a few years back i built a number of machines for some photographers
who were using photoshop-7 (XP)

now with the new photoshop CS-2 ...they seem
to be able to put quite a bit of CPU load onto those AMD 1 -2 ghz machines
that i built (RAM= 1gig)

since they manage to get the cpu loaded in the 40% -98% range...
i'm thinking that throwing more RAM into the machines is prob. not
going to help...and that it may be upgrade time during the next year.

what's the best choice P-4 or should i go with the AMD 64bit cpu?

(not likely any of these folks are going to be using XP-64bit
anytime soon)

On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 20:04:28 -0600, philo thoughtfully wrote:


Well Photoshop CS seems to run a better on the AMD64 3000, 512ram than
it did on the AMD XP2000+with 1g ram. You could compromise by getting
the Sempron 3000/31000 that are as almost as fast as an AMD64 3000 but 40%
less in cost. Memory is good for Photoshop CS too! So with a Sempron
3000 and another 512m of ram should cost as much as an AMD64 or a little
more. Another thing is cpus have gotten picky with mismatched memory,
meaning 1g PC2700 plus 512 PC3200 may not run as well a 1g PC2700.

BTW, Photoshop CS2 is a 32bit program so going to a 64bit processor really
doesn't do much for the program.

There's a photoshop newsgroup and of course the Adobe website for better
recommendations. Use http://tomshardwareguide.com to look at their cpu
comparison charts.

"BTW, Photoshop CS2 is a 32bit program so going to a 64bit processor really
doesn't do much for the program."
That's a completly untrue statement.

It's my understanding that CS2 has 64bit instructions or maybe it was just
the fact that it can access more memory from being on the 64bit OS, I
forget. It's also a dual process app. So running CS2 from a dual core AMD
is your best bet (or dual Intel w/e). Do they work on large images? I work
on 500MB+ images so the last machine I built which was an AMD 4400 with 2GB
of memory running on WinXP x64 has been the best Photoshop experience yet!
In the past using PS on a MAC was a dream compared to a PC yet with this new
setup it's the complete opposite. I'll take my new x64 system over the G5's
any day.

Either way your CPU load is because Photoshop can't access very much memory
from your 32-bit OS. So moving to a 64-bit OS will help a lot. But only if
the rest of your "scenario" can handle the move.

Test it. Take WinXP with 2GB of memory and open a 2GB image. Not all of
your memory is being used. Do the same with WinXP x64. Most of your memory
is used and your CPU load will be lower. It takes my x64 system less the
half the time to open a large image then it takes our G5 systems. Even OSX
can't handle that amount of memory properly.


"jaster" <jaster@home.net> wrote in message
news:mk6qf.4240$4o7.662@newssvr24.news.prodigy.net ...

"ISOHaven" <ISOHaven@NoSpam.com> wrote in message
news:43a92710$0$1729$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
<snip>

Ok thanks for the replies...
I suppose I must be going through the same thoughts that owners of 286's had
when the 386 cpu's came out. <G>

I'll be looking at moving one of the people up to the AMD-64 next year...
as those who work with layers in photoshop can sure come up with some huge
image files!

ISOHaven wrote:
What motherboard did you use for this build. Many don't have provision
for large memory. Also I've had trouble finding drivers for many
devices with WinXP x64. I'm still dual, (duel?), booting with WinXP32,
and find the need to use it with scanners, USB printers etc.

What scanner are you using with WinXP x64? My Brother scanner will
work, using a 64 bit driver from the Brother site, but the software that
came with it will not work with x64.

The internal to WinXPx64, WoW, (Windows_on _Windows), does a good job of
running 32bit applications. Are you sure CS2 is not running on WoW?
Some people report 32 bit applications in a 32bit OS running better on
AMD64 than on Intel 32 bit cpus.

What do you think of having to F6 to a floppy to install SATA drivers
during installation? I hope MS gets that fixed before unleashing Vista.

Let's hope more applications use true 64bit code and that the driver
situation gets resolved.

--
Virg Wall, P.E.

Asus A8N32-SLI

I don't have a working scanner on this machine.

"What do you think of having to F6 to a floppy to install SATA drivers
during installation?"
I've always had to do that anyway.


"VWWall" <vwall@DEADearthlink.net> wrote in message
news:R1jqf.630$nu6.505@newsread1.news.pas.earthlin k.net...

philo wrote:

With me it was when the Z80 came out! I even wrote some stuff using DB,
(define byte), instructions 'cause the ASM assembler didn't have
mnemonics for the new Z80 instructions. This seems to be where we are
with 64 bit computing! I think the pace will be even faster than it was
then.
I'd advise going with AMD64 right away. WinXPx64 is another
proposition. See my reply to "ISO".

--
Virg Wall

although my first computer was a ti-99...
after the game port died...i got totally away from computers until july of
1999
when i was given a p-75 & 8 megs of ram (win95)
eventually i upgraded the machine to 200mhz & 128 megs of ram
and set it up to dual boot win98 and RedHat6



Yes...now that I've thought about it if I built a 64 bit machine...
I might as well install a 64bit OS.

I'm also sure that whatever day I install the 64bit version of XP...
Vista will be released the next day!

If Vista is a consideration then you are better off waiting a while on the
hardware until more hardware specs are released for that OS.


"philo" <philo@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:v_CdneJcMrbHSzTeRVn-iQ@athenet.net...

On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 05:11:48 -0600, philo thoughtfully wrote:


I disagree with anything said by ISOHaven about almost everything. In
time you will also.

CS2 does not have 64bit instructions and even a 64bit cpu needs a 64bit
OS. CS2 can take advantage of additional memory allocation when
run on a 64bit cpu and 64bit OS. WinXP 64 is still missing drivers,
it's another $100 cost and last time I checked PS CS2 doesn't run on
Linux/Unix.

You should have peeked at www.adobe.com/support :
http://www.adobe.com/support/techdocs/320005.html

which explains memory allocation and 64bit computing. This document
also has recommended settings for memory, scratch disk and image cache
space.

I recommended Sempron because 1) they are almost as fast as AMD64s and 2)
40% cheaper than AMD64s which should leave you with enough change to add
more memory. For example, Sempron 3300 ($122) is faster than AMD64 3000
($169). If money's not a problem then buy fastest cpu and graphics
cards you can afford but you'll still need more memory.

"ISOHaven" <ISOHaven@NoSpam.com> wrote in message
news:43a9d73d$0$1843$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...

No, I was just joking...
XP has been doing fine. The OS is not the main thing here...but Photoshop
itself!

<snip>
Thanks for the link.
What I'll probably do ...early next year is build one machine with a 64bit
cpu
and try XP-64 and see how it does.

Some of the folks I build for will not be able to upgrade anytime soon...
and when they do... I'm sure even a lower-end 64bit system will be an
improvement over the present systems
they have.
Basically I am telling them not to rush things and if processing a large
file,,,to just wait and not try to
"push" anything.

"I disagree with anything said by ISOHaven about almost everything. In
time you will also."
Not sure what the point of that was but ok.

"CS2 does not have 64bit instructions"
Like I said, I wasn't sure if it was that or the memory.

"CS2 can take advantage of additional memory allocation when run on a 64bit
cpu and 64bit OS."
So you agree with me? Hum, that's a bit confusing????

"WinXP 64 is still missing drivers,"
Yeah, we covered that.

"it's another $100 cost"
Hum, I just updated about 20 machines for FREE from Microsoft. It was a
free upgrade. I hope they didn't stop doing that

"and last time I checked PS CS2 doesn't run on Linux/Unix."
I completely missed where that was even introduced??? Was someone asking
about that?

Since you disagree with everything I say then do you also disagree that CS2
should be run a dual processor machine? I sure hope not seeing as how it's
dual processor capable and it makes a huge difference.

I am also confused about something else. You give two statements:
"CS2 is a 32bit program so going to a 64bit processor really doesn't do much
for the program"
"CS2 can take advantage of additional memory allocation when run on a 64bit
cpu and 64bit OS"

Again that's a bit confusing. You say 64 wont do much but then you give a
very good reason for using 64. Can you please explain further? Am I to
"assume" you believe that the extra memory management is NOT a decent
benefit? Since I have first hand experience with this then I beg to differ.
It have been a huge improvement.

Looking forward to your reply. I hope that all the BS that JAD started
doesn't interfere with decent discussions. We continued with that thread
outside of the scope of that nut just fine.

On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 15:29:28 -0800, ISOHaven thoughtfully wrote:

No but Linux has 64bit distributions for free.

Just buying a 64bit cpu doesn't improve anything compared to a non 32bit
cpu

It should be obvious if the OS runs 32bit apps or the 32bit app will run
on the 64bit OS

still wonder if MS is offering the upgrade for free. I'm too lazy to look
it up.

context to mean 64 wont do you any good "period". So I guess the
clairification helped?

something?

I'll assume the lack of response on the other items mean they can be
forgotten. I hope so.

ISOHaven wrote:
MS stopped the upgrade last August. Of course you lost your WinXP32
license when you installed x64. Did your company have enough 32bit
licenses that losing the ones on the XP32 systems you "upgraded" didn't
matter? I still recommend dual boot, leaving the 32 bit system intact.

The only way to get x64 now is on an OEM CD. (About $150.)
You can still get a free trial version, (120 days).

--
Virg Wall, P.E.

philo wrote:
I got a MB with on-board lan, audio, and S3 graphics with AMD 3000+ for
a little over $200. (MSI K8MM-ILSR) It's the old 754 socket, but good
for trying a 64bit system. It took a bit of looking, but I found all
the required drivers! :-)

I tried several distros of 64 bit Linux with good results. It's hard to
tell what improvement 64 bit makes until they're more applications.
You can still get a free WinXP x64 trial version, good for 120 days.

Install it on a saparate partition or drive and it will set up a dual
boot. You can then give it a go without losing any thing but your time.

--
Virg Wall

ISOHaven wrote:
Here's Adobe's word on the subject.

//quote
When you run Photoshop CS2 on a computer with a 64-bit processor (such
as a G5, Intel Xeon processor with EM64T, AMD Athlon 64, or Opteron
processor), and running a 64-bit version of the operating system (Mac OS
v10.3 or higher, Windows XP Professional x64 Edition), that has 4 GB or
more of RAM, Photoshop will use 3 GB for it's image data. You can see
the actual amount of RAM Photoshop can use in the Maximum Used By
Photoshop number when you set the Maximum Used by Photoshop slider in
the Memory & Image Cache preference to 100%. The RAM above the 100% used
by Photoshop, which is from approximately 3 GB to 3.7 GB, can be used
directly by Photoshop plug-ins (some plug-ins need large chunks of
contiguous RAM), filters, actions, etc. If you have more than 4 GB (to 6
GB (Windows) or 8 GB (Mac OS)), the RAM above 4 GB is used by the
operating system as a cache for the Photoshop scratch disk data. Data
that previously was written directly to the hard disk by Photoshop, is
now cached in this high RAM before being written to the hard disk by the
operating system. If you are working with files large enough to take
advantage of these extra 2 GB of RAM, the RAM cache can speed
performance of Photoshop.
//end quote


Note you need: "4 GB or more of RAM".

--
Virg Wall

"August"
Awe, that sucks. Oh well.

Those systems are all running x64 with specific apps. No problems
what-so-ever. No need to go back and we knew that going forward.


"VWWall" <vwall@DEADearthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Henqf.691$nu6.125@newsread1.news.pas.earthlin k.net...

On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 01:49:33 +0000, VWWall thoughtfully wrote:


Back to my point of disagreeing with anything you have to say on
anything.

Been there and done that as in posting something before reading. In my
original posts I said I'm running Photoshop CS with 512 ram. CS2 ain't
that different from CS.

Plz read the complete html.