ram for Photoshop CC?

[jon_s.1]

<p>So my old HP laptop has finally died, and I'm looking for a replacement. I have a desktop at home for editing, so the laptop would mostly be used for backing up photos to an external drive while away from home...but I occasionally do like to edit a shot or two with Photoshop (now using Creative Cloud) while on the road, and I tend to end up with pretty big Tiffs - like half a gig. Currently shooting with a 5d mark II, but may upgrade to a higher resolution camera (a7r?) in the near future.</p>

<p>So, I could get a super cheap laptop with 4 gigs of ram for around $200, or go for 6-8 gigs for $400-500. Can't really spend more. Any input on how much ram I would need to do a little editing with Creative Cloud and this new laptop? My desktop currently only has 6 gigs, and it's been fine speed wise. I may be getting a new desktop soon as well...so money is kind of an issue. Thanks!</p>

[PaulCoen]

<p>One thing to consider - unless you're springing for a solid-state drive, laptop drives tent to be 5400 rpm instead of 7200 rpm, which most desktop drives are these days. So they're generally slower on large transfers. The less RAM you have, the more likely Photoshop is to use the disk for scratch space, and you may find the speed drop frustrating. <br /><br />Are you using any 3rd party plugins, from DxO or whoever?<br>

One suggestion if you're budget conscious - outlet.lenovo.com. The selection can vary quite a bit, but I picked a new (not refurb or scratch & dent) Thinkpad Edge up for the kids schoolwork over the summer - an i3 with 4GB of RAM and a touch screen - for $380 with tax and shipping. I do know people who have picked up the refurbished models - they're as good as new. They regularly have models that have i3/i5 CPUs and 8GB of RAM. You just have to jump quick when you see one you want. If you're fond of HP, I think they have a similar outlet site. <br /><br /></p>

[JDMvW]

<p>If all you are doing is drive-by editing on the laptop, I'd guess the $400-500 option would be adequate.<br>

Although I don't use the CC version of PS, my experience with the application is that it is <em>tolerant</em> of machines with only a lot of RAM. Less than a "lot" is asking for sluggishness, in my past experience. Adobe products are generally my favorites, but they are gluttons and not for the weak of processors. ;)</p>

<p>I know people who run PS CS6 on laptops with only 8GB. I do sometimes run PS CS5 for very simple in-the-field editing on both older and newer Intel-chip 4GB laptops, but even the newer one with a faster processor is not beloved of Photoshop, the program.</p>

<p>CS5 does run <em>reasonably</em> happily on a desktop with 3.5 GHz 6-Core Xeon E5 with 32GB of RAM, however.</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>With Photoshop, RAM is more important than processing speed, as much as you can stuff into the computer. If you can't do it all at present, make sure you choose a computer which can be upgraded in the future. If you don't have about three times as much RAM as the largest image file, it swaps chunks of the image out to the hard drive, while your hair catches fire.</p>

<p>You may have to discard (save or sell) some RAM chips when you upgrade. Most computers require the RAM cards be paired in some way (e.g., 24G = two 4G and two 8G). My laptop, a Lenovo Thinkpad, has four slots. I started with 8G (four 2G chips) and expanded to 32G (four 8G chips). It now churns out Photoshop nicely with the new RAM and an i7 processor - nearly as fast as my HP Xeon workstation.</p>

<p>The other upgrade that helps is a fast video card with a GPU co-processor and on-board RAM. Unfortunately, that's not an option with any laptop I know about. The workstation wins after all.</p>

[angkordave]

<p>Dont take too much notice of the info from those who want to impress with their power PCs.<br>

<br /> 8gb and 15 dual core is fine for most purposes, 16Gb and a 17 quad core is good to have: 32 gb and Zeon Processors are over the top unless you have more money than sense or just want to impress.<br>

Photoshop Layers are so out of date now and inefficient 500mp tiffs are a ridiculous waste of computer resources. Raw files are typical 30mb and Lightroom won't increase the size much. I can get a 1 metre wide print with less than 30 mb using lightroom<br>

<br /> A decent screen is far more important; You wont get one with a $500 laptop.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Why thanks Dave.<br>

Of course, I wouldn't take too much notice of those who want to tell you layers are out of date, and how they solved Goldbach's Conjecture with only 8GB. If all you do is Lightroom, you can get by with a lot less power and you won't have to worry about those "out of date" layers, either.</p>

[Uhooru]

<p>I think for your modest needs of a little processing on the road, your 8gb solution will be fine. Its not optimal, nor will the screen be desirable, but you can use it. </p>