As Adobe now state that you need a video card with more than 128mb of memory (i.e 256mb) (http://www.adobe.com/support/techdocs/331412.html)to run CS2 what do I need to look at? There seems to be a dazzling array on offer from very cheap to very expensive – I don’t need 3D performance but does this mean ANY card with 256mb of memory will be OK? I’m running XPpro on 3.4ghz Xeon with 4g of RAM.
Give your photos a professional finish with sharpening in Photoshop. Learn to enhance details, create contrast, and prepare your images for print, web, and social media.
64Mb of RAM is plenty (and then some) for Photoshop. Remember, PS is a 2d app and, as such, all the video card is used for is drawing the screen display. This requires much less memory than most people realize.
For a 1,280 x 1,024 true color screen, you need video memory of 1,280 x 1,024 x 3 BYTES = 3,932,160 BYTES, or about 4Mb. For a large monitor running 1,600 x 1,200 true color, that number comes in at around 6Mb.
This is why I can run two monitors at decent resolutions and refresh rates with my Matrox G550, which sports a whopping 32Mb. It works flawlessly and has a far better display than any ATI or nVidia card I’ve ever used.
The reality is that most modern video cards will offer a minimum of about 64Mb of VRAM whether you need it or not. I still vote for Matrox for the best 2D quality. I have a P650 PCIe that’s waiting for a new computer to call home.
This used to be the case – any old card would run PS. Please read the link as it (Adobe) states that CS2 now uses video card memory in a different way than before, putting more demand on the card itself, hence my question.
I repeat, I am running CS (and ran the CS2 Demo) on a Matrox 32Mb card supporting dual monitors. No lags, no problems. Of course Matrox is also noted for excellent driver support for their excellent hardware.
Adobe may have changed some things but they can’t change the memory required to draw a pixel on a monitor.
Chris Cox (one of the Photoshop engineers) has unambiguously stated here that Photoshop will NOT use any more video RAM than reqquired to support the screen rez you are working at.
Len – this is good news if true but seemingly at odds with what Adobe have stated as fact here -http://www.adobe.com/support/techdocs/331412.html. When CS2 arrives in the next couple of days I’ll see for myself I guess.
Chris – "Photoshop runs better with more VRAM" – does this mean a card with 32mb of VRAM will not restrict performance of CS2 in any way compared with earlier versions?
Buy a 256Mb card from a local vendor with a fair return policy. Run some timed operations in PS with your present card, then swap cards and do it again. Maybe we can all learn something.
For the non-gamer/non-3d renderer. I have used 3d Labs, nV and ATI. Matrox blows them all away, and I’ll tell you why.
I had a ghosting problem on my monitor. It seemed to come and go, and sometimes it was sever enough that it interfered with my work. I tried various proposed solutions (moving the cable, moving the monitor, removing any causes of interference). Nothing worked… until I installed a used G550. Not a trace of a ghost since.
When it was behaving, the ATI card had the best 2d quality of the "other" brands, but it also exhibited the worst ghosting when it went into a snit. I’d never buy another ATI, though, because aside from its ghosting fits, it up and died when it was not quite 2 years old.
Thank you for your replies. The computer that is being constructed has an ATI 600 with it, but after investigating the Matrox, I’m going to order a Matrox 650.
I am currently using an nVida quadro2 pro with 64MB and am experiencing some of the symptoms described in the Adobe white paper on video cards for CSII.
Upgrading to 128 or 256 MB in gaming card such as the ATI Radeon is relatively cheap, but for a more professional quality display card such as the Matrix is more expensive. One can get the p650 with 128 MB for about $230. The Parhelia with 256MB is more like $550.
Bill, I’m not sure about that, but I don’t recall any possibility of being able to add memory. I’m sure I would have noticed if there were memory "slots" on it. In order to find out, I’d have to crawl down under the desk and open the box, something I’d rather not do since it’s working fine with the basic 64MB. <grin>.
I have 4GB of RAM on that machine, using the 3GB switch with XP Pro, so I seriously doubt that my OS is starving for RAM, in any case.
Bill, I’m not sure about that, but I don’t recall any possibility of being able to add memory. I’m sure I would have noticed if there were memory "slots" on it. In order to find out, I’d have to crawl down under the desk and open the box, something I’d rather not do since it’s working fine with the basic 64MB. <grin>.
Thanks, Nick. I rechecked the Matrox site and learned that the 128MB p650 is available only with the PCI bus. For AGP with this much memory, you have to go to the Parhelia. I can’t see spending $550 on an older machine just to speed up menus and the like, so I will pass on the more expensive board.
I have 4GB of RAM on that machine, using the 3GB switch with XP Pro, so I seriously doubt that my OS is starving for RAM, in any case.
Yup, you have plenty of memory, but as I understand things the advantage of having extra vRAM is to allow menu loading, etc, avoiding the bottlenecks imposed by the system bus. Of course, since you are satisfied with your current performance, there would be no reason to add vRAM even if it were possible.
"am currently using an nVida quadro2 pro with 64MB and am experiencing some of the symptoms described in the Adobe white paper on video cards for CSII" – but Cris Cox (from Adobe?) has catagoricaly stated that a graphics card will not restrict Photoshop. Contrary to Adobe’s own white paper which states a greater than 128mb graphics card is needed for CS2 to run properly. How confusing can this get? When my upgrade to CS2 finaly arrives -(7 days now since I ordered it from Adobe UK) I’ll see how my Nvidia Quadro NVS 280 ( 64mb) runs. What is the difference between a cheap entry level card with 256mb VRAM and the expensive Matrox 256mb card when it comes to 2d apps like Photoshop?
I use a 21" Sony GDM F520 monitor. I started with a Matrox 550, then had a P650, then a Parhelia 128Mb, and now I have a Gigabyte (Nvidia) GV-N66256DP with a bucket load of memory. I have not seen any difference between these cards in terms of speed of software operation (Photoshop and Painter in my case) nor any greater clarity of picture. In fact, because I don’t play games, the most important factor for me is that the Matrox 550 and P650, and my newish Gigabyte card have no built-on fans which makes them very much quieter. The Parhelia fan is particularly noisy. If you don’t mind computer noise this won’t matter to you. The biggest step up in text clarity was when I switched on the XP ClearType function – this is terrific. David
I use a 21" Sony GDM F520 monitor. I started with a Matrox 550, then had a P650, then a Parhelia 128Mb, and now I have a Gigabyte (Nvidia) GV-N66256DP with a bucket load of memory. I have not seen any difference between these cards in terms of speed of software operation (Photoshop and Painter in my case) nor any greater clarity of picture.
David,
Very interesting. Do you use PSCSII and why did you change video cards? I had always been led to believe that to get the best display for PS you should use the "professional" level cards rather than the much cheaper gaming cards.
The ClearType function does get rid of the spindly look of true type fonts at small size, but apparently has no effect on Type 1 fonts.
I understand that ClearType improves the display of text but not the printed output.
From the MS web site:
Microsoft ClearType is an unprecedented innovation in font display technology that dramatically improves font display resolution and marks a genuine breakthrough in screen readability.
Bill – Yes, I use CS2 and often – usually – have Painter 9 and PSCS2 open at the same time. So many graphics cards – yes, too many. The rationale for moving from 550 to Parhelia was better picture quality (wrong), from Parhelia to P650 was quiet computing (right – though it’s not hard to de-fan the Parhelia, add a big heatsink to it and then cool it slowly and quietly), from P650 to Gigabyte Nvidia because (a) I’d read the Adobe 128mb notice that you quote in your post (now rescinded,(b) I wondered if Matrox really was a lot better and (c) whether a lot of on board memory would make any difference. I am entirlely happy with my Gigabyte card – as far I am concerned picture quality is just as good as Matrox. Also, installing Matrox driver updates is a bit of a performance – Nvidia updates are more straightforward; and, I like a custom screen resolution – you can only get this in Matrox by loading a piece of software additional to the driver and going through quite a rigamarole to add the custom resolution – with the Nvidia driver this function is simply found and applied in the "Display Settings" area. Oh, and image quality is fine too. ClearType – I haven’t analysed this – I just find it much easier to read on-screen text now which seems to me more distinct and focussed. It seems to cover all the text I look at. Hope this helps. David
Thanks for the detailed message. I did not know that the Adobe technical document had been rescinded. Chris Cox’s statement that the extra memory won’t be used by PSCSII but can be used by the OS doesn’t help much. The question is will sluggish PSCSII performance be helped by the extra vRAM? Your experience seems to indicate that it is not.
Trackside – the document you linked to leads to an Adobe "File Not Found" page with a "document not here" message when I click on it. I don’t know whether the written advice on the 128mb requirement has been formally abandoned – my understanding is that the substance of the advice has been rescinded in a post, or posts, in this forum by an Adobe tech expert or experts. If I have got this wrong and the 128mb minimum requirement is still in force, I will be happier that I now have a 256MB card. Bill – I don’t know the answer to this question. In the DPR Retouching forum where many experienced Photoshop users gather, the consensus seems to be that (a) a physically separate scratch disk and (b) more Ram (2Gb seems favourite) are the most important ways to speed up PSCS2. I have no expertise in this. I would try 2Gb if I could but unfortunately my motherboard uses Rdram and for the price of getting my system ram to 2Gb I could buy a new system so I can’t comment on what difference moving from 1Gb to 2Gb makes. David
Still working – can you link me to specific (other than in this thread) posts from Adobe Tech experts that recind this article. Historicaly, with Photoshop, the power of the graphics card was irrelevent unless you wanted to drive multiple screens at very high resolution. This no longer seems to be the case with PSCS2.
I think I saw the counter view about the amount of video card memory needed reported in the DPR Retouching forum earlier this year; but I can’t remember when exactly so can’t hand you a smoking gun I’m afraid. But it really doesn’t matter what I think about it, what matters is what Adobe engineers who are dealing with this issue all the time think. If the 128mb advice is still there that must be what they think I suppose. All I can say is that I have run CS2 with a Matrox P650 card (64mb),and am currently running it with a Gigabyte card (256mb), and with a single CRT monitor at a resolution of 1216×912, and I can’t see any difference in the speed of CS2. That’s just my observation – and I have now exhausted my two-penneth worth on this subject! David
Don`t forget the LUT-handling of graphics cards. Older cards (like the G550) have an internal 8-bit LUT. As soon as you calibrate your monitor by adressing the LUT you don`t have 256 colors/channel any more! That results in banding. Just make a black/white gradient in Photoshop after you have calibrated and you`ll see the banding/posterization. Reset your calibration to default and the banding is gone. Newer graphics cards have 10 bit LUTs that don`t produce banding if you adress the LUT! I recently tried it with a 2 years old ATI. No chance to get ANY banding! My Geforce 4 is not perfect in that regard, but better than a G550. The newest nvidia cards should be perfect in that regard as well, but I`m not sure, because I haven`t seen it yet. So there`s more to 2D quality than just the "sharpness". Nvidias multimonitor software is also much better than Matrox`s. Much more possibilities. If you`re interested just read nvidias PDF about "nview"! And don`t forget: Windows "Vista" will make use of 3D acceleration for nearly everything. If you have a 2 monitor setup, take a look at wether there is 3D acceleration on both monitors. Nvidia is perfect in that regard.
The only thought that springs to my mind is to go for a video card that really is well supported. Recent drivers to out-glitch glitches, adapt to changes in technology and so forth.
These are IMHO as important as the board itself.
That said, all of ATI, nVidia and Matrox seem to be pretty hot on that count
It is interesting that Mac computer spec for Aperture lists ATI X800 as basic – sorta cool huh?
Ho, if you`re unhappy with nvidia`s "sharpness", take care to buy a card from a good cardmanufacturer. Many of them use cheap and bad signal filters. Even Asus ( at least some years ago) was known for bad signal quality. Gainward for example was always known for using good filters. Or do you have other complaints about nvidia? With mine I can even work with 2 independent Open GL or Direct X applications on the 2 monitors at the same time. Stefan
I probably had a bad copy. I have no complaints about my G550, (including banding) and I don’t expect to have any about my P650 sitting beside me in its box, patiently waiting for my new barebones computer to arrive.
I firmly believe we should follow our individual prefs when it comes to hardware and software. I just happen to have sore spots when it comes to nV and ATI.
Learn how to optimize Photoshop for maximum speed, troubleshoot common issues, and keep your projects organized so that you can work faster than ever before!
Related Discussion Topics
Nice and short text about related topics in discussion sections
