I agree that 6 cores is probably overkill. I could be proven wrong
(since image processing is one place where it's easier than most
applications to keep multiple threads busy) but I would be surprised if
PhotoShop can keep 6 cores busy at all or, even if it can, at least for
very long. I'd choose a faster clock rate over more cores.
I have mixed feelings on the use of a large amount of RAM as a scratch
disk. A RAM disk is always very much faster than a real disk, even an
SSD. However, I suspect that even better performance can be gotten by
simply allowing PhotoShop to use almost all of the RAM as it sees fit.
Better performance will come about by not having to use a scratch disk
at all. The more RAM you take away from the system the more a scratch
disk will have to be used. My own strategy would be to maximize the
total SIZE of the RAM (within cost constraints) and only if the system
performance is slow consider adding a small SSD as a scratch disk. But
even before setting up the SSD as a PhotoShop exclusive scratch disk I'd
try just allocating the SSD to system-wide virtual storage. Virtual
storage paging algorithms have been under development for almost 50
years. They work very well.
Chuck Norcutt
On 6/7/2013 9:30 PM, C.H.Ling wrote:
> I was also waiting for the Haswell but just can't wait, video editing is
> slow for a dual core system. The preview of the Haswell seems only a few
> percent faster than Ivy bridge although it said the final version will be
> 10-15% faster. The cost of new chips will be certainly more expensive at the
> beginning. I'm now very happy with the E3-1230V2 8G RAM.
>
>> >I'm not at all sure six cores will add anything noticeable to PS use. As
>> >you do not seem to be someone who is likely to
>> >play with overclocking, the 'k' suffix processors may be just more money
>> >for nothing.
>> >
> Agreed, unless someone is going to stitch a huge file otherwise a quad core
> i7 should be fine.
>
>> >
>> >I'm beginning to think this is likely unnecessary, and less than ideal. As
>> >CH has pointed out, RAM is much faster than
>> >an SSD. 32 GB of RAM, with 8 GB used as a RAM scratch disk, and the rest
>> >available as direct memory to PS is likely faster.
>> >
> Yes, go for Ramdisk, set to 16GB if you are running an image file over
> 400MB.
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|