24 Replies Latest reply: Jul 3, 2012 6:58 AM by kwdaves RSS

    LR4 not using enough RAM - Make it more aggressive/faster?

    Bruce in Philly

      I know this is a really odd question, but I just built a new machine and installed 32GB of RAM.  My desktop widget denotes that I never use more than 5.6GB, I would like LR4 to use more to go faster.  Why won't it?

       

      As I write this, I have LR4 open, Firefox 10, Skype, Foobar (music player), and Outlook 2007.  With all of this open, the total RAM being used is 5.6GB.  Closing or opening other apps does not affect LR4 performance in any way.  I know, a good problem to have - but why won't LR use more RAM to go faster?

       

      Performance symptom:  5D MkII RAWs, Develop module.  Click on one pic, takes about 3 seconds to snap, next pic the same etc etc.  Go back one and it is instant.  Go back one more and I am back to 3 second rendering.  Why won't LR4 keep these things in memory when I have so much idle?  It appears to only hold the pic you are working on and the last one only.

       

      I know this is odd as most want LR to use RAM efficiently.... I say fine, let it be slothful and take advantage of all that room.  Is there a "sloth slider" in there somewhere?  ;-)

       

      My rig:

      Win 7 Pro x64

      Processor:  i7-3930K  3.2GHz (3.8GHz Turbo)

      Motherboard: ASUS Sabertooth X79 LGA 2011

      Ram: CORSAIR DOMINATOR 32GB (4 x 8GB)

      C: Three (3) 7200RPM drives RAID 0  (catalog is here in default loc)

      I: Dedicated, small 7200RPM drive on Southbridge dedicated for application caching (I have allocated 50GB RAW cache there in LR)

       

      In short, I have a screaming fast machine.... why isn't my rendering faster?  I built this specifically for LR4 (old machine was really old).  Again, I know I am complaining when most are struggling with long times but I will tell you, if I can't get this thing faster, don't waste your money on RAM and super processor as LR may not be able to take advantage of it.

       

      Ideas?

        • 1. Re: LR4 not using enough RAM - Make it more aggressive/faster?
          Lee Jay Community Member

          It'll use what it needs.  More memory is only faster if you were running out and paging before adding it.

          • 2. Re: LR4 not using enough RAM - Make it more aggressive/faster?
            Dorin Nicolaescu-Musteață Community Member

            I think you have wasted a lot of money.

            • 3. Re: LR4 not using enough RAM - Make it more aggressive/faster?
              Jeff Schewe Community Member

              Bruce in Philly wrote:

               

              As I write this, I have LR4 open, Firefox 10, Skype, Foobar (music player), and Outlook 2007.  With all of this open, the total RAM being used is 5.6GB.  Closing or opening other apps does not affect LR4 performance in any way.  I know, a good problem to have - but why won't LR use more RAM to go faster?

               

               

              Uh huh...Develop doesn't really suck a lot of ram, but it does suck a lot of rocessor clicks which you are stealing by running other apps in the background. And regarding the HDs, well, those don't sound very fast (how did you create the RAID 0, hardware based or software based?) and fast drives help LR performance since so much ends up happening between the app and the HDs.

               

              32gigs of ram is fine if you are working high rez multi-layered files in Photoshop, but LR just doesn't need a lot of ram. It needs processor clicks (with multiple cores) and fast HDs...

              • 4. Re: LR4 not using enough RAM - Make it more aggressive/faster?
                Bruce in Philly Community Member

                Thanx Jeff,

                 

                I have have the three 7200 RMP drives as Raid 0 using the Intel controller chip built into my motherboard; the software is the Intel Raid software that comes with the board and chip.  By the way, I allocated 10 Gig to a RamDrive and moved the RAW cache file there and it had no effect on rendering in Develop.  Given my screaming fast processor, did I hit some kind of wall in Adobe LR4 performance?  Oh and I imported using 1:1.

                 

                Regarding closing apps as they steal processor cycles:  I notice absolutly no difference in performance with them running versus a clean boot and fire up only LR4.  Given this, I suspect the weak link is I/O no?

                 

                What do you think about moving my catalog onto the RamDrive also.  This makes me nervous although I have RamDisk flush to disk every 600 seconds.

                 

                Then a question you probably can't answer: given I have a screaming processor, i7-3930K  3.2GHz (3.8GHz Turbo), what kind of performance gain would I get with an SSD?

                 

                Thanx so much for your help.  By the way, you do awsome work!  Sheesh!  I want to toss my camera into the river!

                • 5. Re: LR4 not using enough RAM - Make it more aggressive/faster?
                  MarkDVNetherlands

                  Try to disable noise reduction during developing and apply that afterwards. That did the trick for me!

                  • 6. Re: LR4 not using enough RAM - Make it more aggressive/faster?
                    CatOne Community Member

                    What do you have your camera RAW cache set to?  Is it the default 1 GB? Get an SSD and put the cache there and set the cache to 100 GB.  That will have more results than this windmill tilting you're going at.

                     

                    RAM disk?  3 drive RAID 0?  Crazy.  You're increasing the odds of losing your data colossally (unless you're doing a full backup hourly, which will slow things), for small increases in performance with what you're doing.

                     

                    It sounds like Lightroom benchmarking is the new Quake 3 benchmarking for you ;-)

                     

                    Also... how often are you actually changing files in develop and lettting them render?  Think about your workflow: With 1:1 previews you can do all your rating/keywording/etc. there.  ONLY AFTER you've gotten down to your specific set of photos to work on, should you go to Develop and start doing so.  And then spend a lot more time working on them than you do switching between them.  Workflow will increase your "performance" with Lightroom 100x over throwing more hardware at the problem.

                    • 7. Re: LR4 not using enough RAM - Make it more aggressive/faster?
                      trshaner Community Member

                      What size monitor(s) and what preview settings are you using in LR's Catalog Settings?

                       

                      Also check out Lee Jay's LR4.1 tips here:

                       

                      http://forums.adobe.com/message/4450385#4450385

                      • 8. Re: LR4 not using enough RAM - Make it more aggressive/faster?
                        dhphoto2012 Community Member

                        Bruce in Philly wrote:

                         

                        I know this is a really odd question, but I just built a new machine and installed 32GB of RAM.  My desktop widget denotes that I never use more than 5.6GB, I would like LR4 to use more to go faster.  Why won't it?

                         

                        As I write this, I have LR4 open, Firefox 10, Skype, Foobar (music player), and Outlook 2007.  With all of this open, the total RAM being used is 5.6GB.  Closing or opening other apps does not affect LR4 performance in any way.  I know, a good problem to have - but why won't LR use more RAM to go faster?

                         

                        Performance symptom:  5D MkII RAWs, Develop module.  Click on one pic, takes about 3 seconds to snap, next pic the same etc etc.  Go back one and it is instant.  Go back one more and I am back to 3 second rendering.  Why won't LR4 keep these things in memory when I have so much idle?  It appears to only hold the pic you are working on and the last one only.

                         

                        I know this is odd as most want LR to use RAM efficiently.... I say fine, let it be slothful and take advantage of all that room.  Is there a "sloth slider" in there somewhere?  ;-)

                         

                        My rig:

                        Win 7 Pro x64

                        Processor:  i7-3930K  3.2GHz (3.8GHz Turbo)

                        Motherboard: ASUS Sabertooth X79 LGA 2011

                        Ram: CORSAIR DOMINATOR 32GB (4 x 8GB)

                        C: Three (3) 7200RPM drives RAID 0  (catalog is here in default loc)

                        I: Dedicated, small 7200RPM drive on Southbridge dedicated for application caching (I have allocated 50GB RAW cache there in LR)

                         

                        In short, I have a screaming fast machine.... why isn't my rendering faster?  I built this specifically for LR4 (old machine was really old).  Again, I know I am complaining when most are struggling with long times but I will tell you, if I can't get this thing faster, don't waste your money on RAM and super processor as LR may not be able to take advantage of it.

                         

                        Ideas?

                         

                        Can't afford a Porsche then?

                        • 9. Re: LR4 not using enough RAM - Make it more aggressive/faster?
                          web-weaver Community Member

                          RAM has to be seen in context of your other hardware components. Your system cannot us emore RAM than what the processor is able to put through. If the processor is running at max in-/output then more RAM just sits idle.

                          I would also assume that the bottleneck in your system are with the hard drives, the read / write times are probably maxed out.

                          In Win 7 Pro you can check the performance of your components. Go >Control Panel >System >View amount of RAM and Processor speed >Windows Experience Index.

                          You will see different numbers for processor, memory, graphics, and primary hard disk. The higher the number thne better the speed.

                          On my system the primary hard disk shows the lowest number, so that is the bottle neck. Since all of your hard drives are identical, all of your hard drives will have the same performance number as your primary disk.

                           

                          Frankly, you have way too much RAM *). I have 12 GB and it is rarely maxed out. It would have been better if you had invested in SSD drives which are much faster than spinning drives.

                           

                          A system is only as good or fast as its slowest / weakest component. It simply doesn't make sense to go overboard with one component only.

                          If I were you - and if I had the budget - I would get at least one SSD (for primary disk) and I would get a more prowerful processor. i.e. Xeon.

                          With processors it's not only speed that counts, equally important is data through-put.

                          It's just like with a water pipe. You can have a very small-diameter pipe and run it with high pressure. But you won't get as much water through it as when you use a large diameter pipe.

                           

                           

                          *) in relation to your other components.

                           

                          Message was edited by: web-weaver (footnote added)

                          • 10. Re: LR4 not using enough RAM - Make it more aggressive/faster?
                            trshaner Community Member

                            web-weaver wrote:

                             

                             

                            If I were you - and if I had the budget - I would get at least one SSD (for primary disk) and I would get a more prowerful processor. i.e. Xeon.

                            With processors it's not only speed that counts, equally important is data through-put.

                            It's just like with a water pipe. You can have a very small-diameter pipe and run it with high pressure. But you won't get as much water through it as when you use a large diameter pipe.

                             

                             

                            It's already been established that SSDs add marginal improvement in LR's performance and the OPs  i7-3930K 3.2GHz processor is already at the very high-end performance level:

                             

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

                             

                            http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html

                             

                            I'd say there are other issues at work here and spending another $500 to $1,000 in hardware upgrades is not the solution.

                            • 11. Re: LR4 not using enough RAM - Make it more aggressive/faster?
                              Bruce in Philly Community Member

                              Thanx all for your advice.... So, I just installed an SSD.  My rendering speed in Develop is now about 1.5 seconds.  So this one upgrade, holding everything else equal, resulted in about a 50% decrease in rendering speed.

                               

                              Some bullets you may find interesting and to address some of the above:

                              • RAMDisk did nothing for performance so I removed it from my system
                              • Note that I replaced a three-disk RAID 0 drive set for the SSD.  If you don't have a RAID 0 config, your improvement may be a bit better.
                              • Yes, I wasted money with all that RAM.  On another topic, I reconfigured FireFox (before SSD install) to use RAM Cache (not RamDisk) and that really sped up internet usage.  I tried putting FF cache on RAMDisk but did not see any real performance gains.  Try this link for this FF tip.
                              • RAID 0 vs single HD: Yes, the incremental gains are not great but they are there and worth it given the low cost of HDDs.  Your motherboard must have the RAID controller chip on board, as mine does, to do this or you will need to install a special card.  Note that total space is sort of additive for RAID 0; I installed three 320GB 7200RPM drives which yielded around 840GB total.  In other words, the C: Drive shows 840 space as the operating system does not see three drives but only one.
                              • Regarding the risk of data loss from system failure: yes I am at a higher risk no doubt.  RAID 0 with three drives ups the odds of total data loss by X3 as any one drive failure kills all data.  The RAMDisk is similar in that if the system freezes, all data in the RAMdrive is lost.  But, I do full backups and clone the RAID 0 drive to a 1TB drive using Acronis after I do photo work or load my RAWs from my camera card.  The RAMDisk flushes every 20 minutes or so and the data at that flush will be automatically restored at reboot (although I removed RAMDisk capability now).  Yes I am at risk but it is not too bad given my mitigation approach.  And, given I have a cloned drive already installed in my machine (Acronis can clone a RAID to a regular HDD), the machine will bypass the bad RAID array and boot to the clone and I am running as before less data from the last clone procedure... cool.
                              • Regarding using Library and 1:1 previews:  Yes, I was ignorant of this simple approach.  I didn't realize I could do 1:1 previews so I was dissapointed with the quality of Library thumbs and would use Develop for simple accept/reject processing.  I have been shooting birds over the last few years and even with my monster 500mm Canon lens, I do heavy cropping as these birds are small.  So getting perfect focus and a still bird is critical for accept/reject and to do that, I need really good thumbs.  Thanx for that tip and I think others could benefit from it.
                              • Regarding performance with other programs being open:  I did a bunch of benchmarks and I see no difference in rendering or other activity speeds with many apps open.  Kudos to the authors of Win 7 for this and maybe soem of that extra RAM helps here.
                              • Regarding the performance of my processor, the i7-3930K 3.2GHz (3.8GHz Turbo):  When I purchase it, it was the 2nd fasted desktop processor on the market and as I write this, is the fifth fasted and half the price of the other superior chips at $570.  This thing is plenty fast and given it is a new chip, the Adobe developers used less horepower (unless they use some tech I am not familiar with).  Click here for the Passmark CPU benchmark test results.
                              • The SSD I purchase is the just-out SanDisk 480 GB Extreme which received great reviews.  I snagged it from BHphoto for $449 - NewEgg, my usual source, had it for $570!!!  This price is significant as it breaks the $1 per gig threshold.
                              • From what I have been reading and from my 25+ years of experience in IT, performance gains are dependent on what/where is the weakest link.  My over-expenditure on RAM is classic in that a low-RAM machine will see great gains with more RAM, but only up to a point at which some other item becomes important and you (me) waste money.
                              • FWIW, my monitor is 24" 1920 X 1200
                              • RAW Cache is set 100GB, Catalog, cache, and the pictures I am working on are all on the SSD.  After I work on a folder/picture set, I plan on keeping them on the SSD for a few weeks until I know I am done with them, then I will move the RAWs to my D: drive which is now my old RAID 0 array.  So my SSD will only have "active" RAWs on them but always the cache and catalog.  Any tips on how to do this better or what I am doing wrong is appreciated.

                               

                              Comments appreciated, this is how I learn.

                              You can stop by my photo blog where I try to give tips to amatuers and write with humor (check out my entry for beer, courage and photography):  TravelThroughPictures.com

                              • 12. Re: LR4 not using enough RAM - Make it more aggressive/faster?
                                trshaner Community Member

                                I have no doubt that you are seeing an improvement when "working" in the Develop module using an SSD for both the Camera Raw cache AND your raw image files. What I do doubt is that the SSD is speeding up your original complaint of merely "browsing" images in the Develop module (with no additional adjustments made).

                                 

                                The Develop module uses the Camera Raw cache for imaging and my 5D MKII raw cache images are typically about 500 KB. Time to read and write 500KB with a single 7,200 rpm HDD (50MB/s+ transfer speed) is about 0.02 seconds. Time to render in the develop module is 95%+ processor related. For example, compare my Windows 7 system to your current system:

                                 

                                My system                                    Your System

                                i7-860 2.8GHz (Passmark 520)       i7-3930K 3.2GHz (Passmark 13,585)

                                12GB Memory                               32GB Memory

                                1TB Hitachi 7,200 HDD (~80MB/s)  480GB SSD (~400MB/s)

                                1920 x 1080 monitor                      ????        

                                3.0 sec. LR Develop browse time    1.5 sec. LR Develop browse time

                                 

                                Your processor performance is about 13,585/520 = 2.4x that of mine, but your SSD is 400/80 = 5x faster! Yet your LR browsing is only 2x, which correlates well with the Passmark processor spec difference.

                                 

                                With the above system I am very happy with LR4.1 final's speed when processing my 5D MKII 21Mp raw files, even with 3.0 sec Develop rendering. I typically spend a few minutes on each picture in the Develop module, so an additional 3 seconds is not an issue. For "browsing" I use the Library module, which is like "greased lighing" on my modest system.

                                 

                                I know there are many, many other people with much higher performance systems who are complaining in the forum of poor performance with LR4. That is why I said there are other issues, such as degradation when using very high display resolution (2,560 x 1,600) and dual displays. I'm sure there are other reasons yet to be identified.

                                 

                                I just wanted to set the record straight that at least one person in this forum is getting good performance with LR4.1 on Windows 7 using a modest system (HP HPE-170t desktop $1,250 including the 25" monitor).

                                • 13. Re: LR4 not using enough RAM - Make it more aggressive/faster?
                                  Bruce in Philly Community Member

                                  Good data trshaner.  I don't know what really accounts for my increase in speed but I did experience it and the only variable was the SSD.  Maybe there is much more IO going on that just the RAW file transfer.  Windows or even LR may be doing a ton of IO moving programs around and we used to call "system house keeping" to process the click on the next RAW.  I don't know.  One thing that I don't see much of is the impact of a graphics card in all of this.  I have an EVGA GTS 450 graphics card that has been a consistant component in my system for a long time now...... Hmmmm.....  There has to be more than just CPU image crunching and the RAW IO going on... my processor widget shows a high usage of 41% when clicking on the next RAW in Develop, in a quick, short pop of activity.  When I am rendering 1:1 previews, all 6 processors (12 threads) are almost pegged during this rendering process (stop/start as it crunches and then low activity as I suspect I/O is going on).  I wish there was a way to measure the percentage of time of high CPU crunching vs IO activity.

                                   

                                  Anyway, I am done chasing phantoms for now and won't throw any more money at this rig for a long while now.  I use my computer for much more than Photo processing and it is a hobby of mine so I don't mind doing it; it is kind of a sick entertainment for me.  In my years of owning PCs going back to 1983 and owning the first IBM PC, I learned that buying/upgrading to a very high performance machine (purchasing just under the highest price stuff), can last me around 3 to 4 years before another app comes along requiring any change.  LR4 required me to upgrade from Windows XP and the super board and processor that I had for about 5 years during which I did almost no changes to that machine (it was still super fast for everything I did except LR and I got around $120 for the old board/processor on eBay).  For this last upgrade, I didn't need to change my whole machine as I reused the computer case, monitor, power supply, DVD drive, old drives, keyboard etc. etc. so it was actually reasonable compared with buying a whole new multi-media portable or whole new computer.   Nothing annoys me more than incrementally diddling with machinery because I am unhappy with some aspect of performance during normal usage.  So, splurging over say a two month period of upgrade work gives me years of peace.  Believe it or not, I am not persistant fiddler, I just want it over with and done right.

                                  • 14. Re: LR4 not using enough RAM - Make it more aggressive/faster?
                                    web-weaver Community Member

                                    Bruce in Philly wrote:

                                     

                                    Maybe there is much more IO going on that just the RAW file transfer.  Windows or even LR may be doing a ton of IO moving programs around ...

                                    Keep in mind that Lr constantly updates the catalog, so there is a lot of read- / write cycles going on. When you work in Lr in the Develop Module everything you do is immediately saved to the catalog and read back for display. The amount of data might not be very much for a single develop step but - as you add more develop steps - the drive where the catalog resides is constantly reading / writing.

                                    Now if you have <Save changes automatically to XMP> checked, there are additional read / write cycles for the drive where your photos reside.

                                     

                                    Therefore it is preferred that the catalog and the photos are on different (physical) drives.

                                    • 15. Re: LR4 not using enough RAM - Make it more aggressive/faster?
                                      Bruce in Philly Community Member

                                      web-weaver wrote:

                                      Now if you have <Save changes automatically to XMP> checked, there are additional read / write cycles for the drive where your photos reside.

                                       

                                      Therefore it is preferred that the catalog and the photos are on different (physical) drives.

                                      Ok, so different drives to avoid I/O contention?  If so, then go further and make sure each drive is on a different controller chip (south bridge and north bridge; sometimes denoted as Intel and Marvel controllers).

                                       

                                      What is "automatically to XMP" all about?  What am I losing and gaining with this item checked?

                                       

                                      Good stuff, thanx.

                                      • 16. Re: LR4 not using enough RAM - Make it more aggressive/faster?
                                        web-weaver Community Member

                                        Bruce in Philly wrote:

                                         

                                        Ok, so different drives to avoid I/O contention?

                                        Yes, exactly.

                                         

                                         

                                        Bruce in Philly wrote:

                                         

                                         

                                        What is "automatically to XMP" all about?

                                        Writing changes to XMP is an option in Lr.

                                        You can save to XMP automatically by going >Edit >Catalog Settings > Metadata tab and check the box <Automatically write change sinto XMP>.

                                        You can save to XMP manually by using Ctrl. + "S" (letter S on keyboard) or

                                        a) in the Library Module going > Metadata > Save Metadata to File, or

                                        b) in the Develop Module going >Photo > Save Metadata to File.

                                         

                                        What it does:

                                        You know that Lr saves everything in its data base = the catalog. The catalog is a file that is separate and in a different location than your image file.

                                        In addition you can save to XMP which saves the changes to your image file. In the case of a Raw image file a xmp-file (side-car file) is created; in case of a JPG, TIFF. PSD the Lr changes are written into (the header of) the file - but not into the image pixels!

                                        This XMP-option makes it possible that other Adobe programs (that can read XMP-files) can read the Lr changes and display them - for instance Adobe Bridge.

                                        Also, Adobe Bridge can write XMP-files that Lr can read - via <Read Metadata from file>.

                                        If you don't use another Adobe program that is XMP-capable (XMP is not necessary for Photoshop CS ...) then you don't need the option of <Save Metadata to XMP>. *)

                                         

                                        *) PS: although it can be a life-saver when your catalog is corrupt and you don't have a backup.

                                         

                                        Message was edited by: web-weaver: footnote added

                                        • 17. Re: LR4 not using enough RAM - Make it more aggressive/faster?
                                          Bruce in Philly Community Member

                                          web-weaver wrote:

                                           

                                          This XMP-option makes it possible that other Adobe programs (that can read XMP-files) can read the Lr changes and display them - for instance Adobe Bridge.

                                          Also, Adobe Bridge can write XMP-files that Lr can read - via <Read Metadata from file>.

                                          If you don't use another Adobe program that is XMP-capable (XMP is not necessary for Photoshop CS ...) then you don't need the option of <Save Metadata to XMP>. *)

                                           

                                          *) PS: although it can be a life-saver when your catalog is corrupt and you don't have a backup.

                                           

                                           

                                          Great stuff, thanx.  I am opting to not activate this due to a few things: 1) I don't use other photo processing programs, and 2) I back up and clone my drives with one-click regularity and LR makes a series of catalog backups.  So I don't think I need this and the cost appears to be a performance hit.  From the reading I have done, I can invoke this on old RAWs when and if I want to in the future.   I think........

                                          • 18. Re: LR4 not using enough RAM - Make it more aggressive/faster?
                                            web-weaver Community Member

                                            Bruce in Philly wrote:

                                             

                                            Great stuff, thanx.  I am opting to not activate this due to a few things:

                                            That makes sense in your workflow.

                                            • 19. Re: LR4 not using enough RAM - Make it more aggressive/faster?
                                              mZedperX

                                              Hello everyone !

                                               

                                              For me this theme is very interesting. Thank you !

                                               

                                              I would like to find out if a top powerfull & expensive PC will perform better than a high level & not so expensive one in LR. I'm trying to choose between i7 3770 and i7 3820. The 3820 is the entry level to the 4 channel memory transfer.

                                               

                                              Bruce, your workstation should be a great performer with a very large amount of RAW files. For example - if you want to load 1000 files or more, that meens 15+ GB and process them at once. It will be really disappointing if LR can not use the hardware.

                                              • 20. Re: LR4 not using enough RAM - Make it more aggressive/faster?
                                                Bruce in Philly Community Member

                                                mZedperX:

                                                 

                                                There are two issues, as I see it, in your post.  The 1st, is how much machine to buy to get great performance, and the 2nd is related LR use of memory.  Regarding the 1st:  I don't know where the inflection point is to great performance; in other words, at what point to you get great performance above which you waste your money.  I don't know where this point is or what components are more impactful on performance.  It appears to me, from reading many posts on performance, what is needed tends to be related to what is the weakest (slowest) component of a person's existing machine.   I read some stuff where a solid state drive is not important but for me it was - but I think my disks were the weakest point.  I have read that Adobe software is massively processor intensive so you need the latest processor architectures.... other times I read it is a more RAM that is needed. 

                                                 

                                                My buddy who has a slower, quad-core processor, Windows 7, 6 gig of RAM, and an SSD drive, just installed a real fast graphics card ($250 EVGA) and LR4 performance increased by 25% - what I was reading was any modern graphics card will do but in my friend's case, the graphics card was important.  

                                                 

                                                In short, I don't know what to believe.... not that anyone out there is wrong or lying, but I think it all has to do with what your weakest link is and what you find acceptable/not acceptable performance.  For me, since I buy/upgrade machines infrequently, I like to throw money at a machine, get ahead of the curve, forget about the issue, and enjoy great performance for many years.  I did, apparently, buy way to much RAM.

                                                 

                                                For 2:  LR appears, to me, written by Adobe engineers to be RAM stingy.  Maybe they figured that too little RAM is the biggest issue facing their users so they wrote the program to be conservative with RAM resource.  I dunno, I am making this up, but clearly, LR does not know how to take advantage of the lonely bytes sitting in waiting on my computer.  Is this really a Win 7 issue?  I have no clue, but for whatever reason, I purchased way too much RAM.  Everything else I did appears to have enhanced performance.

                                                 

                                                Bruce

                                                • 21. Re: LR4 not using enough RAM - Make it more aggressive/faster?
                                                  areohbee Community Member

                                                  I'd also like to see Lightroom cache renderings in ram when in develop module, to maximize the odds that next photo chosen need not be re-rendered from near-scratch.

                                                   

                                                  Note: As it stands, exactly 4 images are cached in ram (the most recent 4), regardless of ram available.

                                                  • 22. Re: LR4 not using enough RAM - Make it more aggressive/faster?
                                                    mZedperX Community Member

                                                    Thank you Bruce,

                                                     

                                                    For me the price of the PC is not so important - as yourself - I'm not buying a computer every day. So I'm sharing your way of thinking. You have build a top level personal workstation, I think. Did you test it's performance with ... 20 GB RAW files loaded to enjoy the 51.2 GB/s Memory Bandwidth ? For me, if that works, here is the reason to choose a 4-channel memory machine when the LR performance is the aim. [No doubt it will be still a great PC for 3D rendering & so on.]

                                                     

                                                    A 3D rendering frantic - a friend of mine & high end PC dealer - claims the combination SSD+HDD, when the SDD is configured to be a cash for the HDD, increases drastically the performance. I just recorded this for later.

                                                     

                                                    Here you could find an interview with Mr.Russell Williams - the PhotoShop top architect:

                                                    ... we should spend a lot of time on bandwidth issues. Photoshop is munging pixels, so the number of times that pixels have to be moved from here to there is a huge issue, and we pay attention to every time in the processing pipeline that happens. Quite often, that’s more the limiting factor than just computation being done on the pixels. In particular, when you have discrete graphics, there is an expensive step of moving the pixels to the graphics card and back...

                                                    All is interesting to read.

                                                    http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/photoshop-cs6-gimp-aftershot-pro,review-32461-7.html

                                                     

                                                    Anyway - you have a great PC, I hope you are enjoying it.

                                                    • 23. Re: LR4 not using enough RAM - Make it more aggressive/faster?
                                                      Hawaii-Geek Community Member

                                                      Bruce,

                                                      I totally understand your need for speed.

                                                      Also looking for ways to boost my  LRv4.1 PERFORMANCE.     Brushes come to mind.

                                                       

                                                      Have a simular set up to you.   i7 ASUS MOBO , 24gb of Tri-channel ram ,  256gb SSD on my OS drive, 3TB Seagate XT on my image drive.  Win7 PRO 64-bit

                                                      My weak link seems to be my ATI RADEON HD4670 512MB , that turns in a Win7 performance index at 6.8 / 6.8  which is by far the weak number.  Is there a card that can give me a bump to say 8.0?

                                                      I also run some Droplets/Actions out to PS CS5.

                                                       

                                                      p.s.  I  "did" notice a Boost in speed in LRv4 when I changed my OS drive (that has the LR cataloge and cache ... and Win7 swap)   to a 256gb SSD.  

                                                      It was way more of a bump in speed vs the upgrade from 6gb tri-channel to 24gb tri-channel.  PS CS5 liked the 24gb of tri-channel more than LRv4 did.

                                                       

                                                      NOW,  I am hopping for someone that  give me a web store link to a Video Card that will give me more SPEED in LRv4.1  at least to Win7 Performance Index 8. ???

                                                      The index bump is find,  but what I really want is to notice a speed increase when working in LRv4.1

                                                       

                                                      Running  Nikon D800 36mp RAWs.   a lot of them.

                                                       

                                                      HG

                                                       

                                                      • 24. Re: LR4 not using enough RAM - Make it more aggressive/faster?
                                                        kwdaves Community Member

                                                        1. Unless Adobe sneaked it in without telling any of us, LR4.X still does not use the graphics card. The Windows Experience Index ifor a graphics card is essentially irrelevant to Lightroom's performance.

                                                         

                                                        2. When Local/Targeted Adjustments were introduced with LR2, complaints about Lightroom slowing down to a crawl and sometimes freezing began to pour in on this forum. Adobe responded by "throwing RAM" at the program and we began to see "Out Of Memory" errors and crashes on 32 bit versions of Windows, as well as huge RAM usage on 64 bit versions of Windows and Macs. Be careful what you wish for. That is the reason that Lightroom limits RAM usage on 32 bit versions of Windows to 716MB. Who knows what the limit is for a 64 bit OS.

                                                         

                                                        3. The camera matters. It takes more processing power, including RAM, to process an image from a 36MP camera than it does a mere mortal camera.