# Why would I need it?



## lemonart (Jun 13, 2012)

Hey all.  So this is probably a post that should be more in a computer section of this forum, but it DOES tie into the D800... Plus I like you guys and value your input .

So... The question is: Would 16gb of RAM be at all beneficial in photography?  Specifically with a large MP camera like the D800?  Is aperture or photoshop RAM hungry?  Or would it only be minimal improvement in this day and age?

16 is overkill for most of what I do, but I hear that graphical applications use more ram than most.  I, myself, notice aperture being the slowest program I run on my MacBook pro.  I can only imagine that a D800 would cripple a system even more.

With these new retina macs with stupid resolution (which I'm purchasing) you can't upgrade later... I have to make a decision on 8 or 16 out the gate.  And again, it WILL eventually be used with a D800.

Nikon computer nerds, help me out here! 

Lem


----------



## Aloicious (Jun 14, 2012)

I don't use Macs, but to me, typically more RAM is better, so if your choice is 8 vs 16 without being able to upgrade later on, and you can afford it, go with the 16...if price isn't an issue, then IMO it's better to have more than you need, than not enough, especially if they're un-upgradable like you mentioned.

however if you're asking if you NEED 16, then no, I process my images from the D800 on my desktop that I built a few years ago with CS6 running 6GB without a problem. but I likely will be upgrading my RAM soon too, but that's because I do more multi-tasking work recently that the extra RAM will be a benefit...just running PS, even with a few small programs isn't a problem with the 6GB I have. I do PS work on my laptop with 8GB without a problem too...

remember that processing power is just as important as well. I have my desktop overclocked up to 3.8GHz, and doing work on that with less RAM is more efficient and quicker than my laptop running 2.9GHz and 8GB.


----------



## thisisbleep (Jun 14, 2012)

Photoshop does/used to limit the RAM usage to 50% by default, but you could/can change it in the options. I am not sure if Aperture has an equivalent limitation or setting.

There is no guarantee that the full performance of your PC will be used by the program, for example many quad core processors are not needed because most programmes were or are only written to use up to 2 cores. I would say that you should focus on the larger SSD if money is limited, 8gb is sufficient.

Better yet just build your own desktop. My ideal would be to have a ultrabook equivalent (e.g. MacBook Air) and desktop, I do not understand the need for such powerful portable devices because it will kill the battery and I am never that far from home where I have the much more powerful desktop.


----------



## lemonart (Jun 14, 2012)

I already have a desktop I built for audio.  It's pretty tricked out for a recording system... I'm just not used to ram requirements for photo programs, and my laptop will be my go-to system for that aspect since I do travel and do most of my social networking away from my dedicated studio system.

I just didn't know if I'd see a huge speed bump from 8 to 16 or not... Especially with an SSD.

It's sounding like 8 (even with a d800) will be fine when running aperture plus a web browser.  16 would probably be for heavier multitasking or running extra virtual operating systems.... Then again it's only $180 for the extra juice... And I plan to keep it around a while...  But I need glass too!  Decisions decisions...

Why can't I just win a lottery and not need to make these decisions?? 

Lem


----------



## KmH (Jun 14, 2012)

Do you have an OpenGL capable graphics card?

I don't think it's possible to have to much RAM memory.

Another key to Photoshop performance is how much scratch disk space you allocate to Photoshop.

And you started this thread in the wrong forum, which is why it got moved.


----------



## morganza (Jun 14, 2012)

Aloicious said:


> I don't use Macs, but to me, typically more RAM is better, so if your choice is 8 vs 16 without being able to upgrade later on, and you can afford it, go with the 16...if price isn't an issue, then IMO it's better to have more than you need, than not enough, especially if they're un-upgradable like you mentioned.
> 
> however if you're asking if you NEED 16, then no, I process my images from the D800 on my desktop that I built a few years ago with CS6 running 6GB without a problem. but I likely will be upgrading my RAM soon too, but that's because I do more multi-tasking work recently that the extra RAM will be a benefit...just running PS, even with a few small programs isn't a problem with the 6GB I have. I do PS work on my laptop with 8GB without a problem too...
> 
> remember that processing power is just as important as well. I have my desktop overclocked up to 3.8GHz, and doing work on that with less RAM is more efficient and quicker than my laptop running 2.9GHz and 8GB.



This, is useful and i found it helpful.


----------



## bratkinson (Jun 14, 2012)

In my 45+ years in computers, it's always been a "war" between processor speed, memory speed, and input/output speed. The worlds fastest processor is a turtle if coupled with the slowest memory, etc. It's no different in the PC/MAC world.

For photo editing, the primary use for RAM memory is to store the program 'code' (eg, Photoshop, Lightroom, etc.) and the picture(s) being edited. My antique version of Photoshop will stop and give a message that memory is full when I try to load too many pictures without saving and closing them along the way. Having more memory simply allows more pictures to be 'open' at a time. My Lightroom 3 appears to have 'no limit' to how many pictures can be open, so it probably keeps only 1 at a time 'open', saving each previously worked-on image to its' catalog before opening the next one. 

Multiprogramming (running 2 or more programs concurrently) requires more RAM than single program at a time computer usage. Basically, all programs must be loaded into RAM before they start running. As programs themselves are often larger than the available RAM, portions of the programs and/or the data (pictures) they are working on must be swapped in and out of RAM to get what it needs 'now' in RAM and a few moments later, what it needs at that point in time into RAM. A page file on one or more hard drives is used for this purpose. The page file contains convenient-sized fragments of code or data that are continually swapped in and out of RAM, which is many times faster than your hard drive(s). So if you have a super fast processor, but it's always 'waiting' on RAM and page file activity to complete, you're basically 'choking' the system. In days long gone by, IBM mainframes had a 'wait' light, that would light up when then the processor was waiting for I/O to occur. The name of the game was to keep the wait light dark. But as computers sped up, nano-second light on/off cycles wouldn't be noticable as light bulbs couldn't fully cycle that fast...the light would simply be dim all the time. If you have a hard drive 'activity' light on your computer, the more activity there is, the more it will be lit. And possibly the processor is waiting for I/O to be finished.

Bottom line, as mentioned above, you can't have too much RAM. More RAM = less paging = faster computer. But then, if *you* have to wait 30 nanoseconds or 45 nanoseconds, you won't notice. But to the processor, the extra 15 nanoseconds is f-o-r-e-v-e-r!!!!


----------



## blahh646260 (Jun 14, 2012)

I am pretty new to photography but have used macs for years. I haven't looked at the new Mac books with retina displays but on macs previous laptops and desktops it is rather simple to change out the ram to upgrade it. In previous Mac laptops you just take out the battery and 2 or 3 screws and your at our RAM for easy upgrading. I would check and make sure that you can do this on the new ones. I've used crucial.com in the past to order upgraded ram for my macs


----------



## Aloicious (Jun 14, 2012)

you would be fine with 8GB right now, but its the thing you said about them not being able to be upgraded that is a concern. you might find yourself wishing you had more in the future. I remember when 512MB of RAM was considered SO excessive and people saying that no one would EVER need more than that.

as was mentioned, you can't really have TOO much RAM. so if the 16GB version is only $180 more like you said, and you can afford it, then go for the 16GB absolutely....


----------



## Ysarex (Jun 14, 2012)

Aloicious said:


> you would be fine with 8GB right now, but its the thing you said about them not being able to be upgraded that is a concern. you might find yourself wishing you had more in the future. I remember when 512MB of RAM was considered SO excessive and people saying that no one would EVER need more than that.
> 
> as was mentioned, you can't really have TOO much RAM. so if the 16GB version is only $180 more like you said, and you can afford it, then go for the 16GB absolutely....



"640K should be enough for anybody."

You said it yourself, you won't be able to upgrade. iFixit has given the new Macbook Pro it's lowest possible rating and identified it as the least upgradable and least repairable computer of all time. So you're only going to get one shot. From Computerworld: "This is, to date, the least-repairable laptop we've taken apart," said  Kyle Wiens, CEO of iFixit, in an email today. "Apple has packed all the  things we hate into one beautiful little package."

Joe

edit: link: http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2012/06/opinion-apple-retina-displa/


----------



## lemonart (Jun 16, 2012)

Ya... For $180, why not?  At least it's not as overpriced as Apple's "ram upgrade" kits.  Those are just stupidly high in dollars!  It's funny how many people would buy them though (I used to work at an apple store).  I guess the real question is... In 3 years, will 16 be the norm?     Apple's laptops have never really been upgradable.  You could do ram and HD but that was it.  Generally I build my own desktops, but I'm still a fan of apple when it comes to portable devices/comps.  I'm well aware what I'm getting into there .  I just haven't been doing photography for that long.  Up until now my only concern was access time for audio.  The SSD pretty much makes that a non-issue.  But graphics are new territory for me.  Would a program like aperture even look much at system RAM?  Or would it all be graphics ram anyways?  Lem


----------

