Memory and other upgrades for photo editing

[MikeFromMesa]

A couple of years ago I bought what I thought was a fully speced out laptop - i7 4 core chip, 8 GB of ram, a dedicated NVIDIA graphics card with 2 GB of memory and the 64 bit version of Windows 7.

At the time I was using Dxo for doing my editing and the machine sped up image processing using it from 150 sec/image to about 15 seconds/image. I was much happier as I no longer had to process my images overnight.

Since I replaced Dxo on my system with Lightroom and Photoshop, added OnOne's masking application and PhotoNinja I have seen my memory usage climb over 6 1/2 GB while doing masking work (calling PerfectMask from within Lightroom). Similarly using PhotoNinja and opening several images at the same time can bring my system to its knees. And, if for some reason, I am running something else at the same time things can get really ugly.

This is not all the responsibility of Lightroom and OnOne or of PhotoNinja since my system usage, even without those apps running, seems to be about 3 GB. That doesn't seem to leave me much space for heavy usage and my system sometimes tends to bog down pretty badly.

I cannot add any more memory (8GB of ram is all my system will physically take) and I am not sure what background programs I would have to terminate to drop my usage down below what it currently is. So I was wondering how much memory is needed with Windows 8 (ugh) to run photo editing apps quickly and not to have to worry about running miltiple apps simultaneously.

If I were to buy a new laptop what specs should I be looking for? How much memory? I don't think that the latest versions of the i7 chips are significantly faster than my current i7 (2630), so what else would help when doing photo (and especially video) editing? I am not a professional and don't want a desktop. I work most comfortably on my sofa and a desktop would not add to my comfort.

Any suggestions would be helpful. Thanks in advance.

 

[BobSC]

You might want to look into what is using up all your RAM.



I can run photoshop, illustrator, word, excel, and a half dozen other programs in under 4 GB.



It might be drivers you need for laptop hardware that you're not making use of. If you start up task manager and click "resource monitor" you can see how much ram each app is taking. Right now my i3 laptop (w7-64) is using 2.83 Gb. 1.5 of that is Aftershot pro. .5 is internet explorer. So Windows and all my laptop drivers are using a little more than 1 gig.

 

[VirtualMirage]

Windows 8's system requirements are no different than Windows 7. It is little better at memory management and a little quicker here and there, but nothing that would make your experience noticeably faster with your photo work.

I'd be more curious in finding out what is eating into all your memory. Take a peak at Task Manager and see what applications are consuming the most Physical Memory when your photo apps are not running. That is where I would start.

Before recently upgrading my machine, I was running Lightroom 4 comfortably on Windows 7 Ultimate x64 with 8GB of RAM. Only when I started to do some photo merging in PS for some panoramic pictures or some 1080P video editing did I start hitting the ceiling pretty regularly. But that panoramic was from stitching together several 12MP pictures while working with multiple filters. My newest setup has 16GB of RAM and I have yet to fully tax it.

 

[MikeFromMesa]

VirtualMirage wrote:

Windows 8's system requirements are no different than Windows 7. It is little better at memory management and a little quicker here and there, but nothing that would make your experience noticeably faster with your photo work.

I'd be more curious in finding out what is eating into all your memory. Take a peak at Task Manager and see what applications are consuming the most Physical Memory when your photo apps are not running. That is where I would start.

When I first noticed the memory problem that was, of course, the very first thing I did. What I saw was that large chunks of memory were being used by system routines or Dell supplied basic routines. For example, the only processes really using much memory on my system are the Dell supplied Intel Turbo Boost software (used to adjust the chip speed based on load (about 500 MB), explorer (when I am browsing - about 250 MB) and Host Process for Windows (about 200 MB). Together those are taking up about 1 GB of memory. Everything else is taking up truly small amounts of memory - on the order of 60 MB or less, and I would have to shut down a ton of stuff for it to make a difference.

I had made the assumption that 64 bit Windows 7 systems just used a lot of memory and that I needed more. I just was not sure how much more.

Before recently upgrading my machine, I was running Lightroom 4 comfortably on Windows 7 Ultimate x64 with 8GB of RAM. Only when I started to do some photo merging in PS for some panoramic pictures or some 1080P video editing did I start hitting the ceiling pretty regularly. But that panoramic was from stitching together several 12MP pictures while working with multiple filters. My newest setup has 16GB of RAM and I have yet to fully tax it.

I don't have any trouble running Lightroom along on my system. My memory usage with only LR4 running is about 4.5 or 5 GB and the system responds very well. It is when I use LR to do external editing (especially with the OnOne software) that things seem to go south. PhotoNinja also seems to eat up a lot of memory.

Perhaps I need to selectively shut down processes to see what effect that will have. But, like I said, most of the running processes are not taking up much by themselves. Shutting down stuff I know can be shutdown (dropbox, etc) is not likely to free up much more than 200 or 300 MB and that does not seem to be enough to make much difference.

 

[VirtualMirage]

MikeFromMesa wrote:

...I had made the assumption that 64 bit Windows 7 systems just used a lot of memory and that I needed more. I just was not sure how much more.

Windows 7 uses memory a little differently than previous versions. It is much more efficient in managing memory as well as making the most of what it has.

For instance, if you have a lot of memory available Windows 7 will reserve as much as it can to speed up background processes and frequently used applications via caching it in the RAM. Windows XP, if given a lot of RAM, would only allocate so much and didn't do nowhere near as much caching. Also, just because this memory is used doesn't mean it isn't available. Windows 7 will release the memory just as fast as it is needed, reallocating it to programs in need by flushing out cached items not in use or resizing what it allocated to itself. Windows XP had a harder time "letting go", so to speak.

Because of this behavior, it is a little harder to judge your memory needs with Windows 7 (and even Vista) and newer because how it handles the memory. In the past, if all your memory was consumed then it was a good indicator that maybe you are hitting your limits. With the newer OS, it might just be that it is trying to make the most of what you have at any given moment.

If you notice it getting slower, you begin to see a lot of paging to the hard drive occurring, and/or the application begins spitting out low memory errors then you might be running into a memory limitation. But keep an eye on the paging/virtual memory consumption.

 

[skyglider]

MikeFromMesa wrote:

A couple of years ago I bought what I thought was a fully speced out laptop - i7 4 core chip, 8 GB of ram, a dedicated NVIDIA graphics card with 2 GB of memory and the 64 bit version of Windows 7.
I cannot add any more memory (8GB of ram is all my system will physically take) .....
If I were to buy a new laptop what specs should I be looking for? How much memory? I don't think that the latest versions of the i7 chips are significantly faster than my current i7 (2630), so what else would help when doing photo (and especially video) editing?

I would think that your current 4 core i7 running Win7 64 bits would be way powerful enough without buying a new laptop.

Although you can't "add" more memory, if your current memory is two 4GB sticks, would it be possible to replace it with two 8GB sticks for 16GB?


However, before doing that, have you tried unchecking everything in msconfig startup except what you really need to run Lightroom and your other photo editing software? Even working with 12MB image files it sure seems strange that you would use up 8GB of ram. Sounds like a memory leak somewhere.


Sky

 

[MikeFromMesa]

skyglider wrote:

I would think that your current 4 core i7 running Win7 64 bits would be way powerful enough without buying a new laptop.

And I would prefer to not have to drop the amount of money it would cost for a high-speced laptop.

Although you can't "add" more memory, if your current memory is two 4GB sticks, would it be possible to replace it with two 8GB sticks for 16GB?

I don't think that the firmware can handle anything more than 8 GB but it is worth checking into. Thanks for the suggestion.

However, before doing that, have you tried unchecking everything in msconfig startup except what you really need to run Lightroom and your other photo editing software? Even working with 12MB image files it sure seems strange that you would use up 8GB of ram. Sounds like a memory leak somewhere.

My image files are from a Canon full-frame and are about 27-30 MB each.

I have not looked at the msconfig file, but I will. If I can find it. Thanks again.

As for a memory leak, who knows. The main software releases I am using are Lightroom 4, Photoshop CS5, PhotoNinja, the Fastsone Image viewer and IE. Any of those could be leaking memory and I would have to do some checking to see if loading and unloading images continually is causing a problem. Still, it is worth checking.

 

[MikeFromMesa]

MikeFromMesa wrote:

I have not looked at the msconfig file, but I will. If I can find it. Thanks again.

I have now adjusted the startup processed using msconfig and deactivated 19 processes. My basic memory usage has now dropped by more than a GB and is holding at about 2.15 GB.

My next step is to look at some of the remaining processes and to see what services I might not need. As it turns out msconfig adjustments may be all that was needed. Thanks again for the suggestion. It certainly seems to be much less expensive than adding memory.

 

[Richard]

I actually triple boot. I have one OS stripped down, dedicated to music only. The other OS is dedicated to imaging, the last is general web browsing (this is also done on a laptop, phone and pad device for reading mail and viewing web). I have another system dedicated to gaming.

I don't install a realtime virus scanners or other memory hog programs and make sure things I don't use are disabled, I also do not web browse or download files on these machines and are only connected to the internet for using online virus scanner with latest definitions or program updates . This gives me maximum memory and speed for each application, if I get a virus I restore from backup.

Point is, if you don't install the garbage from the beginning, you don't have to go back with MSCONFIG and remove things you are not sure what they are.

MikeFromMesa wrote:

MikeFromMesa wrote:

I have not looked at the msconfig file, but I will. If I can find it. Thanks again.

I have now adjusted the startup processed using msconfig and deactivated 19 processes. My basic memory usage has now dropped by more than a GB and is holding at about 2.15 GB.

My next step is to look at some of the remaining processes and to see what services I might not need. As it turns out msconfig adjustments may be all that was needed. Thanks again for the suggestion. It certainly seems to be much less expensive than adding memory.

 

[skyglider]

MikeFromMesa wrote:

I have now adjusted the startup processed using msconfig and deactivated 19 processes. My basic memory usage has now dropped by more than a GB and is holding at about 2.15 GB.

My next step is to look at some of the remaining processes and to see what services I might not need. As it turns out msconfig adjustments may be all that was needed. Thanks again for the suggestion. It certainly seems to be much less expensive than adding memory.

Hope your success with msconfig persists. Whenever strange things start happening like excessive ram usage, intermittent problems and especially hangs, crashes or hiccups while video editing, unchecking all non essential items in msconfig is always a good first step.

The fastest way to find the offending program is to check half of the processes and see what happens. If things still run fine, then check half of the remaining processes, etc. If things go south again, uncheck half what was checked, etc.

Sky

 

[skyglider]

Richard wrote:
Point is, if you don't install the garbage from the beginning, you don't have to go back with MSCONFIG and remove things you are not sure what they are.

Unchecking stuff in msconfig is non destructive so it doesn't matter if one knows what the processes are or not. No harm can happen to the computer by checking or unchecking processes in msconfig in any way.

Best regards,
Sky

 

[Richard]

skyglider wrote:

Richard wrote:
Point is, if you don't install the garbage from the beginning, you don't have to go back with MSCONFIG and remove things you are not sure what they are.

Unchecking stuff in msconfig is non destructive so it doesn't matter if one knows what the processes are or not. No harm can happen to the computer by checking or unchecking processes in msconfig in any way.

Best regards,
Sky

Ok, so you disable some things, now programs quit working, example, Adobe Elements 6 ran some sort of service if you disabled it the program would no longer run, you then you had to enable it again, then the program would run. So my point was if you do multiple things with your computer, you would want one configuration for one thing one for another. When I was using DOS, I would have a program that would allow me multiple Autoexc.bat and config.sys files boots so I could manage my memory better. Too bad MSconfig does not allow this. So I would rather multiboot for certain things that are geared toward a specific job. I don't run any screen savers, sounds or themes when working with music and recording, but in my web browser boot I have both. I don't install print drivers in some of the boots because they take up resources and I don't need it. So that is why I do it. Hard drive space is cheap and even if you multiboot, you can still use the other boot drives for storage.

I agree unchecking processes brings no harm because you just enable them all again, but in situations were you don't want to install certain things and the hassle of enable then disable them depend on what you are doing also looking things up to see what they do, I think multiboot it is the fastest way for me, thus the suggestion.

 

[MikeFromMesa]

Richard wrote:

I think multiboot it is the fastest way for me, thus the suggestion.

What software do you use for multi-boot? Or is it possible to just use normal Windows boot and specify different msconfig settings during the boot?

I assume the former which, I assume, requires multiple OS installs. That would be an issue if I ever wanted to move to an ssd because past about 250 GB they start getting pretty expensive.

Years ago I had a machine configured for multi-boot, but that was Windows and Unix (Linux, actually) and I have never done multi-boot with only Windows. Thus I have no idea how to do that.

 

[MikeFromMesa]

skyglider wrote:

Hope your success with msconfig persists. Whenever strange things start happening like excessive ram usage, intermittent problems and especially hangs, crashes or hiccups while video editing, unchecking all non essential items in msconfig is always a good first step.

The fastest way to find the offending program is to check half of the processes and see what happens. If things still run fine, then check half of the remaining processes, etc. If things go south again, uncheck half what was checked, etc.

After unchecking the 19 processes I mentioned I went back to msconfig and unchecked a further half-dozen or so. In addition I also unchecked some services although I tried to be careful to make sure I did not lose any basic functionality. My memory usage is now down to about 1.2 GB after booting so I have gained about 2 GB in memory.

After doing this I went back to LR and used it to call the OnOne software. That software, especially when doing multiple types of adjustments in the same session (masking, applying visual presets and resizing) was the sequence that drove my machine to its knees before. This time, although memory usage got pretty high (about 6 GB) everything worked as it was supposed to work and I was able to complete functional sequences that I had to do in several sessions before.

I would call that a success so I appreciate the suggestions. They were very helpful.

 

[Jim Cockfield]

It looks like you're using a Sandy Bridge chipset (core i7 2630QM).

Just upgrade your BIOS to the latest version and the Dell Laptops using those chipsets will support 2x8GB.

I'd just go with memory that others have found works with it. For example, if you search through the feedback for this set for the word Dell, you'll see multiple Dell laptop users with Sandy Bridge chipsets saying that it works with more than one Dell model that the specs show only support 8GB total.

IOW, 2x8GB should work fine it. I'd stick with a 2x8GB set of 1333mhz CL9 memory like this, since Dell owners say it works with multiple models (XPS 15, 17; Latititude Models).. Here's a search for Dell in the Feedback

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...kTab=true&Keywords=dell&Page=1#scrollFullInfo


I see the same thing searching through forums about Dell laptops (you'll find posts from users of multiple models (15Z, XPS models, etc.) with Sandy Bridge chipsets saying that 2x8GB works in them, even though the specs show you're limited to a max of 8GB with most.

Just upgrade your BIOS to the latest version first (as some of the older BIOS revisions may not support 8GB SODIMMs).

 

[BobSC]

MikeFromMesa wrote:
Years ago I had a machine configured for multi-boot, but that was Windows and Unix (Linux, actually) and I have never done multi-boot with only Windows. Thus I have no idea how to do that.

You need a windows install cd (i.e., it won't work with a factory restore cd). When you put the CD in and boot the PC, it will ask you what to do, and one of the options will be to install a new copy of windows. Then when you power up the PC, there will be a text screen asking you which windows directory to boot to.

 

[MikeFromMesa]

Jim Cockfield wrote:

It looks like you're using a Sandy Bridge chipset (core i7 2630QM).

I don't know the name of the chipset but the i7 chip in this computer is a 2630 QM based on what the computer tells me when I look at the properties page.

Just upgrade your BIOS to the latest version and the Dell Laptops using those chipsets will support 2x8GB.

Based on the Dell support website there are two valid BIOS updates available for this machine. One is dated 7/28/2011 and the other is dated 10/26/12. I assume only the latest needs to be applied.

I'd just go with memory that others have found works with it. For example, if you search through the feedback for this set for the word Dell, you'll see multiple Dell laptop users with Sandy Bridge chipsets saying that it works with more than one Dell model that the specs show only support 8GB total.

I had done a check on the crucial memory website (where I typically buy my computer memory) and they had listed the max memory for this system as 8 GB. Based on that I had stopped looking, but I will see what I can find for this chipset.

IOW, 2x8GB should work fine it. I'd stick with a 2x8GB set of 1333mhz CL9 memory like this, since Dell owners say it works with multiple models (XPS 15, 17; Latititude Models).. Here's a search for Dell in the Feedback

Of course that should solve all of my memory problems and speed up image processing when I am doing more than just simple LR work.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...kTab=true&Keywords=dell&Page=1#scrollFullInfo

I see the same thing searching through forums about Dell laptops (you'll find posts from users of multiple models (15Z, XPS models, etc.) with Sandy Bridge chipsets saying that 2x8GB works in them, even though the specs show you're limited to a max of 8GB with most.

Just upgrade your BIOS to the latest version first (as some of the older BIOS revisions may not support 8GB SODIMMs).

Based on what I have seen I am sure the older BIOS would not support more than 8GB. When I bought this computer I did not buy it from a store but configured it on Dell's website with the maximum memory Dell would allow and that was 8 GB. I am sure that if the BIOS supported more Dell would have been more than happy to sell it to me.

If I can bring this computer to 16GB of RAM for $60 I will consider it one of the better $60 purchases I have made. Thank you for this information and I will start checking now.

I will update this thread with what I find out although that may take some time. I won't know if the upgrade will have succeeded until I download the BIOS, upgrade it, find some extra memory, order it, have it arrive and install it. That will probably take about a week.

Thanks again.

 

[Jim Cockfield]

MikeFromMesa wrote:

Based on what I have seen I am sure the older BIOS would not support more than 8GB. When I bought this computer I did not buy it from a store but configured it on Dell's website with the maximum memory Dell would allow and that was 8 GB. I am sure that if the BIOS supported more Dell would have been more than happy to sell it to me.

Actually. No.

You'll see the same thing with the latest Ivy Bridge models (Dell says they're limited to 8GB total, when they'll work with 2x8GB for 16GB total. You'll also see the same thing on Crucial's web site.

That's a common finding with Dell models (where they never bother to update the specs, and may delay selling them using larger DIMMs for a long time after the BIOS updates allow it.

If I can bring this computer to 16GB of RAM for $60 I will consider it one of the better $60 purchases I have made. Thank you for this information and I will start checking now.

I will update this thread with what I find out although that may take some time. I won't know if the upgrade will have succeeded until I download the BIOS, upgrade it, find some extra memory, order it, have it arrive and install it. That will probably take about a week.

Be careful, as memory speed, voltage and timing are important for compatibility. For example, it looks like 1.5 volt CL9 1333Mhz 8GB SODIMMs usually work with them (including some of the older models sold with that CPU), after a BIOS update.


But, if you go to 1600Mhz memory, only some of the CL11 sticks appear to work with the latest Dell laptop models. With the models Dell sold with the Core i7 2630, I'd stick to a 1333Mhz set that other Dell owners with the same chipsets say work (as in the set I linked to earlier).

IOW, I'd buy that exact set that I linked to with a Dell using your CPU, since others say it works with a variety of different Dell laptop models.

I'd just upgrade the BIOS to the latest version first (and no, you don't have to install anything other than the latest available for it), and the memory I linked to should work in it. newegg.com has a good return policy if you ran into any issues (but, I wouldn't expect any, since some of the laptop models others reported the memory worked in should have the same chipset most others Dell models with that CPU have).

What Dell model laptop do you have?

 

[MikeFromMesa]

Jim Cockfield wrote:

What Dell model laptop do you have?

It is an XPS15 and Dell says that it is the L502X version of that machine.

I have downloaded the updated BIOS and will install it soon. I had checked out the NewEgg web page and found what appears to be the same memory (also 1333) on Amazon. The memory is cheaper on NewEgg but, with shipping, it is less expensive on Amazon (I am a Prime member).

However, based on your suggestion, I will play it safe and order it from NewEgg. I have ordered from them before and they are reliable.

I am very grateful for your post as I did not want to spend the money for a new laptop but I was getting unhappy with the performance of this machine when I was doing some serious work.

 

[Jim Cockfield]

MikeFromMesa wrote:

Jim Cockfield wrote:

What Dell model laptop do you have?

It is an XPS15 and Dell says that it is the L502X version of that machine.

I have downloaded the updated BIOS and will install it soon. I had checked out the NewEgg web page and found what appears to be the same memory (also 1333) on Amazon. The memory is cheaper on NewEgg but, with shipping, it is less expensive on Amazon (I am a Prime member).

If you can get it for less from Amazon, they also have a good return policy.

Your L502x should be able to use it just fine (as will the older L501x model of it).

Some of the other sets around will work, too.

For example, note the feedback in this listing for Corsair memory with the same specs (voltage, speed, timing), and you'll find multiple L502x owners saying that it works fine in it.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...Tab=true&Keywords=l502x&Page=1#scrollFullInfo


Just upgrade your BIOS to the latest version and it should recognize 2x8GB SODIMMs with those specs just fine. But, sometimes laptops are a bit "finnicky" and you can see minor differences in timing between sets with the same latency, so I'd make sure to buy a set like one of those that other Dell laptop owners found have worked in similar models