128MB video card sufficient for LR and CS3?

[Eoseni]

I'd appreciate your real world experiences/conclusions about whether an Nvidia GeForce 6150 SE graphics, 128MB dedicated graphics memory is more than sufficient for pro-photo editing using Lightroom and CS3?

I do high volume editing for wedding photos.

I am getting a new desktop and need to decide if i should upgrade to 256MB video card. I'll include the following info just in case it's needed for your opinions:

Other Specs:
Desktop Model: HP m8200n
AMD 3Ghz 64x2 6000+ Processor, 3GB Ram
500Gb memory

I have little knowledge of how these interact and affect LR and CS3 - if at all - so thank you for any tips you may offer.

[Tsmith]

The cost different shouldn't be that much to go with the 256MB. I'd think the 128MB would be sufficient enough for photo editing, just make sure it supports DVI output.

[Eoseni]

The cost different shouldn't be that much to go with the 256MB. I'd think the 128MB would be sufficient enough for photo editing, just make sure it supports DVI output.


Am I correct in thinking that the video card is primarily for moving pictures (movies) And only secondarily for still pictures - such as a photo?

Does very large RAW files have any effect on the performance of this 128MB card?

What is DVI output?

TSmith, thank you.

[gcogger]

128MB is way, way more than enough :)
Really, a 32MB card would be fine for 2D work - the extra MB are only needed for games or other 3D work.

[Eoseni]

128MB is way, way more than enough :)
Really, a 32MB card would be fine for 2D work - the extra MB are only needed for games or other 3D work.

wow! Thank you . That's a relief just because this computer I chose was a prebuilt one , and upgrading was not an option. So I am a happy camper now. Thanks!

But i figure i could watch movies on this computer anyways without problems. I am NOT a gamer!

[cdifoto]

For Lightroom it's more Processor and RAM intensive than video memory. You'd be best served by a dual core processor and at least 2GB RAM. My laptop with 2.16GHz Core2Duo blows my desktop with 2.16GHz single core away, both with 2GB of RAM.

That desktop you listed would run LR very nicely...as nicely as LR can run I would imagine. I can't speak for CS3 though at all.

[gparvan]

spend your money on CPU and Memory especially if you are going with Vista.

[Zepher]

128MB is way, way more than enough :)
Really, a 32MB card would be fine for 2D work - the extra MB are only needed for games or other 3D work.

not exactly, you need enough video memory to run your desktop resolution and color bit rate, I do know that 128megs was more than enough to run my old screens at 1600x1200 at 32bit (desktop was effectively 3200x1200 @ 32bit).
128megs is fine, anything more is used for gaming (Vista's Aero interface may use more, but I only had vista on my machine for a few hours then took it off)

[Riff Raff]

The amount of memory advertised for video cards is the amount of memory they have available for storing textures and such when doing 3D rendering. Honestly, the cheapest video card they sell will be more than sufficient for anything you want to do with image editing (i.e. not 3D).

[Eoseni]

spend your money on CPU and Memory especially if you are going with Vista.

Unfortunately, Hewlett-Packard, the computer I'm getting, does not offer a downgrade to Win XP from Vista, like Dell does. If they did, I would jump at it. I've yet to hear happy things about Vista, except that it's "pretty."

I chose HP because I prefer their monitors...the 22 inch.

Now that being said, I'd not be surprised if I could easily change the OS myself to XP? Is this done and how? Sorry if it's a stupid question. I'm not a techie.

[lostdoggy]

If correct color rendering is important to you then check to make sure the monitor is not a TN LCD. A telltale sign of a TN LCD is the viewing angle. If it is 160deg then most likely its a TN. TN is only capable of 6bit color and claims that it is capable of reproducing 16.2M colors, but in truth its much less. If possible get a S-IPS or at least a S-PVA LCD they are 8bit. S-IPS and S-xVA monitor usually have a viewing angle of 178deg and a response time of 6ms or slower.

[toneyw]

If you want to down-grade your new PC, then you'll have to buy the XP OS. You can either dual boot your machine or just blow away Vista all together. My buddy bought a new computer with Vista and didn't like it so he had to buy XP and blow away Vista.

I think you had 3GB of RAM on your machine. Unfortunately, XP doesn't manage anything over 2GB well. So you may just want to stick with Vista.

As for the video card, unless you're into 3D, there's more than enough memory on it.

[transcend]

The only time your video card would make a difference is if you were using a mac, as it leverages the video card power for core image. On a windows based system, you do not need tons of video power for still images. You need ram, and lots of it.

[Eoseni]

If correct color rendering is important to you then check to make sure the monitor is not a TN LCD. A telltale sign of a TN LCD is the viewing angle. If it is 160deg then most likely its a TN. TN is only capable of 6bit color and claims that it is capable of reproducing 16.2M colors, but in truth its much less. If possible get a S-IPS or at least a S-PVA LCD they are 8bit. S-IPS and S-xVA monitor usually have a viewing angle of 178deg and a response time of 6ms or slower.

Thank you - although color is important to me, I doubt the monitor I'm getting is anywhere close to the high-end Lacie's or equivalents that are $$$$$. I will have to settle for the better moderate LCDs for now. I calibrate using a HUEY, and that helps.

I think you had 3GB of RAM on your machine. Unfortunately, XP doesn't manage anything over 2GB well. So you may just want to stick with Vista.

As for the video card, unless you're into 3D, there's more than enough memory on it.

Do you mean XP won't work at all with over 2GB of memory? Wow, that's news to me. Thank you. If it does work to some extent, would you consider it a real handicap, or just a minor inconvenience? I can live with a minor inconvenience, - as I don't "feel" for Vista at all after the complaints I've read online.

The only time your video card would make a difference is if you were using a mac, as it leverages the video card power for core image. On a windows based system, you do not need tons of video power for still images. You need ram, and lots of it.

I'm being educated every time I ask a question. This forum is great. Thank you! I think 3GB of Ram is good at this stage.

[Zepher]

If you buy your machine from HP small business sale, you can get XP or Vista. Only difference in the machines really are the cases. Home ones are all fancy looking with card readers, TV tuners, etc, and the business ones are more business like.

http://h10010.www1.hp.com/wwpc/us/en/sm/WF02d/12454-12454-64287.html?jumpid=re_R295_prodexp/busproducts/computing/desktops&psn=desktops_workstations/desktop_pcs

[FlyingPhotog]

Am I correct in thinking that the video card is primarily for moving pictures (movies) And only secondarily for still pictures - such as a photo?

Does very large RAW files have any effect on the performance of this 128MB card?

What is DVI output?

TSmith, thank you.

Once upon a time there was a marked difference in how well the various 3D video cards rendered 2D. You could even buy cards that were optomised for 2D apps.

This doesn't seem to be an issue any more.

Processor power and RAM ammounts are where Adobe products either shine or choke.

[Tsmith]

and on board card readers are usually very slow.

[Eoseni]

and on board card readers are usually very slow.

That is just baffling that they would do that. One would think that since it is on board, they'd be faster. But these card readers are not optional - so I'd get them even if I didn't want them on the prebuilt computer I'm getting.

Do you attach an external card reader?
.

[tim]

If it's slow take it out and replace it. Or just use an external one. I have a Sandisk USB one that's really fast and really small.

Video memory does matter for vista.

[davidcrebelxt]

For Lightroom it's more Processor and RAM intensive than video memory. You'd be best served by a dual core processor and at least 2GB RAM. My laptop with 2.16GHz Core2Duo blows my desktop with 2.16GHz single core away, both with 2GB of RAM.

That desktop you listed would run LR very nicely...as nicely as LR can run I would imagine. I can't speak for CS3 though at all.


Same experience here... my budget-level core2duo 2.0ghz machine LR screams while my single core 2.12ghz moseys along.

Video card doesn't matter much... I'm using integrated myself (capable enough for Aero interface) for the time being... biggest problem, honestly is Vista, as it consistently hoses my monitor calibration, and never can be sure if my monitor profile is active or not. Since I'm not a pro, I'm dealing with rebooting to be sure my profile is in effect, and may experiement with turning off Aero interface to see if that stop the calibration from reverting back all the time. Its closing in on a year... hopefully MS, Video, and Audio manufacturers can get their acts together on this OS. Biggest thing I like about Vista right now is the media center with HD tv tuner, about time that MC comes with all OS's (except basic, I guess.)

memory card reader in my gateway is pretty fast (I think it hooks up to internal USB 2.0 port)

[gcogger]

not exactly, you need enough video memory to run your desktop resolution and color bit rate, I do know that 128megs was more than enough to run my old screens at 1600x1200 at 32bit (desktop was effectively 3200x1200 @ 32bit).
128megs is fine, anything more is used for gaming (Vista's Aero interface may use more, but I only had vista on my machine for a few hours then took it off)

1600x1200 is just under 2MP. Each pixel is 32 bits (i.e. 4 bytes).
That means you need just under 8MB for each 1600x1200 screen.
Even with dual monitors that's less than 16MB.

As I said, even 32MB is more than enough, and could cope with 2 very large widescreen LCDs...

[tim]

1600x1200 is just under 2MP. Each pixel is 32 bits (i.e. 4 bytes).
That means you need just under 8MB for each 1600x1200 screen.
Even with dual monitors that's less than 16MB.

As I said, even 32MB is more than enough, and could cope with 2 very large widescreen LCDs...

You forgot about double buffering, which may or may not use vram. Texture caching is what uses a lot of RAM in 3D apps.

[gcogger]

You forgot about double buffering, which may or may not use vram. Texture caching is what uses a lot of RAM in 3D apps.

I wasn't aware that double buffering was a technique used for 2D applications, or even why it would be beneficial. Do you have a link to any info on that? I'm always keen to learn :)

[tim]

I wasn't aware that double buffering was a technique used for 2D applications, or even why it would be beneficial. Do you have a link to any info on that? I'm always keen to learn :)

My memory's a bit rusty, but it's used so that the viewer can't see the shapes being drawn on the screen - lines, filled rectangles, etc. I guess you write to one buffer while you draw the screen, dump that to the screen, perhaps via another buffer, while you draw the next screen. I never did a lot of graphics theory, but it's something like that.

[gcogger]

Interesting. I'm no expert on the intricacies of low level graphics routines and drivers, although I've written code to do this sort of thing. I guess I always assumed that kind of buffering was done by the software rather than the hardware.

[tim]

Interesting. I'm no expert on the intricacies of low level graphics routines and drivers, although I've written code to do this sort of thing. I guess I always assumed that kind of buffering was done by the software rather than the hardware.

You could be right, it could be entirely in software. It's been a while since I wrote anything that low level.

[Bobster]

8MB is all that is needed to draw 2D @ 1600x1200..

[BenJammin]

The only time your video card would make a difference is if you were using a mac, as it leverages the video card power for core image. On a windows based system, you do not need tons of video power for still images. You need ram, and lots of it.


What do u mean by core image? I am buying a mbp soon and I was looking at 2.2 ghz, 128mb graphic card, 2gb ram, 160gb hd. Should I go for the 256mb graphic card instead for this reason. I don't know all the computer lingo and have never owned a mac so im just trying to make sure i get what i need. I don't think I'll have any games on it. I will be using it mostly for editing. CS3 etc... Thanks

[Tony-S]

What do u mean by core image?

"Core Image" is OS X's image processor. See here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Core_Image) for more info. Basically, for vector work (e.g., 3D graphics) it relies upon the GPU to perform those tasks. For 2D work such as photos and video, the CPU does much of the work, thus beefy video cards aren't really necessary.

I am buying a mbp soon and I was looking at 2.2 ghz, 128mb graphic card, 2gb ram, 160gb hd. Should I go for the 256mb graphic card instead for this reason. I don't know all the computer lingo and have never owned a mac so im just trying to make sure i get what i need. I don't think I'll have any games on it. I will be using it mostly for editing. CS3 etc... Thanks

If you're planning to do mostly Photoshop CS3 and Lightroom/Aperture, you should consider getting the less-expensive MacBook with 2 gigs of RAM. It is plenty powerful enough for that type of work, so much so that its performance is just about the same as a MBP. If you plan to drive a 30" external display (MB does up to 24"), then you should consider the MBP. If you want the bells and whistles of a MBP (e.g., lighted keyboard, autodim display, etc.) and a less battery time, then go for it. The MacBook's newest revision (from a couple of weeks ago) is a fabulous machine, has the X3100 video chipset, and its battery use is substantially better than a MBP. But, the MB only comes with a glossy display.

[BenJammin]

"Core Image" is OS X's image processor. See here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Core_Image) for more info. Basically, for vector work (e.g., 3D graphics) it relies upon the GPU to perform those tasks. For 2D work such as photos and video, the CPU does much of the work, thus beefy video cards aren't really necessary.



If you're planning to do mostly Photoshop CS3 and Lightroom/Aperture, you should consider getting the less-expensive MacBook with 2 gigs of RAM. It is plenty powerful enough for that type of work, so much so that its performance is just about the same as a MBP. If you plan to drive a 30" external display (MB does up to 24"), then you should consider the MBP. If you want the bells and whistles of a MBP (e.g., lighted keyboard, autodim display, etc.) and a less battery time, then go for it. The MacBook's newest revision (from a couple of weeks ago) is a fabulous machine, has the X3100 video chipset, and its battery use is substantially better than a MBP. But, the MB only comes with a glossy display.

Thanks. I actually looked at macs today, and I think I changed my mind. I'm going for the 24".

[transcend]

What do u mean by core image? I am buying a mbp soon and I was looking at 2.2 ghz, 128mb graphic card, 2gb ram, 160gb hd. Should I go for the 256mb graphic card instead for this reason. I don't know all the computer lingo and have never owned a mac so im just trying to make sure i get what i need. I don't think I'll have any games on it. I will be using it mostly for editing. CS3 etc... Thanks


http://developer.apple.com/leopard/overview/graphicsandmedia.html

Read about core image here.

[transcend]

"Core Image" is OS X's image processor. See here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Core_Image) for more info. Basically, for vector work (e.g., 3D graphics) it relies upon the GPU to perform those tasks. For 2D work such as photos and video, the CPU does much of the work, thus beefy video cards aren't really necessary.


For a pc this is the case, core image changes this by leveraging the video card for other uses as well. Aperture runs MUCH faster with a fast video card as the 2d work is offloaded from the cpu to the gpu. The same goes for large files in photoshop, illustrator etc.