Upgrading to 8Gb RAM

[wicko]

Sounds like you have your bases covered then. Must have cost you a pretty penny for those raptors, must be blistering fast.

 

[bliq]

What do you want to do with this rig that takes that much ram. I can't for the life of me see why someone would even get 4GB. 2GB is just fine. I can't even notice a difference between my 1GB and 2GB and my 3Dmark scores back me up...

There are lots of reasons for needing that much RAM, and almost none of them have to do with gaming.

I use a 16GB workstation with Dual Opterons for testing server applications on my desktop. 8GB is about the normal for photo editors, or any wedding photographer. They all use 64bit windows.

I prefer linux myself.

 

[smudgee]

for any who's interested
from Adobe..

When you run Photoshop CS3 on a computer with a 64-bit processor (such as a, Intel Xeon processor with EM64T, AMD Athlon 64, or Opteron processor) running a 64-bit version of the operating system (Windows XP Professional x64 Edition or Windows Vista 64-bit) and with 4 GB or more of RAM, Photoshop will use 3 GB for it's image data. You can see the actual amount of RAM Photoshop can use in the Let Photoshop Use number when you set the Let Photoshop Use slider in the Performance preference to 100%. The RAM above the 100% used by Photoshop, which is from approximately 3 GB to 3.7 GB, can be used directly by Photoshop plug-ins (some plug-ins need large chunks of contiguous RAM), filters, or actions. If you have more than 4 GB (to 6 GB), then the RAM above 4 GB is used by the operating system as a cache for the Photoshop scratch disk data. Data that previously was written directly to the hard disk by Photoshop is now cached in this high RAM before being written to the hard disk by the operating system. If you are working with files large enough to take advantage of these extra 2 GB of RAM, the RAM cache can speed performance of Photoshop. Additionally, in Windows Vista 64-bit, processing very large images is much faster if your computer has large amounts of RAM (6-8 GB).

smudgee

 

[bliq]

I don't 'think' so Halcyon - The max no of cores that Photoshop (or any of the other CS3 apps) can access is two, so I don't think going to 4 cores would be beneficial at this stage (maybe in another two years when CS4 will be due out) - but I tend to change my rig every two years anyway, so if PS does go 4 core aware, then maybe then would be the time to change.

Guys who are running PS with 8 or 16Gb of RAM have assured me there are considerable speed gains to be achieved by upping the RAM as have a couple of Photoshop engineers who I have 'spoken' to.

PS. I can also confirm that your last observation is correct. Unless I have interpreted the membership of this board's rules incorrectly, this board is not a 'men only' club. :roll:

Clearly the OP knows what she's talking about so unless we have anything useful to add about upgrades THAT WE KNOW WOULD REALLY BE AN UPGRADE, we should pipe down or Carol_s should check out a more professional and less gamer oriented forum for clear answers.

The timings may make a difference, but it depends on how long your processing takes. If we're talking about 24+ hours at a time or something, you may save 30 minutes or whatever the number might be- that may be worth 80 pounds to you. One of the processes I run as a sysadmin takes 40 hours to complete and we run it one after another. In that case, we used every top notch component in the servers, we're talking $40k. It was worth it to save the 8+ hours that a commodity server could do the job in. It saves us a day every 3 runs.

In everyday computing, no it won't be noticeable. It'll be noticeable in large bulk jobs like the ones you do, or video editing or rendering.

Oh and btw, I recommend going for the faster RAM. Especially since it's ostensibly a work/money-generating computer. If it saves you minutes or hours over the long run, it'll pay for itself many times over.

 

[Major_Spittle]

What do you want to do with this rig that takes that much ram. I can't for the life of me see why someone would even get 4GB. 2GB is just fine. I can't even notice a difference between my 1GB and 2GB and my 3Dmark scores back me up...

There are lots of reasons for needing that much RAM, and almost none of them have to do with gaming.

I use a 16GB workstation with Dual Opterons for testing server applications on my desktop. 8GB is about the normal for photo editors, or any wedding photographer. They all use 64bit windows.

I prefer linux myself.

4 Gigs vs 2 Gigs - http://www.bcchardware.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=3135&Itemid=40&limit=1&limitstart=0

I have 2 more gigs of ram in the mail from new egg. Less HDD thrashing is alway good. I will then have 4GB of system ram and I will have a 2GB high speed SD flash drive from my camera plugged in (ready boost, for Page file)

My sons Vista32 system will have 3.5GB ram (Pentium D805), my wife's Vista32 Laptop will have 2GB ram (C2D), so I should be able to get a good idea of the impact Ram will have on Vista.

 

[carol_s]

A very similar spec to my rig at the moment

Gigabyte GA-965P-DQ6
4x1Gb Corsair DDR2 6400 (800) RAM (C4)
GeForce 7600GT graphics
Win XP x64 (can't go to Vista x64 until Gretag-Macbeth release appropriate drivers)

Only difference is that I have 2 150Gb Raptors in RAID 0 array for OS, programs, scratch disk, page file etc and two large Barracudas set to SATA 3Gb mode for work files.

 

[Major_Spittle]

I ordered 4 gig of Corsair Value Select 667 ram and will be giving my Corsair 800 C4s to my son. I don't really see any performance increase whether I run my ram at 800 or 1000.

That article I linked talks about Vista 64 only using ~750mb of ram when 2 gig is installed and ~1.1gb when 4 gigs is installed. I would assume this will make the OS quite snappier. I also have a 2 gig stick of high speed SD flash that I use as ready boost when not in my camera.

I just have a 7200rpm 320gb seagate with 16mb cache for a HDD, so I hate page filing .

 

[Driiper]

Well klet me explain short before i leave this topic.

the graphic card works and take some of the ram that the pc use, if you have 1 geforce 6600 you will need 50ram free for the graphic card.. but if you want best preformance out of your pc you could buy 2 Nvidia 8800gtx and they would take 1gb ram for themselves.. then you still have 7gb left...

Your games wont be better if you have 1gb ram .. it may be worse... but she play games.. so if she want the best preformance just buy all the most expensive things....

I really dont care what she buy but she will be dissapointed...

 

[Dade_0182]

What do you want to do with this rig that takes that much ram. I can't for the life of me see why someone would even get 4GB. 2GB is just fine. I can't even notice a difference between my 1GB and 2GB and my 3Dmark scores back me up...

There are lots of reasons for needing that much RAM, and almost none of them have to do with gaming.

I use a 16GB workstation with Dual Opterons for testing server applications on my desktop. 8GB is about the normal for photo editors, or any wedding photographer. They all use 64bit windows.

I prefer linux myself.

4 Gigs vs 2 Gigs - http://www.bcchardware.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=3135&Itemid=40&limit=1&limitstart=0 Firstly note how I asked what she was gonna do with the rig. Secondly those benches are for VISTA and neither I nor the op use it. For photoshop I think it's quite fine to have that much ram. The timings won't make a noticable difference.

 

[Lazarus7]

I love all the posts about how you don't even need 2 gb of ram. I have 4gb on my pc and when playing games such as CoH and Mark of Chaos I quite often see my ram usage at 60-65%. I am running vista 64bit, so I guess maybe in XP you wouldn't need any more but I felt that for the extra $260 (AUD) I would rather not have my games access virtual memory at all.

I reckon at the moment 3gb would be the sweet spot but for dual channel 4gb seems to be the easiest way to go.

Just my 2 cents.

Lazarus

 

[ruusnak]

For those not understanding the RAM requirements, an extract from Adobe PS CS3 technotes below:

When you run Photoshop CS3 on a computer with a 64-bit processor (such as a, Intel Xeon processor with EM64T, AMD Athlon 64, or Opteron processor) running a 64-bit version of the operating system (Windows XP Professional x64 Edition or Windows Vista 64-bit) and with 4 GB or more of RAM, Photoshop will use 3 GB for it's image data. You can see the actual amount of RAM Photoshop can use in the Let Photoshop Use number when you set the Let Photoshop Use slider in the Performance preference to 100%. The RAM above the 100% used by Photoshop, which is from approximately 3 GB to 3.7 GB, can be used directly by Photoshop plug-ins (some plug-ins need large chunks of contiguous RAM), filters, or actions. If you have more than 4 GB (to 6 GB), then the RAM above 4 GB is used by the operating system as a cache for the Photoshop scratch disk data. Data that previously was written directly to the hard disk by Photoshop is now cached in this high RAM before being written to the hard disk by the operating system. If you are working with files large enough to take advantage of these extra 2 GB of RAM, the RAM cache can speed performance of Photoshop. Additionally, in Windows Vista 64-bit, processing very large images is much faster if your computer has large amounts of RAM (6-8 GB).

 

[aBg_rOnGak]

Well klet me explain short before i leave this topic.

the graphic card works and take some of the ram that the pc use, if you have 1 geforce 6600 you will need 50ram free for the graphic card.. but if you want best preformance out of your pc you could buy 2 Nvidia 8800gtx and they would take 1gb ram for themselves.. then you still have 7gb left...

Your games wont be better if you have 1gb ram .. it may be worse... but she play games.. so if she want the best preformance just buy all the most expensive things....

I really dont care what she buy but she will be dissapointed...

Erm, sorry, Iv'e got new knowledge reading this thread, but your point make me like...hurm...I really don't get it. Could you please explain why :?: Is it either GTX use system ram for themself or you're mistaken it because those "Graphic Win Size" option in BIOS?

 

[Lazarus7]

Nice work....debate over

 

[NaDa]

Ok if you really need 8gigs of ram then buy them.

You wont be able to tell the difference with the lower latency ones.

I would also suggest RAIDing your HDD or buying an 10000 or even 15000RPM HDD. This could really speed up your load times!

 

[kickme21]

As I said before and as well as meny other people have said Including the OP that 8 gigs of RAM will be an improvement. I wouldn't of thought that the latancy would make much difference as the extra amount would be used as scratch disk. I was thinking of buying that very same RAM modules as Carol.

I would also put my swap file on something like this to just to stop the drives from having all the I/Os. Gigabyte RAM disk

I must say Driiper just hasn't goto the point of what the system is being used for here and that a GFX card won't make any difference for photo editing unless you need a high stream processor and the program is writen to make use of that

 

[Malcolmk]

Hi carol, I think I can help you with your question. As a photographer I know what it's like when photoshop uses up memory. Your PC goes from being super fast to super slow. Photoshop uses the ram as non-paged memory to record every action you take so when this is filled the old recorded actions are sent to the hard drive. For these reasons to improve performance you should consider improving drive speed as well as memory. There are some actions like filters and converting RAW files to JPEG's which are very CPU intensive, but overall ram and drive speed are the most important. I have tested memory timing at CAS 4 and CAS 5 and found there is only a 1-2% difference in processing performance so I would suggest going for the cheaper memory.

If your not currently using a RAID card I would suggest trying an Areca-1210. A single 7200rpm hard drive when connected to the onboard controller will give a real world file copy speed of 15-20mb per second. The Areca-1210 with four drives in a RAID 5 will have a file copy speed of 90-100mb per second. If you want more speed you can run more drives or use Raptor hard drives. What ever you do, don't use a Highpoint raid controller. They have very very bad drivers and can actually kill your hard drives. As for MAC vs PC, I have worked with both and can honestly say PC's are a lot faster and more reliable. Anyway I hope this answers your question.

Regards, Malcolm

 

[vietdeity86]

Im building a graphic applications computer for my brother with 64bit XP for corel draw and photoshop and some other programs. I have 4 gigs of pc8000 ram (waste of money, ah well, it was 240$ for all 4 gigs of crucial ballistix ram) but I was wondering, was my purchase of the 8800 GTS 640 a good purchase? He doesn't game at all, but I figured he'd benefit from the extra memory on the graphic card and rendering power of it.

 

[Malcolmk]

I made the same mistake with the first PC I built. I spent $600 on a graphics card and only $300 on memory. The best thing for Photoshop is RAM and hard drive speed. The Areca-1210 is the best money I have spent in a long time. I run four 320gig drives in a raid 5 which gives me 900gig of storage, reliability and great speed. My suggestion would be to down grade the graphics card to an 8600gt and put the difference toward a RAID card. Newegg are selling these cards $320, I only wish I could buy a card in Australia for that price.

 

[jt001]

Well klet me explain short before i leave this topic.

the graphic card works and take some of the ram that the pc use, if you have 1 geforce 6600 you will need 50ram free for the graphic card.. but if you want best preformance out of your pc you could buy 2 Nvidia 8800gtx and they would take 1gb ram for themselves.. then you still have 7gb left...

Your games wont be better if you have 1gb ram .. it may be worse... but she play games.. so if she want the best preformance just buy all the most expensive things....

I really dont care what she buy but she will be dissapointed...

For the love of god kid, how many times do we have to tell you NOT EVERYONE IS A GAMER and the op is NOT A GAMER! She has no use for fancy gaming cards in a workstation, and they would offer no tangible benefits. When you have 8gb of ram, 50mb lost is pretty trivial don't you think? Workstation users don't need fancy graphics. I'm beginning to think this guy is just a troll trying to cause problems, or maybe he is just that dumb.

 

[jamesjones_det]

I agree 2Gb is good if you can live with windows swap while playing any new RTS or FPS game in Vista. Vista Ultimate starts at 400 mb then add a large RTS or TS game with a large map and many units and it can allocate as much as 1.8 gb. I hit this mark often with Galactic Civilizations II with a large and full map. I used to always know when I got close to that mark because the game would slowdown big time even with a 10,000 rpm raptor.

As far as the 8gb question goes if all you are doing video/photo editing with gaming on the side I would get the slower memory and save $90 bucks. If you do a lot of hard core gaming then get the faster memory. In my experience the faster memory timings only gives you a small boost in performance. This helps in gaming where you need to execute the main loop as fast as you can, but doesn't really help that much for event driven applications such as a photo or video editor.

 

[Mondoman]

I agree 2Gb is good if you can live with windows swap while playing any new RTS or FPS game in Vista.

The OP isn't gaming.

...
As far as the 8gb question goes if all you are doing video/photo editing with gaming on the side ...

The OP still isn't gaming.

...If you do a lot of hard core gaming then get the faster memory.

I know it's hard to believe, but the OP still isn't gaming.

 

[elpresidente2075]

For a bit of added performance, you may want to look into something like this for your swap file: Gigabyte i-RAM

There's a new version coming out that'll do DDR2 (I believe soon too!) and I think twice the total memory capacity. Keep in mind, this would be for your pagefile, but it would speed up performance even more if more memory's what you need, which is what has been iterated many times before here.

And yes, the slower timings will make little to no difference with your usage model. Save the $$ and buy more memory for something like the i-RAM.


Edit:
Here's a tomshardware review of the i-RAM.

 

[boner]

LEAVE MY MOTHER OUT OF THIS!!!!!

he's right so f you

 

[boner]

Well ok here is what you need minimum to be able to use all of the 8gig that you want


Processor: Quad Extreme
OS : Win Xp/vista (64bit)
Graphic : Geforce 8800 GTX (SLI).

Sorry pal but to be blunt, you talk some Bullshit!!

You don't need a quad core processor or 8800's in sli to take advantage of 8GB of memory. Any system benefits from more memory if running memory intensive applications and Vista especially benefits from 4GB even if not.

All he needs to install 8GB is the 64 bit version of Vista on any Vista compatible system.

Even a Pentium 4 will benefit if running a memory intensive application although the CPU may dictate the ultimate speed of the files processing.

As for it being a waste of money, it depends on what he's using it for. I've photoshopped a panorama and run out of memory with 2GB on XP and with the swap file set to max (I think I set something like 40GB!). In fact it refused to process it as even the swap file became too large to handle.

So if video encoding large video files or handling huge photoshop projects such as huge resolution, multi-layered pictures or panaormas then 8GB may be beneficial.

you mean "she" because carol is a female

 

[aBg_rOnGak]

Somebody needs more coffee in order to make them see clearer/ read better I guess. I lost count how many times she said she's into Photoshop and not gaming...sigh... :roll: