PC not powerfull enough
Discussion
Hello
I have been asked to find a system that will be less stressed when processing severly big picture files in Photoshop.
The current system is 3.4GHz Prescott (800MHz FSB) Pentium IV, 1.0Gb DDR 333 RAM, 80Gb 7200RPM H/Drive, 256Mb Graphics card, AS Rok M/board, 19 inch monitor, Windows XP Pro.
Would the option of a dual processor board be a significant improvement, or would double the RAM prove a better spend? If so what speed / type of processors would i pick.
System monitor spikes at 85% CPU useage and 400Mb page file.
Is there any proper software that speeds up systems?
I don't want to waste the blokes money by getting him a minorly faster system.
Any thoughts on 64bit processors and 64bit versions of windows?
Cheers
Kevin
I have been asked to find a system that will be less stressed when processing severly big picture files in Photoshop.
The current system is 3.4GHz Prescott (800MHz FSB) Pentium IV, 1.0Gb DDR 333 RAM, 80Gb 7200RPM H/Drive, 256Mb Graphics card, AS Rok M/board, 19 inch monitor, Windows XP Pro.
Would the option of a dual processor board be a significant improvement, or would double the RAM prove a better spend? If so what speed / type of processors would i pick.
System monitor spikes at 85% CPU useage and 400Mb page file.
Is there any proper software that speeds up systems?
I don't want to waste the blokes money by getting him a minorly faster system.
Any thoughts on 64bit processors and 64bit versions of windows?
Cheers
Kevin
kevchard said:This is tricky.
Hello
I have been asked to find a system that will be less stressed when processing severly big picture files in Photoshop.
The current system is 3.4GHz Prescott (800MHz FSB) Pentium IV, 1.0Gb DDR 333 RAM, 80Gb 7200RPM H/Drive, 256Mb Graphics card, AS Rok M/board, 19 inch monitor, Windows XP Pro.
Would the option of a dual processor board be a significant improvement, or would double the RAM prove a better spend? If so what speed / type of processors would i pick.
System monitor spikes at 85% CPU useage and 400Mb page file.
Is there any proper software that speeds up systems?
I don't want to waste the blokes money by getting him a minorly faster system.
Any thoughts on 64bit processors and 64bit versions of windows?
Cheers
Kevin
At the moment, thats a pretty damn good system, I'd say. If you can, could you go up to 400 RAM as opposed to 333? I've just swapped mine over from 333 to 400 and noticed a big difference.
Other than that, the P4 is already Hyper Threading aware - tell me - does the m/b know it is? If you go into Task Manager, can you see the "two" CPUs? If the BIOS isn't set up correctly, you'll only see one.
In all honesty, you need to take a closer look. If its running out of RAM then it will start paging to disk, which ideally you don't want. I'd be inclined to run up TaskMan, and have a butchers at what the system is doing when processing the Photoshop pictures?
Hope this helps,
Greg
It's the age old problem - a PC can never be fast enough if you ask me.
Your machine is already up at the middle to high end of what's out there. Without spending insane money I'd say you aren't that likely to get any real improvements out of hardware.
Maybe a clean up is required? Defragmenting your disks might help a lot. Especially if your page file is fragmented. Download a trial diskkeeper and run a (i'm doing this from memory) "boot time consolidation", which if you haven't ever defragged will make potentially a big difference.
Your machine is already up at the middle to high end of what's out there. Without spending insane money I'd say you aren't that likely to get any real improvements out of hardware.
Maybe a clean up is required? Defragmenting your disks might help a lot. Especially if your page file is fragmented. Download a trial diskkeeper and run a (i'm doing this from memory) "boot time consolidation", which if you haven't ever defragged will make potentially a big difference.
_dobbo_ said:All good ideas but our man mentions that the CPU spikes to 85% whe processing the Photoshop files.
It's the age old problem - a PC can never be fast enough if you ask me.
Your machine is already up at the middle to high end of what's out there. Without spending insane money I'd say you aren't that likely to get any real improvements out of hardware.
Maybe a clean up is required? Defragmenting your disks might help a lot. Especially if your page file is fragmented. Download a trial diskkeeper and run a (i'm doing this from memory) "boot time consolidation", which if you haven't ever defragged will make potentially a big difference.
I could see upgrading to 2Gb 400 memory making a difference, but he is near the top end of what 32-bit systems are available at the moment.
Also - what kind of graphics card? Have you considered a 512mb? Is it PCIx-16 or AGP?
ErnestM
PS: System does look good. I would make my first stop in taskmanager and get rid of some of the processes. Also - if he is running AV - turn it off when using photoshop. Might want to make sure that he is NTFS and not FAT as well...
ErnestM
PS: System does look good. I would make my first stop in taskmanager and get rid of some of the processes. Also - if he is running AV - turn it off when using photoshop. Might want to make sure that he is NTFS and not FAT as well...
Tasks running in background are minimal all taking up low amounts of useage. What do you think to these processors?
www.ebuyer.com/customer/products/index.html?rb=13199372857&action=c2hvd19wcm9kdWN0X292ZXJ2aWV3&product_uid=94640
www.ebuyer.com/customer/products/index.html?rb=13199372857&action=c2hvd19wcm9kdWN0X292ZXJ2aWV3&product_uid=94640
Personally, I have one of these:
www.intel.com/products/processor/pentiumXE/index.htm
(dual core plus hyperthreading = 2 core processors plus 2 virtual processors = Windows sees 4 processors)
It's almost on par with my dual Xenon workstation at the office for about 60% of the price...
ErnestM
>> Edited by ErnestM on Thursday 17th November 19:21
www.intel.com/products/processor/pentiumXE/index.htm
(dual core plus hyperthreading = 2 core processors plus 2 virtual processors = Windows sees 4 processors)
It's almost on par with my dual Xenon workstation at the office for about 60% of the price...
ErnestM
>> Edited by ErnestM on Thursday 17th November 19:21
A quick graphics card won't make any difference for Photoshop, so assuming the current one is OK, I'd stick with that. I would go for upgrading the RAM though - 1GB just won't be enough for large PS files. 2GB+ is the way to go.
I'd also consider going for a Western Digital Raptor 74GB 10,000k rpm HDD, and moving the Photoshop swap file onto an additional (fast) hard disk too.
I'd also consider going for a Western Digital Raptor 74GB 10,000k rpm HDD, and moving the Photoshop swap file onto an additional (fast) hard disk too.
If the cpu is the problem, a 4GHz cpu would only be 25% faster at best. I don't think it is the cause though. Another 1GB of 400MHz memory would certainly not harm matters but it may be that your primary bottleneck is elsewhere: If it is an AGP card (which I suspect it is, given the general vintage of the machine) you might like to go into the BIOS setup and make sure the AGP aperture is big enough (play around to find the optimal setting for you).
80GB is a bit small for a hard drive. A new 250/300GB one with 16MB cache would speed your system up generally and cost about £75-85. Next, try turning hyperthreading *off*, this turns down overall efficiency, but speeds up the main process by 10% or so. The OS might see 2 CPUs with HT on, but the 2nd CPU is a tiny fraction of the power of the main one.
When it slows down, is it the general "processing" bar along the bottom that slows down, or does it start pasting the image in square chunks? The former is usually a processor or bandwidth issue, the latter is a memory size / paging to disk problem.
Kevin, the AMD X2 3800+ is a very nice cpu and great in terms of bangs per buck, but the X2 4400+ is probably better suited to your work as it has 1MB of cache per core rather than 512kB in the X2 3800+ (or better still the Opteron equivalent which seem better at workstation applications). I presume this would be for a replacement machine rather than an upgrade as AMD cpus wouldn't fit your Intel motherboard.
64 bit Windows seems to be a bit of a non-starter (whether Intel or AMD) as it is almost identical to 32 bit, but can be difficult to find drivers for, takes more memory and generally runs 5-10% slower than its 32 bit cousin.
Mike
P.S. Xeon processors are almost all horrendously poor value for money, hence Apple usually compare their latest Mac processor with them - or at least used to until Apple declared they were moving to Intel hardware!
80GB is a bit small for a hard drive. A new 250/300GB one with 16MB cache would speed your system up generally and cost about £75-85. Next, try turning hyperthreading *off*, this turns down overall efficiency, but speeds up the main process by 10% or so. The OS might see 2 CPUs with HT on, but the 2nd CPU is a tiny fraction of the power of the main one.
When it slows down, is it the general "processing" bar along the bottom that slows down, or does it start pasting the image in square chunks? The former is usually a processor or bandwidth issue, the latter is a memory size / paging to disk problem.
Kevin, the AMD X2 3800+ is a very nice cpu and great in terms of bangs per buck, but the X2 4400+ is probably better suited to your work as it has 1MB of cache per core rather than 512kB in the X2 3800+ (or better still the Opteron equivalent which seem better at workstation applications). I presume this would be for a replacement machine rather than an upgrade as AMD cpus wouldn't fit your Intel motherboard.
64 bit Windows seems to be a bit of a non-starter (whether Intel or AMD) as it is almost identical to 32 bit, but can be difficult to find drivers for, takes more memory and generally runs 5-10% slower than its 32 bit cousin.
Mike
P.S. Xeon processors are almost all horrendously poor value for money, hence Apple usually compare their latest Mac processor with them - or at least used to until Apple declared they were moving to Intel hardware!
The page appears 'blockey' and jerky as you drag the image around the screen.
Looks like more memory and quicker h/drive may be the order of the day.
The graphics card was a quad something (sorry for being vague).
I'm assuming AGP grpahics card, but don't know for def.
The system seems to be a general flyer, but the images are 1200 DPI, and approx A5 in real size (approx 3Mb?).
He focuses on one program at a time, so is not surfing net etc whilst working in photoshop.
I have asked him to get updates for photoshop and any patches for the m/board. He is happy to change m/board / processor if that is what it takes.
Thanks to all of you for your constructive comments, they are much appreciated.How much rougly is Intel processor you recommend?
Looks like more memory and quicker h/drive may be the order of the day.
The graphics card was a quad something (sorry for being vague).
I'm assuming AGP grpahics card, but don't know for def.
The system seems to be a general flyer, but the images are 1200 DPI, and approx A5 in real size (approx 3Mb?).
He focuses on one program at a time, so is not surfing net etc whilst working in photoshop.
I have asked him to get updates for photoshop and any patches for the m/board. He is happy to change m/board / processor if that is what it takes.
Thanks to all of you for your constructive comments, they are much appreciated.How much rougly is Intel processor you recommend?
Zad said:Actually, as Photoshop is multithreaded, keeping HT switched on (or even going for a dual core CPU or twin CPUs) will speed things up.
Next, try turning hyperthreading *off*, this turns down overall efficiency, but speeds up the main process by 10% or so. The OS might see 2 CPUs with HT on, but the 2nd CPU is a tiny fraction of the power of the main one.
More RAM, definitely. As much as the motherboard will support.
At least two big, fast hard drives. Don't go for cheapies - 10k rpm is good. Dedicate one to the photoshop work area.
CPU & graphics card will make little difference if the memory and disc infrastructure aren't up to scratch.
At least two big, fast hard drives. Don't go for cheapies - 10k rpm is good. Dedicate one to the photoshop work area.
CPU & graphics card will make little difference if the memory and disc infrastructure aren't up to scratch.
I'll echo the fact that you should dedicate a drive for photoshop to use as a scratch disk. Then make sure you nominate it in Edit > Preferences > Plug-ins and Scratch Disks. If you can't manage a separate disk then at least use a separate partition that is not used for anything else. And A5 size at 1200dpi equates to a psd file size of around 400Mb.
>> Edited by arcturus on Thursday 17th November 21:38
>> Edited by arcturus on Thursday 17th November 21:38
ehasler said:
Next, try turning hyperthreading *off*, this turns down overall efficiency, but speeds up the main process by 10% or so. The OS might see 2 CPUs with HT on, but the 2nd CPU is a tiny fraction of the power of the main one.
Whilst Photoshop is certainly multi-threaded, most of its filters are not... So some things work better with HT on, some with HT off. Its a zero cost thing to try and fully reversible, so I'm just saying suck it and see
Or should I say your mileage may vary! Mike
Some interesting thoughts here... 
If you hadn't stated the motherboard make, then I'd have assumed you'd bought a cheap Dell.. and 80GB HDD is a bit small these days. SATA is the way forward, so I'd look to get two drives of a decent size in there... I've seen 160GB drives around the £60 mark recently... keep the 80, but stick it into an external drive case and use it for general backup stuff.
I've used a similar spec system to your with Photoshop (and been dealing with RAW files prior to that), but with a SATA drive... so I'd check the motherboard settings, and let Windows manage the pagefile - I see no reason why you should get these spikes and such issues... although the Photoshop scratch volume is really a must these days...
If you hadn't stated the motherboard make, then I'd have assumed you'd bought a cheap Dell.. and 80GB HDD is a bit small these days. SATA is the way forward, so I'd look to get two drives of a decent size in there... I've seen 160GB drives around the £60 mark recently... keep the 80, but stick it into an external drive case and use it for general backup stuff.
I've used a similar spec system to your with Photoshop (and been dealing with RAW files prior to that), but with a SATA drive... so I'd check the motherboard settings, and let Windows manage the pagefile - I see no reason why you should get these spikes and such issues... although the Photoshop scratch volume is really a must these days...
Gassing Station | Computers, Gadgets & Stuff | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff