Advice needed....RAM upgrade

[Butlerkid]

My computer currently has 250 GB SSD, an i7 3930K 3.2 GHz processor and 16 GB of RAM. The RAM is 4X - Kingston - DDR-1333 4 GB....

Main Question:
My processing speeds, especially with Aurora 2019, is very slow, and Task Manager shows about 85+% of memory usage.

So.... I'm thinking of going to 64 GB. What is the best/fastest RAM that I should consider?

Secondary consideration:
For the majority of the time Task Manager shows the CPU usage is about 25%. HOWEVER, at times using Aurora and some s/w, the CPU usage may get to 90+% for about 10 seconds or so before dropping quickly to about 60% and then dropping even lower.

I assume there is no reason to upgrade the processor. Right?

 

[Growltiger]

I have not used Aurora but I'm assuming it opens multiple files simultaneously and therefore uses lots of memory? Just as Photoshop uses lots of memory when it has many files open and/or many layers.

Since you are hitting 85% memory then more memory could well help. My two recently upgraded machines both have 32GB. You have a good processor and I doubt you would notice any change by upgrading it. I also doubt you would see any benefit in getting 64GB compared to 32GB.

You need to find out how many memory slots you have and what your current memory configuration is. For example if your motherboard has only 4 slots and each slot has a 4GB card in it, then you need to throw away all the 16GB you have, to allow you to fill the slots with enough new cards of increased capacity. I suggest you ask the specialist company that built the machine, they will know the motherboard and what it can take. Or you could read the manual that came with the motherboard.

 

[Naptown]

I went from 16 to 64 soon after getting a new desktop last year just to not have to deal with trying to do it later.

 

[Butlerkid]

I have not used Aurora but I'm assuming it opens multiple files simultaneously and therefore uses lots of memory? Just as Photoshop uses lots of memory when it has many files open and/or many layers.

Since you are hitting 85% memory then more memory could well help. My two recently upgraded machines both have 32GB. You have a good processor and I doubt you would notice any change by upgrading it. I also doubt you would see any benefit in getting 64GB compared to 32GB.

You need to find out how many memory slots you have and what your current memory configuration is. For example if your motherboard has only 4 slots and each slot has a 4GB card in it, then you need to throw away all the 16GB you have, to allow you to fill the slots with enough new cards of increased capacity. I suggest you ask the specialist company that built the machine, they will know the motherboard and what it can take. Or you could read the manual that came with the motherboard.

Thanks, Richard. I was all set to call Puget, then thought that my friends on NikonCafe could give me the same/better adivce! Thanks, again!

I went from 16 to 64 soon after getting a new desktop last year just to not have to deal with trying to do it later.

Thank you. My thought process was if I needed 32 GB now, I might as well go for 64 GB and be done with it! LOL!

 

[TonyW]

Generally increasing RAM benefits the programs that can use the added memory or maybe concurrent programs in use. PS is one app. that will use added memory.

IF Aurora (never used it) can benefit then the additional RAM is justified. Another generalisation speed of RAM often overplayed as it is the one speed up that offers least bang for buck - increase in speed, sure, noticeable in bench speed test, noticeable in real world applications; questionable.
Upgrade RAM to max not a bad idea if using apps that can use it. Add the same RAM as already installed or RAM with same speed rating. IF you add additional RAM and IF that RAM is more costly than the slower speed modules in your system then you may consider you have wasted money. The slowest RAM modules will throttle speed to the slowest in your system

IF Aurora is computationally intensive (my guess) then a CPU upgrade MAY help. IF Aurora is poorly written or not quite optimised for speed over quality (a possibility?) then neither upgrade may offer much - I just don’t know.

Have you checked on their min specs. and doubled it in your system?

Had a quick look on website, maybe a question Direct will shed some light on expected improvement with upgrades?
Aurora is frustratingly slow!

Edit: For some strange reason when I posted this there were no other replies. As soon as I hit submit the page opened showing your other replies with good suggestions and opinion

 

[crazy]

I would also contact Aurora’s tech support group. Page 19 of the Aurora HDR user manual states “
ATTENTION!
Each of these three options can slow down the creation of your HDR image because they require significant computing resources to analyze the images. In the case of Ghost Reduction, it is also worth noting that this feature may not always work as expected while attempting to obtain a single static image from a series of moving images. Keep this option off and use it only when you need to fix apparent problems with ghosting.”

 

[Randy]

Why not, it’s cheap and easy

 

[Butlerkid]

Generally increasing RAM benefits the programs that can use the added memory or maybe concurrent programs in use. PS is one app. that will use added memory.

IF Aurora (never used it) can benefit then the additional RAM is justified. Another generalisation speed of RAM often overplayed as it is the one speed up that offers least bang for buck - increase in speed, sure, noticeable in bench speed test, noticeable in real world applications; questionable.
Upgrade RAM to max not a bad idea if using apps that can use it. Add the same RAM as already installed or RAM with same speed rating. IF you add additional RAM and IF that RAM is more costly than the slower speed modules in your system then you may consider you have wasted money. The slowest RAM modules will throttle speed to the slowest in your system

IF Aurora is computationally intensive (my guess) then a CPU upgrade MAY help. IF Aurora is poorly written or not quite optimised for speed over quality (a possibility?) then neither upgrade may offer much - I just don’t know.

Have you checked on their min specs. and doubled it in your system?

Had a quick look on website, maybe a question Direct will shed some light on expected improvement with upgrades?
Aurora is frustratingly slow!

Edit: For some strange reason when I posted this there were no other replies. As soon as I hit submit the page opened showing your other replies with good suggestions and opinion

You were probably all typing at once! LOL!

Thanks for the thoughts. Aurora is definitely computationally intensive. Assuming price is not way out of line, I would probably just buy a new set of 64 GB RAM cards instead of adding on to the existing 16GB.

AND - I've been thinking about increasing RAM for a couple of years. Perhaps the new s/w is just giving me a reason to do it?????

New processor???? That would be nice BUT I'd be scared to death to replace my current one! Remember, I'm not a techie and that would be a very intimidating chore for me! LOL!

I would also contact Aurora’s tech support group. Page 19 of the Aurora HDR user manual states “
ATTENTION!
Each of these three options can slow down the creation of your HDR image because they require significant computing resources to analyze the images. In the case of Ghost Reduction, it is also worth noting that this feature may not always work as expected while attempting to obtain a single static image from a series of moving images. Keep this option off and use it only when you need to fix apparent problems with ghosting.”

Yes, I saw all these warnings. But 99% of my images are static landscapes and interiors so I wasn't using the options that trigger even more intensive computing. And even PS and Bridge are starting to be a tad slower than I'd like, especially with HDR's and sometimes even saving jpg's! LOL!

Why not, it’s cheap and easy

That's what I was thinking........

 

[7006]

Except of the investment I see no real downside in what you want to do.

 

[Growltiger]

If you want a faster processor it is likely it would need a different socket, meaning you would need a new motherboard. Your processor fits in the old 1155 socket.
My new motherboards have the Intel 1151 socket, with the i7-8700K installed and DDR4 memory. This system is 40% faster when running typical benchmarks than your processor.

And a new motherboard means new memory. So if you want to change processor do it now otherwise you will spend the money on the new memory and that will probably be wasted when you change motherboard later.

 

[Butlerkid]

If you want a faster processor it is likely it would need a different socket, meaning you would need a new motherboard. Your processor fits in the old 1155 socket.
My new motherboards have the Intel 1151 socket, with the i7-8700K installed and DDR4 memory. This system is 40% faster when running typical benchmarks than your processor.

And a new motherboard means new memory. So if you want to change processor do it now otherwise you will spend the money on the new memory and that will probably be wasted when you change motherboard later.

Sounds GREAT! Also sounds scary. How would I change out the Intel 1155 socket to an Intel 1151 socket? Then would the motherboard "simply" plug in? Is this something a lay"lady" could do? Or are you planning a trip to Tennessee??????

 

[Butlerkid]

Forget it! I just started watching a video on how to do it....no way I'd even try! LOL!

 

[TonyW]

Forget it! I just started watching a video on how to do it....no way I'd even try! LOL!

As you have probably seen you cannot change and there is no converter that will allow a 1151 to work in a 1155 socket mobo.

You need a mobo designed specifically for your CPU. Or if you can upgrade your CPU I think you are limited to i7 3970 which is marginally faster in benchmark testing. Remember % speed increases are generally related to bench mark testing under specific conditions of that test. Unless you can find benchmark testing for Aurora you are making a stab in the dark about performance increases you may achieve.

UserBenchmark: Intel Core i7-3930K vs i7-3970X

I would suggest you seek the advice first from your system builder about an upgrade of RAM and CPU to your old vs a new mobo with overkill of RAM

Second and most important get some qualification from Aurora that an upgrade will provide a significant increase in speed and usability and if the program is GPU intensive would a graphic board upgrade make sense as well. After all your system is not that old to be classed as a slouch

 

[Growltiger]

Forget it! I just started watching a video on how to do it....no way I'd even try! LOL!

The CPU plugs into the socket. The socket is part of the motherboard.
If the socket is different you need a new motherboard which has the new socket. In your case I think you would send the computer to Puget to do it all for you.

 

[Butlerkid]

Thanks, guys. Even with PS/Bridge and Photomatix Pro I am seeing memory usage 80%+. CPU is usually only around 25% usage. CPU usage even with Aurora spikes high then drops within about 10 seconds to about 50-60% CPU usage.

I think I'll talk to Puget and probably just do a RAM increase at this time. Everything else about my current computer I still love. Plenty fast enough most times. The big change is that I took a LOT of braketed shots on our last trip and am now creating (hopefully realistic) HDRs. Three to five .nef's from the D850 results in large files! LOL!

 

[Growltiger]

Thanks, guys. Even with PS/Bridge and Photomatix Pro I am seeing memory usage 80%+. CPU is usually only around 25% usage. CPU usage even with Aurora spikes high then drops within about 10 seconds to about 50-60% CPU usage.

I think I'll talk to Puget and probably just do a RAM increase at this time. Everything else about my current computer I still love. Plenty fast enough most times. The big change is that I took a LOT of braketed shots on our last trip and am now creating (hopefully realistic) HDRs. Three to five .nef's from the D850 results in large files! LOL!

I agree with your decision.