Travel without a camera

On Mon, 19 Jun 2017 01:55:29 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave
wrote:

On Saturday, 17 June 2017 00:24:58 UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 16 Jun 2017 02:17:18 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave
wrote:

On Thursday, 15 June 2017 21:36:31 UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 15 Jun 2017 06:17:49 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave
wrote:

--- snip ---

Oh yes! I can try all kinds of exciting things which are not possible
in a Mac. :-)

I can run windows on my Mac, I could have even got the recent wannacry but sadly I could get infected by that unless running windows, I'm not sure how I can live without such a feature.
Does you're PC say it can't run Mac OS X somewhere in the instructions or perhaps on the box or case.

Can you install an Nvidia GTX 1070 graphics card?

No, why would I want to it displays 4K graphiccs my imac can display 5K graphics with built in card, Plus I'm not really a games player my friend is who prefers macs, but has a PC for playing games in his spare time and he recenty brought a card for half the cost of the GTX 1070 and it works for him.
So you don;t need that graphics card even as a gamer why do you feel you need one ?


But if you really want a good graphics card why not go for the NVIDIA Quadro GP100 graphics card ?

Because itss only just coming available.

So you have a PC and upgradable PC I assume, just swop it out, sorted surely.


Because it's a work station card.

SO yuo cant put it in your PC. Perhaps yuo brought the wrong PC.

It's not the best suited to photography.

and the Nvidia GTX 1070 graphics card is better suited to photography ?
You do know it's really just a lower spec gaming card.

One of the factors I chose it for was its ability to handle all the
calculations that Adobe is likely to throw at it in the forseeable
future.

I doubt anyone can see that far into what adobe might do, but adobe aren;t really important in the graphics card market.

On the contrary, Adobe has specific requirements for graphics cards if
they are going to fully support the functionality of Adobe software.
You don't have to have the graphics card support a function but it
runs an awful lot slower if you can only use the system's CPU.


So can you tell me how this card will improve photography.

It will speed up the editing experience.

I doubt it'll speed it up that much if anything, these cards are made for video , the shading and special effects filters such as generating real live fire and smoke effects and high frame rates and resultions.

You are welcome to your doubts.

I think there;s a HDR game compint out but I;m not sure current graphics cards are ready fo it, there's also problems with the new screeen and new graphiocs cards working together for HDR.


You don't need to know what you're doing to spend a lot of money on a graphics card.
Do yuo know what advantages you getting buying the GTX 1070 over other options.

Yes, including its ability to handle multiple higher density screens.

Well my iMac can do 5k.

But that is not a reason for me to buy a NVIA GTX 1070.




So what advantages does your new 4K graphics card have over what I have.
AMD Radeon Radeon R9 M295X 4GB

Has your card got a thunderbolt connector for using with 2 5K displays ?

Nope, and I don't want/need one.

Well I dont think I need a GTX 1070, so why ask whethe ror not I can install one ?

I didn't. I said you couldn't.

I don't need to.

Aren't you lucky.

If you can tell me the reason(s) for having one maybe you'll convince me I'm missing out on something, as that's when I think about upgrading things, so until I find I;m missing out on something I'm happy with my inbuilt M295X .

Are you scratching at a sore spot?

No, I just don't need to spend money on a graphics card, I can get 400 FPS at 5K high end graphics cards arent'l really aime dat still photogrphers the high specs are for video which won;t do much in speeding up processing of single still images.

Did someone give you a graphics card for free? Of course not: you
have already spent money on a graphics card.

I'm not sure what tales so long on yuor computer that you feel the need to up the graphics card rather than RAM or disc speed. SSD will probbly speed things up more than a new graphics card.

In that case I suggest you spend some time researching Adobe's
requirements for software.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Monday, June 19, 2017 at 6:40:07 AM UTC-4, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 19 June 2017 10:13:30 UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jun 2017 01:55:29 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave
wrote:

On Saturday, 17 June 2017 00:24:58 UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 16 Jun 2017 02:17:18 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave
wrote:

On Thursday, 15 June 2017 21:36:31 UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 15 Jun 2017 06:17:49 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave
wrote:

--- snip ---


One of the factors I chose it for was its ability to handle all the
calculations that Adobe is likely to throw at it in the forseeable
future.

I doubt anyone can see that far into what adobe might do, but
adobe aren;t really important in the graphics card market.

On the contrary, Adobe has specific requirements for graphics cards if
they are going to fully support the functionality of Adobe software.

Except that there's not any firm requirement from Adobe to
actually *use* what they specify as hardware 'minimums'.

Plus such requirements are easy-to-test-for Go/NoGo's which may
very well be present for some *different* technical requirement
that's not as easy to test for.

Plus there's also nothing stopping Adobe from making such
requirements as a means to 'future proof' their own planning,
and/or even as a means to deliberately curtail support on older
hardware (reduces Adobe's IT expenses).



And does your graphics card support such things in the future ?

Which is merely YA example on the general discussion of
strategies for "future-proofing" one's purchase decisions, so
as to notionally have a longer useful lifespan.


You don't have to have the graphics card support a function but it
runs an awful lot slower if you can only use the system's CPU.

Yes I know, you really need the speed of a GPU for high end graphics.
It's whether you use such hign end grphics in still photogrphy is the point.
Do you actually notice the differnce is the point.

As well as able to attribute any such observed difference specifically
to the GPU, as opposed to faster CPU, faster RAM, faster SSD, etc: all
of the stuff which also gets coincidentally upgraded when one buys a
new system. Even replacing an old HDD/SSD with a new, larger one with
exactly the same specs can result in system changes because of a fresh
new install of the OS which has fewer patches/additions/cobwebs.


It will speed up the editing experience.

I doubt it'll speed it up that much if anything, these
cards are made for video , the shading and special effects
filters such as generating real live fire and smoke effects
and high frame rates and resultions.

You are welcome to your doubts.

This is why I decided not to go for a car 0-60 of 3 seconds
as it wouldn't really get me to work any faster than a bus
in a bus lane does.
Might be more fun than sitting the bus though.

The change in bottom-line workflow productivity is really
the only thing that matters. If some Photoshop filter does
actually run faster due to GPU acceleration, it also needs
to be significant enough that the human behind the keyboard
is able to be more productive. Otherwise, its a gain that
has no real world payoff...which means its ROI isn't positive.


Adobe premier might take advanateg of the GPU but phjotoshop
has no need to and genrally doesn't as yet.

FWIW, I can recall reading some of the PS update specs from
awhile back and they did state that some of PS's filters did
get updated to leverage the GPU .. which may very well be a
good thing *if* one's workflow routinely used those specific
filters *and* that the degree of accelerated performance is
reliably exploitable by a human for a productivity gain.

(Note that "reliably exploitable" is not the same criteria
as "measurable" and/or "perceivable" are - - it essentially
means that the difference passes a "So What?" test.).




I'm not sure what tales so long on yuor computer that you feel the need to up the graphics card rather than RAM or disc speed. SSD will probbly speed things up more than a new graphics card.

In that case I suggest you spend some time researching Adobe's
requirements for software.

you mean hardware surely.
[...]

Photoshop is rather old code and mostly doesn't use video cards
or multiple CPU cores outside of a few specific features. It
mostly benefits from high clockspeed both from the CPU and GPU
(when it does use it). A high clockspeed integrated video on
the processor can actually be better than a big expensive but
lower clocked video card.

Case in point, a 12-core performed slower than a 6 co

https://macperformanceguide.com/Reviews-MacProWestmere-Photoshop-CoresSlower.html


The money is better spent on memory and SSD.

Followed usually by a higher GHz CPU.

https://macperformanceguide.com/OptimizingPhotoshopCS6-cpu.html

-hh

On Mon, 19 Jun 2017 03:39:59 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave
wrote:

On Monday, 19 June 2017 10:13:30 UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jun 2017 01:55:29 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave
wrote:

On Saturday, 17 June 2017 00:24:58 UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 16 Jun 2017 02:17:18 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave
wrote:

On Thursday, 15 June 2017 21:36:31 UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 15 Jun 2017 06:17:49 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave
wrote:

--- snip ---

Oh yes! I can try all kinds of exciting things which are not possible
in a Mac. :-)

I can run windows on my Mac, I could have even got the recent wannacry but sadly I could get infected by that unless running windows, I'm not sure how I can live without such a feature.
Does you're PC say it can't run Mac OS X somewhere in the instructions or perhaps on the box or case.

Can you install an Nvidia GTX 1070 graphics card?

No, why would I want to it displays 4K graphiccs my imac can display 5K graphics with built in card, Plus I'm not really a games player my friend is who prefers macs, but has a PC for playing games in his spare time and he recenty brought a card for half the cost of the GTX 1070 and it works for him.
So you don;t need that graphics card even as a gamer why do you feel you need one ?


But if you really want a good graphics card why not go for the NVIDIA Quadro GP100 graphics card ?

Because itss only just coming available.

So you have a PC and upgradable PC I assume, just swop it out, sorted surely.


Because it's a work station card.

SO yuo cant put it in your PC. Perhaps yuo brought the wrong PC.

It's not the best suited to photography.

and the Nvidia GTX 1070 graphics card is better suited to photography ?
You do know it's really just a lower spec gaming card.

One of the factors I chose it for was its ability to handle all the
calculations that Adobe is likely to throw at it in the forseeable
future.

I doubt anyone can see that far into what adobe might do, but adobe aren;t really important in the graphics card market.

On the contrary, Adobe has specific requirements for graphics cards if
they are going to fully support the functionality of Adobe software.

And does your graphics card support such things in the future ?

Who can really tell? Certainly I don't know. My previous machine which
I bought on 28 January 2010 had and AMD card which at that time was at
the bottom end of Adobe's recommendations. By this time last year
Adobe software had given up on using its GPU for a number of
functions. Things were not as bad as they might have been as it had an
i7 CPU and still moved along at not too slow a clip.

My new machine may well be the last one I buy and I want it to keep up
with software as far into the future as is reasonably possible. That's
one of the reasons I bought the GTX 1070 instead of something lesser.


You don't have to have the graphics card support a function but it
runs an awful lot slower if you can only use the system's CPU.

Yes I know, you really need the speed of a GPU for high end graphics.
It's whether you use such hign end grphics in still photogrphy is the point.
Do you actually notice the differnce is the point.

I certainly did on my old machine when Lightroom stopped using the GPU
for some functions.


So can you tell me how this card will improve photography.

It will speed up the editing experience.

I doubt it'll speed it up that much if anything, these cards are made for video , the shading and special effects filters such as generating real live fire and smoke effects and high frame rates and resultions.

You are welcome to your doubts.

This is why I decided not to go for a car 0-60 of 3 seconds as it wouldn't really get me to work any faster than a bus in a bus lane does.
Might be more fun than sitting the bus though.



I think there;s a HDR game compint out but I;m not sure current graphics cards are ready fo it, there's also problems with the new screeen and new graphiocs cards working together for HDR.




Yes, including its ability to handle multiple higher density screens.

Well my iMac can do 5k.

But that is not a reason for me to buy a NVIA GTX 1070.

Well I'm a little unclear as to the reason, it's an OK gaming card.

yuo see typical gaming cards don't support wide gamut which is what I thought you were after.
Not sure about he latest CC but I didn't think photoshop did much with GPUs and still relied on CPU and memory.

The GTX 1070 supports 10 bit video. The 1050 does not.

A friend that world in the pro video industry (doesn't do photos as such) has always said the advantage of high end graphics cards is for manutiplating 3D images in real time.

Adobe premier might take advanateg of the GPU but phjotoshop has no need to and genrally doesn't as yet.

That doesn't appear to be the case. First see the rather outdated
https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/kb...-card-faq.html
and the more uptodate
https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/kb...hics-card.html

The large amount of graphics RAM is more to sutioe lareg multiple monitors than to get a speed increase a gamer friend made that mistake he thought getting a 2GB rather than the 500MB versiohns would make his gamnes run faster it didn't
Upgrading his RAM from 4GB to 8GB did increase his gaming speed.

I have an i7-6800K, 32GB of RAM and a Samsung SSD 950 PRO 512GB.



Well I dont think I need a GTX 1070, so why ask whethe ror not I can install one ?

I didn't. I said you couldn't.

I don't need to.

Aren't you lucky.

I must be I suppose.

If I had thought I needed a new graphics card after a couple of years I wouldn't have gone for an iMac.

I knew I wanted a comnputer that would be faster compression video to MP4 and editing videos well apart from special effects it's the CPU that does this not the GPU, I opted for a larger SSD and more RAM as these are the key to fats photo and video processing which is difernt from gaming which requires shaders, vectors and other things which GPUs do really well and fast and sending it to screen.



If you can tell me the reason(s) for having one maybe you'll convince me I'm missing out on something, as that's when I think about upgrading things, so until I find I;m missing out on something I'm happy with my inbuilt M295X .

Are you scratching at a sore spot?

No, I just don't need to spend money on a graphics card, I can get 400 FPS at 5K high end graphics cards arent'l really aime dat still photogrphers the high specs are for video which won;t do much in speeding up processing of single still images.

Did someone give you a graphics card for free? Of course not: you
have already spent money on a graphics card.

Haven;t we all and if we need something better to speed our processing out its not always the graphics cards that is the bottleneck it usualy is for gamers.

In the case of Adobe, its the GPU which is the bottleneck.



I'm not sure what tales so long on yuor computer that you feel the need to up the graphics card rather than RAM or disc speed. SSD will probbly speed things up more than a new graphics card.

In that case I suggest you spend some time researching Adobe's
requirements for software.

you mean hardware surely.

I'll rewrite that: In that case I suggest you spend some time
researching Adobe's hardware requirements for their software

Just a quick google.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4101332

Now that's a mottley collection of advice and some of it is wrong.

Best graphics card for pushing the limits of Photoshop CC 2017

Being new to the PC world all I can get out of Adobe are the basic recommendations. What is the best graphics card on the market for photoshop?




Photoshop is rather old code and mostly doesn't use video cards or multiple CPU cores outside of a few specific features. It mostly benefits from high clockspeed both from the CPU and GPU (when it does use it). A high clockspeed integrated video on the processor can actually be better than a big expensive but lower clocked video card.

The money is better spent on memory and SSD.

Yep. I read all that, but they didn't mention Lightroom or some of the
emerging photographic software from other sources. In any case,
longevity of the basic machine specification was what I have been
after.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Mon, 19 Jun 2017 06:03:18 -0700 (PDT), -hh
wrote:

On Monday, June 19, 2017 at 6:40:07 AM UTC-4, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 19 June 2017 10:13:30 UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jun 2017 01:55:29 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave
wrote:

On Saturday, 17 June 2017 00:24:58 UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 16 Jun 2017 02:17:18 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave
wrote:

On Thursday, 15 June 2017 21:36:31 UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 15 Jun 2017 06:17:49 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave
wrote:

--- snip ---


One of the factors I chose it for was its ability to handle all the
calculations that Adobe is likely to throw at it in the forseeable
future.

I doubt anyone can see that far into what adobe might do, but
adobe aren;t really important in the graphics card market.

On the contrary, Adobe has specific requirements for graphics cards if
they are going to fully support the functionality of Adobe software.

Except that there's not any firm requirement from Adobe to
actually *use* what they specify as hardware 'minimums'.

No, but then the processing falls back to the CPU which can be quite a
bit slower.

Plus such requirements are easy-to-test-for Go/NoGo's which may
very well be present for some *different* technical requirement
that's not as easy to test for.

Photoshop seems to test the GPU first and then let you know if it
won't meet their requirements in one manner or another.

Plus there's also nothing stopping Adobe from making such
requirements as a means to 'future proof' their own planning,
and/or even as a means to deliberately curtail support on older
hardware (reduces Adobe's IT expenses).

Quite true. But this is all the more reason to ensure that your
hardware meets Adobes (future) requirements.



And does your graphics card support such things in the future ?

Which is merely YA example on the general discussion of
strategies for "future-proofing" one's purchase decisions, so
as to notionally have a longer useful lifespan.

That's one of the major reasons why I have spec'd my machine the way I
have.


You don't have to have the graphics card support a function but it
runs an awful lot slower if you can only use the system's CPU.

Yes I know, you really need the speed of a GPU for high end graphics.
It's whether you use such hign end grphics in still photogrphy is the point.
Do you actually notice the differnce is the point.

As well as able to attribute any such observed difference specifically
to the GPU, as opposed to faster CPU, faster RAM, faster SSD, etc: all
of the stuff which also gets coincidentally upgraded when one buys a
new system. Even replacing an old HDD/SSD with a new, larger one with
exactly the same specs can result in system changes because of a fresh
new install of the OS which has fewer patches/additions/cobwebs.


It will speed up the editing experience.

I doubt it'll speed it up that much if anything, these
cards are made for video , the shading and special effects
filters such as generating real live fire and smoke effects
and high frame rates and resultions.

You are welcome to your doubts.

This is why I decided not to go for a car 0-60 of 3 seconds
as it wouldn't really get me to work any faster than a bus
in a bus lane does.
Might be more fun than sitting the bus though.

The change in bottom-line workflow productivity is really
the only thing that matters. If some Photoshop filter does
actually run faster due to GPU acceleration, it also needs
to be significant enough that the human behind the keyboard
is able to be more productive. Otherwise, its a gain that
has no real world payoff...which means its ROI isn't positive.

I'm retired, and doing it for a hobby.


Adobe premier might take advanateg of the GPU but phjotoshop
has no need to and genrally doesn't as yet.

FWIW, I can recall reading some of the PS update specs from
awhile back and they did state that some of PS's filters did
get updated to leverage the GPU .. which may very well be a
good thing *if* one's workflow routinely used those specific
filters *and* that the degree of accelerated performance is
reliably exploitable by a human for a productivity gain.

(Note that "reliably exploitable" is not the same criteria
as "measurable" and/or "perceivable" are - - it essentially
means that the difference passes a "So What?" test.).




I'm not sure what tales so long on yuor computer that you feel the need to up the graphics card rather than RAM or disc speed. SSD will probbly speed things up more than a new graphics card.

In that case I suggest you spend some time researching Adobe's
requirements for software.

you mean hardware surely.
[...]

Photoshop is rather old code and mostly doesn't use video cards
or multiple CPU cores outside of a few specific features. It
mostly benefits from high clockspeed both from the CPU and GPU
(when it does use it). A high clockspeed integrated video on
the processor can actually be better than a big expensive but
lower clocked video card.

Case in point, a 12-core performed slower than a 6 co

https://macperformanceguide.com/Reviews-MacProWestmere-Photoshop-CoresSlower.html

But that was CS5 running with the firmware of 7 years ago. That's not
at all a good guide to the present situation.


The money is better spent on memory and SSD.

Followed usually by a higher GHz CPU.

https://macperformanceguide.com/OptimizingPhotoshopCS6-cpu.html

Even this doesn't go beyond CS6 and 2012. It gives no guide to CC as
at the present, let alone the requirements of the future.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Jun 19, 2017, Eric Stevens wrote
(in ):

On Mon, 19 Jun 2017 06:03:18 -0700 (PDT), -hh
wrote:

On Monday, June 19, 2017 at 6:40:07 AM UTC-4, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 19 June 2017 10:13:30 UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jun 2017 01:55:29 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave
wrote:

On Saturday, 17 June 2017 00:24:58 UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 16 Jun 2017 02:17:18 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave
wrote:

On Thursday, 15 June 2017 21:36:31 UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 15 Jun 2017 06:17:49 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave
wrote:

--- snip ---

One of the factors I chose it for was its ability to handle all the
calculations that Adobe is likely to throw at it in the forseeable
future.

I doubt anyone can see that far into what adobe might do, but
adobe aren;t really important in the graphics card market.

On the contrary, Adobe has specific requirements for graphics cards if
they are going to fully support the functionality of Adobe software.

Except that there's not any firm requirement from Adobe to
actually *use* what they specify as hardware 'minimums'.

No, but then the processing falls back to the CPU which can be quite a
bit slower.

Plus such requirements are easy-to-test-for Go/NoGo's which may
very well be present for some *different* technical requirement
that's not as easy to test for.

Photoshop seems to test the GPU first and then let you know if it
won't meet their requirements in one manner or another.

Plus there's also nothing stopping Adobe from making such
requirements as a means to 'future proof' their own planning,
and/or even as a means to deliberately curtail support on older
hardware (reduces Adobe's IT expenses).

Quite true. But this is all the more reason to ensure that your
hardware meets Adobes (future) requirements.



And does your graphics card support such things in the future ?

Which is merely YA example on the general discussion of
strategies for "future-proofing" one's purchase decisions, so
as to notionally have a longer useful lifespan.

That's one of the major reasons why I have spec'd my machine the way I
have.


You don't have to have the graphics card support a function but it
runs an awful lot slower if you can only use the system's CPU.

Yes I know, you really need the speed of a GPU for high end graphics.
It's whether you use such hign end grphics in still photogrphy is the
point.
Do you actually notice the differnce is the point.

As well as able to attribute any such observed difference specifically
to the GPU, as opposed to faster CPU, faster RAM, faster SSD, etc: all
of the stuff which also gets coincidentally upgraded when one buys a
new system. Even replacing an old HDD/SSD with a new, larger one with
exactly the same specs can result in system changes because of a fresh
new install of the OS which has fewer patches/additions/cobwebs.


It will speed up the editing experience.

I doubt it'll speed it up that much if anything, these
cards are made for video , the shading and special effects
filters such as generating real live fire and smoke effects
and high frame rates and resultions.

You are welcome to your doubts.

This is why I decided not to go for a car 0-60 of 3 seconds
as it wouldn't really get me to work any faster than a bus
in a bus lane does.
Might be more fun than sitting the bus though.

The change in bottom-line workflow productivity is really
the only thing that matters. If some Photoshop filter does
actually run faster due to GPU acceleration, it also needs
to be significant enough that the human behind the keyboard
is able to be more productive. Otherwise, its a gain that
has no real world payoff...which means its ROI isn't positive.

I'm retired, and doing it for a hobby.


Adobe premier might take advanateg of the GPU but phjotoshop
has no need to and genrally doesn't as yet.

FWIW, I can recall reading some of the PS update specs from
awhile back and they did state that some of PS's filters did
get updated to leverage the GPU .. which may very well be a
good thing *if* one's workflow routinely used those specific
filters *and* that the degree of accelerated performance is
reliably exploitable by a human for a productivity gain.

(Note that "reliably exploitable" is not the same criteria
as "measurable" and/or "perceivable" are - - it essentially
means that the difference passes a "So What?" test.).




I'm not sure what tales so long on yuor computer that you feel the need
to up the graphics card rather than RAM or disc speed. SSD will probbly
speed things up more than a new graphics card.
In that case I suggest you spend some time researching Adobe's
requirements for software.

you mean hardware surely.
[...]

Photoshop is rather old code and mostly doesn't use video cards
or multiple CPU cores outside of a few specific features. It
mostly benefits from high clockspeed both from the CPU and GPU
(when it does use it). A high clockspeed integrated video on
the processor can actually be better than a big expensive but
lower clocked video card.

Case in point, a 12-core performed slower than a 6 co

https://macperformanceguide.com/Revi...hop-CoresSlowe
r.html

But that was CS5 running with the firmware of 7 years ago. That's not
at all a good guide to the present situation.


The money is better spent on memory and SSD.

Followed usually by a higher GHz CPU.

https://macperformanceguide.com/OptimizingPhotoshopCS6-cpu.html

Even this doesn't go beyond CS6 and 2012. It gives no guide to CC as
at the present, let alone the requirements of the future.

I must be in trouble, but for now I haven’t been presented any evidence of
just how much.

I am running Photoshop CC + Lightroom CC on my mid-2010 Mac with a 3.6 GHz
Core i5, 16GB DDR3, and an ATI Radeon HD 5670.
Both PS and LR use the 7 year old GPU without too much protest. That said,
the time has come to put this old horse out to pasture, and get myself a new
Mac with some fresh CPU & GPU muscle.

--

Regards,
Savageduck

In article .com,
Savageduck wrote:

The money is better spent on memory and SSD.

Followed usually by a higher GHz CPU.

https://macperformanceguide.com/OptimizingPhotoshopCS6-cpu.html

Even this doesn't go beyond CS6 and 2012. It gives no guide to CC as
at the present, let alone the requirements of the future.

I must be in trouble, but for now I haven¹t been presented any evidence of
just how much.

I am running Photoshop CC + Lightroom CC on my mid-2010 Mac with a 3.6 GHz
Core i5, 16GB DDR3, and an ATI Radeon HD 5670.
Both PS and LR use the 7 year old GPU without too much protest. That said,
the time has come to put this old horse out to pasture, and get myself a new
Mac with some fresh CPU & GPU muscle.

there's an imac pro with your name on it, and i heard it was the 18
core version.

On Mon, 19 Jun 2017 19:24:58 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

I am running Photoshop CC + Lightroom CC on my mid-2010 Mac with a 3.6 GHz
Core i5, 16GB DDR3, and an ATI Radeon HD 5670.
Both PS and LR use the 7 year old GPU without too much protest. That said,
the time has come to put this old horse out to pasture, and get myself a new
Mac with some fresh CPU & GPU muscle.

Are you crazy? Another Mac? Get a Windows PC. I can't begin to
describe all the fun you'll have working on it. Plus you can Google
unlimited help, all of which will eventually be needed...

On Jun 19, 2017, nospam wrote
(in ) :

In iganews.com,
Savageduck wrote:

The money is better spent on memory and SSD.

Followed usually by a higher GHz CPU.

https://macperformanceguide.com/OptimizingPhotoshopCS6-cpu.html

Even this doesn't go beyond CS6 and 2012. It gives no guide to CC as
at the present, let alone the requirements of the future.

I must be in trouble, but for now I haven¹t been presented any evidence of
just how much.

I am running Photoshop CC + Lightroom CC on my mid-2010 Mac with a 3.6 GHz
Core i5, 16GB DDR3, and an ATI Radeon HD 5670.
Both PS and LR use the 7 year old GPU without too much protest. That said,
the time has come to put this old horse out to pasture, and get myself a new
Mac with some fresh CPU & GPU muscle.

there's an imac pro with your name on it, and i heard it was the 18
core version.

Nice thought, but I will probably upgrade sooner with the 27in 5K, 4.2 GHz
quad-core i7, Radeon Pro 580, 32 GB DDR4, and appropriate drive.
Given what I have working now, that package should get me through the next
few years, and I should benefit from the performance boost.

--

Regards,
Savageduck

On Jun 19, 2017, Bill W wrote
(in ):

On Mon, 19 Jun 2017 19:24:58 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

I am running Photoshop CC + Lightroom CC on my mid-2010 Mac with a 3.6 GHz
Core i5, 16GB DDR3, and an ATI Radeon HD 5670.
Both PS and LR use the 7 year old GPU without too much protest. That said,
the time has come to put this old horse out to pasture, and get myself a new
Mac with some fresh CPU & GPU muscle.

Are you crazy?

Probably.

Another Mac?

Yup! I am a devout member of the tribe. I bit the Apple with my Apple ][e
what seems to be a lifetime ago, and that served me well until I bought my
first Mac.

Get a Windows PC. I can't begin to
describe all the fun you'll have working on it. Plus you can Google
unlimited help, all of which will eventually be needed...

I’d rather sit back and listen to the bitching from those in the Windows
camp.

--

Regards,
Savageduck

In article .com,
Savageduck wrote:


Get a Windows PC. I can't begin to
describe all the fun you'll have working on it. Plus you can Google
unlimited help, all of which will eventually be needed...

I¹d rather sit back and listen to the bitching from those in the Windows
camp.

it's very amusing to see the level of crap that people put up with just
to run windows.