Puget Systems print logo

https://www.pugetsystems.com

Read this article at https://www.pugetsystems.com/guides/182
Share:


Memory Speed Performance

To see how much of an impact the speed of the RAM has on Photoshop CS6, we simply ran our benchmark series each set of RAM (1333, 1600, 1866 and 2133 MHz) and compared them to each other. Half of the effects we are using utilize GPU acceleration, while the other half do not. So in addition to looking at the overall performance changes, we will also take a closer look at both of these types of effects individually.

As we stated in the test setup, we will also be using both a 109MB image as well as a 250MB version of our test image. This will let us see if any changes in performance become more pronounced as the image size is increased.

109MB Image

Photoshop CS6 109MB image benchmark time

GPU Accelerate Effects Only Standard Effects Only Individual Test Results
Photoshop CS6 109MB image GPU Acceleration benchmark time Photoshop CS6 109MB image Standard benchmark time


Starting with the Z77 test system, we saw a slight overall performance increase moving from 1333MHz to 1600MHz (about 1.3%), but very little performance increase after that. The X79 system on the other hand showed an increase in performance all the way up to 2133MHz. These performance gains are very small, however, with only about a .6% difference between the 1600MHz and 2133MHz RAM.

When we separate the GPU accelerated effects from the standard effects, we get some really interesting results. The GPU accelerated effects clearly show the advantages of using faster RAM, but the standard effects show virtually no difference at all. This is really good to know since it tells us that for medium-sized images (in this case 109MB) faster RAM only affects GPU accelerated effects. Even then, the difference is small (about 1-2%) as long as you are using RAM faster than 1333Mhz.

250MB Image

Photoshop CS6 250MB image benchmark time

GPU Accelerate Effects Only Standard Effects Only Individual Test Results
Photoshop CS6 250MB image GPU Acceleration benchmark time Photoshop CS6 250MB image Standard benchmark time


For both the Z77 and X79 test systems, we see almost exactly the same performance differences for the 250MB image that we saw previously for the 109MB image. The measured time difference is larger since the effects simply take longer to run on larger images, but the percentage difference is within a few tenths of a percent. This applies to not only the overall benchmark times, but the times for both the GPU Accelerated and Standard effects as well.

Our testing has shown that 1866 and 2133MHz RAM does not provide a significant increase in Photoshop CS6 performance, and since most Intel CPUs natively support RAM up to DDR3-1600MHz, that is the speed of RAM we would recommend using. RAM that operates at faster speeds than the CPU natively supports tend to have an increased risk of failure, and in our opinion the small performance improvements are not worth the risk.


< Previous Next >
Robert Furst

Serious Photoshop users want top of the line, I7 just isn't enough anymore, multi quad or higher processors are in with high end graphic and gpu cards, this ain't your daddys Mac

Posted on 2013-08-04 05:12:43

i7 on the Ivy Bridge Chipset at a high enough Clock Speed on Quad Core is more than sufficient for high end photoshop when paired 4-8GB of RAM Core. I go into a detailed explanation breaking down the component specs you need to look at for Photoshop CS6 and why they matter

http://robertoblake.com/blo...

Posted on 2014-01-31 18:45:12
paulsummerfield

high end photoshop use, are you kidding. we pro users need as much ram as possible. 32, 64, 128 and beyond!

Posted on 2014-12-04 11:58:00
Richard Richardsen

There really isn't that much support for what you say. I Use an i7, 4Ghz, 32 g RAM, GeForce GTX 960 and everything I do is immediate. Any further increase in speed would not be perceptible. My machine at work is an 8 G Ram i5 using the MoBo graphics and it handles PS 6 and CC with immediate response.

I work with large files and images 60 inches wider or more and have ZERO problems with 32 gb of RAM. I am sure I would not notice if I pulled half of out.

Posted on 2015-06-25 17:38:33

With Photoshop a lot of it comes down to file size. Not physical dimensions or even MP count, but the actual file size when uncompressed and being edited. The 32GB you have should suffice for image sizes up to about 1.5GB... but there are some folks working with even larger image sizes. I've talked to folks doing image work for art that goes on the side of race cars and the trucks that carry them, and those are *massive* image sizes... and I bet they aren't the most demanding out there. So while many photo editors may be fine with 8GB, and you are fine with 32GB, some users do have legitimate need for 64GB, 128GB, etc.

Posted on 2015-06-25 17:47:23
Richard Richardsen

Maybe..but I did a mural outlay that was close to 25 feet across..and did it with 32 gb. Some folks NEED an elephant gun..most that have them don't NEED them though.

It's my guess there really aren't enough folks doing the kind of work you speak of to merit melding their needs into the masses of folks that don't do that. Their work is an outlier and a small niche that would best be left to private discussion amongst them.

I use a d800 and d4 both of which produce large file sizes in NEF. I stick them on a solid state drive and bridge opens gig upon gig of them in a flash. I think if you want speed you might want to think about the other parts of your machine.

Posted on 2015-06-25 18:02:15
paulsummerfield

Summing up what everyones saying. It really depends on your use.
I do digital paintings which are between 1-3 meters x 1 meter.
so thats 100 x 200 cm, 300-400dpi, a few hundred layers...
So my 32gig ram, a few ssds, i5quad core, and med spec vid card isnt really cutting it. I am getting by, but holybean sprouts i could do with more speed.

I did work on a 2.5 m x 3.5 m panel recently and it got pretty slow by the end. lol :)

My photoshop files are between 10 - 30 gigs each file... so more speed needed without totally breaking the bank!

Posted on 2015-06-25 23:59:03

That's some crazy big files you are working with. I've never tested anything that large, but I can see why you want more RAM.

One somewhat unrelated thing I'm curious about is what you think about hard drives like the Intel 750 (2.4GB/s read, 1.2GB/s write - https://www.pugetsystems.co.... Do you think that a HD that fast could be used as a decently performing scratch drive for when Photoshop needs more than 32GB of RAM? I ask because if you need more than 32GB of RAM you have to move up to a Socket 2011 CPU which are not as good as something like a i7-4790K at lightly threaded tasks like Photoshop. I've been wondering if it is worth it to give up some CPU speed to get the additional RAM, or if is it better to keep the faster CPU, stay at 32GB of RAM, and use an Intel 750 NVMe drive as a scratch drive.

Posted on 2015-06-26 16:55:24
paulsummerfield

Thats very interesting Matt, I think that drive as a scratch disk would speed things up even more!!
I'm not too sure on the cpu vs discussion...i know that once you go for 2011 socket every thing becomes $$$$ and faster of course! 😉

Posted on 2015-06-27 04:38:24
Romulo Pulcinelli Benedetti

All brush processing is done with CPU, GPU is only used to move and rotate canvas, and I believe it reduce the lag feel by trying to show a intermediate bitmap (not the real file) work, while Photoshop take longer to apply the real task on background. this is why someone with a i7 6700 and a GTX 1080, still today get a slow behavior from some huge diameter tools.

Posted on 2017-05-23 17:34:12
Santosh G

Hi Their,

I have a PC with configuration i72600K 16GB ram,128GB SSD,1TB HD 7200RPM.using software's coreldraw x6,indesign cs6,illu cs6 but still the application are working very slow.so plz suggest me the best configuration so that i can use these apps simultaneously without loosing the speed.and i am planning to configure intel xeon with dual processor with 12 cores.so is it ok or not

Posted on 2014-09-11 11:49:52
MJDS

The CPU doesn't do squat in Photoshop but if you are working with any kind of graphics you csn count on seeing a spinning wheel plenty with under 32gb while rendering.

Posted on 2015-03-16 18:48:04
Richard Richardsen

I don't really think you can call yourself a "serious photo shopper" or "pro" if you are yakking about hardware. Enough is enough and a pro doesn't waste money on overkill. If you are getting paid for what you do what you want is quality work. That's going to take time and adding 32 gb of ram to a machine that alreaddy packs 32 isn't going to make your work better and it will not make it go perceptibly faster. Equipment yaks ( what lens did you use ) are not the conversations of pros.

Posted on 2015-06-25 17:45:36
paulsummerfield

Hey. Not sure if you mean me, but i think my file sizes are so big because its crazy details, large colour gamut and loads of layers. All hand drawn. No photos. 😉

What was the 25 m mural? That a awesome!!

Posted on 2015-06-27 04:42:53
Romulo Pulcinelli Benedetti

In terms of information per pixel, large color gamut did not increase image size, only bit depth, you need greater bit depth to avoid banding, but surprisingly 16 bits per channel will be more than enough even for linear color spaces, and even if you worked with some kind of HDR painting, 16 bits float would be enough to securely avoiding banding in a good range of tone values, not only in representation but in manipulation too.

I did not doubt you get 32 GB images, but you did not really need 32 GB RAM to work with 32 GB in ROM size images, especially on a brush centric task, PS is more than efficient on caching, it did not need to have all real image in memory. I may paint as a hobby but as a TI person, I can securely say you PS do many well done magics to avoid getting all image in RAM, perfectly fine with it. I believe most certainly CPU and GPU are your bottleneck for a mix of reasons.

Posted on 2016-10-30 03:48:54

higher performance with high powerful cpu will be best for working with photoshop.

Posted on 2016-10-04 16:15:07
Jakob Teuffel

I'm doing a lot of verry large panoramas. we'r talking >3GB files.
Has someone seen a graph how photoshop scale sin the "not enaugh RAM" domain?

Posted on 2018-07-14 21:25:33

Thanks for your effective information.But for the high end photoshop performance,there must be need some upgrade version.

Posted on 2018-08-16 10:40:53
Bearmann

I ran across this test, but I am highly suspicious of the results. Do you think anything has changed regarding RAM frequency and Photoshop?

https://www.techspot.com/ar...

Barry

Posted on 2019-04-04 15:02:06

This article is 6 years old at this point, but the TechSpot article you linked is two years old as well. Things have changed a bit since both of these articles. We haven't specifically done Photoshop testing on RAM speed in a while, but what we tend to see is that in real-world situations, RAM speed makes minimal difference with Intel CPUs, but up to 10% or so difference with AMD CPUs.

However, using RAM above around 2666 tends to be less reliable. There are plenty of people using higher frequency RAM with no issues, but we have found that going above what the CPU is rated for (2666 in most cases) causes an increase in risk. So we really wouldn't use higher frequency RAM even if it was a good deal faster since we value stability and reliability very highly in our workstations.

Posted on 2019-04-04 17:52:25
Bearmann

Thank you for the update :)

Posted on 2019-04-06 00:03:14
emailme junk

Any suggestions on how to increase speed when working with gigafiles?

Here's my problem and my computer spec.

Problem - It just took ~20 minutes to load my file (file size in explorer: ~59.235GB; Scratch in PS is currently at 124.7GB/35GB... but with extra layers, it's been up to 450GB). I've nearly given up on editing this picture because it takes forever to process each step. In this case, the merged picture is made up of 40 pics wide by 20 pics high (shot with D810 with 70-200 @ 200). Each raw image is 73mb.

Spec -

CPU - I7-7700k, 4500MHz
Motherboard - ASRock Z270 SuperCarrier
RAM - 64GB (4 sets at 16GB DDR4-2133 SDRAM (16-15-15-36 @ 1066 MHz)
GPU - none (onboard cpu)
Boot Drive - Samsung SSD 960 EVO 500GB
Scratch Drive - M4-CT256M5SSD2 (256GB, SATA-III)
Secondary Scratch - WDC WD4004FZWX-00GBGB0 (4 TB WD Black Performance Drive)
Storage - RAID 5 (22.356GB)

Posted on 2019-06-17 02:21:21

I will get this amazing for me .thank you!…

Posted on 2019-04-19 22:42:51