PC with 64 bit processor and 4gb ram memory

Since the advent of Photoshop CS, it is possible to process in PS 14
bit files, obtained from my Nikon 8000 scanner. For a 6 x 6 negative,
this means a file of 430 or so MB. I also have a panoramic camera,
which would yield a file double that size. I know that I could reduce
the size of the file, but, unless I am wrong, this should be done just
before printing (eg for which the "sweet spot" might be about 300 ppi).

Anyway, some gurus would advocate processing the full file, at least
initially.

A computer expert tells me that at least in this country (UK), no
motherboard now available could accommodate 4gb of memory (and/or 64
bit, I think). Is he right, or wrong?

Is anybody using now a PC with 64 bit processor, 4gb ram memory, and a
special/adequate motherboard to do all this? Are these PCs available,
eg. in US? Could one order one from US? (Although there would be a
difference in voltage between US and UK). Thanks in advance for any
comments or information you might have on this.

 

A computer expert tells me that at least in this country (UK), no

You don't have to use 4gb. Just get an Athlon 64 with a regular motherboard
such as the ASUS K8V or the MSI K8T and just enough memory. I tried both
motherboards, in fact, i still own both motherboards. Both are upgradable to
3gb. Now I use 1gb memory. I don't think you'll get much difference between 3gb
and 4gb working on a half-GB file. The bottleneck will be how fast the
processor can do the work while the file is held in memory. Memory only matters
when you don't have enough of it. Once you have enough there's really no point
in getting more than you need.

Memory won't be cheap though, and one 1gb single sticks costs almost twice what
two 512gb sticks would cost you combined. So I suggest that 1.5gb would
probably be a good set up for you. More than that would be hilariously more
expensive for little or no gain in speed. Get speed 400 memory though.

Can I assume with that comment about the votage difference between US and UK
that you've never built a computer before? if so then save yourself the trouble
and don't bother. Just buy a ready system. While building a computer when
you've done it before is an easy, less-than-an-hour job, doing it first time
could be a PITA and misadventure can prove quite costly. You won't be saving
any money either.

 

This would serve your needs fine it is less than $7,0000 US

with 2 64bit 2.4 GHZ Opteron Processor 4 GB of ram and 2 15K RPM SCSI
drives

It comes with windows server 2003 but it should work fine for you.

This system or one like it should be available to you no problem

Only downside would be it does not have AGP graphics

http://h18004.www1.hp.com/products/servers/proliantdl145/

Wayne

 

This place here is in the UK

http://www.bestpricecomputers.ltd.uk/pro/9303/9303.asp#Configure 1361
pounds with VAT


Wayne

 

Based on your experience, would you recommend either or both of those
motherboards?

Lisa

 

nobody nowhere wrote:
[]

Older Windows (at least without running special or certain server
versions) cannot address more than 2GB of memory. With XP Professional
you can use 4GB physical, with specially compiled applications (note)
being allowed to access 3GB virtual. See:

http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/platform/server/PAE/PAEmem.mspx

I am also in processing large images, and therefore I think I will be
interested in the 64-bit version of Windows that is due out soon. I will
be writing my own applications, although my present compiler does not
support 64-bit operations. I don't know how soon you would expect to be
able to purchase an off-the shelf 64-bit image processing application.

I think that 64-bit is the way forward for seriously large image
processing, but quite how soon we will get the software I don't know. Not
too far off, though. For those reasons, I would only purchase a 32-bit
system if it was relatively cheap. I don't like AMD (hot and unreliable)
and would prefer to have an Intel chip in my system.

Cheers,
David

 

Try this link:

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1558,1626520,00.asp

It's a jack of all trades system but it gives you the relevant
groundwork.

 

Thank you, and also thanks to others for their comments. Not only I
have never built a computer before full stop, but doing this is not
amongst my talents. Can I take it that it might not be a bad idea for
me to wait until the new Windows XP 64 bit comes out (somebody said that
this will happen soon). I suspect that manufactures will then produce
machines for the new software, which, hopefully, will include 64 bit
processors, more ram memory (4gb?) ( a panoramic 6 x 12 image, scanned
at 14 bit, yields a nearly 1gb file, hence one cannot have enough ram
memory), and the motherboards to accommodate all this? Would this be
right? Any guesses on how soon this might happen?

 

Guess: XP64 by the end of this year, middle of next? Possibly AMD chips
only to start with? You can download a beta now, I believe.

Cheers,
David

 

This would serve your needs fine it is less than $7,0000 US

You were close by looking at HP but you ended up choosing a server that
really is not designed for this type of work

HP do however make high end graphics workstations found here
http://www.hp.com/workstations/itanium/index.html

With up to 2 x Intel 64 bit CPUs, 24-GB RAM, and the option of graphics
cards, these machines are sold against the SGI workstations in some markets.

Not cheap though.

 

http://tinyurl.com/5ure4

 

Yes you can download a beta and I have done so, but it's really not worth it
yet unless most the software you need is available in 64bit version. Also,
there weren't enough drivers for critical components of hardware. Transition to
64bit computing is gonna take a long while. Anyhow, you'd probably only get 20%
speed ncrease between 32bit and 64bit. the main advantage of 64bit is that you
can use memory more than 4gb.

To the OP, find a friendly computer shop and take your file on CD or DVD to
them and test-drive their machines.

Like i said, even with 1GB panorama file, I do think 1.5GB is gonna be your
best bet for price/performance. You can use more memory but you're gonna be
spending way too much with little or no gain in performance. You won't be
holding more than one file in memory, and even if you do, your processor will
ideally only be working on one at a time. It takes a whole lot of time for even
the fastest processor to go through a 1GB file, and extra memory over what's
enough won't make a difference.

 

Look at server boards for a Opteron they already support rigs with 32Gb
of RAM (4 way mobos)

Tyan boards are excellent in this area:

http://www.tyan.com/products/html/opteron.html

More about Opterons here:

http://www.amdboard.com/opteron_reviews.html

I am using a dual processor Opteron for gfx work with 2Gb on board RAM
with a SCSI 320 RAID 5 setup, to say it's fast is a understatement.

 

You can get a 64-bit processor right now with an operating system that
supports is early next year. It's called a G5 & Tiger.

Once you go Mac you'll never go back.

 

ISTR the OP said he was getting 400MB files from his scanner. if he
uses layers in PS he's going to have a PSD file that's multiples of
that. This's a big file to read into memory, or write to disk.

Files this large, IMHO, need fast, striped/RAID0 disks for
productivity. 35GB 10k rpm SCSI disks cost $125US these days, so a
pair gets you a screaming PS work disk for $250. Use SCSI for all the
disks that work hard (PS work disk and the temp folder and pagefile.)

Use SATA (preferred) or IDE for the C drive

Use a pair of big (as big as 300-400GB) IDE/SATA disks
for your catalog of images. Use RAID1 for reliability. I think SATA
is a little faster.

I believe that PS does not multithread the core code the applies
operations to images, so a multi-CPU won't halve the time it takes to
do a filter, but the second CPU will keep you productive reading mail
or playing solitaire while PS is busy.

As I understand it Adobe hasn't said when they will ship a version
that can use more than the 2 or 3GB address space that is
the limit on any 32bit OS, or a 32bit OS running on 64bit
hardware. The AMD opteron systems scream in 32 bit mode.

You can buy a machine with one GB memory module, use PERFMON.EXE to
see what your memory usage and paging rate are, and decide if more
memory is what you need, or maybe a faster disk. The performance
problem with paging is not the SIZE of the pagefile, it's the number
of pages/sec (read and write) rate in this moments when you wish your
computer was faster. The rest of the time you don't have a performance
problem and don't care. Perfmon.exe will tell you this, and lost
more.

Look at Polywell (http://www.polywell.com) for nice configurations and
prices, although I don't know if they sell in the UK. I have friends
that love the AMD 64bit systems they bought on my advice. I have no
other relationship with Polywell.

 

The 64 bit hardware is here, now and it runs the 32 bit operating
systems and applications really well. The AMD Athlon chips
are for single processor systems, the AMD Opteron chips
are for multi processors.

PS is still 32 bit and I know of no schedule for a 64 bit version.
Adobe may believe there is no performance benefit to moving to 64
bits.

MS is behind the curve with a 64bit XP but it won't make your
32bit PS application run any faster when it shows up.

 

Today's XP won't make use of more than 4GB memory.


Microsoft Windows 2003 Server can use 64bit hardware, and memory
larger than 4GB but it costs $700US (and up) And PS is still 32 bit.

 

If my current Athlon PC died, I'd upgrade to Athlon 64 3000+. The CPU only
costs $179. It's not that bad. However, since my system is running in pretty
good speed, I'll hang on to it till 64-bit Windows arrives next year. For my
use, I don't have any real needs for 64bit. It's unwise to pay the premium
right now as I only have 1GB of RAM.

 

Thank you.

 

leo wrote:
[]

There is clearly no point in getting 64-bit Windows right now, unless your
application runs in 64-bit mode in that environment. That's why I
suggested next year as it will perhaps take until then for Paint Shop Pro
and the like and the like to have 64-bit versions available.

If you only ever need 1GB, then you will find little or no advantage in
the 64-bit platform, and a fast Intel chip would be as good as anything
(but it's more cost effective to buy one or two speeds down from the
maximum and make sure the rest of the system is actually up to the
processor spped you are using, dual-channel memory, fast well-buffered
disk etc.).

Cheers,
David