or how I quadrupled Capture NX speed!

Capture NX is without doubts one of the most efficient RAW converters capable of working Nikon D300 NEF files. While it’s user interface is not as friendly and convenient as some of the competitive products out there offer (Lightroom, Bibble, PhotoShop, etc), it’s still intuitive enough for a newbie as well as any experienced graphics software operator. The fact that Capture NX is the only software on the market capable of processing Nikon’s proprietary data stored in D300’s NEF files (such as Camera Controls, tone curves, etc) was the deal breaker [for me personally] when I was considering which converter to pick.

Unfortunately, one of the major “flaws” of Capture NX is performance. Numerous D300 users reporting almost daily their frustration with Capture NX. Some of them are still hopeing that Nikon will address the issue, while others abandoned using Capture in favor of much faster and more user friendly 3rd party raw converters.

Capture NX is the only raw converter I own and I have always been very happy with the results it produces. However, its speed has always been a big issue for me. Processing hundreds of shots taken at a wedding would normally take several evenings. Most of the time I would find myself sitting and waiting for capture to finish certain operation before I could proceed. Very basic things such as white balance adjustment or USM would be taking unreasonably long time. At the time my computer specs were as follows:


CPU ............... AMD 64 3200+
Memory ............ DDR400 PC3200 - 2Gb (was running at 266Mhz)
Hard dirve ........ 500Gb SATA 3.0Gb/s
FSB clock ......... 266Mhz
OS ................ Windows XP Pro


My capture NX was very slow and I was getting impatient. Before upgrading my system, I timed some of the operations I was performing:

Opening ISO 1250 NEF file: 2mins
(The file itself would open rather quickly, in a matter of 3-5 seconds, however from that point it would take 2mins until the yellow triangle disappeared)

Saving ISO 1250 NEF file: 1min 4secs Saving means I would open the file, quickly crop it and immediately hit save (while yellow triangle was still on)

Low (200) ISO files were a bit faster.
Opening ISO 200 NEF file would take 22 seconds (till the triangle disappears)
Saving ISO 200 NEF file (open/crop/save) would take 17 seconds

While this kind of performance may seem to be okay if you’re processing few files per day, working with hundreds of files after certain events was turning into a huge effort.



MY UPGRADE

While I was observing Capture NX struggling with processing the new D300 NEFs, I noticed that there was not much of hard drive activity going on. I had rather fast 3.0Gb/s SATA drives, so I figured they were not very likely to be the bottle neck. Also, I couldn’t really catch CPU being maxed out either. That lead me to believe that the problem with Capture NX performance was most likely in memory not being able to deliver data to CPU fast enough. Because it data was being brought to CPU in a timely manner, CPU would be busy (sitting close to 100% utilization) until processing was over.

Therefore, I knew I needed to maximize
- Memory performance
- FSB data transfer rate (FSB is responsible for delivering data from memory to CPU)
- And while I was at it, I was going to get a faster CPU as well.

Quad core or Dual Core ?

First question I needed to resolve was - do I go with a quad core or a dual core CPU. I was willing to spend about $300 for a CPU and within this price range I could either get

1) Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 Kentsfield 2.4GHz 2 x 4MB L2 Cache LGA 775 Quad-Core Processor (about $260 at the time)

- or -

2) Intel Core 2 Duo E6850 Conroe 3.0GHz 4M shared L2 Cache LGA 775 65W Dual-Core Processor (about $270 at the time)

What helped me decide was this diagram by Tom’s Harware

While slightly slower (frequency wise) quad core Q6600 was overall as fast as the faster (frequency wise) E6850 dual core, the Photoshop TIFF processing benchmark test revealed, that faster clocked dual core was significantly (almost 23%) faster. Since processing graphics files was my primary goal, this helped me decide in favor of the dual core.

This was my choice for CPU:

Intel Core 2 Duo E6850 3.0GHz LGA 775 65W Processor Intel Core 2 Duo E6850 Conroe 3.0GHz 4M shared L2 Cache LGA 775 65W Dual-Core Processor

Which Memory?

I looked at both DDR2 and DDR3 memory offerings. There have multiple “DDR2 vs DDR3 shootout” reports published and one thing I noticed was that while DDR3 operated at slightly faster frequencies, it showed longer recovery latencies, thus delivering speeds either equal to or slightly above DDR2. In addition, DDR3 was almost twice as expensive as DDR2. So I decided to go with fastest DDR2 memory I could afford. My pick was DDR2-800 memory which offered lowest latencies (4-4-4-12). In addition to solid specs, this particular brand is known for being very tolerable for over clocking (should I decide to push my hardware beyond the manufacturer’s intended speeds). Therefore I settled on the following modules ($99 at the time):

G.SKILL 4GB (2 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 800 (PC2 6400) Dual Channel Kit Desktop Memory G.SKILL 4GB (2 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 800 (PC2 6400) Dual Channel Kit Desktop Memory

Motherboard

Now that I have picked my CPU and memory, I needed a motherboard which could drive both components most efficiently. I also wanted a trusted brand as well as board known for its capabilities for over clocking. Since my CPU FSB frequency was 1333Mhz I needed motherboard which could support that. It would also have to be capable of supporting FSB/Memory ratio to make the best use of my DDR2-800 (which would require 400Mhz clock while FSB clock before North bridge would remain 333Mhz). It would be nice to have eSATA for backups, on-board sound and fanless cooling (since I prefer my system to be quiet). Finally, on the “quiet” note, I wanted BIOS which could drive both my CPU and system fans with quietness “in mind” - I’d like to be able to specify maximum acceptable CPU and system board temperature, and BIOS should be able to keep both fans to the lowest possible RPM needed to provide the desired temperature.

In the end, my choice was the following ASUS motherboard (which fit ALL of my requirements listed above):

ASUS P5K ATX Intel Motherboard ASUS P5K LGA 775 Intel P35 ATX Intel Motherboard

Optional components

Finally, I estimated required power supply wattage needed to run my new combo and it came very close to 400Watt. My existing PSU was marked as a 380Watts unit. Knowing that I wanted to buy an extra hard drive in near future, I realized that my existing power supply won’t be able to handle the load. Therefore, I needed a new one. It would have to be at least 500 (preferrably 600) watts unit and it had to be QUIET. Few days of research and I decided to go with SeaSonic S12 650Watt PSU ($140 at the time). Several reviews gave it very high rankings as far as quietness and that’s what mattered to me the most. Note, I could have gone with a cheapest PSU for about $49 if I didn’t care about the noise, but of well…

SeaSonic S12 Energy Plus SS-650HT 650W Power Supply SeaSonic S12 Energy Plus SS-650HT ATX12V / EPS12V 650W Power Supply 100 - 240 V UL, CE, CB, TUV, FCC

At the same time, I decided to order an Ultra-quiet CPU fan to replace the included with CPU stock cooler (which is very noisy to my taste). This $67 fan is absolutely silent.

ZALMAN CNPS 9700 NT 110mm 2 Ball Ultra Quiet CPU Cooler ZALMAN CNPS 9700 NT 110mm 2 Ball Ultra Quiet CPU Cooler

NEW SYSTEM SETUP

Finally, this is what my new system looked like:


1. ASUS P5K LGA 775 Intel P35 ATX Intel Motherboard - $129 at the time
2. G.SKILL 4GB(2 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 800 (PC2 6400) - $99 at the time
3. Intel Core 2 Duo E6850 Conroe 3.0GHz 4M - $279, but I bought mine on ebay instead for $200
4. SeaSonic S12 Energy Plus SS-650HT ATX12V / EPS12V 650W Power Supply - $139 at the time
5. ZALMAN CNPS 9700 NT 110mm 2 Ball Ultra Quiet CPU Cooler - $67 at the time


Total came close to $700, however upgrading power supply and getting zalman CPU fan was not necessary, hence the entire upgrade could have been closer to $500, or even $400 if I went with slightly cheaper motherboard (there were options around $70) and slightly cheaper memory (around $70 but with 5-5-5-15 latencies). In fact, the overall cost could have easily been kept down to $350 ($200 CPU + $70 mobo + $60 DDR2 CAS5 4Gb RAM).

I picked premium components (and paid extra) because:
1) I wanted quiet system
2) I wanted easily overclock’able system
3) I wanted brand name parts

PERFORMANCE IMPOVEMENT

Capture NX performance improvement exceeded my expectations. I was thinking I would have been happy if I could make Capture NX to work twice faster. What I got instead was - 4 times improvement! Capture NX processing speed quadrupled!

Opening ISO 1250 NEF file:
Old setup: was taking 2 mins
New setup: 30 seconds!

Saving ISO 1250 NEF file:
Old setup: was taking 1min 4 secs
New setup: 12 seconds!

Low (200) ISO files:
Opening ISO 200 NEF file on old setup: would take 22 seconds
New setup: 9 seconds

Saving ISO 200 NEF file on old setup: would take 17 seconds
New setup: 3 seconds!

Now Capture NX runs with a very acceptable speed. No more slow sliders. Sharpening mask (USM) takes about 5 seconds to settle (when using USM, images usually appear slightly oversharpened first, but then later sharpness sort of “settles in”.. or some people confused it with “reversing back”, while in fact, it’s not reversing, it’s just takes time to render it completely… and in the past, it was taking very long time to render the true sharpness, and now takes only 5 secs). Overall, I’m very pleased with Capture NX at this point.

This entry was posted on Friday, April 18th, 2008 at 6:44 pm and is filed under Tech, Photography. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.