• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Photoshop Box Memory Question

T

ThyMaster

Junior Member
Hey guys,

I'm building a new box for work, here is the complete spec for those interested: https://secure.newegg.com/NewV...istTitle=Boomshakalaka

It's going to be based around a new Giga-byte mobo with the Intel P35 chipset and I've already decided it will have 6 GB of memory, but I'm not sure what kind of memory configuration would make the most sense.

The two routes I'm deciding between are:

3 sticks of 2 GB

OR

2 sticks of 2 GB + 2 sticks of 1 GB

My main concern is if there will be a performance hit from odd number of sticks since memory is usually installed in pairs. Any input you guys have would be appreciated, thanks!
 
can't tell you how big of a hit it will be, but running an odd number of sticks means that it won't be running in dual channel (which halves the available bandwidth). IIRC, some mobos will somehow run two identical sticks in dual channel mode, and will just run the odd stick in single channel mode. I have no idea how that works, but it's what I've heard around here somewhere.

Anyway, to what I do know; you will have a performance hit with three sticks, but it will be easier to upgrade in the future, or you can go with performance now if you don't think you'll need another 2GB any time soon.
 
The performance difference would be very small for just photoshop. If you're measuring other things like games etc then the difference would be more apparent. Personally I'd go for your second option anyway just for the little boost albeit small.
 
If it was my money, I'd probably go for it. But it's my company's money, and I just didn't want to seem like I was going overboard.

The next thing closest to this computer in the office only has 2 GB that I had built about a year ago for another co-worker.

We essentially run the same apps, but I tend to more frequently run Adobe Photoshop, Bridge and InDesign all at the same time when working on catalogs and stuff.

Another concern that is up in the air is whether 6GB is even logical if I'm going to be running 32-bit XP. With a boot.ini modification apparently apps can use up to 3GB, but I'm not sure whether this is for all applications that are running or if individual apps would be able to use that much.

I could run 64-bit Vista but am concerned about it's compatibility with Adobe's CS3 suite of apps among other various driver issues that there may be.
 
In some of the recent DDR3 articles over the past week usually recomend Vista-64bit for memory sizes 3GBs and over. Not sure about the compatability issues with CS3 and vista but you maybe can check with Adobe to see what they think. Hope this info will help.
 
For that much memory you *need* a 64 bit OS, whether it's XP 64-bit or Vista 64 doesn't matter, XP will only show 3.25GB, anything above that is wasted $. I'd go with Vista, since Vista is an improvement (though it's still still new, drivers and such aren't entirely on par with XP), and since Vista is much more likely to be updated than XP 64.
 
Thanks a lot guys, I ended up simply going with 8 GB to avoid the hassle of upgrading later and also got 64-bit Vista. Hopefully all goes well 🙂
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top