Doc Barry Loc: Huntsville, Alabama USA

In 2009, I built my desktop computer that has a pair of NVIDIA GeForce GTX 275 display adapters and the CPU is an i7 950 @ 3.07 GHz with 12 GB of RAM. I noticed that programs like Topaz Mask AI and Sharpen AI took several minutes often to process an image. In a few cases, the program bombed and stated that there was a problem with the display card.

I have replaced the GTX 275 cards with a EVGA GEFORCE GTX 1660 Ti 6G GPU 06G-P4-1667-KR. Impressive increase in performance. What took several minutes now takes just seconds. I may increase the RAM to 32 GB. Likely this old machine will serve me well for an additional five years.

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

I just built a new box. I went from an i3 with 16 GB RAM and a GPU with 2 GB RAM to an AMD Ryzen 5 3600 with 32GB RAM and Radeon RX580 graphics card with 8 GB. I also added a 500 GB SSD along with the 2 TB HHD. Running Topaz screams in comparison and focus stacking 120 images in Photoshop went from over two hours to less than 20 minutes. (I’m not sure how much less. I started the process, went to cook dinner and it was done when I checked). Now the old editing machine is gonna be a Plex server for all my music and the old laptop with all my music will be a Linux box.

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

Yes, the Video Card and RAM and even unused HDD (keep your C:\ Drive at below 50% use if possible) have the greatest effect on Photo processing. The CPU, less so. But for your use a i7 or i9 I would think.

I have a not new Dell XPS 8900 i7-6700 (3.4GHz, 4-core hyperthreading), NVIDIA GeFORCE GTX 745 (4GB VRAM), 1TB 7200rpm HDD, 32 GB RAM, Windows 10 Home. Personally, I am not really all that interested in AI other than Content Aware Tools in Ps. I use Topaz and Nik filters (from years ago) for some processing occasionally. But I mainly prefer and am happy with the "photographic" look I get from RAW files from my cameras. If I do something "tricky" it is usually Macro or Close-up Focus Stacking or Stitched Panoramas.

a6k Loc: Detroit & Sanibel

Mike Williams said: "Yes, the Video Card and RAM and even unused HDD (keep your C:\ Drive at below 50% use if possible) have the greatest effect on Photo processing." (my bold)

It's not a bad idea to keep your C drive space large enough for any foreseeable size swap file but it's not going to speed up a process like this. RAM is the answer. Anytime the available physical RAM gets low enough the OS swaps some of it to disk. This is also true for Mac and Linux, btw (no C drive of course). Even the fastest "disk" on the fastest buss is very much slower than RAM and that is not likely to change in the foreseeable future.

Available RAM is affected most by whatever is running and moreso what's running in foreground, of course. If your computer is RAM-challenged then the first thing to do is to shut down all the apps, restart the computer and then run only the PP app. Again, this applies to all the OS's as far as I know.

My 2012 MacMini has 16 GB and I've almost never run out of available RAM. My 2018 MacBookPro has 32 GB because the Mini was running CaptureOne, etc. too slowly for me. But the issue was mostly the lack of a suitable graphics card and secondarily a slower CPU. Both have SSD's as the main "drive" and, of course, the SSD in the newer computer is faster. SSD's are going to load/import files faster than HDD's but once loaded, processing is no longer significantly affected by the speed of the storage device. Even on my Mini I can copy a 1GB file in 5 seconds, for example. That is from SSD to HDD or HDD to SSD using USB 3.0.

I have found that for those PP apps that can take advantage of graphics cards then the better the card the faster the processing. So I support those comments above.

PHRubin Loc: Nashville TN USA

As software gets more complicated, it takes more computing power to handle it.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

I don't use Topaz, so don't know if it's the same...

With Photoshop one of the most noticeable improvements in performance will come from establishing a "scratch disk" exclusively for PS to use. It should be on different drive than the program, although a partition will work just as well, if a physically separate drive isn't possible.

I set aside a 100GB scratch disk for PS (mine is both on a separate drive and a partition on that drive). I've noticed it only tends to use about 1/3 the space. It must purge older files occasionally because it never seems to go much beyond that, but how much space it needs may differ depending upon the size of the files being edited and other settings in PS.

The scratch disk is where PS does periodic auto saves and stores histories (among other things?). Most of the files I work with are RAW from 20MP to 24MP cameras.... so aren't particularly large. However, I have PS set to store almost unlimited histories. Looking inside my scratch disk just now, there are currently 54,000 files, most of which are small DAT files.

Whether or not this would be helpful for Topaz, I don't know. Maybe someone else can tell us if it can use a scratch disk for a performance boost.

Replacing HDDs with SSDs is another big performance booster. I still use a lot of HDDs for long term storage and backup (lower cost).... But a SSD upgrade boot drive gave "new life" to my old computer recently. (I'll be adding more SSDs in the future.... and certainly would use them in any new computer I build in the future.)

Jimmy T Loc: Virginia

The best computer advice I have received was here on UHH a few days ago.
On Windows computers, open Task Manager and select the "Performance Tab"
Then open a large file using Topaz Sharpen AI or some other program that runs slow on your machine.
For Topaz Sharpen AI, process the file and then save it.
Toggle back to the Task Manager (Performance Tab) and observe the "CPU, Memory, and GPU" graphs.
If you have any shortcomings in those areas the graphs will point them out.
Using the same test on my computer my i7-6700 CPU was running at 49%, Memory 9 GB/ 16 GB, and GPU 24%.

Hopefully, truly computer literate folks will gently point out the flaws in my process so that I may also learn.

Smile,
JimmyT Sends

IDguy Loc: Idaho

Perhaps out of context. I am introducing a new monitor to my HP envy. It is an HP monitor. But the colors differ significantly from the Envy. I went through the calibration on the CD that came with the monitor but it didn't help bring them together.

Ideas?

Ourspolair

Maybe your old monitor is not in calibration... There is a simple calibration program in Windows 10 (if you are using a Windows machine) which was also available in win7, I believe. It will allow you to calibrate your main screen and a second screen connected to the same computer. It will give you a starting point which is fair. Can't speak to Apple machines. The ideal solution would be to fork out $100 for a SpyderX or some other colourimeter and calibrate with DispayCal or the programme which comes with the colorimeter.
You can Google "monitor calibraton" and get lots of on-line cal charts and even an online routine which will allow you to adjust the graphics card to give you consistant results from two different machines.
Good luck in your quest! Stay well.

IDguy Loc: Idaho

Thank you. I think I'll have to get a colourimeter. I found and used the Windows calibration but they still look quite different.

Doc Barry Loc: Huntsville, Alabama USA

The DataColor SpiderX is very good and easy to use.

IDguy Loc: Idaho

Thanks. I just started looking and am impressed how expensive. I might see if I can rent one.

Found that one. Not as bad as some.

I'll probably get one on eBay.

Roe Cole

I’m still using an i7 but I’ve installed a RAM drive. Wow, is that sweet. Now my computer just takes seconds to load from a cold boot and all apps run significantly faster.

I also upgraded the RAM as well as installing a Superior graphics card with more memory.

I love the changes. I’m sure the i9 would be faster yet but I’m very satisfied with the changes.

If you do decide on an i9 I’d still recommend the RAM drive and a high end graphics card.

IDguy Loc: Idaho

I got the RAM drive a few months back. It is Awesome!

Unfortunately the reload caused me to lose my Lightroom Catalog for my older photos. I only finally found it and got it working this week. All is now well on that front.

Nickaroo

I have a mid-2011 iMac desktop with a BenQ SW2700PT monitor connected to it. I don't even calibrate the iMac as I go straight to my BenQ and calibrate it only. The iMac has no bearing in relation to the BenQ. I have not had any problems with my work being printed at all. PC's running Windows don't even impress me at all as one should calibrate it even when connected to an ext. monitor.