Faster memory: does it make a difference for image processing?

Hey guys,


I'm planning to build a new workstation in the new year. Is it worth getting faster memory for it (DDR3 2000, instead of DDR3 1066/1333)? Does anyone have any first-hand experiences with faster memory actually improving image editing / processing times?


Thanks,


Tony

Will the processor, motherboard and bus system actually operate at the higher speeds? If not you will not see any speed increase. It can only operate as fast as the bus system. You have to buy memory as fast (or faster) as the bus system or it will not recognize the memory.


So I would buy a processor and mobo that support the fastest RAM available. Even if the speed increase isn't mind boggling, at least your computer won't be out dated as fast. And I'm sure if you put a stop watch on a series of functions you see some slight increases.


Lots of RAM will show you the biggest boost.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Keith B

Lots of RAM will show you the biggest boost.

---

Only if you can make use of it, if you are only using 2 Gigs of memory during your computing any more is a waste of money. Better off buying faster memory if your system can handle it.


John.

If you are using Photoshop and editing a couple 15+ MP images at a time, I'm pretty sure you won't be wasting RAM.


Not to mention having other apps open. Rarely do I ever have just one open.


You'll probably want more RAM.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Keith B

If you are using Photoshop and editing a couple 15+ MP images open, I'm pretty sure you won't be wasting RAM.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

---

A quick way to check how much ram you are using it use task manager, you can see exactly how much ram you are using. I don't need more than 1.5 gigs.


John.

With Photoshop and Aperture both open and a normal amount of images loaded, I use 3.82 gigs of my potential 4 gigs.


Image data loads into the RAM while the file is open, if the program runs out of RAM it accesses virtual memory which is your hard drive which is substantially slower than RAM. Speed of the RAM isn't much help when you are accessing VM.

Hi,


Based on many benchmarks and articles at www.tomshardware.com (great place to go by the way... if you're building your own computer or upgrading one -- forums are especially helpful there), I think it's safe to say you won't see much of a difference at all between those different DDR3 speeds. What CPU are you going to put in your workstation? Because unless you are putting either an Intel Core i5/i7 (DDR3 required) or a new AMD Phenom II (usually DDR3 required) processor in there, you won't even see much benefit from DDR3 vs DDR2 memory. However you will benefit with lots of RAM, as some have already said here. I recommend at least 4GB, but no more than 6GB. Even though your system may only use half of the memory available, it will be much more speedy than it would be to have only what your system actually uses. In the case of DDR3 memory, more is better than faster. Though over 6GB doesn't usually see much gain in speed. 4GB works great for my Photoshop, Lightroom, Dreamweaver, and other CS4 uses.


Hope this helps. Let me know if I wasn't very clear on something.





Derrick

I've got an i7-920 with 6GB 1600Mhz ram. Still touching the 6GB in taskmanager sometimes. Especially when editing large groups of photo's, say change the WB for 100 photo's at the same time in lightroom or converting your raw files to jpegs.





The speed difference is to small to really notice, unless your overclocking your system.





Fast harddrives are really important. Best is to get a separate harddrive for your operating system and programs and a second for your photo's. Or maybe even more and more splitted into groups. You're gonna notice an increase in speed with multiple harddrives more than with faster memory.





I say 6-8 GB depending on the dual or triple memory bench and at least 2 harddrives (no I'm not talking about external usb harddrives).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by djzuk

Even though your system may only use half of the memory available, it will be much more speedy than it would be to have only what your system actually uses.

---

I have not found that to be true, I have put 6 gigs and 1.5 gigsandthere wasabsolutely no differnce at all. I made a huge differnce when I put faster ram, as long as your system can handle it of course.


John.

RAM's cheap - buy up.


You will always get better performance out of having more memory - especially when doing multiple tasks (provided the Motherboard and CPU are up to scratch)


Also depends also which operating system you are using. If you have Windows Vista then you wouldn't want any less than 4Gb of RAM (1066MHz or higher) as Vista is a memory hog. I've mentioned it before - buy a 64 bit OS and install 6Gb+ of decent RAM and you will never have an issue.


On a side note: If exporting from Lightroom or similar, you can take advantage of your processor's dual core/ quad core capability by running 2 processes at the same time. Say you are exporting 100 photos to JPEG - start the export on 50 of the images first, then do it again with the remaining 50 images. It will take half the time as each process is utilising only one core.


Beforesomeone tells me I'm pulling your leg - I've tested this and it works, not quite half the time but it's pretty damn close.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fast Glass

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by djzuk

Even though your system may only use half of the memory available, it will be much more speedy than it would be to have only what your system actually uses.

---

I have not found that to be true, I have put 6 gigs and 1.5 gigsandthere wasabsolutely no differnce at all. I made a huge differnce when I put faster ram, as long as your system can handle it of course.


John.

---

Were you using a 64-bit operating system? With a 32-bit system, you can only effectively use 2GB of RAM.


Derrick

Yes I am using 64-bit windows vista.


John

Hi,


If it's a new build then I suggest going the Intel i7 9xx series route along with the triple chennel memory kits a nice dual GPU video card and at least 6gb of triple channel DDR3 memory [ you can go 12gb but they're in the $1k area [:)] ] widows7 ultimate or any windows 7 64 bit variant. 64 bit OS is important since 32 bit wont give you access to any memory over 4gb including that of your video card.


I'm sure you will be happy with above setup. you can even use it for basic video editing procedures.

Hi all,


Thank you for the very helpful replies, I read them with interest and apologies for not actually replying to this thread earlier.


I should give a bit more background: I'm considering an i7 system as, basically, for raw processing power intel CPUs are winning over AMD right now. About half year ago I built a storage box and I used an older AMD CPU, because it was relatively cheap (quad core for &lt;$100!!!), had low power consumption, and for a storage box I didn't feel I needed to spend more money on the CPU / motherboard. But, for raw power, I think right now intel is the way to go. So, Keith B, yes I think the combo I'm thinking should be able to take advantage of the faster RAM.


Regarding how much RAM to put in: as folks (Keith B, djzuk, btaylor) said I want to get as much as possible. Running Photoshop, Lightroom, Thunderbird, and Firefox on my 2G laptop is basically hopeless and I'm sick of having to wait for applications to page (and I don't need to look at the task manager to know that I'm using up all available memory and then some!). I'm planning to put Windows 7 and OpenSolaris on it, so staying under the 32-bit memory limit will not be an issue.


Then, it's the choice between Bloomfield and Lynnfield (I definitely want a quad-core CPU). Price-wise, they are similar. And Lynnfield looks attractive, due to its lower power consumption. However, the Lynnfield motherboards seem to only support dual channel memory, whereas the Bloomfield ones support triple channel memory. Apparently, the speed advantage of triple channel memory is not great, however Bloomfield would give me the opportunity to put 12G of RAM, whereas I'd only be able to put 8G on a Lynnfield box. So, despite the higher power consumption, I'm leaning towards a Bloomfield core to maximize the amount of RAM in the box. jks_photo: 12G are not currently that expensive. 6x 2G 1600 DDR3 Corsair Dominator are around $430. What would be prohibitively expensive would be to get 4x 4G SIMMs for a Lynnfield box (over $900).


Tony