quick memory question

  • Thread starter Thread starter Matt
  • Start date Start date
M

Matt

I'll be doing a lot of Photoshop work and I'm wondering which is a
better memory option. Due to budget constraints I can either go with 1
gig of CL2 memory or 2 gigs of CL3 memory. I know CL2 is a bit faster
but I'm thinking it's better to have more overall ram.
 
On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 08:22:22 -0400, "Matt"

| I'll be doing a lot of Photoshop work and I'm wondering which is a
| better memory option. Due to budget constraints I can either go with 1
| gig of CL2 memory or 2 gigs of CL3 memory. I know CL2 is a bit faster
| but I'm thinking it's better to have more overall ram.

I also do a lot of work with Photoshop and have found 1G (two 512MB
sticks dual channeled) to be sufficient for my needs. Of course,
YMMV.

Larc



§§§ - Change planet to earth to reply by email - §§§
 
I don't think there's much difference comparing a GB of CL2 to a GB of CL3,
probably nothing noticable. 1GB compared to 2GB of RAM however, would make a
noticeable difference, if I were you I'd go for the 2GB of CL3 option.

AC
 
Matt said:
I'll be doing a lot of Photoshop work and I'm wondering which is a
better memory option. Due to budget constraints I can either go with 1
gig of CL2 memory or 2 gigs of CL3 memory. I know CL2 is a bit faster
but I'm thinking it's better to have more overall ram.
Click to expand...

To be honest, it depends upon more factors than you have listed, but in any case I don't think you'll go
wrong with either solution.

Jon
 
I'm a commercial photographer and use PhotoShop incessantly. When I first
assembled this computer (P4 2.8, Gigabyte 8KNXP v1 non-Ultra), I installed
1gb of RAM, a matched pair of Kingston CL3 (KVR400X64C3AK2/1G)--and later
added another 1gb. I noticed no difference in performance between 1gb and
2gb, except that now I can load dozens more high-res photos into PhotoShop
without exhausting RAM and calling upon virtual memory (swap file). It is
rare that I load this many files simultaneously, and if I had to do it again
I might settle on only 1gb and load only 50 files at a time rather than 100,
taking the extra $200 and applying it somewhere that would reap more benefit
(see below for a suggestion).

As for the difference between CL2 and CL3, I doubt if you'll realize any
practical difference unless you gain enjoyment running benchmarks, and even
then you'll see only a small difference. What will make a major difference
is installing dual-channel memory on a mobo that supports it. The bandwidth
will be double that of single-channel, although that doesn't translate into
double the overall computer performance. The RAM is fast anyway, and if you
double it you may not even notice the increase.

What did make a difference here was upgrading from a standard PATA harddrive
(Maxtor DM9, 8mb buffer) to a WD Raptor SATA. The drive will slow you down
more than any other item, and these new 10k RPM Raptor SATA's are as fast as
you can get short of high-end SCSI. I have the 36gb used as C:, and the
newer 74gb are even faster. I don't store photos on C:, rather on D: (the
Maxtor) and two firewire drives.

I'd install 1gb of CL2 RAM and buy a 74gb Raptor HD for the $200 you'll be
saving. That would be the best application for your money, IMHO. If you
store photos on your boot drive (C:), you may need to think again about the
Raptor since 74gb is currently the largest available, but my C: routinely
has only about 15gb on it, as I only use it for working folders for photos.
As soon as I finish running them through Nikon Capture, editing in
PhotoShop, and delivering to the client, I move them to much larger archive
drives.
 
well I was actually going for 2 matched pair of Kingston CL3
KVR400X64C3AK2/1G in an ASUS A8V DLX, and I'm using a WD 36GB 360GD
SERIAL ATA 150 10,000RPM 8MB BUFFER HARD DRIVE as my system drive. I
think I'll be adding a couple of the 72GB's down the road for some video
work... if I can save enough money.
 
Back
Top