Re: Processor speed vs. more cores for Photoshop CS6?
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/...p-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
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Jehu
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.
Re: Processor speed vs. more cores for Photoshop CS6?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
adam satushek
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/...p-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.
Re: Processor speed vs. more cores for Photoshop CS6?
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Jehu
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.
Re: Processor speed vs. more cores for Photoshop CS6?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Leigh
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.
Re: Processor speed vs. more cores for Photoshop CS6?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
genotypewriter
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
Re: Processor speed vs. more cores for Photoshop CS6?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Leigh
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.
Re: Processor speed vs. more cores for Photoshop CS6?
I know a couple of folks who work at STSI. They think it's a great place to work.
- Leigh
Re: Processor speed vs. more cores for Photoshop CS6?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Jehu
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.
Re: Processor speed vs. more cores for Photoshop CS6?
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.)
Re: Processor speed vs. more cores for Photoshop CS6?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
paulr
(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.