Can PS (CS2 in this case) Actually Use Dual-Processors Under Windows

N
Posted By
noone
Jan 9, 2006
Views
944
Replies
29
Status
Closed
OK, I’m in a quandary about building a new workstation almost exclusively for PS. I’ve been using an older system with dual-P-III 1GHz Intel processors running W2K Pro. I was attempting to spec a new machine, but the shop keeps telling me that PS cannot use dual-processors, and that, unless I have Windows "Server" as the OS, only one processor will ever be used, and then, only with spreadsheets. Though I have monitored the existing dual-processor performance with Windows Task Manager (W2K), and have seen the processing going on ( including Threads handled) on both, the shop says that only one CPU is ever being used, and the other display is bogus – that it is impossible for PS to ever use the second processor.

IIRC, dual (Windows) processor support was added sometimes around PS4, as a plug-in, the same as MMX in those days. I maintain that PS does use both processors, and Adobe’s site: http://www.adobe.com/support/techdocs/318243. html, seems to back this up. The shop refutes this as says that it is just an attempt to sell more CPS’s as only one can ever be used (unless Server or UNIX are the OS, and even then PS cannot use but one processor). However, the same shop also claims that the CPU speed makes no difference with PS, but only memory (RAM), as ALL processes are done in RAM, with some in virtual memory, via the Scratch Disk. I know this to be incorrect, as the processor speed IS critical to the speed of PS, though RAM and HDDs are very important, also.

While I’ve got several workstations and a laptop, with different processors, RAM and HDD configurations, I have not tried any benchmarks on the dual- processor machine, by turning off the second processor via the BIOS. I have noted that the dual-processor P-II 1GHz w/ 1.5 GB RAM (max on the MoBo) is still faster than either a 3.2GHz single P-4 desktop, or a 3.4GHz P-4 HT, 2GB RAM laptop, I have attributed some of this "observed" speed to the large SCSI Scratch Disks, but some to the dual-processors

Does someone out there have the real scoop on this? While the new machine is not meant to be an exercise is spending money, I don’t mind paying for the greater processing capability, if PS can actually use it. I constantly work with extremely large files, most with many Layers. I’m fairly computer literate, having build several PS workstations, I have to admit that the current speed of technology has left me a bit behind.

So far, Google, and the Adobe Fora Search functions haven’t yielded anything but scant "mention" of dual-processor support by PS, with no tech data/ references. While the shop doesn’t have to know Photoshop critically, (heck, I’ve been using it since it first hit Windows) I do question their capability if they are totally unaware, and refuse to believe that PS CAN benefit from dual-processors. This puts me into the position of wondering if they are the right shop for the task. I understand wanting to save a potential client money, but if the technology can benefit the client, it is then the client’s responsibility to justify the expenditure. They say, "window dressing – nothing is actually happening… " but I want to know. Any Adobe coders out there? Any tech-savvy PS users, who know the answer to my question?

I appreciate your thoughts and data,
Hunt

Must-have mockup pack for every graphic designer 🔥🔥🔥

Easy-to-use drag-n-drop Photoshop scene creator with more than 2800 items.

A
adykes
Jan 9, 2006
In article wrote:
OK, I’m in a quandary about building a new workstation almost exclusively for PS. I’ve been using an older system with dual-P-III 1GHz Intel processors running W2K Pro. I was attempting to spec a new machine, but the shop keeps telling me that PS cannot use dual-processors, and that, unless I have Windows "Server" as the OS, only one processor will ever be used, and then, only with spreadsheets. Though I have monitored the existing dual-processor performance with Windows Task Manager (W2K), and have seen the processing going on ( including Threads handled) on both, the shop says that only one CPU is ever being used, and the other display is bogus – that it is impossible for PS to ever use the second processor.

XP/pro does two processors or a single dual-core CPU. This HP specs page says so.

Really, really try to build a system with a daul-core AMD64 CPU. You can run XP/Pro and get all the the dual processing.

Even if CS2, itself, isn’t using dual CPUs yet, you’ll be ready and the immediate benefit will be marginally faster throught in CS and the ability to do some CPU-intensive task, like printing in the background without slowing down your Photshop interactivity. Reading and writing to disk requires a portion of a CPU and with a dualie your disk can be busy without slowing CS down. get enough RAM.

Running XP/64 requires care as to picking supported hardware and I’m not ready to recomment that to anynone that needs *my* advice, yet.


a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don’t blame me. I voted for Gore.
P
philo
Jan 9, 2006
"Hunt" wrote in message
OK, I’m in a quandary about building a new workstation almost exclusively for
PS. I’ve been using an older system with dual-P-III 1GHz Intel processors running W2K Pro. I was attempting to spec a new machine, but the shop keeps
telling me that PS cannot use dual-processors, and that, unless I have Windows
"Server" as the OS, only one processor will ever be used, and then, only with
spreadsheets. Though I have monitored the existing dual-processor performance
with Windows Task Manager (W2K), and have seen the processing going on ( including Threads handled) on both, the shop says that only one CPU is ever
being used, and the other display is bogus – that it is impossible for PS to
ever use the second processor.

i was trying to find out the same thing…
here is the thread

http://www.howtofixcomputers.com/bb/ftopic142138-0.html

It seems the AMD -X2 is recommended…
and I’m going to build such a machine…
but am hoping to see a price drop first !
N
noone
Jan 9, 2006
In article , says…
"Hunt" wrote in message
OK, I’m in a quandary about building a new workstation almost exclusively for
PS. I’ve been using an older system with dual-P-III 1GHz Intel processors running W2K Pro. I was attempting to spec a new machine, but the shop keeps
telling me that PS cannot use dual-processors, and that, unless I have Windows
"Server" as the OS, only one processor will ever be used, and then, only with
spreadsheets. Though I have monitored the existing dual-processor performance
with Windows Task Manager (W2K), and have seen the processing going on ( including Threads handled) on both, the shop says that only one CPU is ever
being used, and the other display is bogus – that it is impossible for PS to
ever use the second processor.

i was trying to find out the same thing…
here is the thread

http://www.howtofixcomputers.com/bb/ftopic142138-0.html

It seems the AMD -X2 is recommended…
and I’m going to build such a machine…
but am hoping to see a price drop first !

Thanks for the URL. With all my searches, it did not come up. (Guess I’m back to Boolean 101 :-} ).

Though most comments are about dual-processor MACs (70%), there are threads that give 80-85% performance boost #’s to CPU intensive PS (all of these were about ver 4-6, not CS-CS2) tasks with dual-processors. That seems about right for my seat-o-the-pants observations, but am looking for something more concrete and obviously more recent.

We’ll just see where this thread takes us. While I don’t mind prices coming down on anything I’m about to buy, the costs are not that great an issue – I just want to make sure that the $ (in my case) are being spent on something that I can actually use.

Again, thanks for the comment and the URL,
Hunt
CJ
C J Southern
Jan 9, 2006
Out of interest, if you dig around the Intel website you’ll discover that there is a dual-core "Extreme Edition" version of the P4 that also supports hyper-threading. In other words you’re looking at FOUR concurent threads.

My understanding is that the XP Pro limitation is 2 PROCESSORS (or 2 cores) – not 2 virtual CPU’s/hyperthreading – so XP pro should be able to support such a beast – although you’d need to check this out further.

Interestingly, I tried giving a 200MB+ image the gaussean blur from hell on a hyperthreaded P4 3.0GHz. If you go into task manager and right-click on photoshop.exe (in the PROCESSES list) you can set the "cpu" affinity – with the program set to use both "cpus" it did appear to spread the load according to the graph – however the time taken was essentially identical to when I repeated the exercise with it set to only 1 CPU. On the face of it, it looks like PSCS2 does use multi-threads and or CPUs, but in reality it’s a memory intensive task – and if the CPU is faster than the memory (as will be the case) then the net result is that it ain’t going to go any faster than the RAM will allow, regardless of however many processors you’re running. If you were doing different tasks (eg a blur and printing) it might be a different story.

By the way, you’ve been getting some very bad advice from your current supplier – might be time for a change.

Cheers
N
noone
Jan 9, 2006
In article <dpukjc$jp9$ says…
In article wrote:
OK, I’m in a quandary about building a new workstation almost exclusively
for
PS. I’ve been using an older system with dual-P-III 1GHz Intel processors running W2K Pro. I was attempting to spec a new machine, but the shop keeps telling me that PS cannot use dual-processors, and that, unless I have
Windows
"Server" as the OS, only one processor will ever be used, and then, only
with
spreadsheets. Though I have monitored the existing dual-processor
performance
with Windows Task Manager (W2K), and have seen the processing going on ( including Threads handled) on both, the shop says that only one CPU is ever being used, and the other display is bogus – that it is impossible for PS to ever use the second processor.

XP/pro does two processors or a single dual-core CPU. This HP specs page says so.

Al, that is what I kept trying to tell the shop. My experience was that NT-4, Win2K Pro, and XP-Pro ALL handled them, but they insisted that only XP-Server would do it, and then PS could NOT benefit from it. Though for older vers of PS (and the common to the era Intel CPUs), I’ve seen figures of up to 85% speed increase for dual-processor setups with PS.

One parallel question – do you know about dual-processor dual-core (note the current equivilent of ~4 CPUs) with XP-Pro? That setup with PS CS2?
Really, really try to build a system with a daul-core AMD64 CPU. You can run XP/Pro and get all the the dual processing.

Even if CS2, itself, isn’t using dual CPUs yet, you’ll be ready and the immediate benefit will be marginally faster throught in CS and the ability to do some CPU-intensive task, like printing in the background without slowing down your Photshop interactivity. Reading and writing to disk requires a portion of a CPU and with a dualie your disk can be busy without slowing CS down. get enough RAM.

Running XP/64 requires care as to picking supported hardware and I’m not ready to recomment that to anynone that needs *my* advice, yet.


a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don’t blame me. I voted for Gore.

Thanks,

Hunt
P
philo
Jan 9, 2006
<snip>

We’ll just see where this thread takes us. While I don’t mind prices coming
down on anything I’m about to buy, the costs are not that great an issue – I
just want to make sure that the $ (in my case) are being spent on something
that I can actually use.

Again, thanks for the comment and the URL,
Hunt

Well since I don’t have an X2 (yet) I won’t know until I get one… but on the tasks that I’ve been running in CS2…the cpu usage (on the XP-2200 with a gig of RAM) has been hitting up near 98%… so I looks like quite a CPU intensive application!
N
noone
Jan 9, 2006
In article <3rBwf.13685$
says…
Out of interest, if you dig around the Intel website you’ll discover that there is a dual-core "Extreme Edition" version of the P4 that also supports hyper-threading. In other words you’re looking at FOUR concurent threads.
My understanding is that the XP Pro limitation is 2 PROCESSORS (or 2 cores) – not 2 virtual CPU’s/hyperthreading – so XP pro should be able to support such a beast – although you’d need to check this out further.
Interestingly, I tried giving a 200MB+ image the gaussean blur from hell on a hyperthreaded P4 3.0GHz. If you go into task manager and right-click on photoshop.exe (in the PROCESSES list) you can set the "cpu" affinity – with the program set to use both "cpus" it did appear to spread the load according to the graph – however the time taken was essentially identical to when I repeated the exercise with it set to only 1 CPU. On the face of it, it looks like PSCS2 does use multi-threads and or CPUs, but in reality it’s a memory intensive task – and if the CPU is faster than the memory (as will be the case) then the net result is that it ain’t going to go any faster than the RAM will allow, regardless of however many processors you’re running. If you were doing different tasks (eg a blur and printing) it might be a different story.

By the way, you’ve been getting some very bad advice from your current supplier – might be time for a change.

Cheers

Thanks for the info and thoughts. Yeah, I’m finding out that having a Photoshop machine built is not as easy as picking up the parts, taking a week off from work, and just doing it myself! Folk seem to know the IT end of it, but when it comes to graphics workstations, they can’t relate. I’ve had clients in larger ad houses, where it was the same. The IT guys could keep an optical network running fine, but didn’t have a clue as to how one installs/ sets up PS, and they always got in the way.

For all of the great knowledgebase articles in Adobe, I wish that I could find just ONE that addressed the dual-processor aspect of a system. I’ll keep looking.

Thanks again,
Hunt
A
adykes
Jan 9, 2006
In article wrote:
In article <dpukjc$jp9$ says…
In article wrote:
OK, I’m in a quandary about building a new workstation almost exclusively
for
PS. I’ve been using an older system with dual-P-III 1GHz Intel processors running W2K Pro. I was attempting to spec a new machine, but the shop keeps telling me that PS cannot use dual-processors, and that, unless I have
Windows
"Server" as the OS, only one processor will ever be used, and then, only
with
spreadsheets. Though I have monitored the existing dual-processor
performance
with Windows Task Manager (W2K), and have seen the processing going on ( including Threads handled) on both, the shop says that only one CPU is ever being used, and the other display is bogus – that it is impossible for PS to ever use the second processor.

XP/pro does two processors or a single dual-core CPU. This HP specs page says so.

Al, that is what I kept trying to tell the shop. My experience was that NT-4, Win2K Pro, and XP-Pro ALL handled them, but they insisted that only XP-Server would do it, and then PS could NOT benefit from it. Though for older vers of PS (and the common to the era Intel CPUs), I’ve seen figures of up to 85% speed increase for dual-processor setups with PS.

Tell your IT guys to get the specs sheet for XP/pro off the MS website.

One parallel question – do you know about dual-processor dual-core (note the current equivilent of ~4 CPUs) with XP-Pro? That setup with PS CS2?
Really, really try to build a system with a daul-core AMD64 CPU. You can run XP/Pro and get all the the dual processing.

Read the XP/pro spec sheet. I don’t know what it says WRT two HT CPUs. From what I know, an application has to be coded to use HT effectively and I don’t know if CS2 is. Read the spec sheets and come back with a specific question.

If you are determined to buy more CPus than XP/pro will support then you can buy Windows Server/2003 starting at about $400. That’ll run any hardware you can afford in 32 bits. Not a problem for CS2.

Read the XP/64 spec sheet. That might support the 4CPU/HT combo you are looking for, and give you a screamer of a system.

If you go that route check polywell.com. They’ve always been good, and gotten good reviews, and I know people that are very happy with the AMD64 systems bought from them.

IMO Intel is behind AMD on 64 bit CPUS, by any measure.


a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don’t blame me. I voted for Gore.
W
Wilykiote
Jan 10, 2006
In article , says…
One parallel question – do you know about dual-processor dual-core (note the current equivilent of ~4 CPUs) with XP-Pro? That setup with PS CS2?
Yes, Windows XP Pro will support 2 Physical CPU’s with Recognition of 4 virtual CPU’s using Dual Core Technology. Your BIOS will only show and post 2 CPU’s but the OS itself will recognize AND utilize 4 CPU’s. That si XP Pro, NOT Home Edition..

Wilykiote
IBM World Wide Back Office Level 2 Support
CJ
C J Southern
Jan 10, 2006
"Al Dykes" wrote in message

IMO Intel is behind AMD on 64 bit CPUS, by any measure.

Bzzzzt. Wrong. We blinked, and it’s all changed again with Intels 955 Extreme edition …

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/presler_13.html

"If the dual-core AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+ has always been a leader in Photoshop, now the situation has changed. Pentium Extreme Edition 955 wins the title of the fastest CPU here. Even when running at its nominal speed, it outperforms AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+ by about 5%."
CJ
C J Southern
Jan 10, 2006
AND …

Someone has even overclocked the new 955 up to 5.5GHz – Imagine that 5.5GHz x 2 CPUs + HyperThreading. I’m getting excited.
A
adykes
Jan 10, 2006
In article <mxEwf.13721$>,
C J Southern wrote:
"Al Dykes" wrote in message

IMO Intel is behind AMD on 64 bit CPUS, by any measure.

Bzzzzt. Wrong. We blinked, and it’s all changed again with Intels 955 Extreme edition …

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/presler_13.html
"If the dual-core AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+ has always been a leader in Photoshop, now the situation has changed. Pentium Extreme Edition 955 wins the title of the fastest CPU here. Even when running at its nominal speed, it outperforms AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+ by about 5%."

I look at the price/performace point of the *cheapest* cpu, or the mid-line. I’d never consider an Extreme. I’m not a gamer. As I understand it, AMD’s I/O archictecture beats Intel’s hands down.

Unless you’re a gamer, IO is much more important than people realize.


a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don’t blame me. I voted for Gore.
CJ
C J Southern
Jan 10, 2006
"Al Dykes" wrote in message

I look at the price/performace point of the *cheapest* cpu, or the mid-line. I’d never consider an Extreme. I’m not a gamer. As I understand it, AMD’s I/O archictecture beats Intel’s hands down.

So you’re saying that you go for what you percieve to be the best value for money, not the best performance? Also, why do you equate "Extreme Edition" CPU with "Games"? I couldn’t care less about games, and yet I’m thinking seriously about this CPU for PS work.

Unless you’re a gamer, IO is much more important than people realize.

IO is usually the ultimate bottleneck of all "performance systems" – games included. I don’t understand your point.
DF
Derek Fountain
Jan 10, 2006
For all of the great knowledgebase articles in Adobe, I wish that I could find just ONE that addressed the dual-processor aspect of a system. I’ll keep looking.

Yes, stay focused on that. You’ve got a lot of input on whether Windows works with dual CPUs, and dual cores, but it’s pretty much irrelevant if Photoshop doesn’t use them. Windows is a much more monolithic system than OSX or Linux – even the graphics are done in kernel – so having a separate processor to share some of the OS load is hardly worth having. The only reason you’d want dual processors on a Windows box (other than bragging rights) is to run an application that can utilise them.

I have a suspicion that the reason Adobe don’t make public the dual CPU abilities of their product is that it doesn’t have any – it’s a single threaded application. I’ve used applications on Unix that utilise dual (or more) processors and it’s normally pretty obvious when they are being used – I stuck with my dual PIII-500mhz Linux box for years after single processors passed 1ghz because it was so amazingly responsive.

You can also look at the single CPU/core options you have now. Socket 939 is wonderfully upgradable. A few months back I made a new Photoshop box and decided on a lowish end Athlon64. The CPU cost less than 20% of the X2 CPU I really wanted, but when that X2 is a sensible price (say, about a year) it’s a drop in replacement.
A
adykes
Jan 10, 2006
In article <43c37738$0$70257$>,
Derek Fountain wrote:
For all of the great knowledgebase articles in Adobe, I wish that I could find just ONE that addressed the dual-processor aspect of a system. I’ll keep looking.

Yes, stay focused on that. You’ve got a lot of input on whether Windows works with dual CPUs, and dual cores, but it’s pretty much irrelevant if Photoshop doesn’t use them. Windows is a much more monolithic system than OSX or Linux – even the graphics are done in kernel – so having a separate processor to share some of the OS load is hardly worth having. The only reason you’d want dual processors on a Windows box (other than bragging rights) is to run an application that can utilise them.
I have a suspicion that the reason Adobe don’t make public the dual CPU abilities of their product is that it doesn’t have any – it’s a single threaded application. I’ve used applications on Unix that utilise dual (or more) processors and it’s normally pretty obvious when they are being used – I stuck with my dual PIII-500mhz Linux box for years after single processors passed 1ghz because it was so amazingly responsive.
You can also look at the single CPU/core options you have now. Socket 939 is wonderfully upgradable. A few months back I made a new Photoshop box and decided on a lowish end Athlon64. The CPU cost less than 20% of the X2 CPU I really wanted, but when that X2 is a sensible price (say, about a year) it’s a drop in replacement.

Just a WAG, but did anyone see the announcement of Adobe’s new product; "lightroom"? (beta). It’s to compete with Apple’s new image product, which I saw at Photoexpo and looks very nice but the name I forget. May the Adobe Marketing and developers are puting the multiprocessor code there, at least at first, to get professionals to take it seriously. Just a guess.

If nothing else, a dual CPU system means you’ll be able to print while using photoshop without slowdown. IMO a Photoshop user, today, should be buying a dual core 64 bit system. There’s stuff like fewer context switches and faster concurrent IO and processing that a dual CPU should give us but I haven’t had a chance to play with one, let alone do a real benchmark.


a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don’t blame me. I voted for Gore.
N
noone
Jan 10, 2006
In article <dq0998$29r$ says…
In article <43c37738$0$70257$>,
Derek Fountain wrote:
[SNIP]
Just a WAG, but did anyone see the announcement of Adobe’s new product; "lightroom"? (beta). It’s to compete with Apple’s new image product, which I saw at Photoexpo and looks very nice but the name I forget. May the Adobe Marketing and developers are puting the multiprocessor code there, at least at first, to get professionals to take it seriously. Just a guess.

If nothing else, a dual CPU system means you’ll be able to print while using photoshop without slowdown. IMO a Photoshop user, today, should be buying a dual core 64 bit system. There’s stuff like fewer context switches and faster concurrent IO and processing that a dual CPU should give us but I haven’t had a chance to play with one, let alone do a real benchmark.


a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don’t blame me. I voted for Gore.

The Apple product is Aperture. Adobe has a press release on the beta of Lightroom, which is, if not a "first" (released beta, that is) for them, it is quite uncommon. It is ported for Apple now, but the word is that it will be dual-platform, upon release. It appears to be a combination of Bridge + ACR, with some additional aspects thrown in. Just a guess, but I think it will replace Bridge ~CS3. PS will still be the last stop in the workflow path, but more will be "doable" in Lightroom, before we take the image into PS.

Back to the dual processor aspect of PS – I have found reference to an increase in processing speed of ~85%, however this was in an article from the very late ’90s and did not go into a great bit of detail. Man, it would be so easy to decide, if I could just tailor my searches correctly!!!!! Gr-r-r, there’s gotta’ be an "and," or a "but" missing in my strings…

Well, off to more Googling and Knowledgebase searching, looking for contemorary links.

Al, thanks for the thoughts,

Hunt
H
Husky
Jan 10, 2006
On Mon, 9 Jan 2006 15:34:02 -0600, "philo" wrote:

"Hunt" wrote in message
OK, I’m in a quandary about building a new workstation almost exclusively for
PS. I’ve been using an older system with dual-P-III 1GHz Intel processors running W2K Pro. I was attempting to spec a new machine, but the shop keeps
telling me that PS cannot use dual-processors, and that,
I’d find another shop. I’m going on 2 years with CS2 and a P4 HyperThreading 3.2 ghz machine. CS loads under 3 seconds.
And 1 gig ram, there’s little CS can’t do.
If you want to run it on a single processor, just get XCPU and assign it to run on one or the other.

unless I have
Windows
"Server" as the OS, only one processor will ever be used, and then, only with
spreadsheets. Though I have monitored the existing dual-processor performance
with Windows Task Manager (W2K), and have seen the processing going on ( including Threads handled) on both, the shop says that only one CPU is ever
being used, and the other display is bogus – that it is impossible for PS to
ever use the second processor.

i was trying to find out the same thing…
here is the thread

http://www.howtofixcomputers.com/bb/ftopic142138-0.html

It seems the AMD -X2 is recommended…
and I’m going to build such a machine…
but am hoping to see a price drop first !

more pix @ http://members.toast.net/cbminfo/index.html
CJ
C J Southern
Jan 10, 2006
"Derek Fountain" wrote in message

I have a suspicion that the reason Adobe don’t make public the dual CPU abilities of their product is that it doesn’t have any – it’s a single threaded application. I’ve used applications on Unix that utilise dual (or more) processors and it’s normally pretty obvious when they are being used – I stuck with my dual PIII-500mhz Linux box for years after single processors passed 1ghz because it was so amazingly responsive.

From my simple test – doing a severe Gausean Blur on a 200MB+ file – it looks like it is spreading the load across two "processors" (I’m using a hyper-threaded P4 @ 3.0GHz) – the workload on BOTH go up as soon as I start the blur.

But, as previously stated, the net result was the same as when I set the affinity to one of the CPUs – so I suspect it’s bandwidth limited.
DF
Derek Fountain
Jan 11, 2006
From my simple test – doing a severe Gausean Blur on a 200MB+ file – it looks like it is spreading the load across two "processors" (I’m using a hyper-threaded P4 @ 3.0GHz) – the workload on BOTH go up as soon as I start the blur.

But, as previously stated, the net result was the same as when I set the affinity to one of the CPUs – so I suspect it’s bandwidth limited.

That’s one explanation. The other is that the workload indicator shows misleading data. I’ve no idea how Windows would measure and report such a thing – is it something you trust?

Also, is this indicative of the application as a whole? I can imagine that the Gaussian blur and unsharp mask filters were the first in line to be rewritten as multithreaded when multi CPU hardware became popular. What about the rest of the application?
JD
James Douglas
Jan 11, 2006
Hunt wrote:
OK, I’m in a quandary about building a new workstation almost exclusively for PS. I’ve been using an older system with dual-P-III 1GHz Intel processors running W2K Pro. I was attempting to spec a new machine, but the shop keeps telling me that PS cannot use dual-processors, and that, unless I have Windows "Server" as the OS, only one processor will ever be used, and then, only with spreadsheets. Though I have monitored the existing dual-processor performance with Windows Task Manager (W2K), and have seen the processing going on ( including Threads handled) on both, the shop says that only one CPU is ever being used, and the other display is bogus – that it is impossible for PS to ever use the second processor.

IIRC, dual (Windows) processor support was added sometimes around PS4, as a plug-in, the same as MMX in those days. I maintain that PS does use both processors, and Adobe’s site: http://www.adobe.com/support/techdocs/318243. html, seems to back this up. The shop refutes this as says that it is just an attempt to sell more CPS’s as only one can ever be used (unless Server or UNIX are the OS, and even then PS cannot use but one processor). However, the same shop also claims that the CPU speed makes no difference with PS, but only memory (RAM), as ALL processes are done in RAM, with some in virtual memory, via the Scratch Disk. I know this to be incorrect, as the processor speed IS critical to the speed of PS, though RAM and HDDs are very important, also.
While I’ve got several workstations and a laptop, with different processors, RAM and HDD configurations, I have not tried any benchmarks on the dual- processor machine, by turning off the second processor via the BIOS. I have noted that the dual-processor P-II 1GHz w/ 1.5 GB RAM (max on the MoBo) is still faster than either a 3.2GHz single P-4 desktop, or a 3.4GHz P-4 HT, 2GB RAM laptop, I have attributed some of this "observed" speed to the large SCSI Scratch Disks, but some to the dual-processors

Does someone out there have the real scoop on this? While the new machine is not meant to be an exercise is spending money, I don’t mind paying for the greater processing capability, if PS can actually use it. I constantly work with extremely large files, most with many Layers. I’m fairly computer literate, having build several PS workstations, I have to admit that the current speed of technology has left me a bit behind.

So far, Google, and the Adobe Fora Search functions haven’t yielded anything but scant "mention" of dual-processor support by PS, with no tech data/ references. While the shop doesn’t have to know Photoshop critically, (heck, I’ve been using it since it first hit Windows) I do question their capability if they are totally unaware, and refuse to believe that PS CAN benefit from dual-processors. This puts me into the position of wondering if they are the right shop for the task. I understand wanting to save a potential client money, but if the technology can benefit the client, it is then the client’s responsibility to justify the expenditure. They say, "window dressing – nothing is actually happening… " but I want to know. Any Adobe coders out there? Any tech-savvy PS users, who know the answer to my question?
I appreciate your thoughts and data,
Hunt
Show me the memory, mo memory, mo memory………….I wonder if more would be better
A
adykes
Jan 11, 2006
In article <43c4ba1b$0$30668$>,
Derek Fountain wrote:
From my simple test – doing a severe Gausean Blur on a 200MB+ file – it looks like it is spreading the load across two "processors" (I’m using a hyper-threaded P4 @ 3.0GHz) – the workload on BOTH go up as soon as I start the blur.

But, as previously stated, the net result was the same as when I set the affinity to one of the CPUs – so I suspect it’s bandwidth limited.

That’s one explanation. The other is that the workload indicator shows misleading data. I’ve no idea how Windows would measure and report such a thing – is it something you trust?

Also, is this indicative of the application as a whole? I can imagine that the Gaussian blur and unsharp mask filters were the first in line to be rewritten as multithreaded when multi CPU hardware became popular. What about the rest of the application?

If you *really* want to know what all the hardware and software bits of your computer are doing, learn to use perfmon.exe. It’s standard in all versions of Windows since NT.


a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don’t blame me. I voted for Gore.
C
Clyde
Jan 11, 2006
C J Southern wrote:
"Derek Fountain" wrote in message

I have a suspicion that the reason Adobe don’t make public the dual CPU abilities of their product is that it doesn’t have any – it’s a single threaded application. I’ve used applications on Unix that utilise dual (or more) processors and it’s normally pretty obvious when they are being used – I stuck with my dual PIII-500mhz Linux box for years after single processors passed 1ghz because it was so amazingly responsive.

From my simple test – doing a severe Gausean Blur on a 200MB+ file – it looks like it is spreading the load across two "processors" (I’m using a hyper-threaded P4 @ 3.0GHz) – the workload on BOTH go up as soon as I start the blur.

But, as previously stated, the net result was the same as when I set the affinity to one of the CPUs – so I suspect it’s bandwidth limited.

That’s not what I found:

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.graphics.apps.photoshop/ browse_thread/thread/8d124abb36fbfe48/1d170effd7cd9c43?lnk=s t&q=hyperthread+photoshop&rnum=1&hl=en#1d170effd 7cd9c43

I found significant speed improvement with HT turned on. Of course, I could be doing vastly different things in Photoshop than you are.

I have not tested this with CS2.

Clyde
N
noone
Jan 11, 2006
In article ,
software.com says…
Hunt wrote:
[SNIP]
Show me the memory, mo memory, mo memory………….I wonder if more would be better

In this case, I’ll have the max RAM (4GB, managed to give PS all that it can handle under Windows), and want to get all that I can from the processor(s) too. Plus, the SD’s will be ~ 1TB RAID0 SataII’s, with OS/Programs on another physical HDD, and another for the image files, themselves. I do agree, that RAM is the first consideration, with the I/O system being second, and the processor(s) being third – just want to get the most that can actually be used for PS.

Thanks,
Hunt
H
Husky
Jan 11, 2006
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 03:41:45 -0600, James Douglas wrote:

Though I have monitored the existing dual-processor performance with Windows Task Manager (W2K), and have seen the processing going on ( including Threads handled) on both, the shop says that only one CPU is ever being used, and the other display is bogus – that it is impossible for PS to ever use the second processor.
This is about an old machine, but it’s something any shop should be aware of. But then that’s why I quit using an Epson store.

There was a machine [called the thing] around the time of the Commodore 64, that was a 64 meg x 64 meg bank of processors.
If you check, task manager it has settings [only 2 actually available] on my P4 for 32 different processors.

I guess task manager could be wrong when I do assign one CPU to one program. ie: I used to use it specifically for Seti because seti grabs every byte of ram and CPU it can. the only way to use a dual CPU machine with seti set to free usage is by giving seti it’s own CPU.
When I ran seti, CPU 0 would run around 6-9%, while CPU 1 was always around 90% or more.

I’m guessing that there’s both hardware and software just to monitor and direct the data traffic to maximize CPU usage.
Which means the software [PS2] doesn’t need to be designed to use 2 CPU’s. the hardware, and OS already is designed for it.

I wouldn’t go back to a single CPU. It’s like having 2 machines in 1. —
more pix @ http://members.toast.net/cbminfo/index.html
KS
Kulvinder Singh Matharu
Jan 11, 2006
On 9 Jan 2006 20:58:19 GMT, (Hunt) wrote:

[snip]
I appreciate your thoughts and data,
Hunt

This may be a bit late for this thread. Not sure about PS. But you can find some very good information on CPUs, chipsets, etc at :

http://www.anandtech.com/


Kulvinder Singh Matharu
Website : www.metalvortex.com
Contact : www.metalvortex.com/form/form.htm

"It ain’t Coca Cola, it’s rice", Straight to Hell – The Clash
CJ
C J Southern
Jan 11, 2006
"Clyde" wrote in message
That’s not what I found:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.graphics.apps.photoshop/ browse_thread/thread/8d124abb36fbfe48/1d170effd7cd9c43?lnk=s t&q=hyperthread+photoshop&rnum=1&hl=en#1d170effd 7cd9c43

I think your testing is probably as good as we’re likely to see in the short term – in my effort I simply wanted to see if the load would spread across two threads (which it does) – from that I can deduce that the app does (at least in part) support multi-threading.

Reading through your tests it appeared that you got results varying from "no gain" to "moderate gain" – still, nothing steller. In other words I think we both seem to agree that HT certainly doesn’t do any harm – but may or may not produce gains that are noticeable.

To be honest, I don’t normally have an issue with PSCS2’s speed – sometimes trying to refine a big select with a low tolerance can be frustrating – as can previewing some of the filters – but apart from that (and the occasional full size panorama of 10 to 30 shots) it’s really not an issue.

Having said that, I’m going to treat myself and build up a system based on an overclocked Pentium 4 Extreme Edition (Dual Core with HT) – eat yer heart out 🙂
A
adykes
Jan 12, 2006
In article wrote:
In article ,
software.com says…
Hunt wrote:
[SNIP]
Show me the memory, mo memory, mo memory………….I wonder if more would be better

In this case, I’ll have the max RAM (4GB, managed to give PS all that it can handle under Windows), and want to get all that I can from the processor(s) too. Plus, the SD’s will be ~ 1TB RAID0 SataII’s, with OS/Programs on another physical HDD, and another for the image files, themselves. I do agree, that RAM is the first consideration, with the I/O system being second, and the processor(s) being third – just want to get the most that can actually be used for PS.

IMO once you’ve given PS memory equal to (guessing) 4x the size of the your most complex PSD file and working layers, more memory isn;t going to buy you much.

OTOH, When you have these honking-big images and you need to read or write them to disk, that can take *real* time. Don’t undersize the boost that a couple 10k disks can give you in productivity.


a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don’t blame me. I voted for Gore.
N
noone
Jan 12, 2006
In article , real-address-in-
says…
On 9 Jan 2006 20:58:19 GMT, (Hunt) wrote:

[snip]
I appreciate your thoughts and data,
Hunt

This may be a bit late for this thread. Not sure about PS. But you can find some very good information on CPUs, chipsets, etc at :
http://www.anandtech.com/


Kulvinder Singh Matharu
Website : www.metalvortex.com
Contact : www.metalvortex.com/form/form.htm

"It ain’t Coca Cola, it’s rice", Straight to Hell – The Clash

Not late at all, as I have been working on the specs for this box for a few months now. I was ready to move, when the shop started spouting some info, that I was not comfortable with. Also, for a totally custom rig, they basically pulled out their spec sheet for a server, and said that this is your custom system, no changes. Heck, that’s like a custom home builder, with whom I was negotiating to build our house. He owned the dirt, and said to go up to such-n-such address, and I could see exactly what MY custom home would look like, as he had just finished it, and was going to build the same house on this land. What part of "custom" do these folk not get?

Thanks for the link, I’ll spend time tomorrow perusing it.

Hunt
KS
Kulvinder Singh Matharu
Jan 12, 2006
On 12 Jan 2006 02:48:52 GMT, (Hunt) wrote:
[snip]
this land. What part of "custom" do these folk not get?

The advice, etc does seem suspect!

Thanks for the link, I’ll spend time tomorrow perusing it.

Good luck!


Kulvinder Singh Matharu
Website : www.metalvortex.com
Contact : www.metalvortex.com/form/form.htm

"It ain’t Coca Cola, it’s rice", Straight to Hell – The Clash

How to Master Sharpening in Photoshop

Give your photos a professional finish with sharpening in Photoshop. Learn to enhance details, create contrast, and prepare your images for print, web, and social media.

Related Discussion Topics

Nice and short text about related topics in discussion sections