how much ram is recommended?


Status
Not open for further replies.

ryuggen

New Member
Apr 5, 2006
791
0
0
Bukit Panjang
#1
I'm using photoshop and coreldraw and have some 'loading' problem. The former loads much faster. But when it comes to smudging, it will takes ages to render the photos. And most of the time, it hang on me.

In my previous thread, a kind CSer told me that coreldraw runs on a much memory eating basis.

Am using a 512mb ram. Should I invest on a 1GB card?
 

kcuf2

Senior Member
Dec 29, 2005
1,777
1
0
KFC
#2
i think u need to get more than 2gb, prefereably 4gb ram

to run windows vista comfortably, u need 2gb ram, 1gb ram still can experience jerkiness...

on top of that for ur graphics applications, u need 4gb ram
 

Artosoft

Senior Member
Aug 31, 2005
3,710
0
0
Tanjong Katong
#3
How old is the PC?

BTW, the correct forum for this thread should be in Digital Dark Room forum.

Regards,
Arto.
 

ryuggen

New Member
Apr 5, 2006
791
0
0
Bukit Panjang
#4
PC is about 2.5 years old from DELL.

4GB of ram? will it be overkill? So much... Will having a good graphic card matters?
 

kcuf2

Senior Member
Dec 29, 2005
1,777
1
0
KFC
#5
PC is about 2.5 years old from DELL.

4GB of ram? will it be overkill? So much... Will having a good graphic card matters?
a good graphics card is a necessity.... there is no choice abt it....

at the moment i m also thinking of upgrading my computer, but just lack the cash after i calculated how much is it to do the upgrade
 

Artosoft

Senior Member
Aug 31, 2005
3,710
0
0
Tanjong Katong
#6
PC is about 2.5 years old from DELL.

4GB of ram? will it be overkill? So much... Will having a good graphic card matters?
If you do graphic, the priority I think is:
1. Memory.
2. CPU.
3. Graphic card.

Regards,
Arto.
 

kelccm

Senior Member
Mar 2, 2004
1,515
2
0
A village in a forest
#7
Actually harddisk do play a part too. A faster harddisk can speed up your process a bit. At least go for SATA hdd 7200rpm, best would be SCSI in RAID array.

As for RAM, I think the minimum you should be looking at is 1gb. Get 2gb would be the best. I feel that 4gb is not neccessary unless you are editing your photos for your business, and where time is money.

You don't need the highest end graphic card, unless you are using your computer to play some 3D graphic intensive games. A good 2D graphic card would be better if your usage is just for photo editing.

CPU processor would be the last I'll consider. Unless you are looking at upgrading your whole PC system.
 

Rashkae

Senior Member
Nov 28, 2005
19,105
12
0
#8
CPU matters too... A nice dual-core AMD or Intel will seriously boost the processing time when applying smudging effects, rotating an image, etc.

Harddrive speed too...

But most importantly... RAM!!! For serious graphics work, 2-4GB. If you're working on multiple large images, 4GB. And no, it's not overkill.

Graphics card: Lowest priority unless you want to but a *huge* monitor and run at very high resolution.
 

Nov 21, 2006
289
0
0
Singapore
#9
My system is Intel 1.83Mhz Duo, Ram 2G. I still feel that it is exememly slow when I run batch in PS. If you want both PS and CD might just double my system's configuration bah..:(
 

kcuf2

Senior Member
Dec 29, 2005
1,777
1
0
KFC
#10
My system is Intel 1.83Mhz Duo, Ram 2G. I still feel that it is exememly slow when I run batch in PS. If you want both PS and CD might just double my system's configuration bah..:(
yes... precisely why i recommended 4gb, its no joke at all.

in fact as mentioned if using along with windows vista, 2gb is just the right amount to run vista, and we havent count in the photoshop yet.
 

Stratix

New Member
Oct 13, 2005
936
0
0
#11
My system is Intel 1.83Mhz Duo, Ram 2G. I still feel that it is exememly slow when I run batch in PS. If you want both PS and CD might just double my system's configuration bah..:(
Is your's a notebook?

Personally, i run an AMD Athlon 64 FX-60 dual core CPU, but only with 1GB of ram, and a whole load of firefox windows. Yes, it'll be horribly slow because of those RAM eating firefox webpages.

perhaps for a start, you could disable any unused background services. Type "msconfig" (without quotes) in start -> run menu. Go to Startup tab and untick the stuffs you dont need. =)
 

theRBK

Senior Member
May 16, 2005
2,048
1
0
#12
let's look at it from a performance/cost point of view...

RAM prices have gone down again (it was abit crazy in 3rd and 4th quarter of last year)...so for around $300 (for DDR and DDR2. if your comp uses rdram then tough), you can get 2GB of RAM...this is probably the easiest way of boosting Photoshop speed...

harddrives provide extra "memory" when your computer's memory runs out...this is better done when you designate a hardrive that is not where your program is running from to do the job...you can get an additional harddrive for this at less than $150...and of course you have more space to store stuff...won't boost speed as much as more RAM but this way is cheaper and more versatile...if you want more performance, consider a RAID 0 array of drives to do the job, but of course, that adds more complexity and cost...and seriously, SCSI? SATA harddrives should be good enough for most people...

upgrade your CPU...if you can find a compatible one that is...especially if it is possible to get a dual core one...but with the age of your system, I doubt you will find a compatible one to upgrade to...

if you use a D-Sub connection (commonly called a RGB connection) to your monitor, an ATi or Matrox video card might produce better colour...but if you use a DVI connection, there is no diff if from Matrox, ATi or Nvidea...and in any case, there is no diff in speed in either case...
 

josho

Senior Member
Nov 27, 2004
2,110
0
0
37
Jln Teck Whye
pboong.com
#13
If you had the money, try to pour in a new system which allow you to use longer period. It depend whether you think you want to upgrade or not. And also, if you buy a Ram now, next planning to go for C2D, the ram is another model which in the end, incurr more cost.

theRBK - I do not understand the DVI connection as you said there is no diff from Matrox, ATi or Nvidea.. why it this so?
 

theRBK

Senior Member
May 16, 2005
2,048
1
0
#14
theRBK - I do not understand the DVI connection as you said there is no diff from Matrox, ATi or Nvidea.. why it this so?
It has to do with whether the connection is an analog connection like D-Sub or whether it is digital like DVI.

The monitor output shown on screen is digital, whether CRT or LCD.

If your input to the monitor is analog, the graphics card has to convert a digital signal from your computer into an analog signal for the connection. This analog signal is then converted back to a digital signal that is displayed on your monitor (this is of course a simplification). Therefore, your graphics card plays an important part in converting the digital signal to an analog signal. That is why the graphics card in this case plays an important part in having good colour and contrast.

With a digital connection like DVI (or the newer HDMI which is based on DVI), the digital signal from your computer is directly transmitted to your monitor, which displays this signal without having to do conversion. Thus, the graphics card merely has to transmit the signal and has no part in image quality (this is of course also a simplification). Thus, for digital connections like DVI, the brand of the card is not important.

Of course, the conversion process also takes into account the monitor, but this is removed as a factor to simplify the explaination. :)
 

yehosaphat

Senior Member
Oct 28, 2005
2,703
0
0
North
#15
I am using 1G ram jus for PS only... response not fantastic but acceptable to me. so i think u will need more than 1G.
 

Nov 21, 2006
289
0
0
Singapore
#16
Is your's a notebook?

Personally, i run an AMD Athlon 64 FX-60 dual core CPU, but only with 1GB of ram, and a whole load of firefox windows. Yes, it'll be horribly slow because of those RAM eating firefox webpages.

perhaps for a start, you could disable any unused background services. Type "msconfig" (without quotes) in start -> run menu. Go to Startup tab and untick the stuffs you dont need. =)
Thanks for your advice..:) ..I am using both laptop and desktop but I use laptop more often. I hate all the rubbish softwares preinstalled on my laptop and remove quite alot liao, only start when I need them. It's actually slow if I run batch process all images (sharpening,framing, resized,add signatures)..er may be I'm too demanding..It take about 30min to process about 2000 images.
 

Oct 31, 2006
342
0
0
Singapore Central
#17
If I am not getting a new PC, I would install as much RAM as my motherboard will allow. The size of the RAM makes the greatest difference in the smooth running and speed of your imaging software.
 

photobum

Deregistered
Apr 17, 2005
3,068
0
0
52
#18
If I am not getting a new PC, I would install as much RAM as my motherboard will allow. The size of the RAM makes the greatest difference in the smooth running and speed of your imaging software.
However, PSCS2 will run no-difference after 3GB. I have two similar systems, one running 3GB and the other 4GB; no speed difference. The G5 in my office is running 16GB! Speed-wise; again no difference.
 

airforce1

Senior Member
Aug 18, 2003
2,350
0
36
#20
Is it true window xp recognised max of 3gb rams? I have 4gb rams installed but i could not figure what happen to 1 gb.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom