brumd

I am happy to hear I can save a few bucks that way! Thank you for your answers! O, and btw, 4x3TB in Raid5 will provide me with enough space. No need to go higher.

Hi there, I am looking into buying a NAS for storage of my (RAW) images. File sizes are somewhere inbetween 16MB up to 200MB. I am the only one accessing the NAS. It won't be used for streaming media, or large video files. Most likely, I will use 4x 3TB HDD in a Raid5 setup. The NAS will be accessed locally, as well as via the router. As far as I can see - (I know very little about NAS) - prices for 4 bay NAS housings largely depend on the RAM memory, ranging from ~512MB to 8GB. My question is: for my requirements (1 person use, 16-200MB files, no streaming) do I really need a lot of RAM or will transfer speed be bottle-necked by something else? Any recommendations for an affordable 4 bay NAS are welcome! Thank you in advance!

No, I cannot. That's not how a photographer's workflow works. You open RAWs in Photoshop via Lightroom, or else your catalogs turn into a complete mess within hours; you don't use Ps as a separate program. So, while Lightroom is busy doing it's thing, I don't have to do other things that require heavy processing. At this point, there is no Ryzen alternative that - at the same pricepoint - perform better while running Lightroom. ( https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Lightroom-CC-2015-12-CPU-Performance-Core-i7-8700K-i5-8600K-i3-8350K-1056/ ) On the contrary. So, it is not a consideration. Maybe, in 5-6 years time, when I again will be looking for a new system things will be different.

Thank you, Legendarypoet. Yeah of course heat is an issue. I don't really feel like fiddling to much with water cooling. A high-end air cooler should do the trick. And generally, the tasks where I would need the extra clockspeed for (e.g. creating 1:1 previews) generally will take an hour or more, not short bursts. But I see now that even a non-overclocked 8700k has higher frequencies (3.7GHz/4.7GHz) than the non-k version (3.2GHz/4.6Hz), so there seem to be benefits even without overclocking. And since currently the only motherboards that exists are 'X' versions anyway; choosing the 8700k might be the best choice, even without overclocking.

I am not looking for "best price/performance". I am looking to build a system that will be good enough for the next 5-6 years. So, starting with CPU's that are already 2-3 generations old seems a bad idea. At this moment 8700k seems a solid choice. And it is obviously better than a 5820k or 6800k in terms of running Lightroom. The question here is about overclocking: would buying a 'k' version be wise, because overclocking would give me genuine benefits? Or is it more likely I am only risking my system's stability, without expecting any real life gains in terms of performance, when using Lightroom (and Photoshop. But Lightroom is the real bottleneck here) the next 5-6 years?

12-16 cores don't do much for current Photoshop or Lightroom. 6 cores is already more than current Lightroom will use. Of course, changes will be made in the next years, but more than 6 cores is overkill. It won't reduce the time-consuming procedures: creating 1:1 previews, importing into Lr-catalog, and exporting RAWs as JPG. That's where I need the speed. 1 hour or 3 hours make lots of difference in workflow.

based on what? https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Lightroom-CC-2015-12-CPU-Performance-Core-i7-8700K-i5-8600K-i3-8350K-1056/

Using a used CPU for a professionial PC which needs to be as reliable as possible seems like a very bad idea to me..

Thank you, Hayabusa1989! Indeed, this is not for gaming. It is for Lightroom and Photoshop. The 8700k performs substantially better than the Ryzen 1800: https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Photoshop-CC-2017-1-1-CPU-Performance-Core-i7-8700K-i5-8600K-i3-8350K-1057/ https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Lightroom-CC-2015-12-CPU-Performance-Core-i7-8700K-i5-8600K-i3-8350K-1056/ and currently the GTX1060 is simply overkill, since both Photoshop as well as Lightroom are not really depending on the capacity of the GPU, even though with every generation, they make more use of it. Getting a 6GB GTX1060 is with the future in mind, and also in mind using a higher resolution monitor. I am contemplating the benefits and risks (in terms of comprimizing the reliability of the build) to choose for a CPU that allows overclocking, or saving the money, so it can go somewhere more benificial.

Hello all, Event photographer here. I am at that point where my photo editing hardware and storage need a serious upgrade, as I am slowly turning into a pro. That comes with more responsibilities and, amongst other things, I am looking for ways to optimize my workflow. I need to find that balance between a system that is both very reliable, as well as providing me with an as fast as possible workflow. At this moment I do most of my editing work on my 2013 build, small form factor, modest little machine (i5-3570k, mITX board with Z77, 16GB RAM, 256GB SSD Boot drive), which even after 4 years runs pretty smooth when it comes down to make edits to images, in Lightroom, Photoshop, and other editors. That's right, with 3570k's on board GPU. In 2013, Lightroom wasn't really relying on a GPU, however in recent years, this is changing. As an event photographer, it is not uncommon for me to come home with 3000+ images, and loading them into Lightroom, creating 1:1 previews, and exporting RAW-files as JPG's are tasks that usually take lots of time, even multiple hours. With increasing sizes of RAW files, and my increased use of layered images (e.g. HDR, pano stitching), my system will soon reach the point where it is no longer workable, so I am looking for a new build that will serve me for the next 5-6 years. I will not use this PC for gaming. I exclusively shoot still images; I do not shoot/edit video. The #1 priority of this PC is to manage my Lightroom catalogs, and edit images in Lightroom, Photoshop, and a few other image editors. Also, until I have the budget for a proper NAS, my build will (at least temporarily) include 3x3TB (or 4TB) HDD storage in RAID 5 configutation. At this moment, the obvious CPU to use seems to be the i7-8700/i7-8700k (which seems to have significant performance benefits compared to the previous generation) (Any other recommendations are welcome). This CPU fits my budget. In short, I am looking for a system like this: i7-8700, GTX1060, 32GB RAM (expandable to 64GB, or even 128GB), 500GB M.2 NVMe boot drive, 1TB SSD, and an array of HDD's in RAID 5. My (most recent) Lightroom catalog will live on the NVMe boot drive, the most recent RAW files on the SDD, and the archives go on the HDD's (and will later move to a NAS). Now, overclocking... I have no experience with overclocking, however I have no fear of trying it, but, since I will use this PC professionally, I won't do it "just for the sake of it". Reliability of this PC is important. So, any overclocking attempts would be in the 'slight' to 'moderate' range anyway. But, would that have a noticable effect in my use case? Or would the improvements be so small, that it would be better to buy a non-K version, save the money on that, and spend it something more worthwhile (a larger or faster NVMe drive? Or more/faster RAM?). Currently, the main bottlenecks I am experiencing in my workflow, are the importing/exporting images in Lightroom, and building the 1:1 previews of the RAW files. If overclocking would result in noticably shorter times, that would really be benificial. As for the actual image editing: that runs quite smooth even on my current system, so I probably don't need an overclocked 8700 to improve that part of the workflow. Also I have no experience with a RAID 5 set-up, and don't know if write speeds are potentially bottlenecked by CPU speed (to calculate the parity). Your expert opinions on this would help me greatly. Bring it on..