kdevaney said:
So, you think the delay that we are experiencing now is independent of the graphics card? We have assumed that it was caused by the amount of time it took to load the images onto the card, which we then assumed was a feature of the card - are we completely off base?
kdevaney said:
A little off topic, but could someone, maybe, since you all seem to know, explain why MORE memory will make the computer run slower?
Unfortunately, this one has to run windows - is this unique to windows or is it true for all systems?
It probably has a LOT less to do with the card than anything to be honest. When you start looking into double-digit megapixel images (which I'm sure you are dealing with) being presented at high speeds... things get stressed. Even on a great PC those images will take a bit to load up, and I'm talking about ONE. The biggest time consumer is the actual
loading of them, this means taking them OFF of the Hard Drive, and bringing them into the RAM(memory). However, by no means am I saying skimp out on the card; I'm just saying you should prioritize it behind some of the other stuff.
This is where more memory helps, you can keep more data there, and more programs up at once. So here you have your 200 frames of high quality images running under a stressful application. It's needless to say you were right about needing a dual core
.
Get 2 separate 1gig sticks of memory. Period. 1 may not cut it, and once you get into more space Windows has issues allotting and addressing to it, how ironic is it that MORE memory actually could slow you down? Well my friend, ask Mr. Gates.
Also, whoever mentioned the Rapter above was on the right track. What she needs most is a fast, large harddrive, and a strong amount of quick RAM.
However, don't go with the WD Raptors. The sizes are junk and they are way to expensive. Get something like Western Digitals 300gig
16mb cache drives for faster preformance with the large pics. They are probably just as much as a 74gig raptor too.
PM me if u need anything else.