I built a p4 2.8 533 fsb speed pc with 512 megs of ram and a 200 gig hard drive. Would another 512 megs of ram added be noticable for running photoshop 7 or is it fine??
TIA!
Kaieye
TIA!
Kaieye
Did I buy enough ram for running Photoshop 7??
- Thread starter Kaieye
- Start date
Yes an extra 512 will make a big difference. If you can pick up another hard drive (small is fine) and designate it as the scratch disk for even better performance.
you have plenty of memory
try what you have, and then decide if you need to open more images
do you have a 20-21 inch monitor? image maniupulation is about more than just ram and gig's..it's about productivity..you may be much more productive by spending your money on a bigger screen.
i run photoshop a lot, 512 megs, 80 gig hd, 20" lcd...it works fine for me..
bigger, faster is better with photoshop, but unless you have a unlimited budget, you will want to maximize the return on your investment. with the hardware you decribed, if your itching to spend more money, be sure to get a large screen (1600 x 1200 minimum imho)
try what you have, and then decide if you need to open more images
do you have a 20-21 inch monitor? image maniupulation is about more than just ram and gig's..it's about productivity..you may be much more productive by spending your money on a bigger screen.
i run photoshop a lot, 512 megs, 80 gig hd, 20" lcd...it works fine for me..
bigger, faster is better with photoshop, but unless you have a unlimited budget, you will want to maximize the return on your investment. with the hardware you decribed, if your itching to spend more money, be sure to get a large screen (1600 x 1200 minimum imho)
I think the best performance increasing product I've purchased for my PC has been my 36gb WD Raptor 10k rpm drive. Put your OS on it, and set your PS scratch disk to it. It'll fly! I use Photoshop CS and it starts for me in about 6-7 seconds. I also have 512mb of RAM. The extra ram would help if you A> have lots of images open at the same time B> work in very high resolutions C> do print design at 300dpi D> multi-task
Statements that PS will work faster if you have more RAM are plain untrue and not thought through.
If PS is the only running application, you'll have to work on a pretty large PSD to need more than 512MB. Try working with what you currently have and see how it goes. If you are just going to work on web-targeted designs (ie. not exceeding much above 990x900px files) and you don't multitask much (say have Illustrator, PS and Flash opened at once) you are quite fine. It's all about your work habits. But if you are serious about work, then perhaps you do have a lot of apps opened at once, and another stick won't hurt.
That said - as already mentioned there are quite a few important things to consider besides RAM and CPU MHz. Monitor is very important for graphic work, as is a fast harddrive. But one thing almost always overlooked is a graphic tablet. Even if you don't draw or paint on your workstation, but do graphic work, the tablet is going to help more than RAM or anything else could ever do.
If PS is the only running application, you'll have to work on a pretty large PSD to need more than 512MB. Try working with what you currently have and see how it goes. If you are just going to work on web-targeted designs (ie. not exceeding much above 990x900px files) and you don't multitask much (say have Illustrator, PS and Flash opened at once) you are quite fine. It's all about your work habits. But if you are serious about work, then perhaps you do have a lot of apps opened at once, and another stick won't hurt.
That said - as already mentioned there are quite a few important things to consider besides RAM and CPU MHz. Monitor is very important for graphic work, as is a fast harddrive. But one thing almost always overlooked is a graphic tablet. Even if you don't draw or paint on your workstation, but do graphic work, the tablet is going to help more than RAM or anything else could ever do.
If you're web designing and only need to produce low-res (72 dpi) graphics, then yes 512 is sufficient. But if you're working for print design and need to produce 300 dpi+ graphics, then you should absolutely upgrade to 1024 Megs of RAM. You'll thank yourself every day.
When I so much as OPEN a 4096x3072 image, it takes about 700 megs. So, it depends on how large the images you're working on are. That's a brand new system and you're going to want to hang onto it for a while so you might just as well go for the gig.
I concur here too. We do a LOT of printing of banners for trade shows, and constantly are opening pictures that are hundreds of MB in size. One of our poor employees is doing it on a Duron 1 Ghz with 512 MB of RAM ( Management won't approve a new computer for her) and it generally takes 5 mins or more to open a file. Many changes require her to sit for 45 seconds or so as well, as it applies changes.
I would say it depends on how 512mb does. For me I only do web graphics 99% of the time and the odd Image resize ... however fi you find things to be slugish with 512mb then yes I would go get more. If everything is fine and stuff opens, crops, resizes, renders, and mutli tasks well then why spend the money?
I can't stand companies like that. Don't those idiots understand they're enduring more costs through productivity loss rather than just sucking up an initial 1-time fee of $2,000 or $3,000 for a high-end machine???
Sh!t, I built a sweet mid-to-high-end PC for just $1,400 and your co-worker would probably be just fine on this machine.
Your budget-cutting decision makers are morons.
One slightly cheaper productivity booster is to go for dual monitors instead of one huge monitor (if your video card allows, of course). You can open up a lot workspace that way by moving a lot of pallets off to the secondary. For example, if I'm doing fine detail work on a pretty large image, it really helps to pull the Navigator pallet off to the secondary monitor and enlarge it a bit so I can move around with it faster and more accurately. As far as productivity goes, two 19" monitors beat a single 21" any day. Plus it seems like you really have to pay a really big premium for a 21" CRT that doesn't have any weird geometry issues.
Of course it all depends on what your card supports. Even if you don't have a dual-output card, you could probably get away with throwing in a cheap Matrox PCI card to run the monitor since the second monitor will probably never ever display any 3D graphics.
Get more ram. I have 1 8x10 canvas open with 3 layers.
Email and IE open.
481MB in use.
As soon as I try doing something to thos layers I'm going over 512 and everything will come to a screetching halt.
Email and IE open.
481MB in use.
As soon as I try doing something to thos layers I'm going over 512 and everything will come to a screetching halt.
haha at my school some people attempt to use photoshop with the pics from a new canon digital rebel with a 200mhz cpu and 64-92megs of ram thats with the pic quality on as high as it gets. whenever i see it i laugh
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter