What Makes A Good Astrophotography Computer for Processing - I Found Out!

This video explains what computer requirements are needed for processing astrophotography images. While a minimal system is all that is needed for capturing images, processing the data is a different story. Most processing software such as PixInsight and Photoshop require a very robust system. In order to be sure I purchased a system powerful enough I sought help from Joe Navara of Joe's Astrophoto who's day job is in the tech industry.
Joe's Astrophoto:
/ @joesastrophoto
Dell Computers
www.dell.com/en-us
ASUS Computers
www.asus.com/Laptops/For-Home...
Closing Music
Friday-night-synthwave-electronic-music (KZbin)
Dave's Astrophotography
• PixInsight Benchmark -...
I will put into my discussion along with some of my Benchmark runs as well.
Here are my Highlights:
Desktop (total- 22662, CPU-24114, SWAP-18203, Transfer-3287)
Laptop (total- 2804, CPU-3770, SWAP-1367, Transfer-247)

[@DavesAstrophotography]

Hi Kurt, have a look at my recent Pixinsight benchmark video, you might be able to make it even faster with a couple of settings changes.

[@AstroQuest1]

Hi Dave. Yeah I actually have a large table with various swap file runs and comparisons with my old and new setups. I was going to include that in this video but I did not want to make it larger and just wanted to stick with one thing. Here is a link to your video: kzbin.info/www/bejne/hIXMlKyHlMt9pcU I will put into my discussion along with some of my Benchmark runs as well. Here are my Highlights: Desktop (total- 22662, CPU-24114, SWAP-18203, Transfer-3287) Laptop (total- 2804, CPU-3770, SWAP-1367, Transfer-247) Cheers

[@DavesAstrophotography]

@@AstroQuest1 You have a huge improvement over OLD/NEW setups, which makes things less frustrating...

[@gregorytesterman2818]

Hi, I'm a retired computer guy, formerly Microsoft and Cisco certified. If you are someone wanting to just upgrade your existing system, an upgrade of RAM memory will (usually) give you the most bang for the buck, I have 128GB of RAM on my main system. If you are purchasing a new system, the specs on your new PC are excellent. Tacoma Astro made excellent comments about M.2 SSD drives, and I agree with Wolfgang's comment about external hard drives not being as fast as internal drives (see both comments below). An overly expensive video board is the least critical component for astrophotography, the computers CPU, Memory, and Hard Drive do most of the work, however, programs like Photo Shop do take advantage of the video cards GPU and memory. Motherboards with built-in video are rarely adequate for astrophotography processing programs; bite the bullet and get a video card with at least 4GB of memory. Finally, I did not see a comment about monitors, so here is my two cents worth. Get a nice 27" or larger monitor with 2560 x 1440 or better resolution (be sure that your video card will support the resolution of your monitor). If you've only been using a laptop display or even a 24" monitor, upgrading to a larger monitor will make your processing easier and viewing more enjoyable. Sorry for my being long winded. This was an excellent presentation, thanks for all the work you put into it.

[@AstroQuest1]

Thanks for the additional info Gregory - Like your long winded explanation. I have been learning a lot more recently especially since posting this. My underpowered laptop was was really slow as it suffered from an old generation CPU (laptop grade), maxed out RAM at 16GB, and a not so hot video card which which some software like Topaz would run on. I knew next to nothing about video cards and what the software requirements are for programs - they have changed over time. It seems like PI does not care about the video card but Photoshop does. My new system is at least 7x faster if not more. Additional if I need it RAM is easy with this new computer. I am planning on getting a monitor with 2560 x 1440 resolution. I will do additional testing on using the external dedicated SSD vs. the onboard to see if there is a big difference, it makes sense that the internal would be faster - so far the difference is negligible. When you mentioned Motherboards with built-in video do you mean the video card is part of the motherboard? I think that is how they used to be (when I knew more about computers) which is why I never heard of them until now. Cheers

[@JoesAstrophoto]

Congrats on the new computer Kurt! Thanks so much for the cameo as well. It was fun. Not only will the new PC help out your astro work, but I hope you see a huge drop off in rendering time for your video editing, especially with that graphics card.

[@AstroQuest1]

Thanks Joe and Oh Yeah! Big difference in all processes. Your recommendations were exactly what I was looking for. Cheers

[@tacomaastro7462]

A bit of detail on the hardware. The 500GB M.2 SSD is actually a card that plugs into the motherboard, this gives it direct access to the 'main buss' ( all the components communicate through a a common channel). The graphics card has its own CPU and dedicated memory which a lot of graphic intensive applications will take advantage of. The 32GB RAM allows the program to load all the files into the RAM 'workspace' and not depend on accessing the drive to store and retrieve files. The Intel Core i7-12700 has 8 P-cores (+8 hyper thread), 4 E-cores, and 20 total threads. essentially hyper threading allows one physical processor core to run two processing events. All in all a nice package. A couple of suggestions, the 500GB M.2 should only have the OS and installed apps on it (no data). All of the data should be on separate drives, an SSD for processing and a 'spin drive for long term storage. I can recommend through experience a 2TB spin drive of very high reliability (5+ years 24/7 operation without failure) Seagate 2000GB model ST2000DM001 for anyone looking. One of the downsides on most laptops is that the processors are what they call a "mobile" processor which operates a a lower voltage to reduce the heat and in turn reducing effective processing capability. Little tidbits of technology which I will start forgetting. :)

[@AstroQuest1]

Thanks for the additional info. Especially about the Laptop processor - read that somewhere else but not as articulate as your explanation. Cheers

[@gregerianne3880]

My computer was gasping for air during my last few processing sessions, so I decided it was past time to upgrade. I initially went all out and ordered a $3000 gaming computer -- until thinking about the amount I spent on it kept me up that night! I canceled that one and found a more moderately priced gaming computer (~$1600), with pretty much all the features you mentioned in your video. Haven't gotten it yet, but I'm looking forward to trying it out! Great video. Thanks for all the advice.

[@AstroQuest1]

Thanks Greg, I was thinking about doing the same thing but still was not sure I would get right thing even then which is why I asked Joe. Good Luck with the new system. Cheers

[@tamrich7762]

I’m lucky my computer works a treat, I have noticed the new version of pixinsight WBP take a little longer, only by minutes not hours like yours. All the best with your new computer.

[@AstroQuest1]

Thanks Tam. This was a long time coming! Cheers

[@pompeymonkey3271]

Your friend chose a good system for you. I believe Starnet+ can be configured to use the CUDA cores on the graphics card for super performance. Edit: I see you are well aware of Dark Archon... lol

[@AstroQuest1]

Yeah he sure did. Thanks for the info! Actually, I have been using StarXterminator these days - It seems really fast and does a good job. Cheers

[@robertw1871]

My current project has been running for 16 hours and still hasn’t finished stacking, PI is no joke for compute horsepower, my machine isn’t all that slow, 16 cores with 32Gb of ram and 4Tb of SSD… I have 2 ASI-2600s, MC and MM… it’s been a nightmare that I really didn’t plan on… The cameras are great until your looking at a $10,000 PC to get the processing reasonably under control… Good grief…

[@AstroQuest1]

Wow, that is a long time - some of my runs were like that with the older system and that camera. I don't know what type of computer people use with the ASI-6200, fortunately I won't be finding out. They should put warnings on these cameras with big sensors about what computer hardware is recommended. Cheers

[@jukkakorhonen7543]

Hey, Great video as always. Did not have time to look other comments, but In general the graphic processing capability depends on your GPU / CPU (but also depends on the software and type of software). no mac / linux distro / windows based system is better than the other if you have same "tier" of hardware, but I believe it can make a small difference with different shader APIs but not that much (OpenGL / direct X / vulcan). The amount of memory is not that important as the memory speed. I don't know any cases you'd need more than 16 gigs of ram unless you're running a server. Ofc i'm simplifying things. One more thing. Try M2 socket. i'ts directly connected to a motherboard so speed is not an issue. But what do i know. i'm just a simple software engineer from finland ;)

[@AstroQuest1]

Thanks for the info, I am a neophyte when it comes to this type of stuff. Cheers

[@qzorn4440]

wow I am sooo glad I watched this video. 🥰 I have been using a HP Envy 17" laptop for many years and came to the same thing on Window-11 and ran into the compatibility test. So now I am looking for a new laptop to get into Astrophotography. What little I know about the subject I kept getting into the gaming world laptops. It seems like it is a $1800 to $2100 budget. I have learned a long time ago the post upgrades are mostly wasted money like replacing too little ram, etc. I have plenty of leftover parts from past computer projects. Also, the USB4 "Thunderbolt" is another option that is popular on fast laptops for insane speeds. These laptops also work well with openCV, AI, machine learning. Now I would like to use my Celestron 8" SCT and do Astrophotography. 😎 Thank you so much for some great information.

[@AstroQuest1]

Thanks for the comments and info. It seems I always get the wrong thing so that is why I asked a computer person for advice. Good luck with your system. Cheers

[@qzorn4440]

@@AstroQuest1 Thank you and I will have many more Astrophotography questions.

[@AstroQuest1]

@@qzorn4440 Glad to help.

[@Aero19612]

Great video, Kurt. I think the answer to your question is $,$$$. That's also the answer to astrophotography in general as it turns out. Couldn't agree with you more: RAM, RAM, RAM... My desktop is not that old and has 12 cpus. 20 cpus! wow. I've never used WBPP - I always process each night's results and set them aside. Do you think there is some overhead with WBPP? Or do you think that it's more efficient than the "tweezers" approach I'm using? Thanks again!

[@AstroQuest1]

Thanks James. I have wondered about doing it the way you do it, if it works. Judging by your results - it does. The benefit about doing it your way is you can get a real good assessment about the particular night. Nico (Nebula Astro) just did a great video comparing various stacking programs and the negative thing he said about WBPP was it was a little slow. This new computer whizzes through it though. If you are comfortable doing the tweezers approach and you are getting good results, I would say stick with it. Cheers Kurt

[@HeavenlyBackyardAstronomy]

Good video Kurt. I've been toying with the idea of putting a video card on my desktop. Currently, I am running the video through the motherboard. It does work fine, but I think a video card would be worth the investment. I do have 24Gbytes of RAM. I think I am pushing my system to the limit. Thanks for the suggestions.

[@AstroQuest1]

Thanks for the comments Patrick. 24GB is pretty good but if it is being slow than more may be better. Cheers

[@HeavenlyBackyardAstronomy]

I just ordered a graphics card to go with my desktop.

[@AstroQuest1]

@@HeavenlyBackyardAstronomy Good Luck with it.

[@dumpydalekobservatory]

I know I need to upgrade as I still use an old i5 but it's not to bad at the moment & my files are 40MB each, I know I'm gonna have to bite the bullet soon though, great video as always clear skies.

[@AstroQuest1]

Thanks! On the other hand if it is not bothering you much there is no hurry. My biggest problem may have been the RAM. Of course with that new ASI2600 the processing was too long... Cheers

[@kekedong]

If stacking take hours, one should definitely upgrade computers to desktop one

[@AstroQuest1]

True as they give the most bang for the buck although there some Laptops that can do the job and if you are travelling and want to get an image posted ASAP, then the laptop makes sense. In my case I do all my processing at home so the desktop makes most sense. Cheers

[@patrickshea7073]

I have a 2019 Dell XPS that came with the same 500 GB SSD and 2 TB HDD. Very similar configuration to what you have. I added a 2 TB SSD and mapped my Documents, Downloads, Music, Videos folders to that drive. I use the 500 GB SSD for OS and programs only. All my astrophotography images are stored on the 2 TB SSD. I use Sequator and Deep Sky Stacker. I stack anywhere between 75 - 350 subs at once and it has never taken over 7 minutes in either Sequator or DSS. The SSD speed vs the HDD is quite noticeable. I use the 2 TB HDD as my File History drive. I went crazy and maxed out the memory at 64 GB.

[@AstroQuest1]

Thanks for the additional info Patrick. I am loving this new setup so far. Best improvement I made in a while. Cheers

[@miguelmorales9667]

The most cost effective and easiest way to reduce the time needed for a computer to complete the processing of your image data is to take longer, and therefore fewer subs. Any computer system will take a lot longer to process 200 images than it would if it only needed to process 40 images. So shoot 5 minute subs instead of 1 minute subs or some similar exposure plan. If you can't reliably shoot long subs then don't blame the processing time on your computer, blame it on your mount then fix it so that it can track properly and reliably. You could then use the money saved from not buying a new computer to buy a new telescope or some other wonderful astro-toy... or just keep the money in the bank

[@AstroQuest1]

True about more subs means more processing time but I and many other people have taken over 200 subs with 5 min exposures not only that, other processing functions in PI and PS require more RAM. Cheers

[@anata5127]

320 frames LRGB taken with 294mm on my laptop, processing is 1h10min. Desktop HP Z8 (fully loaded), the same task has been done for 12 min.

[@AstroQuest1]

Wow, that is a big difference! Thanks for the info. Cheers

[@anata5127]

@@AstroQuest1 Z8 is my work computer at school 😀. It is 7K, too expensive for home.

[@AstroQuest1]

@@anata5127 Sounds like a monster!

[@capturethephotons2078]

I do all my processing with an external ssd. My large data sub exposures at 38mb stack pretty quickly with great results. I use a canon rebel t7i move my files from the memory card to the external ssd drive with a terabyte of space. I am in the process of going full PC( like tonight) mode and will be shooting everything from my computer screen. I am hoping to make a data file immediately of my sessions and send the sub exposures directly to an ssd just for astrophotography. Clear skies

[@AstroQuest1]

Wow, sounds cool going directly from capture to to the SSD. Good Luck!

[@billkonkel6325]

I have a computer with a lower end Nvidia card and use the free photo stacking and processing software (DSS, Siril, GIMP) and when I check the computer stats during processing these programs seem to mostly use the RAM and CPU and rarely use the video card. I wonder if it’s just the way the free stuff is written?

[@AstroQuest1]

Hi Bill, Yeah I don't know much about video cards but they may not make much difference in speed but they may have some affect on certain programs such as Topaz. Cheers Kurt

[@RobB_VK6ES]

Can't really agree with such a high end video card. PI does not use GPU acceleration. Also you can not make the general statement that more cores are faster, that depends on whether the application software is capable of leveraging multiple cores. PI does this very well btw, hence why top line AMD processors feature heavily in PI benchmarks scores.

[@AstroQuest1]

Yeah the only thing I know about video cards is that Topaz Denoise needs a higher end card as does Darkarchon's PI Starnet++ enhancement in PI. As far as PI in general then the video card that I had was not a factor. That core statement came from general stuff I read not specific to PI. Sounds like you know more about how PI works so the more cores would not make it run faster. Cheers

[@davewilton6021]

True, PixInsight doesn't use the video card for processing, so that's not going to speed up the PI work. (More cores on the CPU, more RAM, and hard drive speed are key to that.) But Photoshop and other applications do use the GPU to accelerate some of their processing, not to mention that you want a high-quality GPU for image fidelity when tweaking an image, so a good GPU is pretty much a requirement. If using a desktop (which is ideal, but not essential), a good quality monitor is also important, not for speed but for image fidelity. Laptop monitors require the right ambient lighting and will alter the display based on the angle from which you are viewing, which is not good when making decisions about the image. (Disclosure: former NVIDIA employee)

[@AstroQuest1]

@@davewilton6021 Thanks for the comment Dave as I know next to nothing about video graphics cards. That is good to know about the laptop monitors as well. Oddly enough, that old monitor on the desktop may not give the best views but it enhances image defects/errors. So if you get it looking good here, it is good on any other device. Cheers

[@wolfgangkuechle9085]

I strongly disagree on the external SSD. Processing should be done using the internal SSD, preferably an NVMe SSD. An external SSD is way slower. So choose a laptop with sufficient space on the internal SSD or upgrade your laptop accordingly.

[@AstroQuest1]

Interesting, I will do more testing on this as I was wondering if that was a the case. The few tests I have done so far showed a slight decrease but more testing is certainly worthwhile.

[@TevisC]

My machine: Ryzen 5900x 12 core 24 thread. 128gb ram. 2tb nvme 4000+Mbps 2tb sata ssd 550mbps NAS pc running unRAID and 24tb storage, dual parity drive. Going to upgrade to 10 gig networking. I wouldn't touch an Apple, $ to performance they are terrible AND they solder components on so they can't be upgraded. Want a bigger ssd NO! Want more RAM, NO! Want to upgrade CPU, NO! For claiming to be a green company, they design their products to make much more ewaste.

[@AstroQuest1]

Wow, lots of power there! Yeah, I would not feel comfortable with a Mac. Cheers

[@jukkakorhonen7543]

You're right on the part what apple is, but sorry to spoil your sport.. Only 1 native CPU thread can be executed at a time by 1 single core rest of the "Tasks" are queued. having you total of 12 simultaneous calculations if the software is properly developed. 128gb of ram. Are you editing movies or running a production level server? Either way, i believe your system a bit of an overkill. same as before. amount of memory wont help you past certain level if your memory speed is not in par with the CPUs. Correct me if i'm wrong :) one source: kzbin.info/www/bejne/n4q2eGqdjMuFiqMsi=UFvCe-AYjOArKlsy