Anyone using 64 bit Vista computers to process their images?

cybernesco

« on: August 28, 2008, 06:26 »

#link

Within the Microsoft realm, most will use 32 bit XP or Vista computers to process their images, however 64 bit Vista computers are steadily making their way into the market.

I am in the process of buying two new PCs and before making a decision, I would like to know if any of you had any experience to share with a 64 bit computer loaded with 64 bit Vista. This is strictly to process images mainly using Photoshop CS3, Portrait Professional and software like ProStockMaster to upload them. I know that 64 bit is much faster then 32 bit but still could have issues with compatibility. Thank you for reading this. Denis


	Ignore \| Logged

Xalanx

« Reply #1 on: August 28, 2008, 06:33 »

#link

I have Vista 64 on a Quad Core Intel with 4 gigs of RAM. It is faster than XP 32 or Vista 32, regarding any application you can use. CS3 works like a charm, Lightroom the same (64 bit version). About those plugins i can't tell you since i don't have them.
However, if you buy a new pc, make sure it has drivers for Vista 64 and you'll be more than happy. Yea and get as much RAM as you can.


	Ignore \| Logged

Peter

« Reply #2 on: August 28, 2008, 07:00 »

#link

you can get up to 8GB ram :p

I am using winXP 32bit, have core2duo cpu 4GB RAM (3.2GB supported by 32bit OS), and it takes about 10 seconds to save raw into jpeg. how fast your computed do conversion from raw to jpeg?


	Ignore \| Logged

Xalanx

« Reply #3 on: August 28, 2008, 07:33 »

#link

Didn't bother to count that... but i'll do it tonight. However, something that fast that really doesn't matter. No way near 10 seconds. Maybe 2 or 3... I'll see and report exact figure.


	Ignore \| Logged

cybernesco

« Reply #4 on: August 28, 2008, 07:36 »

#link

Quote from: Xalanx on August 28, 2008, 06:33

However, if you buy a new pc, make sure it has drivers for Vista 64 and you'll be more than happy. Yea and get as much RAM as you can.

Thanks


	Ignore \| Logged

Peter

« Reply #5 on: August 28, 2008, 07:52 »

#link

Quote from: Xalanx on August 28, 2008, 07:33

Didn't bother to count that... but i'll do it tonight. However, something that fast that really doesn't matter. No way near 10 seconds. Maybe 2 or 3... I'll see and report exact figure.

I know when I have batch of 200 files to convert to jpeg from raw, I can go to watch some TV until its done.... and I thought I have fast computer! lol.


	Ignore \| Logged

Xalanx

« Reply #6 on: August 28, 2008, 07:54 »

#link

That's why i just changed my old pc with this new one, few days ago Grin


	Ignore \| Logged

dash

New Member

« Reply #7 on: August 28, 2008, 08:24 »

#link

Quote from: Peter on August 28, 2008, 07:00

you can get up to 8GB ram :p

There are many mainboards that accept 16GB of RAM.

D


	Ignore \| Logged

cybernesco

« Reply #8 on: August 28, 2008, 09:15 »

#link

I think another reason to buy 64 bit is that the next photoshop version, CS4, will be specifically made for 64 bit which I am not sure if it will run on a 32 bit.


	Ignore \| Logged

mjp

« Reply #9 on: August 28, 2008, 09:37 »

#link

I use vista 64bit with quad core Intel (~3.2Hz), 8 gigabytes of ram. My main hard disk is wester digital raptor (drive fitted into silencer block) which seek time is somewhere ~3ms. Windows and programs are in this drive. CS3 has its swap file on (512GB sata2 drive) and the lightroom 2(64 bit version) has its catalog and files on latest samsung terabyte drive (another tera for backups). GFX card is nvidia 8800 gts. CS3 is flying and the lightroom is very fast if there is not much local brush adjustments on the selected image.

Only problem I have encountered so far is that my motherboard ethernet driver messes up the hibernate function(crash sometimes) and my keyboard media keys stops responding when coming back from hibernate. Every program I use work nicely. Antivirus software is hard to get because not many work with 64 bit version of vista.

Have been using this system about 8 months now. Everything external has been working well (printer, spyder, wacom etc). So I can recommend to buy 64 bit instead of 32 bit since future applications can use more memory and photos are not going to be smaller since mexapixel race continues.

br, MjP


	Ignore \| Logged

domencolja

« Reply #10 on: August 28, 2008, 10:00 »

#link

Be also aware that by building a 64-bit system (that of course taking into account the latest market prognoses saying the OS sales will soon slide towards x64 in the following months/years - particularly because of funny low memory stick prices (now colonizing the DDR3 market as well)), which is the only way to go if you want more than 3GB of ram available, your pc will be futureproof for the new CS3 Adobe package coming later this year. The latest Lightroom already is compatible and works flawlessly.

If you're buying two new workstations, I can't think of any reason going the 32-bit route. It's senseless.

p.s.: As for compatibility issues: a year ago I couldn't recommend any 64-bit system, neither XP nor a "tweaked" Server OS of any sort. The driver issues were popping all over the place and the security software was almost unavailable. Now I do. Antivirus/firewall software has catched the OS developments and all the best suites do work on Vista x64. And if there's an application that doesn't support the x64 foundation, it will smoothly run in 32-bit compatibility mode.


	Ignore \| Logged

Peter

« Reply #11 on: August 28, 2008, 10:02 »

#link

Quote from: dash on August 28, 2008, 08:24

Quote from: Peter on August 28, 2008, 07:00

you can get up to 8GB ram :p

There are many mainboards that accept 16GB of RAM.

D

8GB is max supported by 64 bit Windows xp/vista. Above 8GB can operate only on Mac OS.


« Last Edit: August 28, 2008, 10:04 by Peter »	Ignore \| Logged

Fran

« Reply #12 on: August 28, 2008, 10:05 »

#link

I use Vista 64 on a non so incredibly fast PC and it works pretty ok. I also have some problems when returning from Hibernate, it pisses me off but what can I do?
For everything else is fine. It's slightly slower than Vista 32 (for various technical reasons too boring to explain), but you will unlikely notice the difference. Overall you can use more memory and that offsets the choice when working with images.

If you get Vista Ultimate, you'll have both 32 and 64 bit and you can try which one works for you. I wouldn't recomend installing Vista 32 anyway.


	Ignore \| Logged

Fran

« Reply #13 on: August 28, 2008, 10:07 »

#link

Quote from: Peter on August 28, 2008, 10:02

8GB is max supported by 64 bit Windows xp/vista. Above 8GB can operate only on Mac OS.

Vista can address up to 128gb of physical memory. Only Vista Home 64 is limited to 8gb (basic) or 16gb (premium) for commercial reasons.


	Ignore \| Logged

mjp

« Reply #14 on: August 28, 2008, 10:08 »

#link

btw:

   * Vista Basic: 8 GB
   * Vista Home Premium: 16 GB
   * Vista Business/Enterprise/Ultimate: 128+ GB

So its depends on version actually. More information from:
http://www.microsoft.com/ireland/windows/products/windowsvista/editions/64bit.mspx

edit: Fran was faster with the answer:)


	Ignore \| Logged

cybernesco

« Reply #15 on: August 28, 2008, 11:13 »

#link

Definitely 64 bit here they come!!!

Thank you guys for your responses, I could not have asked any better!!! Denis


	Ignore \| Logged

cdwheatley

« Reply #16 on: August 28, 2008, 11:23 »

#link

No regrets here.

vista 64, quad core, 6gb ram
had a couple problems initially with wacom, and spyder...make sure you have 64bit drivers for everything.

Also,when editting 1ds mark III tiff files.. zooming in "lens correction filter" causes computer to get hung up. No problem with 5d files though, strange??

Other than that works like a charm and super fast.


	Ignore \| Logged

Sign up with Shutterstock

Xalanx

« Reply #17 on: August 28, 2008, 12:27 »

#link

save jpeg from raw:
acdsee pro 2: 2-2.5 seconds
CS3: 1 second?... sometimes 2...

alright, i have 350d, so 8 megapixels.

with the proper hardware, you have a blistering fast pc.

Get a quad core, my opinion. And good memory, not less than 800Mhz.

Apart from the case when you have older hardware and about 1 GB of ram or something like this, Vista 64 will be considerably faster than Vista 32.

I have dual boot with 32 and 64 and there IS a difference in 64's advantage. I'm a senior software developer and I could explain why, but it's really not the place for this.

Every benchmark ran on my pc on both versions scored better in Vista 64. If you only have 2 gigs of ram, i recommend vista 32 though.


	Ignore \| Logged

Peter

« Reply #18 on: August 28, 2008, 13:00 »

#link

i have 4GB DDR2-800, and core2duo E4600 (2.4GHz), 32 OS. Do you think it will be faster if I buy new CPU (quad core), without going to 64bit OS? Can PS CS3 work with 4 cores?


	Ignore \| Logged

grp_photo

« Reply #19 on: August 28, 2008, 13:16 »

#link

Quote from: Peter on August 28, 2008, 13:00

i have 4GB DDR2-800, and core2duo E4600 (2.4GHz), 32 OS. Do you think it will be faster if I buy new CPU (quad core), without going to 64bit OS? Can PS CS3 work with 4 cores?

AFAIK No! Have a look at the Task-Manager while working in most cases PS don't even use the duo (CPU only goes to a maximum of 50%).


	Ignore \| Logged

Xalanx

« Reply #20 on: August 28, 2008, 13:25 »

#link

Quote from: Peter on August 28, 2008, 13:00

i have 4GB DDR2-800, and core2duo E4600 (2.4GHz), 32 OS. Do you think it will be faster if I buy new CPU (quad core), without going to 64bit OS? Can PS CS3 work with 4 cores?

Check this out: TomsHardware

Check out also the other tests to see how the quad performs, generally. So I'd say you'd be better with a quad and vista 64.

I couldn't find E4600, but I found E4300 and added to the test it's more than 2 times slower than my CPU, Q6600 (the cheapest quad core). So yes, I think that upgrading your CPU would make a lot of difference.

If you still want to keep Vista 32 it's fine, you'll feel the difference very good, as well. CS3 doesn't need to know how to work with 4 cores of CPU. Because the operating system is taking care of this. This means that Vista will balance the load on your cores so that the CPU performs evenly, if the program doesn't have other instructions about how to deal with the cores.

As long as you'll see 4 CPUS in Windows Task Manager (Ctrl-Shift-Esc on Windows), all applications will use 4 cores.

As grp_photo said, there are a few times when not all the cores are used. However, most of the times you'll use all of them. Don't look at the numbers (25%, 50%, look at the graphs for each core and you'll see).

This is how my pc is right now. Is it working with all 4 cores or what? Grin

Cheers.


	Ignore \| Logged

Peter

« Reply #21 on: August 28, 2008, 14:59 »

#link

lets clear few things out: I am using Windows XP, I hate vista. lol. I may switch to XP 64bit, but not vista. I would rather wait for Windows 7.

second, in task manager, sometimes when PS is converting from raw, both cores are at 100% usage.

I might look for quad core cpu on ebay.....


	Ignore \| Logged

Xalanx

« Reply #22 on: August 28, 2008, 15:28 »

#link

XP works with 4 cores too. But you have that problem with memory limit. You might wanna try to enable Physical Address Extension in boot.ini, see how it goes.


	Ignore \| Logged

Pages: [1]

« previous next »

MicrostockGroup

Microstockgroup Sponsors

Topic: Anyone using 64 bit Vista computers to process their images?

Microstockgroup Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results