Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Re: Processor for photo editting

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: Processor for photo editting

 
 
Rita Berkowitz
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-27-2008
nospam wrote:

> no, it's because photoshop has a much better idea of which parts of an
> image will be needed, depending on what the user is doing. do you
> think adobe has nothing better to do than reimplement what's already
> there?


No, it's because Adobe realizes the idea of a 1.5GB barrier is harder to
sell to the rubes that just got done paying MSRP for CS3. How many people
would buy CS3 if they told you that you need a computer with excellent disk
I/O and SMP? I'll give Adobe credit for following Microsoft's model of just
throwing more RAM in the box. I guess one can look at RAM, at least in this
case, as a cheap pacifier till the rube realizes they got no benefits. I
always laughed at the posts we'd get about people whining about why they
didn't see any improvement in performance after adding several GB of RAM.




Rita

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Ron Hunter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-27-2008
Rita Berkowitz wrote:
> nospam wrote:
>
>> no, it's because photoshop has a much better idea of which parts of an
>> image will be needed, depending on what the user is doing. do you
>> think adobe has nothing better to do than reimplement what's already
>> there?

>
> No, it's because Adobe realizes the idea of a 1.5GB barrier is harder to
> sell to the rubes that just got done paying MSRP for CS3. How many people
> would buy CS3 if they told you that you need a computer with excellent disk
> I/O and SMP? I'll give Adobe credit for following Microsoft's model of
> just
> throwing more RAM in the box. I guess one can look at RAM, at least in
> this
> case, as a cheap pacifier till the rube realizes they got no benefits. I
> always laughed at the posts we'd get about people whining about why they
> didn't see any improvement in performance after adding several GB of RAM.
>
>
>
>
> Rita
>


Adding RAM will help with ALL programs, especially if you have a slow
disk system, and less RAM than your programs/data need. Paging causes a
MAJOR slowdown on Windows systems. I suspect this is because the access
isn't DMA, and/or is done 'bytewise'.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Rita Berkowitz
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-27-2008
Ron Hunter wrote:

> Adding RAM will help with ALL programs, especially if you have a slow
> disk system, and less RAM than your programs/data need. Paging
> causes a MAJOR slowdown on Windows systems. I suspect this is
> because the access isn't DMA, and/or is done 'bytewise'.


Again, this has been covered and is the result of nothing more than poor
disk I/O.




Rita

 
Reply With Quote
 
Ron Hunter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-28-2008
Rita Berkowitz wrote:
> Ron Hunter wrote:
>
>> Adding RAM will help with ALL programs, especially if you have a slow
>> disk system, and less RAM than your programs/data need. Paging
>> causes a MAJOR slowdown on Windows systems. I suspect this is
>> because the access isn't DMA, and/or is done 'bytewise'.

>
> Again, this has been covered and is the result of nothing more than poor
> disk I/O.
>
>
>
>
> Rita


Yes, it IS poor disk I/O, but even the BEST disk I/O is orders of
magnitude slower than even average RAM access.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Rita Berkowitz
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-28-2008
Ron Hunter wrote:

>>> Adding RAM will help with ALL programs, especially if you have a
>>> slow disk system, and less RAM than your programs/data need. Paging
>>> causes a MAJOR slowdown on Windows systems. I suspect this is
>>> because the access isn't DMA, and/or is done 'bytewise'.

>>
>> Again, this has been covered and is the result of nothing more than
>> poor disk I/O.

>
> Yes, it IS poor disk I/O, but even the BEST disk I/O is orders of
> magnitude slower than even average RAM access.


You are finally catching on. That has never been the argument, which Adobe
and companies like them want you to believe. And it seems they hooked you
too. The bottom line here is the better the disk I/O the less RAM you need
and the time it needs to be tied up storing information.





Rita

 
Reply With Quote
 
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-28-2008
Rita Berkowitz <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Ron Hunter wrote:


>> Yes, it IS poor disk I/O, but even the BEST disk I/O is orders of
>> magnitude slower than even average RAM access.


> The bottom line here is the better the disk I/O the less RAM you need
> and the time it needs to be tied up storing information.


Duh. Obviously, all you need, is disk IO that's faster than RAM.


Dear Rita,
would you have some data on the average time to retrive 10MB of
semi-random data from the disk and the same from memory?

You may assume a single 1/3rd stroke of the disk head and 1/2
rotation of the platter before data comes in, if you have no copy
of the Art of Computer Programming to look up a more complete
model of disk behaviour.

Show the complete, relevant math and the URL for spec sheet of
the hard drives you look at at their manufacturers' websites.
Please show where, by your model, the USD is better spent at a
faster disk (which one?) than a USD-identical amount of RAM.


Additionally, you may try to argue about the access speed and
costs of using RAID0.

Additionally, you may try to argue what happens if other
IO-operations are happening.


If you decline to state provable facts --- as I know you will ---
you only prove, again and again, that you spout some rote-learned
truisms without even remote understanding of the necessary
preconditions under which they are true.

-Wolfgang
 
Reply With Quote
 
Paul Allen
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-28-2008
On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 07:36:23 -0400, Rita Berkowitz wrote:

> [...] The bottom line here is the better the disk I/O the
> less RAM you need and the time it needs to be tied up storing
> information.


Ummm, no. The bottom line is that RAM is orders of magnitude
faster than disk. Improving the bandwidth to the disks is
certainly a good thing, but adding enough RAM to avoid paging
will always be a better thing.

Yes, there is such a thing as massively-parallel storage.
PNNL is getting astounding storage throughput on their compute
cluster, for example. They do have the resources of a national
government to draw on, however. For the rest of us, the first
strategy is to max out RAM. Then, throw boxes of striped 10krpm
disks with multiple PCIe controllers at the problem. Then,
apply for a grant from the DOE.

Paul Allen
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Re: Processor for photo editting Rita Berkowitz Digital Photography 21 04-01-2008 03:18 AM
Re: Processor for photo editting Rita Berkowitz Digital Photography 4 03-27-2008 02:06 PM
Re: Processor for photo editting Rita Berkowitz Digital Photography 11 03-26-2008 11:43 AM
editting forwarded emails Lou Firefox 3 08-02-2005 07:49 PM
Adding - editting headers with OE Some1 Computer Support 22 03-04-2004 11:51 PM



Advertisments