RAM for photoshop: 8 vs 16 GB

[macchiato2009]

hi

considering changing my mac to a new retina MBP

and hesitating about how much ram to buy (as soldered)

wondering if photoshop cs6 will benefit from more RAM

8 vs 16 Gb: any real difference ?

and what about system overall performance too ?

thanks

[snberk103]

Photoshop loves RAM. More RAM is generally considered to be the single most important factor to better performance. And consider that it is very difficult, I believe, to upgrade the RAM post purchase for that system.

So... my advice is to get the 16GB option.

[MCAsan]

on a rMBP go with 16GB. You never know in advance the memory requirements for 1-3 years from now. So give both today's and tomorrow's apps plenty of memory. If you have to save money, do it on SSD size...not memory or CPU.

[throAU]

It is a small percentage of the cost of the machine, and you can't upgrade it later. Go for 16 gigs.

[Flash SWT]

Originally Posted by throAU

It is a small percentage of the cost of the machine, and you can't upgrade it later. Go for 16 gigs.

Agreed.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by throAU

It is a small percentage of the cost of the machine, and you can't upgrade it later. Go for 16 gigs.

This.
That being said, Photoshop will probably not need the additional RAM. However, chances are that you are also using Lightroom or Aperture, and these eat RAM for breakfast. The math is easy: RAW files are often ~20 MB and larger a piece these days. If you are looking at a project with ~100 photos, that's at least 2 GB RAM right there before doing any manipulations on them.

[Laird Knox]

Two weeks ago I had PS and/or Windows freak out on a single image. Granted it was a 3GB file but for some reason the RAM was pegged at 16GB used for a good 20 minutes when I tried to save. Convinced me to upgrade to 32GB.

I think it was a Windows issue but it was still annoying. I expect OS/X would handle it better but memory is never a bad thing.

[wolfpuppies3]

Some's good, more's better

[snberk103]

Originally Posted by Laird Knox

Two weeks ago I had PS and/or Windows freak out on a single image. Granted it was a 3GB file but for some reason the RAM was pegged at 16GB used for a good 20 minutes when I tried to save. Convinced me to upgrade to 32GB.

I think it was a Windows issue but it was still annoying. I expect OS/X would handle it better but memory is never a bad thing.

I'm not surprised, entirely. Ps often wants 6x to 8x times the size of the image for a scratch file.... so in this case it might have wanted up to 24 GB of RAM.... Just for the one image. Plus whatever is running, plus Windows... it would have been trying to write a big chunk of this to the HDD instead of RAM, and if there was something else trying to write to the HDD - well, it should have worked better but sometimes the system just gets bogged down.

But... 32 GB of RAM is definitely good!

[Laird Knox]

Originally Posted by snberk103

I'm not surprised, entirely. Ps often wants 6x to 8x times the size of the image for a scratch file.... so in this case it might have wanted up to 24 GB of RAM.... Just for the one image. Plus whatever is running, plus Windows... it would have been trying to write a big chunk of this to the HDD instead of RAM, and if there was something else trying to write to the HDD - well, it should have worked better but sometimes the system just gets bogged down.

But... 32 GB of RAM is definitely good!

Nothing else was open so everything should have fit in memory just fine. Even if it did need a scratch file it is on striped SSDs.

It was something else - I took me five minutes just to open up the task manager. Doubling the memory was a cheap way to cure the symptom. At least until Nikon comes out with the D900.