[bymy141]

Unfortunately there are many more factors driving application performance than just processor frequency and/or number of cores. It is not as simple as that.

For instance: processor:
1. first and second level cache sizes,
2. (as said before) the ability of an application to take advantage of multiple cores,
3. the processor architecture (how much work is done in 1 cycle, and this can very *a lot*) and
4. most of all: disk speed.

The one thing to avoid *ever* is: shortage of memory.
If the internal memory of your system is not enough to keep all active programs in memory, it will swap parts of these programs to disk.
RAM shortage will wreck any CPU performance by *many orders of magnitude*.
However, if you have enough RAM on board, there is no advantage of buying more, it will simply sit there, reserve some extra disk swap file space, and not be used.

What does this all mean?
If you’d compare 2 Processors with the same architecture, the first 1 core on 3 Ghz with enough cache, the other a dual core (2 cores) on 1.5 Ghz with enough cache. Which one to choose?
The one with 3 Ghz is the processor of choice, it will execute all applications that are not able to parallel execute (= 95% of all code written) twice as fast as the dual core processor.

Except when: one application is claiming 100% cpu dedication (in operating system code), the dual core will have another processor available for other programs. It will not “hang”.

The thing to remember further is disk speed. The slowest thing in your computer *by far* are the disks. Almost all of the waiting we do is waiting for disk access.
Buy faster disks: 7200 rpm instead of 5400 rpm, or much, much better: SSD (Solid State Disks).
What else can you do to improve disk speed? Use more than 1 disk to store your files.
More spindles = less access time, if properly organised.
Using RAID schemes (RAID 1 will half your disk capacity, but also half disk read access times [when properly implemented]), and it will protect your data from disk crashes.
RAID 0 (striping) is the fastest disk configuration you can have, it will improve your disk access times the most, but will increase risk of loosing data caused by disk crashes because you will distribute the data over multiple spindles.

What else is there? Clean up the system:
- Defrag you file systems
- Windows: Remove all unnecessary programs started at boottime (most systems collect a many, many crap update checkers and what have you)
- Windows: Stop unnecessary services on your system.

Ask somebody who knows what he/she is doing to help.

I hope this helped somewhat.

Does Photoshop run under Linux?

You don't need PhotoShop with Linux, you use the GIMP and or CinePaint. Open source and free.

[Wheatfield]

You don't need PhotoShop with Linux, you use the GIMP and or CinePaint. Open source and free.

I'll presume that your avoiding the question means no.
So much for Linux. I don't have time in my life to fart around with poorly implemented freeware.

I'll presume that your avoiding the question means no.
So much for Linux. I don't have time in my life to fart around with poorly implemented freeware.

You can run PhotoShop under Linux if you want, you'll have to use virtualization through. Also if you want I'll start slagging of you chose of OS as well.

[Wheatfield]

You can run PhotoShop under Linux if you want, you'll have to use virtualization through. Also if you want I'll start slagging of you chose of OS as well.

Not slagging, just stating facts. If I can't run Photoshop or Lightroom under it, then it is of no use to me.
Your mileage may vary, but then again, it may not.

Not slagging, just stating facts. If I can't run Photoshop or Lightroom under it, then it is of no use to me.
Your mileage may vary, but then again, it may not.

All you've done is shown your ignorance of open source software, it's not 'freeware'.

[impact]

Greetings -

I truly don't understand cores vs. speed (and, for that matter, the influence that cache can/does have).

Let's take two processors, a 65w X2 3.0GHz Regor 250 and a 45w X4 2.3GHz Propus 605e. And let's ignore the $100 price difference.

Is one likely to be faster than the other for photo processing?

Or is it entirely (or almost entirely) program dependent?

Insight most welcome.

Thanks.

- Richard

It is program dependent. Just get a quadcore intel as fast as you can afford and don't worry about it any more.

[sterretje]

You can run PhotoShop under Linux if you want, you'll have to use virtualization through.

That's not the same if I'm not mistaken; you still need Windows as OS in the virtual machine. If it runs in wine it's another story (in my opinion).

I use Linux for my day-to-day tasks but still trying to find my way around image processing tools. So that is a mixed bag at this moment.

[raz-0]

You can run PhotoShop under Linux if you want, you'll have to use virtualization through. Also if you want I'll start slagging of you chose of OS as well.

Hey, unless I missed something, you already did in your first post.

As for GIMP. Call me back when the guys working on it get beyond an 8-bit color space.

Cinepaint is better on the color space issue, but still is kind of half-assed for a RAW processing pipeline.

As for color management on linux, unless it got a lot better recently, what is the point if I have to have other OSes installed to generate ICC profiles?



To the OP:

If you are using a lot of scratch disk when editing in PS, you want more ram. It'll beat more processor as your processor just sits there being bored waiting for transfers to/from disk as the disk is WAY slower than everything else in the system. For example, I was using CS2 on a 2.4ghz X2 processor with 2GB of ram. Using smart sharpen was SLOW, literally 30-40 seconds per image. On a 3.2ghz i7 processor with 6gb of ram, no more swap and it takes about 5 seconds to process. From some testing I did, I'd guestimate that more ram would take the old machine from 30-40 seconds to about 10-15. The difference between 10-15 and ~5 seconds is likely less due to clock speed, and more to do with 2 additional cores and a a MASSIVE increase in memory bandwidth with the i7 architecture. (from watching the machine, smart sharpen seems to be multi-threaded and thus takes advantage of multiple cores).

If you are NOT using a lot of scratch disk to process images from your camera, then more ram won't do much good. At that point you want more CPU, and preferably one with good memory bandwidth as you will be moving lots of data from system ram to the CPU cache and back.

To the guy who said don't forget the video card:

Performance increases from video cards only really applies to photoshop CS4. Even then it is a VERY small set of features that do not really represent image processing so much as interaction with the GUI. It is perhaps the least result for the most money with regard to photo editing. The only other thing a video card is going to affect is display quality, and that is going to be more about the quality of the signal path on the video cards. IMO if you stick with the $150 and greater cards from either ATI or NVIDIA, and calibrate, there is very little difference.

[glanglois]

I agree with RAM - you never want to page out to disk. It may not be the best tool, but I watch task manager very closely for RAM and CPU usage. I'm afraid I don't know of a tool to watch cache usage. That would be rather illuminating. And probably, to me, incomprehensible.

Second, there was a very brief article in one of the IT mags last year. Three people were asked about the value of multiple cores, particularly for image processing. I'll try to paraphrase based on an imperfect memory:

The Intel or AMD rep reported that multiple cores brought great value here; image processing was a key driver for the development and adoption of the technology. Users should rejoice. And, s/he implied, buy new machines with lots of cores, like "... his sisters and his cousins whom he reckons by the dozens ....." with apologies to Mr. Gilbert.

The industry writer warned that it would be application-dependent but that packages like PS (among other media-handling applications) are prime examples of opportunities to use four cores.

The Adobe rep noted (warned?) that PS was mostly single threaded with the exception of some filters. In general, PS benefited from higher clock speed rather than core count. Over time, he said, that would change but would require substantial changes in the base code. He declined to make references to a particular year or release.

If someone else can find that small sidebar article, we may learn more.

My Noiseware jobs take about 5-10 seconds/JPEG on a 3-year-old HP with a dual-core 2.6 GHz AMD and three GB of RAM. Task manager has never shown use of more than about 2.2 GB so I have no plans to add.

Until, of course, I convince myself that an i5 or i7 system is indispensible!