How much RAM would you recommend?

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

02/21/2007 11:25:52 AM · #1

Hello All,

I've recently begun to shoot most of my photos in RAW format, and now my computer is struggling with editing them in Photoshop CS. I create a 16 bit TIFF file with my RAW converter, then open that file up in Photoshop, and my computer bogs down during editing.

Here's the system I have:

Pentium 4 2.66 GHz
512MB Dual Channel DDR SDRAM at 333MHz

I was thinking about buying another 1 Gig of RAM. What do you think? Thanks for your help!

-Chris

Dr.Confuser

Nikon D800

02/21/2007 11:30:10 AM · #2

Buy the lessor of these two amounts:
1) All you can afford.
2) All your computer has space for.

If your PC can accept it and you can afford it, think 2-4 additional Gigs. Photoshop works SO much better with lots of RAM.

Just my opinion.

Artifacts

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Olympus 40-150mm f/2.8 PRO M.Zuiko

02/21/2007 11:30:51 AM · #3

That should help considerably. Photoshop CS2 is most comfortable in 2 GIGs of RAM. Another possible slowdown is fragmented disks. If it takes a long time to open and save files that is a possible reason.

Brad

Olympus OM-D E-M1

02/21/2007 11:30:56 AM · #4

Buy as much as you can afford - the performance increase will not disappoint you.
If you are running XP, 1GB is almost the minimum, and 1.5GB will do well.

Telehubbie

Canon EOS-40D

02/21/2007 11:36:03 AM · #5

Also, check your preferences in PS and increase your "scratch disk" size.

dwterry

Canon EOS-1D Mark III

02/21/2007 11:42:40 AM · #6

XP (and 32-bit Vista) are limited to 3G of memory. So I say, go for 3G if you can afford it. And if you have 64-bit Vista then go for 4G. The more the merrier! :-)

dwterry

Canon EOS-1D Mark III

02/21/2007 11:43:10 AM · #7

Originally posted by Telehubbie:

Also, check your preferences in PS and increase your "scratch disk" size.

And if you have multiple hard drives, put your scratch disk on your fastest hard drive.

02/21/2007 12:05:09 PM · #8

Great responses so far! Thanks everybody!

And yes, I do have Windows XP.

02/21/2007 06:04:12 PM · #9

Based on your responses, I've decided to purchase 2 Gigs of memory, rather than the 1 Gig that I was planning on getting. With the 512MB that I already have, that'll bring the total memory to 2.5 Gig.

So I'll have 5 times the memory that I currently have. That oughta do it.

Thanks again for your help!

Greetmir

Sigma 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS for Nikon

02/21/2007 06:16:59 PM · #10

Yeah ... that oughta do it ... I have 1 GIG and REALLY slow down sometimes with processing of large images.

soup

Canon EOS-30D

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

02/21/2007 06:22:13 PM · #11

just make sure it all runs at 333mhz ( or all the same speed ). or buy faster and eliminate the 512 you have now.

Message edited by author 2007-02-21 18:22:43.

buzzrock

Fujifilm X-M1

Fujifilm XC 16-50mm f/3.5-5.6 OIS

02/21/2007 06:54:33 PM · #12

how many slots do you have, if you have only 2, Id ditch the 512 and pick up 2 sticks of 1 gigs, if you 4 have try adding just 1 extra gig, if its not to your liking add more without getting rid of your 512 stick

EDIT nevermind- I seen you purchased already

Message edited by author 2007-02-21 18:55:14.

error99

Canon EOS-6D

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED

02/21/2007 07:01:50 PM · #13

If you're indeed running dual channel you now have two sticks of 256meg ram (one stick each channel). "Most" motherboards (not all) more than a couple years old that are dual channel only have three memory slots, which will make it impossible for you to run 2.5gigs. Even if it is a four slot mb, mixing un-like memory types (ie: memory from manufacturer "a" with on set of timings with memory from manufacturer "b" with another set of timings) is tuff to get to work in dual channel mode. I would suggest buying 2gigs of good quality ddr400 and be done with it.

Cutter

Nikon D700

02/21/2007 07:23:14 PM · #14

So I have got a Mac and am running everything with 512 RAM. Are you honestly honestly saying that adding more, I will see a big difference. Because honestly I am fairly okay with the speed now. I mean really feel it??

edit: Oh and do any Mac owners out there know where I can search to verify how much RAM I have w/o opening up the back?

Message edited by author 2007-02-21 19:25:40.

error99

Canon EOS-6D

02/21/2007 07:32:10 PM · #15

Heh, well, there are always exceptions... BUT, I'd be surprised if you didn't notice a difference going from 512 megs to even just one gig. Especially with applications like photoshop, etc.. Though, 2 gigs is really a better place to be.

02/21/2007 07:33:26 PM · #16

Brad P Might jump out and point the know it all finger at me but.

In every benchmark known to man 2 Sticks of ram is better then 4 so if your getting 2 gigs get 2 x 1GB.

error99

Canon EOS-6D

02/21/2007 07:35:18 PM · #17

Originally posted by RainMotorsports:

Brad P Might jump out and point the know it all finger at me but.

In every benchmark known to man 2 Sticks of ram is better then 4 so if your getting 2 gigs get 2 x 1GB.

True, if you're a gamer. If games aren't your "thang" then four sticks/more ram isn't a bad thing.

02/21/2007 07:40:44 PM · #18

Originally posted by error99:

Originally posted by RainMotorsports:
Brad P Might jump out and point the know it all finger at me but.

In every benchmark known to man 2 Sticks of ram is better then 4 so if your getting 2 gigs get 2 x 1GB.

True, if you're a gamer. If games aren't your "thang" then four sticks/more ram isn't a bad thing.

My Bad for being a gamer and over clocking everything to within an inch of its life...... God knows id overclock my camera if i could i did my cell phone and PDA.

02/21/2007 10:17:31 PM · #19

Originally posted by error99:

"Most" motherboards (not all) more than a couple years old that are dual channel only have three memory slots...

Fortunately, my computer does have 4 memory slots. Thanks for the heads up, though.

bood

Canon EOS-5D

02/21/2007 10:20:29 PM · #20

I have 1024 and wanted more - I have space but a reliable source informaed me that it depends on your computer's processor and you could put all the ram in the worl in and it wouldnt make any difference after a point.
Can someone confirm this. I am too ignorant of the insides of my puter to know.

02/21/2007 10:25:12 PM · #21

Originally posted by Keith Maniac:

Originally posted by error99:
"Most" motherboards (not all) more than a couple years old that are dual channel only have three memory slots...

Fortunately, my computer does have 4 memory slots. Thanks for the heads up, though.

Myne has 4 and it supports Dual Channel Ram. SO did atleast 4 of ASUS's boards at the time and 2 that HP used back in 2004.

Message edited by author 2007-02-21 22:25:44.

robs

Canon EOS R6 Mk II

02/21/2007 10:39:32 PM · #22

Depends on os -> On a desktop 2Gb for XP Home, 3Gb for XP Pro (you have to set a switch to use 3Gb). Vista I would guess more :-) Just check as a lot will need to be updated in pairs still and depends on slots available. This link will scan your machine -> Link

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

02/21/2007 11:12:07 PM · #23

Originally posted by robs:

the limit for a 32 bit processor is 4GB of ram per physical processor (sorry dual core dont count) although some 32bit os's only support 2GB.

A 64 bit processor supports over 4GB. Thats the main reason for the 64bit push the 586 (replacemnt for the 486 which actually got replaced by the 32 bit Pentium 1) was suppsoed to be 64bit 10 years ago. cyrix even went as far as to make a 6x86 and the celeron silently carries the same family name.

But anyways yeah 64bit didnt get pushed until we rehit the ram barrier.

There is a limit to how much a procesor can mathmatecly address.

ben4345

Nikon D700

02/21/2007 11:18:15 PM · #24

1GB minimum 2GB or more recommended