CS4 running extremely slow compared to CS3

SB
Posted By
Shyam_Balu
Oct 19, 2008
Views
2051
Replies
67
Status
Closed
I installed Photoshop Extended CS4 64bit. I opened a 24mb PSD file, there is some text with some outer glow when I move it I get horrible redraw. CS4 just feels sluggish compared to CS3. My system is not that bad, e6600, 4GB, 8800GTS 640, Vista Home Premium x64.

Anybody have any ideas? I have updated to the latest drivers for my GPU. I am considering just a reformat and install.

Powered by Creative Market

BS
Brett_Simms
Oct 19, 2008
We are finding the same problem here on two different machines, both running xp64 though. 32 bit and 64 bit versions of CS4 are running extremely slowly (non GPU mode).

Was something changed to augment the GPU functionality that hurts performance on systems that can’t run that stuff?
MG
Mel_Gama
Oct 19, 2008
I have the same problem and I also would report some kind of bug – the UNDO is not working and I need to use the history every time.

Adobe Photoshop Version: 11.0 (11.0×20080919 [20080919.r.488 2008/09/19:02:00:00 cutoff; r branch]) X64
Operating System: Windows XP Professional 64-bit
Version: 5.2 Service Pack 2
System architecture: Intel CPU Family:6, Model:15, Stepping:11 with MMX, SSE Integer, SSE FP, SSE2 Physical processor count: 2
Processor speed: 2666 MHz
Video Card: NVIDIA GeForce 8600 GT
Video Mode: 1680 x 1050 x 4294967296 colors
Video Card Driver: nv4_disp.dll
Driver Version: 6.14.11.7824
Built-in memory: 8122 MB
Free memory: 5897 MB
Memory available to Photoshop: 7180 MB
Memory used by Photoshop: 60 %
Image cache levels: 4
AJ
Adam_Jerugim
Oct 19, 2008
Shyam,

Have you tried disabling OpenGL support (in Preferences > Performance) to see if performance is better without GPU?

If it is still the same, and sluggish compared to CS3 on your same system, I’ll have you contact me directly.

thanks,
-Adam (PS QE)
MG
Mel_Gama
Oct 19, 2008
My problem was resolved using just CS4 (without 64 bits).

For me, this option (disable or enable OpenGL – "No GPU available with Photoshop standard) is not working. I donΒ΄t know about the others.

My files are really big (some PSD file have 200mb) and I intend to use the 64 bits but I canΒ΄t…

Adobe Photoshop Version: 11.0 (11.0×20080919 [20080919.r.488 2008/09/19:02:00:00 cutoff; r branch]) Operating System: Windows XP 32-bit
Version: 5.2 Service Pack 2
System architecture: Intel CPU Family:6, Model:15, Stepping:11 with MMX, SSE Integer, SSE FP, SSE2 Physical processor count: 2
Processor speed: 2666 MHz
Video Card: NVIDIA GeForce 8600 GT
Video Mode: 1680 x 1050 x 4294967296 colors
Video Card Driver: nv4_disp.dll
Driver Version: 6.14.11.7824
Built-in memory: 8122 MB
Free memory: 6277 MB
Memory available to Photoshop: 3255 MB
Memory used by Photoshop: 70 %
Image cache levels: 4
BS
Brett_Simms
Oct 20, 2008
I am finding the same problem, but using 32bit or 64 bit does not seem to make much difference. It’s more pronounced on my second workstation though. The first uses an 8600 GTS, and the second uses an 8800 – the 8800 is actually slower.

I tried the registry ‘hack’ and it does speed things up on the first machine, but it craps out often. It won’t work at all on the second machine so I can’t try it there.

b
LY
Liu_Yang
Oct 20, 2008
Same problem here.

AMD Athlon 64 x2 5000+, 4gb ram, ATI 1950 videocard running windows xp and vista 64. Photoshop cs4 is much slower than cs3. When I paint something the brushstroke is very laggy. I tried turn off opengl it is a little bit faster but still very slow, both 32bit and 64bit have the same problem. Cs3 is running very smooth and have no problem at all.
CF
chris_farrell
Oct 20, 2008
Maybe it’s a gpu thing as my undo, open layer panel, create layer, move layer, delete layer has a 4/5 sec lag ( all this instant in cs3 )on large files.
JJ
John Joslin
Oct 20, 2008
Large is relative, but from what you said elsewhere Chris, large for you is really large. I rarely have files bigger than 100MB, so I don’t see any problems.
CF
chris_farrell
Oct 20, 2008
oops, just did an edit.

But, yes…it’s fine on images that are less than 1gb in size. CS3 was snappy in this respect on the same file.
SB
Shyam_Balu
Oct 20, 2008
Just to post an update I think I over reacted a bit. I compared the PSD speed side by side with CS3 and CS4 there seems to be considerable amounts of redraw on CS3 as well. However CS4 still feels slower with our without GPU accelartion it’s the same performance.

<http://localhostr.com/files/71c3f3/Test.psd> – Here is a test PSD, move the text around and see how it performs.
CF
chris_farrell
Oct 20, 2008
Shyam, try putting the cache up to 6 or 8 and see if that makes a difference. I’ve just tried this and CS4 is snappy again….

I can’t believe it’s that simple….right!, back to work!!!!!
CF
chris_farrell
Oct 20, 2008
Shyam – I just tried your file and it’s not smooth on my system. Without all the layer sytles it’s ok – I recommend trying again with just the glow and shadow – scrap the rest as they may slow it down…

Ooops, — cache 8 is for large files! try going the other way and see if that helps.
SB
Shyam_Balu
Oct 20, 2008
The only styles on the text are the drop shadow and glow. I believe photosop is groaning at the large outerglow.
JD
Jacqui_Dervan
Oct 20, 2008
On my system with CS3 it is the actual outer glow setting that is the issue. Turn up the opacity and you will see the problem.

To the OP, there are better ways of achieving the effect you desire that do not impact the performance to this extent. You might need to adapt your technique somewhat.
BS
Brett_Simms
Oct 20, 2008
Found something interesting:

I have not tested it a ton yet, but there seems to be a huge difference in the lagginess if you have the window docked versus floating. Docked we have massive re-draw problems, but undocked it works much better, possibly as fast as CS3. This is in 32 and 64 bit, running on xp64.

You might want to try and see if that makes a difference for you.

b
CF
chris_farrell
Oct 20, 2008
undocked seems a touch slower in vista x64
BS
Brett_Simms
Oct 20, 2008
Figures

πŸ™‚
GM
Geordie_Moffatt
Oct 21, 2008
Hi all,

We have just installed a couple of trials of CS4 at our studio and it is running very slow in OpenGL mode.

This is with small images (say 512 x 512) and no layer styles or even layers, just painting on the background with a normal brush is slow. Even the UI is very slow without any images open.

Switching over to non OpenGL fixes everything.

My system:
One of my artists systems with the same problem:
CPU – Intel Core2 Quad Q6600 @ 2.4GHz
GPU – nVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTS 512MB (2 monitors @ 1920×1200 each) RAM – 4GB
OS – Vista Pro SP1 32bit

One of my artists systems with the same problem:
CPU – Intel Core2 Quad Q9450 @ 2.66GHz
GPU – nVIDIA GeForce 8800 GT 512MB (2 monitors @ 1920×1200 each) RAM – 4GB
OS – XP Pro SP3 32bit

I will post if I find any solutions…
GM
Geordie_Moffatt
Oct 21, 2008
OK, just been mucking around with it, turning off "Vertical Sync" in Preferences >> Performance >> Advanced Settings fixed most of the slow down.

Everything still slow right down when you zoom into an image enough for the white grid to appear.

This might be an issue with having a large desktop space since a lot of the people in this thread are running multiple monitors.

Hope this helps some other people out.

Seeyas!

G
GM
Geordie_Moffatt
Oct 21, 2008
Well just tested this out on some actual PSDs of ours, OpenGL is still 5-10x slower than software (non – OpenGL) mode. It seems to be linked with how many pixels are being changed with a brush stroke, ie if you are zoomed out with a large brush – slow, zoomed in with a smaller brush slow, but zoomed out with a smaller brush is fast. All these operations work much faster with the same image in software mode.
GM
Geordie_Moffatt
Oct 21, 2008
Final words (I think):
Duel Monitor / Single Doesn’t seem to matter
Turn off all the options in Preferences >> Performance >> Advanced Settings
MA
mim_armand
Oct 21, 2008
using trial version for 2 days and same problem also!
thought it’s figured out btw now!
it’s not about vertical sync for sure, atleast for me
I just disabled 3D Interaction Acceleration then it works fine, then I disabled Advanced drawing also and it goes even faster (other setting have no effect for me at all)
Btw speed is not at the same degree with CS3 yet I think but we can work with it at least!

cpu: quad core
ram: 2G
graphic: 8800 GT/PCI/SSE2

Mehran,
JJ
John Joslin
Oct 21, 2008
Where did you get the trial version?

According to Adobe they are not available until mid-November.
MA
mim_armand
Oct 21, 2008
dunno! I just got a link; probably it’s not full version but I think it is! 😐 but now when I goes to download section it wasn’t available;
P
Pipkin
Oct 21, 2008
Same problem. Awful screen redrawing.
WinXP SP3 (32bit, all updates), 2Gb RAM, Intel Core 2 Duo E8200, Nvidia GeForce 8800GT (512 VRAM, latest drivers ForceWare 178.24)…
Have come back to PS CS3.
πŸ™
SK
Stefan_Klein
Oct 21, 2008
I`m wondering why screen redrawing with Open GL TURNED OFF is so much slower in CS4 compared to CS3.
And…. no matter wether it`s on or off…..moving objects with the move tool for example is much slower in CS4.
CF
chris_farrell
Oct 21, 2008
I wonder if it’s an nVidia 8800 issue or if that particular gpu chipset is contributing to the redraw problem – seems to a lot of them here and they are relatively old..ish – mine is approaching it’s 2nd birthday.
SB
Shyam_Balu
Oct 21, 2008
Anybody know how to remove this Adobe Cs4 Drive context entry ( even though I chose not to install it)?
RP
Robert_Pender
Oct 22, 2008
I have same problems with painfully slow draw on nVidia 7600GT. Make no difference whether I have Open GL on or off.

I have also noticed that the text tool is very laggy if Open GL is on
PO
Paul_Oblomov
Oct 22, 2008
My cs4 lags too. GTX280 vista x64. I found, that system driver changes internal clocks to smth like lowpower mode. Dunno, if it is the problem, but you may try to force with rivatuner constant clocks.

I can’t test it right now, but on every platfom (server 2k8 x64/2k3 x64 at work + vista x64 at home and nvidia from 7950 to gtx280) with every drivers even beta for farcry2 – it lags. Software mode even worse.
CC
Chris_Cox
Oct 22, 2008
Check for video card driver updates.
If there is still a problem, contact the video card maker and give them details to isolate the bug(s).
DC
David_Calvert
Oct 23, 2008
I’m finding that CS4 drags with me too. Its much slower on redraw than CS3. Redraw is only a tiny bit better when Open GL is on.

Win XP Home SP3, Core 2 6400 2.13ghz, 3gb RAM, 360gb HDD, 40GB scratch disk, GeForce 7300GS with latest drivers,
JM
Jacob_Mitt
Oct 24, 2008
In CS4, when I zoom several steps (alt-mousewheel), it doesn’t change the display at all until I stop moving the wheel for half a second or so, and then I can see the redraw (the image appearing in separate rectangles). This happens in all images, even smaller ones.

CS3 redrew for each step of the mousewheel, as it should, and the redraw was instant, so zooming in and out was fast and responsive.

I zoom in and out constantly, so this makes CS4 painfully slow and laggy, enough that I’m definitely sticking with CS3 until it’s fixed.

9600GT (178.24 drivers, OpenGL off), Q9300, XP64, 8GB. No change when running in 32-bit.

The OpenGL option is grayed out with no explanation given (but certainly CS4 should be just as fast as CS3 with it disabled).
CC
Chris_Cox
Oct 24, 2008
If the OpenGL option is grayed out, something in your driver says it can’t support Photoshop’s requirements. See if there is an updated driver.

Also, the slow zooming you are describing sounds like a driver problem as well.
JM
Jacob_Mitt
Oct 24, 2008
The first thing I did was update video drivers.

To describe the behavior in a little more detail: when zoom-scrolling in several steps, the scrollbars redraw, as if they’re receiving the zoom but the canvas isn’t. If I continuously zoom in and out with the mouse, and never stop moving it for about 1/4 second or more, the scrollbars keep jittering around and the image never redraws at all; that only happens when I stop moving the wheel.

This feels like an optimization for slower systems: when a potentially repeating input happens (like the mousewheel), the display isn’t updated until they stop happening for a while. That’s useful on slow systems where redrawing the display may actually be slow enough to interfere with the interface, but it definitely should not be happening on a modern system that’s more than capable of redrawing the canvas faster than the inputs are repeating.

Also, redrawing in general feels slow: changing images (via tabs, control-tab, or the window menu) has a visible delay, where CS3 is instantaneous. (Maybe Photoshop is detecting this slowness, and activating an optimization like the above as a side-effect.)
CC
Chris_Cox
Oct 24, 2008
Then you need to look for conflicts (bad plugins, bad utilities, etc.).

It still sounds video driver related though.
JM
Jacob_Mitt
Oct 24, 2008
Well, it turns out that essentially every major CS4 feature requires GPU rendering, and GPU rendering is a joke: Adobe claims XP64 doesn’t support OpenGL (blatently false; nVidia supports it directly), and if you force it on–which seems to work–brushing is lagged behind the cursor by a good quarter second. With GPU support this laggy, I can’t possibly turn it on, which means there’s not a single feature in CS4 that I want that I can actually use.

I’m sure not downgrading to Vista because Adobe didn’t bother to test on XP64–I’m using XP64 specifically to avoid Vista. This is a miserable joke.

Also, zooming is laggy in exactly the same way with OpenGL turned on, which is a strong indication that the slow zooming is not a driver problem at all (driver bugs don’t tend to manifest identically when you switch rendering modes like that).

In any case, with OpenGL rendering being so broken and not being able to use CS4 features, I don’t have any reason to keep bashing on this, so I’m going back to CS3.
DM
dave_milbut
Oct 24, 2008
so you’re complaining that the program doesn’t work right on an unsupported OS? hmm…

I’m sure not downgrading to Vista because Adobe didn’t bother to test on XP64-

chris said they did test. and found problems. but be that as it may, i’m with you. not running vista. at least not yet. but i’ll bet if you made your money off of photoshop you’d sing a different tune than "i’m not downgrading to vista because adobe…" anything. all reports are that vista 64 is actually a decent os. myself i’m probably going to wait for windows 7, but for you, you gotta decide if you need those features to make your cash or not.

<shrug>

, which means there’s not a single feature in CS4 that I want that I can actually use.

adobe offers a 30 day money back guarantee. time’s a wastin’…
CC
Chris_Cox
Oct 24, 2008
Jacob – OpenGL is a huge set of APIs, just because some of it is working in XP 64 does not imply that all of it is working correctly in XP 64 (because it is known NOT to be working correctly). As already noted: Adobe did test with XP64, and found too many blocking bugs to continue supporting it. Now you’re noticing some of those bugs when you try to enable GPU support.

The lagging image display may not be related OpenGL, but a simple video card driver bug (in other words: I’ve seen this before).

I’m sorry to hear that your system is in such bad shape that you will be returning CS4.
DE
David_E_Crawford
Oct 24, 2008
I have no problems with Vista 64 bit. Sure, when the operating system first came out there were driver issues due to most vendors not making drivers for their hardware. I fully researched the hardware I had and found out my switch from XP to Vista would not hamper anything before I gave up the cash. I have had zero crashes. However, if you install flashplayer version 10 it will freeze up your internet explorer. Flashplayer 10 does not support Vista 64 bit. Yet, anyways.
BC
Bart_Cross
Oct 24, 2008
Vista 64 is not a downgrade, it is a lot better than XP64. Considering you can upgrade for $100, it is really worth considering.
JM
Jacob_Mitt
Oct 24, 2008
Enough with the petty condescention. My system is in perfect shape. Adobe’s software is not. Don’t try to pretend this is the fault of anything but Adobe’s gross incompetence.

And I’m obviously using the trial. I’m not paying for any Adobe product without testing it thoroughly first, for reasons that should be pretty obvious.

(I’m not going to get into an OS debate here; suffice it to say that installing XP64 was a deliberate choice made after fully considering the issues with Vista, a decision which I have been very happy with–exactly one program has badly misbehaved in it, and you can guess which one–and I’m not going to change it because Adobe commands me to.)
BC
Bart_Cross
Oct 24, 2008
<Ned Flanders>Hokely-dokely young man.</Ned Flanders>
DM
dave_milbut
Oct 24, 2008
My system is in perfect shape.

except it’s unsupported. πŸ™‚

And I’m obviously using the trial. I’m not paying for any Adobe product without testing it thoroughly first, for reasons that should be pretty obvious.

there ya go. you didn’t lose a thing. like i said, gimp is free. knock yourself out. i’m sure you can use gimp to put sarah palin’s head on a poodle’s body just like you can with photoshop.

suffice it to say that installing XP64 was a deliberate choice made after fully considering the issues with Vista,

congratulations.

a decision which I have been very happy with

again. congratulations.

and I’m not going to change it because Adobe commands me to

what part of you’re free to run something else aren’t you understanding?
JJ
John Joslin
Oct 25, 2008
And I’m obviously using the trial.

That’s strange, since Adobe will release it in mid-November.

A bootleg copy on an unsupported system and you have the temerity to complain?

Pfui!!!!
BL
Bob Levine
Oct 25, 2008
I’m sure not downgrading to Vista

Someone’s been watching way too many Mac commercials.

Bob
JJ
John Joslin
Oct 25, 2008
Vista is not a "downgrade": it adds functionality and speed to the old XP. The eye candy is not obligatory, if it disturbs you you can turn it off.

You can say you don’t like it but you can’t call it a downgrade.
CF
chris_farrell
Oct 25, 2008
I’d love to know the source for the unreleased trial version of CS4. There’s a few people here claiming they have it installed – torrents / dodgy downloads is only asking for trouble……
DM
dave_milbut
Oct 25, 2008
I’m sure not downgrading to Vista

Someone’s been watching way too many Mac commercials.

to be fair, i agree going from xp sp3 32bit to vista sp1 32bit is DEFINITELY a downgrade. i’ll take you guyses (how’s that for a jersey word! :)) word for it that vista 64 is an upgrade. it certainly has enough going for it support wise and with the extra ram capabilities to qualify for that word.
LH
Lawrence_Hudetz
Oct 25, 2008
I am rather perplexed at the efforts to support a video system intended for gamers and High Def. If it has incorporated elements from gaming and Hi Def, it would seem to me to be a step backwards as any improvement intended to accommodate peripheral uses that degrade the principle use is of questionable value.

Because my PCIe slot is corrupt, I elected to use a PCI video card, the Ge Force 5200, hardly competitive in today’s computing demands. Yes, it slowed down redraw a bit and large 16 bit files take some time re-tiling when running Smart Sharp, and I can see the slight (less than 100Ms) delay in moving the image around the screen, but CS3 is quite usable in this environment. But when a program splits the difference in usability between iterations of a class of video cards (nVidia 8800 for example), we have nasties lurking around many corners, imo.
BL
Bob Levine
Oct 25, 2008
to be fair, i agree going from xp sp3 32bit to vista sp1 32bit is DEFINITELY a downgrade.

To install it on the same machine, I’d go so far as to call it an complete waste of time and resources.

But the discussion is about Vista 64 and I think you’ve seen enough feedback here from the regulars to know that it most certainly is NOT A DOWNGRADE.

Bob
LH
Lawrence_Hudetz
Oct 25, 2008
Dave, in the SW testing I am doing, on Vista and XP, 32 and 64 bit versions, I conclude that Vista 32 is a sideways move from XP, but Vista 64 is definitely better than XP 64, which is another way of saying that XP 64 isn’t as good as XP 32, I suppose!

I test an app that has no accommodation for the OS; that is, one version fits all and has to run w/o bugs on all platforms. That provides a great look at how the platforms themselves behave.
DM
dave_milbut
Oct 25, 2008
I conclude that Vista 32 is a sideways move from XP,

speed tests say vista 32 is a downgrade.

bob, i SAID vista 64 is an upgrade. πŸ™‚ and on my core2due e6600 w/2gig it’ll run fine (better if i up it to 4 gig).
BL
Bob Levine
Oct 25, 2008
bob, i SAID vista 64 is an upgrade. πŸ™‚

Actually, you barely hinted at it and I figure your fingers hurt after typing it. <g>

Bob
DM
dave_milbut
Oct 25, 2008
just some slight flameouts around the pinky nails. i’ll be ok. thanks for caring! πŸ™‚
LH
Lawrence_Hudetz
Oct 25, 2008
Well, on my platforms, it’s sidewise. XP loads a bit faster but it’s hard to tell exactly how much.

It’s a wash because XP does somethings better, Vista others.
DM
dave_milbut
Oct 25, 2008
It’s a wash because XP does somethings better, Vista others.

it’s only a wash if the things you do most aren’t affected by which one does one faster than the other. so i’ll amend my statement, for MOST people, in standard cases, xp pro 32 with sp3 screams over vista 32 sp1.
BL
Bob Levine
Oct 25, 2008
Compassion is my middle name, Dave. πŸ˜‰

Bob
LH
Lawrence_Hudetz
Oct 25, 2008
Screams is a big overstatement, imo.
DM
dave_milbut
Oct 26, 2008
Actually, name a program that decisively illustraets the difference.

whatcoo forget how to google? πŸ˜‰

google vista vs xp

here’s tom’s. they’ve never led me wrong when buying hardware…

<http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/xp-vs-vista,1531.html>
LH
Lawrence_Hudetz
Oct 26, 2008
After a quick read of the conclusions there, "Vista performed as expected or slightly slower than XP."

Not hardly screamin’!
DM
dave_milbut
Oct 26, 2008
that’s pre sp3…
CH
CR_Henderson
Oct 26, 2008
And pre sp1 πŸ™‚
JJ
John Joslin
Oct 26, 2008
Pointless argument.
MA
Michael_Auerswald
Nov 10, 2008
Just to get back to the topic, I notice a significant difference in 3D speed when I turn vertical sync off in the Photoshop GPU parameters. Have you guys tried that?
TJ
Tracy_Johnson
Nov 21, 2008
I find using dynamic link is incredibly painful/useless. Bridge isn’t much better.
running vista 64.
with only adobe & quicktime installed
brand new system.
Quad core 3ghz, oodles of ram and a 8800nvidia card. More than meeting the suggested system requirements.

Seems odd that it’s much quicker to render the after effect project out and bring into premiere, than using the "instant" dynamic link tools. The idea of the tool is brilliant. One of these years, it will actually work.

I did purchase the software, and am now trying to decide whether the rest of the software is good enough to keep this version, or go back to CS3. Right now CS4 is still slower in rendering than CS3. So the new features have to be pretty cool, to give me hope.

Eventually they’ll stop changing the quick keys commands.
VW
Victor_Wolansky
Feb 13, 2009
Same problem on every single machine where I run it, Vista64, XP64, CS4 is really slow compared to CS3, in fact, I keep using CS3. And I have QuadroFX 4500 and a dual SLI Nvidia 8800 . May be the release was rushed out???

Related Discussion Topics

Nice and short text about related topics in discussion sections