

Processor looks like it's getting on a bit though. PS scales to about 4 cores but drops off sharply from there. A faster 4 core processor and 16-32GB of RAM is probably where you'd really see a significant speed increase so IMO the best option is to upgrade the whole system.

 

[smoke665]

It should have two graphics cards ... the integrated Intel and a discrete Nvidia
Hmm, maybe check to see if there is an updated Nvidia driver for the graphics card ... also check the Nvidia control panel to see if it has a setting to enable it for usage for LR and PS (I think).

I checked the intel site for updates on the HD 6000 drivers but not the other. Hmmm need to research that.

You should be able to buy another 8G of RAM for $50. or under, it should speed it up a little.

I was hoping mine had (1) 8gb stick, unfortunately I opened the back to find (2) single slots with 4 gb each So an upgrade with 2 8 gig sticks is about $120 to $150 depending on the mfg.

If I remember correctly LR only uses the GFX card for library previews

LR6 uses graphics acceleration on supported cards in the develop module only. The speed is significant on highly edited images when using adjustment brushes. Requires a compatible card running 64 bit in windows, and OpenGL 3.3 (or later) -capable video adapter for GPU-related functionality. When LR opens it checks your card in my case I get this "Check OpenGL Support: failed", and it automatically defaults to not use graphics acceleration.

 

[astroNikon]

I have a Dell Inspiron 15. I upped the memory to 12gb and noticed an improvement.
But it also depends upon what else is running. I make sure antivirus is mostly disabled when I do LR. I store my photos and library on an external drive.

But since I have upgraded to a much faster desktop computer with a graphics card and use the laptop only rarely now for LR.

 

[smoke665]

But since I have upgraded to a much faster desktop computer with a graphics card and use the laptop only rarely now for LR.

I have a desktop that I rarely use as travel makes it difficult

 

[Fstop-]

I was hoping mine had (1) 8gb stick, unfortunately I opened the back to find (2) single slots with 4 gb each So an upgrade with 2 8 gig sticks is about $120 to $150 depending on the mfg.

I don't think I would spend that much on RAM. I would probably start looking at an upgrade.

 

[astroNikon]

But since I have upgraded to a much faster desktop computer with a graphics card and use the laptop only rarely now for LR.

I have a desktop that I rarely use as travel makes it difficult

I was looking at upgrading to this new laptop. I-7 processor, 12 GB ram, etc for $800 (on sale) ==> https://www.bestbuy.com/site/dell-i...b-hard-drive-era-gray/6083546.p?skuId=6083546

the desktop is my kids computer mostly. I sometimes get to sneak on it.

 

[Braineack]

It's easy to tell if you're out of ram.

 

[smoke665]

It's easy to tell if you're out of ram.

Yeah I know, the only reason I was looking was the fact that I allocated 60% to LR which can create problems with running other applications at the same time.

 

[bratkinson]

Your best option is to buy a better laptop...IF you can tolerate Windows 10! <blaaaahhhhhhhh!> A faster dual processor, or even a quad processor will work wonders in Lightroom and Photoshop Elements. So will more RAM. The best deals will be in January, when they're trying to close out discontinued models for a song. About 18 months ago, I picked up a surprisingly fast 2.2 ghz dual processor ASUS laptop for a friend that I kept watching all laptop prices online at Walmart for a couple of weeks. Finally, what was a $600+ computer was $175. I had to tell the clerk their computer says they have 4 of them. None were out on the floor, they were in the back room.

Plan B is to upgrade what you have. And yes, adding RAM will do the job. BUT... you will be REPLACING the two 4gb sticks with two 8gb sticks. I don't think there's 4 slots in any laptop! I'd also recommend you replace the hard drive with a SSD (Solid State Drive).

One of the things I noticed about Lightroom 5.7 on my Win 64 bit overclocked 8 processor computer is that the more pictures you are editing in a catalog, the slower it gets. It never modifies the original image. What it does is it keeps a list of changes you made, 'single file', for each image. So, while editing image #2, every change gets recorded 'at the end of the file' of all the changes already made to the entire set of images. As a former mainframe programmer, I'm surprised they don't keep a link-list for each image. But nooooo! It acts as if it is one giant file and each new change (click) forces it to read from the start to the end of the giant list and then plop the new change at the end of the list...sort of like building a stone walkway and the pile of stones is behind you. You have to walk along every previously-laid stone to lay the next one. Even with my screaming processor, I limit my editing to about 150 images, making 10-15 adjustments to each (some en-mass/sync/previous) I can see the wait time before it's done and I get control back getting longer and longer. Oh...and when exporting, it uses all 8 processors according to my hardware monitor program.

Replacing your hard drive with an SSD will also speed up things noticeably, regardless of whether or not you added RAM. I put all of Windows files and Lightroom and its temporary files on SSD. The big one is the page file. When RAM gets filled and you open the next picture, there's no other choice than to 'swap out' one or more 'not recently accessed' pictures/RAM to SSD to make room for the next one in RAM. And when you access one of the swapped out pix, it will first roll something else out and swap in the one you wanted. I've put SSDs in my desktop and laptop and it's money well spent!

Oh...and for best performance, don't be running any other applications concurrently.

 

[Braineack]

Lightroom does worse with more cores. Anything over 4 core is diminishing returns for LR: Adobe Lightroom CC/6 Multi Core Performance

More RAM will only help if you're running out of RAM. Open Task Manager, click performance, and see how much of your 8GB your system is using with LR open.

SSD is good.

 

[bratkinson]

Lightroom does worse with more cores. Anything over 4 core is diminishing returns for LR: Adobe Lightroom CC/6 Multi Core Performance

Per the above article, more cores generally equates to slower clock rates (individual processor speed) to maintain both price points and limitations of cooling. That's especially true on laptops due to their very limited CPU cooling capabilities. CPU manufacturers have designed separate lines of cool-running processors primarily for use in laptops. Slower clock speeds are the easiest means to keep things cool.

That's why I do all my photo editing using a tower computer I built a couple years ago using an 8 processor AMD FX-8370 overclocked to 4.7 ghz. (It's really easy using 2 steps faster RAM than the MOBO requires!). Not to brag, but Lightroom is essentially 'no waiting' for everything I do until I've made maybe 3,000 total edits (SYNC across 100 photos of 5 changes = 500 separate edits to get stored, as each photo can be 'undone' individually), then I have to wait a bit for each change to get saved. I've always been a 'speed demon', first, cars, now, computers 50 years later!

 

[Braineack]

I had the FX-8320 clocked to 4.2 and LR was absolutely junk on it.

I finally swapped out the MB/CPU/RAM for the intel i7-7700k and there's no comparison between the two in terms of performance.

couldn't even watch 4k videos on the AMD...

 

[astroNikon]

FYI, there are "hybrid" hard disks where have the regular platters spinning and a SSD in one unit.
They are in laptops and help you get a fast performance, with more cheaper storage. Such as this example ==> https://www.bestbuy.com/site/dell-i...brid-hard-drive-black/5709801.p?skuId=5709801

per the above link
"2-in-1 hybrid hard drive provides both size and speed
Incorporates a large-capacity 1TB hard drive at 5400 rpm for ample storage, with 8GB of NAND Flash memory to speed up start times and accelerate frequently accessed data."

 

[ac12]

I concur, the 1.6GHz cpu is behind the power curve for serious photo editing.
When I was at my nephew's wedding, I only did the minimum amount of editing there, for only a couple dozen photos. My laptop was taking too long to process the images. Just not enough horsepower.
I did ALL the images at home on my mini-tower (4 cores and 3.2GHz).

Also when photo editing, do not run other applications, as they suck CPU cycles from the photo editor, and make the editor run slower.

 

[Light Guru]

You will probably see more performance increase by getting a SSD hard drive.