How Much RAM is Enough?

[JoeKitchen]

I always live under the assumption that you should always get the fastest processor available at the time you buy a new computer, but do we really need 8 gigs of RAM.  The new mac probooks comes with 4 gigs but you can up grade to 8 gigs for an extra $600.  Is it worth it?

Now I do not do video and have no intention of ever getting into it; if I did I would see the point in upgrading.  But do we still photographers need that much if all we use in Photoshop (with a couple of plugins) and Capture One?

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

My guess is that if your system gets unresponsive you may need more RAM. Here is a good site:

http://macperformanceguide.com/index.html

Check especially: http://macperformanceguide.com/Mac-MacProMemory.html

Erik

I always live under the assumption that you should always get the fastest processor available at the time you buy a new computer, but do we really need 8 gigs of RAM.  The new mac probooks comes with 4 gigs but you can up grade to 8 gigs for an extra $600.  Is it worth it?

Now I do not do video and have no intention of ever getting into it; if I did I would see the point in upgrading.  But do we still photographers need that much if all we use in Photoshop (with a couple of plugins) and Capture One?

[asf]

Maxing out RAM is not a bad idea. It's more important than having the top processor.

[asf]

Thanks for the correction John, I wasn't aware

[mmurph]

oN THE DARK (pc) SIDE, BUT fwiw:

My older processor machines perform pretty well at 4GB of RAM under 64 bit OS. If you are not running 64 bit apps - Photoshop - the gains above that are small (RAM disks for swapping, OS and other aps, etc.)

On my newer machines - an Intel x8200 quad core and an Intel i7 920 quad - 8GB is a sweet spot. I was able to buy 8GB of Crucial high quality DDR3 for $150 for one machine to replace all the RAM (4 slots, 4x2GB chips).  So definitely worth that price to me.

The other machine has 6GB DDR3. It would cost about $250 to go to 12 GB in 6 slots replacing all of the 6 (f'ing stupid) 1GB chips (6x2GB chips)  Not quite worth that price, as it runs pretty well and the incremental value is limited. I will do that later.

I have 4x5 film scans as my largest files, about 250GB largest, and am mostly happy with the performance. I don't do a lot of layers, stitching, etc. though.

Until the 4GB chips come down in price in a year or so, and until PS CS 5 comes out and makes more extensive use of multiple cores and multiple pools of RAM, 4GB to 8GB is a decent area price wise. (Caveat: I haven't has a chance to look at the architecture of Capture One 5 yet. But 4 ran well on an older 4GB machine.)

The 12GB with 2GB chips is not bad.  Those damn 4GB chips though ........ overpriced, unless you really need the extra memory.

Hope that helps a bit? I am a bit more of a pragmatist rather than an absolutist though - I like value, not high end at any cost.  I'd rather spend the $600 on a Dell Poweredge Xeon server or a NAS and load it with disks, or run a TV recorder and media server, than on 4GB of RAM.  

Cheers!
Michael

[Geoff Wittig]

I always live under the assumption that you should always get the fastest processor available at the time you buy a new computer, but do we really need 8 gigs of RAM.  The new mac probooks comes with 4 gigs but you can up grade to 8 gigs for an extra $600.  Is it worth it?

Now I do not do video and have no intention of ever getting into it; if I did I would see the point in upgrading.  But do we still photographers need that much if all we use in Photoshop (with a couple of plugins) and Capture One?

The biggest issue will be the largest file size you want to work with. The rule of thumb for Photoshop is to have RAM equal to 5 times the size of your largest imaginable file, to minimize slowdowns due to disc-swapping of data. The biggest D-SLR files are presumably those from the D3X; my Eos-1Ds III files are about 120 mb at 16 bit, but add a bunch of layers and it's easy to get a file up to 300 mb. Now start stitching images or doing focus blending & HDR and pretty soon you have a 1 gig+ file, and 8 gig of RAM is genuinely better than 4 gig with these monster files.

[Christopher]

The biggest issue will be the largest file size you want to work with. The rule of thumb for Photoshop is to have RAM equal to 5 times the size of your largest imaginable file, to minimize slowdowns due to disc-swapping of data. The biggest D-SLR files are presumably those from the D3X; my Eos-1Ds III files are about 120 mb at 16 bit, but add a bunch of layers and it's easy to get a file up to 300 mb. Now start stitching images or doing focus blending & HDR and pretty soon you have a 1 gig+ file, and 8 gig of RAM is genuinely better than 4 gig with these monster files.

It depends what you DO and with WHAT you shoot. For a 1DsMk3, D3x files or below 4Gb are enough. So there is no real reason for more than 4Gb of RAM.

However if you shoot MF or even larger files through stitching, more can be quite helpful. In the End it depends on how large your normal file size is. If I take me for example, who is slowly working on a new Workstation design. I'm thinking of 16 or even 24Gb of RAM. The reason behind that is that a MF stitch with some layers can reach up to 12-20Gb of size.

[jimgolden]

a long time a go someone told me buy as much as you can afford, it makes sense, b/c right now you might not have a need, but you will soon - esp on a laptop...

[BernardLanguillier]

However if you shoot MF or even larger files through stitching, more can be quite helpful. In the End it depends on how large your normal file size is. If I take me for example, who is slowly working on a new Workstation design. I'm thinking of 16 or even 24Gb of RAM. The reason behind that is that a MF stitch with some layers can reach up to 12-20Gb of size.

Yep, I have had 32GB in my 8 cores early Mac Pro for about one year and am very happy with that. 24GB might be a better option now with the latest triple lane CPUs.

Looking at single application RAM usage is not the whole story. When you start to use multiple apps in parallel that are optimized for many cores, like C1 Pro, Autopano Pro on top of PS, then you start to see some value in having a lot of RAM.

I did some rough comparisons between 16 and 32GB of RAM one year ago, and some processes were significantly faster (like 40%) with 32GB for my typical heavy multi-tasking scenarios. Since I do lots of panos, my .tiff are never smaller than 1GB and often between 2 and 4GB.

Besides, I have not done it yet for a variety of reasons, but one easy way to boost performance significantly is to use SSDs in some areas of the system.

Cheers,
Bernard

[mcfoto]

Just a quick note on RAM make sure it is all the same speed as you can have problems. Mac sales.com is very good. We bought a new 8 core Mac Pro this year and installed 16 gb of ram all the same from macsales.com. Sold what came with the computer. A good friend who knows a lot about this stuff said Kingston is the best RAM.
Denis

[evgeny]

I think Photoshop cannot use more than 3.5Gb of memory, where 500Mb is reserved for its internal purposes or/and some plugins.
I installed a 256Gb SSD and 8Gb in my MacBook Pro 2.8GHz, which helps to simultaneously run a number of heavy applications.

[Geoff Wittig]

I think Photoshop cannot use more than 3.5Gb of memory, where 500Mb is reserved for its internal purposes or/and some plugins.
I installed a 256Gb SSD and 8Gb in my MacBook Pro 2.8GHz, which helps to simultaneously run a number of heavy applications.

As I understand it, this depends on the operating system. Photoshop runs native 64 bit under Vista 64, so it has no problem addressing larger amounts of RAM than the 4 gig limit you cite. Other folks smarter about this stuff may correct me.

[bjanes]

As I understand it, this depends on the operating system. Photoshop runs native 64 bit under Vista 64, so it has no problem addressing larger amounts of RAM than the 4 gig limit you cite. Other folks smarter about this stuff may correct me.

That is correct. With my Windows 7 64 bit machine I have 12 GB, and have allowed PS to use 67% of that. Photoshop System Info reveals: Memory available to Photoshop: 10971 MB

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi!

In  many cases the processor is far from fully utilized. In many cases there is a high premium for processor speeds. Also sometime a better designed processor may perform better at lower MHz than a less well designed processor at higher MHz.

The two main reasons that processors are under utilized are probably memory and disk I/O. You can check processor load using activity monitor and if it's much below  100% the processor is not fully utilized.

Best regards
Erik

I always live under the assumption that you should always get the fastest processor available at the time you buy a new computer, but do we really need 8 gigs of RAM.  The new mac probooks comes with 4 gigs but you can up grade to 8 gigs for an extra $600.  Is it worth it?

Now I do not do video and have no intention of ever getting into it; if I did I would see the point in upgrading.  But do we still photographers need that much if all we use in Photoshop (with a couple of plugins) and Capture One?

[Christopher]

Hi!

In  many cases the processor is far from fully utilized. In many cases there is a high premium for processor speeds. Also sometime a better designed processor may perform better at lower MHz than a less well designed processor at higher MHz.

The two main reasons that processors are under utilized are probably memory and disk I/O. You can check processor load using activity monitor and if it's much below  100% the processor is not fully utilized.

Best regards
Erik

Once again it depends on what you need and do. For larger files sizes the one thing that really slows workflow down is disk speed. So if you work with larger panoramics or layered files and do that a lot. By that I mean lots of files, than the only way to REALLY boost your workflow speed is a something like 4-6 disk RAID 0 platform or a 2-3 Raid 0 SSD platform.

Just one example, I would never spend 500$ more just to get a Intel Extrem Edition, which in the end isn't more than 5-10% faster than the next model.