Any suggestions for improvement for a i7 4771 Lightroom rig?

[el_jefe]

Hey guys! I have a quick question.

I recently upgraded my machine to speed-up my Lightroom work. I mostly edit 22.1 mpix files from a Canon 5D Mark II on two 24" monitors and also do the usual daily stuff of course: browsing, office stuff, a Plex server streaming to a Chromecast etc.).

Here's what I've got currently:

• Coolermaster CM690 II Advance case
• Asus H87-Pro
• Coolermaster 212 Evo heatsink with one Noctua NF-F12 fan pulling air through the heatsink and out to the rear fan
• Noctua NF-F12 rear exhaust fan
• Noctual NF-A14 front intake fan
• Intel i7 4771 (don't plan on OCing since I want to keep the machine cool, quiet and at lower power consumption)
• 2x2gb A-DATA DDR3 CL9 PC-10666
• 2x8gb Exceleram DDR3 CL9 PC-10666
• 240 GB Samsung 840 SSD for OS, LR5 catalogs, preview and cache data
• 1 TB Samsung 7200 rpm HDD
• 1 TB WD 5400 HDD
• 3 TB WD 5400 HDD
• OS: Windows 8.1 Pro

Here are my questions:

• Is there anything I can do to dramatically increase performance and/or quiet and cool operation of the system?
• Would replacing the RAM with 1600mhz modules (the max supported by my mobo) increase performance tangibly?
• HDinfo reports that the RAM is running at 667mhz, although it's 1333mzh RAM. That's normal because of dual channel mode, right?
• What do you think about my cooling config? Is there anything I can do to make the system cooler / quieter?

Thanks for the help in advance!


Here's the info from HWinfo:

Computer: ASUS All Series
CPU: Intel Core i7-4771 (Haswell-DT, C0)
3500 MHz (35.00x100.0) @ 798 MHz (8.00x99.8)
Motherboard: ASUS H87-PRO
Chipset: Intel H87 (Lynx Point)
Memory: 12288 MBytes @ 665 MHz, 9.0-9-9-24
- 2048 MB PC10600 DDR3 SDRAM - A-DATA Technology DDR3 1333+
- 4096 MB PC10600 DDR3 SDRAM - Unknown E30115B
- 2048 MB PC10600 DDR3 SDRAM - A-DATA Technology DDR3 1333+
- 4096 MB PC10600 DDR3 SDRAM - Unknown E30115B
Graphics: Intel Haswell-DT GT2 - Integrated Graphics Controller [AsusTek]
Intel HD Graphics 4600, 2112 MB
Drive: Samsung SSD 840 Series, 244.2 GB, Serial ATA 6Gb/s @ 6Gb/s
Drive: WDC WD30EZRX-00D8PB0, 2930.3 GB, Serial ATA 6Gb/s @ 6Gb/s
Drive: SAMSUNG HD103SJ, 976.8 GB, Serial ATA 3Gb/s
Drive: WDC WD10EADS-98M2B0, 976.8 GB, Serial ATA 1.5Gb/s
Sound: Intel Haswell - Mini HD Audio Controller
Sound: Intel Lynx Point PCH - High Definition Audio Controller [C2]
Network: RealTek Semiconductor RTL8168/8111 PCI-E Gigabit Ethernet NIC
OS: Microsoft Windows 8.1 Professional (x64) Build 9600

 

[Insert_Nickname]

Here are my questions:

• Is there anything I can do to dramatically increase performance and/or quiet and cool operation of the system?
• Would replacing the RAM with 1600mhz modules (the max supported by my mobo) increase performance tangibly?
• HDinfo reports that the RAM is running at 667mhz, although it's 1333mzh RAM. That's normal because of dual channel mode, right?
• What do you think about my cooling config? Is there anything I can do to make the system cooler / quieter?

Thanks for the help in advance!

You can properly gain a few percent moving to 1600MHz RAM. Is it worth replacing your current kit for? Properly not. Its a little unfortunate you have a H87 board, otherwise with a Z87/Z97 some decent 2133/2400MHz RAM could bring a bit better performance. Not much mind you, and certainly not worth replacing your board over.

If you want to change memory, some 1600MHz with 8-8-8-24 timings is properly the best you can do. Xbitlabs did a nice little write-up on Haswells memory controller a while back, you can try reading it to see what sort of performance increase you can expect with various configs.

About the cooling, just make sure you have decent airflow in your case. You can always try out a few fan setups to see what works best in your case.

 

[el_jefe]

Thanks for the reply and thanks for the link - it looks like a great article, I'll definitely have a look.

Yeah, I was looking at the Z87/Z97 chipset, but since I wasn't planning on OCing at the time I decided to do the upgrade I didn't see any advantages to it worth the almost double price here in Germany. Now I am starting to regret it a little... This started out as a budget upgrade, but now that I've read-up on the subject a little it seems like it would have been possible to build a very quite, cool, OCed machine for another 20-30% more money. Oh well... next time.

The memory came from my old setup, which was over 4 years old. It seems like upgrading to 16gb 1600mzh memory would cost me about 140-150 bucks so it should bring a considerable boost in performance to make it worth for me.

 

[Insert_Nickname]

Yeah, I was looking at the Z87/Z97 chipset, but since I wasn't planning on OCing at the time I decided to do the upgrade I didn't see any advantages to it worth the almost double price here in Germany.

One of the least advertised features of the Z-series chipsets is that it unlocks the memory ratio/dividers on all Intel CPUs (yes, including the locked non-K ones). This allows you to f.x. run an i3 (normally completely locked down) with 2133MHz, 2400MHz or even faster memory. So getting a board with the Z-series chipset can be worthwhile even if you don't intend to overclock, for that reason alone.

 

[el_jefe]

One of the least advertised features of the Z-series chipsets is that it unlocks the memory ratio/dividers on all Intel CPUs (yes, including the locked non-K ones). This allows you to f.x. run an i3 (normally completely locked down) with 2133MHz, 2400MHz or even faster memory. So getting a board with the Z-series chipset can be worthwhile even if you don't intend to overclock, for that reason alone.

I see. I read that article in the meantime - thanks again. It seems to me that even with the Z87 board and the fastest possible memory I wouldn't get more than 10% - 15% increase in performance in real world use. So I guess that leaves overclocking. And I guess it's too late for that as I'd basically have to rebuild the whole rig - return/sell the processor and mobo and sell the memory and then I'll most likely have to reinstall Windows. It's all a little too much hussle right now, unfortunately 🙁

 

[escrow4]

Chuck the 1TB HDD's and replace them with 1TB EVO's. Use one as a scratch disk, the other as an OS disk. Sell off the 240GB SSD. I'd also get a 32GB RAM kit and replace all those mixed modules. That would be about it for that box.

 

[mfenn]

You've got a pretty top-shelf machine there. You're already deep into the territory of diminishing returns.

What escrow suggested would give you an improvement in overall system responsiveness, if not batch processing speed.

Could you make the machine faster for batch Lightroom tasks? Sure, but you'd have to drop a few grand into an 8-core Xeon (or a dual-processor workstation board with a pair of quads).

 

[el_jefe]

Chuck the 1TB HDD's and replace them with 1TB EVO's. Use one as a scratch disk, the other as an OS disk. Sell off the 240GB SSD. I'd also get a 32GB RAM kit and replace all those mixed modules. That would be about it for that box.

Thanks for the suggestions. Would you care to explain your logic? I can see the point with the RAM - more is always better, although I am not sure what does the fact that they are mixed have to do with performance? Also how much performance would you say one can expect from upgrading from 12GB 1330 mhz to 32gb 1600 mhz RAM?

Keeping the Lightroom catalogs and previews on a separate disk does not improve performance, however. Look here: http://www.slrlounge.com/lightroom-lr5-lr4-hardware-performance-test-review/.

Thanks!

 

[el_jefe]

You've got a pretty top-shelf machine there. You're already deep into the territory of diminishing returns.

What escrow suggested would give you an improvement in overall system responsiveness, if not batch processing speed.

Could you make the machine faster for batch Lightroom tasks? Sure, but you'd have to drop a few grand into an 8-core Xeon (or a dual-processor workstation board with a pair of quads).

Hey man, do work a lot in Lightroom too?

 

[Cerb]

[*] Would replacing the RAM with 1600mhz modules (the max supported by my mobo) increase performance tangibly?

Maybe, but not by much, if so.

[*] HDinfo reports that the RAM is running at 667mhz, although it's 1333mzh RAM. That's normal because of dual channel mode, right?

No, it's because it's DDR: Double Data Rate. The speed rating is that which the bits are sent down the line at, 1333MHz. 667MHz is the correct bus speed.

Best I can think of is, short of mfenn's suggestion, research how much you might be able to benefit from a video card, if at all, and see if you can use more than 12GB of RAM. I don't know what high-end needs for Lightroom are, as the users of it I know don't use it are far slower than it is, for their needs.

 

[el_jefe]

Thanks!

I've decided to upgrade to 16gb 1600mhz. It's not so much because of the speed of the memory I have, but because they are mixed kits from different manufacturers and with different voltages even. The 4gb kit is rated at 1.67 volts on the label on the memory and the 8gb is rated at 1.5. My BIOS defaults them to 1.5. Not sure if that would necessarily lead to problems, but the potential is there and I won't have the time and motivation to do troubleshooting once the system is built and ready to use... Also 4gb of additional memory won't be bad 🙂

Lightroom cannot use GPU acceleration yet. It can't even use multithreading properly, but that's another discussion entirely 🙂 There are some rumors that ver. 6 will be able to utilize system resources better and even maybe support GPU, but we'll see...

OK thanks a lot to everybody who replied!

 

[Smoove910]

I know you mentioned not wanting to, but I'd see how far of an overclock you can get with stock voltage. I'm betting you could get it to 4.0ghz since your turbo is already at 3.9ghz @ stock.

 

[el_jefe]

I know you mentioned not wanting to, but I'd see how far of an overclock you can get with stock voltage. I'm betting you could get it to 4.0ghz since your turbo is already at 3.9ghz @ stock.

I can give it a shot, but would that really make much difference performance-wise?

 

[mfenn]

Keeping the Lightroom catalogs and previews on a separate disk does not improve performance, however. Look here: http://www.slrlounge.com/lightroom-lr5-lr4-hardware-performance-test-review/.

You can't really draw that conclusion from the data presented in that article. The machines were far too different in all regards to do any proper analysis of what parts mattered. All my experience has been that putting the catalog on an SSD makes a huge improvement. Whether or not it needs to be a separate SSD depends on the size of your catalog and your SSD.

 

[el_jefe]

You can't really draw that conclusion from the data presented in that article. The machines were far too different in all regards to do any proper analysis of what parts mattered. All my experience has been that putting the catalog on an SSD makes a huge improvement. Whether or not it needs to be a separate SSD depends on the size of your catalog and your SSD.

So when you say "my experience", does that mean you have done proper A/B tests, on the same machine etc.? Because what you are claiming goes against every single test I've read, including Adobe's recommendations.

 

[el_jefe]

You can't really draw that conclusion from the data presented in that article. The machines were far too different in all regards to do any proper analysis of what parts mattered. All my experience has been that putting the catalog on an SSD makes a huge improvement. Whether or not it needs to be a separate SSD depends on the size of your catalog and your SSD.

By the way, I am not sure why you think they tested the different disk configurations on different machines. Here's what the articles says:

With each computer and CPU configuration, we ran 4 different test setups for both Lightroom 4 and Lightroom 5 using different hard drive and catalog configurations. Here are the different catalog and cache configurations.

Config 1 – Catalog and Cache on OS HD
Config 2 – Catalog on OS HD, Cache on Secondary Data HD
Config 3 – Catalog and Cache on Secondary Data HD
Config 4 – Catalog on Secondary Data HD, and Cache on OS HD

 

[mfenn]

By the way, I am not sure why you think they tested the different disk configurations on different machines. Here's what the articles says:

They may have done that, but they didn't present the data. All of their data is based on the different machines with the disk setups as described in the machine descriptions. So what I said is true, you can't draw that conclusion from the article.

So when you say "my experience", does that mean you have done proper A/B tests, on the same machine etc.? Because what you are claiming goes against every single test I've read, including Adobe's recommendations.

I'd recommend reading my statement carefully. I said, "All my experience has been that putting the catalog on an SSD makes a huge improvement. Whether or not it needs to be a separate SSD depends on the size of your catalog and your SSD."

I made two different statements in my posts. #1 is that the article doesn't present sufficient data to back up their claim. #2 is that my experience is in line with theirs.

 

[el_jefe]

They may have done that, but they didn't present the data. All of their data is based on the different machines with the disk setups as described in the machine descriptions. So what I said is true, you can't draw that conclusion from the article.



I'd recommend reading my statement carefully. I said, "All my experience has been that putting the catalog on an SSD makes a huge improvement. Whether or not it needs to be a separate SSD depends on the size of your catalog and your SSD."

I made two different statements in my posts. #1 is that the article doesn't present sufficient data to back up their claim. #2 is that my experience is in line with theirs.

OK, I think I misread and I do see your point now. Yeah, keeping the application, catalog and previews on an SSD does improve performance. Although in my experience it is not a huge improvement. But sure, I'll take whatever I can get with Lightroom - it's just so slow...

I also see your point about SLRLounge not prividing the exact results. However, they did say it made less than 1% difference in all different scenarios, so I don't really need to know whether it was 0.7% on one machine and 0.4% in another. Ultimately it is a question of whether you trust them and that's valid question of course.

I've made my own experiments on my own machine and I can confirm that there was no difference whatsoever. There were a few seconds of difference on the same batch exporting job, but that's easily within the bounds of statistical error, not to mention all other variables: OS memory utilization, CPU temperature at that particular moment etc.

I just hope Adobe will get their s*** together with LR6 and make it utilize performance better.

BTW. in the meantime I decided to use the opportunity that I am upgrading and change the configuration a little. I was still within the 14/30 day money back guarantee on the mobo and the processor so I sent them back and I am now waiting on Z97-PRO + i7 4790k. The processor was 15 bucks more expensive -well worth it for the increased performance on graphics tasks + the ability to overclock. The mobo was significantly more expensive, but aside from overclocking there are other advantages like real PWM control of all fan headers, a second internal USB 3.0 header and the new Fan Xpert 3. I like my hardware as silent as possible and I think this should help.

I also went ahead and put my old memory on eBay and got 2 X Crucial Ballistix Sport 8gb/1600 cl9-9-9-24. The reason was not so much performance of the memory as the fact that they were mixed brands AND voltages and Prime95 was giving me errors... Not sure what the deal was, because it worked fine on my old machine. Maybe one of the kits was just not well supported by the mobo...

Anyways, I'll report back when I have the whole machine assembled. Let's see if it makes any significant difference in performance.

 

[mfenn]

Let us know how it goes. 🙂

I will caution you that the ASUS Z97-PRO is probably a bit of a waste over a featureful motherboard from another brand like the ASRock Z97 Extreme4 for $129 AR. There is a heavy "ASUS tax" that you have to pay to get that name on your board.

 

[el_jefe]

Let us know how it goes. 🙂

I will caution you that the ASUS Z97-PRO is probably a bit of a waste over a featureful motherboard from another brand like the ASRock Z97 Extreme4 for $129 AR. There is a heavy "ASUS tax" that you have to pay to get that name on your board.

Yeah, you are probably right. But I've been using ASUS mobos in my builds for 15 years - I am familiar with their layout, with the software etc. It just saves me time I guess.

But also I do think they are superior than the competition in several tangible ways. The BIOSes and the software are still better I think. For this particular build there's one feature that nobody has and that's very important to me: real PWM control of all fan headers. Silence is the most important requirement in this system (I'd go as far as to say it's even more important than performance, considering how badly optimized Lightroom is and that it cannot take full advantage of all the computing power). So full PWM control and Fan Xpert 3 will hopefully allow me to keep the thing as quiet as possible at any load since the fans ramp up slowly and exactly as much as needed.

I'll gladly let you know how it goes 🙂

 

[mfenn]

Yeah, you are probably right. But I've been using ASUS mobos in my builds for 15 years - I am familiar with their layout, with the software etc. It just saves me time I guess.

But also I do think they are superior than the competition in several tangible ways. The BIOSes and the software are still better I think. For this particular build there's one feature that nobody has and that's very important to me: real PWM control of all fan headers. Silence is the most important requirement in this system (I'd go as far as to say it's even more important than performance, considering how badly optimized Lightroom is and that it cannot take full advantage of all the computing power). So full PWM control and Fan Xpert 3 will hopefully allow me to keep the thing as quiet as possible at any load since the fans ramp up slowly and exactly as much as needed.

I'll gladly let you know how it goes 🙂

ASUS is definitely not the only manufacturer that has PWM on all their fan headers. They're just the only ones that heavily market it (they pay more for their marketing dept than the other guys). The MSI Z97 Gaming 3 for example has full PWM control. You can tell this by looking at all the fan headers and seeing that they're 4-pin.

Fan control within the OS isn't really a differentiating feature at this point either. All of the Big4 have it as part of their standard software suite.

So I guess in short, take marketing (any company's marketing) with a large grain of salt. 🙂

 

[el_jefe]

ASUS is definitely not the only manufacturer that has PWM on all their fan headers. They're just the only ones that heavily market it (they pay more for their marketing dept than the other guys). The MSI Z97 Gaming 3 for example has full PWM control. You can tell this by looking at all the fan headers and seeing that they're 4-pin.

Fan control within the OS isn't really a differentiating feature at this point either. All of the Big4 have it as part of their standard software suite.

So I guess in short, take marketing (any company's marketing) with a large grain of salt. 🙂

The 4-pin headers don't mean anything, unfortunately - they still do voltage control only, which creates a lot of issues.

Read this: http://www.silentpcreview.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=66283p=584487

And this: https://forum-en.msi.com/index.php?topic=181090.0

I've done my homework and trust me, ASUS are the only one who's doing it and not only that, most of the Z97 and some of the H97 are the first boards they are doing it on.

But anyways - MSI's software is not nearly as good as ASUS's - I've tried them before. Their fan control software both in the OS and in BIOS is nowhere close to ASUS's. The board you suggested is also inferior (for my purposes at least) in many other ways, while not costing that much less. It has a VGA interface instead of DisplayPort, for example, effectively reducing the number of displays I can use to 2 - who the hell still uses VGA anyway??! It also does not support Thunderbolt.

I don't know - maybe these boards make sense for gamers somehow (all the bright colors maybe?!), but I have zero interest in gaming. I need a fast, quiet and stable machine that can take 100% CPU utilization all day long and last at least 2-3 years. In fact I wanted to go for the Z97-WS or the Sabertooth, but unfortunately both models are not in stock where I live and I cannot wait over two weeks for them to be delivered. I may be biased, but in my experience you get what you pay for with motherboards 🙂

 

[Essence_of_War]

I don't know - maybe these boards make sense for gamers somehow (all the bright colors maybe?!), but I have zero interest in gaming.

But you wanted a sabertooth? Isnt that a super gamer board?

 

[drumsfield]

I use lightroom too and that's pretty much the same system I'm looking to build. The only thing glaringly missing from the build I see is the lack of Graphics Card. I'm not sure how big of a difference it will make by adding one, but I would think at least the CPU load should be lightened if you were to add one. Just my thought.

 

[snoylekim]

Lightroom is the light-middleweight of Adobe products in terms of system requirements for a productive user experience . The CPU and Mobo are far more than adequate for handling the processing tax that Lightroom imposes . If you were routinely processing hundreds of raw files under a production deadline, I might suggest a 6 core processor , but ..
You should follow the recommendations and go to 16 meg of memory . I'd also reevaluate your disk configuration . One more SSD , and another faster platter ( 7200 or 10000) would help .

A discrete graphics card helps in two ways . The biggest way is it will not require the 500-750 M of dedicated memory ( HD 4600 takes about 700 M) , which frees this up for your application. The second is that, while Lightroom for the most part will not require nor offload processing to the graphics card as Photoshop or Premiere will for some filter and effects processes , LR 5.5 does leverage this if one is creating video slideshows, and a few other tasks . I haven't found all the doc on it , but it's leveraging parts of the Adobe Media Decoder, and maybe fragments of the Mercury Playback/processing in use in their other products . Discovered this accidentally while running process explorer and GPU-Z on a laptop with Optimus ..