1GB vs. 2GB using Photoshop CS - noticable difference?

[Canon Freak]

Currently I am running 512x2 and I am looking to perhaps grab another 1GB DIMM to help with Photoshop. I use Photoshop all the time when doing post production work on my photos. Since all of my photos are shot in RAW they tend to bog the system down after a while. Would the extra RAM even make a difference that I could tell?

Current Specs:

Athlon XP 2600+ @ 2.6GHz
1GB OCZ PC3700 EB Platinum
Abit NF7-S v2
Gainward GS 6800GT Dual DVI @ 417/1130
Dell 2001FP x 2
Maxtor 200GB SATA 8MB 7.2K
Seagate 160GB PATA 8MB 7.2K
Maxtor 120GB PATA 8MB 7.2K
Maxtor 300GB PATA 16MB 7.2K
Plextor 708A
Antec NeoPower
CoolerMaster Praetorian

 

[PhoenixOrion]

Welcome to the forums.

I sure don't have anymore slowdowns went I went from 1GB to 2GB: preview pictures change in a snap instead of square by square, closing a file in a snap instead of the picture closing from top of the screen as it closes towards the bottom like a curtain effect, etc.

It sure helped (I'm using version7) when I had to clean up 130+ wedding pics (not including the reception) and they were all at 6MB to 10MB each.

 

[imported_2x]

If there is a program that is the posterchild for why computers need more RAM, its Photoshop. You'll def. notice a difference.

 

[Dewey]

I work with CS and digital photography. 16 bit images with layers can use hundreds of megs of RAM per pictures. If you open alot of pictures at once or do lots of layers, I think memory will help.

 

[halfadder]

I think the rule of thumb used to be 3x as much ram as the combined total of all of the photos you will be working with at once.

I noticed a significant performance boost when I went from 256mb to 512mb. But I noticed almost no difference when I went from 512mb to 1gig. This makes sense, though, since the largest photos I work with are just little 5mpixel shots from my digital camera. Even in uncompressed TIFF format, they're still only about 10mb each in size.

 

[halfadder]

Originally posted by: Dewey
I work with CS and digital photography. 16 bit images with layers can use hundreds of megs of RAM per pictures. If you open alot of pictures at once or do lots of layers, I think memory will help.

Good point about the layers, I could see how that could QUICKLY add up! I usually have no more than three or four 5mpixel images open at once, and I rarely have more than three or four layers, so my 1gig was really no different than 512mb for me.

 

[dhoytw]

Yeah I think you will notice a big dif.

 

[Koing]

Originally posted by: halfadder

Originally posted by: Dewey
I work with CS and digital photography. 16 bit images with layers can use hundreds of megs of RAM per pictures. If you open alot of pictures at once or do lots of layers, I think memory will help.

Good point about the layers, I could see how that could QUICKLY add up! I usually have no more than three or four 5mpixel images open at once, and I rarely have more than three or four layers, so my 1gig was really no different than 512mb for me.

Yes you will only notice a difference if your RUNNING OUT OF RAM with the system you have. If you are adding more ram will have no slow downs with ram and hd swapping

Koing

 

[thirdlegstump]

If you do even moderately serious work in PS, you'll notice it. Guaranteed. I tend to use up nearly 20 layers when working on a small composition at 600dpi 11x14. I literally choke the hell out of my machine which has 1GB.