A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Two questions



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old September 16th 15, 04:17 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Mayayana
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,514
Default Two questions

All I can say is that you might try slowing down
and re-reading my post. You've missed the gist
of what I said all the way through.


  #12  
Old September 16th 15, 04:19 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default Two questions

On 2015-09-16 03:17:32 +0000, "Mayayana" said:

All I can say is that you might try slowing down
and re-reading my post. You've missed the gist
of what I said all the way through.


With no attributes, who are you replying to?

--
Regards,

Savageduck

  #13  
Old September 16th 15, 04:42 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Two questions

In article , Mayayana
wrote:

All I can say is that you might try slowing down
and re-reading my post. You've missed the gist
of what I said all the way through.


first of all, you should quote at least some of the post so people know
to whom you are replying and the context of your comments.

second of all, you haven't any clue about multithreading. zero.
  #14  
Old September 16th 15, 06:12 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
David Taylor
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,146
Default Two questions

On 15/09/2015 23:03, Eric Stevens wrote:
[]
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.


Eric,

Whatever Photoshop does, having at least 4 cores would be my
recommendation for a system today. My most recent has 4 cores with
hyperthreading, making for 8 available processors. Memory is, perhaps,
even more important, and I would suggest 8-16 GB, depending on your
exact needs. Intel rather than AMD. Check with your software supplier
what benefit can be had from a good graphics card and choose that
accordingly. SSD (~250 GB) for the system disk, HDs for data storage.

--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu
  #15  
Old September 16th 15, 06:19 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
android
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,854
Default Two questions

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
  #16  
Old September 16th 15, 09:25 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default Two questions

On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 06:12:28 +0100, David Taylor
wrote:

On 15/09/2015 23:03, Eric Stevens wrote:
[]
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.


Eric,

Whatever Photoshop does, having at least 4 cores would be my
recommendation for a system today. My most recent has 4 cores with
hyperthreading, making for 8 available processors. Memory is, perhaps,
even more important, and I would suggest 8-16 GB, depending on your
exact needs. Intel rather than AMD. Check with your software supplier
what benefit can be had from a good graphics card and choose that
accordingly. SSD (~250 GB) for the system disk, HDs for data storage.


Not quite the point I was addressing but otherwise I would agree with
you.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #17  
Old September 16th 15, 09:57 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
David Taylor
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,146
Default Two questions

On 16/09/2015 09:25, Eric Stevens wrote:
[]
Not quite the point I was addressing but otherwise I would agree with
you.


No, it wasn't, but just because one program says it can't use more than
2 cores, for example, doesn't mean that you should restrict the choice
of processor to one which one has two cores! I'm sure you knew that,
though. The OS and all the other processes running will benefit from
the multiple processing capability available with more cores, and make
for a PC which feels smoother and more responsive.

--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu
  #18  
Old September 16th 15, 02:20 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Mayayana
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,514
Default Two questions

| second of all, you haven't any clue about multithreading. zero.

Multi-threading is not the issue.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multit...%28software%29

A single core CPU has multithreading via
time slices. The advantage of multi-core is
that a single, intensive operation can have
a dedicated core, without locking up the
machine and without needing to share time
slices.

The issue is whether PS can actually
use multiple cores in any significant way. For
that it needs to be running two or more processor
-intensive operations concurrently. Do you often
run a sharpening routine on a 40 MB image while
at the same time running another filter? If not
then the sharpening will run faster with less cores
because the core being used will have a higher
MHz speed.

No one needs to go by what I'm saying. In
Windows one can run Task Manager to see usage
in real time. There may be something similar on
Macs. So rather than carpet-bombing the thread
with empty, un-qualified pronouncements and
insults, why not do some experimenting for
yourself? You can then decide what's best for
you. Maybe you'll find that PS is somehow running
your sharpening routine on 2 cores, but that's *very*
unlikely. The routine is a single operation that needs
to go through the image bytes with a math operation.
There just aren't two things to do at once.

Much of the time there's very little CPU
usage on a typical machine. If I do something like
run a CPU-demanding script then I'll see 48-50%
usage by that process, because I'm using a 2-core
machine. Meanwhile, nothing much else is registering.
If I had four cores the script would run at about
half the speed, because it can't be run across 2
threads. For that the script would have to be
running multiple, separate operations. Likewise
with PS. A sharpening routine is a single operation.
You can't spread it across 2 threads or processes.

If you print and go online and have AV scanning
while you're doing the sharpening routine then the
4 cores might be better than 2. But what I'm getting
at is that much of the time, for most people, only
one CPU-demanding operation at a time is happening.

An analogy.... Not a great one, but the best I
can think of right now:

Imagine having a set of measuring cups. If you
have 3 people adding 6 ingredients to a bowl, in
small amounts, they can do it fastest with 6 cups.
If they need to each add, say, 1/4 cup sugar and
1 cup flour to bowls on an assembly line, having
6 8-oz measuring cups will be optimal. But if there's
one person, adding 4 cups flour and 2 cups water,
then 2 32-oz measuring cups will be optimal. (A 32
and a 16 would be best, but I'm trying to keep
this analogous to CPU cores.)

If that one person has 6 8-0z cups then 4 will just
go unused while 2 do the job more slowly. An 8-oz
cup has to be refilled 4 times with each operation.

Since CPU speeds seem to have plateaued in the
3-4 GHz range, there's a limit to the possible speed
of one core. So the question becomes: Do you have
3 people to use your 6 cups? (Do you actually have
frequent, concurrent operations to justify more cores?)
If not then you'll fill your bowls fastest with less cores.


  #19  
Old September 16th 15, 02:31 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Mayayana
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,514
Default Two questions

Maybe it would help to clarify this if the system
and software are distinguished. That is, for multiple
cores to be useful, software must be adopted to
multiple cores. A program must be able to hand off
operations to separate threads/processes. Then
there has to be a use for those cores.

I have no doubt that PS is highly optimized in
that way. But that's only half the story. What I'm
getting at is that the sophistication of PS doesn't
matter if you're only actually doing one CPU-
intensive operation at a time. PS may hand off
a filter routine, separate from the main process,
but what are you doing while that routine runs?
Maybe moving the mouse a bit onscreen? If you're
not starting another filter while the first one runs,
or doing some other processor-intensive operation in
PS, then you're not needing 2 cores. Thus one, higher
MHz core will be faster at the job.

If you have a server with software that can run
a separate process for each website visitor then
more cores will be better. Twelve cores will mean
you can serve 12 concurrent visitors without lag.
But individuals working at a computer usually don't
have such efficient multi-core demands.


  #20  
Old September 16th 15, 04:21 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Two questions

In article , Mayayana
wrote:

Maybe it would help to clarify this if the system
and software are distinguished. That is, for multiple
cores to be useful, software must be adopted to
multiple cores. A program must be able to hand off
operations to separate threads/processes. Then
there has to be a use for those cores.


obviously.

I have no doubt that PS is highly optimized in
that way.


it definitely is and has been for about 20 years.

But that's only half the story.


actually, it's the entire story.

What I'm
getting at is that the sophistication of PS doesn't
matter if you're only actually doing one CPU-
intensive operation at a time.


wrong.

it depends whether the operation can be parallelized. if it can, then
having multiple cores will help.

PS may hand off
a filter routine, separate from the main process,
but what are you doing while that routine runs?


you're wrongly assuming each process is single-threaded.

Maybe moving the mouse a bit onscreen?


the mouse doesn't use cpu.

If you're
not starting another filter while the first one runs,
or doing some other processor-intensive operation in
PS, then you're not needing 2 cores.


wrong.

Thus one, higher
MHz core will be faster at the job.


wrong.

the part you don't get is that a filter operation can be parallelized
and spread across multiple cores.

http://media.bestofmicro.com/F/L/251985/original/res_app_photoshop.png

If you have a server with software that can run
a separate process for each website visitor then
more cores will be better. Twelve cores will mean
you can serve 12 concurrent visitors without lag.
But individuals working at a computer usually don't
have such efficient multi-core demands.


wrong. depending on what said individual does, they absolutely can (and
much of the time will) benefit from multiple cores.

there is no downside, other than price and the difference in price is
not that much.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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 06:18 PM
Questions on Canon 300D and etc. questions regarding digital photography Progressiveabsolution Digital Photography 4 March 24th 05 05:11 PM
Questions on Canon 300D and etc. questions regarding digitalphotography Matt Ion Digital Photography 3 March 24th 05 03:57 PM
First SLR questions Rick Digital Photography 26 August 8th 04 12:19 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:33 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.