CS2 (V9.0.2) + WinXp 64-bit + 4->8GB RAM = no performance improvement?

I don’t think this explains why adding an extra 4GB of memory made no difference to CS2 performance.

it really doesn’t. it was pointing out what’s probably going on behind the scenes (confirmed in your quote from the tech doc below)

Data that previously was written directly to the hard disk by Photoshop is now cached in this high RAM before being written to the hard disk by the operating system.

this sentence echos what i said. it’s in both places. but being used from memory (as cache for what’s on the disk). it’s possible there is an improvement but not enough for you to notice it.

To test CS2’s performance under each of the above three memory configurations I loaded a large TIFF image of 1.23GB size and then rotated it 90 degrees.

repeat your test with a smaller file. what size do you normally work on or is 1.2GB typical for you? try it with whatever size you work with normally.

I admit that something seems a bit out of whack though as i’d expect better performance than you’re seeing. that said, have you tried the cs3 30 day demo to see if it works any better?

Rob,

I would not use the figures reported by task manager to work out the amount of memory used. Memory allocation/reallocation is a very complicated subject indeed. Memory is allocated (and deallocated) dynamically, it is not so simple to think that a file of X GB requires X GB in memory. In addition, there is the issue of integer size. An intetger might be saved on disk as 32 bits, but when read into memory it could be 64 bits, hence a doubling in size.

MS do have some benchmarks on thier web site the figures vary between a great improvement and very little, depending on what is done. For a rotation of 5 degrees on a 145 Mb file, the improvement is only 5%.

It would be interesting to see what results you get with different file sizes and operations.

I am interested as I am just about to build a new PC, and am considering a 64 bit OS.

Steve

Steve: If you are going to run a 64-bit OS, max the RAM for the board, get as many drives as possible and never, ever look at the task manager (but you already know that). It just amazes me that some people think they have complete control over memory allocation, just not gonna happen.

You will have a great computing experience. I’m using Vista Ultimate 64 exclusively now with a Q6600, 8GB of RAM & 5 HDs.

To ID. Awe:

It just amazes me that some people think they have complete control over memory allocation, just not gonna happen.

With respect, I’m not after control of memory allocation and I’ve never suggested that. I’m simply after a reason that explains why increasing RAM from 4GB to 8GB makes no difference to CS2 performance.

max the RAM for the board

If it makes no difference to performance then why "max the RAM"? Anything above 4GB RAM appears to be a waste for PS usage, at least on my system.

I’m using Vista Ultimate 64 exclusively now with a Q6600, 8GB of RAM & 5 HDs.

Have you quantified that "great computing experience", or are you just assuming it’s better than the same system with only 4GB of RAM?

Would you (and other readers of this tread) mind making a 14394 x 30492 pixel RGB 8-bit/channel image, save it as a TIFF image, close then reopen PS, then load the image? Can you tell me if there is a PS scratch file and its size? Then rotate the image 90 degrees and tell me the time it takes to complete the operation, plus the efficiency value? Then reduce your RAM to only 4GB, repeat the above steps, and report back the same info (scratch file sizes, operation time, and efficiency)?

To Steve:

I would not use the figures reported by task manager to work out the amount of memory used.

In general I would agree, but my experimentation over the last few days (using various image sizes) suggests that the decreases in value shown for "Physical memory, Available" in Task Manager after each PS full-image operation are similar to the image data size (in the case of large images). After PS uses its full memory allocation (2.7GB), available memory decreases only slightly — PS seems to use only the scratch file with little use of the memory above the 4GB boundary.

I am interested as I am just about to build a new PC, and am considering a 64 bit OS

A 64-bit OS is fine but if you’re mainly using it for PS then there does not appear to be any need to install more than 4GB of RAM (perhaps CS3 is better though).

To Dave Milbut:

this sentence echos what i said. it’s in both places. but being used from memory (as cache for what’s on the disk).

Indeed this does appear to be the case, but for the lower 4GB of RAM. CS2 caches two copies (to RAM and disk) until it uses its 2.7GB of allocated memory. Until that point is reached operations are lightning fast. After that it seems to cache only to the scratch disk with little or no use of memory above 4GB. On my 8GB RAM system "Physical memory, Available" only falls slightly with each operation after the "4GB remaining" point is reached.

repeat your test with a smaller file.

I repeated the experiment with a 260KB TIFF image, with similar results — after CS2 had used its 2.7GB of allocated RAM operation time was dominated by slow cache disk file writes.

what size do you normally work on or is 1.2GB typical for you?

I work with images from a 400DPI one metre wide roll scanner so they are usually 500KB to 1.2GB uncompressed, thus my need for a 64-bit Photoshop or at least a PS that can efficiently use memory above the 4GB barrier.

Just to waste more time I spent yesterday installing Vista-64 bit and PS CS2. Same poor performance, same scratch file sizes, same efficiency values, same operation times as per XP 64-bit. At least I now know it is not an OS problem. I have CS3 on order so we’ll see how that performs under the two OSs.

It would be great to hear from other users of PS who are prepared to experiment by varying RAM from 4GB to 6 or 8GB, using the above image size.

Ross:

I currently only have 4GB of RAM installed (the other sticks are in RMA). I have been using a test image that is 5252 x 6726 @ 400ppi. It takes me 4 seconds to open it and 2 seconds to rotate it. The size of the scratch disk file did not change while doing this and PS reported that it was only 71% efficient while doing this. All it says to me is that it was not required to use any more memory to complete this task.

As far as the ‘great computing experience’ I tried the liquify filter on the image and PS showed a ‘not responding’ message while the filter was loading, this did not happen with 8GB of RAM. I was able to use the liquefy filter in real time with 8GB, but it was rather halting with only 4GB. While doing this 3.56 GB of RAM was being used (of which 1.02 is for the OS). You still need free RAM (overhead) for the computer to run efficiently.

I’ll run it again when the other two sticks arrive. I already know it will run more smoothly, as to whether PS will use more RAM. Shrug.

I have been running multi-procs on NT based OSes for twelve years now and I do know what a ‘great computing experience’ is.

Hello ID. Awe, thanks for the reply.

Is your 5252 x 6726 image at 8-bit RGB? If so that gives a data size of only 106 megabytes. If it really took as long as 2 seconds to rotate and the efficiency figure showed as 71% then you should be as convinced as I am that there is something amiss with PS’s use of RAM. You had around 2.6GB of memory allocated to PS, yet it still could not rotate a 0.1GB image without using the scratch disks (as indicated by the efficiency being less than 100%)? I can rotate the same size image in 0.2 seconds at efficiency of 100% so without doubt PS is using the scratch disk in your case.

I was able to use the liquefy filter in real time with 8GB, but it was rather halting with only 4GB.

That’s interesting to hear. It may well be the case that PS successfully uses the RAM above 4GB for filters, etc. To be honest I rarely use filters so I didn’t bother testing filter performance under 4GB/8GB conditions.

Anyway, thank you for doing the experimentation and I look forward to the results after you install the other 4GB of RAM. Make sure you do the image load/rotate in a freshly launched PS.

Correction to my previous post. I wrote

I repeated the experiment with a 260KB TIFF image

but the size was 260 megabytes, not kilobytes.

Ross

Well I learned one thing: Corel PhotoPaint beats the pants off Photoshop using the same file with less RAM allocation doing the same transformations. I think it is obvious that the memory handling of Photoshop is just a piece of crap that should get flushed.

While Photoshop is a good app, the engineers really need to get under the hood to re-write the 32 bit code that could be written more efficiently. I’m sure there is lots of it, it has just become a piece of bloat-ware. Adobe (the company, not the engineers) keeps putting lipstick on this dying pig and the performance is just getting worse with every release. Apparently the next release will be focussed on making it look prettier.

To paraphrase what I’ve said before "If Adobe can’t, Corel can". Adobe just isn’t hungry anymore and are chewing the cud of their old laurels.

Couldn’t be bothered following this any further.

Apparently the next release will be focussed on making it look prettier.

that’s what i read too. it was one of the blogs. (i THINK it was john nack?)

Yes it was.

I say forget the pretty interface and concentrate on getting EVERYTHING working properly.

…. and maybe overhaul some of the veteran modules like the Filter Gallery.

or sell off photoshop to corel and focus on dreamweaver! 😉 😛

Dave: 🙂 Nah, have Adobe make PS run better, faster, higher! I wouldn’t mind if they changed the interface if they found that it was causing the problems, but 😛

No thanks. Corel is not a good place to be.

I guess we’ll see how we all feel after they put new stickers and paint on the same problems and charge us 350 bux for the next upgrade…

It’ll be worth it; they will add stuff like the SmartGrain and SmartCharcoal filters and take away pesky old stuff like the Pen/DirectSelection tools and the Ruler tool that most users don’t use. And there will also be a couple of new versions — Ultra edition, which adds updated versions of the Pen/DirectSelection tool and Ruler tool, as well as the new Protractor tool (with overlay like Clone), and split-screen mode so you can see the image with different layer selections; IllyJr edition, which has some, but not all, of Illustrator bundled in; and the Web edition, which includes a dumbed-down version of Fireworks, renamed ImageReadyCS4.

Don’t joke about it – it may come true!