Upgrade advice: move to 6GB of ram, or upgrade to T9900?

topic.

This is regarding the laptop you see in my sig.

My core applications for this laptop are hardcore Photoshop (print work that runs between 1GB and 3GB of memory when in use), occasional video editing and video conversion (Handbrake) maybe 2x/week.

My current processor is the T9550 (2.66GHz), and I currently have 4GB of DDR2 ram.

I see Newegg is selling 4GB sticks of DDR2 ram for about $140...and HP Parts is selling the T9900 for $340. I figure that in terms of net costs, both will cost me about the same after selling the part they'd be replacing (assuming I can get about $250 for the T9550...and maybe $20-$40 for the 2GB ram stick that the 4GB stick would replace).

So what say ye? Which will provide me the most meaningful gains?

Thanks for your insight, as always.

 

The extra memory would probably help more than the faster CPU in those applications, though the difference shouldn't be that much.

 

I would opt for the extra ram and then look into overclocking your CPU for the extra performance.

 

2 votes for ram. thank you for the thoughts so far, gentlemen. they mean a lot.

 

I assume you have a 64-bit operating system on your computer? Because, otherwise, 6GB of ram won't do you any good.

Personally, I'd go with the T9900, seeing as your RAM seems to stay under 3GB of usage. But, then again, look at the specs of my computer in my sig. I like fast CPUs...

 

What about a SSD instead?
I found the key slowdown in Photoshop can be the temp file.

If your AW has two drives (not sue) could you swap one for a SSD and move the temp file there?
If you have large temp files this may gain you more.

(Might involve a bit of work on your part though)

 

sell your laptop and get a i7 cpu and 6gb ram

 

I'm surprised to so many people guessing instead of saying: measure it.

CPU use is the easiest, if you don't regularly go beyond 90% there's no point.

Likelihood of benefit from memory upgrade use can be estimated by observing page faults, I read.

 

That would certainly be the most precise way to tell. On the other hand, Photoshop is one of the applications that are typically known for being RAM intensive. I guess it just depends on how often he uses it?

 

In think we all agree Photoshop is RAM intensive. But that something else than saying he would benefit from going from 4 GB to 6 GB.

There's a reasonable chance he won't notice anything from a memory or CPU upgrade.

And how he uses it.

 

None. Keep your laptop as it is and save your money for your next laptop ;-) You won't see meaningful improvements for the price you'll pay. Your specs are good enough for the time being and considering the platform limits.

 

Hi,

Not wanting to hijack this thread, but being in a similar position, I wanted to comeback on a couple of comments made earlier... I'm about to get myself a Dell Studio 15, which has the i7 720QM 1.6GHz processor, primarily for using Photoshop. Now, seeing as when I do get it it'll have a 64bit version of Win7 installed, I'm having trouble deciding whether to get the version with 4GB RAM, or 6GB... Considering my choice of processor and killer app, would it be likely that I'd see a noticeable improvement in performance with 6GB?

Chairs,

Nif

 

It really depends on how you specifically use Photoshop ad what kind of images you edit.

But independent of that, Dell charges too much for memory upgrades. So better get the cheapest option from Dell and upgrade yourself later, if necessary.

 

If you're using photoshop getting a laptop with a better GPU than the ATI 4570 in the studio 15 would help... would be better if you got a Studio XPS 16 with an ATI 4670 card..

 

I would go for RAM or the SSD.

 

Oh, I'd always understood it that PS utilises RAM memory more than it does the GPU... I stand corrected

 

Well Photoshop does have GPU accelerated functions but to utilize those a low end GPU will do. Afaik.

 

It really depends on what you do.

I think RAM will help no matter which GPU.

Not all funtions in Photoshop are GPU accelerated - one that is GPU accelerated is HDRs - I use my processor, and I think my X3100 (on latest drviers, with "old gpu activated" may have been a bit quicker - but then my X3100 overheats and is too warm anyway)
I'm pretty sure a powerful GPU will help here.

Or the 3D stuff you get in CS4 extended.

Depending on what you do, the GPU upgrade can be pointless or useful.
More RAM will help "No matter what".

 

More RAM only helps if you currently max out your RAM.

A friend of mine ran Photoshop on his T7200 with Nvidia 8600. No matter what function the load Photoshop generated on his GPU was always minor.

 

Hm....

I know that HDRs and 3D images are GPU accelerated.

Maxig out RAM is easily achieved - in fact, if you have a 32Bit OS with 4GB of RAM, 3GB addressable - Photoshop can only use around 1600odd MB - that's set to 100% - it will not take what the system uses, and oddly enough leaves space for Adobe Bridge, etc...

Just do a large Photomerge and more RAM comes in handy as it reduces the temp file.

 

Sure Photoshop can benefit from more memory in many situations.

But it depends on the situation.

 

I use Photoshop pretty heavily. as I mentioned in the OP, my photoshop documents typically consume 1GB-3GB of ram when I'm working on them. to the degree that I typically choose not to open additional windows out of concern that they may start eating into Virtural Memory.

as for amount of processor used...no, I rarely get up very high in CPU usage (%). I was thinking maybe it would mean photoshop opening/closing faster? It would be an extra 400MHz in each core...but I don't know exactly what that would translate to in real life. how much time that would or would not save in something like Handbrake (video encoding) which uses close to 100% of each core.

for example, if I was encoding a video that took 1 hours in handbrake with my 2.66GHz processor, how long would it take a 3.06GHz processor, if both are running at ~100%?

if that wouldn't be a meaningful gain for the ~$100 net price difference, I won't worry about it.

and I know that the SSD will be the biggest game-changer...but I can't do the size/cost compromise right now. my files (video files, photos, Photoshop docs that are 500-1GB per) are simply too big to cut my storage space in half for now. so that move is going to be maybe this time next year.

thanks for all the thoughts, gentlemen.

 

I'll leave this open and observe it for the rest of the day as I work. thanks for the tip.

 

ok, so right now with one of my Photoshop documents open (CS4), I'm using...

2.23GB of ram (currently 84% of my system ram is being used, with just photoshop, Firefox, and Zune music player open.

when I nudge items in my Photoshop document over (it's a print-quality booklet design) by holding down one of the arrow keys or by grabbing the element with the move tool, the CPU usage zooms to 100% of whatever cpu usage is available. she's definitely thinking hard. and is choppy, visually. it would probably be smoother with the more powerful processor, I'd assume. How much moreso with 400MHz extra per core? I've no idea. I'll run this same document in my i7-based desktop and see how more or less smoothly it operates and go from there.

for what it's worth: 0 memory hard faults during my testing that I've seen.

 

Opening Photoshop is largely dependent on hard drive speed.

See examples here: http://www.laptopmag.com/review/storage/intel-x25-m-g2.aspx?page=6

At 100% CPU load most CPU intensive applications scale perfect as far as I know, so 15% higher clock speed means 15% faster, assuming cache size is the same.

 

cache size is the same. that's a lot of boost potential. hmm.......

However, Photoshop (and other Adobe apps like Flash) are the big meat-eaters in my world...probably 85% of what I do, so gains in those apps are what matter most. I wish I could figure out how to quantify the gains a 3.06GHz processor would mean for me in those apps.

just another note: 3 photoshop documents open (of the kind I would work on simultaneously) + Firefox = 90% of physical memory used. 0 hard faults/sec observed.

 

Going by the CPU usage you described: zero.

If you're not maxing out your CPU a CPU upgrade is totally pointless in your case.

 

very good then. so ram, SSD drive, or nothing?

 

Well the RAM is still uncertain to me. If your PF Delta stays low, it might not be beneficial, like Clutch said in the other thread. Presuming he's right.

What hard drives do you have?

 

a pair of Scorpio Blue's. currently in raid 0.

my only concern about ram is that it jumps to 80%-90% ram usage when in Photoshop. discourages me from doing other things, though maybe I shouldn't be.

 

Well Vista and Win 7 will use more memory than they really need. The 80-90% usage doesn't necessarily mean it's maxed out.

I guess at $140 it's not a big disaster if it doesn't really help.

When Hitachi 7K500 or WD5000BEKT is available it could be a nice upgrade for you.

 

understood. maybe I'll wait for the HDDs, then. not a big deal right now.

thanks for the all the input, gentlemen.

 

In your case, extra RAM is fruitful than nice CPU but if you want to be future proof then get that CPU too.

 

getting more RAM would help then... anyway the T9900 is only 0.3GHz faster so will make less difference than having more ram...