Need help from Computer dudes here. . .

[KeepItGreasey]

Originally Posted by franknbeans

here is a screen shot when task manager is running. .

I have LR3 running in the back ground. . .my issue is when i navigate to a new picture it takes 10-15 seconds to load and when I am able to fully edit the picture.

see that doesn't look bad from a RAM stand point... but your processor is getting WORKED man...

light room is using 94% of your CPU, with a total of 100% being consumed.

here's what mine looks like... 8% usage compared to your 100% usage:

[franknbeans]

I looked at that while changing pictures and it says 100%. . .

so obviously the only thing i can do is get a new computer eh?

[franknbeans]

this is from my laptop that runs LR3 A LOT FASTER

[CamaroMiami]

I never used less than a dual core (CPU) (latest if possible). But for ultimate photo and video editing you need a quad core (CPU).

See if you can upgrade your processor for that motherboard.

If you can everything else will fall into place. You have the ram and disk space and the graphic card is fine.

What you are missing are the extra data lanes. (seriously)

That's why your processor (CPU) is bottle necking (struggling to keep up). You are trying to push like 6 lanes of traffic (data) down one lane (single core).

See the laptop is duo (dual core) that's why it is better

Make sure you do not get a celeron chip, they do not have the data transfer speed because they leave something out to make it a cheaper chip.

[CamaroMiami]

See the laptop is a duo (dual core) and more up to date.

[franknbeans]

Ok, I'll check into the processor and if I can upgrade it.

[SuperFly03]

Originally Posted by franknbeans

I just started some photo editing and really don't want to replace my entire Desktop. . . this being said, My desk top can't keep up with Light Room3 though. . .

I attached my Computers Performance Index Sheet for those that want to see it.

I'm guessing a new graphic card may do it. . .but I don't know what to get.
I was told that Windows 7 may help too.


advice??

There is absolutely no point in upgrading that desktop really. You could slap a dual core Athlon in there but you are all the way back on AM2 socket and limited to 89w TDP proc.

As for the RAM, you are limited to 4096MB less your GPU's addressable memory and the remainder is the accessible memory by your system.

I'd work on a new system personally unless it just isn't in the budget. If you really can't afford one then I can work with you on getting the most out of this one.

[franknbeans]

ok, this is what I found on my desk top. .

http://h10025.www1.hp.com/ewfrf/wc/d...product=425919

My assumption is since i have the largest processor listed under the Hardware Choices. . then I can't upgrade, right?

[SuperFly03]

Originally Posted by CamaroMiami

I never used less than a dual core (CPU) (latest if possible). But for ultimate photo and video editing you need a quad core (CPU).

See if you can upgrade your processor for that motherboard.

If you can everything else will fall into place. You have the ram and disk space and the graphic card is fine.

What you are missing are the extra data lanes. (seriously)

That's why your processor (CPU) is bottle necking (struggling to keep up). You are trying to push like 6 lanes of traffic (data) down one lane (single core).

See the laptop is duo (dual core) that's why it is better

Make sure you do not get a celeron chip, they do not have the data transfer speed because they leave something out to make it a cheaper chip.

Can't put a Celeron chip in an AMD based desktop.

Having said that, Celeron's are Pentium (old nomencalture) cores with less cache. Depending on what it is being done the cache doesn't make a huge difference. Now, in the era of IMC's it makes a huge difference.

[franknbeans]

I guess, it's not that I can't afford one. . . I just purchased a 20" screen for my editing. . . and noticed all the new packages come with screens already. I may be able to pack it up and take it back though.

[franknbeans]

Ok, some of your computer talk is over my head, but what it comes down to is. . my computer is to old for picture editing but great for surfing the net.

[SuperFly03]

Originally Posted by franknbeans

ok, this is what I found on my desk top. .

http://h10025.www1.hp.com/ewfrf/wc/d...product=425919

My assumption is since i have the largest processor listed under the Hardware Choices. . then I can't upgrade, right?

No, you can upgrade further to an Athlon X2 5600+ (89w TDP).

Your motherboard's specs: http://h10025.www1.hp.com/ewfrf/wc/d...t=3397528#N961

However, AM2 is really a dead end at this point and you can really get into a cheap quadcore these days which will be light years faster... but again it depends on cost for you.

[SuperFly03]

Originally Posted by franknbeans

Ok, some of your computer talk is over my head, but what it comes down to is. . my computer is to old for picture editing but great for surfing the net.

Sorry, normally on a computer forum.

Honestly, my fear with upgrading your computer is not that it can't be done but rather should it be done. The fact that you are asking us this means you probably don't have anyone to turn to in your immediate vicinity. If that's true then upgrading a processor yourself (especially an AMD one) can be tricky and one slip and your processor is toast. So it's a matter of should you...

This is as good as it gets for you: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...on%20X2%205600

My only concern is that it is 65nm not 90nm (newer manufacturing process) but it should work provided your computer's BIOS are up to date.

[KeepItGreasey]

exactly how old IS your computer?