Yes, a lot of the filters try and allocate memory outside the normal Photoshop memory. Even worse, some of them try and allocate enough to hold the entire image at once. The combination of the image size you are working with and the filters you are using is pretty pessimistic.
Note that the situation you find yourself in is due to a combination of things – memory being so cheap, the 2GB address space limitation, and file sizes getting larger. You can alleviate the problem *somewhat* by adding more memory to that machine. But yeah, you will have to run with a lower memory percentage than you probably would like. Note that this probably isn’t as damaging to Photoshop performance as you may think it is.
Yes, we are working on the issue, but there aren’t any short-term fixes possible.
-Scott
scott, do plugins running out side the photoshop address space still fall under PS’s 2 gig limit from the OS standpoint? Or do they get their own 2 gig (as a seperate app would)?
Hi PsychicStickleBrick (got a real name..?)
We’re kindred spirits and share the SAME PROBLEM!!
I just put together a 2GB dual-channel DDR system using an Intel D875PBZ motherboard and other high quality parts. So far I’m unable to get it to work properly with Photoshop 7 or CS. I haven’t tried the filters you have, but I get a similar ‘not enough memory’ error when I try and save a 60mb image as a JPEG using the ‘Progressive’ setting. All in all Photoshop behaves sluggishly with 2GB dual-channel DDR RAM installed.
The solution for now is to pull out 2 of the RAM pieces and run with 1GB dual-channel DDR RAM only. With 1GB RAM the above operation works flawlessly with memory set even to 95% (I know… it’s not recommended). But it proves that the system works better with HALF the RAM and adding even more than 2GB will make matters only worse.
I’m going to test the system with 2 pieces of 1GB ($$) DDR RAM to see if it’s a problem only with using 4x 512MB pieces. So far we’ve tried 2 kinds of 512MB pieces and the same problem occurs. Intel had no advice to offer and suggested that the RAM we’re using should work fine.
GLAD TO HEAR I’m not the only one having this problem! This might very well be a Photoshop / Dual-Channel DDR RAM bug that only occurs when using more than 1GB dual-channel DDR RAM. I had hoped that Adobe would have jumped in by now (Chris Cox?) to confirm that Photoshop has been tested successfully with this amount of dual-channel DDR RAM. As it’s a new technology this might be a Photoshop bug.
Years ago there was a desperate post on the Adobe Compuserve Forum from a gentleman named Tomas who could not get 1GB RAM (cost 60,000 US$ at that time) to work on an Intergraph dual Pentium Pro200 NT4 system.
It was finally discovered that Adobe had never tried it and finally discovered that it was a Photoshop 4.0 bug. With RAM costing $60,000 at that time one can perhaps forgive them for this oversight. But poor guy was desperate for an answer to satisfy his wealthy (and angry) client and wasted lots of time trying to make it work when it was a Photoshop bug. 2GB dual-channel DDR RAM is NOT that expensive so I hope Adobe finds the time (and $$) to test it before we go nuts trying to deal with a newly discovered Photoshop ‘feature’.
Russell
Russell, were they matched ram? Also, Intel makes an issue about ram that does not possess Serial Presense Detect. I spoke to an Intel rep who claims that Kingston is a qualified supplier, and they list a 2G kit of 1G sticks.
I am interested in your findings. If this is going to be a problem, I’ll bail out of ANY new computer. Since Asus and Intel boards are exibiting the same problem, it is either the chip, or PS.
Maybe I should pull the 2 -256 ram sticks and repace them with 521’s and call it a day. $150 vs $1000+.
russ did you turn down ps’s memory useage as i suggested? also up the cache size to 6.
Some Success 🙂
I set the memory SDRAM tRCD timing for the RAM in the mobo BIOs from 3 to 4 and the RAM then runs at 400mHz. In this mode PS7 works with even 90% RAM allotted while CS has problems with settings higher than 80%. Still much better than setting things to 45% if indeed than does make any difference (why would anyone want to run a system like that??) or pulling 1/2 the RAM.
No Dave, I haven’t had a chance to set the RAM to 45% but I’ll do it to see for your sake.
I’m now pretty certain it’s not a RAM issue but either Photoshop or the motherboard having problems with dual channel 800mHz RAM. We did a test using another P4 processor with a 533 clock and 400mHz RAM that worked fine.
I’ll be interested in hearing from Adobe.
Russell
Mushkin has some interesting things to say about timing for their products. Seems as if that feature is going to play a bigger role in the near future.
I hope it works. I don’t like sitting here trying to make up my mind, and then have a whole new set of problems show.
I also would encourage Adobe to increase the ram handling capability. 2G isn’t enough any more.
I read the Mushkin info on the challenge presented with running 2GB DDR RAM.
<
http://www.mushkin.com/epages/Mushkin.storefront/3fe545d8023 95e84273fc0a801020622/Product/View/990925>
I’m beginning to think that I might indeed need 2x 1 GB modules that are matched to work together with this mobo. Don’t have a price yet, but I did find that 2GB RAM kits (2x 1GB) for a Mac G5 costs 5X more than the 1GB kits (2 matched pieces of 512mb). It appears that fast RAM that works fine up to 1GB will start to trip up when hauling 2GB of data and needs to be slowed down. So far my slowdown workaround is working ok but I’m not convinced that everything is running as it should. Sort of like Scotty sensing that ‘the engines just don’t sound quite right, Captain’.
Russell
I remarked on this a while ago (Nov 3) in a thread that was running at the time:
Mike Botelho "Can a filter cause harm?" 11/8/03 6:47pm </cgi-bin/webx?14>#post
and Chris suggested that I had bad RAM or a bad mobo & that the problem was not Photoshop. I’m now on the second mobo (Asus P4800 Deluxe – P4 3.0, Kingston RAM currently) and second set of RAM (2x1GB pairs – all matched sets), but my experience with 2 gigs of matched dual channel RAM has been that PS 7 has to have its RAM allocated below 40%, whereas CS (got CS since the previous post) works at up to 65%. ?????. The dealer replicated this problem on a different machine with a Gigabyte mobo and both Kingston and Corsair RAM using PS7.
As with other comments on this thread and previously, everything works flawlessly if I pull 1 gig pair out, or run with 1.5 gigs in single channel mode.
The first RAM was Corsair CL2 matched pairs (2-3-2-6 or 2-2-2-6, I think) which wouldn’t run 2 gigs without PS7 falling all over the place. Currently my dealer has tided me over with Kingston CL3 Value Ram (3-3-3- 8 ) whilst he waits for Kingston HyperX CL2 RAM (2-3-2-6) to come in stock. This works at the allocations mentioned above with PS7 & CS, but not over those percentages.
I’m now worried that the new, quicker stuff may bring back the fall-about problems in light of Russel’s comments in this thread.
I’m also thinking that there is a problem in PS (despite assurances to the contrary) and not the hardware, given that there are now quite a few of us with disparate hardware experiencing the same problem.
Fred.
Following what I read here, PS stores its data in Tiles. The more memory installed, the bigger will be the tiles. I guess that with 2 Gb the tiles are very big, and then the presets, bazillions of small files are each in a big tile, causing memory problems…
Maybe somthing should be done to limit the sizes of the tiles, especially now that memory is so cheap and that almost everyone can afford 2 Gigs, and awaiting 64 bits systems to break that limit.
What is the maximum size of the tile? 2G?
The price differentials for PC are similar to Mac.
It would appear that there are NO examples of ANYONE successfully running Photoshop with ANY 2GB DDR system. Thanks Fred for confirming that seeking out 1GB modules is probably a waste of time. If Adobe insists that it’s a ‘bad RAM and/or defective hardware’ issue then it would be great is they could tell us what system/ RAM combination they successfully tested with… Otherwise they should issue a disclaimer stating that PS will ONLY works with 1GB RAM with contemporary computers and save us a lot of wasted time and money!
I think I’ll just send back 1/2 the RAM and wait until the software/hardware vendors figure out how to get their stuff to work correctly.
Russell
Until this is resolved, I can see no reason to build another computer. If 1.5G is all that will run stable, then I might as well up my present board to 1.5G. All a faster board will do is get to the ram limit quicker. If my files, even on CS, stay below the ram set for PS, it’s very fast. Worst case save or render is a few seconds. Go beyond the limit, way beyond, (like 2x) and count on minutes to save.
What’s the connection between RAM and CPU speed? I’ve installed 4 sticks of 1Gig PC2700 RAM on a Canterwood board using a P4 3.2 processor. PS CS memory usage is set to about 85%. (A 100% setting created memory warnings and slowed the file browse.) When crunching USM or other filters on large files, CPU usage rarely jumps above 50%. It’s as if the memory is the bottleneck that won’t allow the CPU to work at full throttle. The Canterwood motherboard has a 800MHZ bus and can use fast RAM, but at the time there were no PC3200 1Gig sticks. (I don’t think there’s scratch disk usage during the operation–the hard disk light isn’t on, which would throttle CPU usage.)
I’m wondering if those who’ve switched to less RAM are seeing higher CPU usage as compared with more RAM, RAM of equal quality.
Quale,
If your P4 processor uses Hyper-Threading then your OS will see it as two processors. A single process can only use one at a time. Hence your CPU usage will register a constant 50% usage. (maybe a bit higher if you have other background processes using the other virtual processor) In reality it will be using 100% of the CPU.
I just got a new machine with HT and it took me a few days to spot what was happening!
Quale,
What motherboard are you using and what brand of RAM? I assume from your post that you have 2GB working successfully with PS. Note that Photoshop cannot currently address more than 2GB of RAM on either a Mac or a PC so 4GB a bit overkill.
I’m interested in hearing about what works to help save others the hassle of playing trial and error…
Thanks.
Russell
it’s not really ps’s fault. it’s windows (with certain notable exceptions in xp and 2k) can only use 2gig per application. so the designers of ps never wrote the code to go above that. i suspect that with 64 bit windwos on the horizon, and the g5 mac (and probably a 64 bit OSXish) they’re thinking hard about it.
it’s not really ps’s fault. it’s windows
I wasn’t blaming anyone … just stating a fact. Software developers work within the limitations of the OS and I agree that with recent evolutions of Macs and PCs this will probably change. But someone’s got to come up with a better way of addressing large hunks of RAM at a reasonable cost if any of this is going to matter to anyone. Right now it would seem that just getting 2GBs to work is a PITA.
Something I’m toying with is the idea of creating a Ramdisk with excess RAM…
Russell
Russell,
Oops – perhaps my terminology could have been better – I am running 4x512MB sticks made up as 2x matched sets of 1GB each.
If you could try 2x matched 1GB sticks for the total of 2 GB in channel 1 (ie in single channel mode), it will certainly verify whether the problem is with PS & 2GB RAM, or PS & dual channel.
I’m a bit dismayed that Adobe really doesn’t appear to have dealt with this effectively and perhaps qualified their claim that PS supports up to 2GB RAM, but maybe not properly, or maybe not properly in dual channel mode – or both? Dual channel RAM in GB configuration & hyperthreaded cpu’s have been with us for quite a while now, and I would have thought they’d have been with Adobe for quite a bit longer.
Fred.
Under memory and image cache preferences, Available RAM is 1777MB, and maximum use is set to 1511MB (85%). A few plugins complain at this setting and will only work if set to 45% or lower. I’m using 4GB of Samsung PC2700 on a ABIT IC7 board. I haven’t done any benchmarks, but things are as fast with CS as PS 7. Someone had posted that ramdisks slow things down, but that was the intention with the extra ram unused by PS.
