Rita Berkowitz wrote:
> -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
>
Rita,
Disk I/O is VASTLY slower than ram access. Worse, many programs seem
to access 'scratchpad' files in a terribly inefficient, 'byte-wise'
manner making things terribly slow. The best solution is to load the
computer with all the ram it can handle, and get one with a quad-core
(or two of them), and a fast HD. Frankly, Windows does a terrible job
of swapping ram to and from disk.
|
