Talk About Network

Google





Photography > Aussie Photographing > Re: Processor f...
Latest [ Topics | Posts ] Archive Post A New Topic Post a Reply
<< Topic < Post Post 2 of 4 Topic 8710 of 9633
Post > Topic >>

Re: Processor for photo editting

by John McWilliams <jpmcw@[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Mar 26, 2008 at 09:33 AM

-hh wrote:
> On Mar 26, 6:49 am, "Rita Berkowitz" <ritaberk2...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> nospam wrote:
>>>> Just a hint, it aint happening since Photoshop isn't optimized for
>>>> 64-bit. You can have 10GB of memory and it aint making any
>>>> difference.  The only thing significant here is you are in total
>>>> bliss with thinking the placebo of having extra memory is actually
>>>> helping when it is not.  Anything past
>>>> 1.5GB of RAM is a waste for Photoshop.
>>> totally false.
>> How so?
> 
> 
> The issue here is not 32-vs-64 addressing, because 1.5GB is well
> within 32 bit addressing limits.
> 
> 
> Since contem****ary OS's run virtual RAM and swaps out to the Hard
> Drive (HD) whenever the user has more stuff running than physical RAM,
> the system's performance takes a hit from the I/O access speed
> differences between RAM and HD.
> 
> This is why there's a performance gain from adding more physical RAM,
> and that this is more significant than Disk I/O - - simply put, RAM I/
> O is faster than any hard drive configuration in existance today.
> 
> 
> Granted, these performance gains will be an area of dimini****ng
> returns, since the RAM is displacing Disk I/O.  Dimini****ng returns
> means that the first +1GB of RAM has more benefit than the next +1GB
> of RAM added, etc.
> 
> Thus, when someone like "Rita" claims that anything more than 1.5GB of
> RAM is a "waste", they're merely speaking for their level of personal
> need.  Thus, I'm not surprised to hear "Rita" claims.
> 
> For everyone else, the metric to use is to examine one's Page-In/Page-
> Out ratio after a period of typically serious use of Photoshop, etc,
> to then decide if the frequency with which the OS hits the HD due to
> lack of Physical RAM is acceptable to them or not.
> 
> The exercise is left up to Rita to post a screenshot of their Page-In/
> Out values so as to back up that pesky little "Anything more than
> 1.5GB is a waste" claim.  Its trivial to do this on a Mac. :-)

No doubt you'll get a flippant answer that completely dodges the issue.

-- 
john mcwilliams
 




 4 Posts in Topic:
Re: Processor for photo editting
-hh <recscuba_google@[  2008-03-26 08:30:36 
Re: Processor for photo editting
John McWilliams <jpmcw  2008-03-26 09:33:21 
Re: Processor for photo editting
"Rita Berkowitz"  2008-03-26 19:44:53 
Re: Processor for photo editting
nospam <nospam@[EMAIL   2008-03-27 00:18:30 

Post A Reply:
  Go here to Signup

AddThis Feed Button


About - Advertising - Contact - Frequently Asked Questions - Privacy Policy - Terms of Use - Signup

Contact
localhost-V2008-12-19 Thu Jan 8 19:00:39 PST 2009.