Re: [OM] Mac/Photoshop performance advice

[C.H.Ling]

No matter how many system RAM you assign to PS, it ALWAYS create a temp file 
on disk during image editing. With a large image, the file will went to few 
GB after a few edits. When you set the scratch disk to a "RAM disk" it runs 
much faster and reduce the "write" to HDD or SSD which can extend the life 
of the device.
C.H.Ling

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Chuck Norcutt" <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

> I think I agree with all you say except giving memory to a RAM disk.  It 
> would be much more efficient to just give all the RAM to Photoshop. There 
> is an old saying that nothing improves virtual memory performance like more 
> real memory.  :-)
> Chuck Norcutt
>
>
> On 12/24/2015 9:27 PM, C.H.Ling wrote:
> > I believe CPU is much more important than GPU in PS, especially in 2D. 
> > Some
> > PS commands/filters may have GPU support but most of them still using CPU
> > (many of them just use single core).
> >
> > Your current processor's benchmark is 3994 (PassMark) and my CPU is 8843
> > (Intel E3-1230 V2), it takes 12 seconds to startup on a 2.5" slow HDD. If
> > you invest on a SSD and a faster CPU like the i7 6700K (benchmark
> > 11003), it
> > should be much faster.
> >
> > If you have lots of RAM, I highly recommend the "ram disk" for PS scratch
> > disk. It is extremely fast even your image is a few hundred MB.
> >
> > C.H.Ling
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chuck Norcutt"
> > <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > > Thanks, Bob & ChrisB.  I will heed your advice.  I really need advice on
> > > the importance and performance of of the GPU in using Photoshop... the
> > > only thing that stresses my current machine.
> > >
> > > Chuck Norcutt
> > >
> > >
> > > On 12/24/2015 10:46 AM, ChrisB wrote:
> > > > I agree with Bob about OWC; they are an innovative lot.
> > > >
> > > > On the other hand, Chuck is the sort of person that Apple is trying to
> > > > tempt to the Other Side, so a call to their sales team should be
> > > > fruitful.
> > > >
> > > > I managed to buy a nearly new MacBook a couple of weeks ago – for a 
> > > > very
> > > > good price.  But the previous owner had probably left the thing plugged
> > > > to the charger and the battery condition was only 90%.  I talked this
> > > > through with Apple support (based in Athens :-)) and the experience was
> > > > very useful.  I then had an appointment with a Genius in Cambridge who
> > > > checked the battery for me.  It was fine, but he advised me how to keep
> > > > the health from deteriorating further: use it, don’t leave it plugged
> > > > in.
> > > >
> > > > I was impressed with the overall level of service, and I bet the sales
> > > > team is up to the mark.
> > > >
> > > > Chris
> > > >
> > > > > On 24 Dec 2015, at 13:56, Chuck Norcutt 
> > > > > <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Now that I've had to go help a few unfortunate owners of new Win10
> > > > > machines or (worse) upgraders from Win7 I have vowed I'm never going 
> > > > > to
> > > > > Win10. I am seriously thinking of turning myself into an Apple fanboy.
> > > > >
> > > > > That, of course, requires running Photoshop on some sort of Mac
> > > > > configuration.  I don't want a Mac laptop (yet) and don't need a big
> > > > > monitor (already have one) so I've been thinking of Mac minis.  These
> > > > > can be configured from about $500-2,000.  What do I need in the way of
> > > > > CPU, graphics processor and memory to get good Photoshop
> > > > > performance?  I
> > > > > make extensive use of ACR to process 16MP E-M1/M5 images and need to
> > > > > consider that the E-M1 MkII will likely have the 40MP mode or maybe
> > > > > even
> > > > > larger.  Of course, such large image sizes will not be the norm but
> > > > > probably do dictate 16GB RAM.
> > > > >
> > > > > My current machine is an HP desktop with 8GB and an AMD A8 5500
> > > > > quad-core at 3.2GHz with integrated graphics.  Performance is
> > > > > similar to
> > > > > an Intel i3 3220 although the AMD's graphics performance is better.
> > > > > This
> > > > > has what I consider acceptable performance for 16MP images but hardly
> > > > > bowls me over.  For some reason recent startup performance in 
> > > > > Photoshop
> > > > > has become much slower.  I've never timed it but it seems that it's 
> > > > > not
> > > > > really ready to rock and roll until it's been up for 20-30 seconds.
> > > > > After that performance is normal.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'd love to have something that's twice as fast or even 3 times as 
> > > > > fast
> > > > > if that's possible.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Chuck Norcutt
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > _________________________________________________________________
> > > > > Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> > > > > Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
> > > > > Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
> > > --
> > > _________________________________________________________________
> > > Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> > > Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
> > > Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
> --
> _________________________________________________________________
> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/