Vista64: 2GB vs 4GB

[dclive]

http://kb.adobe.com/selfservic...lId=kb401088&sliceId=1

Please point out the benefit once ~8GB is reached.

 

[JustaGeek]

Thank you, guys.

I appreciate showing me the recommended use of 759 MB of RAM.

It is still about 7 GB short of 8 GB though.

And dclive - with all due respect...

"When you run Photoshop CS3 on a computer with a 64-bit processor (such as a, Intel Xeon processor with EM64T, AMD Athlon 64, or Opteron processor) running a 64-bit version of the operating system (Windows XP Professional x64 Edition or Windows Vista 64-bit) and with 4 GB or more of RAM, Photoshop will use 3 GB for it's image data. You can see the actual amount of RAM Photoshop can use in the Let Photoshop Use number when you set the Let Photoshop Use slider in the Performance preference to 100%. The RAM above the 100% used by Photoshop, which is from approximately 3 GB to 3.7 GB, can be used directly by Photoshop plug-ins (some plug-ins need large chunks of contiguous RAM), filters, or actions. If you have more than 4 GB (to 6 GB), then the RAM above 4 GB is used by the operating system as a cache for the Photoshop scratch disk data. 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. If you are working with files large enough to take advantage of these extra 2 GB of RAM, the RAM cache can speed performance of Photoshop. Additionally, in Windows Vista 64-bit, processing very large images is much faster if your computer has large amounts of RAM (6-8 GB)."

OK, I can kinda accept 8GB of RAM for Photoshop.

But I still haven't seen the screenshot showing the actual use of that amount of physical memory.

And that is Photoshop.

Please show me some other applications... if you can...

Thank you.

 

[dclive]

I don't understand your "with all due respect" comment - my URL, taken straight from Adobe, explicitly says RAM up to about 8GB will be used, and that assumes you aren't running other RAM-hungry apps at the same time. There is no "kind of understand" - that's what Adobe says. You asked for Photoshop information; you now have it. Please don't move the goalposts.

 

[JustaGeek]

The goalposts have been set by the gentleman with 16GB of RAM.

And the only team is Photoshop.

Still waiting for the league...

 

[JustaGeek]

And please... don't just try to disagree with me.

It is easy to disagree with someone under any circumstances.

Explain to me (and all the others) the benefits of using more than 3GB of RAM on the 32-bit system, or more than 4GB of RAM on the 64-bit OS, and convince me and the other non-Photoshop users to put more RAM in our systems.

And I am still waiting for these screenshots showing the actual >6GB being used, not only the settings (759MB ?!?), or the Adobe's recommendations...

 

[dclive]

Originally posted by: JustaGeek
And please... don't just try to disagree with me.

It is easy to disagree with someone under any circumstances.

Explain to me (and all the others) the benefits of using more than 3GB of RAM on the 32-bit system, or more than 4GB of RAM on the 64-bit OS, and convince me and the other non-Photoshop users to put more RAM in our systems.

And I am still waiting for these screenshots showing the actual >6GB being used, not only the settings (759MB ?!?), or the Adobe's recommendations...

Justageek, there was another thread where I explained to you how memory worked in 64 bit systems, and where I explained to you how drivers worked in 64 bit systems. If you want to ignore how Adobe's software works, you're free to do so, but that *is* how their software works. That you may not work on a large TIF or other graphic file and so cannot justify 6-8GB isn't the point - the point is Adobe says their system can take advantage of it up to about 8GB.

Honestly, I don't see how you can disagree with Adobe (not me) here. The original URL I posted was more directed to the prior poster who talked about PS using 'any' available memory, which, per Adobe, isn't correct.

You seem to be simply saying you don't think most people could use that much memory, but a graphics artist with a huge source picture could do so. The fact that no one on here has a convenient screenshot showing otherwise just isn't material...Adobe is the image expert, they wrote the app, and they spelled out their provisions for how memory is used in a 64 bit system.

Clearly, with a 32 bit application, the app will only directly use 2-3GB (depending on OS bitness), but there are still other benefits - the application can take advantage of a disk cache / scratch disk of the application's choosing - that suggests that a pro user should get more memory. It's really quite simple.

If you want to argue *diminishing returns* over X GB of RAM, where X might be 2GB for most people, 4GB for professional apps written to take advantage of memory constraints, and 8GB for super high end pro app users, I don't think anyone will disagree, but the position you're now in is silly.

As far as other applications, one would only need to find a 64 bit application that uses more memory. SQL, Oracle, and any other modern database come immediately to mind. Your statement about >4GB RAM on a 64 bit OS is especially incorrect.

Why don't you want to agree to this?

A good book so you can learn how memory (and Windows) works is Windows Internals, by Mark Russinovich. http://www.amazon.com/Microsof...eveloper/dp/0735619174 is a link to get you started.

 

[JustaGeek]

Originally posted by: dclive

Originally posted by: JustaGeek
And please... don't just try to disagree with me.

It is easy to disagree with someone under any circumstances.

Explain to me (and all the others) the benefits of using more than 3GB of RAM on the 32-bit system, or more than 4GB of RAM on the 64-bit OS, and convince me and the other non-Photoshop users to put more RAM in our systems.

And I am still waiting for these screenshots showing the actual >6GB being used, not only the settings (759MB ?!?), or the Adobe's recommendations...

If you want to argue *diminishing returns* over X GB of RAM, where X might be 2GB for most people, 4GB for professional apps written to take advantage of memory constraints, and 8GB for super high end pro app users, I don't think anyone will disagree, but the position you're now in is silly.

As far as other applications, one would only need to find a 64 bit application that uses more memory. SQL, Oracle, and any other modern database come immediately to mind. Your statement about >4GB RAM on a 64 bit OS is especially incorrect.

Why don't you want to agree to this?

A good book so you can learn how memory (and Windows) works is Windows Internals, by Mark Russinovich. http://www.amazon.com/Microsof...eveloper/dp/0735619174 is a link to get you started.

Which statement...? What am I supposed to agree to? Why is the position I'm in now silly...?

Honestly - I don't even know what and why we are arguing here, and where it is all going.

The OP asked for the recommendation on whether to use 2 or 4 GB for his 64-bit Vista, and the initial responses generally recommended the 4GB, which is obviously understandable.

And then... someone jumped in with the 16GB of RAM in his system, saying that the "jump from 8 to 16 was substantial", which IMO was a bit ridiculous, since there are absolutely no programs capable of taking advantage of more than 8GB, and even at 8GB there is only Photoshop.

And then... someone jumped in with their recommendation to switch to the 64-bit OS, which IMO is not necessary, if not troublesome at this point for 99% of all the population.

And then... I made a comment about the 8800 series VC's being obsolete due to the latest changes in DX10.1, trying to explain that I will wait another year or two before I even think about the 64-bit system for my computing needs.

And here we are now... We have agreed that Photoshop can use up to 8GB of RAM (not more!)

All I am driving at is that jumping into the 64-bit OS is absolutely unnnecessary for another year or two, until all the quirks are worked out by Microsoft and driver writers - period.I am not denying the potential future advantages, because that would be, as you've said, "silly".

Again:

I'll watch...

And learn...

And then buy.

 

[DrMrLordX]

Originally posted by: JustaGeek


32-bit XP is the most stable operating system in history - period.

Hate to nitpick, but that's a whopper of a statement right there. XP? Most stable OS in history? I'm sure Linux and OSX fans would like to disagree with you on that one. When it comes to stability, I'd even go for Win2k SP3 or SP4 over XP SP2, depending on what hardware/drivers were in use on the system.

The future, as I have mentioned, undoubtedly belongs to 64-bit Operating Systems.

And, for some, so does the present. Those not tied to MS operating systems have been running 64-bit OSes for years now. If they had so chosen, they would have been fully capable of taking advantage of 4 gigs (or more) of RAM when running the right apps (or when running enough of them simultaneously).

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: DrMrLordX

Originally posted by: JustaGeek


32-bit XP is the most stable operating system in history - period.

Hate to nitpick, but that's a whopper of a statement right there. XP? Most stable OS in history? I'm sure Linux and OSX fans would like to disagree with you on that one. When it comes to stability, I'd even go for Win2k SP3 or SP4 over XP SP2, depending on what hardware/drivers were in use on the system.

The future, as I have mentioned, undoubtedly belongs to 64-bit Operating Systems.

And, for some, so does the present. Those not tied to MS operating systems have been running 64-bit OSes for years now. If they had so chosen, they would have been fully capable of taking advantage of 4 gigs (or more) of RAM when running the right apps (or when running enough of them simultaneously).

Vista is already more stable for me than XP ever was.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: JustaGeek
cmdrdredd,

They will offer x64 standard, but not yet. I too am waiting for all the driver issues to be resolved.

And what Microsoft must do is to ensure compatibility of 16 and 32 bit software on the 64-bit platform.

Like I can do it today, I want to be able to use all the 16 and 32 bit applications, which is even more important in the corporate environment.

16bit apps will never work on x64. This is already a fact. 32bit? sure I haven't found anything that wouldn't work.

 

[Mem]

All I am driving at is that jumping into the 64-bit OS is absolutely unnnecessary for another year or two, until all the quirks are worked out by Microsoft and driver writers - period.I am not denying the potential future advantages, because that would be, as you've said, "silly".

Any quirks will be due to Vista(both 32 bit and 64 bit version) being a new OS,you will always get some quirks, for example look at XP 32 bit drivers,both Nvidia and AMD release drivers regularly thats because they fix bugs and increase performance in some games.


Personally I have had no problems with all of my 64 bit drivers or OS (Vista x64),so your statement above in my case is not valid,if you want to use 4GB or above then 64 bit OS is the right option,I think some people worry too much about 64 bit driver stability,the main problem is not are they stable but are there drivers for my hardware,this is not really down to Microsoft but the manufacturers of the hardware in question.

I had my Leadtek DTV tuner drivers for my Vista x64 within 5 weeks of official release,while my Thrustmaster drivers were out in Dec 06 before official launch of Vista x64.

Blaming everything on Microsoft is wrong no matter how much you hate or like Microsoft,the more people go over to 64 bit OS the more the demand for 64 bit drivers/software etc will increase.

 

[zero2dash]

Available ram: 759 mb (on a 1 gig of ram system)

CS3 is able to take all of that which goes to show that Photoshop does not have a ram limit; it will use whatever is available (if allowed).

 

[khandley]

What video card or cards are you able to get running in your SC1430? I'm looking at aquiring one for use with Vista 64 also and would like to know what cards work in the PCIe slots as they are the short ones, and also have enough clearance in the case...