|
Post by Mark Itol on Jan 14, 2011 13:13:42 GMT
Hello birdnuts. My prehistoric laptop ( IBM T42) is nearing its end-of-life and will have to be decommissioned soon. I'm leaning towards building a 64-bit desktop system ( PC, Intel i-Series or AMD equivalent) as replacement. I remember Ka Mastah posted he's running on a Q6600 with 4GB RAM on XP. My question is, how do you find the performance of Photoshop CS5 on 4GB of RAM when processing your bird photos (especially those who process larger files like from a 5D2)? Is it instantaneous or do you feel a slight lag? By the way, here's an article from Adobe showing CS5 benchmarks on different hardware configurations, but I couldn't find a result on a 4GB RAM configuration: www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/photoshop/pdfs/photoshopCS5_64bit.pdfHope to hear from you guys. Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by Bobby Kintanar on Jan 14, 2011 13:53:15 GMT
Mark, here's a quote re Win XP with 4 Gigs of RAM:
"4 GB RAM in Windows XP
As more and more of us load up our systems with lots and lots of RAM, this question surfaces more and more. You put 4GB in your computer. The motherboard supports 4GB, Windows XP supports 4GB, so everything is fine.
But when you open the System applet in Control Panel, WinXP tells you that there is 3.5GB, or maybe 3 GB even. Where did the rest go?
It turns out that Windows XP has a 4GB address space, which must be used to address physical RAM, as well as other things. This is addressed in the Microsoft document Memory Management: What Every Driver Writer Needs To Know. In particular, the fourth full paragraph on page 10 says: The physical address space is used to address more than just RAM. It is also used to address all of the memory and some of the registers presented by devices. Consequently, if a machine is configured with the maximum amount of physical memory, some of that memory will be unusable because some of the physical address space is mapped for other uses. "
I haven't worked with commercial PC's for some time now, but for sure the newer architectures and the latest and greatest processors and mobo's should get the job done better and faster. :-)
|
|
|
Post by Romy Ocon on Jan 14, 2011 22:52:18 GMT
4 GB RAM is good enough for CS5 and the 5D2's RAW files. However, if you wish to future-proof your system and if you decide to do video in the near future, you need more RAM. Thus, if budget is a concern, I'd recommend starting with 4 - 8 GB in 4-GB denomination. This denomination would maximize the use of the 4 RAM slots in most MOBOs once you decide to add more HP in the future. PC Express lists the PQI 4GB 1333 ddr3 as PHP 1,950.00. Also important is the graphics card you'd put in. Here's a link to Adobe-tested GCs. www.adobe.com/products/premiere/systemreqs/PC Express lists the Inno3D GTX470 Hawk 1280ddr5 as PHP 10,800.00 www.pcx.com.ph/index.php/components/graphic-cards/inno3d-gtx470-hawk-1280ddr5-3fans.htmlShould you wish to increase the speed of your system drive, SSDs are also available locally, with the Intel 80 GB version retailing for PHP 9,500.00 www.pcx.com.ph/index.php/components/storage/intel-80gb-solid-state-drive.htmlFor your display, the best bang for the buck now is this AOC IPS LCD: birdphotoph.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=gear&action=display&thread=6286
|
|
|
Post by ppaaoolloo on Jan 14, 2011 23:15:54 GMT
As Bobby pointed out XP cannot use all 4GB. I've heard of good things about Windows 7 64-bit as it can go beyond 4GB of memory to 192GB depending on the edition you are getting. I have yet to hear of any complaints from gamers. Microsoft will abandon XP by 2014.
|
|
|
Post by Bobby Kintanar on Jan 15, 2011 0:07:42 GMT
As Bobby pointed out XP cannot use all 4GB. I've heard of good things about Windows 7 64-bit as it can go beyond 4GB of memory to 192GB depending on the edition you are getting. I have yet to hear of any complaints from gamers. Microsoft will abandon XP by 2014. You must note that Windows 7 is also designed mainly for multi-media (streaming video, internet TV, etc.) content, but is slower than Win XP in almost all benchmarks: www.testfreaks.com/blog/information/windows-xp-vs-vista-vs-7/Windows Vista is the worst performer in these tests. Having said that, Windows 7 is only slightly slower than Xp, and with the configuration suggested by Ka Mastah, your HW should last a while before you feel the need for speed again. :-) Bobby K.
|
|
|
Post by Romy Ocon on Jan 15, 2011 1:16:43 GMT
As Bobby pointed out XP cannot use all 4GB. I've heard of good things about Windows 7 64-bit as it can go beyond 4GB of memory to 192GB depending on the edition you are getting. I have yet to hear of any complaints from gamers. Microsoft will abandon XP by 2014. I understand Mark wants to build a 64-bit system, so the 4 GB address issue in XP (32 bit) is not a concern. FWIW, I'm running a Q6600 using a 32-bit XP (SP3) with 4 GB of RAM installed. By tweaking the boot.ini, I was able to address 3.3++ GB and that's certainly better than installing just 3 GB. My system can process large files (e.g. 9000x6000) with multiple layers reasonably fast. However, it's in HD video with multiple effects where my system slows down noticeably..... I need to upgrade my current 512 MB GPU to at least 1 GB with native H.264 crunching. That's about a year away yet, budget-wise. If I've to build one now using locally available parts, my specs would be: Intel Core i7-2600 (3.4G) 8mb 32nm Intel 80 GB SSD as system drive 16 GB RAM (4 @ 4 GB) GTX470 GPU 2 units - internal HDD @ 2 TB Windows 7 home premium 64 bit
|
|
|
Post by ppaaoolloo on Jan 15, 2011 2:20:42 GMT
Bobby you do not need to note 7 for that application as all versions of Windows has been geared towards that end though at various degrees of quality based on the available hardware & consumer expectations. The slow down is so minute (by single-digit percents for applications www.maximumpc.com/article/reviews/windows_7_review?page=0,3 ) that the negative is negated by usability, security, and support for new hardware and technology, especially for enthusiasts and power users. For anyone who regularly keeps many windows open at one time, the new Taskbar is worth the price of admission alone. For XP users, the security improvements are equally worthy of praise, while Vista users will be thrilled with the much improved, much less annoying UAC. Add in support for new hardware technologies, more new features, and the kernel improvements that should allow you to get more from your multi-core CPU, and Windows 7 becomes a tidy, compelling package to all Windows users. As earlier mention you can go beyond 4GB so you can take advantage of the performance benefits of DDR by having two memory modules in parallel. I mentioned this as Mark was asking about XP on 4GB. And for me if you are building a brand new Windows machine you may as well skip the hassle of migrating to 7 later by going directly to 7 as the benefits of doing so is greater than doing it later. You must note that Windows 7 is also designed mainly for multi-media (streaming video, internet TV, etc.) content, but is slower than Win XP in almost all benchmarks: www.testfreaks.com/blog/information/windows-xp-vs-vista-vs-7/Windows Vista is the worst performer in these tests. Having said that, Windows 7 is only slightly slower than Xp, and with the configuration suggested by Ka Mastah, your HW should last a while before you feel the need for speed again. :-) Bobby K.
|
|
|
Post by Bobby Kintanar on Jan 15, 2011 4:49:42 GMT
Pao, that note was addressed to Mark ...
Bobbyk
|
|
|
Post by ppaaoolloo on Jan 15, 2011 4:59:20 GMT
Pao, that note was addressed to Mark ... Bobbyk Bobby, by quoting me makes it addressed to me. ;D In the same way Romy quoted me though I felt that no reply was needed as I agree with what he said though my personal preference would be to have one 2TB WD Black drive and an external Drobo setup in the house and the office as a back up in case of disaster.
|
|
|
Post by Toto Gamboa on Jan 15, 2011 13:18:30 GMT
Hi Mark. Dont hesitate on adding more RAM if budget allows. As software developers, we know how it is like to have more RAM both for CPU and GPU. Performance gain is very significant. CS5 is aggresive in using whatever memory it can utilize. I am also on the verge of upgrading my 4 year old machine. I am targetting something in the 16GB range or more. This should make CS5 and of course my stuff in software development very very happy.
|
|
|
Post by Toto Gamboa on Jan 15, 2011 13:29:26 GMT
And oh by the way to add... having a dedicated root drive and a separate data drive is another thing you can explore to minimize nasty file fragmentation which can degrate your entire system overtime. For years I have been doing this where my root drive is really bare and contains only OS stuff. Cache, tempfolders, Applications and Data and everything else are stored on different disks. If you can get a system board that supports multiple disk channels, the better.
|
|
|
Post by Mark Itol on Jan 17, 2011 5:06:55 GMT
Thanks a lot, Bobby, Ka Mastah, Pao, and Toto. All great inputs. Sorry, I failed to include I will be running on Win 7, so the XP issues should be out of the equation. My budget is limited, so I'm trying to find the optimal initial configuration taking into account cost, forward-compatibility, and performance. 4 GB RAM is good enough for CS5 and the 5D2's RAW files. I guess this answers my main concern of the 4GB initial memory. But yes, a memory upgrade is always welcome. I will also be doing heavy software development stuff on the machine so more memory means increased productivity. I would also love to have an SSD system drive, but for now they are still too pricey (for me) so I might have to reserve buying one for a future upgrade. As for the display, that AOC IF23 is on the checklist!
|
|
|
Post by Edu Lorenzo Jr on Jan 17, 2011 13:05:38 GMT
Yo Mark, I use a Compaq CQ40 with a Sempron Processor and 2Gigs of RAM running Windows7 ultimate and Photoshop CS5. No complaints. You can take it out for a test if you want.
|
|
|
Post by Toto Gamboa on Jan 17, 2011 15:09:13 GMT
To add, I have to be specific with what application I use in CS5. I got a 4GB / Dual Core 2.2Ghz... I would score the following performance with 10 being the highest (no lag and almost in a snap). Photoshop (7), ACR (5), Bridge (3). AMong the three, the heavist that I use is Bridge, then ACR., then Photoshop. Bridge is crawling on my end especially when I dump to a folder around 200+ files and makes me wanna curse. Looking at the perfmons, memory is taking a big hit with Bridge.
|
|
|
Post by Romy Ocon on Jan 17, 2011 23:20:01 GMT
RAM is usually the bottleneck when processing large photos in PS. Things slow down massively when PS runs out of RAM and starts to use a HDD as a scratch disk. If working on a tight budget, I'd prefer a modest processor + more GB over a leading edge processor + less GB.
|
|
|
Post by Mark Itol on Jan 18, 2011 4:32:05 GMT
Thanks for the input, Edu! Good to know you're doing well with 2GB. Toto, in my experience, Bridge is very slow (and generates .xmp files even if you haven't made modifications to the RAW files yet), which is why I don't use it. I prefer Fastone for quick photo elimination passes and DPP's side-by-side comparison window for more scrutiny. I hear pros praising BreezeBrowser for its performance. I agree with Ka Mastah regarding memory and swap space bottleneck and that CS would benefit more from a large memory coupled with a modest processor vs. a smaller memory with a fast processor.
|
|
|
Post by Toto Gamboa on Jan 18, 2011 10:32:03 GMT
Hi Mark, I tried fastone but feature wise it is no match with CS5's Bridge. I am really after Bridge's features beyond its being a photo browser. Its photo management features are top notch. I have not seen something that will potentially beat Bridge in terms of photo selection and management. I'll try the breezebrowser one of these days if it can fit into my workflow.
Bridge though is heavy with I/O. So memory and disk speed plays a big role. I am not aware though that it created an XMP file even if there are no modifications. My CS5 Bridge only creates XMP files to the RAW files that I have modifed.
Despite the sluggishness, I am for Bridge. Somehow I have found some workaround to improve its performance. I just split the many files I have in multiples of 100 into several folders. This way ... it only processes 100 files per view.
|
|
|
Post by Mark Itol on Jan 19, 2011 13:44:59 GMT
I agree with you Toto re Bridge's features vs. Fastone's. Sometimes it's always a compromise between feature set and performance and finding workarounds.
By the way, I just tried BreezeBrowser Pro and it's crazily fast even on my prehistoric machine. ;D
|
|