Photoshop with Dual Processors…Any significant difference?

Hi Vincent,

I’m not sure how much benefit dual processors offer these days in contrast to a Pentium 4 with Hyperthreading enabled. I’m sure the benefits remain, and still out-gun a P4 w/HT, but I’m inclined to believe that you may indeed be better off spending your extra $$$ in other areas if Photoshop is your primary concern.

While PS does in fact benefit from dual processors, that benefit isn’t evenly applied throughout the program but rather in select areas mostly. I don’t know what all those areas are, but some of the more robust filters will profit in performance from dual processors. Again though for me, the question is to what extent is there a gain over simply a single P4 w/HT. I’ve been running dual processors for 6 years now, originally dual 450MHz P2s and now 550MHz P3s (the most my board can handle), and I’d say the main benefit I reap is with overall system stability when running multiple applications. Within Photoshop, I don’t suspect I actually do enough of the more intensive editing to justify what I originally spent on my system when my intent was to build a "killer Photoshop PC". These days, I think I’d go the single P4 w/HT route unless I’ve got money to burn, which I don’t.

As for drives, yes, go for two drives at least. Again, in building my system in 1998, I wanted a fast machine and opted to go full SCSI (hard drives, CD, CD-RW, and Jaz drive) so as to also avoid using up all my IRQs. The cost may well have been double or more what an IDE setup would’ve cost. With the progress in performance made with IDE/ATA/SATA hard drives, I think the question of whether to go with SCSI or not may boil down to one of just how much performance do you need? If you’re frequently editing huge files of a gig or more in size, doing involved edits, etc., then maybe you need a system that gets you every ounce of performance you can build into it. In that case, some 10-15,000 rpm Ultra 320 SCSI drives probably maintain the performance champs, but the cost vs. a good fast SATA drive is going to be much higher I suspect. I think if you went with a SATA or ATA133 RAID configuration of two fast drives, you’d have a drive system that meets or maybe exceeds SCSI performance, yet at a lower cost per GB of storage.

In fact, considering that at least 2 drives are recommended for PS, with one for the scratch disk, then you could factor in a dual RAID setup, one RAID pair for the O/S, pagefile, and programs, positioning the pagefile at the front of the drive, and a RAID pair for your PS scratch disk, with that scratch disk area again at the front of the drive. Large data files might be stored on the 2nd RAID pair also, in a partition separate from that dedicated to your PS scratch disk.

I don’t know that these suggestions are the best, but they are the ideas I’ve actually been considering for my next system. I might even add a 5th drive used solely for backups, since RAID configurations are more at risk since failure of either drive in an array means total loss of files.

I really suggest you just look at what you expect to be doing and what the largest sizes files are that you are likely to be editing. Also, what other use might your PC be for? If video editing comes into play, then dual processors will start paying off more for you, as the will considerably benefit video rendering processes.

Hope that helps,

Daryl

Daryl,

Thanks for the reply. It will definately help in my decision. Thanks again!

Vincent,

I’m glad I could be of help. Another thing I forgot, but which may really of be little use, is a collection of data I obtained from various Photoshop 6 users back when Windows 98, Me, and 2000 were the more prevalent operating systems. While much has changed, inclusive of hyperthreaded processors, a look at some of those numbers might give a little perspective on single vs. dual-processor systems, as there were a few of both in the list. The page is at <http://jazzdiver.com/photoshop/pc_test.htm>.

Regards,

Daryl