Sanity Check v.2.0

[Jimbo]

First for some background: I have about 11,000 pictures from my trip to England that I really need to get processed sometimes before I become too old to care.

Right now I'm running with an i7 860, 8GB of RAM, a fairly pedestrian 5770 graphics card, (cause Jimbo don't game) along with an Intel 160GB G2 SSD.
I was thinking of another SSD for photoshop to be ins stalled on as well. Nothing huge, but maybe 128GB. Would that even make a difference?
I also have 6 2TB drives and 4 3TB WD drives, so I already have a buch of other photography stored. I bought the SAS (RocketRaid controllers 2720SGL and a couple of Icy Dock hot swap bays, but those are all still in the box and can go back to newegg if needed.
I will buy more hardware if I have to, but I don't want to wast money.
I'm running the latests version of Abode CS5 photoshop too.

OK, now on to the dilemmas:
What's the best way to manage all that data? I will give up some speed for security, but I'd rather have as much as both as I can get away with.
I'm thinking RAID-10 here.
I'm pretty sure I want to stay away from RAID-5.

The other problem is if I upgrade the computer to a new Intel x68 and a 2600k processor, will I see or even feel any noticeable difference in what I already have?
I really do not want to drop another grand and decide that I have would up with pretty much what I had.

The other two optional purchases I was considering was another SSD (M4) for photoshop to live on and to grab another 8GB of RAM and possibly make use of a RAM drive (but I'm getting conflicting info on this) as an photoshop scratch drive - so maybe I don't need it.
My processed images tend to be in the 50-175MB range, and I will do a limited amount of video processing too.

So, is what I have good enough, or do I really need to go the 2600k route with a new mobo or can I save a bunch of money and just keep what I have (mo Bo and i7 860).

Thanks for and help on this issue.

 

[dma0991]

I don't think it is worth it to have a SB now as your current rig seems sufficient for your needs. Unless of course your videos are long and take a long time to transcode then Intel QuickSync with SB might benefit you with the right software.

You already have a SSD as a boot drive and you could add more RAM and create a RAMdisk as a scratch disk or a secondary SSD as a scratch disk. Either way works just fine depending on how much you're willing to pay.

I'd rather get a decent aftermarket cooler and give the processor a minor overclock ~500MHz as a placebo for performance increase.

 

[Jimbo]

Thanks for the message.

A few more quickies...
Have RAM disks gone out of fashion lately? Most discussion on them seems to have dropped off the radar, with anything after 2009 just being repeated over and over again.

The recent Adobe. Discussions I have been reading have all just been saying to jam as much as you can in your machine and with Win7 x64 you can forget about the problem?

Is installing photoshp on its own SSD An extra extravagance, with a third SMALL SSD as a separate scratch drive anything that is going to matter?
I have a spare unused 150gb V Raptor from WD still in the box that I could use a photoshop scratch disk, would that be enough, or should I just go small SSD?
I would like to save money, but I don't want to compromise serious performance by saving a few dollars and going cheap with the existing v Raptor.

 

[mnewsham]

IMHO more RAM is about all you could really do without doing an entire new build, but that wouldn't add much of anything. Currently a RAM disk is not feasible, it would require at least 30Gb for windows 7 (W7 x64 without SP1 is 24Gb iirc) With four 8Gb dimms it would cost about 900 bucks! A bit beyond the realm of possibility, however for your system getting 16Gb might help if you are working on LARGE photos not lots of medium to small photos. But like 3 15Mp pictures at a time etc. A SSD might help, i just dont see it being very useful in that situation, could be wrong though.

 

[dma0991]

Why would he need 30GB for a RAMdisk? It is not possible to install Windows into a RAMdisk as it would instantly wipe out when power off. Imagine having a sudden blackout and you have to reinstall your OS. D: RAMdisk is more suitable for volatile and semi permanent information, a scratch disk.

I have tried to dabble in using a RAMdisk but I can't seem to fully utilize it as I hardly run Photoshop with hundreds of layers and most of the images that I edit are no larger than 10MB. You could allocate 4GB as a RAMdisk out of the 16GB available assuming that you upgraded that much and use the 12GB for whatever purpose the PC needs. A RAMdisk is way faster than any SSD and 4GB is not a lot considering that the images that you edit does not even come close to exceeding the limit of 4GB.

 

[Jimbo]

So scratch the RAM disk idea (for a scratch area for CS5) and replace that with a smallis 40gb+SSD (or my still-in-thee-box 150gb Vraptor (with nothing else on it) as a CS5 photoshop scratch disk?

I just want to be crystal clea on everything before I start writing checks.

BTW, I have a Corsar H-50 on there already from when I built the machine 3-years ago and that seems to keep the temps fine, but that chip has never been much of an over clocker.

I just run it at stock and it seems fine, but I'm willing to take another stab at overclocking things with a 2600k and an X68, assuming I have to go that way.

I'll be spending about 8-hours a day in front of this machine for a few months, if any of that matters, so small gains may add up.

 

[mnewsham]

Why would he need 30GB for a RAMdisk? It is not possible to install Windows into a RAMdisk as it would instantly wipe out when power off. Imagine having a sudden blackout and you have to reinstall your OS. D: RAMdisk is more suitable for volatile and semi permanent information, a scratch disk.

I have tried to dabble in using a RAMdisk but I can't seem to fully utilize it as I hardly run Photoshop with hundreds of layers and most of the images that I edit are no larger than 10MB. You could allocate 4GB as a RAMdisk out of the 16GB available assuming that you upgraded that much and use the 12GB for whatever purpose the PC needs. A RAMdisk is way faster than any SSD and 4GB is not a lot considering that the images that you edit does not even come close to exceeding the limit of 4GB.

Believe it or not I have a friend who has an x58 system and 6 8Gb Dimms and likes to run games on it.... He spent way too much money but it makes him happy


And here is how you keep power to the RAMdisk when you shut down. http://www.anandtech.com/show/1742

That however isnt DDR3 but the product has existed before meaning it would be possible to do it again.

 

[Jimbo]

Why would he need 30GB for a RAMdisk? It is not possible to install Windows into a RAMdisk as it would instantly wipe out when power off. Imagine having a sudden blackout and you have to reinstall your OS. D: RAMdisk is more suitable for volatile and semi permanent information, a scratch disk.

I have tried to dabble in using a RAMdisk but I can't seem to fully utilize it as I hardly run Photoshop with hundreds of layers and most of the images that I edit are no larger than 10MB. You could allocate 4GB as a RAMdisk out of the 16GB available assuming that you upgraded that much and use the 12GB for whatever purpose the PC needs. A RAMdisk is way faster than any SSD and 4GB is not a lot considering that the images that you edit does not even come close to exceeding the limit of 4GB.

I don't think anyone here is contemplating using a windows C: disk as a RAM disk, just the scratch disks that CS5 would be wiping out when the program is closed or the machine is turned off, as I understand it is supposed to be anyways.
If I misunderstood you, then please feel free to elaborate.

 

[dma0991]

I have seen such RAMdisks before, even in a 5.25" form factor RAMdisk but they would usually cost too much. 48GBs just to play games? He must be using a theater as his monitor.

What I mean by RAMdisk here is the less expensive method of software partitioning and it allocates a small RAM space to be used as a RAMdisk. Way more cost effective to get a REVOdrive than getting that Gigabyte RAMdisk.

I don't think anyone here is contemplating using a windows C: disk as a RAM disk, just the scratch disks that CS5 would be wiping out when the program is closed or the machine is turned off, as I understand it is supposed to be anyways.
If I misunderstood you, then please feel free to elaborate.

I was referring to mnewsham's post. I do understand that the purpose of a RAMdisk here is a scratch disk only.

 

[mnewsham]

I have seen such RAMdisks before, even in a 5.25" form factor RAMdisk but they would usually cost too much. 48GBs just to play games? He must be using a theater as his monitor.

What I mean by RAMdisk here is the less expensive method of software partitioning and it allocates a small RAM space to be used as a RAMdisk. Way more cost effective to get a REVOdrive than getting that Gigabyte RAMdisk.

With DDR3 RAM and a fast enough interface it would be faster to use a RAMdisk still but because there is no product like that currently available i agree

 

[Jimbo]

Believe it or not I have a friend who has an x58 system and 6 8Gb Dimms and likes to run games on it.... He spent way too much money but it makes him happy


And here is how you keep power to the RAMdisk when you shut down. http://www.anandtech.com/show/1742

That however isnt DDR3 but the product has existed before meaning it would be possible to do it again.

I don't think that is an option anymore (article is from way too long ago).
I was just hoping for a new scratch disks(s) that could recreated every time the the machine restarted, if even that is a practicality with just 16-GB of RAM available and Win7 x64.

 

[mnewsham]

I don't think that is an option anymore (article is from way too long ago).
I was just hoping for a new scratch disks(s) that could recreated every time the the machine restarted, if even that is a practicality with just 16-GB of RAM available and Win7 x64.

Yes i know, i was just showing that there was a product at one point which would allow for an OS install, not saying that is what you should be doing. I agree 16Gb of RAM and 8GB for windows 8GB scratch.

 

[biostud]

just make one large rar archive on 3.5" floppies, best way to preserve your data

 

[Jimbo]

just make one large rar archive on 3.5" floppies, best way to preserve your data

I can't buy them anymore.

 

[dma0991]

just make one large rar archive on 3.5" floppies, best way to preserve your data

Too small. We need 5.25" floppies if we're going to get any work done. It is practically impervious to damage when placed on a flat surface.

OP, here is the software that I used last time. It is free for a maximum of 4GB and I don't think you would be needing anything more than 4GB as a scratch disk.

 

[Jimbo]

OP, here is the software that I used last time. It is free for a maximum of 4GB and I don't think you would be needing anything more than 4GB as a scratch disk.

That is kinda what I was thinking about. I just wished there were more people using it with CS5 Photoshop that could tell me what size is appropriate (I'll gladly pay the upgrade license) or it the entire concept has been obsoleted by the Win7 x64 handling of RAM.

If CS5 only needs a gig or so, then that could work really well.
If it really wants 40 GB, then it's back to the SSD idea.
thanks for the tip!

Anyone ever try this trick in Photoshop CS5 lately?

 

[mfenn]

Jimbo, I'm really confused about your goal here. You already have a stacked system that should be able to handle vacation photo touchup with ease. What exactly is the system not doing now that you want it to do?

 

[VirtualLarry]

Jimbo, I'm really confused about your goal here. You already have a stacked system that should be able to handle vacation photo touchup with ease. What exactly is the system not doing now that you want it to do?

This. I'm confused too. The current system shouldn't have problems processing photos, that I know of.

 

[Jimbo]

The purpose of my post, mfenn?
A cry for help...


Seriously, I was wondering if there was anything to be realistically gained by retiring the i7 860 rig and moving on to a 2600k with an emphasis on gearing the thing for a straight-up Photoshop machine, since I really do not do much else with it other than lightweight office stuff.

I guess I should just ask up-front if the move from an 860 to a 2600k is worth the money.

If I'm looking at spending a grand or more for a 10% gain in filter application speed, or it I could accomplish the same thing by making a few tweeks to what I have, I'd rather not spend the money.
Then again, if I have to shell out the bucks to upgrade, then that's life.

If that whole experience isn't really necessary, or the improvements will be unnoticeable short of running benchmarks (and that's not my thing anyway) then I wanted to know what should rationally be done to wring the most performance from what I've got.

The thing I am most afraid of is spending a huge chunk of money and then fining out that the new machine feels just like the old one.

In the end, my goal is simply to have a competent photoshop machine (not the fastest in the country) that will let me just get done, what I need to get done, without it having a case of the slows.

In pursuance of that goal, I'm wondering where my hardware allocation money should go.
Do I just buy more RAM? Do I need a full-on 2600k transplant, or if I just get another inexpensive SSD will I get 90% of the way there?
I'm cool with 90%.

The hard part for me is piecing together all the tiny bits of info from all over the web as to what I should REALLY be doing.
Adobe's advice is to get a fast machine and load it up with RAM and a good SSD, but beyond that, not much else.

It is almost like all of the serious Photoshop mavens are not wire-heads and so do not know what parts matter, and all of the wire-heads don't really know what it is that really makes the difference in a good photoshop box beyond just go bigger and faster.

Sorry if this was a bit too long-winded.

 

[mfenn]

Seriously, I was wondering if there was anything to be realistically gained by retiring the i7 860 rig and moving on to a 2600k with an emphasis on gearing the thing for a straight-up Photoshop machine, since I really do not do much else with it other than lightweight office stuff.

The answer to that question is "no". Really, adding 8GB of RAM is about the only semi-reasonable upgrade that you could make. You've already got an SSD and more spindles than you know what do do with for scratch and storage.

 

[Jimbo]

And my last answer just got devoured by the server.

thanks for such a consise answer mdinn!
I appreciate it.

The new plan of attack is 16GB of RAM, and then just make it happen with what I got.


That is what I needed to hear!

 

[Spikesoldier]

IMO on a machine you are using for a production role, toss the liquid cooling in favor of averting a catastrophic failure and losing all your data.

I would go RAID 1 for data storage with those huge disks.

I don't think the benefit a 2600K over your 860 would be worth the investment. You sound like the type that would benefit from SB-E however coming down the pipes soon.

 

[mfenn]

And my last answer just got devoured by the server.

thanks for such a consise answer mdinn!
I appreciate it.

The new plan of attack is 16GB of RAM, and then just make it happen with what I got.


That is what I needed to hear!

No problem.

Luckily for you, you can add on another 8GB for about $41. That's if you've got 2x4GB right now. If you've got 4x2GB, you will need to get two 8GB kits for about $82.

 

[Jimbo]

No problem.

Luckily for you, you can add on another 8GB for about $41. That's if you've got 2x4GB right now. If you've got 4x2GB, you will need to get two 8GB kits for about $82.

Great choice, but I have to replace all 4 slots, so I decided to get all spendy and grab another pair of Corsair XMS profile 1600s.
That's what I have used for the last couple of years and they were just great.
The cost difference between the two was only about five dollars after the Newegg discount and free shipping.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820233203

 

[mfenn]

How do you figure? The Mushkin is out of stock, right now but this G.Skill is available for $82 and free shipping. That's $23 difference by my math.