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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Two questions
In article , Mayayana
wrote: | second of all, you haven't any clue about multithreading. zero. Multi-threading is not the issue. yes it is. 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. or a single intensive operation can be parallelized across multiple cores. The issue is whether PS can actually use multiple cores in any significant way. it can, and does. 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. you still don't get it. one filter can be multithreaded, running in parallel on multiple cores. you don't need to run two filters in parallel, nor do cores speed up or slow down if one or more is idle. No one needs to go by what I'm saying. nobody should, since you have *no* clue. 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. wrong. not only is it likely, but photoshop is designed to do exactly that: http://media.bestofmicro.com/F/L/251985/original/res_app_photoshop.png and it's not just photoshop that benefits. many things are faster on multicore, including handbrake video conversion: http://media.bestofmicro.com/F/G/251980/original/res_app_handbrake.png 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. wrong. if the operation can be parallelized, then it will usually benefit from multiple cores unless it's bottlenecked with i/o, such as a slow hard drive. 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. nonsense. 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. wrong. 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. wrong. 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. that's a horrible and convoluted analogy. a simple and far better analogy is if you have a stack of pages and you need to stamp each one with the date it's received. you can either stamp all pages yourself (single-core) or you can spread the work among a bunch of people, each having to stamp a portion of the pages, all working alongside each other (multi-core). there's a small overhead in splitting the stack into several smaller stacks, distributing those stacks to each person and then reassembling them at the end, which needs to be balanced with how much faster the overall process would take. for a small stack of 10 pages, it is not worth the trouble to split it among 10 people, but splitting it among 2 people might work well. for a large stack of 1000 pages, splitting it among 10 people will definitely help, as the overhead is minimal compared to the actual task. 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. certain tasks may not benefit from additional cores, but having more cores on a chip does not make things go slower. |
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 |