Core Duo or Core Quad for image processing

On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 12:50:07 +0300, Toni Nikkanen wrote:

Robert Sneddon writes:

OS/X is a native 64-bit desktop OS, like Windows XP-64. You can buy
server-grade PCs that support 256Gb of RAM split between 8 quad-core
CPUs, and run Photoshop on them too. They are a little bit on the
expensive side, but pretty snappy.

Too bad Photoshop is a 32-bit application at least for now. But the
remaining memory (above 4GB) can naturally be used by other programs, and
for caching...

Oh ye of little knowledge. PS is NOT a 32-bit application, it only runs on
32-bit platforms because a 32-bit OS is backward compatible. Photoshop is still
a lowly 16-bit math platform, no better than anything that can run on Windows
1.0 to 3.1. It only looks "purty" and they charge a high price so you think it's
something worth having. Haven't you ever wondered why they can't incorporate any
algorithms better than that outdated bicubic blur-inducing method? It's because
they can't put in anything that requires more than 16-bit math.

(Ray Fischer) writes:

A modern OS such as Windows XP or Mac OS doesn't use physical
addresses for memory. Any application doesn't care or know whether it
is running "above 4GB". Each application is given a separate address
space that is mapped onto physical memory.

Thanks for the lecture, but I was talking about the amount of memory
Photoshop can use, not about in which physical memory addresses it can
reside. Someone else already pointed out despite its limitations,
Photoshop can actually use additional memory for its scratch files.

I have yet to find a need for more than 4GB of memory for Photoshop.

Drum-scanned 8x10" film, especially if you want to actually have some
layers and undo history to go with it..

My 3GB system is sometimes stretched to its limits with 3000DPI 6x7
film because I multitask, otherwise I would be fine.

In article , Pendragon
wrote:

Too bad Photoshop is a 32-bit application at least for now. But the
remaining memory (above 4GB) can naturally be used by other programs, and
for caching...

Oh ye of little knowledge. PS is NOT a 32-bit application,

it most certainly is a 32 bit application, and in a week, photoshop cs4
will be announced which will be 64 bit. lightroom is already 64 bit.

it only runs on
32-bit platforms because a 32-bit OS is backward compatible.

nonsense.

Photoshop is
still
a lowly 16-bit math platform, no better than anything that can run on Windows
1.0 to 3.1. It only looks "purty" and they charge a high price so you think
it's
something worth having. Haven't you ever wondered why they can't incorporate
any
algorithms better than that outdated bicubic blur-inducing method? It's
because
they can't put in anything that requires more than 16-bit math.

absolute nonsense.

Al Dykes wrote:
In article ,
Robert Sneddon wrote:
In message , Ray Fischer
writes
Alfred Molon wrote:
Toni Nikkanen says...
Why spend $$$ on fast swap when you can spend it on RAM?
Because on many systems you can't add RAM. If you want to use more than
4GB you need a 64 bit OS.
Or use a Mac. Up to 32GB on a dual quad-core Mac Pro.
OS/X is a native 64-bit desktop OS, like Windows XP-64. You can buy
server-grade PCs that support 256Gb of RAM split between 8 quad-core
CPUs, and run Photoshop on them too. They are a little bit on the
expensive side, but pretty snappy.



Does Photoshop take proper advantage of this much iron?

"Big Iron" is always fun, but what kind of Photoshop task needs this
much hardware?

Well, 4000 dpi scans of 6x6 yield nearly 80 Mpix in a 16 bit deep file
of about 460MB. Working on that needs both memory and speed.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.

Pendragon wrote:
On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 12:50:07 +0300, Toni Nikkanen wrote:

Robert Sneddon writes:

OS/X is a native 64-bit desktop OS, like Windows XP-64. You can buy
server-grade PCs that support 256Gb of RAM split between 8 quad-core
CPUs, and run Photoshop on them too. They are a little bit on the
expensive side, but pretty snappy.
Too bad Photoshop is a 32-bit application at least for now. But the
remaining memory (above 4GB) can naturally be used by other programs, and
for caching...

Oh ye of little knowledge. PS is NOT a 32-bit application, it only runs on
32-bit platforms because a 32-bit OS is backward compatible. Photoshop is still
a lowly 16-bit math platform, no better than anything that can run on Windows
1.0 to 3.1. It only looks "purty" and they charge a high price so you think it's
something worth having. Haven't you ever wondered why they can't incorporate any
algorithms better than that outdated bicubic blur-inducing method? It's because
they can't put in anything that requires more than 16-bit math.

Nonsense and, BTW, CS4 will be 64 bit, though there will be a wait for
the OS X version.

Now, back under your rock you go... go on... go...

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.

Toni Nikkanen wrote:
(Ray Fischer) writes:

I have yet to find a need for more than 4GB of memory for Photoshop.

Drum-scanned 8x10" film, especially if you want to actually have some
layers and undo history to go with it..

Yeah, I sure do that a lot. Just like everybody else.

--
Ray Fischer

(Ray Fischer) writes:
Drum-scanned 8x10" film, especially if you want to actually have some
layers and undo history to go with it..
Yeah, I sure do that a lot. Just like everybody else.

I fail to see the importance of either you or everybody else It was asked
to come up with a scenario where more than 4GB would be nice to have and
I found one.

In article , Ray Fischer
says...
Toni Nikkanen wrote:
(Ray Fischer) writes:

I have yet to find a need for more than 4GB of memory for Photoshop.

Drum-scanned 8x10" film, especially if you want to actually have some
layers and undo history to go with it..

Yeah, I sure do that a lot. Just like everybody else.

Try doing panoramas with multiple layers. You quickly end up with files
of several hundred of MB, which then require a multiple of that in RAM
to process smoothly.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0 and E3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

On 9/18/08 12:25 AM, in article , "Toni
Nikkanen" wrote:


(Ray Fischer) writes:
Drum-scanned 8x10" film, especially if you want to actually have some
layers and undo history to go with it..
Yeah, I sure do that a lot. Just like everybody else.

I fail to see the importance of either you or everybody else It was asked
to come up with a scenario where more than 4GB would be nice to have and
I found one.
Fischer is just having one of his "monthly events".

Only problem is that, with him, it lasts year round...

On 16 Sep 2008 10:00:52 -0400, (Al Dykes) wrote:


Does Photoshop take proper advantage of this much iron?

"Big Iron" is always fun, but what kind of Photoshop task needs this
much hardware?

Everyone is talking about the CPU or the disk drive. What about the
graphics card? I have heard that PS 4 will take advantage of
'advanced features' in graphics cards.

I'm not a gamer, so I don't need super-fast frame rates. But as a
Photoshopper, do I need a fast graphics card? ... with 256 MB or even
more of (fast?) graphics memory?

For P'shop, are there any important differences between ATI or NVidia
for the same "level" of card?

Father Kodak