2GB to 3GB RAM - much of a difference?

[cdifoto]

Just wondering....if I swapped out a 1GB stick in my laptop for a 2GB to give me 3GB in all (the most XP Professional 32 bit will recognize AFAIK), would I see much improvement to warrant it? I'm currently running a 2.16GHz Core2Duo laptop w/ 2GB RAM @ 667MHz. LR 1.4 and PS7 are my two primary tools.

[TheHoff]

I say yes. Especially keeping them both open at the same time, I felt good difference going from 2 to 3.3 (4 total, but still on Vista 32). And it is so cheap now, too.

[cdifoto]

That was my next question...should I just spring for 2 2GB sticks even though I'm only on a 32 bit system? Would I have glitches or would the only downside be that not all 4GB is recognized?

[scokar]

turn on your task manager and monitor the ram usage as you do your average workflow. that will tell you if you need more memory.

however, sometimes memory has to be installed in pairs -- depends on your motherboard. this info is in your manual or online at the manufacturers site.

[blinded]

You guys make me feel ghetto. I still only have 512. Personally, I can't imagine 2gigs. That's like too much! And then I hear about 4-8gb... OVERKILL!

[Tony-S]

Just wondering....if I swapped out a 1GB stick in my laptop for a 2GB to give me 3GB would I see much improvement to warrant it? I'm currently running a 2.16GHz Core2Duo laptop w/ 2GB RAM @ 667MHz.

If you have a GMA video chipset you'll lose the benefit of matched dual-channel memory.

[cdifoto]

If you have a GMA video chipset you'll lose the benefit of matched dual-channel memory.
Well I've got an NVIDIA Quadro NVS 120M video card in my laptop. It's 512MB with 256 shared. Not sure if that's considered GMA or not because I'm hardware-retarded.

[orisky]

You guys make me feel ghetto. I still only have 512. Personally, I can't imagine 2gigs. That's like too much! And then I hear about 4-8gb... OVERKILL!

how are you even able to start and OS, open a browser and make a post? :p

[tim]

how are you even able to start and OS, open a browser and make a post? :p

Slowly!

[cdifoto]

You guys make me feel ghetto. I still only have 512. Personally, I can't imagine 2gigs. That's like too much! And then I hear about 4-8gb... OVERKILL!
No such thing as overkill when you have 900+ images to work on and time is money. :mad:

[tim]

I can't imaging 2GB-3GB will make a lot of difference, but memory's cheap. Personally I have a dual core PC with 2GB of RAM, at the end of the year or next year i'll upgrade to 8 core and 4-8GB of RAM. With the number of weddings I have booked it should save me a fairly large amount of time.

[TheHoff]

It is 50% more memory... how is that not significant? Assuming Vista is eating at least half a gig, he is running with 1.5 free now... so going to 3, under the hood, will mean 100% more free RAM to work with.


edit: oh yea, and as said above, I'd go to 4 even if you won't see it all now. It is always preferable to have matched pairs.

[tim]

(the most XP Professional 32 bit will recognize AFAIK)

It is 50% more memory... how is that not significant? Assuming Vista is eating at least half a gig, he is running with 1.5 free now... so going to 3, under the hood, will mean 100% more free RAM to work with.


How do you figure Vista's taking up half a gig when he's running XP? :p

[TheHoff]

How do you figure Vista's taking up half a gig when he's running XP? :p

Even when you're not running Vista, it is still eating unnecessary resources remotely.

:D

[ChasP505]

I think any you should leave well enough alone. 2 gb seems to be the "sweet spot" for a system like yours (and mine). Also, I subscribe to the belief that most systems are happiest with matched sticks of memory, not different size, different brands, etc. I spec the PCs in the marketing/graphics department of the company I work for and they all run on 2 x 1gb or 4 x 500mb matched memory. I get most of my system recommendations from two old friends, both IT managers for large corporations.

So don't fix what ain't broke and apply the money you would have spent to your next computer.

[TheHoff]

"Sweet spot" in a computer RAM configuration sounds like getting "magic" from a camera lens... hogwash that it wouldn't run better with 4 gigs over 2.

[Az2Africa]

How do you figure Vista's taking up half a gig when he's running XP? :p

From the Stickie: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=441063

[Tony-S]

Well I've got an NVIDIA Quadro NVS 120M video card in my laptop. It's 512MB with 256 shared. Not sure if that's considered GMA or not because I'm hardware-retarded.

You should be ok, then since that's a stand-along video card (it's own vRAM). GMA is Intel's on-board video.

[Mark1]

I get most of my system recommendations from two old friends, both IT managers for large corporations.



No offense, But that is the kiss of death where I work. We have some techs on our squad.... well lets say I almost had to show one how to open a file. NO, I am not kidding. And she gets sent out all the time to work on our stuff. 95% of the time she is here she is on the phone to other techs, asking about stuff she should have learned on day 2 of school. The rest of the team is not much better. Again I am not exagerating here.

If you want to know what you need, find forums that pertain to your computer. Just as you come here to learn about your camera. There are way more forums about computers than cameras. You will find what you need, Im sure of it.

[JasonSTL739]

The main thing is if you are actually using the memory... But if you run LR and PS together, it is pretty easy to snag all 2GB, so I suspect maxing out your system would probably be a good idea. I would just get two 2GB sticks and be done with it.

You also might consider running the photoshop pagefile within a RAMdisk, which I have found is THE WAY to make photoshop run extremely well.

You guys make me feel ghetto. I still only have 512. Personally, I can't imagine 2gigs. That's like too much! And then I hear about 4-8gb... OVERKILL!

I can't imagine how you work, even windows XP is pretty slow with 512MB. I suspect, you don't work with much in the way of imaging, video, etc? You might consider that others here, myself included, use a TON of memory in their systems for a reason. It isn't overkill. I have 16GB, and often have 14GB in use. Does that make it overkill?

[Mark1]

I forgot to add.... The more ram you use the more you will notice the difference. Sending mom an email will not become lightning fast. It actually may not be any faster than before. It simply was not maxing the ram before, and definatley will not after. But open lightroom and have 600 shots open. All of a sudden the machine comes alive with power. And you will notice a difference.

Windows though, will itself use more ram for itself. When you add more, it uses more. to a point. Back when I went from 512 to 1 gig, I dont remember the numbers, but I do remember running a utility that broke down the ram in use. And windows used like 30% more when the ram was extended.

[davidfig]

And it is so cheap now, too.

Its only cheap if you have a recent computer using 240pin memory. I have the 184 pin memory, its expensive.

[ChasP505]

hogwash that it wouldn't run better with 4 gigs over 2.

I stand by what I said, in respect to a 32 bit Windows XP system. I've personally built about 2 dozen systems myself and I don't see any great advantage going from 2 to 3 gb and mis-matched sets of Ram invite trouble. I never mentioned anything about going to 4 gb.

And... the IT people, my personal friends, are extremely qualified.

[Mark1]

ChasP505 is right, there is no advantage of more ,IF YOU DONT USE IT. As I stated above small items will not run faster. ... 1 gallon a minute is still 1 gallon a minute in a garden hose or a fire hose. The potential is more, but if you are only watering the petunias there is no point to the larger hose. But when the alarm goes off, the garden hose may work, but it will take a lot longer. Ram is no different. Small jobs will be the same. But power hungry programs will work better with more room.

[cdifoto]

Yeah I'm thinking more RAM for PS batching and LR RAW exports wouldn't hurt. I'll slap 4GB matching in it if there's no downside other than the full recognition issue.

[eddarr]

turn on your task manager and monitor the ram usage as you do your average workflow. that will tell you if you need more memory.

however, sometimes memory has to be installed in pairs -- depends on your motherboard. this info is in your manual or online at the manufacturers site.

You are talking about the Page File Usage right? Or is that the physical memory.

I tried this by opening LR and just doing some normal stuff (rendering larger views, exporting from raw etc). My PF usage went from about 250MB to around 500MB. The physical memory available reduced about from 1400000 to 1200000. The big thing is that the CPU usage jumped from about 2% to an average of around 60% and it did hit 100% a few times. This is with a 2.8g P4 and 2g ram on XP.

Sorry about the thread hijack.

[neil_g]

with the price of memory these days you may as well bung 4gb of matched sticks in and have done with it, that way if you upgrade your OS at a later date youre instantly better off.

Windows though, will itself use more ram for itself. When you add more, it uses more. to a point. Back when I went from 512 to 1 gig, I dont remember the numbers, but I do remember running a utility that broke down the ram in use. And windows used like 30% more when the ram was extended.

depends on your settings really.. if youve got the setting turned on that allows windows to decide which pretty bits to turn off to improve performance then common sense kinda dictates that it will use more memory if it's available.

[Tony-S]

with the price of memory these days you may as well bung 4gb of matched sticks in and have done with it, that way if you upgrade your OS at a later date youre instantly better off.

That's provided the OPs memory controller on the mobo can also address beyond 3 gigs.

[blinded]

how are you even able to start and OS, open a browser and make a post? :p

hahaha, I've had over 100 tabbed windows open while running photoshop, and yes, it works. It can get kind of slow though after a while. There is actually A LOT you can do on 512. And my computer starts up as slow as any copy of Windows, with tons of ram or not. :lol:

[neil_g]

That's provided the OPs memory controller on the mobo can also address beyond 3 gigs.

yes, sorry neglected that point.

[Hawkman]

Just wondering....if I swapped out a 1GB stick in my laptop for a 2GB to give me 3GB in all (the most XP Professional 32 bit will recognize AFAIK), would I see much improvement to warrant it? I'm currently running a 2.16GHz Core2Duo laptop w/ 2GB RAM @ 667MHz. LR 1.4 and PS7 are my two primary tools.

You probably have PAE (Physical Address Extension) on your computer. Windows XP (32 bit) can see up to 4 GB of RAM with PAE. However some of that is reserved for device use so you will usually see only about 3.6GB of that 4 GB. In addition, by default, windows will split this down the middle reserving 1/2 (1.8GB) for the OS, leaving 1.8GB for programs. However, if you boot the processor with the /3GB switch, it will only reserve 1GB for the OS (the switch isn't very well named, it assumes you have 4GB of RAM). This means with 4GB and /3GB switch, you will have 3.6-1 = 2.6 GB available for programs.

With 3GB of RAM, you will have 3GB - reserved = X (I don't know what reserved is in this case, but X can be displayed right clicking on my computer and selecting properties). Without the /3GB switch you will have 1/2 X fGB or your programs. With the /3GB switch you will have X-1 GB for your programs.

Also, the /3GB switch cause problems on some systems.

With 2GB RAM you only have 1GB for programs.

Yeah, it is a mess. This is because you are running 32 bit XP - this all goes away wwith 64 bit XP

- Gene

[tim]

Yeah I'm thinking more RAM for PS batching and LR RAW exports wouldn't hurt. I'll slap 4GB matching in it if there's no downside other than the full recognition issue.

I've monitored resources when i'm doing batch conversion in photoshop or bridge, it maxes out both cores of my CPU but doesn't use much RAM.

[Mark1]

depends on your settings really.. if youve got the setting turned on that allows windows to decide which pretty bits to turn off to improve performance then common sense kinda dictates that it will use more memory if it's available.

Acctuall I ran the test. Poped the case threw in the other stick. closed the case and ran the test again. Changed nothing. Windows knows to limit itself to a percentage of available space. So when you have more it will use more to try to speed up.

[ChasP505]

No offense, But that is the kiss of death where I work.

No offense taken... Sorry to hear about your company's troubles.

[Mark1]

No offense taken... Sorry to hear about your company's troubles.

Its bad! I think I know more then they do. I am a bit of a nerd when it comes to computers. I fall in the power user category and have been thru the A+ training. But I know I am FAR from being a IT pro. And I run circles around our IT dept. Sad.

[davidcrebelxt]

hahaha, I've had over 100 tabbed windows open while running photoshop, and yes, it works. It can get kind of slow though after a while. There is actually A LOT you can do on 512. And my computer starts up as slow as any copy of Windows, with tons of ram or not. :lol:

My vista with 4gb RAM and a 2gb readyboost (of course only 3.x+ used for os... but some of the rest for video, I believe) starts up in under a minute (45 seconds I believe) from a cold boot... I'm prettly pleased.

EDIT:
Ok, I admit... just clocked it again... took exactly 60 seconds from button press on machine to get past log on screen and have desktop appear.... but that includes 15 seconds to get past bios screen and actually start booting into windows.

[blinded]

My vista with 4gb RAM and a 2gb readyboost (of course only 3.x+ used for os... but some of the rest for video, I believe) starts up in under a minute (45 seconds I believe) from a cold boot... I'm prettly pleased.

EDIT:
Ok, I admit... just clocked it again... took exactly 60 seconds from button press on machine to get past log on screen and have desktop appear.... but that includes 15 seconds to get past bios screen and actually start booting into windows.

I'm not timing mine, but it's maybe like 2 or 3 minutes. That isn't too long. I just turn it on when I get up and do other things in the morning. I don't think start up time is THAT important. Mine's left on all day anyways!

[photografy101]

Just wondering....if I swapped out a 1GB stick in my laptop for a 2GB to give me 3GB in all (the most XP Professional 32 bit will recognize AFAIK), would I see much improvement to warrant it? I'm currently running a 2.16GHz Core2Duo laptop w/ 2GB RAM @ 667MHz. LR 1.4 and PS7 are my two primary tools.

What model laptop do you have? you can't just put in what ever amount of memory you want. Will your motherboard except more memory? It's not dependent on your operating system but on your Mobo/chipset. You should also be safe and check with your computer manufacturer and the memory manufacturer that you want to buy from and make sure they're compatible... just to be safe. Some memory manufacturers have online tools to check compatibility.

[Hawkman]

I've monitored resources when i'm doing batch conversion in photoshop or bridge, it maxes out both cores of my CPU but doesn't use much RAM.

Try working on several or more RAW photos of 10 MB each with a history depth of 100 :D Spends its time swapping out other programs.

Gene

[tim]

Try working on several or more RAW photos of 10 MB each with a history depth of 100 :D Spends its time swapping out other programs.

As per my post I was talking about batch conversion, not interactive editing, they have quiet different resource requirements.

A history depth of 100 is a great way to waste system resources, you're better off using layers in an intelligent way.

[blinded]

A history depth of 100 is a great way to waste system resources, you're better off using layers in an intelligent way.

That might be good to know. I have mine set at like 200 or higher. :lol:

[tim]

The default is 20. At 200 you'll be using a massive amount of RAM that you don't need to. With smart use of layers you can set it to like 10 and still have good undo capability.

[ChasP505]

Its bad! I think I know more then they do. I am a bit of a nerd when it comes to computers. I fall in the power user category and have been thru the A+ training. But I know I am FAR from being a IT pro. And I run circles around our IT dept. Sad.

My company (a large real estate company with nearly 1,000 agents and employees) has the benefit of a bonafide IT crew. They are the "real thing" and do a d--m good job. My personal description is much like yours, a power user. I'm the de facto trouble shooter for the PCs and Macs used by the marketing/graphics department. For my personal tech advice, I usually call my nephew, owner of a computer consulting firm in NYC and IT manager for four large NYC research corporations.

[René Damkot]

That might be good to know. I have mine set at like 200 or higher. :lol:

:shock:
Mine's at 10

[Hawkman]

As per my post I was talking about batch conversion, not interactive editing, they have quiet different resource requirements.

A history depth of 100 is a great way to waste system resources, you're better off using layers in an intelligent way.


I do use layers and adjustment layers a lot but do lots of touch up with the history brush for which I want a long history. Layers may use less RAM than history, but even layers can consume lots of RAM. Either way, editing many 16 bit images interactively will consume lots of RAM. I agree batch has much less requirements on RAM.

In any case, I don't know whether the OP was talking batch or interactive. The latter I imagine.

Before going from 2GB to 4GB, a smart sharpen with many images would crawl along and the progress bar would pop up - due to swapping. After the upgrade, it is a snap.

- Gene

[René Damkot]

I do use layers and adjustment layers a lot but do lots of touch up with the history brush for which I want a long history.

Why do you want a long history for that?

[Bobster]

:shock:
Mine's at 10
yeah, can't see the point in having any more, just make a history snapshot and keep working..

i have 2GB in my Latitude and it works fine when i'm on the road and want to edit in Photoshop and CaptureOne..

apparently there is little performance difference from going 3GB from 2GB..

[cdifoto]

What model laptop do you have? you can't just put in what ever amount of memory you want. Will your motherboard except more memory?
It's Dell Latitude D820 and references I've seen say it can take up to 4GB.

[Bobster]

good choice in laptop ;)

throw 4GB in and either run XP64 or Vista64

[cdifoto]

good choice in laptop ;)
Yeah other than the screen. Resolution = good. Color & brightness = bad.


throw 4GB in and either run XP64 or Vista64
I probably will go with 4GB but I don't want to run a new OS since everything I have already works. Not sure what I'd lose going with 64. Plus I don't want to spend the money.

[ChasP505]

:shock:
Mine's at 10

Ditto

[tim]

Ditto

Love your sig!

[photografy101]

It's Dell Latitude D820 and references I've seen say it can take up to 4GB.


You are right. According to Dell you can put in a maximum of 4 GB of ram in the Latitude D820. I'm of the thinking because memory is more affordable now you can never have too much. Also Microsoft recommends 1 GB for Vista Home Premium alone. If you’re like me and have outlook open and maybe a word or pdf. document etc. and then you’re editing an image (I know I probably have attention deficit disorder) then you would probably benefit from more ram. If you do buy more memory I would be safe and make sure it is fully compatible. It could save you a headache.

[cdifoto]

You are right. According to Dell you can put in a maximum of 4 GB of ram in the Latitude D820. I'm of the thinking because memory is more affordable now you can never have too much. Also Microsoft recommends 1 GB for Vista Home Premium alone. If you’re like me and have outlook open and maybe a word or pdf. document etc. and then you’re editing an image (I know I probably have attention deficit disorder) then you would probably benefit from more ram. If you do buy more memory I would be safe and make sure it is fully compatible. It could save you a headache.
Yeah I multitask a lot even though I know I shouldn't for the more intensive stuff. :rolleyes:

[davidcrebelxt]

Yeah I multitask a lot even though I know I shouldn't for the more intensive stuff. :rolleyes:

Yeah, that and all the stuff that ends up getting loaded, running in the background, often we're multitasking and don't even realize it!

[photografy101]

Yeah, that and all the stuff that ends up getting loaded, running in the background, often we're multitasking and don't even realize it!

Exactly... things like antivirus and spyware programs and numerous processes and then add to that a few web pages.

[Hawkman]

Why do you want a long history for that?

To be able to go back, in my touchups, I have often. OK?

And I do use layers. Geez already, kinda presumptuous.

[tim]

Layers are your friends.

[René Damkot]

Geez already, kinda presumptuous.

Not meant, and sorry if it came across that way.
I was just curious, since, like said, I use a history state of 10 myself, and sometimes use the history brush. I thought I might be missing something ;)

[Bobster]

Yeah other than the screen. Resolution = good. Color & brightness = bad.
i find colour and brightness good on mine (well before i broke the screen, just waiting on a replacement)

[rwong2k]

My vista with 4gb RAM and a 2gb readyboost (of course only 3.x+ used for os... but some of the rest for video, I believe) starts up in under a minute (45 seconds I believe) from a cold boot... I'm prettly pleased.

EDIT:
Ok, I admit... just clocked it again... took exactly 60 seconds from button press on machine to get past log on screen and have desktop appear.... but that includes 15 seconds to get past bios screen and actually start booting into windows.

did the 2gb of readyboost help with the 4gb of ram you already have?

just wondering
thank-you
Raymond

[davidcrebelxt]

did the 2gb of readyboost help with the 4gb of ram you already have?

just wondering
thank-you
Raymond

Yes, I do see a difference even now (I had wondered the same thing)... things seem a bit sluggish (not terrible, but perceptible) without it.

I initially bought the computer with 2gb, so bought a 2gb ready boost drive, I just haven't upgraded my readyboost since I added more RAM... typically I think they suggest matching RB to the amount of system RAM you have.

[boog69]

Please excuxe my ignorance but where is the history depth you guys speak of? Is it in photoshop? The history that records all your edits? Thanks.

[tim]

It's how far back in the history you can go. The higher the number the more RAM is used.

[boog69]

Where is this located and how do you change? Sorry Don, not trying to hijack thread but I have a 3 gig processor and two gig of ram(that's the max it will take or believe me, I would have more). If I'm working strictly on pics, I'll normally turn off spyware and antivirus. My computer has a tendency to be on slow side most of time so I'm wondering what my history may be set to..... How many of you guys and gals have a computer designated strictly for photo work and another for surfing the web?

[tim]

It's somewhere in preferences - probably in the performance tab.

I web surf and do photos on the same PC at the same time - dual core 4800+ with 2GB of RAM, the parts are about 3 years old on average. It works pretty darn well, especially for its age.

[cdifoto]

I finally upgraded from 2GB to 4GB (3.25GB of which is recognized) a couple weeks ago. It's not night and day but it helps the computer hiccup less on the more intensive spots. It also lets me do a full speed virus scan with AVG and still run apps. AVG choked up my system on 2GB.