In article ,
nospam wrote:

In article , PeterN
wrote:

How is my thinking wrong/

i explained that already.

once again, you're assuming that photoshop will blindly use all cores
even when it's counterproductive.

that's wrong.

photoshop is very highly tuned and will use as many cores as will
benefit a given operation. if a particular operation does not benefit
from multiple cores then it won't use multiple cores.

photoshop might also offload to gpu if that produces faster results.

photoshop is *so* highly tuned that it's even tweaked for different
variants of the same processor.

it will do whatever produces the fastest results on given hardware.

if a given task does not benefit from additional cores, then they'll
sit idle an do nothing, like union workers.

whether it's worth it to buy system with more cores is up to you. there
is no downside, other than initial price. other software may benefit
too.

in general, video benefits from multicore and photo does not but there
are a *lot* of exceptions.

if you want to see just how highly optimized photoshop can be, try
comparing it with the gimp. the difference in speed between the two is
staggering, with photoshop being well over an order of magnitude faster
in some cases.

Thanks. I freely admit that I would not know where to start with the
Gimp. I tried it many moons ago, and see no reason to try it again.

there is no reason to try the gimp at all. it's garbage. it's not even
worth free.

it's eight bit and geared towards non profit web design. it should be ok
for that purpose...

my point is to show just how highly optimized photoshop is versus
something that has little to no optimizations.

I don't mind spending a few bucks more, if I will gain from it. What is
gain for others, may not be gain for me. e.g. After lusting after the
24" 4k NEC, I wound up getting a 4K 28" Asus for less than half the
price. If it doesn't do what I hope it will do, I can return it. There
is a 30 day trial period. My main reasons are that 95% of the work I do
is well within the sRGB spectrum. Some of the features of the NEC are
not useful for me, as the lighting in my work area is fairly consistent.
I ran some tests on a store model, five out of five prints matched the
monitor output in both hue and luminescence. My ego would have preferred
the NEC, but I will put the cost difference toward getting a new and
better box than I was originally planning on.

ok.
--
teleportation kills