Two questions

"nospam" wrote in message
...
In article , PAS
wrote:

what's more important is getting an ssd and a lot of memory, 16 gig
should be sufficient unless you're *really* pushing it hard.

16 gigs is a good amount of ram. If my motherboard supported 32
gigs,
I'd use it since the cost of RAM is cheap.

32 gig is certainly nice but it's not going to make much of a
difference if you're not pushing the limits of 16 gig and most people
don't.

Getting an SSD is not so
important.

nonsense.

an ssd is one of the easiest and best ways to boost performance, and
by
a *lot*, even for older computers.

For example, Photoshop will launch faster when it's
installed on an SSD but the app itself won't run any faster.

everything will be significantly faster because the majority of what
people do is i/o bound, including photoshop.

There's a
benefit to using an SSD as a scratch disk for Photoshop if the image
doesn't fit into RAM. If the image does fit into RAM and you've got
lots of RAM, there will be no performance benefit to having an SSD.

nonsense.

you've never actually tried it, have you?

The only nonsense is coming from you. Direct from Adobe's website:

"Installing Photoshop on a solid-state disk (SSD) allows Photoshop to
launch fast, probably in less than a second. But that speedier startup
is the only time savings you experience. That's the only time when much
data is read from the SSD.
To gain the greatest benefit from an SSD, use it as the scratch disk.
Using it as a scratch disk gives you significant performance
improvements if you have images that don't fit entirely in RAM. For
example, swapping tiles between RAM and an SSD is much faster than
swapping between RAM and a hard disk."


Of course, what does Adobe know about their own application?

The
cost and size of SSD vs. HDD may be enough of a factor to use HDD.

use both.

put the operating system and all apps on the ssd, along with any
current documents being worked on.

keep less frequently used documents on a hard drive, such as a photo
library, music library, tax returns from last year, etc.

even better, get a fusion drive (only available on macs) and let the
computer figure out what goes where based on usage patterns, all
without any effort from the user.

In article , PAS
wrote:

For example, Photoshop will launch faster when it's
installed on an SSD but the app itself won't run any faster.

everything will be significantly faster because the majority of what
people do is i/o bound, including photoshop.

There's a
benefit to using an SSD as a scratch disk for Photoshop if the image
doesn't fit into RAM. If the image does fit into RAM and you've got
lots of RAM, there will be no performance benefit to having an SSD.

nonsense.

you've never actually tried it, have you?

The only nonsense is coming from you. Direct from Adobe's website:

"Installing Photoshop on a solid-state disk (SSD) allows Photoshop to
launch fast, probably in less than a second. But that speedier startup
is the only time savings you experience. That's the only time when much
data is read from the SSD.
To gain the greatest benefit from an SSD, use it as the scratch disk.
Using it as a scratch disk gives you significant performance
improvements if you have images that don't fit entirely in RAM. For
example, swapping tiles between RAM and an SSD is much faster than
swapping between RAM and a hard disk."

Of course, what does Adobe know about their own application?

you're misinterpreting what they wrote.

if you replace your hard drive with an ssd, where exactly do you think
the scratch file will go?

again, an ssd is the easiest and often the cheapest performance boost
one can make, which affects just about every single app.

it's night and day, even on an older computer that's bottlenecked by
slower sata or even pata, but the benefit will obviously be less.

do you have an ssd in any of your systems? i think not.

"nospam" wrote in message
...
In article , PAS
wrote:

For example, Photoshop will launch faster when it's
installed on an SSD but the app itself won't run any faster.

everything will be significantly faster because the majority of
what
people do is i/o bound, including photoshop.

There's a
benefit to using an SSD as a scratch disk for Photoshop if the
image
doesn't fit into RAM. If the image does fit into RAM and you've
got
lots of RAM, there will be no performance benefit to having an
SSD.

nonsense.

you've never actually tried it, have you?

The only nonsense is coming from you. Direct from Adobe's website:

"Installing Photoshop on a solid-state disk (SSD) allows Photoshop to
launch fast, probably in less than a second. But that speedier
startup
is the only time savings you experience. That's the only time when
much
data is read from the SSD.
To gain the greatest benefit from an SSD, use it as the scratch disk.
Using it as a scratch disk gives you significant performance
improvements if you have images that don't fit entirely in RAM. For
example, swapping tiles between RAM and an SSD is much faster than
swapping between RAM and a hard disk."

Of course, what does Adobe know about their own application?

you're misinterpreting what they wrote.

if you replace your hard drive with an ssd, where exactly do you think
the scratch file will go?

In a multiple drive system you choose where it goes.

again, an ssd is the easiest and often the cheapest performance boost
one can make, which affects just about every single app.

Yes, there is a performance boost but if one's primary use of a computer
is Photoshop, there's not much of a boost.

it's night and day, even on an older computer that's bottlenecked by
slower sata or even pata, but the benefit will obviously be less.

do you have an ssd in any of your systems? i think not.

I have no need for one. I will have one eventually but at the moment my
HDDs work just fine for my needs. My 174hp Subaru gets me around fine,
I don't need a 707hp Dodge Charger Hellcat to do that. It might be nice
to have but not necessary for my needs.

In article , PAS
wrote:


if you replace your hard drive with an ssd, where exactly do you think
the scratch file will go?

In a multiple drive system you choose where it goes.

the majority of computers have a single drive, but regardless, it's
trivial to choose.

again, an ssd is the easiest and often the cheapest performance boost
one can make, which affects just about every single app.

Yes, there is a performance boost but if one's primary use of a computer
is Photoshop, there's not much of a boost.

oh yes there is.

i can tell you first hand that changing a spinner to an ssd makes a
*huge* difference across the board, hands down, even on older computers
where the bus is not as fast as in modern computers.

it's night and day, even on an older computer that's bottlenecked by
slower sata or even pata, but the benefit will obviously be less.

do you have an ssd in any of your systems? i think not.

I have no need for one.

exactly as i thought.

you have no experience with ssd. you're talking out your ass.

I will have one eventually but at the moment my
HDDs work just fine for my needs. My 174hp Subaru gets me around fine,
I don't need a 707hp Dodge Charger Hellcat to do that. It might be nice
to have but not necessary for my needs.

in other words, you're happy with a substandard system.

if you spent just $100 for an ssd (256 gig) and moved the os and apps
to it, you'd see a *huge* performance increase, for very little money.

shop around and you can even find an ssd for $70-80ish, and that's a
name brand (crucial or samsung), not some noname crap.

In article , Pablo
wrote:

cursors have been done in hardware for *years*.

We used to call them sprites.

I haven't heard the term "sprites" since the days of the Commodore 64.

All game consoles had/have sprites. It just means a bitmap in hardware
(simplified). A mouse cursor on a PC is the same thing. But the processor
still has to be aware of it's "events". Otherwise what use is a
mouse/cursor? Even if it's controlled in hardware, the running software
still has to know what's going on. "Hello Proc, Mouse here, I just moved a
bit to the left".

moving the cursor is not an 'event'. no cpu is needed for it to move.

clicking a button is an event.

In article , David Taylor
wrote:

The price vs. performance goes up very steeply at the top end of the
performance range. I always try to come down one or two steps as you're
unlikely to notice the performance difference in typical use - unless
you are a games or doing a lot of very heavy video processing. Lower
clock speed may also result in lower temperatures, and hence better
system reliability.

computers have fans to maintain optimal temperatures.

In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote:

Research online seems to indicate that you're right.
Yet I've never seen that, on my machine or others,
though I have to say I've never specifically looked into
it.

The OS, or whatever software you use to see it, doesn't
necessarily distinquish between real cores and
hyperthreaded logical cores.

of course it can. it *has* to so that it can optimally schedule
processes.

And with a multi-core chip one has to be careful to
disable hyperthreading in the BIOS configuration if that
is not wanted. Otherwise a 2 core chip can show up as 4
logical cores, but instead of getting the expected extra
processing power it doesn't happen unless the load is
spread over at least 4 CPU intensive programs.

there is no reason to disable it.

a modern operating system will manage that *for* you.

In article , Mayayana
wrote:

| 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.
|
| Of course there is. This is handled the same way 3D applications split up
a given
| scene and use a multiple cores, or multiple computers to render each part
and
| compose it to one frame in the end.
|

That does seem to be what your image is saying.
I'm surprised that could be done efficiently, given
the extra work to do things like calculate the extra
work where the sections meet each other and
contiguous pixels must be compared that are in
different sections.

it depends on the calculation. some calculations are well suited for
parallelizing and others are not.

photoshop is highly tuned so that it uses as many cores as needed for
the fastest results. if that happens to be two cores, then it will use
only two cores, even if 4 or 8 cores are available.

In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

But as a general rule it appears that buying a 'computer' with more cores
will be faster at getting a partucilar job done than one with lessor cores of
about the same speed. Not sure how effciciently OS X yosemite is on multiple
cores compared to W10, W8 or W7.

it's *trivial* to take advantage of multiple cores on os x. all the app
developer needs to do is the equivalent of "use more cores". of course,
they need to benchmark that to see if it helps or not.

On 2015-09-17 12:27, PAS wrote:
"nospam" wrote in message
...
In article , PAS
wrote:

what's more important is getting an ssd and a lot of memory, 16 gig
should be sufficient unless you're *really* pushing it hard.

16 gigs is a good amount of ram. If my motherboard supported 32 gigs,
I'd use it since the cost of RAM is cheap.

32 gig is certainly nice but it's not going to make much of a
difference if you're not pushing the limits of 16 gig and most people
don't.

Getting an SSD is not so
important.

nonsense.

an ssd is one of the easiest and best ways to boost performance, and by
a *lot*, even for older computers.

For example, Photoshop will launch faster when it's
installed on an SSD but the app itself won't run any faster.

everything will be significantly faster because the majority of what
people do is i/o bound, including photoshop.

There's a
benefit to using an SSD as a scratch disk for Photoshop if the image
doesn't fit into RAM. If the image does fit into RAM and you've got
lots of RAM, there will be no performance benefit to having an SSD.

nonsense.

you've never actually tried it, have you?

The only nonsense is coming from you. Direct from Adobe's website:

You're using marketing hyperbole to cover your misunderstanding of
memory use by PS.

"Installing Photoshop on a solid-state disk (SSD) allows Photoshop to
launch fast, probably in less than a second. But that speedier startup
is the only time savings you experience. That's the only time when much
data is read from the SSD.
To gain the greatest benefit from an SSD, use it as the scratch disk.
Using it as a scratch disk gives you significant performance
improvements if you have images that don't fit entirely in RAM. For
example, swapping tiles between RAM and an SSD is much faster than
swapping between RAM and a hard disk."

Photoshop's aged scratchdisk implementation comes from a time when there
wasn't much RAM and a typical machine had many resources competing for
memory.

Given today's memory space on typical computers, the scratch disk is
probably not used at all in most photo processing by most people. And
high volume workload photo editors typically have machines with generous
amounts of RAM.

These days the cheapest boost to photoshop speed is RAM, RAM and more
RAM whether or not you have SSD. Given HD or SSD the later is better,
of course but in most machines it's not even touched.

I have 24 GB on this computer. So the scratch disk is an unused
afterthought.