PC Performance, Scratch Disks, and Page Files

[coleygm]

I'm currently running Win Vista 32-bit on a 4GB machine with a single 750GB SATA HD.

In thinking about improving performance between Windows, PS CS4, and Lightroom 2, i'm confused as to what the best recipe would hardware wise.

I could upgrade to 64-bit windows and go to 8GB or more of RAM.
or
I could buy a 10k Velicirapter HD to use for the Scratchdisk or Page File
or
Use that Velicirapter instead as the OS HD and use the 750GB SATA HD for scratch or paging
or
a combination of any of this..and the list could go on.

I also have an external HD that can utilize eSATA via an eSATA card...would that be fast enough to hook the Page file or Scratch disk?

any thoughts greatly appreciated.

[Quad]

Memory first to prevent going to a scratch disk, this would be going 64 bit. Then use the fastest disk for scratch. It really needs to be fast and if you use the fatsest disk for OS it will be faster to say open photoshop but that is a short lived and used once in a session unless you have to go to the 32 bit side lots for plugins.

[tim]

Unless you open MASSIVE documents you won't use scratch much. Get RAM and a 64 bit OS. You don't need Velociraptor disks, any modern high capacity disk is fast, because of data density.

[coleygm]

biggest PS documents i work on are around 400Mb.

as it turns out, i guess i can't put more RAM in my CPU. I already had 4GB's and i guess that's the MAX.

so...will going to 64-bit give me an advantage? the CS4 suite and Lightroom 2 are enhanced for 64-bit i though so i'd think it would improve performance on those programs, but not even really sure of that.

I'm really surpsied too that i can't go higher than 4GB's but i guess i'm limited by my motherboard. No idea what it is but it's intel based. ...system is a Dell XPS410 with an Intel Q6600 Quad processor.

*sigh*

[Bobster]

as soon as you open a document in Photoshop, it uses scratch Tim, how much scratch depends on the size of the document..

400MB PS files should be fine using 2GB of RAM, its when you start working on 1.5GB sized files you need to look at more RAM

the Motherboard probably only has 2 slots = 2x 2GB = 4GB

[Bobster]

what are your photoshop settings? Image Cache, History, Memory Usage?

[coleygm]

as soon as you open a document in Photoshop, it uses scratch Tim, how much scratch depends on the size of the document..

400MB PS files should be fine using 2GB of RAM, its when you start working on 1.5GB sized files you need to look at more RAM

the Motherboard probably only has 2 slots = 2x 2GB = 4GB

4 slots actually 1x1Gb. I'd think i could go 2Gb's per slot, but apparantly each slot only takes 1Gb max and/or the mother board only supports 4Gb's. ...All the documentaion on Crucials website, Corsairs website, and Dell tell me the same thing. ...but I still am surprised by this. ...was a pretty high-end machine 18 months ago and you'd think it could take more if you had 64-bit.

[coleygm]

what are your photoshop settings? Image Cache, History, Memory Usage?

History: 20; Cach: 4; and Photoshop Uses 1224MB of my RAM (listed at 75%)

[tim]

as soon as you open a document in Photoshop, it uses scratch Tim, how much scratch depends on the size of the document..

How can you tell how much scratch is used?

[Bobster]

How can you tell how much scratch is used?
you can either ask the information palette to give you the extra information, or the bottom of photoshop on the left you'll see a little arrow, click on that and then select Show and then Scratch Sizes

[Bobster]

History: 20; Cach: 4; and Photoshop Uses 1224MB of my RAM (listed at 75%)
ok, go for 10 or less History states, and Cache of 8 and tweak Photoshop upto 100% and see how you get on with that :)

[Palladium]

I think some of the responses are a little off track to in an effort to get the OP back on track.

just because you have 4gb ram in your vista 32 cpu

- dosn't mean that your CPU is actually using it all - probally closer to 2-3 gb ram

- PS in 32 bit really only can use about 2GB without tweaking your system

- by allocating ram to PS, when PS is open your system performance will be impacted.

IMHO a typical system with 4 gb installed ram the OS is probably using between 2-3, then add in PS's allotment and your avail ram for the OS is now about 1gb. That could be the reason why you want to "thinking about improving performance".

[Bobster]

4GB of RAM will usually give 3.5GB of usable RAM..
whatever the System doesn't use (32bit windows will only allow max of 2GB per application to be allocated) can be used by Photoshop - ie max of 2GB, by having other stuff open, that will eat up available RAM to PS, but for a 400MB max file, there shouldn't be any performance issues, unless there is something else happening with your system - i used to edit 400MB files with a dual 1GHz PIII with 2GB of RAM without much trouble..

there might be other stuff limiting the performance of your system, Norton etc..

[tim]

I don't think allocating 100% of RAM to photoshop is a good idea, you need to leave some for the OS and other applications. This could slow the machine down beacuse of swap file paging, rather than speeding it up.

[Bobster]

the OS and other Apps will have 1.5GB of RAM to play with Tim, 32bit Windows only allows 2GB of RAM per process

when i had my MP2800's and 3GB of RAM i set PS to 100% and didn't have any trouble running it

[TheHoff]

4 slots actually 1x1Gb. I'd think i could go 2Gb's per slot, but apparantly each slot only takes 1Gb max and/or the mother board only supports 4Gb's. ...All the documentaion on Crucials website, Corsairs website, and Dell tell me the same thing. ...but I still am surprised by this. ...was a pretty high-end machine 18 months ago and you'd think it could take more if you had 64-bit.

Since this renders the original RAM question moot, you can start to look at HDD options. I agree that Raptors have been rendered unnecessary for most users but you can also look at Solid State Drives now as they are fast enough to make a worthwhile upgrade and large enough to be worth using.

(I know Tim will disagree here ;))

If you're looking for a bang-for-your-buck upgrade, many people have reported the new 256GB GSkill drives are quite good and of course if you want to spend more, the Intel models are excellent. If you can wait a few months there will be quite a bit more choice in the market but right now is a fine time to buy if you can swallow the $2/GB price and want extreme loading speed as you open files.

[Bobster]

just looked at the spec of the Dell, it has a 7900GS video card, something like an 86/8800 could well work wonders for your system and CS4

[tim]

the OS and other Apps will have 1.5GB of RAM to play with Tim, 32bit Windows only allows 2GB of RAM per process

when i had my MP2800's and 3GB of RAM i set PS to 100% and didn't have any trouble running it

Interesting, I didn't know that :)

[ruben00]

First get rid of Vista, it is a resource HOG, even the 64bit version, go back to XP 64bit

Then Upgrade your Ram to 8gb or whatever you want

If you already have SATA disks, you will see minimal speed increase by adding a raptor drive, you will probably see speed increases if you set up 2 or 3 drives in RAID 1 (stripe set) but this provides very little security because if one drive fails you are screwed

problem with having 1 fast drive is that your computer cant push data through 1 channel as fast as the disk can spin, so yeah, you got 15k RPM, but your stuck in a 1 lane highway

[tim]

I don't think abandoning vista is a great idea. XP64 is an odd stepchild, never really promoted much, and I wonder about hardware support. Also RAID is a waste of time and money in this case, IMHO, and hugely increases your chance of losing data with RAID1.

[ruben00]

I don't think abandoning vista is a great idea. XP64 is an odd stepchild, never really promoted much, and I wonder about hardware support. Also RAID is a waste of time and money in this case, IMHO, and hugely increases your chance of losing data with RAID1.

XP64 is a great OS, the reason most people never heard of it was because 64bit just was not affordable when XP64 came out

You are absolutley right, RAID 0 is bad when it comes to data protection, but so is having 1 disk, if anything, most motherboards now a days come with at least 4 SATA ports, so his cost would be 2 new identical drives, or for data protection Raid 1 + 0 (4 Drives)

[Bobster]

guys, please stop spouting crap!

XP64 is a pile of junk (i ran it for a year and a half - i had no choice some of the apps i needed to run weren't compatible with Vista64 at the time), Vista64 trumps it in performance and compatibility..

why is Vista64 a resource hog Ruben?? oh yeah because it takes more RAM than it needs to run smoother, but then releases the stuff its not using when an application asks for it?

RAID 1 is mirrored so there is no performance increase, but there is redundancy
RAID 0 is stripped which gives the performance increase, but also increases the chance of loosing everything! no redundancy..

[coleygm]

So..is it worth it to go with Vista 64-bit with only 4GB's of RAM?

Second, if i do load a new OS and rebuild the system...loading that to a Twin Velocirapter RAID 0 Volume and use my 7600 SATA drive for Scratch and backup would be a good idea performance wise correct? plus, if i'm backing the RAID 0 volume up on a continuing basis...not much risk right?

thanks for the thoughts and the help. I appreciate everyone's input.

[tim]

When I upgraded to 4GB RAM I didn't bother to install Vista.

[coleygm]

to clarify...i'm currently running vista 32-bit ultimate

[jetboy]

What motherboard do you have that only allows 1gb sticks?

[coleygm]

What motherboard do you have that only allows 1gb sticks?


not sure...it's a Dell XPS410...but that probably doesn't tell you much.

[ruben00]

guys, please stop spouting crap!

XP64 is a pile of junk (i ran it for a year and a half - i had no choice some of the apps i needed to run weren't compatible with Vista64 at the time), Vista64 trumps it in performance and compatibility..

why is Vista64 a resource hog Ruben?? oh yeah because it takes more RAM than it needs to run smoother, but then releases the stuff its not using when an application asks for it?

RAID 1 is mirrored so there is no performance increase, but there is redundancy
RAID 0 is stripped which gives the performance increase, but also increases the chance of loosing everything! no redundancy..

My mistake, I did mean raid 0, and 0+1 not the other way around :o

[tim]

I reserve the right to spout crap any time I want :p

[Moppie]

I am currently running a Q6600 with 4GB of ram, a 512MB 880GT and 32bit Vista.

I can have lightroom proccessing 30D raw files into TIFFs, and at the same time have CS3 proccessing 16bit TIFFs into JPEGs while running a sharpening action on them, and have World of War craft open in the background, all while PLAYING Far Cry 2 at 1600 x 1200, with high detail levels and get over 30fps.

I have 4 7200RPM SATA 2 drives.
OS on one, scratch and games on another, and 2 for photos, one being an internal back up, which means 3 active discs.



coleygm if your having issues with performance then you might want to look at what else is running on your system, as there could be something running in the background that doesn't need to be.

If your looking for the most cost effective way to simply increase performance then adding another HDD for the OS and scratch is simple and easy. Don't worry about high end raptors etc, just get a nice 7200 rpm SATA disc.

If you really want a further improvement of CS4 and LR only, and are not worried about multitasking to much, then along with adding a second drive, you could also install Vista 64bit.
This will allow you to assign more of your 4GB of ram to CS4 and LR, which will improve thier performance.



I would not be surprised at all if your system is limited to 4GB of ram either. Dell do anything they can to cut as many corners as possible, and also limit the upgradablity if thier systems.
If you want more ram, then provided your graphics card is not on board and Dell have not used propriety power connectors, then replacing the mother board for an ASUS or Gigabyte board which will hold up to 16GB (or more) of RAM is relativly cheap and easy to do.

[coleygm]

Moopie...would 64-bit hurt running all those other apps you mentioned? I know it would improve any of my CS4 apps as their enhanced for 64-bit. ...but those games you mentioned, and/or quicken, Norton, MS Office, etc... would those all be ok with 64-bit?

thanks for the info.

[Moppie]

I have never run 64bit, but I understand 32bit applications still work the same. :)

[Bobster]

I reserve the right to spout crap any time I want :p
indeed ;)

Norton
!! we have a winner!!! Norton is Bloatware of the highest order!!

[mrbojangles13]

how do i check what mine is set at? ok, go for 10 or less History states, and Cache of 8 and tweak Photoshop upto 100% and see how you get on with that :)

[Bobster]

http://www.pbase.com/bob_hall/image/109081444.jpg

[coleygm]

indeed ;)


!! we have a winner!!! Norton is Bloatware of the highest order!!

I actually thought the newest version of Norton runs much leaner. In any event if you want AntiVirus...what would you use?

[ChasP505]

I actually thought the newest version of Norton runs much leaner. In any event if you want AntiVirus...what would you use?

My most trusted source, my nephew, the IT manager and CIO of a large research company in NYC, recommended AVG (the standard paid licensed version, not the Free or Internet Security versions). I've been using it for about a year and I see no drag on my PC's performance.

[gcogger]

In any event if you want AntiVirus...what would you use?

Some comparitive tests here (http://www.av-comparatives.org/)

[coleygm]

Some comparitive tests here (http://www.av-comparatives.org/)

Good Stuff...thanks for this.

I put AVG on a lot of systems when their older and need a thinner client...plus it's free.

[coleygm]

just to update, i did upgrade to 64-bit Vista Ultimate and with a main drive consisting of dual RAID-0 velociraptors and my old SATA drive as the scratch disk.

PS-CS4 and LR-2 now fly and i couldn't be happier.

thanks

[Scottes]

I recently upgraded my PC, and installed Vista 64. I ran the ATTO disk performance benchmark soon after tweaking Vista for maximum performance. I then installed AVG, and ran ATTO again. It showed a 17% drop (approximately) in disk write performance across all 3 drives, and a lesser, but still noticeable, impact on read performance. I uninstalled AVG and tried AntiVir, which was even worse at 20-21% impact. I uninstalled that, too.

In most cases this won't affect people enough to notice, but it can remove a bit of snappiness for certain projects. I do a lot of HDR and panoramics, and even with 8GB RAM the disk gets hit a lot when creating a 210-megapixel pano. I don't want AV slowing that down.

[Faolan]

Have you tried Avast! AV? I've noticed it's got a smaller resource footprint than most AV I've come across..

[lens pirate]

I would suggest the following:

1. Upgrqade to a 64 Bit O/S. That 4 gig ram limitation is really a problem and a bottle neck with todays media editing applications.

2. Get as much RAM as you can afford. I suggest if you are going to upgrade to the INTEL core I7 system that you go with 12 gigs of Ram.


THEN HERE IS HOW TO MAKE PHOTOSHOP FLY!!!!!!! Get a 32 dollar copy of SuperSpeed ramdisk 9 and create a 4 gig ram disk. Set that as your scratch drive.
You will not even believe how fast photoshop gets. INSTANT application of filters and other changes! Ram disk are on the order of 50 times faster than hard disks.

THEN ENABLE READY BOOST with a fast thumbdrive or flashmedia.

Then make sure that your drives are DEFRAGED and you have plenty of space set aside for swap files on each hard drive.

Combine the above configurations with the already awesome Windows Vista 64 superfetch and your gonna need a seat belt.

I had a buddy come over that just spent a metric butt load of money and a MAC PRO and my machine freaked him out... He feels aweful about his purchase.

[Moppie]

THEN ENABLE READY BOOST with a fast thumbdrive or flashmedia.




People don't believe me when I tell them this works!
I have a 1gb USB stick I use, and I really notice the difference when its not connected.