4 Replies Latest reply on Nov 20, 2010 5:25 AM by Ted Smith

    Memory question

    Ted Smith Level 3

      I have 2gb RAM in my computer consisting of 2 x 1gb DDR2 sticks but as everyone in this forum says you need at least 4gb.


      My choices are

      add 2 x 1gb sticks to make a total of 4gb Cost $58

      throw out the old 1gb sticks and insert 2 x 2gb to make total of 4gb. Cost $110

      just add 2 x 2g sticks to make up a total of 6gb Cost $110


      There are suggestions that mixing 1 and 2 gb sticks is not as good as having all the same size. (I can easily buy the same brand and performance).

      Therefore will the 6gb be better than the 4gb?


      Has anybody any suggestions or experience if this affects Premiere Elements ?

        • 1. Re: Memory question
          John T Smith Adobe Community Professional & MVP

          As far as I know, the timing is more important than the size... such as (example only) 8-8-8 vs 9-9-9


          You'll need to determine the timing of what you have

          • 2. Re: Memory question
            nealeh Level 5

            If you use a 32-bit version of windows, go with the 4gb. If 64-bit then go with the 6gb.


            Insanity is hereditary, you get it from your children

            • 3. Re: Memory question
              Ed.Macke Level 3

              I've always wondered about the advice that "more memory is better".


              I have an XP SP3 machine with PrE7 running 2GB and everything runs just fine

              (although I'm only editing SD material). I have a memory monitor running

              continuously, and I have never seen PrE itself go over about 1GB of memory

              usage, nor my total usage go above about 1.5GB of memory.


              If I had 4GB, instead of having 500MB being unused, I'd have 2.5GB being

              unused... not sure what difference that makes other than being out the $$$

              for the additional 2GB of memory


              I guess what I'm saying is if you're running against your current 2GB limit

              (say, running PrE + Photoshop or something), by all means bump up your

              memory. It certainly won't hurt.


              But if not, if you're not swapping out to disk, I'm going to go against

              conventional wisdom and say there's no need to do anything.


              My 2¢

              • 4. Re: Memory question
                Ted Smith Level 3

                Well I went out and bought 2x1gb cards and added them to my computer amd made some interesting observations.


                It has explained to me why 4cpus seem to be essential when heavily editing, memory being not so important and why some people are complaining of freezes.


                PE9 seems to work slightly quicker on my dual core 2.4gb with 4mb RAM than 2gb. The red line pointer in the timeline moves much smoother in rendered clips.

                However, after I have been heavily adding effects for a while, it slows down, getting worse as I proceed.

                Eg the red line that travels through the clips when previewing doesn't move evenly or stops even though preview continues and the time for a preview to start running takes longer.


                If I close down PE9 and reopen it it works quickly again. All the complicated edits that were rended play perfectly again!


                Although it may have nothing to do with it, this looks like an old problem I used to have programming in VB with not releasing resources. This is common in programs if you don't properly release resources when you are finished with them or have an event using a routine that is called by a timer again before the first use finishes. It is usually associated with using up all the 'stack'.( Some people use the term dissapearing up a fundamental something)

                This would explain why restarting the PE9 application fixes the problem otherwise there is no way to clear the stack bottleneck.


                Observing the CPU usage graphs I saw that every situation that caused  the preview to falter or the sound stutter, the CPUs were working at  100%


                Observing the memory usage everything looks OK during preview running  with the 2 processors running at 50%  and there being over 2gb memory  left even when everything is running very slowly and jerky. So I don't think it could be a lack of memory problem.


                I can easily reproduce this 'resources' effect on my computer by the following procedure using the resource hungly stabilizer:

                1. apply the stabilizer to a short full HD clip. Dont render this yet.

                2. CTRL alt delete to show the performance processor and memory graphs.

                3. Select the stabilised clip.

                4 When I drag the WindowsXP dialog box I get a white shadow across the screen where the box has been, when trying to play the selected unrendered stabilised clip and sometimes a series of ghosts of the windows dialog box if I move it fast.

                5. Clicking the viewing point to a clip without effects makes everything go back to normal.

                6. Do this a few times and everything gets slower the more you do it until you restart PE9


                When I play a normal clip the white shadow of a moving dialog box is hardly noticable and decays rapidly as you would expect.


                When I play a freshly rendered complicate sequence on a recently started PE9 it plays perfectly.


                Try to preview a cross fade between two unrendered stabilized tracks with titles over it and you get total winter in the south pole for a minute!


                Because the same video is on my screen rendered or not I dont think it could be a problem with my video card.


                This seems to me to be either or both:-

                1.a resources allocation problem in PE9. ( a PE9 programming fault) or

                2. because PE9 application is performing routines repeatedly in a strict time sequence (25 per second), if the first event doesnt finish before the second is called, eventually the stack will be used up.  They should have built in a safeguard for slower computers by simply slowing down the preview enough for the rest of the computer to function - not freeze it - (a PE9 programming weakness)


                This seems to show why 4 CPUs are almost mandatory because a process could be happening in 4 instances in sucession and overlap before it was wanted by the fifth and so on. More RAM or a little faster CPU isn't going to help


                Anybody else agree or disagree or have observed this slowing down over time effect?