| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/07/2008 08:15:25 AM · #26 |
Originally posted by Jimbo_for_life:
Originally posted by Bobster:
video card has nothing to do with processing images in Photoshop (only for the redraw) |
so if i put my 4mb rageII in my comp it will run cs3 the same as if i have a 128mb radeon 9700 pro? |
appart from you'll be running at a lower res, yes :)
the ideal amount of RAM for a Video card is 8MB, this will allow 1600x1200 @ 24bit
Message edited by author 2008-02-07 08:21:26. |
|
|
|
02/07/2008 08:19:48 AM · #27 |
Originally posted by Quasimojo:
If you want to speed things up generally, get a Raptor 37gb 10k drive and use that as your main system drive with OS and pagefile on it. Keep your existing 160gb drive as your data and application drive. Place CS3 scratchdisk on 47gb, app on 160gb and see how you get on. |
47GB Scratch! what the chips?
you shouldn't need anything above 10GB for scratch (i work on files that regularly hit 1.5GB in size)
my system zings in Photoshop and i only have 10GB set as a partition right after my system partition
i have to say that when i had Vista on my machine i didn't notice any problems with the speed (ok was on Vista64 and it has better memory management) on the most part i found Vista very responsive compaired to XP - the only reason i took it off and went back to XP64, was because my 3D modeling app isnt' supported with Vista yet.. |
|
|
|
02/07/2008 04:30:43 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by Bobster:
Originally posted by Jimbo_for_life:
Originally posted by Bobster:
video card has nothing to do with processing images in Photoshop (only for the redraw) |
so if i put my 4mb rageII in my comp it will run cs3 the same as if i have a 128mb radeon 9700 pro? |
appart from you'll be running at a lower res, yes :)
the ideal amount of RAM for a Video card is 8MB, this will allow 1600x1200 @ 24bit |
well that cant be the right answer cause photoshop cs3 minimum requirements are that of a 64mb card, infact the program wouldnt even open... and itch having a low end 64mb card not being able to process at the speeds of a high end 128mb or 256mb card i can guarentee that is a great reason for photoshop to fumble.
actually, i know it for a fact that it has an effect because my parents computer had my old lowend GeForce4 128mb card in it and it couldnt properly run photoshop cs2 so i had to keep PS7 on it. but my computer with the radeon 9700pro would run cs2 fine. well im done arguing... hi |
|
|
|
02/07/2008 05:07:54 PM · #29 |
Have you engaged Adobe about your situation? Instead of speculation and guessing here, give them a call and open an incident ticket with them.
|
|
|
|
02/07/2008 05:11:00 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by Bobster:
[quote=Quasimojo]47GB Scratch! what the chips?
you shouldn't need anything above 10GB for scratch (i work on files that regularly hit 1.5GB in size) |
That should have read something like 'on the 37gb drive' (the 47 was a typo) but I really meant that as the location of the scratch file not the size. Just the fact that it's on a separate physical drive to the application and data will increase performance.
N |
|
|
|
02/07/2008 05:16:00 PM · #31 |
I have Nvidia onboard on my 2Gb laptop, Vista and CS3 extended runs fine. I have ATI Sapphire Radeon 256mb dual output graphics on my desktop, XP Pro and CS3 works fine? I also have Lightroom on both. No problems.
I still say you need a good quality graphics card!! |
|
|
|
02/07/2008 06:00:59 PM · #32 |
Seeing as the OP hasn't posted back in a while, I think we are talking to ourselves now. ;-)
I'll add, the OP's problems were slowness with stitching, gusian blur, USM and other filters. Disks will have nothing to do with the performance of these issues, unless there is so little RAM that system is swapping to disk (if so, the performance would be unbearable), video cards will have some impact but not much. The key element here, IMO, is RAM. The OP mentioned 2.5 GB total RAM, A very odd number. The OP also mentioned his son installed the RAM.
If the RAM sticks installed have different speeds, performace will take a major hit, as will stability. Every PC manufacture recommends having matching RAM specs across the memory banks, size and speed.
Seeing as you can buy 4 GB RAM for under $100, I would first do that and see if things improve. Especially before I go buy a high dollar 10,000 RPM drive that will have little or no effect on the issues mentioned. XP won't be able to use the entire 4GB, but ti will use over 3 GB. Even 2 GB matched will perform better than 2.5 GB unmatched.
The video card, to my knowledge, as little to do with the the filter processing. These filters rely on the processor (CPU) and RAM.
|
|
|
|
02/07/2008 06:05:17 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Seeing as the OP hasn't posted back in a while, I think we are talking to ourselves now. ;-)
I'll add, the OP's problems were slowness with stitching, gusian blur, USM and other filters. Disks will have nothing to do with the performance of these issues, unless there is so little RAM that system is swapping to disk (if so, the performance would be unbearable), video cards will have some impact but not much. The key element here, IMO, is RAM. The OP mentioned 2.5 GB total RAM, A very odd number. The OP also mentioned his son installed the RAM.
If the RAM sticks installed have different speeds, performace will take a major hit, as will stability. Every PC manufacture recommends having matching RAM specs across the memory banks, size and speed.
Seeing as you can buy 4 GB RAM for under $100, I would first do that and see if things improve. Especially before I go buy a high dollar 10,000 RPM drive that will have little or no effect on the issues mentioned. XP won't be able to use the entire 4GB, but ti will use over 3 GB. Even 2 GB matched will perform better than 2.5 GB unmatched.
The video card, to my knowledge, as little to do with the the filter processing. These filters rely on the processor (CPU) and RAM. |
Okay, so my 1.5gb desktop is under RAMMED? Why load it with RAM when 2.5gb should be plenty?
Perhaps I am such a PC novice that I should stop building PCs! |
|
|
|
02/07/2008 06:20:32 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by SteveJ:
Okay, so my 1.5gb desktop is under RAMMED? Why load it with RAM when 2.5gb should be plenty?
Perhaps I am such a PC novice that I should stop building PCs! |
It depends. Are you running PS? Are you having performance problems with things like smart sharpen like the OP is? Those things are RAM intensive, and 1.5Gb may not be enough, especially if you're running Vista and have other stuff running at the same time as PS. Most consumer PC's come with a load of crapware running that sucks up memory like crazy.
edit to add: Just read your earlier post. Vista is a pig compared to XP. 1.5 GB with XP is tight, but reasonable. 1.5 GB with Vista probably isn't.
Message edited by author 2008-02-07 18:22:35. |
|
|
|
02/07/2008 06:35:32 PM · #35 |
| im still watching... i reinstalled windows cleanly and defreagged everything and also i used some tweaks i found on google for vista and everyrthing seems much quicker.... however cs3 is now crashing alot??? i have the disk so i dont know why it is!!! hmmm |
|
|
|
02/07/2008 06:45:05 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by SteveJ:
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Seeing as the OP hasn't posted back in a while, I think we are talking to ourselves now. ;-)
I'll add, the OP's problems were slowness with stitching, gusian blur, USM and other filters. Disks will have nothing to do with the performance of these issues, unless there is so little RAM that system is swapping to disk (if so, the performance would be unbearable), video cards will have some impact but not much. The key element here, IMO, is RAM. The OP mentioned 2.5 GB total RAM, A very odd number. The OP also mentioned his son installed the RAM.
If the RAM sticks installed have different speeds, performace will take a major hit, as will stability. Every PC manufacture recommends having matching RAM specs across the memory banks, size and speed.
Seeing as you can buy 4 GB RAM for under $100, I would first do that and see if things improve. Especially before I go buy a high dollar 10,000 RPM drive that will have little or no effect on the issues mentioned. XP won't be able to use the entire 4GB, but ti will use over 3 GB. Even 2 GB matched will perform better than 2.5 GB unmatched.
The video card, to my knowledge, as little to do with the the filter processing. These filters rely on the processor (CPU) and RAM. |
Okay, so my 1.5gb desktop is under RAMMED? Why load it with RAM when 2.5gb should be plenty?
Perhaps I am such a PC novice that I should stop building PCs! |
You missed my point, I am saying IF the RAM istalled is a hodge podge of different speeds (800mghz, 667, mghz, etc.) you will have issues. 1.5 GB of matched speed RAM will perform better than 2.5 GB of mismatched speeds.
From the OP's specs, he should be OK on performance. Processor is fine, memory size is fine, onboard video is iffy, but hardly something that would cause those kinds of issues.
That's all! ;-)
|
|
|
|
02/07/2008 06:46:22 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by itch:
im still watching... i reinstalled windows cleanly and defreagged everything and also i used some tweaks i found on google for vista and everyrthing seems much quicker.... however cs3 is now crashing alot??? i have the disk so i dont know why it is!!! hmmm |
Again, it sounds like a memory issue. Have you checked your RAM specs? |
|
|
|
02/07/2008 06:47:44 PM · #38 |
| i just got my lil bro to check the ram and he says its cool it matches!!! thanks for the advice... im seriously thinking of just getting a mac |
|
|
|
02/07/2008 06:51:46 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by itch:
i just got my lil bro to check the ram and he says its cool it matches!!! thanks for the advice... im seriously thinking of just getting a mac |
Now you're talking!! I use Macs exclusively at home, PCs at work because they make me. You can usualy find me bashing heads in the Mac vs PC threads. ;-)
But seriously, you should be OK with the specs on your PC. Could be a bad RAM stick even. All the symptoms you mention point to memory (RAM) issues.
I just bought a 20" iMac for my wife. What an awesome machine.
Message edited by author 2008-02-07 18:52:12. |
|
|
|
02/07/2008 06:52:21 PM · #40 |
eww... mac... no... they claim to be so good, yet they make it so they can multiplaform and load windows on there machines... ick:P you got a friend you can bum a diecent gfx card to test out? or a different computer with one? get a cheep 100 buck one from wally world would even do you good. no offence mac lovers:)
Message edited by author 2008-02-07 18:52:55. |
|
|
|
02/07/2008 06:54:45 PM · #41 |
| yeah nut mac look pretty!!!!! i love the macbooks too.... this could get expensive... anyone use the cheaper macbook with cs3... ???? handy for tethered shoots too! |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/16/2025 07:02:35 PM EDT.
