Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

What is the best processor to run Photoshop ?

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
April 13, 2005 11:49:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Hi,

Question to the specialists : What is the best processor to run Photoshop :
Intel Pentium or AMD Athlon ?

Thank you

Inox
Anonymous
April 13, 2005 11:49:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Inox wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Question to the specialists : What is the best processor to run Photoshop :
> Intel Pentium or AMD Athlon ?
>
> Thank you
>
> Inox
>
>
Photoshop will take advantage of the best features of both. I suppose
if you really are into such things, multiprocessor setups are the best.
It runs just fine on this AMD AthlonXP processor, and on my laptop
which is a CeleronM.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
April 13, 2005 11:49:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 19:49:09 +0200, "Inox" <inoxxx.SPAM@MAPS.free.fr>
wrote:

>Hi,
>
>Question to the specialists : What is the best processor to run Photoshop :
>Intel Pentium or AMD Athlon ?

May I suggest the PowerPC G5.
Related resources
Anonymous
April 13, 2005 11:49:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I would recommend Intel P4, and make sure it supports Hyper Threading.
Hyper Threading is something Intel introduced, and it functions like two
CPU's, (Dual Processor). You will need Windows XP Professional, or Windows
XP Media Center to recognized Hyper Threading. Windows XP Home does not.
Adobe Photoshop will recognize, and take advantage of Hyper Threading as
well! If you ever process video, Intel will do a better job than AMD.

Bill Crocker


"Inox" <inoxxx.SPAM@MAPS.free.fr> wrote in message
news:425d5b16$0$10742$626a14ce@news.free.fr...
> Hi,
>
> Question to the specialists : What is the best processor to run Photoshop
> :
> Intel Pentium or AMD Athlon ?
>
> Thank you
>
> Inox
>
>
Anonymous
April 13, 2005 11:49:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <8itq51hqh9lvo6kqsr76rspg07nn9m8ugl@4ax.com>,
John A. Stovall <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote:

> On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 19:49:09 +0200, "Inox" <inoxxx.SPAM@MAPS.free.fr>
> wrote:
>
> >Hi,
> >
> >Question to the specialists : What is the best processor to run Photoshop :
> >Intel Pentium or AMD Athlon ?
>
> May I suggest the PowerPC G5.

Add, Dual processor and maximum RAM, at least 5.

--
Panta Rei
Anonymous
April 13, 2005 11:49:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

You will need Windows XP Professional, or Windows
> XP Media Center to recognized Hyper Threading. Windows XP Home does not.


not true, xp home does support and recognize hyperthreading.
xp home does not support dual processors.

paul
Anonymous
April 13, 2005 11:49:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

John A. Stovall wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 19:49:09 +0200, "Inox" <inoxxx.SPAM@MAPS.free.fr>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Hi,
>>
>>Question to the specialists : What is the best processor to run Photoshop :
>>Intel Pentium or AMD Athlon ?
>
>
> May I suggest the PowerPC G5.
>
>
My I suggest two of them, so you can keep up with a 3.4ghz P4 or Athlon.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
April 13, 2005 11:49:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

My bad! You are correct Paul. Sorry for the confusion.

Bill Crocker


"Paul Bauer" <paulb@powerweb.net> wrote in message
news:81698$425d90f9$4076204b$29651@powerweb.allthenewsgroups.com...
> You will need Windows XP Professional, or Windows
>> XP Media Center to recognized Hyper Threading. Windows XP Home does not.
>
>
> not true, xp home does support and recognize hyperthreading.
> xp home does not support dual processors.
>
> paul
>
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 2:31:53 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <never-031A2F.14041413042005@nntp0.pdx.net>, clw
<never@home.org> wrote:

> In article <8itq51hqh9lvo6kqsr76rspg07nn9m8ugl@4ax.com>,
> John A. Stovall <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 19:49:09 +0200, "Inox" <inoxxx.SPAM@MAPS.free.fr>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >Hi,
> > >
> > >Question to the specialists : What is the best processor to run Photoshop :
> > >Intel Pentium or AMD Athlon ?
> >
> > May I suggest the PowerPC G5.
>
> Add, Dual processor and maximum RAM, at least 5.

Yup, Yup, Yup...

Much better then using one of those Virus Storage Units
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 2:31:54 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <130420051731523111%maxfaq@earthlink.net>,
Steve Cutchen <maxfaq@earthlink.net> wrote:
>In article <never-031A2F.14041413042005@nntp0.pdx.net>, clw
><never@home.org> wrote:
>
>> In article <8itq51hqh9lvo6kqsr76rspg07nn9m8ugl@4ax.com>,
>> John A. Stovall <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>> > On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 19:49:09 +0200, "Inox" <inoxxx.SPAM@MAPS.free.fr>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > >Hi,
>> > >
>> > >Question to the specialists : What is the best processor to run Photoshop :
>> > >Intel Pentium or AMD Athlon ?
>> >
>> > May I suggest the PowerPC G5.
>>
>> Add, Dual processor and maximum RAM, at least 5.
>
>Yup, Yup, Yup...
>
>Much better then using one of those Virus Storage Units


Does PSCS make use of the second CPU? Is PS2 any different ?

--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.
April 14, 2005 2:31:55 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Al Dykes wrote:
>
> Does PSCS make use of the second CPU?


Yes and PS is very CPU intensive for certain tasks, definitely very
memory intensive.


>Is PS2 any different ?


Older versions don't utilize dual processors.
April 14, 2005 2:34:55 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Bill Crocker" <wcrocker007@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:-P2dnR_5z-tgE8DfRVn-iA@comcast.com...
>I would recommend Intel P4, and make sure it supports Hyper Threading.
>Hyper Threading is something Intel introduced, and it functions like two
>CPU's, (Dual Processor). You will need Windows XP Professional, or Windows
>XP Media Center to recognized Hyper Threading. Windows XP Home does not.
>Adobe Photoshop will recognize, and take advantage of Hyper Threading as
>well! If you ever process video, Intel will do a better job than AMD.
>
> Bill Crocker
>
>
> "Inox" <inoxxx.SPAM@MAPS.free.fr> wrote in message
> news:425d5b16$0$10742$626a14ce@news.free.fr...
>> Hi,
>>
>> Question to the specialists : What is the best processor to run Photoshop
>> :
>> Intel Pentium or AMD Athlon ?
>>
>> Thank you
>>
>> Inox
>>
>>
Hi there.

I have heard that Hyper Threading (whatever it is) will actually cause
photoshop to run slower.

Just today on another group Hecate was advising against Intel Pentium,
simply because of the Hyper Threading.

Roy G
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 2:34:56 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Roy" <royphoty@iona-guesthouse.co.uk> wrote in message
news:j8h7e.29185$pA6.8531@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
> "Bill Crocker" <wcrocker007@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:-P2dnR_5z-tgE8DfRVn-iA@comcast.com...
>>I would recommend Intel P4, and make sure it supports Hyper Threading.
>>Hyper Threading is something Intel introduced, and it functions like two
>>CPU's, (Dual Processor). You will need Windows XP Professional, or
>>Windows XP Media Center to recognized Hyper Threading. Windows XP Home
>>does not. Adobe Photoshop will recognize, and take advantage of Hyper
>>Threading as well! If you ever process video, Intel will do a better job
>>than AMD.
>>
>> Bill Crocker
>>
>>
>> "Inox" <inoxxx.SPAM@MAPS.free.fr> wrote in message
>> news:425d5b16$0$10742$626a14ce@news.free.fr...
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Question to the specialists : What is the best processor to run
>>> Photoshop :
>>> Intel Pentium or AMD Athlon ?
>>>
>>> Thank you
>>>
>>> Inox
>>>
>>>
> Hi there.
>
> I have heard that Hyper Threading (whatever it is) will actually cause
> photoshop to run slower.
>
> Just today on another group Hecate was advising against Intel Pentium,
> simply because of the Hyper Threading.
>
> Roy G
>

I'd like to see the source that substantiates this. In any event, if
necessary, you can disable Hyper Threading in the BIOS (aka; SetUp).

Bill Crocker
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 2:34:56 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Roy wrote:
> "Bill Crocker" <wcrocker007@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:-P2dnR_5z-tgE8DfRVn-iA@comcast.com...
>
>>I would recommend Intel P4, and make sure it supports Hyper Threading.
>>Hyper Threading is something Intel introduced, and it functions like two
>>CPU's, (Dual Processor). You will need Windows XP Professional, or Windows
>>XP Media Center to recognized Hyper Threading. Windows XP Home does not.
>>Adobe Photoshop will recognize, and take advantage of Hyper Threading as
>>well! If you ever process video, Intel will do a better job than AMD.
>>
>>Bill Crocker
>>
>>
>>"Inox" <inoxxx.SPAM@MAPS.free.fr> wrote in message
>>news:425d5b16$0$10742$626a14ce@news.free.fr...
>>
>>>Hi,
>>>
>>>Question to the specialists : What is the best processor to run Photoshop
>>>:
>>>Intel Pentium or AMD Athlon ?
>>>
>>>Thank you
>>>
>>>Inox
>>>
>>>
>
> Hi there.
>
> I have heard that Hyper Threading (whatever it is) will actually cause
> photoshop to run slower.
>
> Just today on another group Hecate was advising against Intel Pentium,
> simply because of the Hyper Threading.
>
> Roy G
>
>
Hyperthreading CAN result in reduced throughput, but usually doesn't.
It may be possible to design a benchmark on Photoshop that would seem
slower, but overall, there is a benefit to the feature.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 5:00:16 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

AMD Athlon 64 FX-55 Processor

But get 2GB of RAM. BTW, I would wait until XP-64 is out (should be end of
this month). Adobe is already working hard on WOW64 support.

Or get two Freon-cooled G6's ;-)

Gregor

"Inox" <inoxxx.SPAM@MAPS.free.fr> wrote in message
news:425d5b16$0$10742$626a14ce@news.free.fr...
> Hi,
>
> Question to the specialists : What is the best processor to run Photoshop
> :
> Intel Pentium or AMD Athlon ?
>
> Thank you
>
> Inox
>
>
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 5:59:45 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Inox" <inoxxx.SPAM@MAPS.free.fr> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Question to the specialists : What is the best processor to run
> Photoshop : Intel Pentium or AMD Athlon ?
>
> Thank you
>
> Inox
>
>
>

My experience is that AMD processors are better for almost any conceivable
application. My AMD 2600+ 'Barton' chip at home mops the floor with the 3
GHz+ Pentium I use at work and stays 10F cooler while doing it.
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 5:59:46 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Bubbabob wrote:
> "Inox" <inoxxx.SPAM@MAPS.free.fr> wrote:
>
>
>>Hi,
>>
>>Question to the specialists : What is the best processor to run
>>Photoshop : Intel Pentium or AMD Athlon ?
>>
>>Thank you
>>
>>Inox
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> My experience is that AMD processors are better for almost any conceivable
> application. My AMD 2600+ 'Barton' chip at home mops the floor with the 3
> GHz+ Pentium I use at work and stays 10F cooler while doing it.

Interesting as most AMD chips run rather warm. However, I have had only
ONE computer that didn't have an AMD chip, and none of them has ever
given a problem.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 7:39:05 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> Intel Pentium or AMD Athlon ?

Doesn't matter. You'd never know the difference.
>
> Thank you
>
> Inox
>
>
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 9:59:34 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <ZJm7e.5563$303.2089@fe05.lga>, Ron Hunter
<rphunter@charter.net> wrote:

> And what do you do for Intel? Grin.
> AMD has a good record here.

Use what you want. My personal choice of CPU is made by IBM/Motorola.
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 11:39:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Inox" <inoxxx.SPAM@MAPS.free.fr> wrote in message
news:425d5b16$0$10742$626a14ce@news.free.fr...
> Hi,
>
> Question to the specialists : What is the best processor to run Photoshop
> :
> Intel Pentium or AMD Athlon ?
>
> Thank you
>
> Inox

The one that is paired with gobs of RAM.
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 1:29:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 01:59:45 -0000, Bubbabob
<rnorton@_remove_this_thuntek.net> wrote:

>"Inox" <inoxxx.SPAM@MAPS.free.fr> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Question to the specialists : What is the best processor to run
>> Photoshop : Intel Pentium or AMD Athlon ?
>>
>> Thank you
>>
>> Inox
>>
>>
>>
>
>My experience is that AMD processors are better for almost any conceivable
>application. My AMD 2600+ 'Barton' chip at home mops the floor with the 3
>GHz+ Pentium I use at work and stays 10F cooler while doing it.

let me guess .. you have it in liquid Nitrogen .. or all these guys in
multiple usenet HW groups crying out loud "help my AMD is running hot"
are all wrong ...
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 1:33:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Randall Ainsworth wrote:
> In article <ZJm7e.5563$303.2089@fe05.lga>, Ron Hunter
> <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:
>
>
>>And what do you do for Intel? Grin.
>>AMD has a good record here.
>
>
> Use what you want. My personal choice of CPU is made by IBM/Motorola.
That's because you are a Mac maniac. Grin.
Note that while the Motorola chip is technically superior, Motorola
hasn't put the time, or money, into improving it as Intel/AMD have done,
so it lags behind in many areas, especially in number of units sold.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 3:28:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Mark² wrote:
> "Inox" <inoxxx.SPAM@MAPS.free.fr> wrote in message
> news:425d5b16$0$10742$626a14ce@news.free.fr...
>
>>Hi,
>>
>>Question to the specialists : What is the best processor to run Photoshop
>>:
>>Intel Pentium or AMD Athlon ?
>>
>>Thank you
>>
>>Inox
>
>
> The one that is paired with gobs of RAM.
>
>
Well, that and a fast FSB, fast RAM, a great AGP video board, and FAST
hard drive. A good monitor also helps you to see the result.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 4:38:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <425d5b16$0$10742$626a14ce@news.free.fr>,
inoxxx.SPAM@MAPS.free.fr says...
> Hi,
>
> Question to the specialists : What is the best processor to run Photoshop :
> Intel Pentium or AMD Athlon ?

Don't worry about it. What you need for Photoshop is lots and lots
and lots of memory. 1GB, at least.

Diane
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 4:38:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <MPG.1cc82e6f10b8df6c989aab@news-server>,
Diane Wilson <diane@firelily.com> wrote:
>In article <425d5b16$0$10742$626a14ce@news.free.fr>,
>inoxxx.SPAM@MAPS.free.fr says...
>> Hi,
>>
>> Question to the specialists : What is the best processor to run Photoshop :
>> Intel Pentium or AMD Athlon ?
>
>Don't worry about it. What you need for Photoshop is lots and lots
>and lots of memory. 1GB, at least.
>
>Diane

Fast disks


--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 4:38:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Diane Wilson wrote:
> In article <425d5b16$0$10742$626a14ce@news.free.fr>,
> inoxxx.SPAM@MAPS.free.fr says...
>
>>Hi,
>>
>>Question to the specialists : What is the best processor to run Photoshop :
>>Intel Pentium or AMD Athlon ?
>
>
> Don't worry about it. What you need for Photoshop is lots and lots
> and lots of memory. 1GB, at least.
>
> Diane
RAM certainly is a major factor, but if a lot of special effects are to
be done, a fast processor will save a lot of time.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 4:41:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 09:29:27 +0200, imbsysop <imbsysop@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 01:59:45 -0000, Bubbabob
><rnorton@_remove_this_thuntek.net> wrote:
>
>>My experience is that AMD processors are better for almost any conceivable
>>application. My AMD 2600+ 'Barton' chip at home mops the floor with the 3
>>GHz+ Pentium I use at work and stays 10F cooler while doing it.
>
>let me guess .. you have it in liquid Nitrogen .. or all these guys in
>multiple usenet HW groups crying out loud "help my AMD is running hot"
>are all wrong ...

The latest generation of AMD are much better than past ones. Check you
are not getting confused with older generations that were indeed hot.
Right now, AMD beats Intel for low temperatures on their high-end
chips.

--
Owamanga!
http://www.pbase.com/owamanga
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 5:38:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Not wrong - but I do doubt their PC building skills.... there is more to it
than chucking all the bits in a case...
My Athlon 64 3700+ never exceeds 55 deg even after extensive gaming...

Use a decent HSF and build the case with airflow in mind....

Guy

imbsysop wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 01:59:45 -0000, Bubbabob
> <rnorton@_remove_this_thuntek.net> wrote:
>
>> "Inox" <inoxxx.SPAM@MAPS.free.fr> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Question to the specialists : What is the best processor to run
>>> Photoshop : Intel Pentium or AMD Athlon ?
>>>
>>> Thank you
>>>
>>> Inox
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> My experience is that AMD processors are better for almost any
>> conceivable application. My AMD 2600+ 'Barton' chip at home mops the
>> floor with the 3 GHz+ Pentium I use at work and stays 10F cooler
>> while doing it.
>
> let me guess .. you have it in liquid Nitrogen .. or all these guys in
> multiple usenet HW groups crying out loud "help my AMD is running hot"
> are all wrong ...
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 8:33:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
news:p Sw7e.3848$Ow2.2403@fe06.lga...
> Mark² wrote:
>> "Inox" <inoxxx.SPAM@MAPS.free.fr> wrote in message
>> news:425d5b16$0$10742$626a14ce@news.free.fr...
>>
>>>Hi,
>>>
>>>Question to the specialists : What is the best processor to run Photoshop
>>>:
>>>Intel Pentium or AMD Athlon ?
>>>
>>>Thank you
>>>
>>>Inox
>>
>>
>> The one that is paired with gobs of RAM.
> Well, that and a fast FSB, fast RAM, a great AGP video board, and FAST
> hard drive. A good monitor also helps you to see the result.

All that is true, of course. And although much of AGP video board muscle is
directed toward 3D gaming, I've found that my Radeon 9800 Pro does
extrordinarily well with 2D and various ICM adjustments...not to mention
full hardware-based screen rotation support, etc. for my high-res LCD. I
mention RAM in particular simply because so many newer folks tend to place
emphasis on the processor while ignoring some other basics...when a slower
processor with tons of RAM usually whips a faster processor with minimal
RAM. With Photoshop, the more RAM...the better. History files get HUGE in
such a hurry!

The difference between 1GB (which many folks figure is a lot) and 2GB of RAM
can be FAR more dramatic than one might expect. Higher still is nice, but
2GB means you don't hear much hard drive chatter until dealing with really
big files, or really long history lists.
Anonymous
April 15, 2005 12:26:58 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <425d5b16$0$10742$626a14ce@news.free.fr>,
"Inox" <inoxxx.SPAM@MAPS.free.fr> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Question to the specialists : What is the best processor to run Photoshop :
> Intel Pentium or AMD Athlon ?

Neither. Get yourself a Mac G5. See http://www.apple.com for info.
Anonymous
April 15, 2005 3:20:40 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

imbsysop <imbsysop@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 01:59:45 -0000, Bubbabob
><rnorton@_remove_this_thuntek.net> wrote:
>
>>"Inox" <inoxxx.SPAM@MAPS.free.fr> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Question to the specialists : What is the best processor to run
>>> Photoshop : Intel Pentium or AMD Athlon ?
>>>
>>> Thank you
>>>
>>> Inox
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>My experience is that AMD processors are better for almost any
>>conceivable application. My AMD 2600+ 'Barton' chip at home mops the
>>floor with the 3 GHz+ Pentium I use at work and stays 10F cooler while
>>doing it.
>
> let me guess .. you have it in liquid Nitrogen .. or all these guys in
> multiple usenet HW groups crying out loud "help my AMD is running hot"
> are all wrong ...
>
>

A bit of 'arctic silver' and some experience in the proper mating of chip
and heat sink.

You're talking about overclockers. I run my processors at the speed they
were designed for. I'm using about half the mass of heatsink on my AMD as
the damned Dell intel box at work requires and the Dell still runs
hotter.
Anonymous
April 15, 2005 3:23:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Bigguy" <gtittley@nospam.hotmail.nospam.com> wrote:

> Not wrong - but I do doubt their PC building skills.... there is more
> to it than chucking all the bits in a case...
> My Athlon 64 3700+ never exceeds 55 deg even after extensive gaming...
>
> Use a decent HSF and build the case with airflow in mind....
>
> Guy
>


Mine (2600+) has never hit 48F even when doing image deconvolution for
three hours straight. Normally stays between 40 and 42.
Anonymous
April 15, 2005 3:23:01 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 23:23:00 -0000, Bubbabob
<rnorton@_remove_this_thuntek.net> wrote:

>"Bigguy" <gtittley@nospam.hotmail.nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> Not wrong - but I do doubt their PC building skills.... there is more
>> to it than chucking all the bits in a case...
>> My Athlon 64 3700+ never exceeds 55 deg even after extensive gaming...
>>
>> Use a decent HSF and build the case with airflow in mind....
>>
>> Guy
>>
>
>
>Mine (2600+) has never hit 48F even when doing image deconvolution for
>three hours straight. Normally stays between 40 and 42.

Do you by any chance mean 48C? That would be 118F. (Ok, 118.4 :-) )
Using only a fan, the CPU can't be cooled below room temp, and I doubt
your room is at 48F.
Or is it? :-)

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"
Anonymous
April 15, 2005 3:24:27 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:

> Mark² wrote:
>> "Inox" <inoxxx.SPAM@MAPS.free.fr> wrote in message
>> news:425d5b16$0$10742$626a14ce@news.free.fr...
>>
>>>Hi,
>>>
>>>Question to the specialists : What is the best processor to run
>>>Photoshop
>>>:
>>>Intel Pentium or AMD Athlon ?
>>>
>>>Thank you
>>>
>>>Inox
>>
>>
>> The one that is paired with gobs of RAM.
>>
>>
> Well, that and a fast FSB, fast RAM, a great AGP video board, and FAST
> hard drive. A good monitor also helps you to see the result.
>
>

AGP does squat for photoshop. It's a gamer's thing.
Anonymous
April 15, 2005 3:24:28 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Bubbabob wrote:
> Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Mark² wrote:
>>
>>>"Inox" <inoxxx.SPAM@MAPS.free.fr> wrote in message
>>>news:425d5b16$0$10742$626a14ce@news.free.fr...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Hi,
>>>>
>>>>Question to the specialists : What is the best processor to run
>>>>Photoshop
>>>>:
>>>>Intel Pentium or AMD Athlon ?
>>>>
>>>>Thank you
>>>>
>>>>Inox
>>>
>>>
>>>The one that is paired with gobs of RAM.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Well, that and a fast FSB, fast RAM, a great AGP video board, and FAST
>>hard drive. A good monitor also helps you to see the result.
>>
>>
>
>
> AGP does squat for photoshop. It's a gamer's thing.

A good video board helps all applications by giving good quality output
to the monitor.
AGP relieves the buss of some of the work.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
April 15, 2005 3:24:29 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 19:44:10 -0500, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net>
wrote:

>Bubbabob wrote:
>> Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Mark² wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Inox" <inoxxx.SPAM@MAPS.free.fr> wrote in message
>>>>news:425d5b16$0$10742$626a14ce@news.free.fr...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>>Question to the specialists : What is the best processor to run
>>>>>Photoshop
>>>>>:
>>>>>Intel Pentium or AMD Athlon ?
>>>>>
>>>>>Thank you
>>>>>
>>>>>Inox
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>The one that is paired with gobs of RAM.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>Well, that and a fast FSB, fast RAM, a great AGP video board, and FAST
>>>hard drive. A good monitor also helps you to see the result.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> AGP does squat for photoshop. It's a gamer's thing.
>
>A good video board helps all applications by giving good quality output
>to the monitor.
>AGP relieves the buss of some of the work.

Not in a graphics manipulation program such as PS or PSP.
It's the CPU that does trhe work, the video card only displays it.
With games, much of the video processing of shadows shading and other
stuff (I'm not a gamer) is specifically programmed to be done by trhe
GPU, which is why such games *require* a 3D card.

What AGP does is provide a faster connection from RAM & CPU to the
vodeo card in this case. Not something you're likely to notice.

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"
April 15, 2005 4:52:38 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Diane Wilson wrote:

> In article <425d5b16$0$10742$626a14ce@news.free.fr>,
> inoxxx.SPAM@MAPS.free.fr says...
>> Hi,
>>
>> Question to the specialists : What is the best processor to run Photoshop
>> : Intel Pentium or AMD Athlon ?
>
> Don't worry about it. What you need for Photoshop is lots and lots
> and lots of memory. 1GB, at least.
>
>

Mine seems to zip along fine running win2k and 512 MB working with files
from an 8MP camera. Maybe XP with all the eye candy enabled or working with
larger files needs 1 GIG?

I agree I have athlon and P4 machines and don't see either is faster than
the other, at least enough to matter.
--

Stacey
Anonymous
April 15, 2005 4:52:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3c8vkmF6licbeU3@individual.net...
> Diane Wilson wrote:
>
>> In article <425d5b16$0$10742$626a14ce@news.free.fr>,
>> inoxxx.SPAM@MAPS.free.fr says...
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Question to the specialists : What is the best processor to run
>>> Photoshop
>>> : Intel Pentium or AMD Athlon ?
>>
>> Don't worry about it. What you need for Photoshop is lots and lots
>> and lots of memory. 1GB, at least.
>>
>>
>
> Mine seems to zip along fine running win2k and 512 MB working with files
> from an 8MP camera. Maybe XP with all the eye candy enabled or working
> with
> larger files needs 1 GIG?
>
> I agree I have athlon and P4 machines and don't see either is faster than
> the other, at least enough to matter.

If you are working with RAW files from an 8MP camera, you're working with
image files near 40MB.
This means that for every change of state you make to that image, you're
saving 40MB. Make 10 adjustments, and you've more than used up your RAM
(once you consider what your computer needs already just to run). After
that, you'll be waiting far longer for everything. If you're only adjusting
the 3 or 4MB jpeg files, even then it looks like more to Photoshop. While
you'll get by with far less RAM using jpegs, I'd suggest you get out of the
jpeg habit if you want to really take advantage of your sensor's
capabilities.
:) 
April 15, 2005 6:00:52 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Mark² wrote:

>
> "Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message

>>
>> Mine seems to zip along fine running win2k and 512 MB working with files
>> from an 8MP camera. Maybe XP with all the eye candy enabled or working
>> with
>> larger files needs 1 GIG?
>>

>
> If you are working with RAW files from an 8MP camera, you're working with
> image files near 40MB.

A little over 22 after conversion.

> This means that for every change of state you make to that image, you're
> saving 40MB. Make 10 adjustments, and you've more than used up your RAM
> (once you consider what your computer needs already just to run). After
> that, you'll be waiting far longer for everything

Never noticed it taking long to do anything, maybe I'm missing something
here? I know what happens when it starts using the swap file, never seen
that type of slowdown. Then again I'm probably never making 20+ adjustments
to an image.

I have tweaked the OS to eliminate any bloat, have nothing running in the
backgroud like AV etc so for others 1 gig may be needed? As cheap as ram
is, if I thought I was running into the swap file a bunch, I'd buy more
ram. Also I'm using PS7, maybe CS is more of a ram hog?

--

Stacey
Anonymous
April 15, 2005 6:00:53 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3c93klF6h0pntU1@individual.net...
> Mark² wrote:
>
>>
>> "Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
>>>
>>> Mine seems to zip along fine running win2k and 512 MB working with files
>>> from an 8MP camera. Maybe XP with all the eye candy enabled or working
>>> with
>>> larger files needs 1 GIG?
>>>
>
>>
>> If you are working with RAW files from an 8MP camera, you're working with
>> image files near 40MB.
>
> A little over 22 after conversion.

You must be converting to 8 bit rather than 16 bit...
You'll want to do any color adjustment in 16.

>> This means that for every change of state you make to that image, you're
>> saving 40MB. Make 10 adjustments, and you've more than used up your RAM
>> (once you consider what your computer needs already just to run). After
>> that, you'll be waiting far longer for everything
>
> Never noticed it taking long to do anything, maybe I'm missing something
> here? I know what happens when it starts using the swap file, never seen
> that type of slowdown. Then again I'm probably never making 20+
> adjustments
> to an image.

If you're using 8bit converted RAW files, your size is smaller and will run
faster.
You give up some fine rendition factors by not starting with 16 bit images
though.

> I have tweaked the OS to eliminate any bloat, have nothing running in the
> backgroud like AV etc so for others 1 gig may be needed? As cheap as ram
> is, if I thought I was running into the swap file a bunch, I'd buy more
> ram. Also I'm using PS7, maybe CS is more of a ram hog?

I agree with you that smaller files can be run nicely with less. I'm used
to dealing with full 16 bit images, and often much larger files.
Anonymous
April 15, 2005 6:38:21 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Big Bill wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 19:44:10 -0500, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Bubbabob wrote:
>>
>>>Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Mark² wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Inox" <inoxxx.SPAM@MAPS.free.fr> wrote in message
>>>>>news:425d5b16$0$10742$626a14ce@news.free.fr...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Question to the specialists : What is the best processor to run
>>>>>>Photoshop
>>>>>>:
>>>>>>Intel Pentium or AMD Athlon ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Thank you
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Inox
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>The one that is paired with gobs of RAM.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Well, that and a fast FSB, fast RAM, a great AGP video board, and FAST
>>>>hard drive. A good monitor also helps you to see the result.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>AGP does squat for photoshop. It's a gamer's thing.
>>
>>A good video board helps all applications by giving good quality output
>>to the monitor.
>>AGP relieves the buss of some of the work.
>
>
> Not in a graphics manipulation program such as PS or PSP.
> It's the CPU that does trhe work, the video card only displays it.
> With games, much of the video processing of shadows shading and other
> stuff (I'm not a gamer) is specifically programmed to be done by trhe
> GPU, which is why such games *require* a 3D card.
>
> What AGP does is provide a faster connection from RAM & CPU to the
> vodeo card in this case. Not something you're likely to notice.
>
Oh? Try turning off 'video acceleration' on your board in the
properties and see if it makes any difference.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
April 15, 2005 6:39:40 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Stacey wrote:
> Diane Wilson wrote:
>
>
>>In article <425d5b16$0$10742$626a14ce@news.free.fr>,
>>inoxxx.SPAM@MAPS.free.fr says...
>>
>>>Hi,
>>>
>>>Question to the specialists : What is the best processor to run Photoshop
>>>: Intel Pentium or AMD Athlon ?
>>
>>Don't worry about it. What you need for Photoshop is lots and lots
>>and lots of memory. 1GB, at least.
>>
>>
>
>
> Mine seems to zip along fine running win2k and 512 MB working with files
> from an 8MP camera. Maybe XP with all the eye candy enabled or working with
> larger files needs 1 GIG?
>
> I agree I have athlon and P4 machines and don't see either is faster than
> the other, at least enough to matter.

I also have 512 meg, but it isn't hard to get into paging when handling
multiple photos and magnifying views for editing. More RAM is almost
always an advantage.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
April 15, 2005 7:04:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Mark² wrote:

>
> "Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>>>
>>> If you are working with RAW files from an 8MP camera, you're working
>>> with image files near 40MB.
>>
>> A little over 22 after conversion.
>
> You must be converting to 8 bit rather than 16 bit...
> You'll want to do any color adjustment in 16.

That's something I seem to never need to do? Does this apply to contrast
adjustments as well or just color balance/saturation adjustments?

I've noticed nothing I'd consider to be "posterization" and that's what
would happen correct? Like I said I rarely have the need to do any color
adjustments, they always look good to me from the converted RAW files. Many
of the tools I use in PS7 only work in 8bit mode so that's what I work in
most of the time.

--

Stacey
Anonymous
April 15, 2005 10:39:34 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>> May I suggest the PowerPC G5.
>
> Add, Dual processor and maximum RAM, at least 5.

Wrong.

First, it is always going to come down to how much power you willing to
pay for, for what level of performance today, plus what power you think
is plausible for your needs over the next 3-5 years with the potential
for a growth in needed capacity (such as how large digital camera image
files will be by then).

Second, the defined "acceptable" level of performance is subject to
individual opinion. To a certain degree, this will be the user's
opinion, partially based on his expecations. Or (IMO more likely) it
can be that he's simply trying to get the best that he can at a certain
price point.

Now in this light, we can turn the clock back roughly 3 months to when
we had a similar thread here, which included this post from me, where I
did some simple DIY benchmarks:

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/m...

>From this, you can see that my manipulation of a 120MB Photoshop file
(8717 x 5778; = 50 MegaPixels equivalent) had IMO respectable response
times (:05 to load, :02 to AutoLevel, ~:01 to do a 180 degree rotate,
~:01 to run a sharpen filter).

Personally, I consider a 50MP file size to be a reasonable estimate of
what I'm going to ask a PC to do reasonably well for the next 5 years.
YMMV, but that's your perrogative. Similarly, a preceived response
time of ~5 seconds to load an image and 1-2 seconds for most of my
typical manipulation tasks are also IMO very acceptable. YMMV, but if
you agree, then you can benchmark off of my hardware for what your
hardware requirements would need to be.

And since I did this with a PowerMac SP 1.8GHz G5 with 1.5GB RAM, I
obviously disagree with Panta's claim that I'd have to move from the
current absolute bottom of their product line to the absolute top.
FWIW, my PowerMac's configuration is now selling for around $1500.


Finally a few words on the inevitable Platform Religious War: Mac vs
PC. My response is that I don't give a damn what someone else wants
to use - - I know what I prefer, and I'll dispell malicious myths about
the platform.

True, this happens to mean is that I don't have any compelling need to
know if the Intel or the AMD currently has the better price:p erformance
ratio, which is no help to the OP if he has fixed his OS. However, if
price is more important to the OP than OS, then at least a *starting*
price:p erformance to try to beat is my above price & DIY benchmark. If
the OP is being a cynical shopper, he will accept nothing less than
actual "I timed my system and it did this in Photoshop" user
statements, instead of manufacturer spec sheets that may only address
the performance of a specfic component instead of the overall system.


-hh
Anonymous
April 15, 2005 11:10:42 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Big Bill <bill@pipping.com> wrote:


> Do you by any chance mean 48C? That would be 118F. (Ok, 118.4 :-) )
> Using only a fan, the CPU can't be cooled below room temp, and I doubt
> your room is at 48F.
> Or is it? :-)
>

Oops. Celsius it is. I'm so ashamed.

My room HAS been at 48F once or twice this winter but not for long.
Anonymous
April 15, 2005 2:02:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 02:38:21 -0500, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net>
wrote:

>Big Bill wrote:
>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 19:44:10 -0500, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Bubbabob wrote:
>>>
>>>>Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Mark² wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Inox" <inoxxx.SPAM@MAPS.free.fr> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:425d5b16$0$10742$626a14ce@news.free.fr...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Hi,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Question to the specialists : What is the best processor to run
>>>>>>>Photoshop
>>>>>>>:
>>>>>>>Intel Pentium or AMD Athlon ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Thank you
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Inox
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The one that is paired with gobs of RAM.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Well, that and a fast FSB, fast RAM, a great AGP video board, and FAST
>>>>>hard drive. A good monitor also helps you to see the result.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>AGP does squat for photoshop. It's a gamer's thing.
>>>
>>>A good video board helps all applications by giving good quality output
>>>to the monitor.
>>>AGP relieves the buss of some of the work.
>>
>>
>> Not in a graphics manipulation program such as PS or PSP.
>> It's the CPU that does trhe work, the video card only displays it.
>> With games, much of the video processing of shadows shading and other
>> stuff (I'm not a gamer) is specifically programmed to be done by trhe
>> GPU, which is why such games *require* a 3D card.
>>
>> What AGP does is provide a faster connection from RAM & CPU to the
>> vodeo card in this case. Not something you're likely to notice.
>>
>Oh? Try turning off 'video acceleration' on your board in the
>properties and see if it makes any difference.

Not being a gamer, I don't have a 3D card, so I can't.
What happens on yours?

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"
Anonymous
April 15, 2005 2:50:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Bubbabob" <rnorton@_remove_this_thuntek.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9638B06FDAD2dilfjelfoiwepofujsdk@216.168.3.30...
> imbsysop <imbsysop@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 01:59:45 -0000, Bubbabob
>><rnorton@_remove_this_thuntek.net> wrote:
>>
>>>"Inox" <inoxxx.SPAM@MAPS.free.fr> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Question to the specialists : What is the best processor to run
>>>> Photoshop : Intel Pentium or AMD Athlon ?
>>>>
>>>> Thank you
>>>>
>>>> Inox
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>My experience is that AMD processors are better for almost any
>>>conceivable application. My AMD 2600+ 'Barton' chip at home mops the
>>>floor with the 3 GHz+ Pentium I use at work and stays 10F cooler while
>>>doing it.
>>
>> let me guess .. you have it in liquid Nitrogen .. or all these guys in
>> multiple usenet HW groups crying out loud "help my AMD is running hot"
>> are all wrong ...
>>
>>
>
> A bit of 'arctic silver' and some experience in the proper mating of chip
> and heat sink.
>
> You're talking about overclockers. I run my processors at the speed they
> were designed for. I'm using about half the mass of heatsink on my AMD as
> the damned Dell intel box at work requires and the Dell still runs
> hotter.

goof for you but I've been in support for some decades and if the lab smells
as if someone is frying eggs be assured that someone is pushing his AMD
machine :-) .. and even with fans the size of a mature pancake they hardly
get temps down and the machines are not overclocked, we don't have time for
such circus acts, so pardon me for not sharing your belief ... I have a lot
of Intel machines that with the standard case we get delivered stay in the
range 29-32C when not stressed and you have to push them real real hard to
get them up to 48-52C .. I still have to see the first AMD machine top that
up straight out of the box ..
Anonymous
April 15, 2005 3:28:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

imbsysop wrote:
> "Bubbabob" <rnorton@_remove_this_thuntek.net> wrote in message
> news:Xns9638B06FDAD2dilfjelfoiwepofujsdk@216.168.3.30...
>
>>imbsysop <imbsysop@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 01:59:45 -0000, Bubbabob
>>><rnorton@_remove_this_thuntek.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Inox" <inoxxx.SPAM@MAPS.free.fr> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>>Question to the specialists : What is the best processor to run
>>>>>Photoshop : Intel Pentium or AMD Athlon ?
>>>>>
>>>>>Thank you
>>>>>
>>>>>Inox
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>My experience is that AMD processors are better for almost any
>>>>conceivable application. My AMD 2600+ 'Barton' chip at home mops the
>>>>floor with the 3 GHz+ Pentium I use at work and stays 10F cooler while
>>>>doing it.
>>>
>>>let me guess .. you have it in liquid Nitrogen .. or all these guys in
>>>multiple usenet HW groups crying out loud "help my AMD is running hot"
>>>are all wrong ...
>>>
>>>
>>
>>A bit of 'arctic silver' and some experience in the proper mating of chip
>>and heat sink.
>>
>>You're talking about overclockers. I run my processors at the speed they
>>were designed for. I'm using about half the mass of heatsink on my AMD as
>>the damned Dell intel box at work requires and the Dell still runs
>>hotter.
>
>
> goof for you but I've been in support for some decades and if the lab smells
> as if someone is frying eggs be assured that someone is pushing his AMD
> machine :-) .. and even with fans the size of a mature pancake they hardly
> get temps down and the machines are not overclocked, we don't have time for
> such circus acts, so pardon me for not sharing your belief ... I have a lot
> of Intel machines that with the standard case we get delivered stay in the
> range 29-32C when not stressed and you have to push them real real hard to
> get them up to 48-52C .. I still have to see the first AMD machine top that
> up straight out of the box ..
>
>
>
And owning AMD processors for the past 10 years, I have never had one
overheat. So what ARE you doing to those machines?
If you will read the operating specs, you will find that a CPU will
operate normally as temps much higher than you specify, and if you use
Mil. spec. chips, they will operate normally at temps up to 100C. And
THAT'S HOT!
The question isn't the temperature, it's whether or not it affects
operation.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
April 15, 2005 3:56:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <3c97c8F6nck65U1@individual.net>, fotocord@yahoo.com says...
> Mark² wrote:
>
> >
> > "Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >>
> >>>
> >>> If you are working with RAW files from an 8MP camera, you're working
> >>> with image files near 40MB.
> >>
> >> A little over 22 after conversion.
> >
> > You must be converting to 8 bit rather than 16 bit...
> > You'll want to do any color adjustment in 16.
>
> That's something I seem to never need to do? Does this apply to contrast
> adjustments as well or just color balance/saturation adjustments?
>
> I've noticed nothing I'd consider to be "posterization" and that's what
> would happen correct? Like I said I rarely have the need to do any color
> adjustments, they always look good to me from the converted RAW files. Many
> of the tools I use in PS7 only work in 8bit mode so that's what I work in
> most of the time.
>
>
It really does depend on your working habits. If you apply
adjustments directly to a layer, it takes less memory
than using adjustment layers. Using new layers that are
full-color takes more memory than adjustment layers, which
have only a single channel for their mask. History palettes
set to undo any random past action needs more memory than
history set for sequential undo only.

And as pointed out, opening multiple photos is another way
to chew up lots of RAM quickly.

Even in 8-bit settings, 1GB is a minimum for getting
serious with Photoshop and modern digital photos.

Diane
Anonymous
April 15, 2005 3:56:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Diane Wilson wrote:
> In article <3c97c8F6nck65U1@individual.net>, fotocord@yahoo.com says...
>
>>Mark² wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>>>>If you are working with RAW files from an 8MP camera, you're working
>>>>>with image files near 40MB.
>>>>
>>>>A little over 22 after conversion.
>>>
>>>You must be converting to 8 bit rather than 16 bit...
>>>You'll want to do any color adjustment in 16.
>>
>>That's something I seem to never need to do? Does this apply to contrast
>>adjustments as well or just color balance/saturation adjustments?
>>
>>I've noticed nothing I'd consider to be "posterization" and that's what
>>would happen correct? Like I said I rarely have the need to do any color
>>adjustments, they always look good to me from the converted RAW files. Many
>>of the tools I use in PS7 only work in 8bit mode so that's what I work in
>>most of the time.
>>
>>
>
> It really does depend on your working habits. If you apply
> adjustments directly to a layer, it takes less memory
> than using adjustment layers. Using new layers that are
> full-color takes more memory than adjustment layers, which
> have only a single channel for their mask. History palettes
> set to undo any random past action needs more memory than
> history set for sequential undo only.
>
> And as pointed out, opening multiple photos is another way
> to chew up lots of RAM quickly.
>
> Even in 8-bit settings, 1GB is a minimum for getting
> serious with Photoshop and modern digital photos.
>
> Diane
Maybe that is why I never run into RAM problems with 512 meg, I don't do
layers, yet.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
!