This content has been marked as final. Show 20 replies
A faster system drive will only help your programs start up faster. Decide if that's worth paying for.
Thats what i was thinking but need conformation.
IF a Raptor will have no effect on the performance of photoshop and PRemiere PRo once open and running, then NO its not worth it for me.
Well, the programs start faster, and the memory swapping is faster. So I chose a 10K rpm drive for my programs.
As did I. But there are now larger drives with performance very close to the Raptor's, but for a lot less cash.
OK. OK. We have concluded that windows starts faster, and programs load faster...
But does this really make anything faster for me when i am actually using the program?
I don't think so.
What i am trying to decipher is important. and i need a concrete answer.
Does a program itself actually require a very fast seek time or fast read rate after a certain mark? Does not RAM come into the equation here -making a fast system drive (no matter how fast) not so important if your files are on a RAID array?
I think we covered this pretty well, Tyson. The system drive will not benefit Premiere's performance in your intended configuration.
Well there are two things:
1. Any program that is running is in RAM and the hard drive (speed) per se is not important after it starts up.
2. However, since your RAM may not be enough for the needs of the program(s) running the OS uses the swap file for the extra needs. This swap file is on your hard drive. You can set the OS to use your faster drives for Swap purposes.
Note that if you have only one "fast" drive and that is the same drive for your swap files as the one used by the programs for their own needs, things will slow down due to contention (multiple programs wanting to write to the same drive).
So the bottom line is, you're better off with a faster primary drive (the one your OS and other programs are installed on) along with faster drives for your Adobe sfotware related work as well.
"But does this really make anything faster for me when i am actually using the program?"
If you start memory swapping and the swap file is on the system disk then, yes.
I think you guys might be confusing Tyson with information overload. I have only 1 GB of RAM, and never need to use the swap while editing. With 4GB, Tyson never will either, so it's a moot point.
I've had to swap with 4GB of ram. I also have had PPro go over the 1GB mark on memory usage...
With only Premiere open? What caused the swap? I never even fill my 1GB of memory.
The OP said...
"Main Programs i use are Adobe After effects, premiere pro, Photoshop for uncompressed editing with blackmagic intensity."
... I usually have PPro, AE and Photoshop open using Dynamic Link, so I assumed he was talking about the same thing. My uncompressed editing is with Aja Xena though. Do you edit uncompressed video? Maybe that causes a lot of memory to be eaten up?
I have seen PPro routinely eat up 1.5GB. I'm pretty sure I've seen this with just it running too. Not sure about swapping with just PPro, I doubt my machine would.
What about Page File usage in task manager? Mine is never at 0 no matter how much memory I have. I would think if the Page File is on the system disk, accessing it would be quicker with a quicker drive.
>Do you edit uncompressed video?
No, DV only.
I have set up my swap file or page file to be on my RAID array and Not on my system drive.
Blackmagic Intensity can capture and playback uncompressed 4:2:2 video but you need a 4 to 5 disk RAID 0 array to playback properly. -Im not editing uncompressed but capturing uncompressed for compositing in AE.
I never thought to use my RAID0 for a swap file location. Hmmm. Makes sense. I will have to give that at try.
FWIW, Last night I ran only PPro CS3 editing an uncompressed SD project and watched my page file grow from 300 meg to 800 meg.
The amount of memory the PPro process used started at 200 meg and grew to about 900 meg. This machine has 8 gigs with about 3.2 seen by WinXP.
Tyson, this is the first machine I ever broke down and bought a smaller-size, high speed drive for the system drive. Do I think it is worth the extra money over a larger SATAII?
Let's put it this way, if I were looking to cut corners to save money, the first thing I'd do is not spend the extra on the expensive system drive and just get a SATAII drive. The couple hundred dollars would be better spent on a faster CPU or something else...
(I think that is what Jim is alluding to with his comments...)
Jeron's got it.
Yes, you are probably.
- Its i either spend $900 dollars or $200.
The best possible Rig is this; I spend $500 dollars on a dedicated PCI-X RAID controller card. I buy a Raptor 150g system drive $200. And then buying another 3 drives to add to the RAID array of 2 disks i already have = $300.
Or option 2: My motherboard (K8WE) has 4 SATA-II ports. So I could set up a 4 disk raid with what i have right now and be achieving 210+ mb/s read and write. My system drive would be off the IDE/133 channel. Then i would only have to spend $200 on 2 disks.
I have been trying to decipher if it is logical to spend that much more money - when it is possible i will only achieve maybe 50 more Megabytes a second. - and have windows and programs start faster.
A part of me says - "any time i try to save money on something it comes with calamity and disaster". vs. a part of me that says - "you could get more bang for your buck".
I use the motherboard RAID for my system. Works fine.
So does mine.