Will a new computer help?

I have recently started editing digital files and it is very slow (RAW: 16
MP, 24 MB). (Slides were slow too, but now I end up with many more shots.)
I have many hundreds of images to edit after a shoot. I use Canon software
that came with the 1D Mk4 (ver. 3.8.1.0, 2010). It takes about 2 minutes to
load 1000 images into the display when I click on the folder. This makes it
impractical to go back and forth between different folders. To best evaluate
images I display most of them full screen. It takes over 3 sec to load a
single picture to full frame. That's about 1 hour just waiting, assuming I
only want to look at each full frame once.

Is my computer the slow part, the software, or what? And if hardware will
help, should I worry more about processor speed or RAM?

I also need another 2 TB of disk space and the same for backup, and I don't
know if this computer will handle it, so I may need a new computer anyway.

I have a Dell with Pentium 4 Processor, 2.8 GHz with 2 GB SDRAM, Win XP.

--
Alan Justice
http://home.earthlink.net/~wildlifepaparazzi/

On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 15:10:55 -0800, "Alan Justice"
wrote:

I have recently started editing digital files and it is very slow (RAW: 16
MP, 24 MB). (Slides were slow too, but now I end up with many more shots.)
I have many hundreds of images to edit after a shoot. I use Canon software
that came with the 1D Mk4 (ver. 3.8.1.0, 2010). It takes about 2 minutes to
load 1000 images into the display when I click on the folder. This makes it
impractical to go back and forth between different folders. To best evaluate
images I display most of them full screen. It takes over 3 sec to load a
single picture to full frame. That's about 1 hour just waiting, assuming I
only want to look at each full frame once.

Is my computer the slow part, the software, or what? And if hardware will
help, should I worry more about processor speed or RAM?

I also need another 2 TB of disk space and the same for backup, and I don't
know if this computer will handle it, so I may need a new computer anyway.

I have a Dell with Pentium 4 Processor, 2.8 GHz with 2 GB SDRAM, Win XP.

By modern standards your computer is V E R Y S L O W.

I had a computer to your general specs about 10 years ago (except that
it the faster DDR memory). I now have a Dell with a 2.9GHz -7
processor and 8Gb of DDR3 Ram. This is immeasurably faster than my old
machine. Tasks which used to let me go and have lunch now happen in
less than a second. You need a new computer.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

"Eric Stevens" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 15:10:55 -0800, "Alan Justice"
wrote:

I have recently started editing digital files and it is very slow (RAW:
16
MP, 24 MB). (Slides were slow too, but now I end up with many more
shots.)
I have many hundreds of images to edit after a shoot. I use Canon
software
that came with the 1D Mk4 (ver. 3.8.1.0, 2010). It takes about 2 minutes
to
load 1000 images into the display when I click on the folder. This makes
it
impractical to go back and forth between different folders. To best
evaluate
images I display most of them full screen. It takes over 3 sec to load a
single picture to full frame. That's about 1 hour just waiting, assuming
I
only want to look at each full frame once.

Is my computer the slow part, the software, or what? And if hardware
will
help, should I worry more about processor speed or RAM?

I also need another 2 TB of disk space and the same for backup, and I
don't
know if this computer will handle it, so I may need a new computer
anyway.

I have a Dell with Pentium 4 Processor, 2.8 GHz with 2 GB SDRAM, Win XP.

By modern standards your computer is V E R Y S L O W.

I had a computer to your general specs about 10 years ago (except that
it the faster DDR memory). I now have a Dell with a 2.9GHz -7
processor and 8Gb of DDR3 Ram. This is immeasurably faster than my old
machine. Tasks which used to let me go and have lunch now happen in
less than a second. You need a new computer.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

So why is your 2.9 GHz much faster than my 2.8? Is it the additional RAM (8
GB vs 2), or is it the type of RAM? (SDRAM vs DDR3 - what's the
difference?)

On 20/02/2012 07:05, Alan Justice wrote:
"Eric wrote in message
...
On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 15:10:55 -0800, "Alan Justice"
wrote:

(...)
I have a Dell with Pentium 4 Processor, 2.8 GHz with 2 GB SDRAM, Win XP.

By modern standards your computer is V E R Y S L O W.

I had a computer to your general specs about 10 years ago (except that
it the faster DDR memory). I now have a Dell with a 2.9GHz -7
processor and 8Gb of DDR3 Ram. This is immeasurably faster than my old
machine. Tasks which used to let me go and have lunch now happen in
less than a second. You need a new computer.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

So why is your 2.9 GHz much faster than my 2.8? Is it the additional RAM (8
GB vs 2), or is it the type of RAM? (SDRAM vs DDR3 - what's the
difference?)


Processor performance is NOT measured in GHz, that's just marketing drivel.

Best performance for a Pentium 4 was 9,726 MIPS at 3.2 GHz. Best
performance for an i7 is currently AFAIK 177,730 MIPS at 3.33 GHz.

In other words: the i7 processor is roughly 20 times faster than a
Pentium 4 at roughly the same clock speed.

--
Illegitimi non carborundum

Alan Justice wrote,on my timestamp of 20/02/2012 5:05 PM:


So why is your 2.9 GHz much faster than my 2.8? Is it the additional RAM (8
GB vs 2), or is it the type of RAM? (SDRAM vs DDR3 - what's the
difference?)



DDR3 is a heck of a lot faster than SDRAM. And given you are procesing a lot of
very large images, the processor cache becomes almost immaterial, which makes
the memory speed the major determinant on hos fast things will go.
As well as disk access speed, of course. Although that one can be improved with
more cache, hence the 8GB. But be careful: going 8GB means you'll have to go
64-bit OS as well to take full advantage of them. 4GB is plenty if you stay
with 32-bit. And there is really no reason why you should need 64-bit for the
images you are processing.

On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 19:46:33 +1100, Noons wrote:
: Alan Justice wrote,on my timestamp of 20/02/2012 5:05 PM:
:
: So why is your 2.9 GHz much faster than my 2.8? Is it the additional
: RAM (8 GB vs 2), or is it the type of RAM? (SDRAM vs DDR3 - what's
: the difference?)
:
: DDR3 is a heck of a lot faster than SDRAM. And given you are procesing a
: lot of very large images, the processor cache becomes almost immaterial,
: which makes the memory speed the major determinant on hos fast things will
: go. As well as disk access speed, of course. Although that one can be
: improved with more cache, hence the 8GB. But be careful: going 8GB means
: you'll have to go 64-bit OS as well to take full advantage of them. 4GB
: is plenty if you stay with 32-bit. And there is really no reason why you
: should need 64-bit for the images you are processing.

The 32-bit versions of Windows will not make use of any memory beyond the
first 3GB. And I've found DPP to be slightly flaky under the 64-bit OS. Not
flaky enough to keep me from using it on a 64-bit machine, but flaky enough to
keep me from recommending that others do it.

Bob

On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 08:13:35 -0500, Robert Coe wrote:

On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 19:46:33 +1100, Noons wrote:
: Alan Justice wrote,on my timestamp of 20/02/2012 5:05 PM:
:
: So why is your 2.9 GHz much faster than my 2.8? Is it the additional
: RAM (8 GB vs 2), or is it the type of RAM? (SDRAM vs DDR3 - what's
: the difference?)
:
: DDR3 is a heck of a lot faster than SDRAM. And given you are procesing a
: lot of very large images, the processor cache becomes almost immaterial,
: which makes the memory speed the major determinant on hos fast things will
: go. As well as disk access speed, of course. Although that one can be
: improved with more cache, hence the 8GB. But be careful: going 8GB means
: you'll have to go 64-bit OS as well to take full advantage of them. 4GB
: is plenty if you stay with 32-bit. And there is really no reason why you
: should need 64-bit for the images you are processing.

The 32-bit versions of Windows will not make use of any memory beyond the
first 3GB. And I've found DPP to be slightly flaky under the 64-bit OS. Not
flaky enough to keep me from using it on a 64-bit machine, but flaky enough to
keep me from recommending that others do it.

Its probably not running in true 64 bit mode but as the original 32
bit running in a 'sand box' for 32 bit applications. You can tell how
it runs in a 64 bit machine by looking to see whether it is stored in
'Programs' or 'Programs(x86)'. The latter is for 32 bit applications.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

"Noons" wrote in message
...
Alan Justice wrote,on my timestamp of 20/02/2012 5:05 PM:


So why is your 2.9 GHz much faster than my 2.8? Is it the additional
RAM (8
GB vs 2), or is it the type of RAM? (SDRAM vs DDR3 - what's the
difference?)



DDR3 is a heck of a lot faster than SDRAM. And given you are procesing a
lot of
very large images, the processor cache becomes almost immaterial, which
makes
the memory speed the major determinant on hos fast things will go.
As well as disk access speed, of course. Although that one can be
improved with
more cache, hence the 8GB. But be careful: going 8GB means you'll have to
go
64-bit OS as well to take full advantage of them. 4GB is plenty if you
stay
with 32-bit. And there is really no reason why you should need 64-bit for
the
images you are processing.

How can I tell what my disk access speed is? My original one died (backed
up!), so I got a "WD 320 Gb SATA". How fast is fast? My plan is to either
get a new computer with a 2 TB HD (and a 2TB backup), or to just add on a
couple of 2TB to my current computer. Could either solve by slow
file-loading problem? Add-ons would be through USB 2.0.
--
Alan Justice
http://home.earthlink.net/~wildlifepaparazzi/

On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 18:30:36 -0800, "Alan Justice"
wrote:




"Noons" wrote in message
...
Alan Justice wrote,on my timestamp of 20/02/2012 5:05 PM:


So why is your 2.9 GHz much faster than my 2.8? Is it the additional
RAM (8
GB vs 2), or is it the type of RAM? (SDRAM vs DDR3 - what's the
difference?)



DDR3 is a heck of a lot faster than SDRAM. And given you are procesing a
lot of
very large images, the processor cache becomes almost immaterial, which
makes
the memory speed the major determinant on hos fast things will go.
As well as disk access speed, of course. Although that one can be
improved with
more cache, hence the 8GB. But be careful: going 8GB means you'll have to
go
64-bit OS as well to take full advantage of them. 4GB is plenty if you
stay
with 32-bit. And there is really no reason why you should need 64-bit for
the
images you are processing.

How can I tell what my disk access speed is? My original one died (backed
up!), so I got a "WD 320 Gb SATA". How fast is fast? My plan is to either
get a new computer with a 2 TB HD (and a 2TB backup), or to just add on a
couple of 2TB to my current computer. Could either solve by slow
file-loading problem? Add-ons would be through USB 2.0.

I doubt if you have USB 2. At the best you will have USB 1.1.

What you are trying to do will improve the performance of your
computer in the same way you can improve the performance of your car
by fitting it with fat tires mounted on mag wheels.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 22:05:45 -0800, "Alan Justice"
wrote:

"Eric Stevens" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 15:10:55 -0800, "Alan Justice"
wrote:

I have recently started editing digital files and it is very slow (RAW:
16
MP, 24 MB). (Slides were slow too, but now I end up with many more
shots.)
I have many hundreds of images to edit after a shoot. I use Canon
software
that came with the 1D Mk4 (ver. 3.8.1.0, 2010). It takes about 2 minutes
to
load 1000 images into the display when I click on the folder. This makes
it
impractical to go back and forth between different folders. To best
evaluate
images I display most of them full screen. It takes over 3 sec to load a
single picture to full frame. That's about 1 hour just waiting, assuming
I
only want to look at each full frame once.

Is my computer the slow part, the software, or what? And if hardware
will
help, should I worry more about processor speed or RAM?

I also need another 2 TB of disk space and the same for backup, and I
don't
know if this computer will handle it, so I may need a new computer
anyway.

I have a Dell with Pentium 4 Processor, 2.8 GHz with 2 GB SDRAM, Win XP.

By modern standards your computer is V E R Y S L O W.

I had a computer to your general specs about 10 years ago (except that
it the faster DDR memory). I now have a Dell with a 2.9GHz -7
processor and 8Gb of DDR3 Ram. This is immeasurably faster than my old
machine. Tasks which used to let me go and have lunch now happen in
less than a second. You need a new computer.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

So why is your 2.9 GHz much faster than my 2.8? Is it the additional RAM (8
GB vs 2), or is it the type of RAM? (SDRAM vs DDR3 - what's the
difference?)

You have 1 processor core. I have 8 (all on the one chip).

SDRAM is slow compared to DDR which is slow compared to DDR2 which is
slow compared to DDR3.

See the diagram
http://regmedia.co.uk/2009/05/26/ddr..._data_rate.jpg SDRAM is
somewhere to the left, off the curve.

Your machine almost certainly doesn't have an internal PCI bus which
means the various circuit boards etc are slow to communicate with each
other by modern standards. Etc etc ...

Regards,

Eric Stevens