Processor for photo editting

Ron Hunter wrote:


Rita,
Disk I/O is VASTLY slower than ram access. Worse, many programs seem
to access 'scratchpad' files in a terribly inefficient, 'byte-wise'
manner making things terribly slow. The best solution is to load the
computer with all the ram it can handle, and get one with a quad-core
(or two of them), and a fast HD. Frankly, Windows does a terrible job
of swapping ram to and from disk.

Hey, Ron, it's been awhile. You'll be delighted to know the new Mac
desktop is an eight core -Xeon-, can run OS X as well as Vista, and many
flavors of other PC software if one were nostalgic.

Arguing with "Rita" is like wrestling with a pig in mud. Even when
you've got it pinned, it's just loving the mud.

--
john mcwilliams

-hh wrote:
John McWilliams wrote:
-hh wrote:
The exercise is left up to Rita to post a screenshot of their Page-In/
Out values so as to back up that pesky little "Anything more than
1.5GB is a waste" claim. Its trivial to do this on a Mac. :-)
No doubt you'll get a flippant answer that completely dodges the issue.

Yup, I did. Apparently, "Rita" has never realized that Photoshop's
use of a scratch disk essentially means that its Virtual RAM will
exceed its Physical. Hence, why "Rita" won't provide a screenshot of
the Activity Monitor.

In any event, my screenshot showed that Rita's flippant claim of a
Photoshop hard limit ('barrier') at 1.5GB to be utterly false.

Well, as the French say Mais, oui!. All hat and no cattle was a
phrase used by our ex-most-prolific poster, and "fits" the bill, too.

--
john mcwilliams

John McWilliams wrote:
Ron Hunter wrote:


Rita,
Disk I/O is VASTLY slower than ram access. Worse, many programs
seem to access 'scratchpad' files in a terribly inefficient,
'byte-wise' manner making things terribly slow. The best solution is
to load the computer with all the ram it can handle, and get one with
a quad-core (or two of them), and a fast HD. Frankly, Windows does a
terrible job of swapping ram to and from disk.

Hey, Ron, it's been awhile. You'll be delighted to know the new Mac
desktop is an eight core -Xeon-, can run OS X as well as Vista, and many
flavors of other PC software if one were nostalgic.

Arguing with "Rita" is like wrestling with a pig in mud. Even when
you've got it pinned, it's just loving the mud.


With that many cores, it could probably run both at the same time.
Never mind, I am schizo enough without thinking about that. Grin.

Focus wrote:
I'm thinking of updating my processor, but I've some doubts. Is a Duo core
really much faster with NX or PS than a 3.0 P4? Or is it just marginal?
I quite often do batch processing in NX and notice the system halting or
even freezing. Specially when using another program simultaneously.
Is this typical for a P4 and better with a Duo core?



Isn't photo and video editing delegated to the Video card?

NJ

"Wolfgang Weisselberg" wrote in message
...
nospam wrote:
Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:

OK, then someone should take out all the busywaits out of LR.
It's not magic or rocket science.

what busywaits are these?

Well, it's either that or, ah, limited competence.

and since you think it is so easy, why not
apply for a job at adobe.

I have a good career right here, I don't need a job far from
friends and family, playing janitor for Adobe.

-Wolfgang

Yep, that would be the only job you could get..


--
Focus

In article , Neil Jones
wrote:

Isn't photo and video editing delegated to the Video card?

it depends on the application. photoshop does not use the video card
except for some 3d features in cs3 extended. apple's aperture does.

On Mar 27, 7:45*pm, "Rita Berkowitz" wrote:
Ron Hunter wrote:
* Disk I/O is VASTLY slower than ram access. *Worse, many programs
seem to access 'scratchpad' files in a terribly inefficient,
'byte-wise' manner making things terribly slow. *The best solution is
to load the computer with all the ram it can handle, and get one with
a quad-core (or two of them), and a fast HD. *Frankly, Windows does a
terrible job of swapping ram to and from disk.

Ron, that's what I've been saying. *Our boy -hh has some serious I/O
problems. *Had he been using a decent SCSI RAID array he would be offloading
out of the old scratch disc so fast he'd barely break a GB of used memory.

Always so relevant when the system is idling.

Next time, try looking at the %CPU being used by Photoshop (its at 2%)
before jumping to conclusions about I/O:

http://www.huntzinger.com/photo/2008/activity.jpg



-hh

Rita Berkowitz wrote:
Ron Hunter wrote:

Adding RAM will help with ALL programs, especially if you have a slow
disk system, and less RAM than your programs/data need. Paging
causes a MAJOR slowdown on Windows systems. I suspect this is
because the access isn't DMA, and/or is done 'bytewise'.

Again, this has been covered and is the result of nothing more than poor
disk I/O.




Rita

Yes, it IS poor disk I/O, but even the BEST disk I/O is orders of
magnitude slower than even average RAM access.

Rita Berkowitz wrote:
Ron Hunter wrote:

Disk I/O is VASTLY slower than ram access. Worse, many programs
seem to access 'scratchpad' files in a terribly inefficient,
'byte-wise' manner making things terribly slow. The best solution is
to load the computer with all the ram it can handle, and get one with
a quad-core (or two of them), and a fast HD. Frankly, Windows does a
terrible job of swapping ram to and from disk.

Ron, that's what I've been saying. Our boy -hh has some serious I/O
problems. Had he been using a decent SCSI RAID array he would be
offloading
out of the old scratch disc so fast he'd barely break a GB of used memory.
And yes, I also suggested SMP. It's only the people that are using
substandard hardware and don't have a clue are the ones blindly and
clueless
recommending throwing more memory at the problem.





Rita

Adding RAM is not really very expensive these days, at least not
compared to SCSI RAID arrays.

Rita Berkowitz wrote:
Ron Hunter wrote:

Yes, it IS poor disk I/O, but even the BEST disk I/O is orders of
magnitude slower than even average RAM access.

The bottom line here is the better the disk I/O the less RAM you need
and the time it needs to be tied up storing information.

Duh. Obviously, all you need, is disk IO that's faster than RAM.


Dear Rita,
would you have some data on the average time to retrive 10MB of
semi-random data from the disk and the same from memory?

You may assume a single 1/3rd stroke of the disk head and 1/2
rotation of the platter before data comes in, if you have no copy
of the Art of Computer Programming to look up a more complete
model of disk behaviour.

Show the complete, relevant math and the URL for spec sheet of
the hard drives you look at at their manufacturers' websites.
Please show where, by your model, the USD is better spent at a
faster disk (which one?) than a USD-identical amount of RAM.


Additionally, you may try to argue about the access speed and
costs of using RAID0.

Additionally, you may try to argue what happens if other
IO-operations are happening.


If you decline to state provable facts --- as I know you will ---
you only prove, again and again, that you spout some rote-learned
truisms without even remote understanding of the necessary
preconditions under which they are true.

-Wolfgang