Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Software > Editors (Photoshop, Vegas, Final Cut Pro, Kdenlive, etc.)

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Aug 23, 2006, 1:01 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 431
Default

At work I am in line for a new computer, and I have just installed Adobe CS Premium 2 on my old one that has 1G of RAM and it is Verrrry sllllow. The choices for a new setup are either 1GB or 2GB, so I put in for 2GB, and was asked for some 3rd party justification. But when I went to Adobe.com to findminimum system req, they recommended from 512MB- 1GB RAM to run multiple applications (eg Photoshop & Illustrator).

I find this very strange. I'm working with files averaging 10-20 MB and that's just in Photoshop; I also do layout work in Indesign.Any idea where I can find some justification for 1GB RAM or greater for multiple CS apps?

Lynne
urbanaries is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Aug 30, 2006, 12:58 PM   #2
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 15
Default

If you're running Windows XP , it loves memory.

The more system RAM you can stuff in the better.

It will utilize up to 3 gig ( 64 bit XP can utilize more ).

PLUS !!! When you upgrade to Windows Vista you BETTER have more RAM , it's a REAL memory hog.



Hope this helps :idea:
ooops is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 30, 2006, 1:06 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 431
Default

I totally agree with you, do you know of a citable source on this? I think its very strange that Adobe itself claims 512MB is sufficient to run Photoshop & say InDesign together on XP. That's just hogwash!
urbanaries is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 31, 2006, 7:09 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 111
Default

Add up the minimum RAM requirements of all the programs you will be running concurrently (don't forget Windows itself). Then add 10% for overhead. My guess is you'll come out way over 3 Gb, so you can tell your bosses that you'll settle for 3 Gb.
Wolverine@MSU is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 8, 2006, 7:53 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Tumbleweed, Arizona
Posts: 1,381
Default

"It will utilize up to 3 gig ( 64 bit XP can utilize more )."

A 32 bit CPU - the Xeon and Pentium series can ONLY address 2GB of physical memory.

A 64 bit CPU can address terabytes of memory.

So if you have a 32 bit CPU anything over 2GB is not being used as it is unable to be addressed.

If you have multiple CPU chips, each chip can address 2GB, if you have a single chip but multiple CPUs - you still have the 2GB limitation.

Thus multiple CPU servers have 4, 8, 12, 16GB of RAM - and for certain utilities like MS SQL Server you can configure it to use up to 3GB of memory, but that is across more than 1 CPU. Most software is not written to segment linear memory in the way SQL Server does.
_______________________

Software minimum requirements are just that - what is the smallest amount of memory that I can shoehorn in the software and still get it to run. - note I did not say run efficiently.

More RAM will let a slow CPU or fast CPU run faster. When RAM is limited, the operating system uses the disk to swap various sections of the software into RAM so as to run, with more RAM, there is less swapping, thus the CPU's cycles are used for real work, rather than for housekeeping. When the CPU is doing nothing but housekeeping, it is said to be "thrashing" - which is not good.

RAM is so inexpensive these days, just specify 2GB - it will pay for itself in a couple of months of normal useage.
________________________
interested_observer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 8, 2006, 9:50 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,396
Default

Above is true, depends on the type of CPU.

I have 3gb of memory and a 64bit cpu (Athlon 64 x2).
And I have troubles with performance running both Photoshop CS2 with large image files and Adobe LightRoom which I am doing some beta testing on.

Also does depend on the OS you have installed, plain old XP or 64bit XP or the new Vista each can do more with the memory and probably wants more of it.

There is a switch in old XP to have it allocate and try to use up to 3gb memory, by default it is set to 2gb.
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system...AE/PAEmem.mspx


PeterP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 12, 2006, 9:09 AM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 431
Default

THanks all, after some negotiation I was able to get a 2.83core duo pentium with 2GB ram. I suspect when our org upgrades to Vista I might need even more. Thanks!

lynne
urbanaries is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 21, 2006, 3:14 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 117
Default

What would be better for CS2 a AMD 64 x 2 4400+ (dual core)

or

AMD 64 FX model like the 57 or 60



Assuming both systems were on XP with 4gig of memory and the /3gig switch set?



Thanks,

Joe
jlacasci is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 22, 2006, 6:45 AM   #9
Senior Member
 
Stevekin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,611
Default

jlacasci...It seems the general concensus in Adobe user to user forums, that dual core is definitely the way to go.

With AMD having a good edge on Pentium !
Stevekin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 22, 2006, 8:28 AM   #10
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 117
Default

The FX-60 is a dual core also, Looking at the specs on AMD's site it doesn't look like there's too much difference between the two. (FX-60 vs 64x2 4400+). When they first came out with the FX line they were not dual core, now they are making them dual core also. It's a bit confusing to say the least...

I did some more research last night. First I already have an AMD system with the 64 x 2 4400+ It runs at 2.2ghz. The FX-60 is a dual core, same amount of cache and runs at 2.6. Doesn't seem like much .4 ghz per CPU Core, for the 600.00 to buy the CPU. Around 18% more id you just do the math. Toms Hardware site does a nice test on the FX-60 It seems to perform quite well, in fact they do some benchmarks with Photoshop rendering 5 pictures (66MB, with 7 filters) the 4400+ dual core does it in 3minutes 19 seconds the FX-60 does it in 2minutes54 seconds around 15% faster.

Sounds like splitting hairs but, I shoot sports (sales on line) and after a day of shooting football, will have 2000 or morephoto's to generate images for in Bridge, view, weed out, then render and crop say 500 for my website. If I can cut my time by 15% that's almost an hour saved. And it's an hour saved late Saturday night then again Sunday night ;-)

Joe
jlacasci is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 2:40 AM.