When I process my raw files and save them in tiff format the files typically get very large. They can get to 150meg and up. If I want to do any size corrections or image tweaking to suit a special need my 3 year old HP comes to a stand still. I want to buy a new system and prefer a portable one but am not fixed on that choice. My outputs are usually sent to an Epson 4800 or a 2200 or a HP 5500. So most of my prints are very large in the square inch range also.
If this new machine were to be dedicated to just my photo work, do any of my forum friends have recommedations for internal specs (processor, bus speeds, memory, storage and graphics cards, ect)?

A lot of memory is your friend.

What he said.

1 GB minimum, aim for 2 GB or more. RAM is at its cheapest ever. Buy extra RAM rather than that extra 0.2 or 0.5 GHz of processor speed.

A dual-CPU (or dual-core CPU) setup will give some performance advantage over a single-CPU system, but most of the time, that extra RAM will be better.

Motherboard: get something that supports the CPU you want to buy and as high an amount of RAM as you can afford. Having a PCIe 16x-based board gives you good expansion options for the near future, a dual-16x board may be better, but it also may not (hard to say). Buy from a reliable manufacturer, such as Asus.

A graphics card with a decent amount of memory (128 MB or more) also helps, but 3D performance should be unimportant for now*.

As for hard disks, go for something nice and reliable.

If you can afford to, consider getting a device like the Gigabyte I-RAM (Google for it), fill it and your motherboard with RAM chips, and use the I-RAM for Photoshop scratch space and maybe system swap.

Or, if you have got that money, spend it on an Apple PowerMac G5 quad. >:->

* There is no evidence that Photoshop or other such applications will take advantage of the GPU on a graphics card for extra processing power any time soon. Apple's Aperture doesn't use it as such, but the user interface does.

2 GB RAM; at least two very large, very fast hard drives; graphics card that supports dual monitors. Predictions are that DVD will become more significant for PCs when Microsoft's new OS becomes available so a R/W DVD drive would make sense.

Hi Ljenno,

In terms of graphic card, many photoshop artists like the Matrox cards that appear to deliver the best 2D image quality, especially when working with more than one screen. Their 3D performance is however ridiculous compared to the latest models from NVidia and ATI. It all depends on the usage you will be making of your PC. It is a PS machine only, or will you also use it as a general usage PC?

The next generation of Windows called Vista to be released in 06 will propose more and more 3D interfaces, and a 2D only graphic card might not be the best bet considering this. It all depends how long you intend to keep this PC.

Today, it would appear that the pentium D series (the Pentium D820 for instance) offers the best bank for the buck thanks to its double core. The AMD CPUs are faster, but the high end models have become extremely expensive.

Regards,
Bernard

Dual core shootout ...

http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-10442_7-63890...l?tag=cnetfd.wk

Video Card:
Adobe systems have stated several times that Photoshop does not utilize the video card. (search for the documents on tweaking PS for performance) The video card only matters in its ability to run the monitor resolution you need to run at a decent refresh rate (75Hz or more). Refresh rates do not apply to LCDs.




The Matrox cards are beneficial over others only if you are using CRT monitors and the usefulness only really applies to the legibility of text onscreen. Matrox cards are know for producing the sharpest image possible for analog CRTs. If you are using LCDs this does not matter as the signal is digital.

One video card will not help you photoshop better over another video card.

Windows Vista will be mostly Vector based (mathematically rendered and not with bitmap images) and hardware accelerated if your system can handle it. Much like the Macs are today but more-so.

Buying a fast video card that is "Vista Ready" is only important if you a) later upgrade to Vista (which may or may not turnout to be a valuable thing to do) and b ) want to have the pretty interface special effects that Vista will be capable of.

If neither of these items matter to you than don't worry about the video card too much. Any of the old 128MB Nvidia or ATI cards will do you well and only cost you about $30. If you only use one display, many of the motherboards out there with built-in video will do the trick.

A fast video card is not a requirement for upgrading to Vista.


Ram:
Max out the ram. Buy Windows XP Professional as that allows for 3GB of Ram and Windows XP Home limits you to 2GB. XP Pro 64-bit will allow up to 16GB of ram but driver and software support for it is minimal meaning your experience could be rather problematic.

CPU:
Defiantly get dual-core system at a minimum. Honestly, PS is optimized to take advantage of multiple cores and it shows (YMMV of course). I have several clients with single-core 3.2Ghz P4s that are easily only 1/5th the overall performance of my Dual 2.3Ghz Mac (and that was before I upgraded it from 1.5GB of RAM to 3.5GB). It drives me nuts because I have to use the confounded things regularly.

It should be noted that a dual-core system won't always be faster than a single core system per-se. It all depends on the actions you're doing. It will make things run more smoothly overall and that is just as important. Sheer speed doesn't mean squat if the system comes to a halt if you try to browse a folder in Bridge while PS is batch processing in the background (just one example).

Dealing with large files, a dual-core system with as much ram as you can squeeze into it will make the difference between tapping your fingers waiting for crap to happen and getting things done. I would not recommend skimping on your computer, especially if you deal with large files. You'll only end up with a frustrating experience. A more powerful system may cost a bit more but it'll last you longer and make you happier.

ljenno hasn't provided us with his processing software, but it's fair to assume pixel editing is being done in Photoshop.

Interestingly, I found in some PC/Imaging testing that I did midyear that Phase One's Capture One Pro (v3.7) is 100% processor intensive when converting raw files, right up until it rights the converted file to the hard drive. At this point in time (dec05) C1pro benfits from as much CPU as you can throw at it.

I have however read on the net that Phase One intend to release C1pro v4 in the first quarter of 2006 with a major system usage software re-write (e.g. C1pro will start to utilize additional system resources like RAM and scratch disk space).

DarkPenguin's link to the dual core shoot out is a step in the right direction, but just keep in mind the fact that all expenditure gets out of hand when performance increases become only slight.

Everything 61Dynamic has to say is on the money.

64bit XP is impressive (compare System #6 & System #11 in the attached Performance test PDF), but many applications are not yet supported. Most notibley, monitor calibration and profiling software. 64bit XP is hugely promising for existing highend hardware performance.

If you'd like to see what increases in RAM do for Photoshop usage, compare systems #1 (2gb RAM), #14 (1gb RAM) and #13 (512mb RAM) in the attached performance PDF. Systems #1, #14 and #13 are all based on Pentium 3.0gHz HT processors.

Das Bosun

On of the reasons that the Matrox cards are favoured for graphic use is that some of their models have separate LUT's for each monitor.

This is a requirement in order to profile both monitors.

The nvidia and ATI cards generally only have a single LUT, which means that only one monitor can be profiled as the profile is "shared" between the monitors.

Andrew

I'll pile on to the consensus that you should get as much RAM as you can afford. 2GB is certainly not excessive; if you ever want to do stitched panoramas, 8-16GB would not be wasted. I've run into memory shortage problems stitching 7 1Ds images together when they're 48-bit RGB (16-bit per channel) with 2GB, although that is sufficient for most single-capture image editing.

If you batch process, multiple or dual-core CPUs will provide significant benefit. RAW conversion in Photoshop, as well as many Photoshop filters, are designed to take advantage of multiple CPUs, and multiple processors go far to making your system snappier and more responsive even when under a heavy CPU load. You can browse the internet or read email with 95% CPU utilization and not even notice the difference.

Regarding the multi-LUT issue, I prefer to use a separate video card for each monitor. This guarantees that each monitor has its own LUT and can be individually profiled.

I was playing around the other day and this is what I came up with - I priced at just under $2,000 CDN (before tax)

It's predicated on my presumption that the eventual successor to the 1DSII will be about 22 mpx, so with the occasional stitched pano, I would guess (any thoughts?) that even with 4 gig ram you'll still back into a scratch disk (I would also guess that the next version of PS will increase the limit on RAM up to 4 gig). In any event that's why I have the pair of WD SATA Raptors at Raid 0, I think that's probably the fastest scratch disk I could get.

I only have one monitor, so I'm assuming that the on board video would be sufficient (thoughts?) - I could always add a card later...

===============================================
Case: IN-WIN Z583T Micro ATX (Black) 20/24pins with True 350Watt Power Supply 14" high
Hard Drives: Western digital Raptor SATA 75gb x 2 raid 0 + seagate 160
Raid Controller: on MB?
CPU: Intel Pentium D 830, 3.0GHz, EM64T XD Dual Core, 2X1MB, Socket LGA775
Memory: 1GB (1024MB) PC4200 DDR2 533MHz 240-pin Unbuffered DIMM x4
Mother Board: Intel Desktop Board D945GTPLR Socket 775 Intel 945G Chipset Dual-Core CPU
Video: included on motherboard?
DVD RW: NEC ND-3550 (Black) 16x DVD+/-R 8x DVD+RW 6x DVD-RW Writer 4x DVD-R/8x DVD+R Double Layer
windows xp pro 64bit

Tim, you should do some research on actual RAID 0 performance for a desktop PC. Every test report that I've read found no significant performance increase. This topic has been discussed on this forum in the past.

maybe we lost it in the transition to a new server, but I couldn't find any posts indicating Raid 0 was ineffective in increasing the performance of a Photoshop scratch disk - which is the application I have in mind. In fact a quick review of the links resulting from a google of Raid 0 Photoshop were very consistent in saying that Photoshop temporary files were a sweet spot for a Raid 0 configuration. I know that raid 0 won't give a boost to normal disk io, but the scratch disk is a special application. Please let me know of any links that claim the opposite - thanks.

IMO the main advantage of RAID isn't performance boost, it's redundancy--the ability to survive a disk failure without losing data. For that reason, I never use RAID 0 or 1, as RAID 0 squares the probability of catastrophic data loss over a single drive, and RAID 1 is unacceptably inefficient and offers zero performance advantage over a single drive. I prefer a RAID 5 array in a 4-8 drive configuration, which offers some performance advantage over a single drive (how much depends greatly on the controller) and data protection unless you have 2 simultaneous drive failures.

Thanks to all of your replies and there were many. I'm looking into all the suggestion and hopefully will be able to configure a machine that will allow me to focus on my graphics and not the system. I really believe that most of the frustrating hang-ups come from the Windows OS and its use of the hardware rather than the hardware its self.
One suggestion was to go with a high end Mac. I don't mind the cost but am apprehensive about the change over. Are there any testimonials from folks who have made the change? Especially made the change after starting out on PCs and using them for thirty years (my first machine was a Commodore before they had hard drives).

Once again, thank you all for your replies. They were very useful.

L

Tomshardware has recently published test results showing that configuring 2 SATA I-Ram in Raid 0 did have a very significant advantage in terms of I/O and maximum throughput.

http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/12/05/hyp...lock/page6.html (and next page)

It would be interesting to see how much PS would benefit from having its scratch stored on 2 4GB I-RAM configured in RAID0.

Regards,
Bernard

Tim, I haven't looked into RAID 0 for quite some time. If I recall correctly, none of the test reports that I read included a test for Photoshop scratch disk performance. It's possible that RAID 0 would benefit Photoshop scratch disk, but the explanation of RAID 0 in the test reports makes it appear unlikely that RAID 0 would be a significant improvement for Photoshop scratch disk. If you set up a such a system, please post your experience. I'd add a RAID 0 if I thought it would speed up Photoshop for me.

Here are links to two of the test reports I referenced.

http://www.storagereview.com/articles/2004...40625TCQ_1.html

http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=2101&p=1

I made the change myself. After 12 years of WinPCs I switched to a dual 2.3 PowerMac. I have to say it's hand's-down the best system I've had the pleasure of using. It is nice using a system that works with you rather than against you.

Making the transition wasn't difficult at all. Getting really used to the OS X GUI took only a couple of hours of fiddling around. The most difficult thing about the switch has been the keyboard layout (re-learning 12 years of muscle memory).

My biggest apprehensions on switching was that of performance and how I would launch applications. Yes, that last one sounds silly but with no start menu I really had no idea! I found an app called QuickSilver that has made life very easy in that regard (and others) as it lets me launch apps with a few keystrokes. Otherwise, any Finder window has a link directly to all of the installed apps.

Performance has been far better than I had expected. It may not have as much raw grunt as a new dual-core Athalon (what does?) but it excels in other areas. I've been able to multi-task on this mac more quickly and smoothly than any current PC system is capable of. I'm sure that might start a flame-war but most people here have not had the chance to compare the two...

I've had my Mac for three months now and have had only one issue with it and that has since been resolved with the latest software update. A rock-solid system.

Feel free to ask me any questions regarding my transition. I'd be glad to share.

Daniel,

OK, I'll start.

How about the many applications that you were using on your PC:

- Adobe products -> did you have to buy new licenses,
- ...

Didn't you find that many applications available for PC are not for the Mac?

That lack of application, and the portential cost of migrating licenses are the main reasons why I don't see myself seriously considering that tempting quad core G5 with 8 GB RAM...

Besides:

- are there still SCSI cards available for the G5? Would I be able to connect my Imacon scanner?
- is my Samsung LCD screen usable?

Thank you in advance for your feedback.

Regards,
Bernard

Just skimming quickly, here's what I think is a relevant quote from your first link:

"...Without requests backed up and waiting, an increased actuator count simply can not make itself felt. Under such light loads, the simplest design, Promise's S150 TX4, delivers the best performance regardless of the number of drives in the array...."

The point is that backing into the scratch disk is, in fact, a heavy load and there's clearly a significant IO que.

The results from the second link show a Raptor w/o raid 0 having a 752 IO score and the same disk with raid 0 having 901 - roughly a 20% increase.

I won't be upgrading until the next 1DS comes out... and I'm not sure that my level of technical competence is sufficient to switch the Raid off and on to see the difference - isolating the improvement kick I'll get from the increased ram, faster processer and dual core.

My question, which I'll likely repost later when the camera actually comes out, is assuming a system with 4 gig, is backing into the scratch disk frequent or not, given 22mb, 16bit files? I would agree, that if backing into the scratch disk is "infrequent" raid is probably not a worthwhile investment.

On a related issue - I have separate processes in place to deal with backup and redundancy.

Tim, here is what I consider to be the most relevant quote from the first article.

"The enthusiasm of the power user community combined with the marketing apparatus of firms catering to such crowds has led to an extraordinarily erroneous belief that striping data across two or more drives yields significant performance benefits for the majority of non-server uses. This could not be farther from the truth! Non-server use, even in heavy multitasking situations, generates lower-depth, highly-localized access patterns where read-ahead and write-back strategies dominate. Theory has told those willing to listen that striping does not yield significant performance benefits. Some time ago, a controlled, empirical test backed what theory suggested. Doubts still lingered- irrationally, many believed that results would somehow be different if the array was based off of an SATA or SCSI interface. As shown above, the results are the same. Save your time, money and data- leave RAID for the servers!"

Here is what I consider to be the most relevant quote from the second article.

"If you haven't gotten the hint by now, we'll spell it out for you: there is no place, and no need for a RAID-0 array on a desktop computer. ... Bottom line: RAID-0 arrays will win you just about any benchmark, but they'll deliver virtually nothing more than that for real world desktop performance. That's just the cold hard truth."

Tim, you seem to have your heart set on RAID 0, and I hope it does deliver a significant performance increase for you. I'm not ready to jump onto the RAID 0 bandwagon, yet. I'll wait until I see a competent, unbiased test that shows a significant performance increase when used for Photoshop scratch disk.

Correct me if I'm wrong, I thought that CS2 could only use 2 gig of RAM?

I have a p4 1.6 with 2 gig ram and a fast couple of HD's with the program on one and the caches/pics on another.

Running batch actions on 240 RAW files (open, PTLens, auto contrast, shadow/highlights, smart sharpen, save) took over 4 hours with nothing else running. The annoying thing is that short of a major system upgrade, i.e. dual processors, etc, it ain't going to get that much better. A wedding can easily be 300 files that need batching.

I'd be curious to know whether the limiting step was disk IO or RAM (page file usage). Is that something you could deteremine, say by using the Task Manager to monitor an example batch of, say, 10 files? Also, do you have a dedicated partition for the page file? If not, I think that would surely help, though I don't know how much.

Even if PS doesn't use the extra memory windows will use it for disk cache (or just as memory for other apps) which should help.

But to do that many RAW files you'll want more more memory, more CPU and probably a faster disk.

All of that should be relatively cheap to do at least until you add in your 19,000% VAT or what ever it is you pay.

I believe that's true (actually 1.7 gig is closer, if I recall correctly) I would suspect that the next version would support closer to 4 - given the fact that Vista should be widespread by then... and the mpx wars are continuing.

I've been wanting to go for a laptop since I'm opening a studio and would prefer that to having two desktops networked, finding a laptop that takes even 2 gig ram is hard enough, haven't even seen any that take over, at least not in a normal price range, sigh...

Dark Penguin, it just keeps adding up doesn't it, all my ram slots are filled so it would mean trashing one stick to upgrade, the motherboard doesn't support 64bit (I assume, it's two years old) and so a new processor, new motherboard and say 4 gig ram would set me back a new lens.

Who ever said that digital was cheap?

RAID0 is VERY useful in power gaming desktops. It lowers my winxp boot time, cut the install time in 1/2, cuts the install time of large games and more importantly, cuts the load time dramatically. Photoshop...doesn't do a thing, it's too small, so are images.

You are OBVIOUSLY not a gamer with top level hardware, or you wouldn't make such incorrect statements. See this article for the straight poop: http://www.viaarena.com/default.aspx?PageI...ticleID=392&P=5

You just proved the very point you seem to be attempting to refute--that RAID 0 offers limited performance benefit to Photoshop users & digital photographers.

Read more carefully. He tried to say it was only useful in servers, not ANY desktops, which is 100% false.

If I'm maxed out on as much ram as PS can effectively make use of; and I'm regularly hitting efficiency levels of between 10 and 90% (eg large 16 bit stitched panos) would I be unreasonable in expecting a non-trivial improvement from a raid 0 configuration?

The context of discussion here is Photoshop and other applications of interest to digital photographers. By your own admission, and the results obtained from others' tests, RAID 0 offers little benefit to the digital photographer. The issue of whether it is useful to servers or gamers is entirely separate, and irrelevant here. Or do you have any real-world testing that demonstrated RAID 0 having benefit to Photoshop users?

Nope, as I said - RAID0 is not for PS. The context here that I am addressing is clearly stated in the other posts...the other poster claimed there was no benefit to a 'desktop' pc vs. a server. Many people use thier desktops for much more than JUST PS, and raid0 is a great benefit to other areas of that use. He didn't say Photoshop, he said desktop.

And for the great majority of "desktop" users, that statement is correct. About the only thing other than high-end gaming where RAID 0 would offer significant benefit is video editing, and neither of those are of much importance to most "desktop" users. You're beating a strawman and a dead horse.

First, let me apologize if the following quotes do not display correctly. This is my first attempt to use the quote feature.

Kaelaria, please read what I wrote more carefully. You have repeatedly attributed statements to me that I did not make. One slip would not be so bad, but repeated incorrect statements about what I wrote is not appreciated.

[QUOTE]QUOTE(dmerger @ Dec 12 2005, 04:30 PM)
Tim, you should do some research on actual RAID 0 performance for a desktop PC. Every test report that I've read found no significant performance increase. This topic has been discussed on this forum in the past.
*




You are OBVIOUSLY not a gamer with top level hardware, or you wouldn't make such incorrect statements.[/QUOTE]


Just what about my statement that you quoted is incorrect, Kaelaria?

[/QUOTE]He tried to say it was only useful in servers, not ANY desktops, which is 100% false.[QUOTE]

I did no such thing. If you have a beef, it's with the people at AanandTech and Storage Review.

[/QUOTE]..the other poster claimed there was no benefit to a 'desktop' pc vs. a server. Many people use thier desktops for much more than JUST PS, and raid0 is a great benefit to other areas of that use. He didn't say Photoshop, he said desktop.[QUOTE]

Another blatantly false statement.

Kaelaria, before you accuse me of making incorrect or false statements, you should read what I wrote, and not put words into my mouth. I don't appreciate it.

I never said RAID 0 would not be beneficial. I was merely trying to help Tim by pointing him to some independent, in-depth test reports. He seems to have opted to ignore the conclusions and whole point of the reports by lifting out a couple of lines out of context. That's entirely fine with me. He's free to ignore the test reports. Maybe the reports are wrong. Maybe Tim knows more than the testers at Storage Review and AanandTech. Maybe you do too, Kaelaria, and I have no problem with you stating your disagreement with the test reports. But, please, don't attribute statements to me that I did not make.

I would disagree very much with the other posters and say that (for the scratch disk) you would benefit from Raid 0 configured drives.

All the information that has been posted so far has been for applications launched from Raid 0 drives and in the test scenarios quoted average file sizes around 60-100kbytes (for the first article) and not stated for the second. There was no information given for a photoshop configuration where the Raid 0 drive was used specifically as a scratch disk.

Now, reading back into the two articles that refuted the benefits of Raid 0 I do have some problems with the way that the tests were conducted. The most important aspect to bare in mind is that windows buffers IO transfers in memory and, depending on the configuration of the application, can read ahead data in chuncks of 16Kbytes up to Mbytes. Also, modern day disks also include cache memory of 8-16Mbytes. Now, given that the files sizes used in the tests could be quite small it is entirely possible that files were written to disk, but subsequently read back from the cache. One would expect in this situation for a non Raid and Raid system to be close in terms of performance. Even if there was a cache miss, there is possibility to give acceptable speeds for non raid drives provided the file can be read into the buffer in perhaps one or two chunks.

So, to summarise the issue here, the tests quoted against Raid-0 focus on tests which may or may not be using relatively small file sizes, may or may not be benefitting from large read/write buffers and caching on disk, and don't use a separate Raid-0 purely for photoshop scratch disk. I would conclude, therefore, that the articles are irrelevent to the discussion in hand and that for file sizes of 250Mbytes+ then Raid-0 will quite probably give a performance advantage over non raid configurations (I believe that the game demonstration with large amounts of cached data is more credible than the sterile business mark tests).

I too am looking for a new PC and the following is broadly in line with the spec I am planning to go with (though an 8-way due core opteron = 16-cores, would also be quite nice ;-))
Armari Workstations - if you want serious grunt then check out the servers ;-)


ciao ciao

Has anyone conducted RAID 0 vs single drive tests using Photoshop doing a batch RAW conversion and save-to-disk? We seem to be arguing over a few anecdotal impressions and tests that may not have any relevance to a digital photographer with say 400-2000 RAWs to batch process for a web gallery or whatever.

Don't play the blame game. You posted this. Don't say ' oh, I didn't write it, so I didn't say it'. Yeah, ya did. You CLEARLY said you agree with it. And you are dead wrong. I'm not putting any words in your mouth.

You can read and quote test reports till the cows come home. You've admitted you DON'T EVEN HAVE OR HAVE TRIED A RAID0 ARRAY, so obviously you are talking out your corn hole. I on the other hand, have been using RAID0 arrays in my personal and professional systems for over 4 years, and have one as I type, beside me. I also have single drives in this system, and have seen first hand, OBVIOUS results between the two drive systems. I'm not simply pasting text from the internet without fully understanding it. Don't pretend to be a computer guy just because you read articles. It helps to actually have the equipment being discussed.

I thought so too until I actually tried it. My last system (last month) used a raid0 array for the main boot drive, applications and windows cache file. My ps scratch was on another single drive.

My currect system uses a single drive for boot and windows cahce file, with the PS scratch on a raid0 array.

Using a benchmark script (I can't remember where it was right now, it involved a large pic of a horse), I tested a few configurations on the old system several months ago. I found a good jump in performance when I moved the PS scratch off the same volume as the windows cache file.

When I was setting up this new system, I wanted to be sure to maximize performance, so I tested a few other configurations as well. I found only a couple seconds difference between having the ps scratch on the single or raid0 array, but still a good jump in performance as long as the two were separated.

The only reason I switched from the raid0 boot to the single drive, is I also run flavors of linux, and now can partition the single drive for them. LILO still will not boot from a raid0 array.

Thanks for the info. A few questions if you don't mind:

- what types of drives did you configure in RAID0 for the scratch?
- how large were the files you used for this testing?
- what operations were done on these files?
- how big was the scratch at that time?

Thanks.

Regards,
Bernard

The Raid drives are regular western digital caviars, 120GB ea.

Like I said I don't remember the specifics of the script, but the scratch was hundreds of MB at peak, and constantly churning for several minutes.

I do want to do it again, as I have now gone from 1GB to 2GB ram and would like to gauge the difference as well. I'll have to search for it soon.

That'd be great, many of us deal with images that are larger than 1 GB (scanned 4*5 with adjustement layers or larged stitched images with masks), and the scratch can typically get up to 3 or 4 GB.

Regards,
Bernard

I know the test wasn't that large - but if you can tell me how to construct such a test I'll be glad to ru it.

Kaelaria, you are a bald face liar. Where did I clearly say I agree with the articles I referenced? Put up or shut up!

Tim thought that the most relevant quote form one article was a benchmark test result, when the whole point of the article was that benchmarks are not representative of actual real world performance. Furthermore, I thought the conclusion was a more relevant synopsis of the article than one line taken out of context. I did not, however, express any agreement or disagreement with the conclusions of the articles.

Kaeleria, please show me where I've " admitted [I haven't} EVEN HAVE OR HAVE TRIED A RAID0 ARRAY." This claim of yours is another bald face lie. Again, put up or shut up!

I have never pretended to be a computer guy, whatever that means. If you don't like the results of the tests done by AanandTech and Storage Review, and you think that your over four years of experience makes you more qualified than them, that's fine with me. Maybe you are more qualified. But I know that you are a bald face liar, and I have no reason to suspect the same from the people at AanandTech and Storage Review.

DiaAzul, you may be correct. I'd like to see an actual, in-depth test of RAID 0 for Photoshop scratch disk. I've tried, but have been unable, to find such a test report. For me, and me only, I'm not ready to try RAID 0 on my home computer for my Photoshop scratch disk until I see some evidence that it would provide a significant benefit. Your theories may be correct, but as demonstrated in the articles, real world performance can be different than what is commonly expected.

Here's you clearly agreeing...plus what I already quoted above...

And here's you admiting you have zero actual experience of which to comment on.

Calm dowm gentlemen, every exchange like this is a brick that contributes to turning this forum in a replica of DPreview...

Cheers,
Bernard

Proven, proven, and - yeah, that's quite obvious - now stop giving computer 'advice'.

Perfectly calm. I just like correct information on a given subject, not armchair quarterback BS.

Kaeleria, it's amazing that you can say such nonsense publicly. My statements that you quote in no way support your allegations. It seems obvious that you don't understand the meaning of simple english words, you're irrational, or you simply have no hesitation to make obviously false statements.