Jump to content


Photo

RAM and CPU upgrade Photoshop speed test results

  • Please log in to reply
6 replies to this topic

#1 pubquiz

pubquiz

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 978
  • Joined: 07 Oct 2004
  • Loc: Lancashire England

Posted 26 March 2014 - 04:54 PM

I wasn't sure whether to post this here or in the software section but since it may be of interest to folk using Photoshop for their astro processing have put it here.

I posted this on the speedtest site listed below and also on another uk astro site and hope it will be of interest to CN'ers

It is about 6 or 7 years since I built my observatory PC and at the time it was quite high spec but I recently saw that better CPU's and more RAM were selling for quite cheap on a well known auction site so bought them.

Vista had just come out when I built the PC and I installed it but it wouldn't run alot of my astro gear so I made the PC Dual boot with XP as well...I upgraded the Vista partition to win 7 later which was way better than Vista but I kept the XP hence results below using both

I downloaded a good Photoshop speedtest from http://www.gavtrain.com/?p=1509 and have posted the results ..some expected and some not...of various RAM and CPU on PS CS 3 (on winXP) and CS5 (on win7)combinations below for anyone interested in speeding up their PS performance


Graphics card in all tests is a Geforce 8800 GTS

New (to me) processor is a Core 2 Quad Q 700 and the old one a Core 2 Duo E6300 all Ram is DDR2

1) Old Processor (Core 2 Duo E6300) and 2GB of RAM on CS3 on Win XP Time: 22 minutes 49 secs!

2) Old Processor (Core 2 Duo E6300) and 2GB of RAM on CS5 on Win 7 Time: 8 minutes 17 secs
——————————————————————————————————————-

All the rest of the tests are with the New processor a Core 2 Quad Q 700

—————————————————————————————————————-

3) New CPU on CS3 on win XP with 2GB RAM time: 26 minutes 22 secs

4) New CPU on CS3 on win XP with 4GB RAM time: 24 minutes dead.

5) New CPU on CS3 on win XP with 8GB RAM time: 23 minutes 43 secs

So proving that win XP being 32 bit is as claimed unable to use any RAM above 3GB.
___________________________________________________________________

Now the CS5 results with the new processor:

6) CS5 on win 7 64 bit 2GB RAM time: 8 min 7 secs

6) CS5 on win 7 64 bit 4GB RAM time: 6 minutes 26 secs

7) CS5 on win 7 64 bit 8GB RAM time: 2 minutes dead. :cool:
_____________________________________________________________________

So Conclusions:

1) An upgrade of the CPU (about 3 times faster in some games benchmarks so still happy I upgraded ..it was only £30) actually made PS CS3 slower on Win XP with 2GB RAM and was basically the same time as the old CPU on CS5 with 2GB RAM so don’t assume a processor upgrade will necessarily speed up PS…RAM is obviously much more important.I am still pleased i bought the quad core as it wasn't much money and I do other stuff on the PC like games where it is an improvement

2) CS5 is MUCH MUCH faster than CS3.

3) RAM is the biggest improvement you can make in PS making approximately a 2 minute improvement on my machine per 2GB so £35 for the 8GB was a good buy :)

4) If you still use a 32 bit OS don’t bother installing more than 3 GB of RAM if you are on a 64 bit OS fit as much RAM as you can…although I dare say that anything over a certain amount (don’t know what that would be) would not give as big a performance jump.

Hope this has helped if you are considering an upgrade.

Anyone know why the new CPU actually gave a bigger time on the old CS3 and no real improvement on CS5? :confused:

Tom

#2 Footbag

Footbag

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6066
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2009
  • Loc: Scranton, PA

Posted 26 March 2014 - 05:02 PM

Interesting. I have an i7 processing desktop and just picked up a quad core ATOM tablet. It only has 2gb of ram, but I won't be able to resist loading PS or PI on it. It will be interesting to see how it does.

#3 yawg

yawg

    Explorer 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 84
  • Joined: 18 Jun 2013
  • Loc: Phoenix, Az

Posted 26 March 2014 - 06:15 PM

Adam, don't expect much. I have an atom netbook with 2gb ram and I think it would explode if I tried to open up PS with it...

#4 alpal

alpal

    Soyuz

  • -----
  • Posts: 3665
  • Joined: 15 Jun 2009
  • Loc: Melbourne Australia.

Posted 26 March 2014 - 06:38 PM

I used to have an old Pentium 4 with 2 gig of RAM.
It couldn't handle Photoshop.

I never looked back when 2 years ago I got an I7 quad core with 16 Gig of RAM.
Deep Sky Stacker used to take more than 2 hours to stack 50 frames -
now the i7 will do it in under 5 minutes.

#5 microstar

microstar

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1228
  • Joined: 05 Jan 2008
  • Loc: Canada

Posted 26 March 2014 - 10:39 PM

Throw in a Solid State Drive and you'll really be cooking.
...Keith

#6 pubquiz

pubquiz

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 978
  • Joined: 07 Oct 2004
  • Loc: Lancashire England

Posted 28 March 2014 - 02:55 PM

Yes Keith I have read they make a big difference in PS if using as the scratch drive.

I have a Crucial SSD in my htpc with the OS on and it is rapid at booting up.

May add one in the future but the speed now is pretty quick and even the more intensive of Noel Carboni's and Annie's actions don't take long at all so am happy for the mo.

Like everything I expect the price per capacity of SSD's will come down dramatically over time.

Tom

#7 Footbag

Footbag

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6066
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2009
  • Loc: Scranton, PA

Posted 28 March 2014 - 03:13 PM

Part of the reason I'm tempted to try it on the ATOM is that it has quad cores as well as a SSD. It looks like a netbook, but it's not spec'ed like one. Personally, I think intel did an impressive job on the new Baytrail chipset.

And I still have the i7, 12GB, 4TB desktop if I get no love from the T100. It wouldn't be practical, just for fun. The screen is teeny.






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics