8 or 16gb for LR3?

Putting together a new build and wondered if 16gb is any advantage for LR 3.

I always hear you don't need that much ram unless you're doing video editing so I wondered if that also translates over to photo editing. Well I guess it's not really editing per LR but the processing seems to matter to the CPU.

Also, is the same true for Photoshop? I may delve into PS at a later date.

TIA

8GB at the minimum for both I would say. If you can get 16GB just go for it. Will save you time and money down the road when/if you want to get more anyway.

More is allways better. But, the law of diminished returns does indeed apply.

If your building an Intel based i7 along with a Z68 MB, DDR3 ram is very cheap nowadays so definitely go with 4 sticks of 4GB and you will be futureproof for quite awhile plus the same if you go the AMD processor route..

http://www.newegg.com …aspx?Item=N82E1​6820233198

I just built the below rig a few weeks back and it runs CS5 extended, LR4, and every Video editing program i have installed in it including Sony Vegas 11, PowerDirector, & Corel Video Studio Pro X5 Ultimate i just installed tonight.


Case: CM Storm Enforcer Midtower/ USB3.0
CPU : i7-2600K
Mobo: Intel DZ68BC Extreme
Ram : Corsair Vengeance pc1600/ 16gb
Video: EVGA Nvidia GTX 560ti
HDD: SSD 120GB Intel 520 series & 1.5 TB WD Caviar Black
Pwr.Supply: Rosewill Capstone 650watt Gold Rated 80+
CPU Cooler: CM Hyper 212 EVO

Fans: 200mm front intake, 200mm top exhaust, 120mm rear exhaust
NZXT Sentry Mesh 5.25 Bay Fan controller

ASUS DRW-24B1ST 24X DVD Burner

LG WH12LS30K 12X Bluray Burner/Player

AFT USB 3.0 Multi-Card reader 5.25 Bay

OS: Windows 7 64 bit

Regards, Ron

The main benefit is RAM cache. If you have 8GB of images you're processing on an 8GB system it will swap the RAW files it needs in and out of RAM, as say 4GB will be taken by the OS and programs. If you have 16GB the RAW files will all stay in RAM.

I find this works in practice with my processing. After culling I have around 10GB of RAW files, and it rarely hits the disk once data's been loaded.

LR/Bridge are definitely CPU bound, they can't use all the available processors effectively, but that should get better as the software improves.

Short answer: given how cheap RAM is, get 16GB.

I went from 8GB to 16GB and I notice an improvement in lightroom.

Depends if your system build is going to be dual channel or triple channel. Also adding to much ram might cost money that may be better spent elsewhere like FASTER processor, better motherboard, lower latency ram or newer drives with bigger cache. So in short if you are building without a budget the sky's the limit. But don't buy a lesser processor, slower drives, cheap video card, or higher latency ram so you can have more memory which you probably wont miss anyway.

http://www.crucial.com​/support/howmuch.aspx
http://www.zdnet.com …-much-ram-do-i-need/17491

In real world tests low latency ram is shown to have little effect. Sandy bridge processors are all dual channel AFAIK, at least mine is. Triple channel was the first gen i7, but it made little difference in practice so they went back to dual.

gotaudi wrote in post #14094878
I went from 8GB to 16GB and I notice an improvement in lightroom.

This is what I wanted to hear!

Got a:

Corsair Obsidian 650d
2600k
CM Hyper 212 Evo
Asus P68Z68 Pro Gen 3
Corsair Vengeance 8gib pc 1600 (now to double it)
Seasonic X-650
Crucial M4 128gb

Thinking about finishing off with a MSI Twin Frozr III card, most likely 560 ti or 570 variant.

Well, good for you!

Over the past year I've "worked over" my 5-year-old system. I upgraded from a duo core processor to a quad core, then more recently from XP to Win7 64 and from 4GB of Ram to the limit of my motherboard, which is sadly 8GB. The good news, is that I have a "new" computer -- each of these upgrades has combined to increase my performance, and at a total cost of way less than a new PC would run. And yes, both LR and Photoshop benefit hugely from a good supply of RAM!

I honestly doubt it makes any difference because I went from 8 to 16 as well and noticed nothing. But there was a difference with photoshop. RAM is cheap anyways so just get 16 if you can

LR3 - I rarely saw RAM usage above 6GB. LR4 however eats RAM. 8GB easily and I've seen 14GB used out of 16GB that I have.

I agree that if you have the funds, go 16GB. It future proofs your system a bit, especially regarding software. However if you do any serious video editing (Vegas Pro, Premiere Pro, After Effects etc.) definately go 16GB. You will NEED it.

tim wrote in post #14095169
In real world tests low latency ram is shown to have little effect. Sandy bridge processors are all dual channel AFAIK, at least mine is. Triple channel was the first gen i7, but it made little difference in practice so they went back to dual.

Actually they didn't go back to dual, Intel maintains two lines of sockets for consumer use. Currently we have the mainstream LGA1155(dual channel) which was the upgrade to LGA1156(dual channel) and there is also the enthusiast LGA2011(quad channel) which is the upgrade to LGA1366(triple channel). LGA2011 uses much the same architecture as SandyBridge, but adds support for hexacore processors in addition to 64Gigs of Ram in quad channel.

But, like you said, in most real world situations you will not notice any significant difference.

blindshooter wrote in post #14098090
Thinking about finishing off with a MSI Twin Frozr III card, most likely 560 ti or 570 variant.

The 560ti is your best bang for the buck hands down and anything more or less is a waste of money as new cards are in the pipeline. I still run a MSI 8800GTS OC'd to the max (still beats the 550) and it does just about everything i can throw at it. I can almost keep up with a friends slightly OC'd 560 but if he had the ti version it would for sure leave me in a trail of dust.

isoMorphic wrote in post #14123954
The 560ti is your best bang for the buck hands down and anything more or less is a waste of money as new cards are in the pipeline. I still run a MSI 8800GTS OC'd to the max (still beats the 550) and it does just about everything i can throw at it. I can almost keep up with a friends slightly OC'd 560 but if he had the ti version it would for sure leave me in a trail of dust.

I almost purchased the GTX 570 but the overall performance of the GTX 560ti in relation to its lower energy consumption and GPU temps not to mention the reduced cost savings i agree it is the best bang for your buck for folks that use even the most intense photo editing & video rendering programs along with 16gb of DDR3 ram.

http://www.hwcompare.c​om …mb-vs-geforce-gtx-560-ti/

Regards, Ron