Skip to main content
rob_ashcroft
Known Participant
December 12, 2016
Question

Improve Photoshop CC2015 performance with SSD

  • December 12, 2016
  • 1 reply
  • 1565 views

Optimize performance Photoshop CC

This is not a problem, although I'd welcome any suggestions for improvement. I'm just posting it as this change has made my Photoshop usage much more efficient and some of you may want to do the same.

MY SETUP

Windows 8.1 64 bit

PC Acer TC-220 AMD A10 7800 4 core 3.5Gh

AMD Radeon RS235 graphics card

3TB Hard drive

500GB Samsung Solid State Drive

16GB DDR3 memory

SSD https://www.amazon.co.uk/Samsung-inch-Solid-State-Drive/dp/B00P73B1E4/ref=sr_1_1?s=computers&ie=UTF8&qid=1481536547&sr=1-1&keywords=samsung+evo+850+500gb

I recently upgraded my one-year old desktop PC to include an SSD, which wasn't part of the original spec. I was getting fed up with PS taking what seemed like a long time to load both itself and any files. The difference has been well worth it. The installation was done by a PC engineer who charged £60, and the Samsung 500GB drive cost £140. There was no need to reload any programs or data as the SSD came with migration software. I got my machine back and it was exactly as it was before apart from the reordering of the disks.

The SSD (drive C:) has Windows operating system, and all other programs (including PS). The old HDD (now drive D:) which was partitioned before is now a single partition now contains all my large data such as music files and nearly all my images. Any new images that I download via Bridge are stored in a folder called BUCKET which is on the SSD as they download quicker (I can see a noticable difference over the HDD) and can also be accessed faster when editing. Completed images and RAW files are moved to the HDD when finished. I find that when editing new files the HDD doesn't get accessed at all, and if I do move files there, or access old files, I can hear the HDD starting up, so I presume it's getting much less wear. That's a significant factor as HDDs generally have a 10% fail rate (my original one failed after 12 months). SSDs are much more reliable.

I also made the SSD my PS scratch drive. Adobe Optimize performance notes (link above) say that the scratch disk ought to differ from the drive with large files. I'm not sure what they mean by 'large files' - my RAW files are 21MB and TIFFS are about 30MB. If I make the HDD the scratch disk that will slow things down, and if I leave it on the SSD but put my editing files on HDD they will slow down instead, and create more access wear on the drive. Does anyone have any thoughts on that?

I set my memory usage in performance preferences to 100% as I never run anything else when using PS (apart from any small background tasks). Adobe say it's OK to do that in their notes.

I don't have timings for my old system, but with the SSD they are as follows. I'd say they are considerably faster, and a lot less frustrating. Well worth the £200. My SSD is 500GB. I should image you could get away with 250GB easily. My SSD is currently only using 80GB with 380 free. I have Windows op system, Firefox, Photoshop/Bridge, Nik products, Helicon, MS Office, and all my other programs loaded onto SSD, so they all run much faster too.

Load Bridge from the Windows taskkbar 2 secs

Load PSCC (without a file) from taskbar 5 secs

Load PSCC with a RAW file from Bridge 9 secs

Load TIFF from PSCC (already loaded) 2 secs

Any suggestions for further improvements?

As you can see I have a lot of free space, despite having a lot of images.

This topic has been closed for replies.

1 reply

Benjamin Root
Legend
December 12, 2016

I have the same SSD for a C: drive. Not a bad unit. The winsat disk command shows the sequential read and write speeds right around 500 MB/s.

I also have 32 GB of installed RAM (max the board will accommodate) and an MSI GTX 970 GPU. You'll need a hefty power supply to run everything. I have a 750w.

Not sure what monitor you have, but a lot of people spend a lot on system specs and forget to add a nice monitor. Me, I have an adequate monitor - an Asus PA 248. I got a nice copy, but, like with all mass productions, each monitor's quality can vary. For best results, an industry tried and true brand such as NEC would be a good pick. Of course our friend D Fosse is our expert on color

D Fosse
Community Expert
Community Expert
December 12, 2016

Benjamin Root wrote:

Of course our friend D Fosse

This seems like a sensible setup, so I won't say what I usually say.

What I usually say - but will not say this time! - is this: Spend the major part of the budget on a good monitor, and cut back on the rest of the hardware. The monitor is the only piece of hardware that has a direct impact on the quality of your work.

What I'm saying instead is - do it next time around. Yes, an NEC PA/Spectraview is an excellent option, but contrary to popular belief Eizo is very similarly priced for comparable specifications. Either is as good as it gets.

That OK with you, Trevor? (Trevor thinks I'm "obsessive" ).