new computer specs

[DanK]

I don’t think the response times have anything one to do with the user end. When I have problems with CiC, I have no problems with anything else.

The server’s response times have been on average much better lately, but the variance has been very large. I have had times when it has been very fast but some times when it has been very slow, including one time a day or two ago when it timed out and lost a long post I had written.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[DanK]

For example my Lenovo laptop has a 230W power supply. My new desktop has a 850W power supply."]For example my Lenovo laptop has a 230W power supply. My new desktop has a 850W power supply.

I'm no engineer, and this thread is wandering well off topic, but this suggests to me that the issue is power consumption, not the size of the power supply. I would be flabbergasted if your computer draws anywhere nearly 850W. To put that in perspective, that would imply that the running your computer for one hour would consume as much power as driving my my ID.4 roughly 3.1 miles (4.9 km). Not likely. The Lenovo laptop I just recycled had a 55W charger, and it consumed far less; if I operated it while plugged in, the the battery was rapidly recharged.

Everything I've read indicates that Apple's ARM chips are much more efficient than Intel chips. I was surprised, however, when I looked up actual power consumption figures. These are ranges, of course, because the power draw varies markedly depending on what you are doing. However, for at least two of the three samples I found a few days ago, the difference was nearly 3 fold. Still, I didn't buy a second computer for efficiency; I bought it for a high quality discrete GPU.

[lunaticitizen]

I don't want to re-write the same long response, but the main thrust of my lost message was that if you consider raw performance per Watt per dollar, I think you will find that the Macs are very competitive.

My Mac draws 14-15W measured at the wall during idle times. No x64 machine with similar specs can compete with this level of efficiency. The NVIDIA T1000 alone draws 20 W at idle.

Not many people require a Mac Pro; I doubt photographers need them.

[DanK]

I don't want to re-write the same long response, but the main thrust of my lost message was that if you consider raw performance per Watt per dollar, I think you will find that the Macs are very competitive...

Not many people require a Mac Pro; I doubt photographers need them.

while performance per watt is important (summed across a lot of computers, it's enough to matter), but it's not relevant to Manfred's earlier points, I think.

I suspect that what people need to get nearly optimal performance editing photos depends on their cameras as well as what they do. In very rough numbers, Manfred's raw files are 3 to 5 times the size of mine, assuming he is shooting in 14 bit, and much more than that multiple if he is shooting 16 bit.

For my work, the two slowdowns are Adobe's AI-based functions and focus stacking with Zerene. The former is the main reason I decided I should pay for a computer with a discrete GPU. I assume the latter is a function of CPU and RAM, but I'll have a better idea once I have my new machine working, as it has twice the RAM and a faster CPU.

[Manfred M]

while performance per watt is important (summed across a lot of computers, it's enough to matter), but it's not relevant to Manfred's earlier points, I think.

I suspect that what people need to get nearly optimal performance editing photos depends on their cameras as well as what they do. In very rough numbers, Manfred's raw files are 3 to 5 times the size of mine, assuming he is shooting in 14 bit, and much more than that multiple if he is shooting 16 bit.

For my work, the two slowdowns are Adobe's AI-based functions and focus stacking with Zerene. The former is the main reason I decided I should pay for a computer with a discrete GPU. I assume the latter is a function of CPU and RAM, but I'll have a better idea once I have my new machine working, as it has twice the RAM and a faster CPU.

Some good points Dan.

I do shoot in 16-bit mode (something all modern medium format cameras handle), so I am definitely seeing raw files that are in the 250MB+ range. The image file (.psb format) is about 6GB.

I also create composite images that I plan to print. I have had 44" / 112cm wide archival pigment ink prints made in town and I understand I can get prints that are up to 66" / 168cm wide if I go to suppliers that are out of town. If I want to go vinyl prints, I can go even larger. I have had prints that are 33" x 44" / 84cm x 112 cm displayed in some local galleries. So these are not hypothetical sizes to work to for me.

Attached is a screenshot of one of my FANtasy series (25962 x 25963 pixels). This is this works out to about 6ft x 6ft / 1.8m x 1.8m in size. That takes a fair bit on processing power.

[Geoff F]

Leo. Due to the recent variable performance of this site, after writing a paragraph I copy it to my computer clipboard (Ctrl+ C) so that I don't lose all my effort if I get a Submit Reply failure. And repeat the process with every new paragraph. Yes, time consuming but well worth doing considering the many current site issues.

[lunaticitizen]

Leo. Due to the recent variable performance of this site, after writing a paragraph I copy it to my computer clipboard (Ctrl+ C) so that I don't lose all my effort if I get a Submit Reply failure. And repeat the process with every new paragraph. Yes, time consuming but well worth doing considering the many current site issues.

Yeah, I just forgot to do that this time ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[DanK]

I'm ALMOST done configuring my new Lenovo "P3 Tiny" mini with 32 GB, an 8 GB Nvidia GPU, and an Intel Core Ultra 7 265 (20 cores, 20 processors). I have relatively small raw files, but it seems very fast. Using 24 MB raw files, LR AI denoise was 18-22 seconds, and super resolution was 3 seconds. Rendering the images when I call them up from the filmstrip is nearly instant. Now I'm back to where I like to be: the slowest part of the processing chain (to paraphrase Ansel Adams) is the 12 inches behind my eyeglasses.