Anyone running 64-bit OS + CS5 from SSDs?

[studio460]

<p>Running 64-bit OS + application from SSDs:</p>

<p>Although I had recently switched to OS X a few years ago, I'm thinking of switching back, and plan on building a new 64-bit, Windows 7-based, Core i7 PC, specifically to run processor/memory hungry media applications such as Adobe Photoshop. Since I'm building the machine as a stand-alone imaging workstation, I'm designing it for maximum speed, and plan to install multiple, large-capacity SSDs, plus a fast 2D display adapter (will probably go with an ASUS motherboard + ASUS display adapter). I have a few questions:</p>

<p>1. Anyone know how large a system cache, from which 64-bit Windows 7 will practically benefit? I wondered if anyone had any practical experience with how large an SSD would be required to comfortably service Windows 7 Professional.</p>

<p>2. I don't recall the entire installed file size of Photoshop, but I was planning to install the entire application, and all running plug-ins on its own SSD. I'd probably like to also install my current image browser, Photo Mechanic, on the same SSD.</p>

<p>3. I'd like to also run the "working" file from an SSD (RAW, TIFF, JPG, etc.)</p>

<p>4. System RAM: I was planning on installing 8-16MB of system RAM. Would the system noticeably benefit from more than 16MB of installed system RAM? Any other size/capacity suggestions/recommendations?<br /><br />FYI: Here's a list of addressable memory limits for the various versions of Windows 7--the first number is for x86, the second for x64 (source: Microsoft):<br /><br />Windows 7 Ultimate: 4GB/192GB<br />WIndows 7 Enterprise: 4GB/192GB<br />Windows 7 Professional: 4GB/192GB<br />Windows 7 Home Premium: 4GB/16GB<br />Windows 7 Home Basic: 4GB/8GB<br />Windows 7 Starter: 2GB</p>

[phule]

<p>My understanding is that, for Photoshop, you will benefit more by using the SSD as the scratch disk, not by installing the OS and application on it. <br>

And the SSD is down the list, after maxing out Proc speed and RAM which give you a better cost/benefit ratio.</p>

<p>http://kb2.adobe.com/cps/404/kb404439.html</p>

<p>How much RAM the OS supports is different than how much RAM the motherboard supports. Your limit is likely going to be the hardware.</p>

 

[studio460]

<p>Copy. Good point. Any idea how large the scratch disk should be to be "comfortable?" Thanks!</p>

[studio460]

<p>According to the Adobe support page linked above, for 64-bit implementations of CS5, Adobe supports, "as much RAM as can fit in your computer." I wonder what the practical amount would be . . . 16GB, 32GB, 64GB? One of ASUS' X79 motherboards supports up to 64GB of system RAM.</p>

[phule]

<p>How big are the files you're going to be working with? While buying 64GB of RAM might be fun, if everything you work with can be stored within 16 or 24GB, then you'll have overspent. </p>

[tom_harvey3]

<p>Ralph, I'm using an HP DV7 laptop (AMD Vision dual core with Windows 7 Home Premium (x64) on the system drive and have PSCS2 setup to use the second drive, a 60 GB SSD by OCZ from Amazon.com and it's very fast.</p>

<p>I believe that DDR3 PC3/10600 RAM still is faster than the SSD, because the addressing scheme is built into the CPU core..."pipelining" in x16, x32 and x64 architecture speeds up most arduous CPU operations with the exception of conditional branch instructions (sorry for the techy geeky talk, but I've been working with these devices since 1978 or so).</p>

<p>Bottom line? Use the hard drive for the PS engine, get as much fast RAM as you can, and use a large SSD for all the layer work.</p>

<p>TH</p>

[studio460]

<p>Rob said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>While buying 64GB of RAM might be fun, if everything you work with can be stored within 16 or 24GB . . .</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks, Rob. So 32GB oughta do it?</p>

<p>Tom said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>(sorry for the techy geeky talk, but I've been working with these devices since 1978 or so).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No, not at all! Bring it on! The more tech-ey the better! Especially the part where you said, <em>"I believe that DDR3 PC3/10600 RAM still is faster than the SSD, because the addressing scheme is built into the CPU core . . . 'pipelining' in x16, x32 and x64 architecture speeds up most arduous CPU operations . . . "</em> That's the kind of info I'm looking for; i.e., where to optimize system components for maximum bang. Is "pipelining" the same as "hyperthreading?" Thanks!</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>ralph,</p>

<p>Why the switch?</p>

<p>Anyway, for every aspect you could ever want to know about <a href="http://macperformanceguide.com/index_topics.html">CS5 and Macs look here.</a></p>

<p>It seems, if performance is the ultimate criteria, a Mac Pro 8 core running 24GB of RAM from a boot SSD (I use a 120GB) in the second optical drive, with four matched 7200 rpm HDD's that each have a partition for a 4 disc striped RAID scratch disc is a superb performer.</p>

<p>With 24GB RAM and a super fast four disc RAID scratch disc, the working file doesn't go anywhere!</p>

<p>Even if you don't go MAC, look though the CS setup pages, there are some settings that by default make no sense and can easily cripple performance.</p>

[GlennS]

<p>I've just been reading about a new drive from Seagate called the Momentus XT. Sounds like it may be perfect for use in a high power graphics machine. See the link for more info...<br>

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-11-seagate-intros-second-generation-solid-state.html</p>

<p> </p>

[tom_harvey3]

<p>Ralph, I suppose that "hyperthreading" is the new vernacular for "pipelining"....so 1970's......</p>

<p>In the olden days, the original 8086 used an EU or execution unit fueled by an BIU or bus interface unit. In this manner, the CPU has a look at what instructions and operands are in the pipeline (there I go again, the original 8086 x1-->8086 x<em>n</em>...prereleased unit for some beta sites in the Silicon Valley area and other hot markets then).</p>

<p>Yeah, the early 8086 units were rumored to have a small crank hidden on the side for early "speed-stepping"...never actually saw it though.</p>

[rogleale]

<p>Hi Ralph,<br>

I'm running Windows 7 Home premium with 8GB ram and a Phenom ll x 4 cpu. I recently installed a Crucial 128GB SSD instead of a 500GB hd for the operating system. After moving all my documents, music and videos to other partitions on a normal HD, but leaving CS5, Bridge, and other photo apps in the 'C' partition, I have 30GB of free space. I have a dedicated 500GB hd for the scratch which is seldom used.<br>

The biggest improvements to be seen were in speed. CS5 opens in about 3 secs, Bridge about 5 secs, and complex filters, photomerge, and merge to HDR are taking approximately half the time they used to but I haven't done any precise measuring.<br>

Roger</p>

 

[mike_earussi1]

<p>The biggest improvement you'll notice in an SSD over a regular HD is in the storage and recall of very large image files, not in actual PS usuage. I habitually manipulate 500-1,000 mb pano stitches and the 12gb of ram I have work just fine, but it takes quite a while for them to load and save on my convential HD.</p>

[studio460]

<p>Scott asked:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Why the switch [from OS X to 64-bit Windows 7]?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I would love to stay OS X and run a top-line Mac Pro with gobs of RAM, but the prices of Core i7 Windows machines are just too attractive to ignore. As much as I prefer the OS X operating system, there are actually a handful of Windows-only apps that I enjoy using as well (Sony Vegas, IDimager, etc.).</p>

<p>My final decision on the choice of hardware/OS platform for my main imaging workstation is the main reason I've put off renewing all of my Adobe licenses (currently, I only own CS1 for Windows, and zero Adobe products for OS X, other than Apple Final Cut Studio). I plan to get 64-bit, Windows 7 versions of Adobe CS5 Design Premium, and DxO's just-released Optics Pro 7 to start. Will probably have to buy a new license for Photo Mechanic, even though I just bought one for OS X--I think it's the best ingest manager available anywhere.</p>

[studio460]

<p>Rob asked:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>How big are the files you're going to be working with?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Typical 12MP lossless-compressed, 14-bit Nikon D3s NEF files, and large JPG fines. Once in a while, a full-resolution TIFF.</p>

[studio460]

<p>Roger said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The biggest improvements to be seen were in speed. CS5 opens in about 3 secs, Bridge about 5 secs, and complex filters, photomerge, and merge to HDR are taking approximately half the time they used to but I haven't done any precise measuring.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks for that info! Sounds like fun!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I have a dedicated 500GB hd for the scratch which is seldom used.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Really? I would've thought that you would see the most dramatic performance benefit from having the scratch disk assigned to an SSD. Maybe because the entire OS and application are all running from the SSD?</p>

[studio460]

<p>Mike said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The biggest improvement you'll notice in an SSD over a regular HD is in the storage and recall of very large image files, not in actual PS usage.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, that's why I was thinking to always have my working file in an SSD volume. Here's what I was thinking for such a workflow:</p>

<p>1. Simultaneously ingest both to SSD and HDD volumes (e.g., Photo Mechanic allows up to three user-defined target volumes for simultaneous ingest).<br /> 2. Perform edit in SSD-resident ingested files using an SSD-resident browser.<br /> 3. Open selected SSD-resident files for post-processing, using an SSD-resident instance of CS5/DxO/NX2/LR3, etc.<br>

4. Burn any required deliverables from SSD.<br>

5. Save final output file to archive HDD volume.</p>

[studio460]

<p>Mike said:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>The biggest improvement you'll notice in an SSD over a regular HD is in the storage and recall of very large image files, <strong><em>not in actual PS usage</em></strong>. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, I read that on the Adobe support site as well. However, Roger's experience appears to be different. I would still love it, if only for the fact that CS5 opens in just a few seconds (I hate waiting for CS5 to open). If Roger's experience holds for me as well, running complex filters and plug-ins at a 200% speed increase would be a great!</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<blockquote>

<p>I hate waiting for CS5 to open</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Don't ever remove CS5 from Ram by quitting it. It will always take much longer to first load CS5 after a fresh reboot of the computer. Once CS5 is loaded into Ram, quit and relaunched, there's a marked speed improvement compared to the first launch due to already cached API's on the HD disc cache CS5 requires to operate.</p>

<p>Platform specific OS architecture API's may differ in how and when this happens or behaves with regard to launch speed and general performance. Just go by Adobe's Optimization tips and not try to figure how hardware will affect these things. It's way too complicated to sort out what affects what and to prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt.</p>

[studio460]

<p>Tim said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Just go by Adobe's Optimization tips and not try to figure how hardware will affect these things . . .</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks for your comments, Tim. Yes, that's exactly what I'm looking at right now. According to Adobe, I should be gaining the most performance for my money by first maximizing my system RAM. Here's what I'm thinking of getting:</p>

<p>Second-generation Core i7 system:<br /> 1. Intel socket 2011 ASUS P9X79 Pro motherboard: $319.<br /> 2. 32MB system RAM: 4 x 8GB DIMM DDR3 1600MHz w/Intel XMP support: $439.</p>

<p>Next, I've got to sort out the best bang-for-the-buck SSDs, and most importantly, determine the fastest OpenGL display adapter for 2D work. Can anyone suggest one?</p>

[peter_cohen]

<p>I followed Adobe's hardware suggestions in building my machine last summer and have been very happy. While your workflow and file sizes are most likely different than mine, I have 16 GB of speedy 1.33 RAM and even when I'm editing a nearly 1GB PS file with 10+ layers and I have LR open, I'm only using less than half the RAM.</p>

<p>You can also save a few bucks (of course, to spend elsewhere) by going with a second-gen i5 (I have the 2500k) rather than the i7. Most of what I read indicated that I probably would not notice any speed difference doing what I was doing between the two chips.</p>

<p>I use a SATA6 SSD for OS and apps and it's amazing in how fast it loads the OS and applications. I'm in PS CS5 in about 2 sec after I click to open. Like you, I'm using an ASUS motherboard, but not as full-featured as the one you're looking at.</p>