PSP X9 not using more than 4Gb of RAM

[logicsequence]

So i recently upgraded to X9 because my old version was 32 bit and i began running into RAM issues. However, after monitoring the X9 (64 bit) process for a while i still seems to be using less than 4Gb of RAM, even on massive multi layer high res files. Is this still a limit with the program? Is there a way to let the process have access to more RAM? I mean have 32Gb for a reason, i wish the program would use more so it wouldn't bog down so much.

Thanks in advance,

Logic

[rondo]

I've never checked on my X9 64 bit Ram use. Very interesting finding-
I'd message the PSP team on Facebook and ask them- they do reply- https://www.facebook.com/corelpaintshop/

[roberts-end]

Using PSP2018. It seems quite economical in memory use, but if I open about 20 large pictures and then create a new picture 10,000x10,000 pixels memory it breaks the 4GB barrier without problems.

Capture1.PNG (8.25 KiB) Viewed 5491 times

PSPx9 is similar. If I make a new image 40,000x20,000 (nearly a gigapixel) and then fill it with a gradient the memory goes up well past 4GB. If I then zoom in, memory usage increases again and then drops down as Windows pages some to disk. Fill the image with a gradient and memory goes up to about 7.5GB and then drops to about 4GB as windows pages some of the memory out to disk. Looks like either Windows or the programmers and doing a good job of memory management. Windows 10 also uses compressed memory management so estimating usage is not a simple task. Either way the program seems to run well if you have a fast disk.

Windows 10 Home/64 bit/8GB memory/i5 with solid state disk. No special setup. Program stays reasonably responsive except when auto saving.

[flagpole]

Hmmm

Image3.png (4.2 KiB) Viewed 4987 times

[Jean-Luc]

Hmmm

Image3.png

Just curious, two questions :

-Did you have many images open ?

- Do you observe a remaining RAM used when all images are closed ? I observed, after some works with tools (crop, resize, layers, text on image), with no image open I have many RAM still used (should not).

[flagpole]

I created a 25,000 X 25,000 pixel image, added two more layers to it...
That still didn't do it, (I was specifically trying to get to a number around 5gb for this thread)
So I tried drawing in to the layers, and that was sufficient.

I did the screen shot, closed the image and the ram went back to normal.

[Jean-Luc]

I created a 25,000 X 25,000 pixel image, added two more layers to it...
I did the screen shot, closed the image and the ram went back to normal.

Thank you ! ...

[roberts-end]

I created a 25,000 X 25,000 pixel image, added two more layers to it...
That still didn't do it, (I was specifically trying to get to a number around 5gb for this thread)
So I tried drawing in to the layers, and that was sufficient.

I did the screen shot, closed the image and the ram went back to normal.

When you create an image or layer, no matter how big, very little memory is actually written to. Windows just marks it as allocated (but does not actually use any physical memory). Its only when you add content (eg a gradient) that memory gets committed. In Windows 10 memory also gets compressed. Even if you create a gradient, the image is very compressible and the actual RAM used by Windows can be quite small unless its random data. Also, PSP and other programs like Lightroom, often work on scaled down images for the screen preview and only process the full data when you save or make a print. PSP2018 seems to do a very good job. On my machine it remains responsive even after I open 250 images. If you want the gorey details, Sysinternals have some tools that can give more info on how memory is being used but be warned its very technical and you may need to be a computer scientist to understand the results. The bottom line is, if you are using 64 bit versions of Windows and happy with performance, why worry how the memory is being used. If you are unhappy with performance you may be better adding a Solid state disk than expanding memory above 8Gb. I use SSD for my main C: drive and its works a treat on my 4 year old medium spec machine from PCWorld.