Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Processor choice?

Expand Messages
  • Bjørn Kåre Nilssen
    I may have to upgrade my PC now. What wiuld be a good CPU choice for pano stitching with PTgui etc? Would an AMD Phenom II X6 1090T 6-core be a good choice
    Message 1 of 17 , Sep 6, 2010
      I may have to upgrade my PC now.
      What wiuld be a good CPU choice for pano stitching with PTgui etc?
      Would an AMD Phenom II X6 1090T 6-core be a good choice price/power-wise?
      Or would an Intel be a better choice?

      --
      Sendt med Operas revolusjonerende e-postprogram: http://www.opera.com/mail/
    • Trausti Hraunfjord
      Just for you Bjørn: MAC :) Trausti 2010/9/6 Bjørn Kåre Nilssen ... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Message 2 of 17 , Sep 6, 2010
        Just for you Bj�rn:

        MAC :)

        Trausti


        2010/9/6 Bj�rn K�re Nilssen <bk@...>

        >
        >
        > I may have to upgrade my PC now.
        > What wiuld be a good CPU choice for pano stitching with PTgui etc?
        > Would an AMD Phenom II X6 1090T 6-core be a good choice price/power-wise?
        > Or would an Intel be a better choice?
        >
        > --
        > Sendt med Operas revolusjonerende e-postprogram:
        > http://www.opera.com/mail/
        >
        >
        >


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Bjørn Kåre Nilssen
        ... No way I m gonna support that company! I value my freedom too much ;) And I want to build it myself, from the components I choose...
        Message 3 of 17 , Sep 6, 2010
          På Mon, 06 Sep 2010 23:43:00 +0200, skrev Trausti Hraunfjord <trausti.hraunfjord@...>:

          > Just for you Bjørn:
          >
          > MAC :)

          No way I'm gonna support that company!
          I value my freedom too much ;)
          And I want to build it myself, from the components I choose...

          >
          > Trausti
          >
          >
          > 2010/9/6 Bjørn Kåre Nilssen <bk@...>
          >
          >>
          >>
          >> I may have to upgrade my PC now.
          >> What wiuld be a good CPU choice for pano stitching with PTgui etc?
          >> Would an AMD Phenom II X6 1090T 6-core be a good choice price/power-wise?
          >> Or would an Intel be a better choice?
          >>
        • tom_a_sparks
          ... I hope you factor in the windows Tax :) then tom
          Message 4 of 17 , Sep 6, 2010
            --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Bjørn Kåre Nilssen <bk@...> wrote:
            >
            > På Mon, 06 Sep 2010 23:43:00 +0200, skrev Trausti Hraunfjord <trausti.hraunfjord@...>:
            >
            > > Just for you Bjørn:
            > >
            > > MAC :)
            >
            > No way I'm gonna support that company!
            > I value my freedom too much ;)
            > And I want to build it myself, from the components I choose...
            >

            I hope you factor in the windows Tax :) then

            tom
          • Bjørn Kåre Nilssen
            ... Lucky that I save a lot of money by avoiding Apple then ;) BTW, looks like there are very few Win users here? Not a single good advice (I don t count
            Message 5 of 17 , Sep 7, 2010
              På Tue, 07 Sep 2010 03:29:23 +0200, skrev tom_a_sparks <tom_a_sparks@...>:

              > --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Bjørn Kåre Nilssen <bk@...> wrote:
              >>
              >> På Mon, 06 Sep 2010 23:43:00 +0200, skrev Trausti Hraunfjord <trausti.hraunfjord@...>:
              >>
              >> > Just for you Bjørn:
              >> >
              >> > MAC :)
              >>
              >> No way I'm gonna support that company!
              >> I value my freedom too much ;)
              >> And I want to build it myself, from the components I choose...
              >>
              >
              > I hope you factor in the windows Tax :) then
              >tom

              Lucky that I save a lot of money by avoiding Apple then ;)

              BTW, looks like there are very few Win users here?
              Not a single good advice (I don't count Traustis ;) could also mean that the cpu choice isn't that important for stitching? But lots of RAM and SSD counts more?

              --
              Sendt med Operas revolusjonerende e-postprogram: http://www.opera.com/mail/
            • Briar
              I use windows...just had my son produce a new machine, all the bells and whistles, shadow protect back-up, 8 gig ram, Win 7 64 bit, 8 core processor ( I have
              Message 6 of 17 , Sep 7, 2010
                I use windows...just had my son produce a new machine, all the bells and
                whistles, shadow protect back-up, 8 gig ram, Win 7 64 bit, 8 core processor
                ( I have NO idea what this means) but does it fly!!!!
                PTGui produces a 1.5 gig psb file while I make coffee, the old machine took
                all night and then some.

                -----Original Message-----
                From: PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com [mailto:PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com] On
                Behalf Of Bjørn Kåre Nilssen
                Sent: Tuesday, 7 September 2010 9:37 p.m.
                To: PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com
                Subject: Re: [PanoToolsNG] Re: Processor choice?

                På Tue, 07 Sep 2010 03:29:23 +0200, skrev tom_a_sparks
                <tom_a_sparks@...>:

                > --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Bjørn Kåre Nilssen <bk@...> wrote:
                >>
                >> På Mon, 06 Sep 2010 23:43:00 +0200, skrev Trausti Hraunfjord
                <trausti.hraunfjord@...>:
                >>
                >> > Just for you Bjørn:
                >> >
                >> > MAC :)
                >>
                >> No way I'm gonna support that company!
                >> I value my freedom too much ;)
                >> And I want to build it myself, from the components I choose...
                >>
                >
                > I hope you factor in the windows Tax :) then tom

                Lucky that I save a lot of money by avoiding Apple then ;)

                BTW, looks like there are very few Win users here?
                Not a single good advice (I don't count Traustis ;) could also mean that the
                cpu choice isn't that important for stitching? But lots of RAM and SSD
                counts more?

                --
                Sendt med Operas revolusjonerende e-postprogram: http://www.opera.com/mail/



                ------------------------------------

                --
              • Roberto Gomez Torres
                Hello Bjørn, Here Roberto Gomez from Mexico City. I am a long time Wintel user and I have been building my systems from more than 15 years. Hope my advise
                Message 7 of 17 , Sep 7, 2010
                  Hello Bjørn,

                  Here Roberto Gomez from Mexico City.
                  I am a long time Wintel user and I have been building my systems from more
                  than 15 years.
                  Hope my advise could be useful for you.

                  At this time Intel has a technical lead over AMD with it's Core i7 line of
                  CPUs, even an Intel Quad Core can beat an AMD Six core processor on many
                  tests.
                  AMD will release their new CPU generation next year between first and second
                  quarter. So, if you will buy today, go with Intel, in fact the Mac top line
                  of computers use the same processors.

                  At this time I am also upgrading a computer for my father and we choose the
                  following main components:

                  CPU: Intel Core i7 930 (2.80 GHz)
                  Motherboard: Asus P6X58D-E ( includes USB 3.0 and SATA 6G)
                  RAM: Corsair Dominator DDR3 Memory TR3X6G1600C8D ( 12GB )

                  With this components and a good water CPU cooler like the Corsair H50 you
                  can overclock the CPU to at least 3.5 GHz without any risk or problem.
                  And if you do not like the ASUS brand, EVGA has released a couple of
                  equivalent Motherboards ( EVGA X58 SLI3 and EVGA X58 FTW3 ).


                  Hope that helps and please feel free to contact me privately anytime.

                  Enjoy your upgrade !!!

                  =====================
                  Roberto Gómez Torres
                  Tiempo Digital
                  Mexico City, Mexico
                  www.tiempo-digital.com
                  =====================

                  3a. Processor choice?
                  Posted by: "Bjørn Kåre Nilssen" bk@... bknilssen
                  Mon Sep 6, 2010 12:08 pm (PDT)


                  I may have to upgrade my PC now.
                  What wiuld be a good CPU choice for pano stitching with PTgui etc?
                  Would an AMD Phenom II X6 1090T 6-core be a good choice price/power-wise?
                  Or would an Intel be a better choice?
                • Christian Bloch
                  Just as a side note, I found the biggest boost I got for my system is an SSD drive. At least for the OS and the programs - switching back to a drive-based
                  Message 8 of 17 , Sep 7, 2010
                    Just as a side note, I found the biggest boost I got for my system is an SSD drive. At least for the OS and the programs - switching back to a drive-based system feels very painful, you get so easily used to all programs opening immediately.

                    Blochi


                    Sent from my iPad

                    On Sep 7, 2010, at 10:45 AM, "Roberto Gomez Torres" <roberto@...> wrote:

                    > Hello Bjørn,
                    >
                    > Here Roberto Gomez from Mexico City.
                    > I am a long time Wintel user and I have been building my systems from more
                    > than 15 years.
                    > Hope my advise could be useful for you.
                    >
                    > At this time Intel has a technical lead over AMD with it's Core i7 line of
                    > CPUs, even an Intel Quad Core can beat an AMD Six core processor on many
                    > tests.
                    > AMD will release their new CPU generation next year between first and second
                    > quarter. So, if you will buy today, go with Intel, in fact the Mac top line
                    > of computers use the same processors.
                    >
                    > At this time I am also upgrading a computer for my father and we choose the
                    > following main components:
                    >
                    > CPU: Intel Core i7 930 (2.80 GHz)
                    > Motherboard: Asus P6X58D-E ( includes USB 3.0 and SATA 6G)
                    > RAM: Corsair Dominator DDR3 Memory TR3X6G1600C8D ( 12GB )
                    >
                    > With this components and a good water CPU cooler like the Corsair H50 you
                    > can overclock the CPU to at least 3.5 GHz without any risk or problem.
                    > And if you do not like the ASUS brand, EVGA has released a couple of
                    > equivalent Motherboards ( EVGA X58 SLI3 and EVGA X58 FTW3 ).
                    >
                    > Hope that helps and please feel free to contact me privately anytime.
                    >
                    > Enjoy your upgrade !!!
                    >
                    > =====================
                    > Roberto Gómez Torres
                    > Tiempo Digital
                    > Mexico City, Mexico
                    > www.tiempo-digital.com
                    > =====================
                    >
                    > 3a. Processor choice?
                    > Posted by: "Bjørn Kåre Nilssen" bk@... bknilssen
                    > Mon Sep 6, 2010 12:08 pm (PDT)
                    >
                    > I may have to upgrade my PC now.
                    > What wiuld be a good CPU choice for pano stitching with PTgui etc?
                    > Would an AMD Phenom II X6 1090T 6-core be a good choice price/power-wise?
                    > Or would an Intel be a better choice?
                    >
                    >
                    >


                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • Bernhard Vogl
                    ... ..and they re getting cheaper and cheaper: OCZ Z-Drive (PCI-E) with 512 GB MLC - 20.000 IOPs real world performance - 1500 EUR Still though - if you can
                    Message 9 of 17 , Sep 7, 2010
                      Am 07.09.2010 20:36, schrieb Christian Bloch:
                      > Just as a side note, I found the biggest boost I got for my system is an SSD drive. At least for the OS and the programs - switching back to a drive-based system feels very painful, you get so easily used to all programs opening immediately.
                      >
                      > Blochi
                      >
                      ..and they're getting cheaper and cheaper:
                      OCZ Z-Drive (PCI-E) with 512 GB MLC -> 20.000 IOPs real world
                      performance -> 1500 EUR
                      Still though - if you can add more RAM, do that first ;-)

                      Best
                      Bernhard
                    • Tom Sparks
                      ... From: Bernhard Vogl Subject: Re: [PanoToolsNG] Re:Processor choice? To: PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com Received: Wednesday, 8 September,
                      Message 10 of 17 , Sep 7, 2010
                        --- On Wed, 8/9/10, Bernhard Vogl <bvogl@...> wrote:

                        From: Bernhard Vogl <bvogl@...>
                        Subject: Re: [PanoToolsNG] Re:Processor choice?
                        To: PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com
                        Received: Wednesday, 8 September, 2010, 7:33 AM







                         









                        Am 07.09.2010 20:36, schrieb Christian Bloch:

                        > Just as a side note, I found the biggest boost I got for my system is an SSD drive. At least for the OS and the programs - switching back to a drive-based system feels very painful, you get so easily used to all programs opening immediately.

                        >

                        > Blochi

                        >

                        ..and they're getting cheaper and cheaper:

                        OCZ Z-Drive (PCI-E) with 512 GB MLC -> 20.000 IOPs real world

                        performance -> 1500 EUR

                        Still though - if you can add more RAM, do that first ;-)



                        Best

                        BernhardI agree, but SSD drives are out-of-bounds for swap files, I use a Hard drive for my data storage (firefox cache, tmp, apt, etc)



                        tom sparks

















                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • prague
                        +100000000000 hELL yes. get an SSD for your OS/programs if you have more cash, get a second SSD for the scratch disk (of your OS) what an unbelievable speed
                        Message 11 of 17 , Sep 8, 2010
                          +100000000000

                          hELL yes. get an SSD for your OS/programs
                          if you have more cash, get a second SSD for the scratch disk (of your OS)

                          what an unbelievable speed difference :-)


                          --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Christian Bloch <Blochi@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > Just as a side note, I found the biggest boost I got for my system is an SSD drive. At least for the OS and the programs - switching back to a drive-based system feels very painful, you get so easily used to all programs opening immediately.
                          >
                          > Blochi
                          >
                          >
                          > Sent from my iPad
                          >
                          > On Sep 7, 2010, at 10:45 AM, "Roberto Gomez Torres" <roberto@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > > Hello Bjørn,
                          > >
                          > > Here Roberto Gomez from Mexico City.
                          > > I am a long time Wintel user and I have been building my systems from more
                          > > than 15 years.
                          > > Hope my advise could be useful for you.
                          > >
                          > > At this time Intel has a technical lead over AMD with it's Core i7 line of
                          > > CPUs, even an Intel Quad Core can beat an AMD Six core processor on many
                          > > tests.
                          > > AMD will release their new CPU generation next year between first and second
                          > > quarter. So, if you will buy today, go with Intel, in fact the Mac top line
                          > > of computers use the same processors.
                          > >
                          > > At this time I am also upgrading a computer for my father and we choose the
                          > > following main components:
                          > >
                          > > CPU: Intel Core i7 930 (2.80 GHz)
                          > > Motherboard: Asus P6X58D-E ( includes USB 3.0 and SATA 6G)
                          > > RAM: Corsair Dominator DDR3 Memory TR3X6G1600C8D ( 12GB )
                          > >
                          > > With this components and a good water CPU cooler like the Corsair H50 you
                          > > can overclock the CPU to at least 3.5 GHz without any risk or problem.
                          > > And if you do not like the ASUS brand, EVGA has released a couple of
                          > > equivalent Motherboards ( EVGA X58 SLI3 and EVGA X58 FTW3 ).
                          > >
                          > > Hope that helps and please feel free to contact me privately anytime.
                          > >
                          > > Enjoy your upgrade !!!
                          > >
                          > > =====================
                          > > Roberto Gómez Torres
                          > > Tiempo Digital
                          > > Mexico City, Mexico
                          > > www.tiempo-digital.com
                          > > =====================
                          > >
                          > > 3a. Processor choice?
                          > > Posted by: "Bjørn Kåre Nilssen" bk@... bknilssen
                          > > Mon Sep 6, 2010 12:08 pm (PDT)
                          > >
                          > > I may have to upgrade my PC now.
                          > > What wiuld be a good CPU choice for pano stitching with PTgui etc?
                          > > Would an AMD Phenom II X6 1090T 6-core be a good choice price/power-wise?
                          > > Or would an Intel be a better choice?
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          >
                          >
                          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          >
                        • Fabio Bustamante
                          Maybe there s no need to boost scratch disk performance this way. I use Windows 7 with 8gb of RAM and after reading some articles on how Windows is not very
                          Message 12 of 17 , Sep 8, 2010
                            Maybe there's no need to boost scratch disk performance this way.

                            I use Windows 7 with 8gb of RAM and after reading some articles on how
                            Windows is not very smart dealing with lots of RAM (it seems it uses the
                            scratch disk even with plenty RAM available) I simply disabled them, so
                            my OS is running exclusively on RAM.

                            I've been using it this way since Windows 7 RC and I can say it runs
                            flawlessly, even when I have *several* big programs opened at the same
                            time. I don't know what would happen if I try to stitch some gigapixel
                            images, of course.

                            On the other hand SSDs prices are dropping... however I believe in the
                            end RAM is way faster then SSD because of the system's architecture as a
                            whole. I admit I know little about this kind of thing, but I have the
                            impression that SSD has an extremely low latency, but it's still limited
                            to SATA3 bandwidth (600MB/s) while RAM's bandwidth are of tens of GB/s.

                            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_device_bandwidths

                            Em 08/09/2010 05:16, prague escreveu:
                            > +100000000000
                            >
                            > hELL yes. get an SSD for your OS/programs
                            > if you have more cash, get a second SSD for the scratch disk (of your OS)
                            >
                            > what an unbelievable speed difference :-)
                            >
                            >
                          • mrjimbo
                            Fabio, A couple of things.. I don t know what programs your running.. and I will admit up front that I don t have a workstation on Win 7 as yet.. Before you
                            Message 13 of 17 , Sep 8, 2010
                              Fabio,
                              A couple of things.. I don't know what programs your running.. and I will admit up front that I don't have a workstation on Win 7 as yet.. Before you chisel all this logic in stone you may want to check a few things.. Windows holds a % of ram in reserve (more then you think) for OS reserves.. then you have a system scratch disk and then you have Photoshop scratch disks.. (assuming you also use Photoshop).. From a speed standpoint scratch disks are slower then ram by quite a bit .. that's true but typically their still a necessary evil.. Photoshop is designed to let you choose your scratch disk locations.. Most programs don't..

                              You may be running files or operations small enough that you can't see that benefit.. most likely that's the case.

                              Anyway ram is good that is quite true but scratch disks need to be managed to be really beneficial.. The OS is set up and designed to use one (that may account for your poor memory management statement).. ideally if you can have the system scratch disk on a separate hard drive then say Photoshop's scratch disk a benefit will be gotten as their both not working on the same disk at the same time. So logically if there both trying to get info at the same time one my say they can only work half fast or half assed..:-)) . Ram is really not designed to hold a working file it is designed to hold data that is pre or post processed until it can be moved to disk. I have both Macs and PC's here running 8GB ram and with large files a scratch disk is used and is a benefit. I don't have any SSD's in any work stations ...their still to spendy for me.. but they surely would be a huge plus on a properly set up system. I have the new just released ASUS dual core net book on the way with an SSD in it.. so my first real time exposure with an SSD is around the corner. The SSD cost almost as much as the darn Net book....:-(Oh and this thing will be running win 7..)

                              A Photoshop operation that is mathematically intense on a larger file that is in 16 bit is liken to spilling a bucket of water on the floor ..it just spreads out all over the place then has to go back in the bucket on the other end. So it starts in the bucket and ends in the bucket but expands when it's flowing on the floor.. The bucket is always part of the equation no matter what.. so faster read and write speeds on drives are always a plus.. So constructively only looking at scratch disk performance is not seeing the whole picture..The file starts on a disk and ends on a disk.. the processor and ram just do their mojo to it. So when you click ok on an operation the job's not really done until it's back on the drive..

                              jimbo
                              ----- Original Message -----
                              From: Fabio Bustamante
                              To: PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com
                              Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 2010 9:27 AM
                              Subject: Re: [PanoToolsNG] Re:Processor choice?



                              Maybe there's no need to boost scratch disk performance this way.

                              I use Windows 7 with 8gb of RAM and after reading some articles on how
                              Windows is not very smart dealing with lots of RAM (it seems it uses the
                              scratch disk even with plenty RAM available) I simply disabled them, so
                              my OS is running exclusively on RAM.

                              I've been using it this way since Windows 7 RC and I can say it runs
                              flawlessly, even when I have *several* big programs opened at the same
                              time. I don't know what would happen if I try to stitch some gigapixel
                              images, of course.

                              On the other hand SSDs prices are dropping... however I believe in the
                              end RAM is way faster then SSD because of the system's architecture as a
                              whole. I admit I know little about this kind of thing, but I have the
                              impression that SSD has an extremely low latency, but it's still limited
                              to SATA3 bandwidth (600MB/s) while RAM's bandwidth are of tens of GB/s.

                              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_device_bandwidths

                              Em 08/09/2010 05:16, prague escreveu:
                              > +100000000000
                              >
                              > hELL yes. get an SSD for your OS/programs
                              > if you have more cash, get a second SSD for the scratch disk (of your OS)
                              >
                              > what an unbelievable speed difference :-)
                              >
                              >




                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            • Fabio Bustamante
                              ... I m not so sure about that. If that was the case all RAM should be empty after a while at any time. Anyway, as I understand it when I set no scratch disks,
                              Message 14 of 17 , Sep 8, 2010
                                > Ram is really not designed to hold a working file it is designed to hold data that is pre or post processed until it can be moved to disk.

                                I'm not so sure about that. If that was the case all RAM should be empty after a while at any time.

                                Anyway, as I understand it when I set no scratch disks, anything that was going to be done on them will necessarily have to be done somewhere else - in the RAM in this case. I can't really imagine how using a scratch disk would be an advantage over doing the same thing on RAM if it's available.

                                Photoshop does have it's scratch disks indeed (and here they are on a separated HD as you mentioned) but I have absolutely no idea of how much they are used. I do know that as PSD files get more complex the RAM used by photoshop increases (and stay like that instead of getting dumped to the HD right away).

                                Unfortunetly PS doesn't allow having no scratch disk so I can't test if performance improves (and I don't know if 8gb of RAM would be enought to deal with big PSD files just on it). Once I thought about having even more RAM, create a virtual HD (a ramdisk) and fool PS to use it.

                                BTW, does anybody know how to find out how much PS is using of scratch disk at any time?


                                Em 08/09/2010 14:14, mrjimbo escreveu:
                                > Ram is really not designed to hold a working file it is designed to hold data that is pre or post processed until it can be moved to disk
                              • AYRTON
                                Fabio at ADOBE site thy tell you exactly that Photoshop uses it 8 times more than the size of you open file And Adobe explains that for BETTER performance, it
                                Message 15 of 17 , Sep 8, 2010
                                  Fabio
                                  at ADOBE site thy tell you exactly that Photoshop uses it 8 times more than
                                  the size of you open file
                                  And Adobe explains that for BETTER performance, it must have a scracth disk
                                  since PS does NOT go to RAM for everyhting
                                  It uses much more the scracth then the ram

                                  And adobe tells more about sizes of scracth disks maximum size that if I
                                  remember well is over 3 TB !!!!

                                  So the MORE disk space you have for a internal scracth disk
                                  it is muccccccccch better than using only RAM

                                  regards
                                  A


                                  On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 2:50 PM, Fabio Bustamante <
                                  contato@...> wrote:

                                  > > Ram is really not designed to hold a working file it is designed to hold
                                  > data that is pre or post processed until it can be moved to disk.
                                  >
                                  > I'm not so sure about that. If that was the case all RAM should be empty
                                  > after a while at any time.
                                  >
                                  > Anyway, as I understand it when I set no scratch disks, anything that was
                                  > going to be done on them will necessarily have to be done somewhere else -
                                  > in the RAM in this case. I can't really imagine how using a scratch disk
                                  > would be an advantage over doing the same thing on RAM if it's available.
                                  >
                                  > Photoshop does have it's scratch disks indeed (and here they are on a
                                  > separated HD as you mentioned) but I have absolutely no idea of how much
                                  > they are used. I do know that as PSD files get more complex the RAM used by
                                  > photoshop increases (and stay like that instead of getting dumped to the HD
                                  > right away).
                                  >
                                  > Unfortunetly PS doesn't allow having no scratch disk so I can't test if
                                  > performance improves (and I don't know if 8gb of RAM would be enought to
                                  > deal with big PSD files just on it). Once I thought about having even more
                                  > RAM, create a virtual HD (a ramdisk) and fool PS to use it.
                                  >
                                  > BTW, does anybody know how to find out how much PS is using of scratch disk
                                  > at any time?
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > Em 08/09/2010 14:14, mrjimbo escreveu:
                                  > > Ram is really not designed to hold a working file it is designed to hold
                                  > data that is pre or post processed until it can be moved to disk
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > ------------------------------------
                                  >
                                  > --
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >


                                  --
                                  ------------
                                  | A Y R |
                                  | T O N |
                                  ------------
                                  + 55 21 9982 6313 - RIO
                                  + 55 11 3717 5131 - SP
                                  http://ayrton360.com
                                  twitter.com/ayrton360


                                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                • Paulo Fernandes
                                  On photoshop, in the lower left corner of a image window (next to the zoom value) you can choose to show several types of information. Scratch disk size is one
                                  Message 16 of 17 , Sep 8, 2010
                                    On photoshop, in the lower left corner of a image window (next to the zoom value) you can choose to show several types of information. Scratch disk size is one of them ;)

                                    Sent from my iPhone

                                    On 8 de Set de 2010, at 18:50, Fabio Bustamante <contato@...> wrote:

                                    > > Ram is really not designed to hold a working file it is designed to hold data that is pre or post processed until it can be moved to disk.
                                    >
                                    > I'm not so sure about that. If that was the case all RAM should be empty after a while at any time.
                                    >
                                    > Anyway, as I understand it when I set no scratch disks, anything that was going to be done on them will necessarily have to be done somewhere else - in the RAM in this case. I can't really imagine how using a scratch disk would be an advantage over doing the same thing on RAM if it's available.
                                    >
                                    > Photoshop does have it's scratch disks indeed (and here they are on a separated HD as you mentioned) but I have absolutely no idea of how much they are used. I do know that as PSD files get more complex the RAM used by photoshop increases (and stay like that instead of getting dumped to the HD right away).
                                    >
                                    > Unfortunetly PS doesn't allow having no scratch disk so I can't test if performance improves (and I don't know if 8gb of RAM would be enought to deal with big PSD files just on it). Once I thought about having even more RAM, create a virtual HD (a ramdisk) and fool PS to use it.
                                    >
                                    > BTW, does anybody know how to find out how much PS is using of scratch disk at any time?
                                    >
                                    > Em 08/09/2010 14:14, mrjimbo escreveu:
                                    > > Ram is really not designed to hold a working file it is designed to hold data that is pre or post processed until it can be moved to disk
                                    >


                                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                  • Christian Bloch
                                    I have one 10.000 rpm drive specifically for scratch disks and stitching projects (while I work on them). Was already a good speed boost. On a different
                                    Message 17 of 17 , Sep 8, 2010
                                      I have one 10.000 rpm drive specifically for scratch disks and stitching projects (while I work on them). Was already a good speed boost.

                                      On a different machine, at work, we did some interesting tests. Pumped 32 GB of RAM into it, and used a program to dedicate part of it as Virtual Drive. That thing was screaming fast, in this case on a smoke simulation that heavily relies on temp files.... about a 20times boost.

                                      Blochi

                                      Sent from my iPad

                                      On Sep 8, 2010, at 11:28 AM, AYRTON <avi@...> wrote:

                                      > Fabio
                                      > at ADOBE site thy tell you exactly that Photoshop uses it 8 times more than
                                      > the size of you open file
                                      > And Adobe explains that for BETTER performance, it must have a scracth disk
                                      > since PS does NOT go to RAM for everyhting
                                      > It uses much more the scracth then the ram
                                      >
                                      > And adobe tells more about sizes of scracth disks maximum size that if I
                                      > remember well is over 3 TB !!!!
                                      >
                                      > So the MORE disk space you have for a internal scracth disk
                                      > it is muccccccccch better than using only RAM
                                      >
                                      > regards
                                      > A
                                      >
                                      > On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 2:50 PM, Fabio Bustamante <
                                      > contato@...> wrote:
                                      >
                                      > > > Ram is really not designed to hold a working file it is designed to hold
                                      > > data that is pre or post processed until it can be moved to disk.
                                      > >
                                      > > I'm not so sure about that. If that was the case all RAM should be empty
                                      > > after a while at any time.
                                      > >
                                      > > Anyway, as I understand it when I set no scratch disks, anything that was
                                      > > going to be done on them will necessarily have to be done somewhere else -
                                      > > in the RAM in this case. I can't really imagine how using a scratch disk
                                      > > would be an advantage over doing the same thing on RAM if it's available.
                                      > >
                                      > > Photoshop does have it's scratch disks indeed (and here they are on a
                                      > > separated HD as you mentioned) but I have absolutely no idea of how much
                                      > > they are used. I do know that as PSD files get more complex the RAM used by
                                      > > photoshop increases (and stay like that instead of getting dumped to the HD
                                      > > right away).
                                      > >
                                      > > Unfortunetly PS doesn't allow having no scratch disk so I can't test if
                                      > > performance improves (and I don't know if 8gb of RAM would be enought to
                                      > > deal with big PSD files just on it). Once I thought about having even more
                                      > > RAM, create a virtual HD (a ramdisk) and fool PS to use it.
                                      > >
                                      > > BTW, does anybody know how to find out how much PS is using of scratch disk
                                      > > at any time?
                                      > >
                                      > >
                                      > > Em 08/09/2010 14:14, mrjimbo escreveu:
                                      > > > Ram is really not designed to hold a working file it is designed to hold
                                      > > data that is pre or post processed until it can be moved to disk
                                      > >
                                      > >
                                      > > ------------------------------------
                                      > >
                                      > > --
                                      > >
                                      > >
                                      > >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > --
                                      > ------------
                                      > | A Y R |
                                      > | T O N |
                                      > ------------
                                      > + 55 21 9982 6313 - RIO
                                      > + 55 11 3717 5131 - SP
                                      > http://ayrton360.com
                                      > twitter.com/ayrton360
                                      >
                                      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                      >
                                      >


                                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.