Will New Graphics Card Speed Things Up?

[BadChough]

I have recently started using Photoshop CC and find that my PC is not up to the job of processing the large files involved. I'm looking at ways to improve things without having to invest in a new PC.
Current set up is:
AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 5200+ 2.7GHz
NVIDIA GeForce 9400 GT
32 bit Windows 7
4GB RAM
My system could be changed to 64bit, and I have contemplated doing a Dual Boot installation on a Partition to achieve that, and imagine that it would then be worth increasing the RAM. I find the prospect daunting, but i could give it a go.
I also wonder if I should be looking for a newer Graphics Card, but I don't want to set off doing all these things if, in the end, I am not likely so see much improvement.
I'd be very interested in your opinions. Please don't get too technical, as I am a normal human being.
Thanks.

 

[rclarke250]

Not knowing the system board model, or model of the computer, it's hard to give you an accurate path, upgrade or replacement. Not knowing the output power of the power supply also is a determining factor to upgrading the video card. Telling you to go buy, model xxxxx if it needs a 12v rail with 26 amps, and you have one that only puts out 18 amps, would be useless. 64 bit windows is a good place to start, as is doubling the memory to 8Gb, but I would opt for a quad core cpu, and not sure if your board can take it, the cpu you have know is an AM2 socket, and if that is what you have on the board, and not a AM2+, also if you have only an AM2 socket board, you are limited to DDR2 memory, and not the faster DDR3 memory, that can be found on some AM2+ boards that were built as hybrid boards, and had sockets for both, DDR2, and DDR3 which can not be used at the same time. If it were me, considering how old this setup is, and the money it would cost to make it decent for what you want, with the information given, I would opt to replace the whole system. You could get a very nice system that would fit your needs for under $500. USD.

 

[Nelviticus]

One way to see what needs upgrading is to see which resource is being maxed out when you try processing one of your large files. If you call up Task Manager (ctrl + shift + esc). Select the 'Performance' tab and start doing one of the tasks that you know goes slowly. If the 'CPU Usage' bar is at 100% until the task is completed, you know that your CPU is the limiting factor. If the 'Memory' bar leaps to 100% and stays there until the job is done, you know that your memory is holding things back.

I suspect it's either or both of these rather than the graphics card.

Nelviticus

 

[rclarke250]

Actually, Photoshop CC is very Graphic card dependent. Here is a FAQ from Adobe Link And you can see all of the added filters and functionality that is only available to a relatively decent video card.

 

[strongm]

>Select the 'Performance' tab

Photoshop has it's own 'Efficieny' indicator. Adobe advise that if it drops below about 90%-95% you could probably do with more physical memory.

 

[cdogg]

CPU
Of all the Adobe editing applications, After Effects and Photoshop are probably the most CPU dependent. Your options in this department are very limited and not worth pursuing in my opinion. Your system is coming up on 6-7 years old, going by the age of the CPU. You might want to heavily consider a new computer at this point. Like it was mentioned above, $500 will get you an average computer by today's standards (minus a decent video card) that will better handle Photoshop CC. You will go this route eventually, and when you do be sure to get one with a CPU that can handle at least 4 threads (8 or more preferred).

GPU
The GeForce 9000 series was tested and approved for Photoshop CS6 and earlier. Photoshop CC, however, really requires a newer GPU. You can find a GTX 650 in the ballpark of $130. There are other similar options of course, but just make sure you get one with at least 1 GB of GDDR5 memory.

RAM
These days, 4 GB is the standard for a basic desktop. You can use strongm's suggestion to see how much you are taxing RAM in the application, but really 8 GB is the minimum I would recommend to anyone for multimedia editing, especially if you're going to be working with large files.


With all that said, you might want to try getting a decent video card first. See if that helps. Even if it doesn't help much, you can still use it in your next system so it's not a wasted upgrade. I wouldn't bother with RAM or the CPU in your current system. My 2¢



-Carl
"The glass is neither half-full nor half-empty: it's twice as big as it needs to be."

[tab][navy]For this site's posting policies, click [/navy]here.

 

[BadChough]

How nice of you all to devote so much time and effort to helping me with my PS CC issue. Many thanks.
To give a bit more detail, my original mother-board keeled over a few months ago and I took my PC to the local “man”. He replaced it with a Biostar A780LB board, a name which has lead to some sneering on another forum. However, I have just checked the paper-work and see that it has an AM2+ socket and is capable of running Athon 11 and Phenom 11 CPUs, although only DDR2 RAM.
Thanks for the tip about the Efficiency monitor, strongm. I have tried it and found that it fell to 68% when processing a file with a Filter.
Cdogg, Thanks for your detailed survey of the issue. I think your idea of upgrading the Video Card sounds well worth a try.
As I said initially, I have been considering installing the 64bit Windows7. Rclark250 thought that a good idea. I assume a new video card would function with either system?
Thanks again.



Certainty kills far more people than Doubt.

 

[kjv1611]

Biostar, unless they've changed recently, is definitely not a high performance board manufacturer, and I wouldn't call them very stable either. They are often used when budget is the #1 criteria.

You mentioned the large files being an issue. Another thing that can help with any sort of media handling and large files is to have a 2 drive setup. So for instance, one system drive and a totally separate data drive. And depending upon what you're doing, for instance, some encoding tasks, having a 3rd disk helps even more (initial/beginning disk and an ending disk, both separate from "system" disk). Also, it's probably worth considering an SSD for the system drive, assuming you don't have one (I didn't see it listed).

But really, from what it sounds like, I wouldn't expect much out of your current hardware. To make that work well will take far more time and effort than buying a new/newer system or building one. Of course, a new system costs more money, so you have to decide based on budget.

As cdogg suggested, getting a new graphics card now would probably work out well in the end, because if it does not help enough (and I'd seriously doubt it would), then at least you'd have it ready for the next system. On the other hand, if it helped at least a little, and you're short on cash (which is where I've lived most of my life), then you could get that slight boost in performance now, and then maybe in another 6 to 12 months save up enough to build/buy a new system.

Another thought is that if the new vid card gets you by for now, and you wait long enough to build/buy a new system, you could also get Windows 10 when it comes out for the new system. I wasn't a fan of Windows 8, but in my initial glance at Windows 10, it's looking like a great operating system.

And then... let's say you setup a new system with an 8 Core maybe Intel Core i7, 8 to 16 GB Ram, SSD + HDD(s), decent graphics, and Windows 10... and maybe it'll last you another several years before having to upgrade again... of course that would depend upon whether things change enough software-wise and/or whether anything breaks in the meantime.

Board-wise, there are some brands that basically you can't go wrong with. Asus is always at the top or near top of the list. MSI, Gigabyte, and a couple others seem to do well. You could try checking for online reviews (blogs and such) as well as checking Amazon, NewEgg, other Computer part sellers for reviews as well. And of course, if you do get to doing a new build, you could always come up with your budget, your needs, your ideas/thoughts, and you could end up with more information than you might dream possible if asking in this forum for ideas on a new build. That sort of thing gets many us uber-excited for some crazy reason.


"But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ." 1 Corinthians 15:57

 

[cdogg]

I agree with a lot of the above. Adding a solid state drive to your current system would be a wise investment as well, since it can be reused, like the video card, in your next PC. It will speed up overall system performance, though how much of a direct impact on Photoshop it will have is questionable. As for the video card upgrade, I think it's important to note that your current card only has 16 CUDA cores. A GTX 650 has 384 CUDA cores, which alone will help tremendously with some of the features in PS CC. Add that to the fact that it's also running on the much slower DDR2 memory.

Upgrading to 64-bit Win 7 wouldn't hurt, but I doubt it would matter much on the old system. The main advantage would be the ability to handle more than 4 GB of memory, but unless you're going to up the amount of RAM, then it's probably a waste of time.

Oh and yes, the new video card would function fine in either system!



-Carl
"The glass is neither half-full nor half-empty: it's twice as big as it needs to be."

[tab][navy]For this site's posting policies, click [/navy]here.

 

[rclarke250]

Here lies the problem of trying to upgrade that board to 8GB of ram, it can be done, but since it only has 2 dimm slots, you would be replacing the 4GB in the system, and not just adding 4GB to it. So, you would need 2x 4GB ddr2 dimms. These are very hard to find, on Newegg they run about 165.00 USD. It will not take registered or ECC memory, which is pretty cheap, so even ebay is high priced. So, I would not buy the memory upgrade, instead I would save for a new PC. I would still say windows 7 x64 is a plus. Remember windows 32 bit can only address 4GB of total memory. So if you were to use a 1GB ram video card, you would subtract that from the 4GB system ram, and only have 3GB or so to use for applications and windows, hurting whatever gains the new video card would return, also, remember that the power supply may need to be upgraded to support a newer more power hungry video card, something else to consider when deciding if upgrading or replacing the system is the way to go. The 9400GT can have 256MB,512MB or 1Gb of ram, and you didn't let us know which variant you had.

 

[cdogg]

rclarke,
Totally agree about the memory situation. Definitely not worth upgrading on this system. However, I'm a bit confused by your comment:

So if you were to use a 1GB ram video card, you would subtract that from the 4GB system ram, and only have 3GB or so to use for applications and windows, hurting whatever gains the new video card would return

That's not entirely true. Yes, a 32-bit system can only allocate up to 4 GB of memory addresses, which is why you typically only see 3.2 or 3.5 GB of RAM available in a 32-bit OS. However, it's not directly tied to the amount of RAM on a discrete video card. That reduced amount of RAM is due to ALL components in the system that require memory addressing, and for a discrete video card with 1 GB of RAM, the OS will not necessarily need to map 1 GB worth of addresses. It may only need a small amount such as 64 MB or 128 MB.

For example, I have three older 32-bit Windows XP systems with discrete video cards. One card has 256 GB of memory, another has 1 GB, and the last uses onboard video. The two with cards are showing the same amount of available memory, 3.2 GB, while the third is showing 3.5 GB. You are right that video cards can suck up additional memory addresses, but it's not a proportional one-to-one ratio when trying to predict how much.

Furthermore, spending the time to convert from 32-bit to 64-bit in order to gain an extra 500 MB of RAM is probably not worth it. I wouldn't anticipate that the small amount will make much of an impact. Possible? Yes. Likely? Probably not.


BadChough,
I will say, however, that the power supply is a valid point that I glossed over. The GTX 650 isn't a power-hungry card, but there's a slight chance that an older power supply might not have the right specs to support it. You should check the specs of the power supply or post here with the make/model so we can look that up for you.

-Carl
"The glass is neither half-full nor half-empty: it's twice as big as it needs to be."

[tab][navy]For this site's posting policies, click [/navy]here.

 

[BadChough]

Thanks cdogg. With the 64bit installation I had intended to increase the RAM to 8GB.

I attach a photo of my Power Supply.

 

[rclarke250]

The GTX650 cdogg is talking about requires a minimum of 24A on the 12v rail, you have 2 12v rails, and combined they put out 19A, so you would definitely need a newer power supply, look at 400-450W, I prefer the Corsair power supply's in that range, but there are several others that would also work. And I know and understand about the 32 bit windows, it's just easier when trying to explain it to someone that it will use up memory. Of course the video card he has now is also using up address space. I spent the weekend trying to explain to my sister that her 320GB hdd, was 320GB, and always she responds with, "Windows shows me it is 298GB", and I spent 2 hours trying to explain base 10 and base 2 math to her. Not fun.

 

[kjv1611]

Yeah, the more we learn here, the more it seems it best to deal with what you have as best you can... If you do definitely have some cash to burn for now, and know you'll end up wanting to reuse the parts again in a new system, then by all means probably best to do this:
[ol 1]
[li]Upgrade Video Card[/li]
[li]Upgrade Power Supply to handle Video Card, and I'd go a little overboard now if you're going to redo the rest say in 6 to 12 months anyway, that way you don't find yourself wanting to upgrade something you just upgraded. [/li]
[li]Install an SSD as system drive, and keep current hard drive as a data drive - that way you have 2 drives, and the system will run better on the SSD. And doing that will also be good for the new system when that comes around. Do some ressearch, and try to get the best bang for your buck on the SSD. From all I've heard and read, I'd definitely go for a SAMSUNG 850 Pro like this one if it were me.[/li]
[li]Then start plugging away funds into a savings account as quick as possible specifically for this purchase.[/li]
[li]Do as much research and/or ask for suggestions here as you can in the meantime. Just understand that prices and available technology is constantly changing, so don't assume that if it's $100 today that it'll be $100 tomorrow and not $50 or $200.[/li]
[/ol]

"But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ." 1 Corinthians 15:57

 

[cdogg]

Actually the power requirement will vary a bit depending on manufacturer. PNY's version requires at least 400W with a minimum of 20A on the 12V rail:

https://www.pny.com/GTX_650_2048MB_PCIe

($110)

So yes, looks like you would need to upgrade the power supply as well. Costs are rising here, so you'll want to avoid the scenario of pumping too much into an outdated system. Here's the order I would perform upgrades:

1) GPU and PSU
2) SSD
-----likely cut-off point-----
3) RAM
4) CPU

 

[cdogg]

Just saw your post kjv1611. Looks like we're thinking along the same lines!

 

[BadChough]

It's great that a consensus is emerging!
I had been thinking, overnight that I might start with the SSD, hoping that this might give the system a boost relatively simply and cheaply. (No need to change Power Supply?) I read this which recommended the Crucial MX100 512GB SSD.
I already have two HDDs installed so I would lose one of them, (150GB), gain some space and some speed, and would have it to transfer to the new system that you lot have planned that I should buy in the not too distant future.
I thought that I could install the Windows 7 64bit version, and boost the RAM with any spare cash I still have.
But I see you all favour the Video card route first.
I live in UK and have found it difficult to locate the exact video card that has been recommended, but have just emailed PNY Europe to see if perhaps it goes under a different name here.

Is my overnight plan daft?

 

[cdogg]

Any SSD is going to be a significant upgrade over the standard hard drive, but yeah, the Crucial MX100 series has received a lot of positive reviews. Just keep in mind that your motherboard has SATA 2.0 ports which only support up to 3 Gbps, so the SSD you're looking at won't perform at its maximum potential until it's moved to your next PC. Not a deal-breaker but thought I'd mention it.

In case there's no luck from PNY, here's another option:

http://www.newegg.com/global/uk/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814127720

I couldn't find the exact power specs for the MSI card, so to be safe, make sure your new PSU supports 24A on its 12V rail.

 

[kjv1611]

EVGA is an excellent graphics card manufacturer. I don't think, personally, I'd go for a PNY card. They may make good cards, but I had some bad experiences with their cards to where I decided to put them on a "never buy" list, personally. It's been several years since then, but it was pretty bad. EVGA has been good since it came out - not sure if that's changed lately as I've not had to delve too much into graphics stuff in a while. And just in general, what I do when looking at components for myself or anyone else, I'll just go to the category, check whatever filters I want to start off with, and sort by rating. Then from that, find what I think I might like, and look for any other online reviews.

"But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ." 1 Corinthians 15:57

 

[cdogg]

Interesting that you say that about PNY, considering they manufacture the entire Quadro line of cards from Nvidia. I have over 60 high-end cards from them in service where I work that were purchased in the last 9 years. Quite a few from the early days, mainly the Quadro FX 4500, Quadro FX 4700, and the Quadro FX 5000, failed prematurely. However, I attribute a lot of that to a poor design from Nvidia. Back in those days, they were essentially two cards sandwiched together sucking a lot of power and running really hot.

On the other hand, all of the cards we've purchased in the last 5 years since the release of the Quadro 2000 and Quadro FX 5800 have been running like champs. I haven't had one fail yet! 90% of the cards I still have in service are from this era. As for non-Quadro cards from PNY, I can't really say either way with confidence, since I only have a few in service. However, it's no mistake that PNY was chosen by Nvidia as the sole manufacturer of Quadro.

Having said that, I should note that in the consumer market, Asus, Gigabyte, EVGA, and XFX are leading the way in terms of sales, reviews, and options.