Will a 64-bit, 12GB computer help with big tiff files in PS?

[thomas_janik]

<p>I'm increasing frustrated working on scan files of 500 MB in CS3 with my current computer. I have a dual core with XP and the 3GB switch is on which yields about 3.25 GB of RAM. Many proceedures are very slow (e.g. smart sharpen takes 5 minutes); Bridge likes to crash as well. I could switch to XP 64 bit, but my machine will still be limited to 4GB. I see the new Dells and HPs with quad core, 64-bit and 12GB of RAM and I have to wonder if that will really solve the problems of slowness. Anyone with experience please advise I don't want to invest the money in a new system only to see marginal improvement.</p>

[howard_m]

<p>maybe. you'd need to see if you're really hitting the RAM in your system as-is. You may get significant speed up by addressing any PS scratch disk and/or 'max ram' that PS uses.</p>

[blairhall]

<p>I'd also be wary about your expectations with the newer machine. I can't see any reason why it wouldn't run faster than your current setup (which can probably be tweaked as per Howard's suggestions) but 500mb is a lot of data to plow through on any system. Especially when applying something like smart sharpen, which in my experience, tends to be one of, if not the slowest function in PS.</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>I don't think PSCS3 can use more than 3GB, even in a 64 bit O/S. In a 32 bit system, it only recognizes 2GB. I recently purchased a dual-quad Xeon computer, which (subjectively) is only about twice as fast as my older dual processor in Photoshop. Most photoshop operations are not particularly processing-intensive. The quality of the video card may actually be more significant with regard to rendering time. Consider a 256MB video card as a minimum requirement.</p>

<p>The "octoprocessor" is nearly 12x as fast for rendering video. Processor usage barely quivers for Photoshop, whereas all 8 processors run at 80% capacity during rendering in Premiere Pro. I get a transfer speed of about 30 KB/sec for an internal SATA-300 drive, and about 12-18 KB/sec for an external USB2 drive (SATA-300 in an USB2 enclosure). While the transfer time can be substantial for large image files, it is less significant during image processing - provided you have at least 3x available RAM as the image size (to avoid thrashing the disk with virtual memory).</p>

<p>Out of curiosity, where are you getting 500MB image files?</p>

[rffffffff]

<p>i make 12000px x 9000px files with 60 or 70 layers every year... The bottom line is that if you run out of ram, you are finished, in terms of speed. increasing the speed of scratch disks is similar to running instead of walking, where increasing ram is like flying a plane. If you are using the scratch disk, you are finished. You have to determine if thats true first. <br>

You can change an indicator in photoshop to tell you. I opened a new document, set that thingy (at the bottom of the screen in cs4) to "scratch sizes" and it tells me that I have 51mb used and 5.1gb available (cs4, vista 64 bit, 8gb of ram) If it goes to 5.2gb out of 5.1gb, my machine will grind to a halt, basically.<br>

If thats the case with the 500mb tiff file, you need more ram. Sharpening, and many other filters, by the way, are indeed cpu sensitive. I made a simple 30000x5000 pixel document with a painted swirl in the middle, and smart sharpened it here and it took about 2 seconds. I am using a 4 core q9400 processor or something like that (can't quite remember). <br>

The long and the short of it is that the newer computer will help as much as cs3 will let it. If there is a 4gb limitation per document in photoshop (I think there is) and you go over 4gb, you are going to need cs4 also.<br>

I hope that helps.</p>

[mike_bisom]

<p>Photoshop may only "recognize" 3GB of Ram, but it will utilize far more by way of scratch disc space (up to 8GB if memory serves). At least is works that way on a Mac, I would think it would do the same in Windows. I have 7GB of Ram (Dual 2.7 PowerMac) and a Smart Sharpen (CS3) on a 1GB (yes, 1GB) file with 22 layers takes about 90 seconds. And both processors are running up to 180%. I don't know any details on CS4, 64-bit, and memory access- other than I would assume it's better. So in a nutshell, the more RAM the better. I would also make sure you have a dedicated drive for the OS/Programs, and a separate drive for scratch and yet another for the actual media. These drives should be internal or on a eSata port. Using a USB or Firewire drive may incur a performance hit. As to whether it's noticeable I can't say (I use eSata). As far as a video card goes, it all depends on what you are doing. Here is Adobes list of functions it offloads to the GPU:</p>

<p>http://kb2.adobe.com/cps/404/kb404898.html</p>

<p>Also note that since Adobe hasn't tested CS4 on a 64-bit Windows system, it has disabled the OpenGL settings. Thereby negating the benefit of a powerful graphics card in a Windows 64-bit system (although they tell you how to turn it on... at your own risk). All-in-all, it's rather confusing if you ask me. 32-bits gets you 4GB. 64-bits gets you (theoretically) 128GB if memory serves! But then Photoshop doesn't thoroughly support 64-bit Windows. </p>

[martin_howard1]

<p>Yes a switch to 64bit OS (I would recommend Vista over XP anytime having used both), 8GB+ of RAM <strong>and Photoshop CS4 </strong> will yield a nice performance boost.<br /> However with CS3 which is not native 64bit the results will not be as noticeable.<br /> I currently run Vista x64, 8Gb of Ram & PS CS4, it handles large scans and multiple photo comps with ease.<br /> Certainly if I were to recommend a new system, go for an i7 based machine with 6Gb of 12GB of Ram.</p>

[martin_howard1]

<blockquote>

<p><em>Also note that since Adobe hasn't tested CS4 on a 64-bit Windows system, it has disabled the OpenGL settings. Thereby negating the benefit of a powerful graphics card in a Windows 64-bit system (although they tell you how to turn it on... at your own risk). All-in-all, it's rather confusing if you ask me. 32-bits gets you 4GB. 64-bits gets you (theoretically) 128GB if memory serves! But then Photoshop doesn't thoroughly support 64-bit Windows</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I've had zero issues running CS4 on vista x64, GPU acceleration works very nicely.<br>

Not sure how <em>Photoshop doesn't thoroughly support 64-bit Windows?</em></p>

[rffffffff]

<p>one more interesting test: I took a 4x6, enlarged it to 20000x30000 pixels (66"x100" @ 300dpi) and duplicated a layer to use up 11gb of space out of the 5.1 of ram available. It took 65 seconds to sharpen and 30 seconds to open the sharpen window, probably. I shrunk it to 18000x27000, one layer (just below 5gb total used) and it smart sharpened in 9.7 seconds. </p>

<p>Going over the physical ram threshold really hurts performance.</p>

[thomas_janik]

<p>Thanks for the replys fellows. You pushed me over the brink, I went to Dell outlet and bought a refurbished XPS 435 with i7 processor, 12GB and 512MB video card for $1000. I was afraid to to sit on a decision for fear it would be gone as it was the only one with 12GB. Of course now I realize that I HAVE to get CS4 to take full advantage of the 12GB and I can't get vista 64 drivers for my monitor calibration device, so I'll need a new one of those. I also can't get 64 bit drivers for my Nikon and Minolta scanners, so I have to keep the XP system running. This is going to end up costing a bit more. I tried all the speed tricks with XP: separate physical drive for scratch disk etc., so I hope this does the job.<br>

Edward: I scan 6x7 in 16 bit on a Nikon 9000 = 500MB files. I prefer to make overall adjustments in 16 bit to avoid the picket fence in the histogram and then convert to 8 bit to make the file size reasonable.<br>

Mike: I checked your link. Adobe supports Vista 64 but not XP 64.<br>

Thanks again guys form me and my credit card company. </p>

 

[bgelfand]

<p>Hi Thomas,</p>

<p>I am researching a new computer and have run into the Nikon Scan and monitor calibration device problems. I have not yet built my now machine, so I cannot say that my proposed solutions will work, but they "should" (famous last words <grin>).</p>

<p>For Nikon Scan, I will use VueScan; it does work with Vista-64 <a href="http://www.hamrick.com/">http://www.hamrick.com/</a> There have been some posts on photo.net, that suggest you can use Nikon Scan with the VueScan drivers under Vista-64.</p>

<p>I have the Monaco Optix calibrations system. There are some fixes for Vista, but that may be just Vista-32. However ColorEyes will use the hardware and does run under Vista-64. Unfortunately, ColorEyes software does cost $175; there is a free download for testing purposes. <a href="http://www.integrated-color.com/cedpro/coloreyesdisplay.html">http://www.integrated-color.com/cedpro/coloreyesdisplay.html</a></p>

<p> </p>

[sheldonnalos]

<p>You should see a very nice performance bump from your new system. For reference... I have a quad core Q9950 (overclocked to 3.6Ghz) with 8GB of RAM and use Vista 64bit and CS4.</p>

<p>I opened a 1GB file in CS4 (4x5 film scan, 16 bit, 11000 x 8700 pixels, 5 layers) and ran smart sharpen on the base layer. It takes my machine 17 seconds to complete the task. It only touches about half the RAM but does use all 4 processor cores quite a bit.</p>

[scott_turner]

<blockquote>

<p>Also note that since Adobe hasn't tested CS4 on a 64-bit Windows system, it has disabled the OpenGL settings.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is absolutely and utterly incorrect information. Good grief!</p>

<p>Photoshop CS4 has a 64-bit version <em>specifically designed</em> for Vista 64, and it works gangbusters, most especially in systems which also have graphics cards which support the proper version of OpenGL. And yes, you essentially have access to as much RAM as you can put in most machines, and yes, having copious quantaties of memory DOES make a substantial difference when working with large files.</p>

<p>But keep in mind, it's the memory that matters most, and processor cores matter little, just as Edward discovered. Contrary to popular belief, PS is NOT a multi-threaded app in most operations, as has been demonstated over and over again. I recently moved from a 3.16 GHz Core 2 Duo (an E8500) to a 3.0 GHz Core 2 Quad (Q9650) - for reasons other than PS. Same system, just a straight processor swap. Just for fun, I ran extensive before and after benchmarks and, as expected, the Quad is just a touch slower than my old Duo running PS, due to the slightly lower clock-speed. You can easily see this in action by monitoring core activity when running, as core 1 is very active, core 2 sees somewhat less, and cores 3 & 4 basically sit quietly in most cases. Yes, they'll occasionally perk up, but they don't contribute significantly in most operations.</p>

<p>BTW, I also benchmarked 32-bit vs 64-bit while I was at it and found that Adobe's claim of about a 12% performance boost for 64-bit PS was pretty much right-on. It's not huge, but it is a nice bonus for 64-bit users.</p>

<p>And finally, the graphics card. There's been much talk around here that you now need a really good graphics card to run PS. CS4 really doesn't do that much in OpenGL, and what it does do is all really easy 2D stuff. You don't need the latest gamers card, but what you do need is a card with drivers updated to support the latest version of OpenGL. The new features are nice, and it does help, but it isn't core PS stuff, so don't expect miracles. Pay attention to the list of supported cards, and look for a reasonably priced one which meets Adobe's requirements. See: http://kb2.adobe.com/cps/404/kb404898.html for detailed information.</p>

<p>The latest high-end 3d cards are for serious gamers and benchmarkers, and tend to be the flakiest in terms of drivers as things get tuned in on the bleeding edge. They are neither necessary, nor helpful for PS use, and are severe overkill for what PS needs.</p>

<p>Bottom line - I can't recommend 64 bit highly enough for those who regularly edit large images.</p>

<p>Scott</p>

[scott_turner]

<blockquote>

<p>For Nikon Scan, I will use VueScan; it does work with Vista-64 <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.hamrick.com/" target="_blank">http://www.hamrick.com/</a> There have been some posts on photo.net, that suggest you can use Nikon Scan with the VueScan drivers under Vista-64.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Brooks, I've been running my Nikon V with Vista 64 and the Vuescan drivers for months of moderate to heavy use now, and it works perfectly. I use Vuescan, and Silverfast AI, and they both work well. I've also installed and tested Nikonscan, and everything seems to work just fine, though I don't really use it. I've had absolutely zero problems with any of the above.</p>

<p>The key is to tell Vuescan to install its drivers. Then when you install Nikonscan, tell it NOT to install its.</p>

<p>This was the only Vista 64 driver issue of concern to me, and the solution turned out to be painless.</p>

<p>Scott</p>

 

[thomas_janik]

<p>An update for anyone in a similar situation. I have the new computer. CS3 will only access 3.25 GB of RAM, so I also downloaded the trial version of CS4. In short, a smart shapen that took 5-9 minutes on my old machine now takes 5-25 seconds. All other aspects of PS operation are also much faster. Well worth the expense. Thanks again guys.</p>