time for a new PC

mike_311 wrote in post #17922213
im leaning toward this one for my budget.

http://www.amazon.com …SNU&coliid=I2M3​WAZSJ6UA36

there is also this one, but the bit depth is only 6bit for an IPS.

http://www.amazon.com …liid=I2Y2WG4LTA​YAV9&psc=1

I have the 248q in addition to the Dell I linked. It's 100% sRGB only, just FYI.

Dont understand the technical side, but beware some MBs have just patched on an M.2 socket.
You absolutely need to check that little flow diagram and see what its connected to!
You need the proper PCIe one.

I backed out of the M.2 drive when I saw they run at 100C , samsung 950 Pro is the best or 110C for the older one.

Similar ( but not quite as much ) performance can be got from the Intel 750 PCIe aic ( nice big heatsink )
Look at Puget systems review on the samsung 950 pro with a heat camera ... Scary 100C in 50 seconds right by the socket connector. :-/

I initially got An Asus x4 PCIe to M.2 adapter card - as a buffer - so that heat is kept well away from my motherboard. The system just sees it as a PCIe card ( no software no drivers ). Seemed to work, but I was convinced by a really knowledgable guy, who explained "in the real world of usage ... IF your MB has the right architecture, then the Intel will perform every bit as fast as the Samsung 950 Pro".

... Is he right All I can say is I loved my Samsung 850 Evo, and now ADORE the Intel.
My assessment is not based on uber technical read write benchmarks ... But what I see with my own eyes. Booting up in seconds , loading files, copying a shoot...say 32GB of pics from one drive to the other.

Loading a days shoot of 5DS R's images say 800 images into DPP is now instantaneous! Click bang they are all there (one is able to click on any image immediately and explode it to edit) , on my old system you could sod off and make a cuppa before they all appeared, let alone be able to edit them.

I am delighted with Intel 750 but wish the 800GB varient was as fast as the 400gb and 1200GB versions ( I could not justify the cost of the 1.2TB one. )

Anyway 400GB is almost, just about big enough for Windows 10 and my software ( MS Office, Photoshop Element And Premier and Canon DPP with Portraiture. And a couple of shoots....

I see folks saying 250GB is enough ... Imo that would be a total pain in the axxx. How they manage with that Imdont know as its filling up with a few shoots. Bit then do the have the burden of 5DSRs file sizes.

I now have as a work around, a sort in Interim storage disc a samsung 850 500GB SSD to offload a shoot worths, after I have finished the initial edit.

An ideal size IMO would have been 800GB and then archive the stuff to HDDs.
It will take maybe 2 mins before I am ridiculed for stating this - but happy to send to a screen shot showing 48 GB free space on a 500GB samsung after a couple of weeks.

If you have say a 5D3 then I rekon a 500GB drive would be fine.

If your MB has the lanes ( mine does ) then boy does it fly! Blows away the samsung 850 evos. And they are great.

I wouldn't consider a new system without this technology, after all, you can take all this kit to your next build.

I wouldn't put images (or music/vids/other big files) on an SSD.

I tested the time to access images from my second (swap/cache Samsung 850 Pro) SSD versus an SSHD (WD 2TB with 8GB SSD on the controller card), and saw no difference.

The WD keeps often-accessed files on the SSD part, and I hadn't touched those images for months, so was comparing the HD speed to the SSD speed.

Glad you have resolved your system woes and are happy with the PCIe SSD. PC board manufactures have a limited number of PCIe lanes to play with. One of the tricks used is
sharing lanes. Graphics cards, Sata drives and now the new M.2 interface all gobble up PCIe lanes.
The specs of the M.2 interface allows for 2 lane or 4 lane transfers. The speed difference with a 4 lane PCIe interface to an SSD versus the conventional Sata interface is worth the cost in a new build, in my opinion.

In reference to the size of the SSD required, I have made a 256GB drive work quite well by setting up the OS such that all user data gets stored on a conventional hard drive. My current 850 Pro only has the OS and programs running on it.

I agree that any i5 or i7 is fine. I mean, that's already enough for multitasking (editing, streaming music all at the same time) without dragging the computer. For suggestions with brands, model etc, try to check on the Computer category in PC Mag or on Consumer Top.

I personally use Sony Vaio and Asus with i5 processors, both are fine, no lags, no BSODs.

Whatever you do go with a SSD. I was about to go from my 2012 macbook pro to an entirely new computer for photo editing. I just upgraded my ram from 4gb to 16gb and swapped out the hard drive. It was super easy to do and cost about $160. The ram made a little improvement, but the SSD made it incredibly fast. I can open up every adobe program simultaneously and they load instantly. So long story short....SSD will make a bigger difference than any graphics card or ram IMO.

johnnyproblems wrote in post #17929080
SSD will make a bigger difference than any graphics card or ram IMO.

That's a broad statement. That's what worked with your situation and you probably didn't need much more RAM.

Bleufire wrote in post #17929340
That's a broad statement. That's what worked with your situation and you probably didn't need much more RAM.

Not really. The graphics card in my desktop is significantly better than the mac, ram is the same. Both were about equal prior to the SSD swap. The mac vs the desktop is like comparing a modern desktop with something runnings windows95. SSD's are also a lot cheaper than throwing in a $500+ graphics card and more ram.

johnnyproblems wrote in post #17929352
Not really. The graphics card in my desktop is significantly better than the mac, ram is the same. Both were about equal prior to the SSD swap. The mac vs the desktop is like comparing a modern desktop with something runnings windows95. SSD's are also a lot cheaper than throwing in a $500+ graphics card and more ram.

I am not really sure what you're trying to say.

You mean the GPU in your Windows box was significantly better than the GPU in your Mac?

I re-read this over and over again and I have no idea what this means.

There is very little reason to be buying $500+ GPUs when it is fairly well known that a ~$200 GPU has ~75-90% performance (ballpark figure off the top of my head) of the $500+ your claiming. Especially considering on a photography forum in regards to LR/PS. And RAM? RAM is like 16GB for $60-70 ballpark. I don't see why you would be running on 4GB now a days unless you never upgraded. 4GB is getting pretty meager.

Even then, your comparing performance from a Macbook (laptop hardware) to desktop hardware. The performance of each is not equal. http://www.bit-tech.net …be-fooled-by-laptop-cpus/

I'm not trying to undercut the importance of a SSD but this "Let's throw an SSD at it!" as the answer is just as good as before when people would say "Just throw more RAM into it!" That was all I meant by my statement.

i ended up going with a Asus. I didnt feel like building it myself. i5, 750gb spinning drive, 8gb ram. I added a 240gb ssd for the OS and scratch drives and another another 8gb ram. so far im under $600.

maybe it was my old machine, but this thing flies.

Bleufire wrote in post #17929340
That's a broad statement. That's what worked with your situation and you probably didn't need much more RAM.

I haven't heard of anyone who has tried a SSD over a spinning disc has ever been disappointed. I certainly haven't...

My statement was not to consider RAM as an unnecessary upgrade while also not saying the SSD had no part. That was all.

In my laptop I have 4GB of RAM and a 256 SSD and when I am just playing on the internet (Chrome) the difference between that and my HDD + 16GB desktop is huge. I have 10+ tabs open at almost all times on both of my devices. I can't have LR open on my Laptop with Chrome open. On my desktop, that isn't even a problem.