With respect to the importance of RAM over any form of RAM disk or
virtual storage paging I forgot to add this old computing adage...
All computers wait at the same speed. :-)
Chuck Norcutt
On 6/8/2013 8:30 AM, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
> 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/
|