1.20
...
·
 |
|---|
How significant is the performance difference in PixInsight between using 64GB and 128GB of RAM, particularly for tasks like WBPP and Subframe Selector, when processing large datasets (e.g., 1000 frames from a 61MP sensor)?
|
9.89
...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
Good question to ask to the PI team over there in the PI forum.
|
0.00
...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
This depends by the number of files and i.e. the number of threads you are able to process simultaneos. If you have a 16 core cpu, there are 32 threads of use, and each thread uses a part of RAM. Maybe a RAM disk would be much sense if you plan to enlarge the RAM. Additionally, the options activated (WBPP) causes more RAM use. I never had any RAM issues, but I have to declare that I use 32 cores and 512 GB RAM, so I will not be able to stress the system. BUT RAM disk is a nice have-to! |
8.11
...
·
|
|---|
64 gigs is a lot of RAM. I don't use PI so I don't know how much of a RAM hog it is but for most applications, 128 would be overkill. I would look more for a balanced system, large number of CPU cores, fast memory buss, fast IO.
|
1.20
...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
I didn't notice a significant change in processing speed when going from 64 to 128GB. My 7950x is processing files from an IMX455. Image integration in WBPP usually uses 110GB now so PI does use the ram available. The only potential concern I'll point out is most ram chips operate at a faster speed as a pair than quad config.
|
10.40
...
·
·
3
likes
|
|---|
I put 128GB in my machine a few months back. I'm not sure I've ever seen even half of it used before. Even running full frame data sets. I upgraded from the 32GB I had because pix would always run into memory errors when doing 7 channel full frame. Adding more RAM isn't going to make things faster in pixinsight. Speed in WBPP going to improve with core speed and core count…. and some NVME drives for scratch/loading speeds.
|
1.51
...
·
|
|---|
I've found threads to be the most important to PI performance over my time imaging with fast systems and short exposures (thousands per session). I use a xeon E5 2696 18core/36 threads cpu to cut through most tasks pretty quickly, with local normalization being the largest burden. Never seen the ram go passed 50% in task manager with this setup (128GB memory). Have also run PI on my mac mini which was noticeably slower but I'd guess it had more to do with the available cores than the 64gig memory
|
11.95
...
·
·
3
likes
|
|---|
You’ll see an exponential increase in PI performance by switching the processing box to Linux. Not even remotely close performance on other platforms.
|
|
8.11
...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
You can get the same speed increase just by switching to Siril ;') Honestly though, what's the exponent? |
0.00
...
·
·
2
likes
|
|---|
I have 128GB. When I stack with Pixinsight I see my RAM get to 80-90% quite often. When I process photos I have seen it get to 50%. Often I will have 3 masters open with a 2x Drizzle to start. Then as I process I will clone and try some other things and I might have 10-15 different images open at once. My AIO CPU cooler has a screen that displays system information so I watch RAM often actually. Went to 88% when I stacked my Rosette Nebula. 500 50mb images. When I stacked my horsehead I had 725 photos and it went to 96% or something just below 100% If you can afford it, get 128gb. So many times I have been close to using it all. A con is I can only run it at 5200mhz (DDR5) due to hardware limitations of quad sticks of ram. |
|
11.95
...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
Tony Gondola: PI runs very optimized on Linux not to mention the platform has much improved memory management of its own. Try it. You’ll be very surprised at the performance difference. I even tested it in a VM on a Windows Host machine and the VM easily beat its own host with the exact same data. |
|
8.11
...
·
|
|---|
Dark Matters Astrophotography:Tony Gondola: Do you have an actual performance data to back this up? It sounds like you do. If the difference is large people can save a lot on buying new hardware. |
|
11.95
...
·
·
3
likes
|
|---|
From 2018: https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/612450-threadripper-1950-linux-or-windows-shootout-need-some-linux-guys/ Those are much smaller subs than in use today and I can tell you that we process significant amounts of IMX461 data from two of our systems (cdk14, dr500) monthly and the actual performance increase is staggering for Linux. I can take a 600 sub integration of extremely large subs (461 subs are 200mb each in 16 bit raw format) and run it on Windows in 9 hours or Linux in 3 hours. But don’t take my word for it. You can test this with your own data and see for yourself. The difference is not minor at all. |
|
1.20
...
·
|
|---|
Dark Matters Astrophotography: Thank you! How much memory do you have in your linux setup? |
5.01
...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
Great discussion here! Very interesting and informative topic! Just reading this has got me interested in installing Linux on a bootable usb drive just to check it out. It might be worth looking into a dual boot setup just to run PI. |
|
8.11
...
·
|
|---|
Dark Matters Astrophotography: That thread is really all over the place with some results showing a huge Linux advantage and others showing the opposite, some people overclocking, etc. There's no question about the stability of Linux but an exponential speed increase is really not proven. There are just too many variables. Also, benchmarks are nice but what really needs a speed increase in PI is WBPP, the rest is really not an issue. I guess the only way to really prove the point would be to run PI on a current (2025) machine setup to dual boot win/Linux both staking the same data set. I really don't want to muck around with my main imaging/processing machine myself but maybe someone out there is willing. |
|
11.95
...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
Tony Gondola:Dark Matters Astrophotography: In real world usage PI on Linux will absolutely obliterate PI on Windows. If there were an Apple Silicon optimized build of PI it too would obliterate PI on Windows. Windows does a lot of things well. One thing it has never done well is managing memory. We process terabytes of data monthly. I can assure you that Linux being significantly faster is a fact, and one that can easily be tested by anyone. The platform is completely optimized to run on Linux so this should not come as a surprise to anyone. |
|
8.11
...
·
|
|---|
I don't question your knowledge in this area but some real world numbers would be nice. phrases like "Absolutely obliterate", "exponentially faster" or significantly faster" just don't do it for me. You work with linux all the time so I would thing it wouldn't be hard to put some real world numbers out there. I'm not trying to bust your xxxx but if a big improvement can be had just by dual booting Linux and slapping PI on it, I think the community would love to know. It would be a shame if someone spent several thousand dollars on a new rig when all they really had to do is install some free software.
|
|
1.20
...
·
|
|---|
Dark Matters Astrophotography:Tony Gondola:Dark Matters Astrophotography: Thank you! 😊 And what memory amount would you recommend? I will be using a Macbook Pro M4 Max . 64gb is enough, or would you recommend 128gb? |
|
11.95
...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
Rafael Sampaio:Dark Matters Astrophotography:Tony Gondola:Dark Matters Astrophotography: The more the merrier. What you want to minimize is the paging the system is doing to swap. I’ve seen large integrations use 150GB of page files on Windows so increasing the system memory to 256GB in a case like that would be warranted. i would just get the most you can comfortably afford and watch the system statistics while your integrations are running. It’s really a shame that the current PI client still uses emulation instead of native Apple Silicon support. |
8.64
...
·
·
3
likes
|
|---|
For PixInsight, 128GB of RAM is generally the better choice compared to 62GB, as it provides significantly more memory for handling large image processing tasks, especially when working with multiple large astro-photography images; most experts recommend at least 128GB for optimal performance, especially if you plan to process large image stacks or complex projects. CS, Brian |
2.94
...
·
|
|---|
I need to save money then to build a PC that is up to the job/task for PI, i am a windows user, i tried Linux few times but i have no idea how to use, so if i will use PI then i have to check out people builds, but i am not rich like most of people here, i am barely using 64GB RAM on to systems but not strong specs, so even if i upgrade to 128GB i am afraid that it won't give me any big improvement if the specs overall isn't to high standard even if i use Linux, so i would like to see people here what they are using as computers so then i can decide if i have something reasonable or must build one if i can afford or just give up astrophotography before it is getting more expensive spending for me.
|
|
1.20
...
·
|
|---|
Tareq Abdulla: I don’t think you need to give up astrophotography because of that. You can definitely use an affordable computer. While a high-end one might speed things up, you can still create amazing images without it, no doubt |
|
2.94
...
·
|
|---|
Rafael Sampaio:Tareq Abdulla: It is about speed what i am trying to say, i mean i can use PI on my old 7th gen laptop, i did stack some on that laptop, or even my old build that is using 3rd gen Intel, but if i will build one latest gen i can't just afford 16-100 cores CPUs maybe, and going with 128GB RAM isn't cheap either, will need a beefy motherboard too, all that to make things faster, it is no longer about "It is a budget computer that is still working fine", we all buy new stuff and upgrade about setup, even my imaging setup is upgraded so i won't keep using old computers and i won't just do 20-40 frames only like before anymore, even PI itself updated with many scripts and addons that will make computers scream, so i just don't go that far there as you only because my computer can't handle heavy tasks so i don't try, amazing images can be done these days with mobiles too but i am not spending $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ for just amazing images that are like mobiles images and they aren't winners and top picks here and there, no point for me, but i will watch this topic anyway. |
|
8.11
...
·
|
|---|
I'm running a core i7 8 core 2.3 Mhz processor with 32 gigs of ram on Windows 11. PI took an hour to stack 1306 3840x2160 subs using WPBB, Siril took about 15 min. and was a bit tighter. I know these are small 585 sensor frames and an APS-C or full frame sensor will take longer but these are some real world numbers to work with.
|
