Skip navigation
Currently Being Moderated

I do a lot ofhow much RAM does ps cs5/6 ext use with CAF?

Sep 1, 2012 4:16 PM

how much RAM does photoshop cs5 extended use with Content-Aware-Fill?

please state the size of the image, how many layers you have (makes a difference).

please do this for 2 different size images.

 

I could also use some cs6 numbers as well, since this is the current ps.

 

should be as simple a psd as possible.

 

I need to know for a 32-bit and a 64-bit machine.

 

I would like to use these two numbers for making a calculator that does some very basic calculations as to how much memory would be required to run photoshop given:

  • image size
  • content-aware fill
  • radial blur
  • number of layers
  • content-aware move (in CS6)

 

this means several types  of test plans:

32-bit ps ext CS5:

64-bit ps ext CS5:

 

32-bit ps ext CS6:

  • different image sizes SMALL and LARGE (these sizes will be used throughout the tests below, save them as PSD's)
  • SMALL and LARGE with 2 layers
  • SMALL and LARGE with content-aware fill, like taking out a telephone pole. hit F1 if you don't know how.
  • SMALL and LARGE with radial blur (this takes a while to run). hit F1 if you don't know how or refer to this: http://ksimonian.com/Blog/2010/02/24/improved-photoshop-benchmark-cpu- speed-test-for-both-mac-pc-free-radial-blur-filter-test/
  • SMALL and LARGE with content-aware fill and then radial blur (this takes a while to run). this step is purely optional.
  • SMALL and LARGE with content-aware move

64-bit ps ext CS6:

  • different image sizes SMALL and LARGE (these sizes will be used throughout the tests below, save them as PSD's)
  • SMALL and LARGE with 2 layers
  • SMALL and LARGE with content-aware fill, like taking out a telephone pole. hit F1 if you don't know how.
  • SMALL and LARGE with radial blur (this takes a while to run). hit F1 if you don't know how or refer to this: http://ksimonian.com/Blog/2010/02/24/improved-photoshop-benchmark-cpu- speed-test-for-both-mac-pc-free-radial-blur-filter-test/
  • SMALL and LARGE with content-aware fill and then radial blur (this takes a while to run). this step is purely optional.
  • SMALL and LARGE with content-aware move

 

 

if you know of a more memory-intensive operation, such as radial blur (maybe that's only cpu-intensive), I would be interested in knowing about this.

if you know of a more memory-intensive operation, such as radial blur (maybe that's only cpu-intensive), I would be interested in knowing about this.

the number of layers seem to multiply the RAM required in CS5. I think.  the amount of RAM required to do photoshop seems to be a much-talked about subject and the subject of much variableness, and I wanted to nail it down a little. 

 

I thought I would make a calculator that can estimate the amount of RAM required for a system to do, say, multilayer gigapixel content-aware-fill stuff in ps, something I know I would do a lot of. I also hear RAM requirements has changed in CS6. it would be interesting to characterize it.

I am making it here: http://Jesusnjim.com/calculators/photoshop-ram-usage.html

and as soon as I can get some completed set of numbers infor CS5 or , it will be ready

 

you can tell how much memory us in use by doing [windows-logo-flag-key]taskmgr[Enter] or doing ctrl-alt-del and bringing up the task manager,

clicking on the prcesses tab,and looking for Photoshop.exe

if you don't see mem usage, do View,Select columns.

 

it's a lot of testing, I know, it should not take too long to finish. but I think it might help a lot of folks when they are trying to figure out how to spec their PS box.

Jim Michaels

 

something automatically hit the send button before I could finish.

 

Message was edited by: jmichae1

 
Replies
  • Noel Carboni
    23,483 posts
    Dec 23, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Sep 1, 2012 6:59 PM   in reply to jmichae1

    I've got to tell you, just reading through that is daunting, much less following it and producing measured results.

     

    On occasion I've asked people to try doing things and measuring performance.  Usually I get very few answers if any.

     

    By the way, Photomerge seems to need a lot of RAM, and a HUGE amount of scratch disk space.

     

    The bottom line is this:  More RAM is better, much more is much better.

    I'll add:  Lightning fast scratch disk access is observed to be quite helpful.

     

    -Noel

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Noel Carboni
    23,483 posts
    Dec 23, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Sep 4, 2012 4:36 PM   in reply to jmichae1

    One doesn't need to do benchmarks to know that more RAM is better.  One need only use Photoshop.  You'll get better results if you just ask people two questions:

     

    • How much RAM do you have?
    • Do you feel it's enough?

     

    Sage advice, from someone who uses Photoshop:  Get 16 GB at a minimum, more if you can.  Right now if I were building a brand new workstation with a certain amount of future-proofing in the plan I'd shoot for at least 48 GB, and settle for 24 GB with some empty slots in a pinch.  I have 16 GB now and for almost everything it's enough, but there are times (e.g., when doing a big Photomerge) when I need more.

     

    -Noel

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Noel Carboni
    23,483 posts
    Dec 23, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Sep 5, 2012 8:07 AM   in reply to jmichae1

    Seems to me a notable Photoshop authority (DigiLloyd as I recall) has stated that 96 GB is preferable.

     

    I am presently negotiating with someone on the configuration of a new workstation with 48 GB, as 96 GB gets a bit pricey still.

     

    I have found that with an SSD array things like stitching gigapixel panoramas even with 16 GB of RAM in the system isn't unreasonably slow.  But it does dig into the scratch file to the tune of hundreds of gigabytes!

     

    -Noel

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Sep 5, 2012 8:52 AM   in reply to Noel Carboni

    Some of this seems more theoretical than practical. As we up the ante, can TB stitches be far behind?

     

    I did a test of the new Nikon D800, producing a 5 panel stitch. I came nowhere near filling up a 39G scratch. In fact, it would not fill up my old 20G scratch. Present RAM is 12G. Watching the memory use in Task Manager showed that, unless I had another memory intensive app open and reserved memory, I never even used up Free Memory size.

     

    Again, from a practical side, I ran the same panorama with the D90. Certainly, the data in the D800 stitch vastly outclassed the D90. But a 36" print of both showed that aside from the difference because of weather conditions between them, hardly any difference in the impact of sharpness was evident. In the case of the D90, it actually looked better due to better lighting.

     

    Of course, when finances permit, I will acquire the D800. No wait! Maybe the D4? Or maybe switch to Canon?

     

    Where does it all stop?

     

    Anyway, using content aware on the D800 stitch used about 3x more time than the D90 image. I used Content Aware to fill in the gaps in the image at the edges due to hand held sweeps of the landscape, It was slow, in the order of minutes not seconds. The only other filter was the WA filter in an attempt to fix an optical distortion of the D800 image which curiously, did nor occur with the D90, even as the angle of view was approximately the same. It ran the change (guesstimate) 2 to 3 min.

     

    I do my best to avoid many layers in post on a stitch. The quality loss dictates that although again the D800 output will mitigate that.

     

    So, if I do go the D800/D4 route, I will need to consider the computer needs again. I don't think 96G of memory will be needed. but from what I could see, 24G would be better.

     

    One photographer's view, anyway.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Noel Carboni
    23,483 posts
    Dec 23, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Sep 5, 2012 2:13 PM   in reply to Hudechrome

    FYI, I just ordered a new workstation with 48 GB.  That should be future-proof for a couple of years.

     

    -Noel

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Noel Carboni
    23,483 posts
    Dec 23, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Sep 5, 2012 3:13 PM   in reply to jmichae1

    Your stats are in error.

     

    This is the Xeon chip I will have two of on the system I just ordered.  Note that it can address up to 288 GB.

     

    http://ark.intel.com/products/52576/Intel-Xeon-Processor-X5690-12M-Cac he-3_46-GHz-6_40-GTs-Intel-QPI

     

     

    This is one of the newest Xeons, which can address up to 750 GB:

     

    http://ark.intel.com/products/64582/Intel-Xeon-Processor-E5-2687W-20M- Cache-3_10-GHz-8_00-GTs-Intel-QPI

     

     

    -Noel

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Sep 5, 2012 3:15 PM   in reply to Noel Carboni

    Another Dell or????

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Noel Carboni
    23,483 posts
    Dec 23, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Sep 5, 2012 3:16 PM   in reply to Hudechrome

    Refurbed Precision T5500 with dual X5690s.  Just off cutting edge, and much cheaper for it. 

     

    -Noel

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Sep 5, 2012 3:20 PM   in reply to jmichae1

    You cannot help but use scratch or rather PS uses scratch. If you have not configured it, it's on C drive as default, not a good choice.

     

    How does your machine spec out? Also if it's Win7 is it at least Win7 Pro? The Home version is limited in RAM allowable.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Noel Carboni
    23,483 posts
    Dec 23, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Sep 6, 2012 2:14 AM   in reply to jmichae1

    Arbitrary limitations of hundreds of Gigabytes aren't practical limitations at all.

     

    You clearly don't have much experience actually running big 64 bit systems.  You should listen to folks who have been doing so since their were 64 bit systems, since your 32 bit experience really isn't very applicable beyond the knowledge that 32 bits isn't enough.  That's why I suggested asking the question more simply as "how much do you have and do you feel it is enough?"

     

    -Noel

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Noel Carboni
    23,483 posts
    Dec 23, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Sep 16, 2012 5:23 PM   in reply to jmichae1

    For what it's worth, I'm going to have a very nice 8 core 64 bit Dell Precision workstation for sale in a few weeks.  My new one is on a truck on its way here.

     

    -Noel

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Sep 16, 2012 5:33 PM   in reply to Noel Carboni

    That should be future-proof for a couple of years.

    For a couple of hours, at least...

     

    Hunt

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Noel Carboni
    23,483 posts
    Dec 23, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Sep 16, 2012 7:59 PM   in reply to jmichae1

    Yes, it manages memory and writes data to scratch on a 64 bit system.  Plenty of it. 

     

    But the memory configuration maxes out at the available RAM in the system, not 256 GB as you have guessed.  That configuration entry allows you to set the limit of how much of your real RAM you'll allow Photoshop to use.

     

    -Noel

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Sep 16, 2012 9:33 PM   in reply to jmichae1

    "I don't have a 64-bit system yet - you will have to wait a while for that. that takes money."

     

    Then I won't hold my breath!

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Noel Carboni
    23,483 posts
    Dec 23, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Sep 17, 2012 9:15 AM   in reply to jmichae1

    jmichae1 wrote:

     


    maybe you can still check this out for me. what does your slider say in your current 64-bit box for maximum under edit, preferences, performance?

     

    PerformancePrefs.jpg

     

    Reading all of what you've written - and please don't take this the wrong way, it's great that you're trying to get your head around how things work - you don't really understand how Photoshop manages and uses RAM.  It's not nearly  as simple as you'd like to think.

     

    -Noel

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Noel Carboni
    23,483 posts
    Dec 23, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Sep 25, 2012 6:42 AM   in reply to jmichae1

    Jmichae1, I know how it all works, and I know what to watch.  I'm a career computer software engineer.

     

    Photoshop doesn't work the way other applications work, on purpose.  And it doesn't work consistently from feature to feature. Understand that it's been implemented by hundreds of people and multiple different companies over several decades.  It does not follow a single "design".

     

    jmichae1 wrote:

     


    I personally think ps is manually allocating VM and RAM separately instead of dealing with a normal heap.  this is REALLY unusual, and I think done for performance reasons,but not such a good idea when it comes to memory limitations! 

     

    You're starting to catch on.

     

    Search for a very long conversation on Photoshop RAM usage in which I, Chris Cox and a number of others discussed this.  As I recall at the time I characterized Photoshop as a "child in a playground who gathers all the toys and holds them".

     

    Here, I've found it for you:  http://forums.adobe.com/thread/786514?start=0&tstart=0

     

    Not too much has changed since the time of Photoshop CS4, and we can see evidence that disparate subsystems are working in Photoshop CS6.  There's the "Mondo Virtual Memory" system that occasionally dumps ..._MVM_... files on whatever disk it feels like, for example.

     

    -Noel

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Noel Carboni
    23,483 posts
    Dec 23, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Sep 26, 2012 5:10 AM   in reply to jmichae1

    I personally keep my History states set to 100, because I occasionally like to use the History panel to go back a good ways for various reasons.  But then I've bought a lot of RAM to be able to do that reasonably.

     

    Yes, RAM usage continues to increase as you use Photoshop, up to the preset limit you've configured in the Performance preferences - and once it's allocated Photoshop is reluctant to give it back to the OS, though it will do so under duress. 

     

    It also writes quite a lot of data to its scratch files, which is where it swaps the data from RAM.  This is separate from the OS page swap file, but there can be interaction, especially if you try to start applications that will use more than what's been left free by Photoshop.

     

    Documents are always stored in RAM in uncompressed form as far as I know, to facilitate speed of operations.  The compression only happens when written to disk.  Further, depending on your Cache Levels configuration Photoshop will create downsized copies of the image to facilitate showing zoomed-out previews very quickly.

     

    There is nothing simple about this application.

     

    -Noel

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Noel Carboni
    23,483 posts
    Dec 23, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 25, 2013 6:43 AM   in reply to jmichae1

    Reviewing this thread after some time, a couple of things come to mind:

     

    1.  RAM has gotten quite cheap.  Anyone buying a new system with which to use Photoshop would be irresponsible not to configure at LEAST 16 GB of RAM, which (depending on the architecture) is less than a hundred bucks.

     

    2.  Another aspect to Photoshop and RAM usage is that it has its own virtual memory management system - meaning that if it fills the RAM to the limit you've specified, it will start writing data out of RAM into its scratch files to make more room for more data in RAM - e.g., the result of the next filter or function you run.

     

    Something many folks don't realize even yet is that a single SSD can kick up performance by as much as 5 times over even very good spinning hard drives.  Putting multiple SSDs in a RAID setup can easily multiply that to well over 10x and beyond.

     

    With 10x or more of the mass storage performance of a traditional hard drive on tap, Photoshop simply reads and writes to its scratch files in near real time.  What I mean by this is that if you have a monster image and lots of history steps, and do big operations, and you fill your RAM allocation, Photoshop will swap data to its scratch files but you hardly notice it.  Same thing with the system itself.

     

    My point is that when considering the purchase of a new system to run Adobe software and which should be a bit future-proof, it may well be more important how you provision your system with mass storage than RAM.

     

    SSDs are still more expensive than HDDs, but they've come down in price a lot and you really do get what you pay for.  As an example, 4 x 256GB high-end SSDs (e.g., OCZ Vector) will set you back almost $1000, but if you have a motherboard (or controller) that can make a 1 TB 4 drive RAID 0 array with SATA III connections, you can achieve almost 2 gigabytes per second of sustained I/O throughput.  And it doesn't thrash if you have multiple applications and the OS accessing it simultaneously.

     

    -Noel

     
    |
    Mark as:

More Like This

  • Retrieving data ...

Bookmarked By (0)

Answers + Points = Status

  • 10 points awarded for Correct Answers
  • 5 points awarded for Helpful Answers
  • 10,000+ points
  • 1,001-10,000 points
  • 501-1,000 points
  • 5-500 points