Is this PC good enough to run Lightroom

dkh said:
The above would be a much better system
Click to expand...
Why?

It's certainly cheaper for similar spec (don't forget you have to add an OS with the Aria system) but I can't see anything that would make me think it would be much better....
 
Just my opinion but If I was you I wouldn't buy a "gaming pc" if you're not a gamer. It's all depend on personal taste but they are always really flashy with big led light.... When you switch them on, you get a full lazer show... Really annoying if you use the pc to watch movie in your bedroom or living room.

Look around and you'll find similar config without the fanciness of massive fan and easy access motherboard which normal user don't really need.

It's just my opinion, nothing against gamers.
 
Both PCs are of a similar spec. And more importantly, both are more than capable of running lightroom well. My old home machine is a 2 year old I5 2500k with 8gb ram and a mid level Nvidia card (at the time) and it's still more than capable of running lightroom very quickly. Where a system of this level does bog down a bit is in very large Photoshop files. If you're working with 40mp+ you will definitely need more RAM. But since most of us are dealing with ~20mp images, you'll likely be fine. As others have stated the obvious upgrade path would be to double the amount of RAM. Make sure that not only can the motherboard support is (as stated on the ARIA spec), but also that all of the slots are not filled, otherwise you'll have to completely replace the RAM you already have.

As others ave stated, trying to avoid a "gaming" case is also a good move!
 
Hi

I think my comment about graphig cards has been misunderstood, I said SEPERATE NOT DECENT!

After reading many articles the concesus was that for photographic use a SEPERATE graphics card was preferable.

As I had limited funds I went for a HP with a AMD Athlon(tm)11x 4 640 3GHZ 64 bit, 8G ram, ATI Radeon HD5450, Running Windows 7 useing LR4, ELMENTS 12, Silver Efex Pro2.

Hope this helps.

Cliff
 
Nikonuser2 said:
I think my comment about graphig cards has been misunderstood, I said SEPERATE NOT DECENT!

After reading many articles the concesus was that for photographic use a SEPERATE graphics card was preferable.
Click to expand...

Sorry, my error.

I'm looking at a new PC that will be used just for webbing and photo manipulation (using LR and, the main reason for the upgrade, Perfect Photo Suite 8). I'm probably going for a Gigabyte GA-Z87N-Wifi motherboard that has, supposedly, a fairly good built-in graphics setup. Even the cheapest seperate card will increase the price by the same amount as upgrading the memory from 4GB to 16GB. Just what benefits would the seperate card have?
 
Nikonuser2 said:
Hi

I think my comment about graphig cards has been misunderstood, I said SEPERATE NOT DECENT!

After reading many articles the concesus was that for photographic use a SEPERATE graphics card was preferable.

As I had limited funds I went for a HP with a AMD Athlon(tm)11x 4 640 3GHZ 64 bit, 8G ram, ATI Radeon HD5450, Running Windows 7 useing LR4, ELMENTS 12, Silver Efex Pro2.

Hope this helps.

Cliff
Click to expand...


hmm, i'm almost certain the intel HD graphics are better than a separate low end card like the 5450
and the money you save going for integrated graphics you can add more RAM and then increase the amount of VRAM the GPU gets


hollis_f said:
Sorry, my error.

I'm looking at a new PC that will be used just for webbing and photo manipulation (using LR and, the main reason for the upgrade, Perfect Photo Suite 8). I'm probably going for a Gigabyte GA-Z87N-Wifi motherboard that has, supposedly, a fairly good built-in graphics setup. Even the cheapest seperate card will increase the price by the same amount as upgrading the memory from 4GB to 16GB. Just what benefits would the seperate card have?
Click to expand...

the motherboard doesn't have built in graphics, its' the CPU that has built in graphics, so the quality of the graphics is dependent on the graphics in the CPU

also that motherboard is too expensive- z87 boards are for over clocking and heavy feature lists, it's unlikely you'll over clock in a mini itx case, and you can save a lot of money by getting a non K series CPU- in short if you're not going to over clock then you shouldn't pay extra for the privilege!


the difference between a modern day has well quad core 4570, and something much much older like a 2500k are minimal- the haswell has half the power consumption but costs £50 more- for the same performance
http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i5-4570-vs-Intel-Core-i5-2500K

i just built a PC only for gaming and HTPC, I got a b75 motherboard for £55 (no over clocking) so got a non K series cpu to go with it, £80 for a i5 2400, 8gb ram for £60, and a gtx 660 GPU for £110- case and PSU for £60 and total build cost was under £400- tiny mini itx case too
and when you build yourself you know you're using quality parts throughout
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top