-hh wrote:
>> I agree with you when one upgrades from 1GB to 2GB or RAM.
>
> Well, you had better go tell that to the "Other Rita", who on 3/25/08
> claimed that even 2GB of RAM is a waste:
>
> "You can have 10GB of memory and it aint making any
> difference....Anything past 1.5GB of RAM is a waste for Photoshop."
Funny! With 2GB one would only be wasting 512MB compared to 8.5GB with
10GB
of RAM.
>> RAM I/O speed is irrelevant because you have to get your
>> filed from and back to the disk.
>
> Disk I/O is relevant only when opening & closing the file. For all of
> the other image manipulating actions, its CPU and RAM that determine
> how long it will take. It depends on what you're doing as to which
> ultimately takes "longer", but the fact remains that substituting Disk
> Swap for Physical RAM **always** increases the timeline.
Again, you are assuming incorrectly that there is this magical need to
keep
everything up in RAM when it doesn't need to be there. Fix your disk I/O
and memory won't be an issue.
> FYI, the above do***ented use of 1.6 real + 2 VM (3.7GB total) was
> from just two Photoshop files being open from the same project, namely
> the full scan of a Kodachrome @[EMAIL PROTECTED]
200 MP (17,433 x 11,551) and its
> first downsample to 8674 x 5776 (50 MP).
It's just a simple case of poor disk I/O you're struggling with. Had you
a
decent disk array all of this overhead would have been offloaded back to
the
disk while your memory is waiting for more input.
Rita
|
