Processor speed vs. more cores for Photoshop CS6? [Archive]

adam satushek

21-Aug-2012, 18:32

Hello,

I am in need of a new photoshop workstation as my 10 year old G5 is really showing its age with my large drum scans. I am looking at a Lenovo S30 workstation, and will add several SSDs and probably start with 32GB of RAM. Will likely get the NVIDIA Quadro 2000 with it as well.

My question is about processor speed vs. additional cores. The 2 processors I am looking at are:

Intel Xeon E5-1620 (10M Cache, 3.60 GHz, 0.0 GT/s Intel QPI), Quad core.

and

Intel Xeon Processor E5-1650 (10M Cache, 3.20 GHz, 0.0 GT/s Intel QPI), 6 core.

I am wondering whether the faster clock speed or the two additional cores will give me a greater benefit when processing large files? I have looked at some forums and Adobe's website and have not been able to come to any conclusions.

Any advice is greatly appreciated.

Thanks,
Adam

Greg Miller

21-Aug-2012, 19:30

I doubt you would notice the difference.

Photoshop is, however, is written to take advantage of multiple cores. The sweet spot is 2 to 4 cores. After 4 cores, there will be diminishing returns for each additional core.

That said, I still don't think you would see a difference between these 2 processors so I would go for whichever is cheaper.

Kirk Gittings

21-Aug-2012, 19:35

FWIW-probably not much. I went from a quad core with 8GBs of ram to a 6 core with 24GBs of ram and saw considerable upgrade in speed. I know its not a straight comparison on any level but I noticed speed gains on both very large and DSLR files.

Preston

21-Aug-2012, 20:13

Here's an article from Puget Systems that talks about the various Intel E5 Xeon CPU's.

Tech Primer: Intel E5 Xeon CPUs (Sandy Bridge-EP) (http://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Tech-Primer-Intel-E5-Xeon-CPUs-Sandy-Bridge-EP-130)

In my opinion, a Quad Core 17 Ivy Bridge CPU would be just dandy for your application, and would save you money. Also, some of the Xeon processors use a goodly amount of power, so they will run pretty hot (the two you mention have a thermal output of 130W). Be sure you have adequate cooling.

I also believe that lots of RAM and SSD's give the best performance boost for the dollar.

You might look at what Puget Systems has to offer for the kind of workstation you're aiming for. They make a great machine, and their customer service is second to none, in my opinion. Highly recommended. I don't know what the cost difference would be, but it's worth a look-see.

--P

Leigh

21-Aug-2012, 20:49

Leigh

21-Aug-2012, 20:52

I went from a quad core with 8GBs of ram to a 6 core with 24GBs of ram and saw considerable upgrade in speed.
I expect the vast majority of the improvement (?95%?) was attributable to the larger RAM in the new system.

- Leigh

genotypewriter

21-Aug-2012, 21:41

Greatest bang for the buck comes from:
1) RAM... Install as much as the box will hold, no exceptions. More RAM avoids "paging", which is swapping information to/from hard disk storage.
2) CPU speed... Not huge improvements but might be noticeable.
3) Core count... Mostly advertising hype. The software threading algorithm controls how many are actually used and how many are basically idle.

- Leigh

Very vague and misleading old wives' tale material...

1. No matter how much RAM you have, your software may not use all that's available. Some operating systems will not load up entirely to the RAM and some will, and this has nothing to do with 32-bit vs. 64-bit, btw. It's just memory manager design decisions. A fast SSD-like hard drive is more important than having an excessive amount of RAM because things need to be loaded from the HDD at some point for all computers.

2. CPU speed matters massively for image processing... processors "process", after all. Things like rescaling, applying filters (e.g. USM), etc. are all number crunching operations that can benefit from CPU speed.

3. Multi-core CPUs are not advertising hype. Even if your software's not written for parallel execution, your OS will schedule different processes on different cores depending on their load. So, even if you're running old software, there's a benefit with multiple cores.

G

Leigh

21-Aug-2012, 21:51

Very vague and misleading old wives' tale material...
Perhaps.

I've been designing microprocessor-based equipment since micros were invented, with over 50 products on the street.

I've written complete operating systems, including task managers and dispatchers, for some of them.

How many have you designed?

- Leigh

Michael Graves

22-Aug-2012, 04:52

Very vague and misleading old wives' tale material...
G

I'm afraid I have to side with Leigh on this one. CPU speed counts as long as it has something to do. If it is designed to operate at 2.4 billion cycles per second, and spends a third of those cycles idle because information isn't piped to them fast enough, all that speed is going to waste. The OS memory manager does have a great deal to do with how RAM is utilized, but not so much as the chip set of the system board. Large amounts of multi-channel memory will do more to increase speed than a few hundred thousand extra cycles per second of processor speed. Multiple cores mean multiple front-side bus portals, which keep the processor more active. So the additional cores do, indeed help, as long as they are being used. OS operations don't take up a whole lot of processor time, so if the application is limited to the number of cores it will utilize (and some applications use asymmetrical processing when addressing multiple cores, which further limits the effectiveness of adding more cores), then you have underutilized processing pipelines as well. Unfortunately, there is not a lot of information available on how different application work inside of multi-core systems. Where a pair of quad-core processors really shines is on a server that virtualizes machines. I didn't see a whole lot of gain in Photoshop from going from a pair of dual-core processors to a pair of quad-cores when I upgraded earlier this year. But when I doubled the RAM from the 8GB that the new machine shipped with to 32GB, I saw a noticeable difference.

bob carnie

22-Aug-2012, 05:30

Ok I am going to ask a layman's question so be gentle.

I have a Mac Pro with tower, purchased three-four years ago.. pretty much maxed out at install with RAM-Loaded with CS3 and Lightroom 2
I just got a I Mac 27 for home use, pretty much maxed out at install with RAM- Loaded with CS6 and Lightroom 4.

I find the I Mac slower when working on files, I have not done enough work at home to really define the difference.
At a recent PS bootcamp I was told that you can buy external RAM for the IMAC that will speed up the operations.

Is this true? should a current Imac be slower than a three/four year Mac Pro?
and if so how would one speed up a I Mac other than what the retailer/vendor offer at time of purchase?

adam satushek

22-Aug-2012, 07:31

Hi All,

Thank you for your responses thus far! They have been very helpful. It sounds like I should be just fine with the E5-1620 Quad core 3.6 GHz and it is cheaper than the 6 core so that is great too.

I have an additional question about maxing out RAM as this is what I hear a lot but rarely are there quantities associated with it. The Lenovo S30 that I am looking at has 8 DIMM slots and will take up to 64 GB (8 x 8gb) UDIMM(unbuffered) and up to 128GB (8 x 16gb) RDIMM(registered). So If I wanted to max out RAM I would currently be spending about $1600 (8 x $200) and this is not in my budget. I was thinking of starting with 4 x 8gb of RAM at $75 each so $300 total for 32GB. And then I can fill the 4 additional slots for a total of 64 GB later if needed. But since I alway hear to 'Max out your RAM' would I be better starting off with 2 or 3 sticks of the 16GB RDIMM so that I could potentially expand to 128GB in the future? Is this amount of RAM excessive? Or would it make more sense to start off with 8GB sticks limiting my max to 64GB?

So basically, in this case when one says to max out RAM.....should I interpret that as 64GB or 128GB?

Thanks again!

Adam

Preston

22-Aug-2012, 08:01

Adam,

Think about it this way. What are you planning to do with the machine? If you are going to move to video production, running virtual machines, gaming, etc. then yes, all that RAM will be a good bet. However, if you are simply working with Photoshop's big files, 128GB of RAM will be overkill, in my opinion. You would reach a point of diminishing returns because you'd likely need additional cooling and a larger power supply.

"...would I be better starting off with 2 or 3 sticks of the 16GB RDIMM so that I could potentially expand to 128GB in the future?"

This would be the route that I would go, if at some point I would use all that RAM. You could start with 2x16 RDIMM and see how that works for you. If that's not sufficient, you could add another pair for a total of 64GB and so on up to 128GB.

Just a note: I have a quad core i5, 16GB RAM, a 240GB SSD, and my 2+ GB PSD files run at 100% efficiency in PSCS5.

It sounds like you have a 'monster truck' machine in mind. Have fun!

--P

adam satushek

22-Aug-2012, 08:18

Yeah, thanks Preston. 128gb does sound like overkill for what I do, but I like the idea of starting with a couple of 16GB RDIMM's just in case I ever need to expand drastically.

.....yeah, I guess it will be kind of a monster truck...but my last workstation (dual 1.8 mac G5) lasted me almost 10 years.....so I am hoping this one will too.

Thanks,
Adam

adam satushek

22-Aug-2012, 09:41

Hey, one more question. I have been assuming that the NVIDIA Quadro 2000 with 1GB GPU will be plenty for Photoshop CS6 with large files. Is this true? Or would I see much benefit from bumping up to the Quadro 4000 with 2GB GPU?

I do not blur or liquify or use filters other than high pass, so I am thinking that the Quadro 2000 will be just fine. Any opinions on these cards for processing large Photoshop files?

Thanks again,
Adam

Peter De Smidt

22-Aug-2012, 10:26

Regarding memory, you have to be very careful, especially when you try to max out your ram. Make sure to check with your motherboard maker to see which memory and configurations have been tested for compatibility.

Leigh

22-Aug-2012, 10:43

At a recent PS bootcamp I was told that you can buy external RAM for the IMAC that will speed up the operations.
I've never heard of "external RAM".
In fact the concept violates the definition of RAM, which is high-speed storage connected DIRECTLY to the CPU.

You have to be careful about these consumer presentations that claim to 'inform' the public about new technologies.
They're just advertising sessions.

- Leigh

domaz

22-Aug-2012, 10:52

Jehu

22-Aug-2012, 11:08

fwiw... Here's my build that I've been discussing in another forum:

CPU: Intel Core i7-3820 3.6GHz - $310
Motherboard: ASRock X79 Extreme6 - $250
RAM: 16GB kit (4GBx4), Ballistix 240-pin DIMM, DDR3 PC3-12800- $105
HDD: 2 x Western Digital Caviar Green WD30EZRX 3TB ($180 each) - $360
SSD: 2 x Corsair Force Series 3 CSSD-F120GB3A-BK 2.5" 120GB SATA III ($150 each) - $300
Graphics card: PNY VCQ2000D-PB Quadro 2000D 1GB - $410
Optical drive: LG WH12LS39 12X Blu-ray Burner - $80
Power supply unit: CORSAIR Enthusiast Series TX750 V2 750W power supply unit - $105
Case: Thermaltake V4 Black Edition chassis - $50
Operating system: Microsoft Windows 7 Professional SP1 64-bit - $130

Total price: $2,100

I'm still tweaking some of the details but this is pretty close to what I'm going with. Everything is optimized for Photoshop CS6. It's my understanding that a dedicated SSD for Photoshop scratch will result in a significant boost in performance for large files. My color 4x5 scans are pushing a gigabyte. So far, the only comments against this build scheme have been regarding the motherboard.

bob carnie

22-Aug-2012, 11:11

Thanks Leigh

I thought it was too good to be true... I have 10 thumbs when it gets down to the nitty gritty of how these wonderful tools work.

Bob

I've never heard of "external RAM".
In fact the concept violates the definition of RAM, which is high-speed storage connected DIRECTLY to the CPU.

You have to be careful about these consumer presentations that claim to 'inform' the public about new technologies.
They're just advertising sessions.

- Leigh

Leigh

22-Aug-2012, 11:21

Disk storage is one of those out-of-sight out-of-mind things.

Storage is so cheap, most folks just grab the biggest thing they can find that meets a reasonable estimate of their needs.

I have 4 terabytes of external hard drive on a Firewire 800 drop, and it works just like the internal mass storage.

The argument for massive amounts of RAM is that you want to keep a file in RAM once it's loaded from disk the first time, rather than repeatedly swapping that data between RAM and disk. The data transfer between RAM and disk is extremely slow (comparatively).

- Leigh

adam satushek

22-Aug-2012, 11:36

Jehu, thanks for the info that seems like a sweet system. I wish I could build my system from the ground up...but due to lack of time and experience that will not be possible right now.

Just curious, what made you choose the Quadro 2000D over the plain 2000? Is it just for the 2 DVI vs. 1 DVI and 2 Display ports? Or is there another reason?

From my research it sounds like if you have your OS and PS on an SSD that you are actually better off using the spare space on that disk for scratch. I got this from Adobe, "If your startup disk is an SSD, there is no benefit to selecting a different disk for your primary scratch disk. Using the SSD for both your system startup disk and your primary scratch volume performs well. And, it's probably better than using a separate hard disk for scratch. "

This is where I got the info: http://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/kb/optimize-performance-photoshop-cs4-cs5.html

I am sure there are different theories about this, but I am hoping they are right as I ordered two 256GB SSD's; one for startup (OS, PS, and scratch) and one for working file storage.

Thanks,
Adam

fwiw... Here's my build that I've been discussing in another forum:

CPU: Intel Core i7-3820 3.6GHz - $310
Motherboard: ASRock X79 Extreme6 - $250
RAM: 16GB kit (4GBx4), Ballistix 240-pin DIMM, DDR3 PC3-12800- $105
HDD: 2 x Western Digital Caviar Green WD30EZRX 3TB ($180 each) - $360
SSD: 2 x Corsair Force Series 3 CSSD-F120GB3A-BK 2.5" 120GB SATA III ($150 each) - $300
Graphics card: PNY VCQ2000D-PB Quadro 2000D 1GB - $410
Optical drive: LG WH12LS39 12X Blu-ray Burner - $80
Power supply unit: CORSAIR Enthusiast Series TX750 V2 750W power supply unit - $105
Case: Thermaltake V4 Black Edition chassis - $50
Operating system: Microsoft Windows 7 Professional SP1 64-bit - $130

Total price: $2,100

I'm still tweaking some of the details but this is pretty close to what I'm going with. Everything is optimized for Photoshop CS6. It's my understanding that a dedicated SSD for Photoshop scratch will result in a significant boost in performance for large files. My color 4x5 scans are pushing a gigabyte. So far, the only comments against this build scheme have been regarding the motherboard.

Jehu

22-Aug-2012, 13:54

Jehu, thanks for the info that seems like a sweet system. I wish I could build my system from the ground up...but due to lack of time and experience that will not be possible right now.

Just curious, what made you choose the Quadro 2000D over the plain 2000? Is it just for the 2 DVI vs. 1 DVI and 2 Display ports? Or is there another reason?

From my research it sounds like if you have your OS and PS on an SSD that you are actually better off using the spare space on that disk for scratch. I got this from Adobe, "If your startup disk is an SSD, there is no benefit to selecting a different disk for your primary scratch disk. Using the SSD for both your system startup disk and your primary scratch volume performs well. And, it's probably better than using a separate hard disk for scratch. "

This is where I got the info: http://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/kb/optimize-performance-photoshop-cs4-cs5.html

I am sure there are different theories about this, but I am hoping they are right as I ordered two 256GB SSD's; one for startup (OS, PS, and scratch) and one for working file storage.

Thanks,
Adam

I'm a Land Surveyor by profession. AutoCAD is a very big part of my work. I bumped up a couple of choices because of that. I've been using Quadro for several generations now.

As far as the scratch disk goes, I'm probably using a little overkill by dedicating an entire SSD to scratch. I've read conflicting opinions on that. $150 is kind of borderline but I'll probably go for it. I can also use that for AutoCAD and some GPS processing software that won't be running at the same time.

adam satushek

22-Aug-2012, 14:26

Thanks Jehu, Guess to clarify...what is the benefit of the Quadro 2000D (Diagnostics?) over the regular 2000? From what I can tell it may be better at black and white and it has 2 DVI vs. 1 DVI and 2 displayport connections but I can get an adaptor to connect 2 DVI.

I can get either video card for the same price, I just curious if there is really any advantage of one over the other for photoshop work? I have done a lot of googling and haven't come up with any real answers.

Thanks,

Adam

I'm a Land Surveyor by profession. AutoCAD is a very big part of my work. I bumped up a couple of choices because of that. I've been using Quadro for several generations now.

As far as the scratch disk goes, I'm probably using a little overkill by dedicating an entire SSD to scratch. I've read conflicting opinions on that. $150 is kind of borderline but I'll probably go for it. I can also use that for AutoCAD and some GPS processing software that won't be running at the same time.

genotypewriter

22-Aug-2012, 19:27

Perhaps.

I've been designing microprocessor-based equipment since micros were invented, with over 50 products on the street.

I've written complete operating systems, including task managers and dispatchers, for some of them.

lol then you have learned nothing.

Leigh

22-Aug-2012, 19:35

lol then you have learned nothing.
Well, I learned enough to design the guidance and control system for one of our major rockets,
which has an unblemished history of successful launches.

While you, on the other hand, have learned how to flap your jaws.

- Leigh

ericpmoss

22-Aug-2012, 19:57

Well, I learned enough to design the guidance and control system for one of our major rockets,
which has an unblemished history of successful launches.

Wow. I am jealous beyond words. I'm trying like hell to get a Lisp job with the Space Telescope Science Institute. I know there is bureaucracy everywhere, but to take part in anything like that would be a dream come true compared to the big $$ finance crap I do now.

Leigh

22-Aug-2012, 20:04

I know a couple of folks who work at STSI. They think it's a great place to work.

- Leigh

David de Gruyl

23-Aug-2012, 07:26

It's my understanding that a dedicated SSD for Photoshop scratch will result in a significant boost in performance for large files. My color 4x5 scans are pushing a gigabyte.

If you are using CS5 or higher, get more ram. If you are using CS4 or earlier (which you shouldn't be if you are working on large files) get the swap disk. Either way, the SSD is not going to hurt, but the memory manager was re-written for CS5 and photoshop can access more ram (it was limited to 4 GB. At least on the Mac).

I have an SSD for swap but it is rarely hit. I have ram, though. Almost all of my files are around 2 GB (scans + layers) because I take non-destructive editing to heart.

I really, REALLY like the ssd for programs / operating systems. Boot / start up time is a small fraction of the time with disk access.

paulr

23-Aug-2012, 08:12

The information I have is relevant through Photoshop 5.x. Tests I've seen and done were on the Mac, but results should be the same on Windows. I don't know if there have been significant changes in PS 6.

Photoshop can directly take advantage of up to 6 cores. The caveat is that individual operations are threaded differently. Many significant operations can only make use of one core (like, annoyingly, the compression algorithms used when saving or opening a PSD file, which can shift the bottleneck from the disk to the processor). So the benefits you see from more cores will depend entirely on what you're doing at any moment.

Photoshop can indirectly benefit from more than 6 cores, if you've got a lot of other stuff going on. Do you like to transcode video and watch movies while photoshop does batch processing? More cores=more love.

On a 64 bit system, Photoshop can use all the memory you throw at it. There are two ways to tell if you would benefit from more: 1) use the Efficiency readout option at the bottom of the screen. Watch it as you do extended operations on large files, especially if you have to work with multiple files open. Any time this number drops below 100%, photoshop is going to the scratch disk, and your performance will dive. You'll notice. More ram will help.

2) on the Mac, you can go to Activity Monitor, and look at the bottom where you see Page Ins and Page Outs. The latter is what you want to watch. Ideally there will be no page outs, but in general, if the number stays below around 10% of then Page Ins number, the machine is running efficiently. If you see 20gb page ins and 10gb page outs, you are hurting for more ram. These values reset to zero whenever you restart, so they provide a running score for your total uptime.

It's also worth reading about optimizing Photoshop's settings to make best use of your memory resources. Too much to go into here, but variables include Photoshop's maximum memory allotment, maximum number of history levels, and cache and tile sizes (all in the performance preference panel).

(edited to add: Yes, an SSD scratch will improve performance, all else equal, but now that PS is 64 bit, you will get much more benefit from spending that money on RAM. I want to get an SSD also, but for general system responsiveness, not for PS specifically.)

Jehu

23-Aug-2012, 10:25

(edited to add: Yes, an SSD scratch will improve performance, all else equal, but now that PS is 64 bit, you will get much more benefit from spending that money on RAM. I want to get an SSD also, but for general system responsiveness, not for PS specifically.)

Good point. Thanks for posting.

DennisD

23-Aug-2012, 19:48

Intel I7-980x @ 3.3Ghz
12 GB RAM
ASUS motherboard
Video GE Force 9800GTX+ (rather modest) works well with dual monitors.
Windows 7 - 64 bit
Intel SSD 160 Gb for OS only
Intel SSD for scratch
Data drives 2TB in RAID 1 array, additional data storage swapable 2TB, backup swapable 3TB

I built the above system myself and could not be happier. Speed is phenomenal !

It is used only for photography applications, e.g. PS CS5, LR, PTGUI, HFocus, et. al.

Frequently my file sizes grow to 4 Gb and some stitched files as high as 8 Gb.
Never any problem and PS efficiency consistently at 100%.

- The only drag is saving files to disk. Large files can take several minutes to write, although reading from disk is much faster.

paulr

24-Aug-2012, 19:25

The only drag is saving files to disk. Large files can take several minutes to write, although reading from disk is much faster.

What format are you saving in? Opening and saving layered PSD files is always a bottleneck. You're down to one core doing all that work ... it's just about the only time your disks will be waiting for the processor to finish. If you can spare the disk space, saving uncompressed layered tifs is much faster. Some of the compression options for tif files are also quite a bit faster than PSD, although obviously slower than uncompressed. You can choose the compression for the file itself and for the layers. In other words, an annoying number of options to consider. If I remember right, zip for the file and RLE for the layers is fastest, but gives the least compression.

Greg Miller

24-Aug-2012, 19:48

With CS6, saving files is much less of an annoyance. CS6 saves in the background so you can continue to work (on the same file or another file) while saving the file. CS6 also auto-saves in the background so if the computer or Photoshop crashes unexpectedly you do not lose all of your work. When you re-open Photoshop, it re-opens the files that you had open.

DennisD

24-Aug-2012, 21:34

What format are you saving in? Opening and saving layered PSD files is always a bottleneck.

Hi Paulr. I was referring specifically to PSD files which I frequently save while I'm working. I tend to work non destructively and my files often accumulate many layers, etc. Such files can grow very large very quickly. Therefore the slow saving with large PSDs.

TIFFs save fast on my machine, but there's a 4Gb size limit to TIFF files, as I recall, and I often exceed that. PS-CS6, on the other hand, resolves these issues with background saves, etc. as pointed out by Greg Miller in his post following yours. I just have not upgraded yet.

Scott Perry

24-Feb-2013, 22:37

I have much the same question as the start of the thread, but with an additional specific.

I plan to focus on macro photography using focus stacking with a bit of HDR thrown in. Each RAW file from my D800 is about 36 meg. I will occasionally use as many as 100 shots and use either Photoshop CS6 or Zerene stacker to process them into a single image. While Photoshop may support multi-core I haven't a clue as to whether or not this processing takes place in a single thread or is distributed across multiple threads. Having a slight inkling of the processing algorithm I suspect it is a single thread. It doesn't seem worth the investment for a company like Adobe to invest in the R&D to figure out how to multi-thread it. Anyone know for sure?

Any recommendations or thoughts on a workstation given this task. I would guess that a system optimized for video processing is probably a decent fit for this task. I speced a Mac Pro for the job to give me the ability to choose Windows and Mac OSs. The problem is that the system costs about $6K which is a lot for a hobby. Guidance?