Processor speed vs. more cores for Photoshop CS6?

[adam satushek]

Hi All,

Thank you for your responses thus far! They have been very helpful. It sounds like I should be just fine with the E5-1620 Quad core 3.6 GHz and it is cheaper than the 6 core so that is great too.

I have an additional question about maxing out RAM as this is what I hear a lot but rarely are there quantities associated with it. The Lenovo S30 that I am looking at has 8 DIMM slots and will take up to 64 GB (8 x 8gb) UDIMM(unbuffered) and up to 128GB (8 x 16gb) RDIMM(registered). So If I wanted to max out RAM I would currently be spending about $1600 (8 x $200) and this is not in my budget. I was thinking of starting with 4 x 8gb of RAM at $75 each so $300 total for 32GB. And then I can fill the 4 additional slots for a total of 64 GB later if needed. But since I alway hear to 'Max out your RAM' would I be better starting off with 2 or 3 sticks of the 16GB RDIMM so that I could potentially expand to 128GB in the future? Is this amount of RAM excessive? Or would it make more sense to start off with 8GB sticks limiting my max to 64GB?

So basically, in this case when one says to max out RAM.....should I interpret that as 64GB or 128GB?

Thanks again!

Adam

[Preston]

Adam,

Think about it this way. What are you planning to do with the machine? If you are going to move to video production, running virtual machines, gaming, etc. then yes, all that RAM will be a good bet. However, if you are simply working with Photoshop's big files, 128GB of RAM will be overkill, in my opinion. You would reach a point of diminishing returns because you'd likely need additional cooling and a larger power supply.

"...would I be better starting off with 2 or 3 sticks of the 16GB RDIMM so that I could potentially expand to 128GB in the future?"

This would be the route that I would go, if at some point I would use all that RAM. You could start with 2x16 RDIMM and see how that works for you. If that's not sufficient, you could add another pair for a total of 64GB and so on up to 128GB.

Just a note: I have a quad core i5, 16GB RAM, a 240GB SSD, and my 2+ GB PSD files run at 100% efficiency in PSCS5.

It sounds like you have a 'monster truck' machine in mind. Have fun!

--P

[adam satushek]

Yeah, thanks Preston. 128gb does sound like overkill for what I do, but I like the idea of starting with a couple of 16GB RDIMM's just in case I ever need to expand drastically.

.....yeah, I guess it will be kind of a monster truck...but my last workstation (dual 1.8 mac G5) lasted me almost 10 years.....so I am hoping this one will too.

Thanks,
Adam

[adam satushek]

Hey, one more question. I have been assuming that the NVIDIA Quadro 2000 with 1GB GPU will be plenty for Photoshop CS6 with large files. Is this true? Or would I see much benefit from bumping up to the Quadro 4000 with 2GB GPU?

I do not blur or liquify or use filters other than high pass, so I am thinking that the Quadro 2000 will be just fine. Any opinions on these cards for processing large Photoshop files?

Thanks again,
Adam

[Peter J. De Smidt]

Regarding memory, you have to be very careful, especially when you try to max out your ram. Make sure to check with your motherboard maker to see which memory and configurations have been tested for compatibility.

[Leigh]

At a recent PS bootcamp I was told that you can buy external RAM for the IMAC that will speed up the operations.

I've never heard of "external RAM".
In fact the concept violates the definition of RAM, which is high-speed storage connected DIRECTLY to the CPU.

You have to be careful about these consumer presentations that claim to 'inform' the public about new technologies.
They're just advertising sessions.

- Leigh

[domaz]

Greatest bang for the buck comes from:
1) RAM... Install as much as the box will hold, no exceptions. More RAM avoids "paging", which is swapping information to/from hard disk storage.
2) CPU speed... Not huge improvements but might be noticeable.
3) Core count... Mostly advertising hype. The software threading algorithm controls how many are actually used and how many are basically idle.

- Leigh

What about storage? I imagine many of Photoshop operations are IO-bound not CPU-bound. Memory helps this since you can cache a big image once you load it up but if you are closing and opening many images during your workflow high-speed storage has to help, in many cases as much as RAM upgrades.

[Jehu]

fwiw... Here's my build that I've been discussing in another forum:

CPU: Intel Core i7-3820 3.6GHz - $310
Motherboard: ASRock X79 Extreme6 - $250
RAM: 16GB kit (4GBx4), Ballistix 240-pin DIMM, DDR3 PC3-12800- $105
HDD: 2 x Western Digital Caviar Green WD30EZRX 3TB ($180 each) - $360
SSD: 2 x Corsair Force Series 3 CSSD-F120GB3A-BK 2.5" 120GB SATA III ($150 each) - $300
Graphics card: PNY VCQ2000D-PB Quadro 2000D 1GB - $410
Optical drive: LG WH12LS39 12X Blu-ray Burner - $80
Power supply unit: CORSAIR Enthusiast Series TX750 V2 750W power supply unit - $105
Case: Thermaltake V4 Black Edition chassis - $50
Operating system: Microsoft Windows 7 Professional SP1 64-bit - $130

Total price: $2,100

I'm still tweaking some of the details but this is pretty close to what I'm going with. Everything is optimized for Photoshop CS6. It's my understanding that a dedicated SSD for Photoshop scratch will result in a significant boost in performance for large files. My color 4x5 scans are pushing a gigabyte. So far, the only comments against this build scheme have been regarding the motherboard.

[bob carnie]

Thanks Leigh

I thought it was too good to be true... I have 10 thumbs when it gets down to the nitty gritty of how these wonderful tools work.

Bob

I've never heard of "external RAM".
In fact the concept violates the definition of RAM, which is high-speed storage connected DIRECTLY to the CPU.

You have to be careful about these consumer presentations that claim to 'inform' the public about new technologies.
They're just advertising sessions.

- Leigh

[Leigh]

Disk storage is one of those out-of-sight out-of-mind things.

Storage is so cheap, most folks just grab the biggest thing they can find that meets a reasonable estimate of their needs.

I have 4 terabytes of external hard drive on a Firewire 800 drop, and it works just like the internal mass storage.

The argument for massive amounts of RAM is that you want to keep a file in RAM once it's loaded from disk the first time, rather than repeatedly swapping that data between RAM and disk. The data transfer between RAM and disk is extremely slow (comparatively).

- Leigh