If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Two questions
I am starting to research a new machine:
I have two questions a windows machine: 1 I have read statements that some operations of PS may actually be slowed down when using multiple cores. A posting on the PS forum, by Chris Cox, who is on the PS development team. https://forums.adobe.com/thread/1358970 "Photoshop uses all the cores it can, when it would speed up the operation. But some operations slow down with additional cores, and some operations can't benefit from threading at all." Does anyone here know whether this has been changed for PS2015? I suspect the same question applies to the plugins I use, but I will address them separately. 2. Does it make any difference if I use an AMD or Intel CPU? -- PeterN |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Two questions
In article , PeterN
wrote: I am starting to research a new machine: I have two questions a windows machine: 1 I have read statements that some operations of PS may actually be slowed down when using multiple cores. not in the way you think A posting on the PS forum, by Chris Cox, who is on the PS development team. https://forums.adobe.com/thread/1358970 "Photoshop uses all the cores it can, when it would speed up the operation. But some operations slow down with additional cores, and some operations can't benefit from threading at all." Does anyone here know whether this has been changed for PS2015? it hasn't changed because there's nothing to change. read the first sentence: "Photoshop uses all the cores it can, when it would speed up the operation. that means that if using multiple cores helps, they'll be used, but if it doesn't help, then it won't. put another way, photoshop and other adobe software is very highly tuned to give the fastest results possible, using however many cores are needed for a particular operation. I suspect the same question applies to the plugins I use, but I will address them separately. it applies to *all* software running on a computer. some things benefit from multiple cores and some things do not. that's just how it is. it's a bit like saying it takes 9 months to make a baby, no matter how many women you have. 2. Does it make any difference if I use an AMD or Intel CPU? nope, nor does it matter if it's mac or windows, ios or android or anything else. some tasks can't be split into pieces. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Two questions
On 9/15/2015 1:39 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN wrote: I am starting to research a new machine: I have two questions a windows machine: 1 I have read statements that some operations of PS may actually be slowed down when using multiple cores. not in the way you think My source, as listed below is a published post from a member of the Adobe development team. How is my thinking wrong/ A posting on the PS forum, by Chris Cox, who is on the PS development team. https://forums.adobe.com/thread/1358970 "Photoshop uses all the cores it can, when it would speed up the operation. But some operations slow down with additional cores, and some operations can't benefit from threading at all." Does anyone here know whether this has been changed for PS2015? it hasn't changed because there's nothing to change. read the first sentence: "Photoshop uses all the cores it can, when it would speed up the operation. that means that if using multiple cores helps, they'll be used, but if it doesn't help, then it won't. put another way, photoshop and other adobe software is very highly tuned to give the fastest results possible, using however many cores are needed for a particular operation. I suspect the same question applies to the plugins I use, but I will address them separately. it applies to *all* software running on a computer. some things benefit from multiple cores and some things do not. that's just how it is. I know. It a lot of the processes I use do not benefit from multi-threading, there is no reason to spend the money. If my uses would benefit from a Xenon processor, I would consider getting one. To me it's scary how much even the sales people from HP and Lenovo don't know. At least they are not trying to bull**** me about what they don't know, like Dell does. it's a bit like saying it takes 9 months to make a baby, no matter how many women you have. 2. Does it make any difference if I use an AMD or Intel CPU? nope, nor does it matter if it's mac or windows, ios or android or anything else. some tasks can't be split into pieces. -- PeterN |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Two questions
In article , PeterN
wrote: I am starting to research a new machine: I have two questions a windows machine: 1 I have read statements that some operations of PS may actually be slowed down when using multiple cores. not in the way you think My source, as listed below is a published post from a member of the Adobe development team. i know who chris cox is. what he wrote is exactly correct and i've even cited it in the past. 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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Two questions
On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 13:02:28 -0400, PeterN
wrote: I am starting to research a new machine: I have two questions a windows machine: 1 I have read statements that some operations of PS may actually be slowed down when using multiple cores. A posting on the PS forum, by Chris Cox, who is on the PS development team. https://forums.adobe.com/thread/1358970 "Photoshop uses all the cores it can, when it would speed up the operation. But some operations slow down with additional cores, and some operations can't benefit from threading at all." My understanding is that Photoshop only uses multiple cores when it will help. If using multiple cores will slow things down, then it won't use them. The speed of the graphic processor may be more important. Does anyone here know whether this has been changed for PS2015? I suspect the same question applies to the plugins I use, but I will address them separately. 2. Does it make any difference if I use an AMD or Intel CPU? -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Two questions
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote: I have two questions a windows machine: 1 I have read statements that some operations of PS may actually be slowed down when using multiple cores. A posting on the PS forum, by Chris Cox, who is on the PS development team. https://forums.adobe.com/thread/1358970 "Photoshop uses all the cores it can, when it would speed up the operation. But some operations slow down with additional cores, and some operations can't benefit from threading at all." My understanding is that Photoshop only uses multiple cores when it will help. If using multiple cores will slow things down, then it won't use them. correct The speed of the graphic processor may be more important. only if a given task is offloaded to the gpu. some things are and some are not for the same reasons as multicore. sometimes a gpu helps and sometimes it doesn't. if it doesn't, it's done on the cpu. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Two questions
On 9/15/2015 4:03 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN wrote: I am starting to research a new machine: I have two questions a windows machine: 1 I have read statements that some operations of PS may actually be slowed down when using multiple cores. not in the way you think My source, as listed below is a published post from a member of the Adobe development team. i know who chris cox is. what he wrote is exactly correct and i've even cited it in the past. 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. 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. -- PeterN |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Two questions
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. 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. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Two questions
Multiple cores can only be used for multiple
threads/processes. If you want to print while using PS then a second core is nice. You may also be able to do two things at once in PS. But even that seems a stretch. If you do something like apply a filter to a very large image, that's a single operation. It can only run on one core. And what else are youy going to do concurrently? I imagine that's what Chris Cox is talking about. PS can use the cores if you're demanding functionality from multiple threads/processes at the same time, but for one intensive operation, multiple cores will be slower because each core is slower than the total. On XP I use 2-core because I don't think XP can optimally use more. Win7+ is probably better, but optimization still means having uses for those cores. Since I'm rarely doing more than two things at once, I'd rather have two operations running at 1800 MHz than have 4 cores running at 900 MHz each, but with only one or two used. If you're running clean, it's unlikely you'll see much benefit from more cores, and Intel vs AMD shouldn't matter. (Though specific CPU models get different ratings.) In other words, if you have PS applying a sharpen to a giant image, maybe it takes 30 seconds, but what else are you going to have PS do at the same time that could increase efficiency? Not much. The only scenario that makes sense to me for more cores would be a system weighted down with AV, malware hunters, excessive services, etc. If you have 4 cores you might be able to use them all with so much crap running, where two cores might be forced to allocate time slices to multiple processes, thus being slightly less efficient. But aside from servers, it's hard for me to see the benefit of a large number of cores. It just means that each core is running slower. You can research this yourself. Run Task Manager and then use PS as usual. You'll probably find that a demanding operation is using 50%, 25%, etc of the CPU, depending on how many cores you have. (2 cores -- max intesity is 50% of CPU. 4 cores -- max intensity is 25% of CPU. Etc.) Is another process or another PS operation maxing out another core? If your cores are not being used then the increase in cores is just slowing down your machine. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Two questions
In article , Mayayana
wrote: Multiple cores can only be used for multiple threads/processes. If you want to print while using PS then a second core is nice. a second core is not necessary to print while using photoshop or anything else. You may also be able to do two things at once in PS. that depends what they are. But even that seems a stretch. If you do something like apply a filter to a very large image, that's a single operation. It can only run on one core. And what else are youy going to do concurrently? that depends on the filter. some benefit from multithreading and others don't. I imagine that's what Chris Cox is talking about. it isn't. PS can use the cores if you're demanding functionality from multiple threads/processes at the same time, but for one intensive operation, multiple cores will be slower because each core is slower than the total. wrong. individual tasks within photoshop can be run in parallel across multiple cores with the net result being faster, depending on the task. they can also be offloaded to a gpu. On XP I use 2-core because I don't think XP can optimally use more. Win7+ is probably better, but optimization still means having uses for those cores. Since I'm rarely doing more than two things at once, I'd rather have two operations running at 1800 MHz than have 4 cores running at 900 MHz each, but with only one or two used. you *clearly* don't understand the concepts. If you're running clean, it's unlikely you'll see much benefit from more cores, and Intel vs AMD shouldn't matter. (Though specific CPU models get different ratings.) In other words, if you have PS applying a sharpen to a giant image, maybe it takes 30 seconds, but what else are you going to have PS do at the same time that could increase efficiency? Not much. wrong. some filters can run in parallel across multiple cores or on a gpu. you have *no* idea what you're talking about. The only scenario that makes sense to me for more cores would be a system weighted down with AV, malware hunters, excessive services, etc. If you have 4 cores you might be able to use them all with so much crap running, where two cores might be forced to allocate time slices to multiple processes, thus being slightly less efficient. But aside from servers, it's hard for me to see the benefit of a large number of cores. It just means that each core is running slower. nonsense. You can research this yourself. Run Task Manager and then use PS as usual. You'll probably find that a demanding operation is using 50%, 25%, etc of the CPU, depending on how many cores you have. (2 cores -- max intesity is 50% of CPU. 4 cores -- max intensity is 25% of CPU. Etc.) Is another process or another PS operation maxing out another core? If your cores are not being used then the increase in cores is just slowing down your machine. more nonsense. idle cores do not cause a slowdown. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
After the Deletion of Google Answers U Got Questions Fills the Gap Answering and Asking the Tough Questions | Linux Flash Drives | Digital Photography | 0 | May 7th 07 06:38 PM |
Questions on Canon 300D and etc. questions regarding digital photography | David J Taylor | Digital Photography | 10 | March 24th 05 05:18 PM |
Questions on Canon 300D and etc. questions regarding digital photography | Progressiveabsolution | Digital Photography | 4 | March 24th 05 04:11 PM |
Questions on Canon 300D and etc. questions regarding digitalphotography | Matt Ion | Digital Photography | 3 | March 24th 05 02:57 PM |
First SLR questions | Rick | Digital Photography | 26 | August 8th 04 12:19 AM |