Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 8   Go Down

Author Topic: CS4 VERY NICE!  (Read 72305 times)

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13983
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
CS4 VERY NICE!
« Reply #60 on: November 30, 2008, 03:52:24 am »

Quote from: Schewe
You want to open large files quick? Set your image cache to 1. You have no idea what goes on under the hood when opening large multi-layered files...Ps must decode all the layers, the masks, the adjustments and then pop the image open at the end. That takes enormous cpu time, and fast disk i/o is not a factor. Course, if you do then zooming into large files will suck. It's always a trade off.

Actually I was talking about plain tiff straight from raw conversion when comparing to Helicon and PTgui.

Could you please ellaborate on why setting a small cache size would speed up opens?

Quote from: Schewe
Performance WOULD be much better if Apple had not killed Carbon 64 and Adobe had been able to do a Mac 64 bit version. Unless you actually see a fully loaded Vista 64 multicore running CS4 64, you don't know how pissed you should be at Apple :~(

As for the dual quadcores, Apple's implementation of the memory across all 8 cores suck...but if you have 16-32 gigs and are working on large files, Force VM will speed things that have to hit disk a lot.

Photoshop's VM is pretty high-powered although getting a bit long in the tooth which is why it would have been great to be able to feed Photoshop more ram. It'll happen for CS5 (I'm pretty darn sure) and Mac users will be happy then.

I am aware of that Jeff. I have been using Force VM in CS3 on Tiger and it seemed to speed things up overall, although the open remain slow.

By the way, what is the status for Force VM on CS4 on Tiger?

Cheers,
Bernard

jani

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1624
    • Øyet
CS4 VERY NICE!
« Reply #61 on: November 30, 2008, 04:09:25 am »

Quote from: dwdallam
Yeah I posted that before MACs went to Intel that was one of their tests to showcase the MAC CPUs. But enve though MACs use Intel CPUs does not mean they are the same CPUs that PCs use (I don't know if that is true, but just stating the fact it's not necessarily equal).
The specs are just so hard to find.

Yes, Apple uses bog standard Intel CPUs. That's sort of the point. The Mac Pro uses Xeon, though.

Quote
MACs, I think, still have proprietary MBs too, right?
That's likely. Quite a few manufacturers do.

Quote
And then you have a completely different  OS too. I don't have any idea if that would make a diff or not.
That's the most significant difference between a Mac and a PC these days.

It's the OS that manages memory (whether something needs swapping), how to handle I/O, whether you're allowed to poke the hardware more or less directly), ...

The reason quite a few technical people like to run a Unix on their servers isn't that it's "all the same as Windows, just free" (which Unixes often aren't), it's because there are real, tangible differences in how they perform.

MacOS X is a "unixy" (or unix-like) OS, which brings some of these differences to the desktop, with a neat and sweet frosting (the GUI).

Whether the differences float your boat is another matter.
Logged
Jan

laughingbear

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 232
CS4 VERY NICE!
« Reply #62 on: November 30, 2008, 06:48:24 am »

FWIW

I have pretty much the same maschine like Jack Flesher, 8x3.0 ghz with 16 Gig RAM, and thanks to Jack, I run his recommended RAID-0 scratch scenario, which really made a differnce to a single disk in deed. I used HD 2+3 and striped and partitioned them, one for scratch and the rest for PSD files.

Top notch!
Logged

Jack Flesher

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2592
    • www.getdpi.com
CS4 VERY NICE!
« Reply #63 on: November 30, 2008, 12:20:11 pm »

Quote from: Schewe
You want to open large files quick? Set your image cache to 1.

Yeah tried that -- and guess what? Photomerge stops working...
Logged
Jack
[url=http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/

Jack Flesher

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2592
    • www.getdpi.com
CS4 VERY NICE!
« Reply #64 on: November 30, 2008, 12:28:26 pm »

Quote from: Sheldon N
Mine does it in 8 seconds... tried it a couple different ways with no difference.

Sheldon, that is screaming fast! You got me really curious now, so I need to try it on my desktop tomorrow LOL!  Just to clarify, you had the filter set to SPIN, method BEST and 100%?  (I only ask because those are not the defaults and I know the filter runs faster if any of those are set to lower values.)

Cheers,  
Logged
Jack
[url=http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/

Sheldon N

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 828
CS4 VERY NICE!
« Reply #65 on: November 30, 2008, 01:29:42 pm »

Quote from: Jack Flesher
Sheldon, that is screaming fast! You got me really curious now, so I need to try it on my desktop tomorrow LOL!  Just to clarify, you had the filter set to SPIN, method BEST and 100%?  (I only ask because those are not the defaults and I know the filter runs faster if any of those are set to lower values.)

Cheers,

Yes, filter set to spin, method best, amount 100%. I was using the image file posted by Doug, set in Adobe RGB color space and saved as a 12 quality jpg in 8 bit mode.

I wonder if it is because CS4 64bit is optimized to use quad cores and more RAM? I had history states at 50 and cache levels at 4 for that test, with memory allocation at 65% which equates to around 5 gigs for Photoshop.

My RAM is 1066Mhz DDR2 running at the full 1066 clock speed, Q9550 quad core processor is running at 3.4 Ghz.
Logged
Sheldon Nalos
[url=http://www.flickr.com

Jack Flesher

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2592
    • www.getdpi.com
CS4 VERY NICE!
« Reply #66 on: November 30, 2008, 03:59:03 pm »

Quote from: Sheldon N
Yes, filter set to spin, method best, amount 100%. I was using the image file posted by Doug, set in Adobe RGB color space and saved as a 12 quality jpg in 8 bit mode.

Well you did save it differently than I did, I just saved it as it was posted.  I can't imagine that would make any difference as long as you saved it at full 2400x1800 size --

I will still try on my big machine tomorrow.  Ram allocation for 32-bit Mac CS4 is still only 3G, but that shouldn't matter for this since the file doesn't exceed that even with all the history states.
« Last Edit: November 30, 2008, 04:05:03 pm by Jack Flesher »
Logged
Jack
[url=http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/

Sheldon N

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 828
CS4 VERY NICE!
« Reply #67 on: November 30, 2008, 04:28:48 pm »

Quote from: Jack Flesher
Well you did save it differently than I did, I just saved it as it was posted.  I can't imagine that would make any difference as long as you saved it at full 2400x1800 size --

I will still try on my big machine tomorrow.  Ram allocation for 32-bit Mac CS4 is still only 3G, but that shouldn't matter for this since the file doesn't exceed that even with all the history states.


I went back and tried it again saving it straight from the link... the time was the same. If I set the image to 16bit color then it slows down just a little, takes about 9 or 9.5 seconds. Increasing RAM allocation from 65% to 100% and reducing history states/cache levels doesn't seem to make any difference.

I also have the 32bit version of CS4 installed, and it runs a little slower than 64bit CS4. Takes about 8.5 seconds in 8bit color mode and 10 seconds in 16bit color mode.
Logged
Sheldon Nalos
[url=http://www.flickr.com

Jack Flesher

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2592
    • www.getdpi.com
CS4 VERY NICE!
« Reply #68 on: December 01, 2008, 11:56:04 am »

Well just tried the spin test on my MacPro and got 6.4 seconds, 5.9 seconds and 5.6 seconds, virtually identical to Sheldon.  What's interesting is that I timed these with a stopwatch carefully, so I know the times are right, at least to within a few tenths of a second within my human reaction speed.  However, the "clock" in CS4 was way off, at least for Mac/Leopard, showing randomly between 1.5 and 2 times as long, or between 9 and 12 seconds for these same times!  So again, I suspect some legacy code issues reside in CS. Be curious if anybody else can confirm this on their systems?  Now I need to go back and check my Mac Laptop because I only used the built-in CS clock on it...
« Last Edit: December 01, 2008, 11:56:58 am by Jack Flesher »
Logged
Jack
[url=http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/

Jack Flesher

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2592
    • www.getdpi.com
CS4 VERY NICE!
« Reply #69 on: December 01, 2008, 12:25:34 pm »

Laptop update.  I forgot my cell this morning, so had to go back home to get it and decided to run the spin test one more time on the MBP...  Same issue, clock is off.  Stopwatch says between 24 and 26 seconds on multiple runs, but the CS clock showed anywhere between 30 seconds and 45 seconds!

So Jeff, clearly there is at least one coding issue in CS for Mac. And where there's one...
Logged
Jack
[url=http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/

Sheldon N

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 828
CS4 VERY NICE!
« Reply #70 on: December 01, 2008, 01:49:10 pm »

Glad to hear that the $5k Mac Pro is still faster than a home build PC.     I would have totally preferred to buy one along with a 30" ACD, but it just wasn't in the budget.

That's strange about the clock issue... I just used a stopwatch for my tests and didn't pay any attention to the CS clock.

How fast does your Mac Pro do the Retouch Artists Photoshop Speed Test action?
Logged
Sheldon Nalos
[url=http://www.flickr.com

Jack Flesher

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2592
    • www.getdpi.com
CS4 VERY NICE!
« Reply #71 on: December 01, 2008, 02:00:11 pm »

Quote from: Sheldon N
Glad to hear that the $5k Mac Pro is still faster than a home build PC.
Uh, I'd call it a tie   (Which seems to indicate it isn't any friendlier to Mac OS than it is Win.)

Quote
That's strange about the clock issue... I just used a stopwatch for my tests and didn't pay any attention to the CS clock.
Love to see what your clock says for the same tests.  Win may be different than Mac here...

Quote
How fast does your Mac Pro do the Retouch Artists Photoshop Speed Test action?
Don't know, never run it.  Post a link and I'll be happy to test it out. But I will out of town for the next few days testing the new P65+ back, so this thread will fall to low priority  

Cheers,
Logged
Jack
[url=http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/

Sheldon N

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 828
CS4 VERY NICE!
« Reply #72 on: December 01, 2008, 02:06:28 pm »

Logged
Sheldon Nalos
[url=http://www.flickr.com

Jack Flesher

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2592
    • www.getdpi.com
CS4 VERY NICE!
« Reply #73 on: December 01, 2008, 02:33:31 pm »

Quote from: Sheldon N
http://www.retouchartists.com/pages/speedtest.html

I got 32 seconds without closing any of my running apps or changing any my CS settings.  Is that good or bad?
« Last Edit: December 01, 2008, 02:35:25 pm by Jack Flesher »
Logged
Jack
[url=http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/

Sheldon N

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 828
CS4 VERY NICE!
« Reply #74 on: December 01, 2008, 02:44:45 pm »

Quote from: Jack Flesher
I got 32 seconds without closing any of my running apps or changing any my CS settings.  Is that good or bad?

My machine does it in 18 seconds, but that is doing the test according to their prescribed methodology.

You need to set Photoshop History States to 1, Cache Levels to 4, RAM usage to 100%. Then restart your machine fresh and run the test with no other applications open.

That should give you a more comparative result.
Logged
Sheldon Nalos
[url=http://www.flickr.com

Jack Flesher

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2592
    • www.getdpi.com
CS4 VERY NICE!
« Reply #75 on: December 01, 2008, 03:01:42 pm »

Quote from: Sheldon N
My machine does it in 18 seconds, but that is doing the test according to their prescribed methodology.

You need to set Photoshop History States to 1, Cache Levels to 4, RAM usage to 100%. Then restart your machine fresh and run the test with no other applications open.

That should give you a more comparative result.

Okay, did all that.  After fresh re-boot with those settings I got 18.8 seconds...
Logged
Jack
[url=http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/

jani

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1624
    • Øyet
CS4 VERY NICE!
« Reply #76 on: December 01, 2008, 03:41:34 pm »

Quote from: Jack Flesher
Uh, I'd call it a tie   (Which seems to indicate it isn't any friendlier to Mac OS than it is Win.)
The performance advantage to the Macs was due to the PowerPC CPUs, which have a different architecture than Intel x86 CPUs.

This architecture favoured some operations more than x86 CPUs did, while other operations were slower. Some were nearly a tie, and so on.

AMD have - at least in the past - made different choices regarding which areas of performance were important than Intel did, so you might see similar effects if you pick your tests.
Logged
Jan

Sheldon N

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 828
CS4 VERY NICE!
« Reply #77 on: December 01, 2008, 04:16:29 pm »

Quote from: Jack Flesher
Okay, did all that.  After fresh re-boot with those settings I got 18.8 seconds...

Yup, let's call it a tie.  
Logged
Sheldon Nalos
[url=http://www.flickr.com

dwdallam

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2044
    • http://www.dwdallam.com
CS4 VERY NICE!
« Reply #78 on: December 02, 2008, 05:59:57 am »

Quote from: Sheldon N
Glad to hear that the $5k Mac Pro is still faster than a home build PC.     I would have totally preferred to buy one along with a 30" ACD, but it just wasn't in the budget.

That's strange about the clock issue... I just used a stopwatch for my tests and didn't pay any attention to the CS clock.

How fast does your Mac Pro do the Retouch Artists Photoshop Speed Test action?

MACs are not faster than PCs for anything, except at draining your wallet for less power. Build a dual Intel® Core™ i7 Processor Extreme Edition with a dual slot MB for less than 5K anytime any day. CPUs = 2, 000US, MB 300.00. Bye bye Mac. Not fast enough? Get two Kryotec cooling systems wrapped around those i7s and OC them to about 3.6Ghz each stable for a total of 7.2Ghz at about 3800 for the entire system including power supply and RAM. I just don't understand MAC anymore, at all, except they take money from Bill Gates, and that's always a good thing
« Last Edit: December 02, 2008, 06:00:18 am by dwdallam »
Logged

Jack Flesher

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2592
    • www.getdpi.com
CS4 VERY NICE!
« Reply #79 on: December 02, 2008, 10:35:07 am »

Quote from: dwdallam
MACs are not faster than PCs for anything, except at draining your wallet for less power. Build a dual Intel® Core™ i7 Processor Extreme Edition with a dual slot MB for less than 5K anytime any day. CPUs = 2, 000US, MB 300.00. Bye bye Mac. Not fast enough? Get two Kryotec cooling systems wrapped around those i7s and OC them to about 3.6Ghz each stable for a total of 7.2Ghz at about 3800 for the entire system including power supply and RAM. I just don't understand MAC anymore, at all, except they take money from Bill Gates, and that's always a good thing

Yeah, I used to be a hard-core PC guy too.  Then came Vista...  I grudgingly made the switch and frankly, now see the Mac light .  Bottom line is PC apps run faster in a Fusion/XP window on my Mac than they ever did on my Dual Xeon 3.6 workstation.  Plus, the case is the best thing going .
« Last Edit: December 02, 2008, 10:35:40 am by Jack Flesher »
Logged
Jack
[url=http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 8   Go Up