The builder of the Workstation is really sure that the hardware is optimal.
I must be a Photoshop isue!!
Of course he is.
For comparisons sake I just saved a 5 layer 170mb file to CS6x32 CS6x64, CCx32 and CCx64 Without compression they took (timed by PS) .2 seconds no matter to a RAID1 with two 3tb HDD's or a super fast SSD. Which tells me I'm still within the size of whatever Photoshop is using of my RAM for caching purposes.
With compression it takes 3.8 secs to the HDD RAID1 no matter x32 or x64 of any version. It takes 3.4x with CC x64 to my SSD, 3.5 with CS6x64 to my SSD, and 3.6 using CCx32 and CS6x32..
If you want to put your test file up on your server (or upload it to mine) I'll run the same tests so you can compare. My system is more modest than yours as I didn't see the point of exceeding the point of marginal returns for a image processing station.. It's a Haswell 4770k, 32gb of 2133 RAM, Win7, with a RAID1 using two fast 7200rpm 3tb drives, a Vertex 4 for the OS, a Crucial C300 for 'that other' OS, a Samsung 840 pro for a work drive, and some misc standalone 3tb drives. with a GTX7702gb GPU.. ALL drives are using 6gbps SATAIII ports because I didn't skimp on the motherboard..
Really, for the life of me I can't see why your builder ran with a MB without enough SATAIII ports for at least all the SSD's if not all drives period. With all the money you threw at this he was worried about another $100? And with the most likely bottlenecks too..