No, she doesn't. You know why? Such a machine doesn't existp645n wrote:For file sizes larger then 75 megs a friend uses a dual processor AMD 3800+ .
As far as the quadro's concerned that's just thrown away money for photoshop unless it's one of the lowest end ones.p645n wrote:It now runs 4 gigs of RAM and 10,000 rpm Raptors for system & scratch. She also runs a Quadro video card.
8GB ram? Maybe if you're running 4 copies of photoshop at once. A single running copy of photoshop will only use 2GB. Unless you're running a ton of stuff in the background that extra 6GB does nothing for you except empty your pocketbook. Quadros don't do anything for photoshop. They're just normal cards with big price tags and special drivers for high-end 3d programs.p645n wrote:One thing for certain though large format (sheet film) type photography is going to take a machine with a hell of a lot of grunt -- say dual processors, 8 gigs of ram, SCSI drives, Quadro card.
That's amusing.p645n wrote:mattsteg's right about the 3800 machine it's a dual processor 248 machine -- I think he's wrong about everything else though.
So. Beyond enough memory for your OS and whatever else is running to be happy you won't use any more. Windows applications only have a 2GB address space. There's no way around that (well, some specially programmed programs can run to 3GB if you also specially configure windows, but there are other problems associated with that.) Yes, it's worthwhile to load up with 3-4GB, but nothing beyond that is going to help, no matter how big your images are.p645n wrote:You need all the ram you can get two gigs WILL NOT MAKE IT WITH 200 MEG FILES -- 2 gigs doesn't make it with my 75 meg files.
I never said you didn't. You do.p645n wrote:You need fast drives -- because you RAM out.
Your matrox is also an ancient card. It has low frequency RAMDACs. The P series and Parhelia don't. They all have 400MHz RAMDACs on both heads. They can refresh just fine.p645n wrote: With dual monitors you need a card that can refresh at at high resolutions. MY Matrox just barely can.
Yes, depending on budget and precise usage, dual processors or possibly more appropriately dual core make sense.p645n wrote:Dual processors would be a huge help and since your spending the kind of money that you only want to do it once.
If someone with little to no clue tells me I'm "wrong" I'm damn well going to set them straight. The effort required to not spout out blatant falsehoods is minimal.sativa wrote:mattsteg, please relax. this is the 3rd or 4th thread i've seen you blow up at people.. we are only talking about computers here.. no reason to get upset.
mattsteg wrote:If someone with little to no clue tells me I'm "wrong" I'm damn well going to set them straight. The effort required to not spout out blatant falsehoods is minimal.
mattsteg wrote:p645n wrote:I think he's wrong about everything else though.
The Bigger Tiles plug-in, which is located in the Applications/Adobe Photoshop CS2/Plug-Ins/Adobe Photoshop Only/Extensions/Bigger Tiles folder (Mac OS) or Program Files\Adobe\Adobe Photoshop CS2\Plug-Ins\Adobe Photoshop Only\Extensions\Bigger Tiles (Windows) is disabled by default. When you enable it by removing the ~ from the filename, then you increase the image tile size in Photoshop. You should only enable the plug-in if you have more than 1 GB of RAM installed.
If you enable the plug-in, then Photoshop redraws more data at a time because each tile is larger, and each tile is drawn, complete, at one time. Photoshop takes less time to redraw fewer tiles that are larger, than more tiles that are smaller. Because Photoshop redraws more data at one time, each tile it takes longer to be redrawn; so bigger tiles can look like they are redrawing slower, but they are actually redrawing faster than if the image had more smaller tiles.
I was more amused by his 8GB suggestion than anything else. That's a lot of memory to use beyond the 2/3 GB limit. The thought of running ramdrives to at up the additional ram with adobe swap stuff occurred to me, but I wasn't aware that some plugins have separate memory space. Clever and useful. My google search that I made before posting turned up the memory techdoc for photoshop CS, which unlike cs2 apparently has no extra 64-bit abilities nor 3gb support. I apologize for that oversight, and for any animosity I may have caused or implied. I honestly don't see any animosity in my secong post in this thread, I was merely trying to clearly and succinctly sum up my differences in thought with p645n and why they existed. While the RAM thing discounted CS2 and the importance of windows' file cache, the rest was at least accurate.UberGerbil wrote:The OS itself is free to use the other 2GB in a 4GB system, as are other apps.
None of us want to start a war of any sort. I know I in particular just want to make sure that you base your decision based on the best and most accurate information possible. I understand we all live within budgetary constraints and just want to make sure you spend your money where it helps the most, rather than waste it on things like Quadros or memory beyond what is usable in a straightforward fashion. (Just for clarity when I said a bit more I was talking 3-4GB, with the 4GB being highly desirable. I was just trying to establish how much RAM the photoshop process itself can use, stuff beyond that is useful to a point, but eventiually you hit diminishing returns then nothing). If you have an otehrworldly huge budget you could of course load up on RAM, get a ramdisk program, and run your photoshop scratch space on ramdisks. This should be amazingly fast, but could also be glitchy and complicated. I have no direct experience in the area so I speak only of how things should be based on theoretical knowledge of the various en tities involved. The main advantage of a nice dual opteron board is that it can take more memory, or memory in smaller sticks, allowing either an easy future upgrade or reduced initial costs. At lower cost, you could probably get similar performance from a dual core a64 on a nice board. In any case, judging from the added capabilities under 64 bit windows, it appears that your best bet is opterons or athlon 64 X2 running Photoshop CS2 on XP64. This means that you're going to pay a bit more careful attention to your other components to ensure driver compatability. It appears that this is one of those times where riding the bleeding edge could pay off big in the long run, but when you do that sort of thing you've got to be especially careful with it.kartuz wrote:Hi
thank you again.
Please remove my topic. I don't want start any war here.
Thank you for everybody !
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], JustAnEngineer and 2 guests