Video card RAM and large images

Tony-S

Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2009
Messages
1,144
Location
Colorado, USA
Format
Multi Format
My scans of my 6x7 color negs are about 300 mb in size. I use Photoshop CS4 for most manipulations. What impact on speed does vRAM have on images of such size? Is 512 mb sufficient, or would 1024 be better? Does it even have much impact, or is RAM and/or scratch disk more important? This is based upon an i7 system.

TIA.
 

donbga

Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2003
Messages
3,053
Format
Large Format Pan

If you have an i7 system how much RAM can your mobo handle? Fill it up first. Of course I assume you are running a 64MB OS. Definitely get a 1GB display adapter. I don't know exactly how that memory is mapped but hopefully it's all private memory for the GPU and not shared by the OS or directly mapped in OS memory space.

But first get your mobo RAM maxed out.

Don Bryant
 

Marco B

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 13, 2005
Messages
2,736
Location
The Netherla
Format
Multi Format
Does it even have much impact, or is RAM and/or scratch disk more important? This is based upon an i7 system.

TIA.

I don't know about CS4, since I only run CS2, but for CS2, clearly motherboard RAM as Don suggests, is far more important than video RAM. In CS2, there is only a setting for how much motherboard RAM Photoshop may use in terms of a percentage of the total RAM installed, and nothing related to video RAM. In CS2, only motherboard RAM seems to count, and maybe a second harddisk to separate the Photoshop scratch files from Windows scratch disk in case you still run out of RAM when editing your images.
 

Worker 11811

Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2010
Messages
1,719
Location
Pennsylvania
Format
Multi Format
It is my understanding that Photoshop uses very little in the way of vRAM and/or advanced graphics processing. Adding vRAM to a system or upgrading the video card will likely do little for Photoshop's performance or display.

It is my belief that you should:

1) Get more RAM for your system. Photoshop will make use of that.
2) Get a better display and, if necessary, a better video card to support it.
3) Get more hard drive space.

For 2-D work, very little in the way of advanced graphics processing is done. Most of it is done by the operating system. Therefore, if your operating system will benefit by adding more vRAM and/or getting a better video card, you will benefit. Otherwise, you will not benefit.

If you use any 3-D programs like Maya, 3DS, Blender, etc. you will benefit by upgrading your video card and vRAM. But, or 2-D, there is nothing gained.

If you have just a "basic" display, you would benefit from getting a better one which has better color, contrast and dynamic range. These things are important to making good images in Photoshop. We now have the ability to work in 32-bit mode in CS4. (and other versions) It is now possible for Photoshop to display an image which is outside your display's ability to render. That's like owning a Ferrari which you can't drive faster than 50 miles per hour.

Getting a better display which can display a wider range and better colors will help you take advantage of Photoshop's abilities better. If getting a new display requires you to upgrade your video card, that is a given. But, by itself, upgrading is not necessary.

Photoshop uses lots of scratch space on your hard drive. Having a second hard drive to use for scratch space will help its performance. The system does not have to depend on one drive for reading and writing scratch data while it is trying to do its normal tasks. The ability to off-load that task to another drive is beneficial. More storage space is always a good idea. You're presumably generating lots of image files. You're going to need a place to keep them all. A big hard drive is a good thing to have.

System RAM is important. Trying to run a computer on just the minimum amount of RAM, these days, is kind of silly. Most modern operating systems use virtual memory to keep some data on the hard drive to conserve RAM use. This is a good thing to do but there is one drawback. Hard drives are a lot slower than RAM.

If you don't have enough RAM in your system, there will be lots of data swapped in and out of the "swapfiles" on your hard drive. The more this is done, the slower the computer will become. Adding more RAM prevents those memory swaps and prevents you from being slowed down.

Photoshop is also known to be a big memory hog! Yes, editing photos is a memory-intensive task. It is to be expected to a certain point. If you edit lots of large photos, you will need more memory to hold them. The more RAM you have the better you the program can do its job.

To my recollection, the only things upgrading your vieo card will bring you will be the ability to open more windows at the same time. A video card which has Open-GL and more vRAM is helpful in this situation. But the number of windows needed to go above Photoshop's ability to operate on them is high. I think is is more than 24. I forget the exact number. I have only had that problem one time. It only happened because I was farting around to see how many windows I could open at once. It would never really happen to me in a daily work situation.

RAM and hard drives are cheap. You can buy a 1 terabyte (1,000 gigabytes) hard drive for around $100.00 US. Cheap! RAM is selling for under $50 US per gigabyte. This is a whole lot cheaper and easier than fussing with your video card, in my opinion.

If you have the money for a better display, it might help you but, in terms of bang for buck, memory and hard drive are your best bets.
 
OP
OP

Tony-S

Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2009
Messages
1,144
Location
Colorado, USA
Format
Multi Format
Sorry, I should clarify as there may be OS-specific issues. The i7 system I'm thinking of building would be a hackintosh - Snow Leopard. Under OS X, Photoshop uses high ram (over 4 gb) for its primary scratch disk. Even though the i7 will have 8 threads, Photoshop can only use 4 (one per core). Using ram makes it cpu-dependent, which is pretty slow with such large files (Q6600 at 3.0 gHz, 8 gb RAM). My hope was that Photoshop may utilize the gpu's cores for image manipulations. The 9800 has 112 cores and is available in 1 GB.

There is a Mac-specific app called "Pixelmator" that makes extensive use of the gpu and its rendering is almost instantaneous and I would rather use it; however, it cannot open my 6x7 scans (16-bit gray or 48-bit color, 3200 res, TIFF), presumably because of their sizes. I can open them on my current hackintosh with Photoshop, but it has an older 8600/256 card. If it could off-load to the gpu, then I should be able to just install a 9800/1GB into my current computer and be done with it.
 

Worker 11811

Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2010
Messages
1,719
Location
Pennsylvania
Format
Multi Format
I am not 100% sure because I don't remember all the specs but, to my recollection, Photoshop does not make any use of the GPU prior to CS4 and, in CS4 it uses the GPU for window rotation and scaling and a few of the 3-D effects but not for much else. Even with the new features of CS4, I would say that the majority of Photoshop's processing power comes from the main CPU(s). I also believe this to be platform-independant. (i.e. It doesn't matter if it's Mac or Windows or even some kind of a hybrid system.)

It is my understanding that the best thing you can do to speed up on a given machine Photoshop is to get more memory.

If that is not correct, I certainly will admit I am wrong.
 
OP
OP

Tony-S

Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2009
Messages
1,144
Location
Colorado, USA
Format
Multi Format
OK, it sounds like for photo work vRAM may not be so important. I'll probably stick with 512 mb and maybe even get a 9600. Thanks for the input.
 
OP
OP

Tony-S

Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2009
Messages
1,144
Location
Colorado, USA
Format
Multi Format
Got a little more information from one of the Pixelmator developers. It apparently uses vRAM for image manipulations with the gpu, so a 1 GB board would be better for the larger images (i.e., scanned MF), so I will probably go with it.

In addition, for those who are on Macs and might be interested, I did quite a bit of testing with Pixelmator and Photoshop CS4 and Pixelmator is substantially faster. It is virtually real-time processing with sliders, while Photoshop has noticeable lag with the same large images. Pixelmator is really lagging in some basic functions (spot healing and independent RGB level adjustments), but otherwise is a great value.
 
Joined
Jul 13, 2006
Messages
266
Location
Europe
Format
Multi Format
Drawback: Pixelmator doesn't output 16/48 bit image files. As soon as I got the info in a forum I abandoned it. Using PhotoLine 32 now for retouching. Don't have any Adobe stuff on my Mac.
 
OP
OP

Tony-S

Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2009
Messages
1,144
Location
Colorado, USA
Format
Multi Format
Wow, somehow I missed that. I hope the devs will incorporate 16-bit editing/saving in a future release.

Does PhotoLine do 16/48 bit image editing? Does it use the gpu like Pixelmator?
 
OP
OP

Tony-S

Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2009
Messages
1,144
Location
Colorado, USA
Format
Multi Format
Just a quick followup - I ended up with a 9800GTX+/512 mb card and Aperture is substantially faster than it was with the old 8600GT/256 mb card. Brushes, perhaps the most intensive part of Aperture, renders 5Dii raw images in near real-time and atMonitor indicates substantial use of both the gpu cores (128 of them) and vRAM during these manipulations.
 

Worker 11811

Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2010
Messages
1,719
Location
Pennsylvania
Format
Multi Format
Yes, Aperture DOES use vRAM.
If you have an advanced video card it will take advantage of its cores and vRAM.

Aperture is also a 64-bit application so it will use all your CPU cores to their fullest capabilities and it will use your memory more efficiently.

Sounds like your computer is doing some serious a$$kicking!
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…