Getting ready to order... still have a couple questions

[Sleepingforest]

I know that 64bit uses more than 4GB RAM. I'm saying that given the chance, Photoshop will ALWAYS be able to use more RAM to run faster. You will physically run out of space on the motherboard for RAM before Photoshop says "that's enough."

Plus, I just made a build that gives you 32GB RAM and an SSD for a scratch disk (assuming you have an extra HDD) that's still less than your original build. It's a win all around, right? You can experiment with a RAMdisk if you'd like and see which is actually faster.

 

[LightField]

Sleepingforest, isn't that CPU a 8 core? I thought I read on the Adobe site Photoshop doesn't benefit from more than 6 cores... I need to read about that processor.

Also, if that 2 TB drive dies then I'm screwed. That's why I wanted to make sure I backed up that data.

Also, I don't think that you can never appease Photoshop for it's RAM use. You can purge the memory as well if it gets too high or backed up. I am sure I can work within those limits to not need a scratch.

If what you were saying was true they wouldn't act as if an SSD was a luxury.. they would say it was mandatory. Who knows though?

What I can do is try it out... I can hold off on buying some other stuff I need.. try the build out then if I need it I will just wait on the other things I was going to buy and get a small SSD. I don't think that will be an issue, though.

EDIT: It's a quad core.. not sure where I got the 8 cores..

 

[LightField]

Keep in mind I am not batch rendering a huge amount of huge images or something.. so I doubt I will be pushing Photoshop RAM to the extremes many of these pros do. But I want to be certain I have enough and then I can play with how I allocate things between my research and the comic and even programs I have on the RAMdisk. I think I should have enough room for everything I need.

 

[Sleepingforest]

Please, PLEASE don't use a RAMdisk. It's marketed as stable and fast, but they cannot be nearly as stable as an SSD while being imperceptibly faster for most programs. My programs on a lower class SSD appear to load instantly. How much faster can you get than instant?

It's somewhat understandable for temporary files and cookies, but the drawbacks outweight the benefits. Try to look for legitimate review sites on RAMdisks rather than the marketing pages of RAMdisk software sites.

The Xeon is 4 cores and is capable of hyperthreading, a technology that makes each core appear as two to software. It's useful for programs that are parallelized well. It's also only $30 more than the 4 core/4 thread i5 you originally wanted and it fits your budget, so it's a pretty good purchase.

Finally, hard drives rarely die suddenly. You can afford to wait a month or two for the next paycheck to back up (but probably not much more than that.)

 

[LightField]

Seepingforest... if you are not into RAMdisks... do you know of some other software that I could use to automatically put all the elements of my project into RAM before I go to use things?

The only thing a SSD allows you to do is load your files quickly.. and with a small SSD I can't even put that many files on there... so it doesn't really benefit me much there. That is why I think it is kind of a waste of a purchase at this point. Just as they said at Adobe too..

I have this software called Scrivener that has a lot of my documents loaded into it.. but it's a cheap program and doesn't really do the job well.... it just links to my files... it doesn't pre-load them.

You say the Ramdisk is unstable.. but all our programs are loaded into RAM anyway.. just as Photoshop is.. just as the OS is... And Photoshop backs up to drives. I can make Ramdisk my PS scratch and STILL auto save my files to another location.

 

[LightField]

Here's an interesting post about RAMdisks...

I have 16 Gb of ram on my machine and never seemed to use more than about 5 or 6 gigs. Then I came across this Ramdisk program »memory.dataram.com/products-and-···/ramdisk I installed the free version and set up a 4 Gb ramdisk. It worked so well that I bought the version that allows a larger ramdisk and set it to 8 Gb. I put the photoshop swap file, paging file, temp files, firefox cache files, and autocad temp files. I also use the XP virtual mode on occasion and put all the XP temp files on there. It really makes a difference in speed.

The only downside is that start-up and shutdown take longer because the ramdisk is saved when you shutdown and loaded when you start-up.

 

[Termie]

You do realize that by using RAM as a RAMdisk, you have less RAM for the system and applications to use, right? The review above is ridiculous. Using 8GB of 16GB for a RAMdisk makes a system that was more than adequate for Photoshop end up being starved for RAM.

You obviously want to try a RAMdisk. That's fine. Let us know how it works. We might be surprised. But we also already know that skipping an SSD will make the whole system feel slow.

Put another way, Adobe says an SSD only speeds up boot times. But a RAMdisk simply replaces the drive you'd otherwise be using with RAM. If a faster drive didn't matter, which you keep quoting, exactly how does a RAMdisk help?

My advice, again, is get an SSD and 16GB of RAM, skip the RAMdisk software and the extra RAM. Same price, and I'm positive it will better serve your needs.

 

[dawp]

sleepingforest, I wouldn't call the ramdisk redundant, what it is doing is robbing ram that photoshop could otherwise use for data processing ensuring that the scratch disk will be utilized more often than if the ramdisk wasn't there.

what I would do is get an ssd, as large as you can afford, the corsair vengeance ram is mainly for bling, and unless you plan on overclocking, 1866 is a waste. get yourself some good 1600, it will be cheaper.

here's the memory I got and it will save you around $50 if you buy 2 sets instead of the corsair you selected.

http://www.microcenter.com/product/...l_Desktop_Memory_Kit_(Two_8GB_Memory_Modules)

if you have a microcenter nearby you can save a decent amount of cash by buying it all at once.

 

[Sleepingforest]

That's a reasonably good find, but I have linked to cheaper RAM (roughly $40 per 8GB stick).

Also, I'm not the one who's building. Lightfield, the OP, is.

Here's my problem with RAMdisks. They aren't inherently stable, and if they are, they aren't any faster because they have to keep backup up to the disk. This backing up also puts a lot of wear and tear on the drive (particularly problematic if you've got an SSD).

Most RAMdisk reviews are NOT from professionals. They come from CNET and other unscientific places that say "oh, it feels much faster." However, I have not ONCE seen a single RAMdisk review give data on actual boot times and load times. Sure, they post benchmarks. But synthetic benchmarks CANNOT tell you the impact on your usage. I simply cannot believe that a RAMdisk will allow you to do anything faster than "instantly." I literally don't wait for my computer to open programs on the SSD. It's instant. How much faster than instant can you get with a RAMdisk?

Furthermore, using a RAMdisk is cutting into the RAM Photoshop could be using. Photoshop must be manually set to utilize all the free RAM, so make sure you've done that before claiming that Photoshop has enough for your uses.

In conclusion, RAMdisks offer nothing. SSDs make programs boot instantly if it's speed you're after. They also don't have to upload and offload anything, so turning the computer on is much faster on an SSD than a RAMdisk+HDD.

 

[dawp]

I guess I should have specified after the 1st line I was addressing the OP, and I knew that wasn't you.


I played around with ramdisk years ago but haven't touched them since win95 came out. I figured that they really weren't worth the hassle.

 

[Termie]

...
Most RAMdisk reviews are NOT from professionals. They come from CNET and other unscientific places that say "oh, it feels much faster." However, I have not ONCE seen a single RAMdisk review give data on actual boot times and load times. Sure, they post benchmarks. But synthetic benchmarks CANNOT tell you the impact on your usage. I simply cannot believe that a RAMdisk will allow you to do anything faster than "instantly." I literally don't wait for my computer to open programs on the SSD. It's instant. How much faster than instant can you get with a RAMdisk?

....

I tend to agree with you, but let's not get carried away with our criticism of the technology. RAMDisks are faster than SSDs, much faster. I have an SSD, I have PS5, and guess what...it doesn't even come close to opening instantly.

Here's a professional review that will make everything clear for the OP: http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/58400-amd-radeon-ramdisk-review.html

Boot is much slower:

App launching is much faster:

HardwareCanucks shows the potential of RAMDisks for accelerating applications, but nowhere does it recommend using a RAMDisk for data, because that's a terrible use of a RAMDisk.

 

[radhak]

LightField, I think you are on the right track - if you have sufficient RAM, allocating part of it to RAMDisk will get you performance improvement when using Adobe CS5 or CS6. While Adobe does use up as much RAM as it sees, it also does need hard-disk space for scratch writing, and it does not consider regular RAM in that role, hence the need for RAMDisk to fool it into using RAM as a disk. (Same should hold for any apps that use scratch/temp a lot).

I have been tentatively using RAMDisk recently (tentatively because my new build is not done and this is on my old machine with just 3GB RAM, of which I've allocated 1GB to RAMDisk) and I can see positive differences even though I'm still on CS4. I am definitely going to use RAMDisk once I have all the firepower of my new machine.

Btw, Clifford Sarokoff (you posted his link in post #19) has only a total of 8GB of which he uses 4gb for RAMDisk. As he (and others) has adequately shown - RAMDisk has a much higher performance jump than SSD, but using both RAMDisk (with a large RAM) and SSD together is the best bet (if your wallet can afford it). His blogs give a lot of real detail of his metrics, and good pointers on usage (eg - he found Fat32 better than NTFS within RAMDisk).

edit : Termie, yes, RAMDisk should not be used for data! And those metrics are nice, thanks.

 

[Sleepingforest]

Hmm... After some more Googling, I found that RAMdisks do not really help with Photoshop. It makes a difference of roughly a second:

The conclusion says that while RAMdisks are indeed faster, it often isn't worth the hassle or the cost.

It's out of date, of course, but both RAM and SSDs have improved. I'd say the conclusion is still applicable.

 

[LightField]

I think what people are missing about using the RAMdisk for data is that the software I am using loads the data into the RAMdisk drive automatically... and it backs it up automatically.

I realize you would never want to store data on a RAMdisk that isn't mirrored because you would lose it all.

Also, I realize that the RAM in the RAMdisk is RAM taken from other processes.... but I am only going to use the extra RAM that I don't normally use.... the less RAM I normally use then I will expand that allocation to the RAMdisk more.

Again.. all I am using the RAMdisk for is to load all the info for the project I am working on automatically. I am not concerned about boot times... because normally I will boot my PC and leave it running so I won't have to boot it much. Just set it to sleep/hibernate.

If this doesn't work I will set aside 100 bucks for a SSD that I would like to spend on something else... such as a Nostromo for photoshop. If my theory doesn't work and I need an SSD... no Nostromo.. haha That's my penitence..

Also, do a search for "preload files into RAM" you will see others looking for ways to do what I want to do and the only alternative I could find was a RAMdisk.. at least in Windows...

 

[LightField]

It's out of date, of course, but both RAM and SSDs have improved. I'd say the conclusion is still applicable.

I think it depends on what you are doing with it... If I was only using it for Photoshop I would agree. If I was just using it for Photoshop it wouldn't be much of a benefit. When I say "my project" I mean all the data and programs for my entire project... or most of it...

Though I will only need the comic or certain pages I am working on at the time in super hi res mode on the Rdisk. I can keep downsized condensed versions in RAM and the larger uncompressed stuff archived on the HDDs.

 

[Sleepingforest]

No, we aren't missing that point. Sure, your RAMdisks will upload and offload the data. But what abouta power outage mid-update or between updates? Then your data is toast.

You're worried about the reliability of your HDD, and yet you're somehow more confident in the RAMdrive despite all of us telling you that RAMdisks are riskier and don't help much.

 

[LightField]

No, we aren't missing that point. Sure, your RAMdisks will upload and offload the data. But what abouta power outage mid-update or between updates? Then your data is toast.

I posted a quote about real time mirroring.... just like Photoshop does with your data that it's working on in RAM...

You're worried about the reliability of your HDD, and yet you're somehow more confident in the RAMdrive despite all of us telling you that RAMdisks are riskier and don't help much.

My HDD is going to be backed up....

And the RAMdisk is going to be backed up on the HDDs....

Just like your Photoshop projects are normally backed up on your HDDs...

This is why I am not understanding why people think this is so strange. Basically all I am saying is that I really don't need much memory on my PC right now because I am focused on my project.

Think of the HDDs as if my data is being backed up off my computer. It would be like loading my project into my PC on boot up at every bootup.

 

[Sleepingforest]

What I'm saying is that process will be extremely time consuming to back up the RAM to disk at the beginning and end of every boot. It's just not worth it for the small amount of speed you'll get (seven seconds saved opening Photoshop, lose hundreds booting in and putting it.

Additionally, you can say "real time mirroring" all you'd like, but that's not the case. An HDD cannot keep up with the write speeds of a RAM drive. Thus it cannot be backing up in real time. Maybe a snapshot every thirty seconds, but that drives up wear and tear, energy costs, and CPU usage--all things that will cost you more in the long term. Photoshop does not back up to disk in real time--you have to wait between applying effects, for example, to save.

Finally, you've been flip-flopping on your RAM needs. Earlier you said that what you're doing is exceptionally RAM intensive. Now you've backtracked and are saying that you'll not only have enough RAM for Photoshop but also have enough to keep your programs and files in RAM. Photoshop is over a dozen GB--I doubt you can actually do that.

You can't argue it both ways--that you'll need the RAM for Photoshop AND that you'll have extra room for stuff.

If you really want a RAMdisk, fine. But you'd be more cost effective buying the amount of RAM your Photoshop needs and getting an SSD. I think you're suffering from a case of wanting a cool, well marketed technology that doesn't do much for you.

 

[LightField]

Maybe a snapshot every thirty seconds, but that drives up wear and tear, energy costs, and CPU usage--all things that will cost you more in the long term.

This is what your PC does anyway though... this is what Photoshop does with it's scratch drive.. what Windows does with it's file paging...

All programs I am aware of work this same way... I am just essentially making a special program that has my whole project in it.

What are RAMdisks for if not this purpose? What does a program use RAM for if not this purpose?

 

[LightField]

You can't argue it both ways--that you'll need the RAM for Photoshop AND that you'll have extra room for stuff.

If you really want a RAMdisk, fine. But you'd be more cost effective buying the amount of RAM your Photoshop needs and getting an SSD. I think you're suffering from a case of wanting a cool, well marketed technology that doesn't do much for you.

I said though that my use of a RAMdisk would be based on how much RAM I needed in Photoshop...

I also didn't want to bore people with my unusual ideas... that's why I just said I would need a lot of RAM...

And once again... we keep forgetting what Adobe themselves said.. they said your primary concern should be RAM. That is what I have been saying all along. That's irrefutable.

Remember.. I am not making this PC for video editing or something. For my purposes having a large slow SSD is not worthwhile when I can have far better performance suited perfectly to my needs.

 

[LightField]

There might be another solution to this...

I just learned about "prefetch" last night... basically with a RAMdisk all I am doing is making my own controlled prefetch system.

But is there some way I can set up my PC so that Windows ONLY has the files I need available to prefetch and ensure that it does move them into RAM at start up?


Here is someone's way of doing it...


http://www.itworld.com/answers/topic/windows/question/how-change-what-windows-7-prefetches-boot

How do you control what files are prefetched when Windows boots?

Go into registry editor, regedit.exe
Move to HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Session Manager\Memory Management\PrefetchParameters.
Double click "EnablePrefetcher".
Set to the number that corresponds with what you want: 0 to disable; 1 to prefetch only application files; 2 to prefetch boot files only; 3 (default) to prefetch both application and boot files.
Click OK and reboot for your new settings to take effect.

 

[Sleepingforest]

Okay, here's the problem. Look at your actual files that you might work on at a time, plus the programs. Is it over 20GB all together? If it is, then you're leaving less than 12GB (as the OS uses some) to Photoshop. That is suboptimal, because, as you said, Photoshop says that getting RAM is the top priority.

Your arguments against a SSD apply equally and in fact moreso to a RAMdisk. If you don't need the extra access speed of a SSD, then the extra speed from a RAMdisk is certainly overkill.

I'm not arguing anymore that you don't need more RAM. I'm arguing that it would be better off used in Photoshop rather than a RAMdisk.

 

[LightField]

I really don't think it will be an issue Sleepingforest. I think I can easily fit my whole project in RAM without worrying about running out of room.

Also, I didn't say I didn't need the speed of the SSD... I said I don't need that much storage space for the project I am working on that you would get with a large SSD. That's why I don't need the SSD.

 

[Sleepingforest]

Look: you say that you "didn't say I didn't need the speed of the SSD." Cancel out those negatives and you get "I said I need the speed of an SSD (or better)." Okay, fair enough.

But I doubt your project of high-res images will fit--this is what you said in post 24:

In my situation I am dealing with super high resolution multi layered images... and then you have to factor in "undos" for these super large files.

This was said as a response to my suggestion that you get a 4 core/8 thread processor and SSD rather than 32GB RAM.

If you feared 16GB wouldn't be enough to hold your images and undos, then why would 32GB be enough to hold your images twice over (once for Photoshop, once on the RAM itself) and edits?

You can't use limited space to argue for more RAM and then say you'll have extra to use for a RAMdisk.

 

[LightField]

You are ignoring other things I said though Sleepingforest.. from the beginning I said I needed all the RAM for Photoshop AND multitasking....

I also didn't say I knew I would have enough room.. I said I wanted to make sure I had enough room...

The whole reason I said that is because I don't need a lot of storage for my project... so why would I skimp on the most important hardware for what I am doing if I don't need extra room? That makes no sense...

I also said I didn't need the speed for loading my files.. because I am planning on loading them all at startup... so when I am working I am not slowed down WHILE working.. because everything is preloaded...

Now you seem to be arguing that I don't need the RAM again.. when we have already determined that that is the sole most important aspect I need for my work?