I have reasonably large (20k) catalogs, and Im trying to improve the speed that I can scroll through the thumbnails. If I scroll through 40-60 images and stop, it takes a half second for LR to catch up with the high quality preview and especially the common photo settings and capture time that I have displayed with the thumbnails. This even happens when I select smaller (300 photo) folders within the catalog. Ideally I would like to improve the time it takes LR to present those previews and information, and was wondering what hardware improvements I can make to do that.
I currently run an i7-970 (hexcore). 24gb Ram (though LR never uses even a third of that). LR and Win 7 64 on SSD 1 (SATA 2). Catalog, 1:1 previews, and photos on SSD 2(SATA 3). Decent 512mb video card with CUDA. Motherboard is SATA 2.
The upgrade I was thinking about was to the processor to either the SB-E i7-3930 (hexcore) or one of the higher end Ivy Bridge (quadcore) when they come out. I would also look into getting a new motherboard that supports SATA 3.
Is improving the processor likely to help, and if so, is this something where having 6 cores would help (i7-3930) or more just the overall processor speed (Ivy Bridge). Or is the bottleneck in the motherboard, where I would upgrade from SATA 2 to SATA 3?
(I dont think improving the graphics card would help, as my understanding is that LR really doesnt use it. And dont think more RAM would help, as LR only uses a fraction of what I have).
Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks,
So basically no matter what I do, its likely the problem will persist? I was hoping that it was a processor or SATA 2 issue.
Its always surprised me more then a little bit that even the text like 'Common Photo Settings' or 'Capture Time' takes so long to resolve. How much memory can that take?
While I applaud the developers for working hard to keep it so LR can work on 2 gb for slower computers, I really wish it would take advantage of more memory for computers that have it (12, 18 24 gb). Ive never seen LR use more then 7 gb. Sort of a waste, especially when it can be used to cache likely future views and actions (such as scrolling down).
A year or two ago, I set up a small test catalog along with images and all caches on a RAM drive. It wasn't much faster than with an SSD or hard drive. It prooves that that's a limitation of software architecture.
So, at least as far as storage and interfaces are concerned, you cannot do much better than what you have now. A (even) faster CPU could help. Perhaps you'll go from 0.5 sec down to 0.4.
Europe, Middle East and Africa