and help to keep the site free for all
How much RAM do you have?
- Thread starter sparkzweb
- Start date
- Messages
- 21,341
- Edit My Images
- Yes
24gb in my win7 64bit pc and yes I have used it. I think my most ambitious image was 37 layers in photoshop.
- Messages
- 146
- Name
- E
- Edit My Images
- No
16GB in late 2011 MBP
Using PS filters/liquify actually does lag on my system surprisingly. And when working with multiple files it slows down a fair bit too.
Was looking at 32/64 of dominator platinum for a new rig i had in mind, but that will have to wait.
Using PS filters/liquify actually does lag on my system surprisingly. And when working with multiple files it slows down a fair bit too.
Was looking at 32/64 of dominator platinum for a new rig i had in mind, but that will have to wait.
- Messages
- 146
- Name
- E
- Edit My Images
- No
Go into EDIT>PREFERENCES>PERFORMANCE and it should be at the bottom.
- Messages
- 439
- Name
- Darren
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Would have been 32GB were it not for Win 7 Home Premium being artificially limited for no good reason other than to sell Pro versions. Overclockers had a decent sale on some 16GB sets so I bought 2, only to find 1 wouldn't work because Win 7 Home is restricted to 16GB and I wan't going to upgrade.
- Messages
- 13,760
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I was hoping there would be a crack for it...
- Messages
- 1,533
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Why not spend the peanuts and get an upgrade?
Here you go... http://www.intowindows.com/how-to-u...-premium-to-professional-or-ultimate-edition/
And yet, if you count the years, you'll find, it's close to 20 years ago!
- Messages
- 439
- Name
- Darren
- Edit My Images
- Yes
What peanuts? The upgrade in Windows Anytime Upgrade from Home Premium to Pro is £120, A new Win 7 Pro license is £190 from Amazon. or an OEM version form Overclockers is £113.
All 32GB of ram only cost £90 and I wasn't going to spend another £120 to bump it up when I only got the extra 16GB because it was so cheap in the first place.
Regardless, I don't have the other 16GB any more and the same ram is now back up to £130 for one 16GB set!
I could have messed about with a dodgy CD key but that would be naughty and there was a reason I went legit.
As for Ram prices, I remember vividly spending £80 for 4MB of ram for my PC when I was like 10. Premier Manager 2 ran properly after that.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 1,533
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Yes, those peanuts!
What I meant with "peanuts" was, that if you count the hours you use it, it's probably the cheapest of all our tools.
Constantly being serviced, enhanced and upgraded free of further costs - what to compare it with?
Windows Xp Pro I used for most part of ten years! and don't see my Windows 7 retire anytime soon either...
- Messages
- 439
- Name
- Darren
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Yes, those peanuts!
What I meant with "peanuts" was, that if you count the hours you use it, it's probably the cheapest of all our tools.
Constantly being serviced, enhanced and upgraded free of further costs - what to compare it with?
Windows Xp Pro I used for most part of ten years! and don't see my Windows 7 retire anytime soon either...
Quite possibly, but at this I'm have neither the need or the desire to pay it.
As I said, the ONLY reason I was going to have 32GB was because the ram prices were so cheap. On that basis, I couldn't justify another £120 on top. I still can't and now it's irrelevant since ram prices spiked again.
If I felt in any way restricted by the 16GB I would have happily swallowed it and upgraded by now, but I do this as a hobby and shamefully had barely even got my gear out for several months since I got Lightroom and the extra RAM.
I have no issue spending money where I need to. But I do make sure that I need to. Unless it's shiny things. I'm like a bloody magpie with shiny things.
Last edited:
Cheers, have let it use more of the available RAM, and given it a second scratch disk. See how it gets on next time I do some editing.
- Messages
- 1,533
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Same!
imho 12-16 GB is optimal for heavy photo editing, but video editing may often require/like more.
After last upgrade, I ran a series of RAM tests, and you could easily feel, how the system was more freed or snappy, as the 12 GB was onboard.
16 GB didn't change anything, but got the slots filled.
Of course back then, what you paid for 1 GB, will nowadays get you 4 GB... just typical!
- Messages
- 30,364
- Name
- Neil
- Edit My Images
- No
because one is a home OS and the other a professional/business OS with additional features?
how many average home users need more than 16gb memory? few id say. if youre a power user bite the bullet and pay up.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 34016
Guest
I have 75 ewes but only 1 Ram
Les
Les
- Messages
- 3,194
- Name
- Paul
- Edit My Images
- No
Lucky Ram :nuts:I have 75 ewes but only 1 Ram
Les
- Messages
- 13,760
- Edit My Images
- Yes
- Messages
- 439
- Name
- Darren
- Edit My Images
- Yes
My point being it's an artificial software limit.
As I've already said, I'm not a power user so I've not upgraded. I had the ram because it was £45 for 16GB and I thought why not.
- Messages
- 30,364
- Name
- Neil
- Edit My Images
- No
They certainly wouldn't be the first to have different features at different price points and they won't be the last. XP starter edition was limited on memory too..
Fact remains that for a "home user" 99% wont need any more than 16gb memory. 32gb is definitely power "pro" user territory (just because you could doesn't matter). People need to understand that when looking at os versions.
Besides, you knew the os limit before buying the memory right?
- Messages
- 1,071
- Name
- Danny
- Edit My Images
- No
32GB.
RAM isn't everything though. As already mentioned, your hard drive read/write speeds will be a big player in this but not as much as your CPU. Apple aren't exactly renowned for their excellent choice of processors (unless you spent thousands). I noticed more of a difference going from an i3 to an i7 than I did when I went from 6GB RAM to 32GB and this is handling 38MB RAW files in their PSD formats (Usually 200+MB)
Not to mention the fact that the cheaper Apple Macs will have an integrated graphics chipset, yet another bottleneck and another peripheral eating up your RAM.
I'd also check your memory speeds. My guess is that Apple will use paired groups of memory but they'll adjust the timings to give the RAM a longer lifetime. Sorting your RAM timings combined with fast DDR3 (not this 1333Mhz rubbish) will let you see a big difference in performance.
RAM isn't everything though. As already mentioned, your hard drive read/write speeds will be a big player in this but not as much as your CPU. Apple aren't exactly renowned for their excellent choice of processors (unless you spent thousands). I noticed more of a difference going from an i3 to an i7 than I did when I went from 6GB RAM to 32GB and this is handling 38MB RAW files in their PSD formats (Usually 200+MB)
Not to mention the fact that the cheaper Apple Macs will have an integrated graphics chipset, yet another bottleneck and another peripheral eating up your RAM.
I'd also check your memory speeds. My guess is that Apple will use paired groups of memory but they'll adjust the timings to give the RAM a longer lifetime. Sorting your RAM timings combined with fast DDR3 (not this 1333Mhz rubbish) will let you see a big difference in performance.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 9,438
- Name
- Andy
- Edit My Images
- Yes
The last few revisions of onboard Intel have been fine and more than enough to cope with image processing. I certainly wouldn't worry about using a modern integrated graphics if all I did was photo manipulation - except as you say for the fact it eats memory.
Crikey... was that really me defending Apple
B
BrynBoru
Guest
You should have the maximum you can afford, plus a bit more. Processor speed and RAM are the most important. Operating systems detract from the available RAM as well as utilities running in the background.
Remember, camera image size (e,g, D800) is only going to increase and software developments will demand greater power. I have 32 GB on my 27 inch iMac and it's not future proof!
Remember, camera image size (e,g, D800) is only going to increase and software developments will demand greater power. I have 32 GB on my 27 inch iMac and it's not future proof!
- Messages
- 436
- Name
- Jim
- Edit My Images
- Yes
As your machine will take 32 and you can add it yourself with the 27" you should go for the max. Not Apple RAM of course, use Crucial. I have 16Gb in a 2011 21" Mac.
Those of you with unorthodox amounts like 12Gb in a machine that I guess is listed as taking 8 at the most, do you find it makes any difference, can the computer actually use it?
Those of you with unorthodox amounts like 12Gb in a machine that I guess is listed as taking 8 at the most, do you find it makes any difference, can the computer actually use it?
- Messages
- 30,364
- Name
- Neil
- Edit My Images
- No
12 is fairly common on triple channel boards if I recall (3x4gb)
- Messages
- 439
- Name
- Darren
- Edit My Images
- Yes
No I didn't. It never even occurred to me to check that a 64bit OS would have any RAM limit that my board could handle. The only RAM limit I was ever aware of was with a 32bit OS.
As I said, it was a spur of the moment, "OMG THAT'S TOO CHEAP TO NOT BUY" purchase. I didn't (and still don't) NEED 32, So when it didn't work I just sold the other 16GB for what I paid.
- Messages
- 1,815
- Name
- James
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Yeh, I have 6*2GB. Although I found overclocking did more than when I went from 6GB to 12GB.
S
stupar
Guest
I've got 8gb of DDR2's finest 800Mhz with every Hz working its little ass off to process my 5D2 files.
Complete system upgrade next year though.......as agreed with SWMBO
Complete system upgrade next year though.......as agreed with SWMBO
- Messages
- 1,013
- Name
- Phill
- Edit My Images
- No
Photoshop elements can currently only access 3gb of this and im guessing other programs are limited also so its pointless having more ram currently
- Messages
- 30,364
- Name
- Neil
- Edit My Images
- No
if its a 32 bit program then yes it will be limited. 64 bit programs have no limit (at least not worth worrying about in the real world - measured in exabytes...).
for example adobe CS3 (32 bit only) could only access 3gb, CS4 (64bit) can access whatever you want to throw at it.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 214
- Name
- Kieron
- Edit My Images
- Yes
4gb on this laptop, running on XP. I don't like change
4gb on this laptop, running on XP. I don't like change
Nor do I. Unfortunately, that configuration threw its legs in the air on Sunday, and now I am the proud owner of a semi-functional i5/16GB Windows 7 64 bit monster which cannot work with my soundcard or my scanner; sigh !
Worst thing is, I now have enough computing power for a D800E.
