Is this PC worth saving?

[canon_shots]

Hi all, I have a PC and Lightroom 2 runs PAINFULLY slowly. I'm talking 30 seconds to 1 minute to go from Library to Develop, and a 20 second wait to see the effect of a moved slider.

Now I know my rig is anemic. I have a P4 3.06 GHz, 1 GB RAM, and VIA video on the motherboard (I know, I know). My question is, is this processor fast enough that LR would run acceptably if I bump my RAM to 2 or even 4 GB, and add a video card with at least 512 MB and maybe 1 GB?

I really don't want to buy a new machine if I can save this one (I'd rather spend the $ on some AlienBees!), but I also don't want to spend several hundred dollars on upgrading only to find my processor doesn't cut it.

Any and all suggestions appreciated. Happy New Year everyone!

[MaxxuM]

You would get about a 15% boost at 2GBs and 25% at 4GB. 25% is a good boost, but it still would be on the slow side. If you got a bigger faster HDD you'd see another 5-10% boost. But you see where this is going - total upgrade.

And you don't want a video card with more than 512MB, in fact 256MB would be fine too. You more than likely have Windows 32bit which means the OS can only use a total of 4GB of which the video card will be sharing. So, if you put a 1GB video card on that machine you'll only see about 2.8GB vs 3.2GB if you have a 512MB card or 3.5GB if you have a 256MB video card.

Have you checked to see what's the max CPU that motherboard can take?

[canon_shots]

No, I have not. I'll check that out this weekend. Good idea!

[basroil]

Originally Posted by canon_shots

Hi all, I have a PC and Lightroom 2 runs PAINFULLY slowly. I'm talking 30 seconds to 1 minute to go from Library to Develop, and a 20 second wait to see the effect of a moved slider.

Now I know my rig is anemic. I have a P4 3.06 GHz, 1 GB RAM, and VIA video on the motherboard (I know, I know). My question is, is this processor fast enough that LR would run acceptably if I bump my RAM to 2 or even 4 GB, and add a video card with at least 512 MB and maybe 1 GB?

I really don't want to buy a new machine if I can save this one (I'd rather spend the $ on some AlienBees!), but I also don't want to spend several hundred dollars on upgrading only to find my processor doesn't cut it.

Any and all suggestions appreciated. Happy New Year everyone!

Well, if it's that old, it probably uses either ddr or even rd ram. And that's expensive or used and old. Upgrading ram is pretty pointless, especially if it's not an HT version of the 3.06ghz (those are weaker than modern nettops atom processors at 5x the power consumption).

Not really worth it (though LR2 will see some improvement as Maxxum mentioned, though not sure it's actually all that much). If your processor is the pentium d (LGA 775), then you can probably upgrade it for $50 or so, and get a good 5x improvement in processor speed if the board supports the newer pentium e series processors. Given you have only 512mb though, my guess is that you have the good old socket 478 non-HT version of the pentium 4, which means you probably have RD ram. If that happens to be true, it's actually much cheaper to get a new system (with 4gb ram, new mobo, psu) than more ram

[5Dmaniac]

You'd be better off just buying a new PC - they have gotten so cheap!

[canon_shots]

OK, checked out the motherboard and although it's LGA775, it won't support Core2 processors (my only option would be P4 Extreme Edition). I suspect it won't support DDR3 as well.

So, I'm looking at 2 systems.

Budget:
Intel Core2 quad core Q8400
4GB DDR2 RAM
1TB 7200RPM SATA II HDD
Nvidia GeForce 9400GT 1GB
Win7 64 pro
$900.00

Or, faster:
Intel Core i7 860
8GB DDR3 RAM
(2) 500GB 7200RPM SATA II 32MB cache in RAID 0 (Seagate Barracudas)
Nvidia GeForce 9600GT 1GB
Win7 64 pro
$1500.00

For $600.00 difference, do you think I would see a substantial difference in performance between these 2 systems running Lightroom 2, CS3, and multitasking with Flickr? 95% of what I do is in Lightroom, and I really want speed.

Thanks!!

[basroil]

Originally Posted by canon_shots

OK, checked out the motherboard and although it's LGA775, it won't support Core2 processors (my only option would be P4 Extreme Edition). I suspect it won't support DDR3 as well.

So, I'm looking at 2 systems.

Budget:
Intel Core2 quad core Q8400
4GB DDR2 RAM
1TB 7200RPM SATA II HDD
Nvidia GeForce 9400GT 1GB
Win7 64 pro
$900.00

Or, faster:
Intel Core i7 860
8GB DDR3 RAM
(2) 500GB 7200RPM SATA II 32MB cache in RAID 0 (Seagate Barracudas)
Nvidia GeForce 9600GT 1GB
Win7 64 pro
$1500.00

For $600.00 difference, do you think I would see a substantial difference in performance between these 2 systems running Lightroom 2, CS3, and multitasking with Flickr? 95% of what I do is in Lightroom, and I really want speed.

Thanks!!

You're getting shafted for that i7. Shouldn't pay a cent over $1150 for those specs, and even that's a bit much. The quad core there is another ripoff.

Go i7, but get it from somewhere else, wherever you are looking is some damn sketchy place.

[Gabe63]

Originally Posted by basroil

You're getting shafted for that i7. Shouldn't pay a cent over $1150 for those specs, and even that's a bit much. The quad core there is another ripoff.

Go i7, but get it from somewhere else, wherever you are looking is some damn sketchy place.

I agree.

To the OP. Go to this forum and do some reading for a while http://www.computerforum.com/

I just built my first computer form scratch and I am shocked by the prices for spec's you are seeing. The truth is I will never buy a computer in a box again.

[basroil]

Originally Posted by Gabe63

The truth is I will never buy a computer in a box again.

Dell usually gets prices as good as self built, and occasionally, better than if you buy the parts yourself. All depends on the company, but you can find some sketchy things like OP as well.

[canon_shots]

Ok, thanks for the feedback guys! I'll have to whomp up a spreadsheed and do some shopping. I've built several boxes, so if that's the cheaper option I'm in!

[Biciclettapc]

Look at running a version of Linux on it, I know you wont be able to run LR, but there might be other options inside Linux that will suit you, even if just for a backup computer. Gimp and Bibble both run under Linux.

Linux (I run Ubuntu) will make that old computer run well. I actually have it on 3 of the 4 computers I own

My suggestions if your interested is to burn a copy of, in your case i386, and test it out "Live". Which if you dont know, allows you to test the whole OS out running off of a CD without installation. The one thing to check if you do so is do your devices work. You may have to enable some restricted drivers for wireless and graphics. Plus there is a great support forum by some very knowledgeable people.

http://www.ubuntu.com/

If you can build a desktop you can save $$$. I just built a new one a few months ago, 8gb ram, quad core, 750gb hdd, Nvidia 1gb VC and the extra's all for less than 500 (w/o monitor) I run Win 7 and Ubu (on a 2nd hdd) and the machine screams under both os's

[basroil]

Originally Posted by Biciclettapc

Look at running a version of Linux on it, I know you wont be able to run LR, but there might be other options inside Linux that will suit you, even if just for a backup computer. Gimp and Bibble both run under Linux.

Linux (I run Ubuntu) will make that old computer run well. I actually have it on 3 of the 4 computers I own

My suggestions if your interested is to burn a copy of, in your case i386, and test it out "Live". Which if you dont know, allows you to test the whole OS out running off of a CD without installation. The one thing to check if you do so is do your devices work. You may have to enable some restricted drivers for wireless and graphics. Plus there is a great support forum by some very knowledgeable people.

http://www.ubuntu.com/

If you can build a desktop you can save $$$. I just built a new one a few months ago, 8gb ram, quad core, 750gb hdd, Nvidia 1gb VC and the extra's all for less than 500 (w/o monitor) I run Win 7 and Ubu (on a 2nd hdd) and the machine screams under both os's

You do realize that buying Windows 7 is CHEAPER than buying bibble right? I would never recommend anyone in the photo side use linux as the primary OS. Sure it's great for other things, but not worth it for photography at all.

[Biciclettapc]

Originally Posted by basroil

You do realize that buying Windows 7 is CHEAPER than buying bibble right? I would never recommend anyone in the photo side use linux as the primary OS. Sure it's great for other things, but not worth it for photography at all.

Sure do!!!! I also suggested that making the computer a back-up with the option of running Gimp or Bibble could be a option. Not that I am suggesting either over LR, thats a matter of opinion to the user.

You do realize that purchasing Bibble is cheaper that a new computer?. And that the old system he had running something such as Linux would run as fast or even faster than a Windows machine with 7, Xp or (I shutter when I say this) Vista, LOL

I was merely adding my .02 as the the question at hand "Is this PC worth saving"

On another note... I do own Bibble pro, used it for some time then switched over to CS4 and ACR. I trying to decide what I am going to do with it.

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/...54#post9377954

[basroil]

Originally Posted by Biciclettapc

Sure do!!!! I also suggested that making the computer a back-up with the option of running Gimp or Bibble could be a option. Not that I am suggesting either over LR, thats a matter of opinion to the user.

You do realize that purchasing Bibble is cheaper that a new computer?. And that the old system he had running something such as Linux would run as fast or even faster than a Windows machine with 7, Xp or (I shutter when I say this) Vista, LOL

I was merely adding my .02 as the the question at hand "Is this PC worth saving"

On another note... I do own Bibble pro, used it for some time then switched over to CS4 and ACR. I trying to decide what I am going to do with it.

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/...54#post9377954

I have Vista SP2 on my laptop and Ubuntu. I can say for certain that Ubuntu is no faster, and actually boots slower on my machine.

OP's old machine will waste more in electricity per year than the cost of replacing it with an equally powerful nettop (yes, dual core 330 is as powerful or more). Hence little reason to salvage the machine (except scavenging for scrap parts that may be sold for a few bucks or reused in a later build)

[Biciclettapc]

Thanks!