Reading mode: Light Dark

2 GB RAM much better than 1 GB?

Go to last post
reid thaler

reid thaler

Senior Member
Messages
1,839
Reaction score
115
Location
San Francisco Bay Area, CA, US
Here is my set up:, P4 3.0, 1 GB RAM, 2 HDs (200 and 160) each with 2 partitions, XP Home.

I scan 35mm slides with a Nikon 4000 ED in 14 bit creating 120 MB file. After post processing, files grow to between 225-350, or more MBs for output up to 24x36 on an Epson 7600.

I have 1gig of RAM now, and RAM is coming down in price. Whould adding another 1 GB improve preformance significantly, or would it be just throwing money away?

Thanks,
--
Reid

Kodak Brownie
Argus 126
Quaker Oats Container Pinhole Camera
 
You wouldn't be throwing your money away, but I am not sure you would REALLY see a noticably faster speed improvement. The less caching to your hard drive the better and since more ram = less caching, I say try the 2 gig or even 1.5 gig and do some testing.
 
reid thaler said:
Here is my set up:, P4 3.0, 1 GB RAM, 2 HDs (200 and 160) each with
2 partitions, XP Home.

I scan 35mm slides with a Nikon 4000 ED in 14 bit creating 120 MB
file. After post processing, files grow to between 225-350, or more
MBs for output up to 24x36 on an Epson 7600.

I have 1gig of RAM now, and RAM is coming down in price. Whould
adding another 1 GB improve preformance significantly, or would it
be just throwing money away?
Click to expand...
Wasn't going to post this but doesn't software, OS (both software and settings), motherboard, processor ALL determine the speed or use of 2GB Ram?

Isn't software such as Adobe CS maxed out at 1 gig and doesn't really know how to utilize more than that? (not the only sw btw)

Also you have some issues as to the amount of slots filled and which ones for some MB's?

I guess buy and try is your only option, but realistically I wouldn't expect a great increase in speed.
 
It's my understanding the PS maxes out with 2 GB RAM.

Reid
jeffkrol said:
reid thaler said:
Here is my set up:, P4 3.0, 1 GB RAM, 2 HDs (200 and 160) each with
2 partitions, XP Home.

I scan 35mm slides with a Nikon 4000 ED in 14 bit creating 120 MB
file. After post processing, files grow to between 225-350, or more
MBs for output up to 24x36 on an Epson 7600.

I have 1gig of RAM now, and RAM is coming down in price. Whould
adding another 1 GB improve preformance significantly, or would it
be just throwing money away?
Click to expand...
Wasn't going to post this but doesn't software, OS (both software
and settings), motherboard, processor ALL determine the speed or
use of 2GB Ram?
Isn't software such as Adobe CS maxed out at 1 gig and doesn't
really know how to utilize more than that? (not the only sw btw)
Also you have some issues as to the amount of slots filled and
which ones for some MB's?
I guess buy and try is your only option, but realistically I
wouldn't expect a great increase in speed.
Click to expand...
--
Reid

Kodak Brownie
Argus 126
Quaker Oats Container Pinhole Camera
 
reid thaler said:
It's my understanding the PS maxes out with 2 GB RAM.
Click to expand...
Probably correct. My memory fails me :)
http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=009v59

So I guess if "available" RAM exceeds file size X 3 or 5 it will go to
swap file on HD. Of course maxing a 2GB.
My point is still valid. Try it and see. I'd be curious as to your results.
According to this from Adobe:
Installed RAM

Photoshop requires memory (RAM) that is three to five times the file size of the image you are editing. If memory is insufficient, Photoshop uses hard-drive space (that is, a scratch disk) to process information. Photoshop is fastest when it can process all or most image information in memory, without having to use the scratch disk. Allocate enough memory to Photoshop to accommodate your largest image file.
 
See how much you're currently using - hit CTRL-ALT-DEL and select Task manager so see how much RAM Photoshop + your "225 - 350 Mb file" is taking up. [Processes / Memory usage]

(Remembering that an earlier post talked about a factor of 3 - 5x, but no doubt that's going to vary significantly as to type of file and your activities.)

I don't know how PS handles things like "undo levels", but it's possible that each undo step requires a lot of memory. So play with a few commands that you typically use and see how much RAM it wants. moving from 8-bit colour (per RGB channel) to 16-bit would also significantly affect how much memory you're using.

If you're getting close to the amount of physical RAM you have, the operating system is more likely to start swapping some of its components out ... which will also affect performance, though obviously less than swapping out PS activities.

Ballpark guess -- I'd say that if you're using less than say 800 Mb on your 1Gb system, then you're not going to notice much of a speed increase upping your RAM; but hard to say.

Andrew

PS - I'm using a P4 3.0, upgraded recently from 512 Mb of RAM to 1.5 Gb. I notice a significant difference (both with digital editing and more so when quitting heavy apps like games.) THe most obvious difference in my case was with games. I don't have to wait 10 seconds for the OS to free up all that space and bring itself back into active memory -- it keeps everything in memory and just zips back and forth much quicker.
reid thaler said:
Here is my set up:, P4 3.0, 1 GB RAM, 2 HDs (200 and 160) each with
2 partitions, XP Home.

I scan 35mm slides with a Nikon 4000 ED in 14 bit creating 120 MB
file. After post processing, files grow to between 225-350, or more
MBs for output up to 24x36 on an Epson 7600.

I have 1gig of RAM now, and RAM is coming down in price. Whould
adding another 1 GB improve preformance significantly, or would it
be just throwing money away?

Thanks,
--
Reid

Kodak Brownie
Argus 126
Quaker Oats Container Pinhole Camera
Click to expand...
 
I am unsure about CS maxing out on too much RAM but others suggest the limit (if there is one, I really dont know) is 2Gb. However I have an alternative suggestion and a few comments........

You seem to suggest you have 2x physical hard disks fitted, if so and your motherboard supports it I would suggest you set your disks up as a RAID array. If you dont have this on the M/board you could buy a PCI RAID adapter card for not too much.

I assume you are running Win XP.

You would need to re-install Windows and all your applications. Backup is VITAL!!!

The bottom end of RAID will heneraly give RAID 0 (striping) RAID 1 (Mirroring) RAID 0+1 (stripe and Mirror but needs 4 physical disks - partions are no good here) and RAID JBOD (Just a Bunch of Disks). So what does it do..........

RAID 0 - Striping. Needs 2x physical disks. Windows sees the array as a single disk, when you instal anything or save anything the data is broken into stripes and saved across both disks simultaniously - result faster disk access both read and write. Works best with fast disks 7200rpm and disks with larger cach - around 8Mb. Downside - no fault protection if you have data corruption on one disk or a failure of one disk you loose the lot, but you get a faster disk subsystem. Speed increased are said to be highest with larger files.

RAID 1 - Mirroring. needs 2x physical disks. Again Windows sees the array as a single disk. this time all the data is saved complete on both hard disks. i.e the system is maintaining in real time a complete backup mirror of your data on a second disk. If you have data loss or a hard disk failure the RAID system will 're-build' the array and recover the data. If you have a hard disk fail simply fit a new drive and the system will rebuild the array, usually automaticaly.

RAID 0+1 Needs 4x physical disks Both of the above at the same time.....striping for speed, mirror for redundancy and data protection.

RAID JBOD - just a bunch of disks, windows will see this a single hard disk. no speed or data protection.

RAID has been around for a while, usually in Server environments and is proven technology. Watch the disk requirements some systems need the hard disks to be exactly the same.

Instsll is easy - the RAID system will come with the drivers you need, once installed Windows runs exactly as before.

The big boys use RAID 5 - striping with parity check sum data - needs at least 3x physical drives. data is striped across the 3 disks for speed but along with the data each stripe gats pariaty data saved with it. If a hard disk fails you replace the disk with a new one and the system re-builds on the fly. The pariaty data allows the system to re-creat the data missing of the failed drive and replace it. Clever stuff but not found on the cheaper 'home user' end of the market (yet).

For info I run 2x 160Gb Maxtor drives in RAID 1 - too worried about data loss.

Have fun.
reid thaler said:
Here is my set up:, P4 3.0, 1 GB RAM, 2 HDs (200 and 160) each with
2 partitions, XP Home.

I scan 35mm slides with a Nikon 4000 ED in 14 bit creating 120 MB
file. After post processing, files grow to between 225-350, or more
MBs for output up to 24x36 on an Epson 7600.

I have 1gig of RAM now, and RAM is coming down in price. Whould
adding another 1 GB improve preformance significantly, or would it
be just throwing money away?

Thanks,
--
Reid

Kodak Brownie
Argus 126
Quaker Oats Container Pinhole Camera
Click to expand...
 
I am in a similar situation, only I am starting with 512MB Dual-Channel DDR2 RAM, and one 160GB HD. I am looking to upgrade to either 1GB or 1.5GB RAM. I edit in 16-bit mode in Photoshop CS, and with layers, file sizes are quite large. So maybe 1.5GB RAM would be the way to go.

I eventually--hopefully sooner than later--plan to get a second HD and set-up RAID1. Is it usually best to get identical brand & capacity HDs for a RAID array?

Thanks for the help :)
--
Kevin

*********************************************************
Olympus C-5050Z
Manfrotto 3001BPro tripod & 488RC0 ballhead
 
The only way you're going to see an improvement is if Windows is swapping with 1GB. I have 1G also and have never seen it use the paging file, so adding more won't help. But when windows starts paging it will, more physical mem means less paging, which means better speed, right up to point the paging stops.

For PS there's the complexity in that PS does its own kind of paging. I guess that's because 4GB is a per process max, the OS taking 2G (or 1G with some special settings) from that, so Adobe want to prevent their 2GB slot filling up. So for PS you also benifit from fast disks, as there's the distinct possibility PS will start paging before windows.

But before you attempt to upgrade parts of the system I'd first identify the current bottlenecks.

HtH's Chris
reid thaler said:
Here is my set up:, P4 3.0, 1 GB RAM, 2 HDs (200 and 160) each with
2 partitions, XP Home.

I scan 35mm slides with a Nikon 4000 ED in 14 bit creating 120 MB
file. After post processing, files grow to between 225-350, or more
MBs for output up to 24x36 on an Epson 7600.

I have 1gig of RAM now, and RAM is coming down in price. Whould
adding another 1 GB improve preformance significantly, or would it
be just throwing money away?

Thanks,
--
Reid

Kodak Brownie
Argus 126
Quaker Oats Container Pinhole Camera
Click to expand...
 
After looking at all of the replies...there is a truism 'You can't have too much RAM'. In this day and age, 1 GB of RAM is the minimum. RAM is cheap so upgrade you will see a difference when working with large files.

--
Tim
 
So is upgrading to 1.5GB overkill, or even worth the extra cost, rather than 1GB? If I had a choice, I'd rather buy "too much" than too little...for the inevitable technology advances in the future.

And as long as we're talking about optimizing performance, what's the recommended set-up for scratch disks, virtual memory, etc., in Photshop CS and Windows XP. My current system is a 3GHz P4, with 512MB Dual-Channel DDR2 RAM, and a single 160GB hard-drive (soon to be part of a RAID1 array...hopefully). Any recommendations?

Thanks :)
--
Kevin

*********************************************************
Olympus C-5050Z
Manfrotto 3001BPro tripod & 488RC0 ballhead
 
The HD are like different sizes. It isn't a good idea raid HD of different sizes. Also I don't think raid is all that. Data is safe enough on DVD/CD. I would rather use the extra HD store more junk not the same junk as other drive. To me mirroring is a perfect waste of disk space. Yes I know it is possible that a drive could fail, but remember pretty pictures and other data safe on DVD/CD and it is just a who cares few hours on a sunday after noon to reinstall the OS.

--
Shawn Grant
 
No, actually Windows XP can allocate up to 2GB to a single application if more than 2GB of RAM is available. Thus having more than 2GB would give Photoshop the max and leave more for Windows XP itself and any other processes running at the same time. Windows can physically address up to 4GB of RAM for all operations at one time. So having more than 2GB could keep PS free with its very own 2GB.
jeffkrol said:
reid thaler said:
Here is my set up:, P4 3.0, 1 GB RAM, 2 HDs (200 and 160) each with
2 partitions, XP Home.

I scan 35mm slides with a Nikon 4000 ED in 14 bit creating 120 MB
file. After post processing, files grow to between 225-350, or more
MBs for output up to 24x36 on an Epson 7600.

I have 1gig of RAM now, and RAM is coming down in price. Whould
adding another 1 GB improve preformance significantly, or would it
be just throwing money away?
Click to expand...
Wasn't going to post this but doesn't software, OS (both software
and settings), motherboard, processor ALL determine the speed or
use of 2GB Ram?
Isn't software such as Adobe CS maxed out at 1 gig and doesn't
really know how to utilize more than that? (not the only sw btw)
Also you have some issues as to the amount of slots filled and
which ones for some MB's?
I guess buy and try is your only option, but realistically I
wouldn't expect a great increase in speed.
Click to expand...
 
McKev25 said:
So is upgrading to 1.5GB overkill, or even worth the extra cost,
rather than 1GB? If I had a choice, I'd rather buy "too much" than
too little...for the inevitable technology advances in the future.

And as long as we're talking about optimizing performance, what's
the recommended set-up for scratch disks, virtual memory, etc., in
Photshop CS and Windows XP. My current system is a 3GHz P4, with
512MB Dual-Channel DDR2 RAM, and a single 160GB hard-drive (soon to
be part of a RAID1 array...hopefully). Any recommendations?

Thanks :)
--
Kevin

*********************************************************
Olympus C-5050Z
Manfrotto 3001BPro tripod & 488RC0 ballhead
Click to expand...
AS it all boils down to 1.5gigs is not a waste of your money, go for it, Like the post have been telling you 1 gig is min so alittle extra won't hurt and if your like me I always run a program or two along with photoshop so it will be a good thing if you can afford it, or better yet send me another 512 and I'll really smile.
Good Luck, Enjoy
 
... and even complains if it is on same page as the paging file. Recently I lost the drive where I had my paging file. Not thinking about it when I removed the drive I actually ran without a paging file (windows defaulted to no paging file) and I only have 768m of memory. I really didn't see any problem.

Jim
 
jpmalohesr said:
... and even complains if it is on same page as the paging file.
Recently I lost the drive where I had my paging file. Not thinking
about it when I removed the drive I actually ran without a paging
file (windows defaulted to no paging file) and I only have 768m of
memory. I really didn't see any problem.

Jim
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top