Motherboard suggestions

[Linwood Ferguson]

I think it's time for a new computer. I'm thinking I7-6770k based (L1151) and Z170 chipset, and still undecided if I'll spring for all SSD or keep a few rotating large drives, but also definitely at least one M.2 card and SSD for work/scratch/etc.

So... most of the choices are fairly easy, or really don't matter, but the motherboard is not so clear cut.

All I've found are primarily gaming boards. And the priorities of gamers (e.g. multi GPU) are not the same as for photography use. What I want is stability, stability, performance, and stability in that order. Along with flexibility in slots.

I've used ASUS lately, and while they boards have been stable, the bios and documentation kind of stinks. In fact all the common boards seem to have a bad reputation for support, documentation, etc. ASRock seems to be more value less reliability based, though that's a vague impression. Gigabyte similar to ASUS.

So I was leaning toward the Gigabyte GA-Z170x-Gaming 7, or the ASUS Maximum VII Hero.

But it's really hard to compare as most reviews, as mentioned, are all about gaming. And both have lots of slots and ports, but all sorts of weird "if you plug in X, you disable two Y". And why in the world someone puts on two NIC ports and then won't let you team them, I do not know (teaming may not be that important to me but still).

If I search for "Workstation" type setups, I tend to get thrown into the really heavy duty graphic styles for video editing and the like (again, multiple super high end video cards).

What I want is almost more server-like, something that will just sit there and run, hold a lot of storage, etc. But server class is really aimed differently, for one thing they tend to be xeon based (too many slow cores for Lightroom, etc.) and are REALLY noisy to be in my office.

So... anyone have a recommendation for a good solid reliable motherboard for a new build for a photography editing system? Or opinions on the above two?

 

[clee01l]

I built my first computer about 1992. I can no longer justify the cost benefit (if there is any). I would go for a brand name computer that meets most of my specifications and add memory, swap out GPU and other components until I got the level of performance that I sought. That said, I now run OS X exclusive and recently upgrades my iMac to a new spec.

  Processor Name:    Intel Core i5
  Processor Speed:    3.2 GHz
  Number of Processors:    1
  Total Number of Cores:    4
  L2 Cache (per Core):    256 KB
  L3 Cache:    6 MB
  Memory:    32 GB

With this LR flies. Why would you need anything with a higher spec?

 

[Gnits]

While reviewing the specs of the motherboards it is well worth checking the external port options, so that you cam maximise the performance while importing from cards, etc or you wish to use for external backup performance. Very useful to make sure that you have USB-C, which looks like it may become the new de-facto usb hardware standard (can be inserted either way and can deliver more power). Currently, even the latest boards may not have usb-c or may only have a single usb-c port. There are normally plenty of usb-3 ports (but check the throughput in the specs) using the current usb hardware form factor.

Just a thought. I was thinking of doing the same as yourself, but will defer for a few months.

 

[Linwood Ferguson]

I built my first computer about 1992. I can no longer justify the cost benefit (if there is any). I would go for a brand name computer that meets most of my specifications and add memory, swap out GPU and other components until I got the level of performance that I sought. That said, I now run OS X exclusive and recently upgrades my iMac to a new spec.

  Processor Name:    Intel Core i5
  Processor Speed:    3.2 GHz
  Number of Processors:    1
  Total Number of Cores:    4
  L2 Cache (per Core):    256 KB
  L3 Cache:    6 MB
  Memory:    32 GB

With this LR flies. Why would you need anything with a higher spec?

Well, three aspects.

I don't do Mac, so not sure how it compares. I would hope performance of LR is largely OS irrelevant, but not sure.

I like building my own not for cost/value, but reliability and control. But I do understand where you are coming from. When I was doing it for scale in a company I would certainly never think to have in-house builds.

But... maybe we have different expectations. You didn't say which I5, but let's speculate it is a I5-6500? That's actually about the same speed as a I7-3770k (not over-clocked). The 6500 has less L2 cache, the 66000 is 3.3ghz, so I may be guessing model wrong.

I'm not at all sure where my limiting factor is. I'm sure it is not disk, or amount of memory (32gb and it only uses about 8gb). My CPU speed is fairly high, and most people say overclocking memory in that system is not all that helpful, but it is one of the slower things at 1600mhz. I've just upgraded the GPU substantially without impact. But all I can try is just get something a generation later and see what happens.

 

[Linwood Ferguson]

While reviewing the specs of the motherboards it is well worth checking the external port options, so that you cam maximise the performance while importing from cards, etc or you wish to use for external backup performance. Very useful to make sure that you have USB-C, which looks like it may become the new de-facto usb hardware standard (can be inserted either way and can deliver more power). Currently, even the latest boards may not have usb-c or may only have a single usb-c port. There are normally plenty of usb-3 ports (but check the throughput in the specs) using the current usb hardware form factor.

Just a thought. I was thinking of doing the same as yourself, but will defer for a few months.

Thanks, yes, both have 3.1 and I think both have at least one USB-C though I need to go check.

I actually need to spend some time one day understanding my current board (a Z77), as it has multiple 3.0 ports, but one is MUCH faster than the others, and I have no clue why. That's one problem with these gaming/consumer boards, is they have all sorts of quirks on the side; their focus is on overclocking, cooling, and GPU's. I'm not sure gamers use USB for anything much beyond a mouse, keyboard and occasional backup.

 

[tspear]

I do not really follow hardware anymore in detail. But often the difference in the USB specs was caused by how each port was connected. Many of the older MB and chipsets ran additional USB ports off old PCI "slots" that were no longer needed. Plenty of performance for keyboard/mouse...

As for discussions on HW for photography: here are two links I have been following. Both have been responsive this year to questions/comments.
Building a Photo and Video Editing PC on a Budget 2016

https://photographylife.com/the-ultimate-pc-build-for-photography-needs-skylake-edition

Let us know what you decide to do. The CFO in the house has decided I need to finish paying for my kids currently in college before I buy a new toy. That means no new computers for a year unless I win the lottery

 

[Linwood Ferguson]

I do not really follow hardware anymore in detail. But often the difference in the USB specs was caused by how each port was connected. Many of the older MB and chipsets ran additional USB ports off old PCI "slots" that were no longer needed. Plenty of performance for keyboard/mouse...

As for discussions on HW for photography: here are two links I have been following. Both have been responsive this year to questions/comments.
Building a Photo and Video Editing PC on a Budget 2016

https://photographylife.com/the-ultimate-pc-build-for-photography-needs-skylake-edition

Let us know what you decide to do. The CFO in the house has decided I need to finish paying for my kids currently in college before I buy a new toy. That means no new computers for a year unless I win the lottery

Thank you. I think I've seen the latter though it's down at present, the former I had not seen. I find it very confusing, for example they feature the I7-6700K (which is what I planned) but then in the motherboards they don't show a compatible board for it at all (it's a 1151 socket). It's like it is a mixture of "bests" that don't actually go together.

 

[tspear]

They mention your CPU but do not really discuss it.
Here is a site I used to help a few friends pick parts for custom machines: Pick Parts, Build Your PC, Compare and Share - PCPartPicker
Works really well, covers the major pieces.

 

[Linwood Ferguson]

They mention your CPU but do not really discuss it.
Here is a site I used to help a few friends pick parts for custom machines: Pick Parts, Build Your PC, Compare and Share - PCPartPicker
Works really well, covers the major pieces.

Thanks, yes, I use that generally for a working copy. They sometimes don't have everything listed especially new stuff, but their interaction/compatibility checks are very nice, and it makes a good scratchpad. It's saved me frequently from forgetting something.

 

[Gnits]

USB C Ports.
I am amazed that top specified motherboards often have only a single USB C Port. I think it would be useful to have a minimum of 2. One to use for the fastest card reader possible and the second for an external disk for backup purposes. Having the remainder as 3.1 is good.

 

[PhilBurton]

As you go through different options, pay attention to the Intel chipset, since a lot of motherboard features and limitations are based on those of the chipset. I've always used ASUS boards, with excellent results. I like the fact that they "extend" the chipset with extra ports, etc. I have had to do two warranty repairs. One was quick and satisfactory. The other required me to send the board back a second time, but it was fixed in the end.

My current desktop is based on an ASUS P9X79PRO board. This board has been absolutely rock-solid over four years of use. If I were getting a board today I would consider the X99 version.

You haven't commented on where you would buy this board. Since we are both in the USA, I would suggest Newegg as the starting point for shopping. Much easier than Amazon for comparing specs.

 

[Linwood Ferguson]

I spent a lot of time today reading and decided to try Gigabyte (specifically GIGABYTE GA-Z170X-Designare). Haven't done them before, but they added U.2 support to their latest series and included it in a "Ultra Durable" board that isn't so much gaming oriented (though honestly their listings are confusing as most gaming boards are similarly labeled).

In this case it included dual Intel gigabit NIC's (I use one for HyperV switch and one for regular use), and can handle both U.2 and M.2 SSD, and two USB Type C 3.1 on the back panel plus 6 USB3 other ports, plus a display port built in which I may not use, but is more handy than (just) HDMI which a lot have now.

I've never done Gigabyte before so feel like going on a bit of a limb, but the U.2 support was nice as I found a very nice, fast Intel U.2 1.2TB SSD relatively inexpensively ($875). That leaves the M.2 slot available if needed later (I might add that as a scratch disk or something but it removes 2 of the SATA ports, so for right now going to stick with 4xHDD at 2TB each for actual image storage.

I'm a bit nervous at only one "drive" for OS, scratch, sort, cache, etc., but the U.2 speed really ought to be such that adding another (and losing two SATA ports) is not worth it. The Intel 750 is supposed to really shine in high queue depths, as well, moreso than the Samsung 950 Pro, plus the U.2 form let's me separate it from the motherboard better for better cooling.

I did order from New Egg. I usually use Amazon or B&H, but New Egg was substantially less expensive on most items, only the case and a mouse were cheaper on Amazon. New Egg (if they told the truth) also had things in stock Amazon didn't. I signed up for some "Store Runner" promo and got free 2 day shipping (I'm a bit worried what I signed up for but it kept saying "free" and "free"... will see).

I also ordered 64G of G.Skill 3000Mhz memory (vs. 2133 which is the standard speed) in case I want to crank it up a bit, will see how stable things are, and start at base first. I don't need that for photos, but I often run a couple of unix VM's in background when I'm doing non-photography work (no, not when Lightroom is running, that's not why it is slow!). And a Cooler Master Trooper case, 212 EVO cooler (more than fine for non-over-clocked I think). I've got a couple power supplies floating around (including one fanless I intend to try, though at 500W it may be a bit weak).

Now Lightroom better run awful fast.

And I have to figure out what to do with the old system. My wife always complains when old systems are sitting around behind stuff "just in case I need it".

But... you never know when you may need it!

 

[PhilBurton]

I spent a lot of time today reading and decided to try Gigabyte (specifically GIGABYTE GA-Z170X-Designare). Haven't done them before, but they added U.2 support to their latest series and included it in a "Ultra Durable" board that isn't so much gaming oriented (though honestly their listings are confusing as most gaming boards are similarly labeled).

In this case it included dual Intel gigabit NIC's (I use one for HyperV switch and one for regular use), and can handle both U.2 and M.2 SSD, and two USB Type C 3.1 on the back panel plus 6 USB3 other ports, plus a display port built in which I may not use, but is more handy than (just) HDMI which a lot have now.

I've never done Gigabyte before so feel like going on a bit of a limb, but the U.2 support was nice as I found a very nice, fast Intel U.2 1.2TB SSD relatively inexpensively ($875). That leaves the M.2 slot available if needed later (I might add that as a scratch disk or something but it removes 2 of the SATA ports, so for right now going to stick with 4xHDD at 2TB each for actual image storage.

I'm a bit nervous at only one "drive" for OS, scratch, sort, cache, etc., but the U.2 speed really ought to be such that adding another (and losing two SATA ports) is not worth it. The Intel 750 is supposed to really shine in high queue depths, as well, moreso than the Samsung 950 Pro, plus the U.2 form let's me separate it from the motherboard better for better cooling.

I did order from New Egg. I usually use Amazon or B&H, but New Egg was substantially less expensive on most items, only the case and a mouse were cheaper on Amazon. New Egg (if they told the truth) also had things in stock Amazon didn't. I signed up for some "Store Runner" promo and got free 2 day shipping (I'm a bit worried what I signed up for but it kept saying "free" and "free"... will see).

I also ordered 64G of G.Skill 3000Mhz memory (vs. 2133 which is the standard speed) in case I want to crank it up a bit, will see how stable things are, and start at base first. I don't need that for photos, but I often run a couple of unix VM's in background when I'm doing non-photography work (no, not when Lightroom is running, that's not why it is slow!). And a Cooler Master Trooper case, 212 EVO cooler (more than fine for non-over-clocked I think). I've got a couple power supplies floating around (including one fanless I intend to try, though at 500W it may be a bit weak).

Now Lightroom better run awful fast.

And I have to figure out what to do with the old system. My wife always complains when old systems are sitting around behind stuff "just in case I need it".

But... you never know when you may need it!

Congrats on making the decision.

Have you decided yet on a graphics card? Or decided "how to decide" on a graphics card?

Phil

 

[Linwood Ferguson]

I have the GTX970 I bought to try to make LR run faster, I'll just be using it.

I never found any reliable guidance on which cards work best for LR acceleration.

 

[PhilBurton]

I have the GTX970 I bought to try to make LR run faster, I'll just be using it.

I never found any reliable guidance on which cards work best for LR acceleration.

I was just thinking. Adobe could make things easier for so many of us if they published specifications for "reference builds" for both PC and Mac.

 

[Gnits]

Congrats.... looks good. Thanks for the detail. I would welcome any experiences / lessons as you build...as I may start a similar project in a few months.

I'm a bit nervous at only one "drive" for OS, scratch, sort, cache, etc., but the U.2 speed really ought to

Speed might not be the only criteria for splitting the O/S from other items. I deliberately keep the C drive for o/s and apps only and deliberately keep this footprint as small as reasonably possible. The reason is that I take an automated backup of the C drive every morning at 6 am and the smaller the footprint the better. I do not want to be taking repeated backups of lots of cache folders.

I am not sure what size your C drive will be. Maybe it would be worth splitting it into 2 partitions (ie [o/s & apps] plus [catalog and adobe cache related stuff ]). Someone more expert than I may comment on any concerns with this. My C drive is 256 GB and after 6 months I still have 100 Gb free.

Finally... I am not sure what consideration you have given to your backup strategy.

I use Macrium Reflect to run at 6 am every morning which :
1. Backs up my C drive to my backup drive
2. Backs up my Lr Catalog from my cache ssd to my backup drive
3. Calls a script which uses Beyond Compare** to synch my Photos drive to an external Backup drive.

The whole process takes no more than 10 mins and I get an email to confirm successful completion.

Best wishes with your build.

** I am thinking of switching from Beyond Compare to Vica Versa to synch (to the right) my Photos drive to my Backup drive. The GUI on Beyond Compare is superb, but Visa Versa has a great option to schedule which allows me to replace a script for Beyond Compare with a scheduled task.

 

[Linwood Ferguson]

I was just thinking. Adobe could make things easier for so many of us if they published specifications for "reference builds" for both PC and Mac.

Indeed.

Speed might not be the only criteria for splitting the O/S from other items. I deliberately keep the C drive for o/s and apps only and deliberately keep this footprint as small as reasonably possible.

The reason is that I take an automated backup of the C drive every morning at 6 am and the smaller the footprint the better. I do not want to be taking repeated backups of lots of cache folders.

Well, at the moment I'm thinking I will just have C on the U.2 fast drive, and photos and catalog on spinning media, but after I went to bed this starting bothering me as C was going to not be raid, and the catalog in particular would be quite a bit slower than now (on raid-1 SSD).

Which means either use non-raid SSD for the catalog, or slower. Not good, so I'm now thinking of going the whole way and putting in something like 3x2TB SSD for photos and put catalogs there on a parity storage space pool. Though I need to do some experimenting to make sure that's now expandable (without adding 3 at a time, as used to be required).

Anyway, to your point... I actually tend to feel the opposite. I don't really trust a system disk restored from backup. Even with VSS it's still a moving target when backed up, and perhaps more to the point, doing a clean install takes every little time and almost always yields a much cleaner, peppier system. I'd rather back up the folders I need, and take the hit of time to rebuild, then restore individual folders.

I also have seen way too many systems with partitioned drives run out of space for the OS over time, and then fighting a space issue that's present only because of where the partition point was set.

Also, why can't you just mark the folders such as cache as not backed up (or backup folder structure only)?

Finally... I am not sure what consideration you have given to your backup strategy.

Very long subject, but at present I back up daily to two cloud services (ACD and S3/Glacier) and periodically to two different EHD's (whenever I remember to plug them in -- I NEVER leave them plugged in, and highly recommend against it with so many "locker" malware incidents). I'm not happy with any backup program though; they all seem to lack some key component (e.g. Cloudberry can't do ACD right, Goodsync can't do Glacier right, ARC just didn't work correctly... I'll look at Macrium as hadn't heard of it).

 

[Gnits]

From your responses I know that you understand and have a good grasp of the Windows environment (hw & o/s etc), so I am not trying to labour any of these points.

doing a clean install takes every little time and almost always yields a much cleaner, peppier system.

I agree. A clean Windows install is the best starting point....... but ......

What kills me (and has done several times in the past) is all the other critical stuff that apps install in hidden folders on the C drive and in the registry and in lots of app config files.

I have tried keeping apps on a different drive (but vendors still put stuff on the C drive) ...so this was a disaster.

Twice I have been seriously screwed up by Microsoft Office updates, which corrupted my normal.dot file, my config of the tool bars and made a reconfig to use my VB_scripts I evolved over years and absolute disaster. [Despite having backups of all my template files.]

The reason I keep my C drive backed up is that I not only recover my C drive, but all my apps get recovered exactly as I left them the night before.

I may have a lot more apps than you installed, do not use Vmware or anything else to separate environments, so your needs driven by the apps you use will differ.

Irrespective of the C drive, a tool like Vica Versa is extremely useful to synch your production files with your EHD backups.

Again, I look forward to getting an update in due course on your experiences.

Thanks for posting.

 

[Linwood Ferguson]

From your responses I know that you understand and have a good grasp of the Windows environment (hw & o/s etc), so I am not trying to labour any of these points.

I'm not sure "understand windows" is possible.

I may have a lot more apps than you installed, do not use Vmware or anything else to separate environments, so your needs driven by the apps you use will differ.

Irrespective of the C drive, a tool like Vica Versa is extremely useful to synch your production files with your EHD backups.

I doubt you have more installed, I think it may just be the reverse that leads me here -- over time trying new products, stuff I have to install for work (all the myriad of screen sharing apps that everyone insists on a differnet one), a flurry of VPN tools (same reason)... They all leave garbage behind, drivers, virtual devices. I've been using HyperV VM's for linux, but to date have not been using them for windows, but I think I need to start -- having a VM for each client perhaps with their VPN, their screen sharing tools, etc. I just hate paying license fees for each, but have been thinking of just doing a snapshot for each on the same base install, it's just highly inefficient of disk structures.

But that's a bit off subject.... I'm off to experiment with parity storage spaces (right now I am using single mirrors).

 

[tspear]

Ferguson,

Have you looked into Intel's answer to the Apple Fusion? Intel® Smart Response Technology
This would allow you to use a fast SSD to cache your spinning disks. I have done this a few years ago on a few database servers and also on a friends gaming machine. It worked very well (especially when SSDs were super expensive), I wonder how it would do for Lr.

As for Gigabyte; my wife's sons have been running Gigabyte for a few years without issue and they and ASUS were my goto mobo's a long time ago. (I switched to Apple around 2004, now I am mid switch back to Windows as primary).

 

[Linwood Ferguson]

Ferguson,

Have you looked into Intel's answer to the Apple Fusion? Intel® Smart Response Technology
This would allow you to use a fast SSD to cache your spinning disks. I have done this a few years ago on a few database servers and also on a friends gaming machine. It worked very well (especially when SSDs were super expensive), I wonder how it would do for Lr.

As for Gigabyte; my wife's sons have been running Gigabyte for a few years without issue and they and ASUS were my goto mobo's a long time ago. (I switched to Apple around 2004, now I am mid switch back to Windows as primary).

Yes and no. "Looked at" is about it. I tried last night as well and it wasn't immediately obvious why I couldn't see my single non-raid drive in the program. I probably need to dismount it first(but I still expected it to show -- the storage spaces volumes show up and I can't use them either, and the identical SSD's in a Raid-1 obviously show as it does the Raid-1.

If I keep spinning disks, I might go that way. My (loose) understanding is that it is particularly helpful at improving write speeds as it acts as a non-volatile write-back cache, right? It is more attractive than using write-back cache in windows; even though I have a UPS I worry about BSOD type events (I've had one in last 2 years or so) taking out dirty cache data. There's a similar feature in Storage Spaces for tiered storage (though my impression it is more about relocating hot data to the SSD than using it as a write-back cache), but I need to figure out if it's in Windows 10 -- it's so hard to get good documentation from Microsoft on which edition and which products have which features (and in which, like W-10, they are simply hidden and you have to use powershell to configure).

Glad to hear Gigabyte worked for you.

Off now to experiment with parity storage spaces. Incidentally if you haven't looked at them, Microsoft has done some really interesting stuff; feels very similar to mid-range SAN features like EMC's clarion - thin provisioned hierarchical storage pools.

 

[tspear]

Intel SRT effectively does both the read and write cache. At the time, they hid the details and I have never looked again, but the system somehow adjusted the read cache based on frequency of read for a specific block vs most recent read; active task versus background. However, write cache was always the priority. For the database servers, a 512GB SSD allowed us to keep the logs in memory and also a significant amount of the primary indexes for multi terabyte transactional system.

Never played with MS storage spaces; sounds interesting.

 

[Linwood Ferguson]

In case anyone is interested, an update.

I decided to get rid of spinning disks entirely, so went with the Intel 750 as a system disk (better deep-queue performance, 1.2TB), not in a raid configuration.

For photos I put in two 2TB 850 EVO SSD's in a mirror storage space. That way I get redundancy, and I did some tests and mirrored performance is right up there with single drive performance even on writes (a real surprised). I planned for catalog and photos on that.

Then I put a 2TB 850 EVO SSD alone for scratch, previews, temp.

And.... it didn't work. The U.2 connection for the 750 takes up ports 2 and 3 of the 6 SATA ports, but ports 0 and 1 are not working fully. I can't get a drive to run in either one, leaving only ports 5 and 6, one short for this configuration (and two short for what I eventually suspect I'll need, another drive in the mirror).

Lots of experimenting, checking conflicts, a new bios, making sure it was not drives or cables -- it's the ports.

So a new board is on the way. My concern is whether it's a design failure or an actual hardware failure. The board is new, not many people using it, and most seem to be gamers who don't use a lot of drives, or people putting in an M.2 and U.2 in a raid-0 set for real high speed disk. So who knows if they really tested it as I am using.

Anyway... now the floor of my office is a wreck and I'm sitting half-assembled waiting for a new board.

While waiting, I am spending a lot of time debating ordering another 850 EVO and just building a 2x2 mirror storage space. It will run a lot faster in writes (the stripe aspect) and seeing that the stand-alone 850 didn't really run faster for scratch/temp, this is a more flexible configuration (if more expensive).

Having spare time is always costly.

The bad news is I haven't gotten far enough along to do any lightroom testing. I'm building with the old system working, so I will try to get some comparative runs for repeatable things like preview builds or exports when both are running.

 

[Gnits]

Thanks for the update.
Best wishes for completing the build and hope you get the performance.

 

[PhilBurton]

In case anyone is interested, an update.

I decided to get rid of spinning disks entirely, so went with the Intel 750 as a system disk (better deep-queue performance, 1.2TB), not in a raid configuration.

For photos I put in two 2TB 850 EVO SSD's in a mirror storage space. That way I get redundancy, and I did some tests and mirrored performance is right up there with single drive performance even on writes (a real surprised). I planned for catalog and photos on that.

Then I put a 2TB 850 EVO SSD alone for scratch, previews, temp.

And.... it didn't work. The U.2 connection for the 750 takes up ports 2 and 3 of the 6 SATA ports, but ports 0 and 1 are not working fully. I can't get a drive to run in either one, leaving only ports 5 and 6, one short for this configuration (and two short for what I eventually suspect I'll need, another drive in the mirror).

Lots of experimenting, checking conflicts, a new bios, making sure it was not drives or cables -- it's the ports.

So a new board is on the way. My concern is whether it's a design failure or an actual hardware failure. The board is new, not many people using it, and most seem to be gamers who don't use a lot of drives, or people putting in an M.2 and U.2 in a raid-0 set for real high speed disk. So who knows if they really tested it as I am using.

Anyway... now the floor of my office is a wreck and I'm sitting half-assembled waiting for a new board.

While waiting, I am spending a lot of time debating ordering another 850 EVO and just building a 2x2 mirror storage space. It will run a lot faster in writes (the stripe aspect) and seeing that the stand-alone 850 didn't really run faster for scratch/temp, this is a more flexible configuration (if more expensive).

Having spare time is always costly.

The bad news is I haven't gotten far enough along to do any lightroom testing. I'm building with the old system working, so I will try to get some comparative runs for repeatable things like preview builds or exports when both are running.

Ferguson,

Which version of Win 10? Or are you going to transfer the Win 10 "digital entitlement" from your old system?

Can I ask you how much you have spent on this dream rig? Was this more than you planned?

Phil