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
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |