[ninahagen]

Hi everyone,

I am new on the site, and hail from Kyoto, Japan.

I am an art dealer just moving into publishing art books, which require very hi res scans and processing the files in multi-layer 1GB+ images in Photoshop CS2.

Our current system:
G5 Quad-core 2.5 Ghz
8GB RAM
mid-level nVidia card (128) from the end of 05 (14 months or so ago)

The system is much faster than the old G4, and processes 1G files in 5-30 seconds, depending on the action.

Still, my graphic designer is highly paid, and improving the speed significantly would eventually pay for itself.

The basic questions are:

1. Whether to go all the way to 16GB or even 32GB in RAM, given that I will buy the octo-core Mac Pro, get Leopard, and the first possible version of Photoshop CS3 64-bit? I realize that 32-bit is very limiting now, and 8GB may be the max.
2. Which video card will optimize Photoshop work...I have heard that the Quadro is actually slower for some apps.
3. Presuming a 30 second operation in CS2 with my present system, could anyone hazard a guess how long the same operation would take with a maxed octo-core Mac Pro and the best vid card?

Would really appreciate it?

Thanks,

John

[mfbernstein]

1. Photoshop is only 32-bit, and CS3 won't change that. While 8GB of RAM has a demonstrable advantage over 4GB for some uses of Photoshop, beyond 8GB is more doubtful.
2. Photoshop places only minimal demands on the graphics card. Your Quadro is more than fine for the task.
3. This is dependent on many factors. Many Photoshop filters don't take advantage of multiple processors. Others will only take advantage of 2 processors, not 4 or 8. If you keep Activity Monitor open when your main 30-second job runs, are all 4 processors running at 100%? How much 'real' memory is Photoshop using?

If Photoshop isn't fully using all 4 of your processors at some point during the job, I doubt 8-cores will help you substantially. Similarly, if Photoshop isn't using the full 2GB of RAM available to it, then adding RAM isn't going to make much of a difference.

[brokenjago]

2. Photoshop places only minimal demands on the graphics card. Your Quadro is more than fine for the task.

If you're planning to spring for the Quadro because you think it'll help photoshop work, don't. Keep the stock 7300 or go with the X1900XT. It'll save you a lot of money, and both will work perfectly with Photoshop.

[Alexander MacLean]

If you want a speed increase, be sure to buy one of these, a 10,000 RPM internal SATA drive.

Keep all your working documents on said drive, and you'll notice a speed increase - kind of a nice stop gap before Photoshop can recognize more RAM.

[ninahagen]

First, I want to thank rotuts for this illuminating article on Photoshop memory requirements:

http://diglloyd.com/diglloyd/free/MacPro/memory.html

It is a must read and gave me at least three bits of essential information I hadn’t had before, and help clarify further questions. Ah, what a choice link can do to soothe the mind :—)

Also, thanks to mfbernstein.
Quote: “Photoshop is only 32-bit, and CS3 won't change that.”
Reply: Is that certain? I have heard Adobe will release a 64-bit version.
Q1: Does anybody know if that is Adobe’s plan?
Q2: How much would 64-bit Photoshop change the equation? How much RAM would then become usable, and would it make only a small difference in speed 8 to 16 MB or 16 to 32 MB, or would it be a monster difference like 30~50%. (If it were a monster difference, it would really be worth the money, since our graphic designer’s time is so well paid.

Quote: “While 8GB of RAM has a demonstrable advantage over 4GB for some uses of Photoshop, beyond 8GB is more doubtful.”
Reply: Great to know. That seems to be the consensus, and that would be quite a savings.
Q1: I have a friend who habitually maxes his RAM, saying that he always keeps his machines for some years, and that new software always puts extra demands on RAM. Case in point…say I keep the next system for 3-4 years, and in 1 year CS3 goes 64-bit. Wouldn’t it make sense to plan now by just going for the 16 or 32 GB RAM now?
Q2: I have heard others say that excessive RAM can actually slow things down. Does anybody know for certain?

Quote: “Photoshop places only minimal demands on the graphics card. Your Quadro is more than fine for the task.”
Reply: Actually, I don’t have a quadro…I have mid-level nVidia (about 2 years old).
Q1: The only other thing I do with my computer than CS2 work in Photoshop and Illustrator, is watch movies… will a better vid card make any difference there?

Quote: “This [the potential speed increase from a hispec upgrade] is dependent on many factors. Many Photoshop filters don't take advantage of multiple processors. Others will only take advantage of 2 processors, not 4 or 8.
Q1: Will this also change with a 64-bit CS3?

Quote: If you keep Activity Monitor open when your main 30-second job runs, are all 4 processors running at 100%? How much 'real' memory is Photoshop using?
Reply: Can anyone tell me how to see the activity viewer? I will test this tomorrow. Also, here is a photoshop speed test for anyone who wants to know how their system is doing.

http://www.retouchartists.com/pages/speedtest.html???

I plan to run this test on the G5 8GB RAM system now, then on whatever I upgrade to, so people exploring this issue can see the actual cost-performance equation.

Quote: If Photoshop isn't fully using all 4 of your processors at some point during the job, I doubt 8-cores will help you substantially.
Reply: even 10% would be worth, but less than that, probably not. The processor speed should though from G5 2.5 Quad to Macintel 3.0 Quad, right?

Also, thank you brokenjago!

Quote: If you're planning to spring for the Quadro because you think it'll help photoshop work, don't.
Reply: I wish Apple explained this somewhere on their site & the operators at Adobe are beyond clueless about such things.

Quote: Keep the stock 7300 or go with the X1900XT
Q1: What would be the Photoshop/illustrator advantage of the X1900XT over the 7300?

Also, thanks to Alexander MacLean!
Quote: If you want a speed increase, be sure to buy one of these, a 10,000 RPM internal SATA drive. Keep all your working documents on said drive, and you'll notice a speed increase - kind of a nice stop gap before Photoshop can recognize more RAM.
Reply: a great idea…
Q1: I wonder why Mac doesn’t offer these as an option?
Q2: I am presuming that at the edges of performance and size, one has to give up one or the other, right? There is no chance that the new 1TB drives will be anywhere near this fast right? I thought maybe I would get 1 of the these SATA drives for current projects and three 1TB drives for storage.
Q3: Is the main increase in how fast the images load (like reading and writing tif files), or does the higher HD speed affect the operations within photoshop (before changes are saved) as well?
Q4: What kind of speed differnce will it mean?
Q5: Is the noise factor extreme? Will it seem like a jet is taking off in my office?

[brokenjago]

Originally Posted by ninahagen 

Q1: Does anybody know if that is Adobe’s plan?
Q2: How much would 64-bit Photoshop change the equation? How much RAM would then become usable, and would it make only a small difference in speed 8 to 16 MB or 16 to 32 MB, or would it be a monster difference like 30~50%. (If it were a monster difference, it would really be worth the money, since our graphic designer’s time is so well paid.

1) No, not that I know of.
2) a 64-bit version of photoshop would be able to theoretically access up to 4 Petabytes of memory, which is 4096 terabytes. (One terabyte is 1024 Gigabytes.) It would also benefit greatly from 64 bit operations, I believe.

Q1: I have a friend who habitually maxes his RAM, saying that he always keeps his machines for some years, and that new software always puts extra demands on RAM. Case in point…say I keep the next system for 3-4 years, and in 1 year CS3 goes 64-bit. Wouldn’t it make sense to plan now by just going for the 16 or 32 GB RAM now?
Q2: I have heard others say that excessive RAM can actually slow things down. Does anybody know for certain?

1) No, because Memory prices will drop significantly by then, so you'll be able to buy the memory for probably half as much, saving money in the long run, because as of now, it's not gonna help much.
2) Excessive RAM cannot slow things down.

Q1: The only other thing I do with my computer than CS2 work in Photoshop and Illustrator, is watch movies… will a better vid card make any difference there?

No.

Q1: Will this also change with a 64-bit CS3?

Not unless they specifically code it in. It doesn't "come for Free" with the move to 64 bit.

Reply: Can anyone tell me how to see the activity viewer? I will test this tomorrow. Also, here is a photoshop speed test for anyone who wants to know how their system is doing.

Go to Applications>Utilities>Activity Monitor. If your processor is using 400% (or close to that) of your processor, than it's using all 4 cores.

Reply: even 10% would be worth, but less than that, probably not. The processor speed should though from G5 2.5 Quad to Macintel 3.0 Quad, right?

It should, yes. It doesn't hurt that you also get space for two extra hard drives, and an extra optical drive.

Also, thank you brokenjago!

You're welcome

Reply: I wish Apple explained this somewhere on their site & the operators at Adobe are beyond clueless about such things.

Yeah, it kinda sucks.

Q1: What would be the Photoshop/illustrator advantage of the X1900XT over the 7300?

The only advantage the X1900XTX has over the 7300GT is that it can drive TWO 30" displays instead of only one. That may or may not matter to you.

Q1: I wonder why Mac doesn’t offer these as an option?
Q2: I am presuming that at the edges of performance and size, one has to give up one or the other, right? There is no chance that the new 1TB drives will be anywhere near this fast right? I thought maybe I would get 1 of the these SATA drives for current projects and three 1TB drives for storage.
Q3: Is the main increase in how fast the images load (like reading and writing tif files), or does the higher HD speed affect the operations within photoshop (before changes are saved) as well?
Q4: What kind of speed difference will it mean?
Q5: Is the noise factor extreme? Will it seem like a jet is taking off in my office?

1) Dunno . Maybe it's cause Mac doesn't sell you the computer, Apple does . They'd overcharge you on them anyway.
2)The highest you can go on a 10,000 RPM drive is 150GB. 1 TB drives are 7200 RPM. Your idea about the one 10,000 and three 1 TB is good. use the Raptor for your scratch disk, and you'll get a large performance boost.
3)If you use it as your scratch disk, this will increase performance within photoshop.
4)A very noticeable one.
5) Probably not, but it really depends from model to model. Seagate is known for quiet drives.

[ninahagen]

Thanks brokenjago, you rule, seriously.

OK, that is what I will do. 150GB SATA 10,000speed for the scratch disc, 1TB for the 3 storage discs.

Q1: When working in Photoshop, will I have to move the files onto the scratch disc to get the speed benefit, or can I open them from the 1TB HDs, while Photoshop uses the scratch...?

Q2: How do I designignate the SATA HD as the scratch disc —inside the OS, or by placing it in a certain HD bay?

Q3: Does anyone have experiece with the Raptor vs Seagate drives... how do they stack up?

[mac128k-1984]

Originally Posted by ninahagen 

Q1: When working in Photoshop, will I have to move the files onto the scratch disc to get the speed benefit, or can I open them from the 1TB HDs, while Photoshop uses the scratch...?

No, photoshop uses the scratch disk for its own purposes, that is like how OSX uses virtual memory. You don't move files to the /var/vm (the location of the swap files for osx) to speed things up, likewise you don't need to move stuff to a scratch disk for photoshop to use AFAIK

Q2: How do I designignate the SATA HD as the scratch disc —inside the OS, or by placing it in a certain HD bay?

Within photoshop select preferences -> plug-ins scratch disk.

Q3: Does anyone have experiece with the Raptor vs Seagate drives... how do they stack up?

I prefer seagate over WD, but I've heard pretty good feed back on the Raptors.

If I was looking to speed up things on my Macpro, I wouldn't limit the fast disks just for scratch disks, but also use the raptor's as my system disk. I think you'll find a larger improvement on overall speed if you use a raptor for your system drive then for a photoshop scratch drive. That is, photoshop and OSX will be utilizing the system drive more then the scratch disk and you should see a nice speed bump.

[ninahagen]

Originally Posted by mac128k-1984 

No, photoshop uses the scratch disk for its own purposes, that is like how OSX uses virtual memory. You don't move files to the /var/vm (the location of the swap files for osx) to speed things up, likewise you don't need to move stuff to a scratch disk for photoshop to use AFAIK

Wow, great news. What is AFAIK?

Within photoshop select preferences -> plug-ins scratch disk.

I prefer seagate over WD, but I've heard pretty good feed back on the Raptors.

Are your Seagates noisy? Are you running the 1000speed HD?

If I was looking to speed up things on my Macpro, I wouldn't limit the fast disks just for scratch disks, but also use the raptor's as my system disk. I think you'll find a larger improvement on overall speed if you use a raptor for your system drive then for a photoshop scratch drive. That is, photoshop and OSX will be utilizing the system drive more then the scratch disk and you should see a nice speed bump.

I have a real need for internal storage though. Maybe I could use 1000 speeds for HD 1 (scratch) + 2 (system disc), and the 1TB units for HD 3 (storage) + 4 (storage)?

Also, is there a best position among the 4 HD bays to put the scratch disc?...I know that RAM is sensitive to its physical positioning...

[mac128k-1984]

Originally Posted by ninahagen 

Also, is there a best position among the 4 HD bays to put the scratch disc?...I know that RAM is sensitive to its physical positioning...

Nope, place it where ever you want it.

[brokenjago]

I have a real need for internal storage though. Maybe I could use 1000 speeds for HD 1 (scratch) + 2 (system disc), and the 1TB units for HD 3 (storage) + 4 (storage)?

Well, it all depends. Boot up time will be faster, but seriously, on mine, the computer boots up so fast (like 15 seconds from Grey Apple to desktop, completely skips "Loading Mac OS X" and Login Screens) that I'm not sure it will matter. The OS in general will be snappier, especially when it pages out to disk (uses virtual memory) however, with 8 GB of RAM, I don't think the 10,000 RPMs will benefit you that much in that way. If all you're going to be doing is Photoshop, Illustrator, and movies, and you need internal storage, I'd go with 3 1TB drives, and one 10,000 RPM Seagate for the scratch disk. This will give you the best storage/performance ratio.

[PER3]

Sorry to be obtuse, but in your first post, you said:

Still, my graphic designer is highly paid, and improving the speed significantly would eventually pay for itself.

Fair enough. But in the other thread:

http://forums.macnn.com/65/power-mac...-pro-sensible/

you said:

If 16GB would cut the time by 3%, it wouldn't be worth it, but by half it would be worth a lot over time...the graphic designer working for me makes around $15 an hour, so saving half the processing time means $7.50 an hour sound $3000 extra bucks for RAM would be paid back in 400 hours of work (about 2 months)...if it is 25% faster, then 4 months. Can anybody guess how much extra speed I will get?

Are you saying that fifteen bucks an hour is expensive for a graphic designer working in Japan on what sounds like a serious publication?

I'm not attacking, but just rather curious. Did you mean $150 per hour, or are you outsourcing to China?

I make a low-end $50 per hour teaching English (although of course, not forty hours a week).

[ninahagen]

We'll since we are a small outfit, so on the way to $4000 a month is a lot for us... I guess when you divide it out, it comes to around $20+ an hour (I was just being conservative in estimating). So highly paid means more than we pay our other staffers, not in an ultimate sense.

[PER3]

Thanks for putting it in perspective.