3 ms·

There's no real benefit of that much RAM in Lightroom (Premiere Pro is a different story). I also don't need spinning disk storage as I have a 12TB NAS (which i

There's no real benefit of that much RAM in Lightroom (Premiere Pro is a different story). I also don't need spinning disk storage as I have a 12TB NAS (which is 3 years old, I can probably replace all the disks for 10TB models) for when I archive my shots, so faster M.2 SSDs were a priority. The dual CPU setup doesn't help Lightroom either -- it's not terribly efficient for multiple cores so I can't imagine it would do any better for dual CPUs. I'm trying to find the adobe faq on the topic I thought I've read about that. Quadro has some merit if I wanted a 10-bit workflow since I already have a 10-bit panel.. but I did kinda want to dabble in some gaming and VR with this build as a side-benefit so I went with a GTX card.

SubiculumCode 9y ago
I'm clueless when it comes to graphics cards. Yeah, in your case, you might really want to just massively overclock a few cores. :)
SubiculumCode 9y ago
I work with huge 3d images my self 600x600x600 pixels/voxels, can become quite demanding when calculating warps, etc.
sumoboy 9y ago
Running latest lightroom on a 1950x w/1080ti card and CPU % doesn't go beyond 20%. Just unfortunate all this computing power is wasted.
- paulmd 9y ago
  Oddly, Lightroom does not parallelize across multiple photos in a job. Try cutting your photos into smaller batches and launching multiple batches in parallel. You would figure that's an obvious and simple feature to offer, at least as an option.
paulmd 9y ago
> There's no real benefit of that much RAM in Lightroom This really depends on what you are editing. 13mp snaps from your ancient DSLR? Yeah, no point. 52mp snaps from your digital medium-format camera? You'll probably want more than you'd think. 4x5 or 8x10 negative scans? Open the bloodgates. (and remember that by default Lightroom does not parallelize across multiple photos within a batch job, so multiply your measurements by 4x or whatever if you're going to be launching multiple batch jobs at once to fully occupy a high-end processor.) 128 GB is overkill, but there's a solid justification for at least 32 GB or 64 GB for power-user situations.
semi-extrinsic 9y ago
That dual CPU setup gets you 4x the memory performance though... Which is likely your main bottleneck.

SubiculumCode 9y ago

I'm clueless when it comes to graphics cards. Yeah, in your case, you might really want to just massively overclock a few cores. :)

SubiculumCode 9y ago

I work with huge 3d images my self 600x600x600 pixels/voxels, can become quite demanding when calculating warps, etc.

sumoboy 9y ago

Running latest lightroom on a 1950x w/1080ti card and CPU % doesn't go beyond 20%. Just unfortunate all this computing power is wasted.

paulmd 9y ago
Oddly, Lightroom does not parallelize across multiple photos in a job. Try cutting your photos into smaller batches and launching multiple batches in parallel. You would figure that's an obvious and simple feature to offer, at least as an option.

paulmd 9y ago

> There's no real benefit of that much RAM in Lightroom This really depends on what you are editing. 13mp snaps from your ancient DSLR? Yeah, no point. 52mp snaps from your digital medium-format camera? You'll probably want more than you'd think. 4x5 or 8x10 negative scans? Open the bloodgates. (and remember that by default Lightroom does not parallelize across multiple photos within a batch job, so multiply your measurements by 4x or whatever if you're going to be launching multiple batch jobs at once to fully occupy a high-end processor.) 128 GB is overkill, but there's a solid justification for at least 32 GB or 64 GB for power-user situations.

semi-extrinsic 9y ago

That dual CPU setup gets you 4x the memory performance though... Which is likely your main bottleneck.