So the op isn't getting it done

Any recommended minimum set ups RAM wise - Thinking it will be desktop. Thinking of getting a 4k monitor as well.

Have some larger pano's to put together. I know more is better but at some point there is declining returns.

Thoughts?

Like the current setup I have. Motherboard is designed for gaming and one key feature for me is that it will use RAM as a cache instead of spooling to and from the hard drive all the time, 32GB of high speed memory, i7 4th gen, SSD for OS and software, HDD for files. Since change over there is NO spooling to and from the hard drive even when stitching, creating slideshows, etc. HUGE improvement in processing times for everything I do.
Using NIK software on a stitched image is almost instant to have the image ready to go compared to several minute wait on previous computer which did spool a lot of data to the disk in the process. To see what your setup is doing on Windows system open 'Task Manager' and on the performance tab you will find a lot of information as to what is going on inside. If you have a process taking a while along with use of the disk while your CPU is barely working then you know that the delay is caused by the slow read/write speed when using a disk as cache memory. If you have a graphics card working hard while the rest of your system waits on it then that might make for a good upgrade choice. Bottom line is use 'Task Manager' to see where the bottleneck is and then figure out how to fix it to improve system performance up to the level of the next bottleneck.

thanks for the insight.

the budget doesn't appear to be the limiting factor - config seems to be the key. 32 gig of ram - w/ a mother board config for cache to the RAM.

I have been out the computer biz for a long long time so I have no idea what the current options are. I am not into building my own - any chance that the 32 gig/? graphics card be properly config'd?

Thanks

Mike

Will confess that I relied on talking with the good folks in the IT department at work as well as talking to a couple of hardcore gamers to narrow down my selection. When talking to folks who know the specs of a lot of different components and systems without looking them up I do tend to pay attention. One notable thing to mention is that I am not running with a graphics card. The built in components of the motherboard seem to be good enough for my requirements. Must be the gaming features kicking in.
As to your question about configuration settings that would depend on your BIOS and hardware driver options which is when I start to have conversations with the good folks mentioned above who live and breathe in the realm of hardware and binary code.

Lightroom, and I would assume Photoshop, can get a decent speed boost from fairly low-end graphics cards with only a few processing cores, so I wouldn't worry too much about that specs when deciding card to get. You don't need an nVidia GTX 980, or GTX Titan or anything like that. You can get away with the lower-end cards. What you *do* need to check is that the card can support your 4K display, both in resolution, and in connector type. Typically you'll find your perfect monitor first, then choose a suitable graphics card to match it. As you'll see below, an nVidia GT 720 ($50) could be all the GPU you need.

Assuming you go with an nVidia card, you can check the specs on each card on their site, right here. Choosing a modern (700 series), low end (ie: lower numbered) card at random, I pick the GT 720, then specifications. I see 192 CUDA cores (graphics cores that Lightroom can make use of... 192 is plenty), 3840x2160 (4K), but only 30Hz with dual-link DVI, and 60Hz if you can find a display-port version. (this is in the fine print at the bottom). nVidia makes the graphics chip, but other vendors make the actual cards. XFX, EVGA, ASUS, etc. A quick search on Amazon, and I can't find anybody offering this card with a displayport variant. So if your monitor of choice needs displayport, you're out of luck on the cheapest card.

Next, I select the GT 730, select specifications. I see there are 3 versions. One supports 2560x1600 (not 4K), while the remaining two support 3840x2160 (4K), and each have the same caveat about 30Hz on dual-link, vs. 60Hz on Display port. You can also see the 2560x1600 version only has 96 CUDA cores, while the other two versions have 384. I would bet that the worse version is actually a re-branded 600 series chip, and doesn't meet your 4K needs, while the other two should be fine, if we can find the right connector... which I can't if you need display port.

Moving up to the GTX 750, I can finally find cards offering display port, though they're now in the $130-$150 range. The card should easily handle anything you throw at it, unless you're doing serious gaming (no cards, even the $1000 GTX Titan cards are very good at 4K gaming).

David, thanks for the research - GTX 750 or better and the box is checked.

The point on the 4k monitor is the first thing to choose as it is the key "human interface" element :).

Again, thanks for the research and thoughtful advice.

I get lost in the bits and bytes just a bit sooner (or would that be a byte) than JRW.

Mike

I picked up a Dell laptop w/ a 4k screen and the ability to push 4k out the HDMI port. Not quite the monster desk unit, but at this point is the shared laptop w/ my wife (pay bills on, general surfing etc). Will see if is enough.