new Mac Pro; one shoe drops

[BernardLanguillier]

You didn't comprehend the discussion very well.  Sure it would be GREAT if more functions were GPU accelerated such as those.  But they aren't.  This thread is about the fact that only one GPU is used vs multiple.  That's it.  Apples and Oranges discussions.

ah... ok. I was reacting to this quote:

So get it?  Who cares if they get dual triple quad, etc. support working.  Right now there's no need because there's nothing to use it with.  Most of the wait time using PS is storage/bus/ram related - not GPU or even CPU bottlenecked.

It read like "images applications are not compute intensive enough the GPU acceleration makes sense", but I guess I misunderstood you then.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Jagatai]

One area where I think a better implementation of GPU processing would be extremely valuable is in responsiveness.  I'm currently using an old MacPro with a basic graphics card.  There are certain tools, liquefy for example, that I am hesitant to use because they are so processor intensive that there is a time lag between the stroke of the stylus and the effect displaying on screen.  This creates a problem where I draw on screen and I'm not really sure what effect I'm having as I'm drawing.  It makes the effect harder to use.

I would hope that the use of the GPU would make the effect responsive to a point that there was no lag between moving the stylus and warping the image.

At any rate, I think that's where GPU processing would have a distinct value.

[jerryrock]

One area where I think a better implementation of GPU processing would be extremely valuable is in responsiveness.  I'm currently using an old MacPro with a basic graphics card.  There are certain tools, liquefy for example, that I am hesitant to use because they are so processor intensive that there is a time lag between the stroke of the stylus and the effect displaying on screen.  This creates a problem where I draw on screen and I'm not really sure what effect I'm having as I'm drawing.  It makes the effect harder to use.

I would hope that the use of the GPU would make the effect responsive to a point that there was no lag between moving the stylus and warping the image.

At any rate, I think that's where GPU processing would have a distinct value.

From Adobe:

"The Photoshop CC 14.2 update provides GPU compatibility support for the new Apple Mac Pro. The 14.2 update will allow Photoshop to take full advantage of one of the two available GPUs at a time.
We expect to add support for both of the new Apple Mac Pro’s GPUs, and continue to optimize our customers experience by supporting additional GPU operations in a future release.
Each of the two GPUs in the base model of Mac Pro are faster than the GPUs available in any other Mac model, and provide plenty of speed and VRAM (memory on the GPU card) for most operations. If you spend a great deal of time editing very large images using one of the GPU-accelerated Photoshop features such as Blur Gallery, Liquify, or 3D, we expect this gain to be significant. (The 6GB VRAM in the highest end GPU option would only be needed for the largest 3D models)."

I can attest to the fact that there is no lag with the liquify filter on the new MacPro with the AMD FirePro D500 GPU, which has 3GB VRAM. Photoshop CC is still only using one of the two installed GPUs but I believe OSX (10.9.1) is better utilizing the capability of dual GPUs. Only one GPU is dedicated to running monitors while the other is fully available to programs.

[Jagatai]

I can attest to the fact that there is no lag with the liquify filter on the new MacPro with the AMD FirePro D500 GPU, which has 3GB VRAM. Photoshop CC is still only using one of the two installed GPUs but I believe OSX (10.9.1) is better utilizing the capability of dual GPUs. Only one GPU is dedicated to running monitors while the other is fully available to programs.

Nifty.  Thanks for the response.  My company has a new MacPro on order (it is scheduled to arrive friday) and hopefully that will help with some of the more intensive retouching jobs.  Actually I have a fairly tricked out latest version of the iMac at home, but because I don't tend to heavily modify my personal photography, it hadn't occurred to me to try the liquify filter on the home machine.  I'd guess that it would do a better job than my aging work computer.

[Jimmy D Uptain]

The lack of comprehension in this thread is astounding.  It's both, both are correct!  GPU functions ARE fluff!  As easily seen in the lists above - that's all we get!  AND, yes it would be great if more were available - but they aren't.  THEN, it wouldn't be fluff!  Here's yer sign...

You know, your lack of respect for others is astounding.
You must be one of those types that feel pretty brave behind a keyboard, yet when face to face, your naughty bits shrivel up and hide.

[MarkM]

The lack of comprehension in this thread is astounding.

Bryan, when it looks like everyone is wrong and you alone are in position of the truth, it's a good time to second guess yourself. This is especially true in a forum like this that is frequented by smart, experienced people.

The simple fact is that lately the most dramatic performance increases in modern computers have come in the graphics cards. The more software is able to harness this the faster our applications will feel. This is nothing new — the original poster was simply pointing out that software developers, even small ones, are taking advantage of this. Why these are fighting words, is beyond me.