/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>4238080
Why would an ssd improve performance lol. All it would do is access your files faster and load documents faster. You fucking coom brains need to take some tech classes or some shit.

>>4238080
>SSD storage I just got as a Scratch disk; trying to make PS run better
Depends on the amount of RAM you have. If you have low RAM, or if/when Photoshop runs out of RAM, Photoshop will cache everything to the disk. This is where Photoshop is faster on an SSD compared to an HDD. Though, more RAM would be helpful(and cheaper) than an SSD, so I'd recommend getting more RAM unless you use a ton of layers with large pixel dimensions.
But you already got an SSD, so; it's going be faster than the HDD was but only when you run out of RAM. That said, the CPU and the GPU(supplementary if you use hardware acceleration) are the main factors in performance.
Also, you can check if you are actually using the cache drive(i.e, if you're actually benefiting from your SSD at all) in the efficiency indicator(pic related)
>Will the Files be deleted if I use the SSD as a scratch disk?
No, you'll run out of space and Photoshop will complain when you run out of both allocated RAM and drive space.

>>4238500
shit man, thanks

>>4238500
>allocate 8gb ram exclusively for PS
>still not going 100% with a single open file
This shit is ridiculous.

>>4238781
The program usually just goes to shit if I'm animation and putting audio in it

photoshop will rape your ssd

>>4238781
100% RAM usage? That might be because there's no more data to store. That's a good(or expected) thing. If you want to try and fill the memory anyway, try adding more layers and paint unique detail(such as gradients of multiple colors) across each layer's canvas, so that Photoshop can't compress. I filled ~8 gigs of RAM just by doing pic related on a 10k2 canvas with a few layers.

>>4238880
Ah fuck, just realized you were talking about the efficiency indicator. That just means you're out of RAM I suppose. That's interesting, because I generally don't go above 3 gigs of RAM with 100% efficiency. What resolutions/amount of layers do you usually work on? Either way, it's more or less irrelevant as long as it doesn't hog down the storage and you get enough performance. Also, tweaking the cache settings should help. Photoshop even has presets for that.

>>4238891
>res
6000x6000
>layers
somewhere between 3 and 20, depends

Although I have a very long protocol, I think I can go back 60 steps or something, I'd like it to be every step ever but that's maybe a bit much.

>>4238918
That makes sense. I guess that's how it is though- until someone figures out/implements a better compression algorithm. The only way out would be a shitton of RAM with an SSD.

>>4238929
Weird, I excpected my resolution and layers to be on the low end, or do you mean the protocol?

>>4238931
Both.