PC Memory

[Harry Settle]

Is there an optimum amount of ram for operating Photoshop?

[mysubaruimp]

As much as you can afford

[subtle_spectre]

It depends on the type of ram and the bus speed, etc. Laptop? Desktop? DDR? DDR2?

1gb is a good start for steady, consistent work and flow.

[kaitanium]

As much as you can afford

agreed.

[kram]

I have 1GB on my brand new laptop and the machine still needs time to respond. If you can, go with 2GB. The program is absolutely memory hungry :(

BTW, depends a lot on which version of PS. I'm talking about CS2.

[subtle_spectre]

CS2 eats resources much more so than previous versions. On one lappy, I have 1gb DDR 2700 ram and it can be slow if other apps are running. On my 9300 with 2gb of DDR2 ram...it's like a super highway!

[jfrancho]

I haven't seen any difference in performance going from 2 to 4GB, except that I can open more unflattened images at once. So I imagine for now, 1GB should be good, 2GB optimal.

[Scottes]

I have burned through 1 GB with ease, many times. But even then it was because I was doing some extreme stuff with large files.

But I thought PS on the PC only supported 2 GB?

I'll find out as soo as I get time to plug my new system in. Dual-core 3.8 GHz with 3 Gigs or RAM and a terabyte of high-speed drives. And I don't dare open the box because I know I'll be up til 3 in the morning.

[jfrancho]

I thought PS on the PC only supported 2 GB?

I'll find out as soo as I get time to plug my new system in. Dual-core 3.8 GHz with 3 Gigs or RAM and a terabyte of high-speed drives. And I don't dare open the box because I know I'll be up til 3 in the morning.I have no idea what the top end for PS is. Your going to love the dual core. I have a 3.6 dually. No terabyte of disk storage though! I only have 2x300GB raid 1. I'm actually going to run out of space in a few months.

[Scottes]

Yep, that why I went to a terabyte. I have 80 + 320 + 250 external and had an "out of disk space" message waiting when I got home from work.

Bummer is that they probably formatted the drives as 500 each. So I basically have to re-install everything just to get to a few reasonably-size partitions. Argh. (Or can XP Pro re-size a partition without re-formatting??)

[Scottes]

AWESOME!

"Enhanced Memory Use—Photoshop CS2 features memory management enhancement that breaks through the 2 GB RAM barrier. Now, devote up to approximately 3.5 Gigabytes of RAM to every Photoshop CS2 session."

From this Adobe PDF (http://www.adobe.com/aboutadobe/pressroom/pressmaterials/creativesuite2/pdfs/ps/PSCS2-AAG.pdf)


Hmmm. Doesn't say PC or Mac, so I have to assume both.

[mediamanrit]

As everyone else said, as much as you can throw at it. But...I'll add there is much more to memory then just size. I don't know what exactly you are trying to do or your level of knowledge...so sorry if this is too light or deep for ya. :)

Aside from size, and the 'basic' speed (PC2100, PC2600, PC3200, etc) and type (DDR, DDR2, SDRAM) ,there are other things you can do to get better performance out of RAM. If your motherboard supports it, run your system in dual-channel memory mode. It requires pairs of exactly the same sticks of RAM, but the performance boost is worth it. Also, when shopping for RAM, try to buy the ram with the lowest latency. Also, if your motherboard supports it, ECC RAM is generally better then non-ECC, and registered RAM is generally better then un-registered RAM.

Once you get your RAM peaked out...then you gotta look at everything else in your system. :)

Good luck! :)

[jfrancho]

Bummer is that they probably formatted the drives as 500 each. So I basically have to re-install everything just to get to a few reasonably-size partitions. Argh. (Or can XP Pro re-size a partition without re-formatting??)Mine came with two partitions, evenly split, like you mention. I used Partition Magic to split things up.

[Robert_Lay]

Actually, even though Windows loves all the memory you can give it, anything over 500 MB is overkill. The equally important configuration item that I did not see any one mention is the need for a scratch disk that is not the same as your primary disk. For not much money I would recommend a second hard drive (20 GB is plenty) to be configured as your scratch disk - thus taking the load off of your primary hard drive.

Once you have it installed and setup under Windows, go to Edit-> Preferences and find "Plug-Ins and Scratch Disks". That's where you tell PS to use the new added on Hard Drive as the 1st scratch disk. That will be a far more cost-effective improvement for PS than more memory (assuming you have at least 500 MB).

[Scottes]

I can't agree Bob, on a few points there. I often run several programs, and I run on virtual memory - disk - much more often than I like. I have a gig of RAM. 500 MB may be overkill for Windows but it's not for the programs that you run under it. Also, I would not bother with a low-speed non-buffered second disk *if* your primary is fast and *if* you're using any type of IDE and *if* both disks are on the same IDE controller. A lot of "ifs" but that's generally how most systems seem to be set up. Now, if you put that second disk on your second IDE controller - generally the one with the CD on it - this would be OK to do - as long as you never use the CD when running Photoshop. (None of the disk stuff I said is pertinent if you have SATA drives. If so, Bob's absolutely correct.)

[Robert_Lay]

I can't agree Bob, on a few points there. I often run several programs, and I run on virtual memory - disk - much more often than I like. I have a gig of RAM. 500 MB may be overkill for Windows but it's not for the programs that you run under it. Also, I would not bother with a low-speed non-buffered second disk *if* your primary is fast and *if* you're using any type of IDE and *if* both disks are on the same IDE controller. A lot of "ifs" but that's generally how most systems seem to be set up. Now, if you put that second disk on your second IDE controller - generally the one with the CD on it - this would be OK to do - as long as you never use the CD when running Photoshop. (None of the disk stuff I said is pertinent if you have SATA drives. If so, Bob's absolutely correct.)

I hadn't thought about the SATA drives making that much difference - this is my first computer with SATA drives.

Anyone on a PC can open the Windows Task Manager (Ctrl-Alt-Del) and select the "Performance" Tab. There you will see how the memory and CPU resources are being utilized. Since I very rarely have anything other than the Internet Explorer Browser open at the same time as PSCS, my system seems to just loaf along effortlessly. Having a lot of programs open at the same time eats memory.

[jfrancho]

Some of my images are as large as 500MB while I am working on them. Of course the final image, including the layers I'm keeping rarely exceeds 120MB. Flattened images usually run around 35-40MB. I use Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM @533MHz. Another performance issue is FSB. I'm using an Intel chipset, 925xe 1066MHz FSB. I almost always have Firefox with several tabs open, Outlook (for work), T-bird (for me), and possibly solitaire (it's a sad addiction, I know) when I'm working in PS. I sometimes have Fireworks running, too, since I never got the hang ImageReady. It all adds up, and when you consider the 150-200MB XP seems to use at idle, the more memory, the merrier seems to be the best recommendation. One last thing to keep in mind: some of us are very careful with what we do , and where we go with our computers online. That usually isn't the case, and it is likely that the general population has some extra junk running that can slow things up. I'm not talking just adware and viruses, but things like special toolbar, office toolbars, quickstart applets, etc. can use up resources.

[Scottes]

Bob, the problem with IDE is that the drive commands are sent sequentially. A single IDE bus can only handle a single drive command at a time. So if you really care then spread your drives across multiple controllers, thus allowing the primary drive and scratch drive to operate independently. SATA is much better at this, though still not SCSI - mainly the speed of the SATA interface gets one by. Multi-user systems use SCSI because the SCSI bus can handle many simultaneous commands to multiple devices. Thus in a heavy Photoshop processing environment running many other programs - that is me - SCSI has some huge benefits. But the price and performance generally inhibit this. If I ever hit the lottery all my drives would be SCSI, preferably RAID 5 + 0 using the fastest drives I could get. Overkill? Heck yes, but this is *if* I won the lottery. :-)

Like jfrancho I often work on large multi-layer images. My largest TIFF file - saved just to get a "snapshot" - was 1.3 Gig. Having THAT loaded in Photoshop was a bear to work with, let me tell you! Especially on a P4 1.8 GHz with only a gig of RAM. Processing which would have taken 10 minutes on an 8 megapixel image took over 2 hours with this image. I played a lot of solitaire while waiting!

If you only work on a single 8 MP 16-bit file (48 MB of RAM required) and only use a few layers and you control your history intelligently and don't run multiple programs then 1 gig of RAM is going to be sufficient with ease, and scratch space will not be an issue. This probably is OK for 80-90% of the photographers around. But if you start getting into upsizing this may be an issue. A 20x30 300 DPI 16-bit image takes 486 MB of RAM just to load. Now you're in trouble with a single gig, since doing anything will create an undo level and more RAM (not necessarily another 486 MB) will be needed. Panos use multiple layers of 48MB files and chew RAM. Playing with things like HDRI will chew RAM significantly, as I found out the other night when running a series of 5 8-megapixel images - it had eaten 1.6 Gig of RAM before I stopped it.

[subtle_spectre]

With sufficient RAM you can dispense with scratch and virtual memory...with RAM more is always better, period, whether it be size, speed, bus interface...whatever. The best place to find discussion and information about ram is www.notebookforums.com.

[Scottes]

with RAM more is always better, period
Absolutely true. As an example my system, a 1.8 GHz P4, had 512 megs of RAM. It was OK for processing my photos if I kept it simple. I eventually upgraded to 1 Gig of RAM and my Photoshop processing speed basically doubled. Not that *everything* speeded up, but the amount of RAM reduced or eliminated the need for scratch or virtual use, and my overall processing speed doubled. It was a very cheap upgrade.

Nowadays I wouldn't even consider getting a system with less than 2 Gig, and I actually got 3 for my new system.

[jfrancho]

No amount of hardware you throw at it seems to speed up gaussian blur.

[Scottes]

Yeah, but at least with a dual-core I can still browse the web while waiting.

[jfrancho]

Personally, my solitaire addiction usually passes the time. That is the best thing about running a dually - even virus scans don't slow me down. It allows true multi-tasking.

[Scottes]

Now how do you like that. Windows has been a multi-tasking OS for *years* but it finally took Intel to make it work.
:-)

[jfrancho]

C'mon now, are you claiming that Microsoft was visionary?

[Harry Settle]

Now how do you like that. Windows has been a multi-tasking OS for *years* but it finally took Intel to make it work.
:-)

It has always worked. It's just that we are all spoiled by speed. Ever catch yourself standing in front of the microwave, tapping your foot and whispering "come onnnn" under your breath, while your first cup of coffee in the morning heats up? Our old microwave used to make popcorn in 3:33. The new one makes it in 1:32. My dog still sits and whines until it's done.

Seriously though, I have a fairly new P4 3.2, 800fsb, 1gig of unmatched ram, 2 120gig drives and 1 250gig drive. For video purposes my operating system is kept on a main drive while my video work is on seperate drives. This keeps the system from stuttering while trying to access the OS at the same time I am rendering video.

[PacAce]

No matter how much faster SATA is compared to PATA, the weakest, or should we say the slowest, link is still the physical hard drive. So two physical hard drives is still better than a single hard drive pratitionined into multiple logical drives.

As for RAM usage by Windows, although Windows itself may not require that much memory, the applications that are running under Windows may. And the more apps there are running concurrently, the more memory will be required to run efficiently. RAM is not directly used by applications because they are kept in virtual memory, which is stored on disks are pages or swap files. But virtual memory needs to be backed up by real memor, aka RAM, in order for the apps to run. PS works the same way but it manages its own swap or scratch files for its data and work memory space, although Windows still manages the memory that PS itself is running in.

[Scottes]

Our old microwave used to make popcorn in 3:33. The new one makes it in 1:32. My dog still sits and whines until it's done.
ROFL! Too true, too true.

[JohnnyG]

1/2 gig of memory is really too little when using Photoshop CS2 like I do. I have 1 gig and it's adequate. I really think 2 gig would be optimum.

Adding scratch disk is fine but disk is much slower than memory so you have to wait longer.

[Ronald S. Jr.]

I'm extremely spoiled by speed. If a website doesn't load in the first 1 1/2 sec. or so, I have a mini anxiety attack. Seriously. I'm just not used to it. I can't use the internet when I go to a friend's house. It's just too much strain on my heart. ;-)

Personally, my XPS is a 3.8 Dual Core, 4 gigs (1024x4) , 1.6TB at 7200 (10,000 was insanely expensive), 256 Radeon X850SE Hyper Memory, and SoundBlaster Audigy ZS (which has absolutely nothing to do with editing :p )

Even with a monster machine like that, I've had my internet CREEP along (which is completely subjective), and I've had PS move along like an inchworm. However, for the most part, I can't seem to figure out how to slow it down. I can open everything I can think of, and it just won't give. Yeah, I know 4 gigs is overkill for just about everything, but I wanted to be set for the not so distant future as well.

Pshta.

:-D

[JohnnyG]

I'm extremely spoiled by speed. If a website doesn't load in the first 1 1/2 sec. or so, I have a mini anxiety attack. Seriously. I'm just not used to it. I can't use the internet when I go to a friend's house. It's just too much strain on my heart. ;-)

Personally, my XPS is a 3.8 Dual Core, 4 gigs (1024x4) , 1.6TB at 7200 (10,000 was insanely expensive), 256 Radeon X850SE Hyper Memory, and SoundBlaster Audigy ZS (which has absolutely nothing to do with editing :p )

Even with a monster machine like that, I've had my internet CREEP along (which is completely subjective), and I've had PS move along like an inchworm. However, for the most part, I can't seem to figure out how to slow it down. I can open everything I can think of, and it just won't give. Yeah, I know 4 gigs is overkill for just about everything, but I wanted to be set for the not so distant future as well.

Pshta.

:-D

What a monster!!!:D:D:D

I built a 3.2 hypethread a year ago primarily for gaming. I'm a heavy fps gamer and I needed the speed. I built it on a budget but still did fairly good. I only have a meg of memory and need more. My video card is a RADEON 9800 Pro so it's a little old now but it will have to do for a while.

Your system is awesome indeed. Mine isn't even close.

I'm a 65 year old gamer grandfather. Go figure!!!

[gmaize]

Ok Now,

I've read the thread and will be very soon shopping for RAM upgrades. My Dell maxes out at 1024 MB, so I'm shopping for 2x 512 chips (DDR PC2100 SO DIMM). What manufactures do you recommend, or more importantly, perhaps, which ones should I stay away from.

Thanks much....this is my first foreray into memory uprades.

--gmaize

[subtle_spectre]

Ok Now,

I've read the thread and will be very soon shopping for RAM upgrades. My Dell maxes out at 1024 MB, so I'm shopping for 2x 512 chips (DDR PC2100 SO DIMM). What manufactures do you recommend, or more importantly, perhaps, which ones should I stay away from.

Thanks much....this is my first foreray into memory uprades.

--gmaize

www.newegg.com is the reputable mecca for RAM. Kingston, Transcend, Crucial, Corsair...all good. Are you sure the unit maxes out at 1024?

[gmaize]

www.newegg.com (http://www.newegg.com) is the reputable mecca for RAM. Kingston, Transcend, Crucial, Corsair...all good. Are you sure the unit maxes out at 1024?

Scott,

Thanks for the tips. I know of Kingston and I'll look into the others. I did check my Dell 8200 specs (and it was confirmed through 2 other sources) and 1024MB (512 in 2 slots) is the max in this laptop.

Anyone else have an opinion on manufacturers of RAM?

--gmaize

[Harry Settle]

I've been running ps7 for almost a week now, and for what I do, my current 1gig seems to be adequate.

[robertwgross]

When I purchased my current computer, it had 512MB of RAM. I was doing some high-res film scanning and noticed how slow it was. Then I increased the RAM to 1GB, and the scanning sped up a lot.

---Bob Gross---