Graphics card and photoshop.

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Rudy Benner, Feb 4, 2007.

  1. Rudy Benner

    Rudy Benner Guest

    I am considering an upgrade to my graphics card. It would seem that by
    current standards, its ancient.

    Will a better graphics card result in better (faster) Photoshop cs2
    performance?


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

    I have 2 gig ram, a 40 gig scratch disk, P4 cpu.
     
    Rudy Benner, Feb 4, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. On Sun, 4 Feb 2007 09:56:49 -0500, in rec.photo.digital "Rudy Benner"
    <> wrote:

    >I am considering an upgrade to my graphics card. It would seem that by
    >current standards, its ancient.
    >
    >Will a better graphics card result in better (faster) Photoshop cs2
    >performance?


    None, that you should see on a decent computer.
    --
    Ed Ruf ()
    http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index.html
     
    Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!), Feb 4, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Rudy Benner

    Ken Lucke Guest

    In article <>, Rudy Benner
    <> wrote:

    > I am considering an upgrade to my graphics card. It would seem that by
    > current standards, its ancient.
    >
    > Will a better graphics card result in better (faster) Photoshop cs2
    > performance?


    Possibly, but the main area that high-end graphics cards are really
    designed to be better at are speed - for the multitude of gaming
    addicts. :^) Your gains may not be all that noticeable for static
    applications - Photoshop's speed can probably be increased much more by
    the addition of more main RAM.

    --
    You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a
    reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating
    the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for
    independence.
    -- Charles A. Beard
     
    Ken Lucke, Feb 4, 2007
    #3
  4. ? "Ken Lucke" <> ?????? ??? ??????
    news:040220070933317284%...
    > In article <>, Rudy Benner
    > <> wrote:
    >
    > > I am considering an upgrade to my graphics card. It would seem that by
    > > current standards, its ancient.
    > >
    > > Will a better graphics card result in better (faster) Photoshop cs2
    > > performance?

    >
    > Possibly, but the main area that high-end graphics cards are really
    > designed to be better at are speed - for the multitude of gaming
    > addicts. :^) Your gains may not be all that noticeable for static
    > applications - Photoshop's speed can probably be increased much more by
    > the addition of more main RAM.
    >

    Or by tweaking your windows.With a 2.4 Ghz celeron and 512 MB and geforce
    4mx 440 64 MB I play doom 3 guake 4 WoW and HL-2 online and have dsl and do
    video editing...



    --
    Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
    major in electrical engineering
    mechanized infantry reservist
    dimtzort AT otenet DOT gr
    > --
    > You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a
    > reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating
    > the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for
    > independence.
    > -- Charles A. Beard
     
    Tzortzakakis Dimitrios, Feb 4, 2007
    #4
  5. Rudy Benner

    Rudy Benner Guest

    "Ken Lucke" <> wrote in message
    news:040220070933317284%...
    > In article <>, Rudy Benner
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> I am considering an upgrade to my graphics card. It would seem that by
    >> current standards, its ancient.
    >>
    >> Will a better graphics card result in better (faster) Photoshop cs2
    >> performance?

    >
    > Possibly, but the main area that high-end graphics cards are really
    > designed to be better at are speed - for the multitude of gaming
    > addicts. :^) Your gains may not be all that noticeable for static
    > applications - Photoshop's speed can probably be increased much more by
    > the addition of more main RAM.
    >
    > --
    > You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a
    > reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating
    > the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for
    > independence.
    > -- Charles A. Beard


    Yes, I am at the limit of ram for this motherboard/cpu combination.
     
    Rudy Benner, Feb 4, 2007
    #5
  6. On Sun, 4 Feb 2007 15:07:38 -0500, in rec.photo.digital "Rudy Benner"
    <> wrote:

    >
    >Yes, I am at the limit of ram for this motherboard/cpu combination.


    Ok. What about your virtual memory? How fast is you HD and where is the
    swap files and the CS2 scratch disk. Better is these are on another
    physical disk, separate from the disk the OS and app are on.
    --
    Ed Ruf ()
    http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index.html
     
    Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!), Feb 4, 2007
    #6
  7. Rudy Benner

    Rudy Benner Guest

    "Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!)" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Sun, 4 Feb 2007 15:07:38 -0500, in rec.photo.digital "Rudy Benner"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>Yes, I am at the limit of ram for this motherboard/cpu combination.

    >
    > Ok. What about your virtual memory? How fast is you HD and where is the
    > swap files and the CS2 scratch disk. Better is these are on another
    > physical disk, separate from the disk the OS and app are on.
    > --
    > Ed Ruf ()
    > http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index.html


    Virtual ram is another 1.5 gig, located on another drive from the system
    files, swap disk is on a 40 gig drive, used exclusively for photoshop swap
    file and for a few other apps that need this, like PTGui.

    All HDDs are 7200 rpm. (the swap drive is my old system drive, replaced by a
    160 gig HDD). I also have a 120 gig drive for media files and the virtual
    memory.

    I am not a gamer, hate the humilation.
     
    Rudy Benner, Feb 4, 2007
    #7
  8. Rudy Benner

    Rudy Benner Guest

    "Rudy Benner" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > "Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!)" <> wrote in
    > message news:...
    >> On Sun, 4 Feb 2007 15:07:38 -0500, in rec.photo.digital "Rudy Benner"
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>>Yes, I am at the limit of ram for this motherboard/cpu combination.

    >>
    >> Ok. What about your virtual memory? How fast is you HD and where is the
    >> swap files and the CS2 scratch disk. Better is these are on another
    >> physical disk, separate from the disk the OS and app are on.
    >> --
    >> Ed Ruf ()
    >> http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index.html

    >
    > Virtual ram is another 1.5 gig, located on another drive from the system
    > files, swap disk is on a 40 gig drive, used exclusively for photoshop swap
    > file and for a few other apps that need this, like PTGui.
    >
    > All HDDs are 7200 rpm. (the swap drive is my old system drive, replaced by
    > a 160 gig HDD). I also have a 120 gig drive for media files and the
    > virtual memory.
    >
    > I am not a gamer, hate the humilation.
    >


    More info....

    160 gig drive - two partitions, second partition is a ghost of system
    partition.
    120 gig drive - image files and virtual memory
    40 gig drive - swap files for photoshop and ptgui etc.

    2 optical drives - CD and DVD

    You think its enough?

    Oh yes, also a couple of USB drives, 40 gig and 60 gig.
     
    Rudy Benner, Feb 4, 2007
    #8
  9. Rudy Benner

    Mark² Guest

    Rudy Benner wrote:
    > I am considering an upgrade to my graphics card. It would seem that by
    > current standards, its ancient.
    >
    > Will a better graphics card result in better (faster) Photoshop cs2
    > performance?
    >
    >
    > -------------------------------------------
    >
    > I have 2 gig ram, a 40 gig scratch disk, P4 cpu.


    Any decent video card will render the screen fairly quickly. The actual
    screen-drawing needed for photoshop isn't that large a drain...so long as it
    can easily handle the resolution your screen demands. That's not the
    bottleneck for photoshop. More important would be to look for a video card
    whose driver allows for careful adjustment of color, and that handles
    monitor profiles well. Most of the souped up gaming cards work quite well,
    because they've got memory and speed to spare, and often have sophisticated
    color handling too.

    To speed up photoshop, you want gobs of (RAM 2GB-4GB), a separate, internal,
    physical drive to use as the scratch disk (virtual memory, specially used by
    photoshop), and a fast processor. Having the scratch disk as a separate,
    physical drive (as opposed to a partition on the same drive) can be
    important for speed.


    --
    Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
    www.pbase.com/markuson
     
    Mark², Feb 4, 2007
    #9
  10. Rudy Benner

    Rudy Benner Guest

    "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
    news:Slsxh.10462$...
    > Rudy Benner wrote:
    >> I am considering an upgrade to my graphics card. It would seem that by
    >> current standards, its ancient.
    >>
    >> Will a better graphics card result in better (faster) Photoshop cs2
    >> performance?
    >>
    >>
    >> -------------------------------------------
    >>
    >> I have 2 gig ram, a 40 gig scratch disk, P4 cpu.

    >
    > Any decent video card will render the screen fairly quickly. The actual
    > screen-drawing needed for photoshop isn't that large a drain...so long as
    > it can easily handle the resolution your screen demands. That's not the
    > bottleneck for photoshop. More important would be to look for a video
    > card whose driver allows for careful adjustment of color, and that handles
    > monitor profiles well. Most of the souped up gaming cards work quite
    > well, because they've got memory and speed to spare, and often have
    > sophisticated color handling too.
    >
    > To speed up photoshop, you want gobs of (RAM 2GB-4GB), a separate,
    > internal, physical drive to use as the scratch disk (virtual memory,
    > specially used by photoshop), and a fast processor. Having the scratch
    > disk as a separate, physical drive (as opposed to a partition on the same
    > drive) can be important for speed.
    >
    >
    > --
    > Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
    > www.pbase.com/markuson
    >
    >


    I will double the virtual ram to 4 gig.
     
    Rudy Benner, Feb 4, 2007
    #10
  11. Rudy Benner

    Mark² Guest

    Rudy Benner wrote:
    > "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
    > news:Slsxh.10462$...
    >> Rudy Benner wrote:
    >>> I am considering an upgrade to my graphics card. It would seem that
    >>> by current standards, its ancient.
    >>>
    >>> Will a better graphics card result in better (faster) Photoshop cs2
    >>> performance?
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> -------------------------------------------
    >>>
    >>> I have 2 gig ram, a 40 gig scratch disk, P4 cpu.

    >>
    >> Any decent video card will render the screen fairly quickly. The
    >> actual screen-drawing needed for photoshop isn't that large a
    >> drain...so long as it can easily handle the resolution your screen
    >> demands. That's not the bottleneck for photoshop. More important
    >> would be to look for a video card whose driver allows for careful
    >> adjustment of color, and that handles monitor profiles well. Most
    >> of the souped up gaming cards work quite well, because they've got
    >> memory and speed to spare, and often have sophisticated color
    >> handling too. To speed up photoshop, you want gobs of (RAM 2GB-4GB), a
    >> separate,
    >> internal, physical drive to use as the scratch disk (virtual memory,
    >> specially used by photoshop), and a fast processor. Having the
    >> scratch disk as a separate, physical drive (as opposed to a
    >> partition on the same drive) can be important for speed.
    >>
    >>
    >> --
    >> Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
    >> www.pbase.com/markuson
    >>
    >>

    >
    > I will double the virtual ram to 4 gig.


    How large are the typical files you work on, and how many history states do
    you allow in PS?


    --
    Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
    www.pbase.com/markuson
     
    Mark², Feb 4, 2007
    #11
  12. Rudy Benner

    Ken Lucke Guest

    In article <>, Rudy Benner
    <> wrote:

    > "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
    > news:Slsxh.10462$...
    > > Rudy Benner wrote:
    > >> I am considering an upgrade to my graphics card. It would seem that by
    > >> current standards, its ancient.
    > >>
    > >> Will a better graphics card result in better (faster) Photoshop cs2
    > >> performance?
    > >>
    > >>
    > >> -------------------------------------------
    > >>
    > >> I have 2 gig ram, a 40 gig scratch disk, P4 cpu.

    > >
    > > Any decent video card will render the screen fairly quickly. The actual
    > > screen-drawing needed for photoshop isn't that large a drain...so long as
    > > it can easily handle the resolution your screen demands. That's not the
    > > bottleneck for photoshop. More important would be to look for a video
    > > card whose driver allows for careful adjustment of color, and that handles
    > > monitor profiles well. Most of the souped up gaming cards work quite
    > > well, because they've got memory and speed to spare, and often have
    > > sophisticated color handling too.
    > >
    > > To speed up photoshop, you want gobs of (RAM 2GB-4GB), a separate,
    > > internal, physical drive to use as the scratch disk (virtual memory,
    > > specially used by photoshop), and a fast processor. Having the scratch
    > > disk as a separate, physical drive (as opposed to a partition on the same
    > > drive) can be important for speed.
    > >
    > >
    > > --
    > > Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
    > > www.pbase.com/markuson
    > >
    > >

    >
    > I will double the virtual ram to 4 gig.
    >


    Virtual memory SLOWS DOWN a computer.

    --
    You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a
    reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating
    the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for
    independence.
    -- Charles A. Beard
     
    Ken Lucke, Feb 4, 2007
    #12
  13. Rudy Benner

    Rudy Benner Guest

    "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
    news:Yctxh.37618$...
    > Rudy Benner wrote:
    >> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
    >> news:Slsxh.10462$...
    >>> Rudy Benner wrote:
    >>>> I am considering an upgrade to my graphics card. It would seem that
    >>>> by current standards, its ancient.
    >>>>
    >>>> Will a better graphics card result in better (faster) Photoshop cs2
    >>>> performance?
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> -------------------------------------------
    >>>>
    >>>> I have 2 gig ram, a 40 gig scratch disk, P4 cpu.
    >>>
    >>> Any decent video card will render the screen fairly quickly. The
    >>> actual screen-drawing needed for photoshop isn't that large a
    >>> drain...so long as it can easily handle the resolution your screen
    >>> demands. That's not the bottleneck for photoshop. More important
    >>> would be to look for a video card whose driver allows for careful
    >>> adjustment of color, and that handles monitor profiles well. Most
    >>> of the souped up gaming cards work quite well, because they've got
    >>> memory and speed to spare, and often have sophisticated color
    >>> handling too. To speed up photoshop, you want gobs of (RAM 2GB-4GB), a
    >>> separate,
    >>> internal, physical drive to use as the scratch disk (virtual memory,
    >>> specially used by photoshop), and a fast processor. Having the
    >>> scratch disk as a separate, physical drive (as opposed to a
    >>> partition on the same drive) can be important for speed.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> --
    >>> Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
    >>> www.pbase.com/markuson
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >> I will double the virtual ram to 4 gig.

    >
    > How large are the typical files you work on, and how many history states
    > do you allow in PS?
    >
    >
    > --
    > Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
    > www.pbase.com/markuson
    >
    >


    I like working with panoramas, the files get HUGE, TIFF of course. 100 meg
    is not unusual. The stitched product can easily reach 500 meg.

    If I could put more physical ram on this motherboard, I would do so.
     
    Rudy Benner, Feb 4, 2007
    #13
  14. Rudy Benner

    Mark² Guest

    Rudy Benner wrote:
    > "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
    > news:Yctxh.37618$...
    >> Rudy Benner wrote:
    >>> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in
    >>> message news:Slsxh.10462$...
    >>>> Rudy Benner wrote:
    >>>>> I am considering an upgrade to my graphics card. It would seem
    >>>>> that by current standards, its ancient.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Will a better graphics card result in better (faster) Photoshop
    >>>>> cs2 performance?
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> -------------------------------------------
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I have 2 gig ram, a 40 gig scratch disk, P4 cpu.
    >>>>
    >>>> Any decent video card will render the screen fairly quickly. The
    >>>> actual screen-drawing needed for photoshop isn't that large a
    >>>> drain...so long as it can easily handle the resolution your screen
    >>>> demands. That's not the bottleneck for photoshop. More important
    >>>> would be to look for a video card whose driver allows for careful
    >>>> adjustment of color, and that handles monitor profiles well. Most
    >>>> of the souped up gaming cards work quite well, because they've got
    >>>> memory and speed to spare, and often have sophisticated color
    >>>> handling too. To speed up photoshop, you want gobs of (RAM
    >>>> 2GB-4GB), a separate,
    >>>> internal, physical drive to use as the scratch disk (virtual
    >>>> memory, specially used by photoshop), and a fast processor. Having the
    >>>> scratch disk as a separate, physical drive (as opposed
    >>>> to a partition on the same drive) can be important for speed.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> --
    >>>> Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
    >>>> www.pbase.com/markuson
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> I will double the virtual ram to 4 gig.

    >>
    >> How large are the typical files you work on, and how many history
    >> states do you allow in PS?
    >>
    >>
    >> --
    >> Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
    >> www.pbase.com/markuson
    >>
    >>

    >
    > I like working with panoramas, the files get HUGE, TIFF of course.
    > 100 meg is not unusual. The stitched product can easily reach 500 meg.
    >
    > If I could put more physical ram on this motherboard, I would do so.


    Sounds like it's time for a new motherboard.

    --
    Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
    www.pbase.com/markuson
     
    Mark², Feb 5, 2007
    #14
  15. Rudy Benner

    Mark² Guest

    Ken Lucke wrote:
    > In article <>, Rudy Benner
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
    >> news:Slsxh.10462$...
    >>> Rudy Benner wrote:
    >>>> I am considering an upgrade to my graphics card. It would seem
    >>>> that by current standards, its ancient.
    >>>>
    >>>> Will a better graphics card result in better (faster) Photoshop cs2
    >>>> performance?
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> -------------------------------------------
    >>>>
    >>>> I have 2 gig ram, a 40 gig scratch disk, P4 cpu.
    >>>
    >>> Any decent video card will render the screen fairly quickly. The
    >>> actual screen-drawing needed for photoshop isn't that large a
    >>> drain...so long as it can easily handle the resolution your screen
    >>> demands. That's not the bottleneck for photoshop. More important
    >>> would be to look for a video card whose driver allows for careful
    >>> adjustment of color, and that handles monitor profiles well. Most
    >>> of the souped up gaming cards work quite well, because they've got
    >>> memory and speed to spare, and often have sophisticated color
    >>> handling too.
    >>>
    >>> To speed up photoshop, you want gobs of (RAM 2GB-4GB), a separate,
    >>> internal, physical drive to use as the scratch disk (virtual memory,
    >>> specially used by photoshop), and a fast processor. Having the
    >>> scratch disk as a separate, physical drive (as opposed to a
    >>> partition on the same drive) can be important for speed.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> --
    >>> Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
    >>> www.pbase.com/markuson
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >> I will double the virtual ram to 4 gig.
    >>

    >
    > Virtual memory SLOWS DOWN a computer.


    The scratch disk used by photoshop doesn't. That's not the same as the
    Windows cache...

    --
    Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
    www.pbase.com/markuson
     
    Mark², Feb 5, 2007
    #15
  16. Rudy Benner

    Ken Lucke Guest

    In article <zpxxh.37645$>, Mark² < here)@cox..net>
    wrote:

    > Ken Lucke wrote:
    > > In article <>, Rudy Benner
    > > <> wrote:
    > >
    > >> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
    > >> news:Slsxh.10462$...
    > >>> Rudy Benner wrote:
    > >>>> I am considering an upgrade to my graphics card. It would seem
    > >>>> that by current standards, its ancient.
    > >>>>
    > >>>> Will a better graphics card result in better (faster) Photoshop cs2
    > >>>> performance?
    > >>>>
    > >>>>
    > >>>> -------------------------------------------
    > >>>>
    > >>>> I have 2 gig ram, a 40 gig scratch disk, P4 cpu.
    > >>>
    > >>> Any decent video card will render the screen fairly quickly. The
    > >>> actual screen-drawing needed for photoshop isn't that large a
    > >>> drain...so long as it can easily handle the resolution your screen
    > >>> demands. That's not the bottleneck for photoshop. More important
    > >>> would be to look for a video card whose driver allows for careful
    > >>> adjustment of color, and that handles monitor profiles well. Most
    > >>> of the souped up gaming cards work quite well, because they've got
    > >>> memory and speed to spare, and often have sophisticated color
    > >>> handling too.
    > >>>
    > >>> To speed up photoshop, you want gobs of (RAM 2GB-4GB), a separate,
    > >>> internal, physical drive to use as the scratch disk (virtual memory,
    > >>> specially used by photoshop), and a fast processor. Having the
    > >>> scratch disk as a separate, physical drive (as opposed to a
    > >>> partition on the same drive) can be important for speed.
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >>> --
    > >>> Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
    > >>> www.pbase.com/markuson
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >>
    > >> I will double the virtual ram to 4 gig.
    > >>

    > >
    > > Virtual memory SLOWS DOWN a computer.

    >
    > The scratch disk used by photoshop doesn't. That's not the same as the
    > Windows cache...


    It _has_ to, by the mere way it works. Disk writes & reads are ALWAYS
    slower than in memory operations. Besides, he said he'd increas
    _virtual_ _memory_, /not/ the scratch disk size.

    --
    You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a
    reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating
    the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for
    independence.
    -- Charles A. Beard
     
    Ken Lucke, Feb 5, 2007
    #16
  17. Rudy Benner

    Mark² Guest

    Ken Lucke wrote:
    > In article <zpxxh.37645$>, Mark² <
    > here)@cox..net> wrote:
    >
    >> Ken Lucke wrote:
    >>> In article <>, Rudy Benner
    >>> <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in
    >>>> message news:Slsxh.10462$...
    >>>>> Rudy Benner wrote:
    >>>>>> I am considering an upgrade to my graphics card. It would seem
    >>>>>> that by current standards, its ancient.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Will a better graphics card result in better (faster) Photoshop
    >>>>>> cs2 performance?
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> -------------------------------------------
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> I have 2 gig ram, a 40 gig scratch disk, P4 cpu.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Any decent video card will render the screen fairly quickly. The
    >>>>> actual screen-drawing needed for photoshop isn't that large a
    >>>>> drain...so long as it can easily handle the resolution your screen
    >>>>> demands. That's not the bottleneck for photoshop. More important
    >>>>> would be to look for a video card whose driver allows for careful
    >>>>> adjustment of color, and that handles monitor profiles well. Most
    >>>>> of the souped up gaming cards work quite well, because they've got
    >>>>> memory and speed to spare, and often have sophisticated color
    >>>>> handling too.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> To speed up photoshop, you want gobs of (RAM 2GB-4GB), a separate,
    >>>>> internal, physical drive to use as the scratch disk (virtual
    >>>>> memory, specially used by photoshop), and a fast processor.
    >>>>> Having the scratch disk as a separate, physical drive (as opposed
    >>>>> to a partition on the same drive) can be important for speed.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> --
    >>>>> Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
    >>>>> www.pbase.com/markuson
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> I will double the virtual ram to 4 gig.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> Virtual memory SLOWS DOWN a computer.

    >>
    >> The scratch disk used by photoshop doesn't. That's not the same as
    >> the Windows cache...

    >
    > It _has_ to, by the mere way it works. Disk writes & reads are ALWAYS
    > slower than in memory operations. Besides, he said he'd increas
    > _virtual_ _memory_, /not/ the scratch disk size.


    Right. But Photoshop only resorts to the scratch disk when physical memory
    is extinguished.
    So while it is of course slower than actual RAM, that RAM is already used
    and unavailable...meaning you're not slowing anything down that wouldn't
    have been even slower without use of it.

    --
    Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
    www.pbase.com/markuson
     
    Mark², Feb 5, 2007
    #17
  18. Rudy Benner

    Ken Lucke Guest

    In article <5lzxh.18835$>, Mark² <
    here)@cox..net> wrote:

    > Ken Lucke wrote:
    > > In article <zpxxh.37645$>, Mark² <
    > > here)@cox..net> wrote:
    > >
    > >> Ken Lucke wrote:
    > >>> In article <>, Rudy Benner
    > >>> <> wrote:
    > >>>
    > >>>> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in
    > >>>> message news:Slsxh.10462$...
    > >>>>> Rudy Benner wrote:
    > >>>>>> I am considering an upgrade to my graphics card. It would seem
    > >>>>>> that by current standards, its ancient.
    > >>>>>>
    > >>>>>> Will a better graphics card result in better (faster) Photoshop
    > >>>>>> cs2 performance?
    > >>>>>>
    > >>>>>>
    > >>>>>> -------------------------------------------
    > >>>>>>
    > >>>>>> I have 2 gig ram, a 40 gig scratch disk, P4 cpu.
    > >>>>>
    > >>>>> Any decent video card will render the screen fairly quickly. The
    > >>>>> actual screen-drawing needed for photoshop isn't that large a
    > >>>>> drain...so long as it can easily handle the resolution your screen
    > >>>>> demands. That's not the bottleneck for photoshop. More important
    > >>>>> would be to look for a video card whose driver allows for careful
    > >>>>> adjustment of color, and that handles monitor profiles well. Most
    > >>>>> of the souped up gaming cards work quite well, because they've got
    > >>>>> memory and speed to spare, and often have sophisticated color
    > >>>>> handling too.
    > >>>>>
    > >>>>> To speed up photoshop, you want gobs of (RAM 2GB-4GB), a separate,
    > >>>>> internal, physical drive to use as the scratch disk (virtual
    > >>>>> memory, specially used by photoshop), and a fast processor.
    > >>>>> Having the scratch disk as a separate, physical drive (as opposed
    > >>>>> to a partition on the same drive) can be important for speed.
    > >>>>>
    > >>>>>
    > >>>>> --
    > >>>>> Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
    > >>>>> www.pbase.com/markuson
    > >>>>>
    > >>>>>
    > >>>>
    > >>>> I will double the virtual ram to 4 gig.
    > >>>>
    > >>>
    > >>> Virtual memory SLOWS DOWN a computer.
    > >>
    > >> The scratch disk used by photoshop doesn't. That's not the same as
    > >> the Windows cache...

    > >
    > > It _has_ to, by the mere way it works. Disk writes & reads are ALWAYS
    > > slower than in memory operations. Besides, he said he'd increas
    > > _virtual_ _memory_, /not/ the scratch disk size.

    >
    > Right. But Photoshop only resorts to the scratch disk when physical memory
    > is extinguished.
    > So while it is of course slower than actual RAM, that RAM is already used
    > and unavailable...meaning you're not slowing anything down that wouldn't
    > have been even slower without use of it.


    OK, yes, that's true - but the bare statement that you made that "the
    scratch disk used by photoshop doesn't [slow down a computer]" is not
    true, on the face of it. When the scratch disk /is/ being used, it
    /is/ slower than physical RAM. I see [now] what you meant by the
    statement, but it wasn't clear from the original statement that that
    was what you meant :^).

    --
    You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a
    reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating
    the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for
    independence.
    -- Charles A. Beard
     
    Ken Lucke, Feb 5, 2007
    #18
  19. Rudy Benner

    Mark² Guest

    Ken Lucke wrote:
    > In article <5lzxh.18835$>, Mark² <
    > here)@cox..net> wrote:
    >
    >> Ken Lucke wrote:
    >>> In article <zpxxh.37645$>, Mark² <
    >>> here)@cox..net> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Ken Lucke wrote:
    >>>>> In article <>, Rudy Benner
    >>>>> <> wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in
    >>>>>> message news:Slsxh.10462$...
    >>>>>>> Rudy Benner wrote:
    >>>>>>>> I am considering an upgrade to my graphics card. It would seem
    >>>>>>>> that by current standards, its ancient.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Will a better graphics card result in better (faster) Photoshop
    >>>>>>>> cs2 performance?
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> -------------------------------------------
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> I have 2 gig ram, a 40 gig scratch disk, P4 cpu.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Any decent video card will render the screen fairly quickly.
    >>>>>>> The actual screen-drawing needed for photoshop isn't that large
    >>>>>>> a drain...so long as it can easily handle the resolution your
    >>>>>>> screen demands. That's not the bottleneck for photoshop. More
    >>>>>>> important would be to look for a video card whose driver allows
    >>>>>>> for careful adjustment of color, and that handles monitor
    >>>>>>> profiles well. Most of the souped up gaming cards work quite
    >>>>>>> well, because they've got memory and speed to spare, and often
    >>>>>>> have sophisticated color handling too.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> To speed up photoshop, you want gobs of (RAM 2GB-4GB), a
    >>>>>>> separate, internal, physical drive to use as the scratch disk
    >>>>>>> (virtual memory, specially used by photoshop), and a fast
    >>>>>>> processor. Having the scratch disk as a separate, physical
    >>>>>>> drive (as opposed to a partition on the same drive) can be
    >>>>>>> important for speed.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> --
    >>>>>>> Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
    >>>>>>> www.pbase.com/markuson
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> I will double the virtual ram to 4 gig.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Virtual memory SLOWS DOWN a computer.
    >>>>
    >>>> The scratch disk used by photoshop doesn't. That's not the same as
    >>>> the Windows cache...
    >>>
    >>> It _has_ to, by the mere way it works. Disk writes & reads are
    >>> ALWAYS slower than in memory operations. Besides, he said he'd
    >>> increas _virtual_ _memory_, /not/ the scratch disk size.

    >>
    >> Right. But Photoshop only resorts to the scratch disk when physical
    >> memory is extinguished.
    >> So while it is of course slower than actual RAM, that RAM is already
    >> used and unavailable...meaning you're not slowing anything down that
    >> wouldn't have been even slower without use of it.

    >
    > OK, yes, that's true - but the bare statement that you made that "the
    > scratch disk used by photoshop doesn't [slow down a computer]" is not
    > true, on the face of it.


    Yes it is. Is it faster than physical RAM? No. Did I ever say or imply it
    was? No.
    Sheesh. It assists when other RAM is gone, so it's use is always an
    improvement over the lack of it.
    Surely you can understand this.

    >When the scratch disk /is/ being used, it
    > /is/ slower than physical RAM.


    Who said otherwise???
    Not me.

    >I see [now] what you meant by the
    > statement, but it wasn't clear from the original statement that that
    > was what you meant :^).


    Now that you understand that my statement was correct, why are you still
    arguing?
    Did you bet on the Bears, or something?
    :)

    --
    Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
    www.pbase.com/markuson
     
    Mark², Feb 5, 2007
    #19
  20. Rudy Benner

    Just D Guest

    "Rudy Benner"
    > More info....
    > 160 gig drive - two partitions, second partition is a ghost of system
    > partition.


    Just wondering why? :) You like ghosts? :) Have you ever seen Acronis? You
    can make a complete backup of your system drive, even some or directories if
    requires, make a diffs or incr. backups, restore the whole hard drtive, etc.
    using a network hard drive, network computer, CD/DVD, USB hard drive, etc.
    I'm using an external USB hard drive to keep my compressed backups. The
    maximum ratio with my files is ~2 times => 30 GB system drive goes into
    14-15-16 GB backup file, then I make increamental backups to save space.
    Finally 1 time in 1-2, sometimes in 3 months I start a new complete backup
    and the previous one copy frm my USB drive to my home server. The complete
    backup of 80 GB hard drive takes about 2-2.5 hours, depends on how occupied
    is this drive and how many small files are on it. You should not lose the
    part of your working disk just to create a ghost of your OS. You're wasting
    the fast built-in HD space but using external USB drives... I don't
    understand.

    Just in case...)

    http://www.acronis.com/
    Acronis True Image 10 Home. Complete data backup and disaster recovery
    software for home and home office users that can protect family pictures,
    videos, music, and important documents stored on your home PC. Price:
    $49.99.

    And one more advice. You don't need to install Acronis to make it visible
    from the working system if you don't want to, but you'd better to install a
    hidden Acronis partition, it takes one cylinder on the HD only, in my
    configuration about 40 mbytes, but it allows me to boot from my HD Acronis
    partition us and restore the whole HD or system disk if required.

    Just D.
     
    Just D, Feb 5, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Harvey Gratt

    Intel Graphics Media Accelerator 900 Graphics

    Harvey Gratt, Oct 8, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    2,974
    pcbutts1
    Oct 9, 2005
  2. Nobody Nowhere

    how good a graphics card for Photoshop CS?

    Nobody Nowhere, Oct 27, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    2,112
  3. Silverstrand
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,517
    Silverstrand
    Mar 5, 2007
  4. sharonf
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    1,334
    Jerry Attic
    Mar 27, 2007
  5. Ian
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    2,220
Loading...

Share This Page