Building a Workstation: Specs and OS suggestions

[Lu...@adobeforums.com]

Hey there photoshoppers, thank you for your time. I am currently running a quad-care, 4 gigs, with a nvidia 8800gts 640mb graphics card machine and using photoshop cs4 extended with windows xp 32 bit os.

While photoshop cs4 is fairly fast and responsive, I would like to have it even quicker.

My question is, what would make this happen?

Naturally a faster processor (i7 intel) would assist in this, but I rather not go that route. I would rather go to a 64bit OS and add additional 4 gigs of ram (total of 8). What would your suggestions be?

Add the additional 4 gigs of ram and go to 64-bit xp? 64 bit vista?

Build a new machine with i7 quad cpus, 16 gigs of ram and 64 bit os?

Simply use what I got because there will not be much of an improvement?

I would like to have it run faster without a great deal of reworking the system. Clearly what I am running now is pretty darn fast even though it is a year old since I built it. Thanks for the help.

[semoi]

For all real world purposes your current machine is as fast as it gets for
Photoshop.
The Photoshop scripts that some testers use do not resemble real world
usage.
If you are going to use testing software then you will find that Photoshop
speed still scales with raw processor power more than any other variable.
Hence if you simply pop in the fastest CPU your motherboard will handle you
will get all the speed you can appreciate and save money.
In the real world most studies do not show any appreciable speed bump
running CS4 under Vista 64, either the 32 bit version of CS4 or the 64 bit
version. The latter is compromised by incompatibility with the majority of
plug-ins, which may or may not matter to you. The main reason for this is
that most of Photoshop is single-threaded: all that data is getting crammed
through one processor core, even if you drank the Apple Koolaid and paid an
insane amount for their dual CPU space heater. The corollary is that running
more than 4gbs of RAM makes no real world difference, regardless of OS,
although you may feel better seeing that the extra ram is recognized by
Vista 64. You should also realize that running 32 bit CS4 in Vista 64 gains
you one extra GB of usable ram that will not likely every be effectively
accessed.
But its your money . . .

[Curvem...@adobeforums.com]

If you are interested in having Photoshop start faster, and open images
more quickly, I'd recommend that you RAID up. Keep in mind that you can
get half this benefit by leaving Photoshop running, and that once the
images are open, you won't see as much of an improvement in performance.

Re 64 bit, I have an 8 gig four core system and it's very difficult to coax
Photoshop into using more than 3 or 4 gigs of address space, or 25% (one
core) of processor. My conclusion from my own limited experiments is that
you're not going to see much, if any, performance improvement with 64 bit
or more than 2 cores. Photoshop does not (yet) really use the larger
memory space or multi cores for speed increase.

Capacity is a different issue - you'll be able to deal with much larger
images, and more simultaneously open images efficiently, with a minimum of
swap activity.

[dave_...@adobeforums.com]

64 bit? go vista, not xp, or even better, if you can wait, windows 7.

agree w/curvemeister. raid would help.

fast 10000k or better hard drives.

but i wouldn't rule out upgrading the mobo/chip/RAM to the i7 if speed is what you want. note the i7 like ram to come is sets of 3.

[Zeno_...@adobeforums.com]

When talking about Core i7 also check up on the motherboard, there are some that don't like 12gb or more RAM(doesn't boot up even though it states on the box that it supports it)

[SDA]

I'm not sure I agree with Dave (sorry man); I'd use XP x64 over Vista, (Server 2003 is the same thing) and not upgrade to Windows 7 until it's at SP2. XP x64 works just fine with Photoshop 4 in my experience having installed both @ several large clients.

[dave_...@adobeforums.com]

; I'd use XP x64 over Vista,

blasphemy! :)

I say that because there's better driver support for vista 64.

[Bart_...@adobeforums.com]

SDA: You'll come around like we got Dave to eventually.

[dave_...@adobeforums.com]

dave will be sticking w/xp until win 7 comes out thankyouverymuch!

:)

[Free...@adobeforums.com]

Vista 64 is, in every way, the best OS Microsoft has made so far. But 7 will be a bit leaner, or so I'm told. I like lean.

Are we still on the air? Can't be long now till they pull the plug. Is this The End Of The World As We Know It?

<darkness approaches>

[John Joslin]

3pm PST is pretty late in Europe.

[Free...@adobeforums.com]

Ah, of course. But you'll go an hour before me, John ;-)

[Zeno_...@adobeforums.com]

3pm PST is 1 or 2am around here so i won't be around to see the forum go down in flames :P

[dave_...@adobeforums.com]

6pm for me EDT.

Texas Senate Proposes a Budget With a No-Vista-Upgrades Rider
<http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/04/02/2158253>

The Texas state Senate yesterday gave preliminary approval to a state
budget that includes a provision forbidding government agencies from upgrading
to Windows Vista without written consent of the legislature.

[Bart_...@adobeforums.com]

If you want to save money, why upgrade now?

[David_E_...@adobeforums.com]

The artical I read on another website mention that MS built and operates a $500 million data center and some other big building with lots of employes in Texas. Nothing like stepping in the hand that feeds you.

[boblevine]

I wouldn't touch XP64 or Server 2003. The fact that Adobe has zero
support for either is enough to stay clear and Vista 64 is just too good
once you've gotten over the fact that only people who've never used it
think it sucks.

You won't find a lot of people that have used it that would willingly go
back to XP.

That said, I have played around with Windows 7 and this is a seriously
streamlined O/S. 18 minutes to install and ready to go. It's installed
on an older Pentium D machine that I tried Vista on. It's definitely
faster and seem quite stable in the limited testing I've done so far.

Bob

[SDA]

@Bob Well
I have used Vista and it's not a worthwhile upgrade for the $ if you're already on x64 or 32 bit XP, (I've had no problem getting drivers for commercial applications on Windows 2003). There are a lot of companies that simply refused to pay the upgrade $ to Vista which is the reason that MickeySoft is burning the midnight oil to get Windows 7 ready. I agree with you though about the merits of Windows 7.

Because Adobe doesn't support an OS doesn't mean that one will have more problems necessarily with their software -- just look at all the problems individuals seem to be having with the supported OSes.

As with any major software/hardware purchase; One should do their homework. I'm surprised at the amount of Creatives that don't -- However that's good for me as it helps me feed myself. LOL

IMHO of course. YMMV

[Kwan_...@adobeforums.com]

Robert Levine observed:

. . . Vista 64 is just too good once you've gotten over the fact that only

people who've never used it think it sucks.

And there are those of us who listened to those who never used Vista and think it sucks and were just too timid to find out the truth of it on our own. And still would be too timid had not their new machines arrived with Vista installed.

You won't find a lot of people that have used it that would willingly go
back to XP.

So TRUE for the timid soul typing this message!

Bring forth Windows 7!

[dave_...@adobeforums.com]

"You won't find a lot of people that have used it that would willingly
go back to XP."

I dunno. i'm running vista on the new machine i got for the kids and i'd go back to xp in a sec. but the kids like all the eye candy and all so... :P

[Zeno_...@adobeforums.com]

I wouldn't go back to xp because of a much hated feature of vista that i like very very much, superfetch

[John Joslin]

And Search, don't forget Search!

[Zeno_...@adobeforums.com]

I don't search, i know exactly where all my stuff is :P

[dave_...@adobeforums.com]

ok, the search thing in the start menu is cool. i'll give you that one. :)

[SDA]

@John Joslin That search feature that is native to Windows Vista is available for XP as well. It's a separate download though -- I prefer Google's desktop search as amazingly it is less resource intensive than MickeySoft's version. Go figure. LOL

[dave_...@adobeforums.com]

That search feature that is native to Windows Vista is available for XP
as well. It's a separate download though

got a link?

- I prefer Google's desktop search as amazingly it is less resource intensive
than MickeySoft's version

I don't like putting too many eggs in google's basket. but i figure MS already has enough info on my to steal my identity whenever they want so... :)

[Free...@adobeforums.com]

a much hated feature of vista that i like very very much, superfetch

I'm definitely with you there, Zeno. It's amazing how it speeds things up.

As Scott Byer said: free memory is wasted memory.

[SDA]

@Dave Milbut
Absolutely (have a link);
<http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/winfamily/desktopsearch/choose/windowssearch4.mspx>

I hear you about having "too many eggs in one basket". One thing I find annoying is when Adobe Bridge has a boatload of new images in it; Microsoft's Desktop search then chooses to "update" it's database, right at the time Bridge is also processing them. Annoying to no end. I couldn't find a switch to turn it off for Bridge; so I disable it (when I remembered to do so b4 firing up Bridge). Google's Desktop search (for me at least) is somewhat easier to configure and less resource heavy.

[dave_...@adobeforums.com]

nice. thanks for the link! t-minus 40 mins!!!