Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] Linux/Photoshop question

Subject: Re: [OM] Linux/Photoshop question
From: ChrisB <ftog@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2016 06:24:41 +0100
That’s a very interesting multi-core test, Moose.  It seems to show that the 
improvement in performance peaks at 5 cores.  My iMac (a late-2013 model) runs 
4 cores in one CPU (i5) so its performance is quite reasonable, for the few 
operations that I use Photoshop for.  I now use Capture One for my Raw 
conversions and cataloguing and it’s pretty swift – once it has started up.

I would still recommend MacOS, Chuck, although we now have W7 at work on MOD 
machines and that runs reasonably well as a standalone system.  The problems 
that we have are entirely because of the size and sluggishness of the UK-wide 
network coupled with the security measures that have been instituted.  Oh, and 
MOSS*!  Who could have possibly thought that running a filing system through a 
browser on a massive and sluggish network would be good for productivity?

Chris

*Microsoft Office Sharepoint Services (I think).

> On 28 Jul 16, at 21:54, Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> On 7/28/2016 4:49 AM, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
>> I've pretty much decided that Win 10 is not for me but whatever replaces my 
>> Win 7 must run Photoshop. 
> 
> Why the worry/rush? Many huge companies have only recently moved to Win7. 
> It's going to be supported for a long time. I'll be following my usual 
> policy, upgrading OS when it comes installed on a new machine (or I install 
> fresh on a machine I've put together). As I need the XP virtual machine of 
> Win7 Pro for business, I won't convert my desktop, and I can't see what 
> advantage 'upgrading' my 6+ year old netbook+ would have.
> 
>> I dipped my toe into the Apple universe last December with an iPhone 6s.
> 
> We have two iPhones and two iPads. I'm not sure what that has to do with 
> choice of computer and OS to run PS. Mac and iThingies, iOS and MacOS are 
> essentially only related by parent company.
> 
>> That has caused me to at least consider a Mac Mini but the price is very 
>> high for a fixed configuration which dates to 2014.  I don't know but 
>> suspect that much of Photoshop would not utilize the multi-threading 
>> capabilities of an Intel i7. 
> 
> There's a lot of info/blather about that around. This test uses a pretty good 
> looking testing procedure to show that, while many PS functions are indeed 
> single threaded, many of the most processor intensive ones are multi-threaded 
> and increase 3-4 times in speed, occasionally more, with the first few cores. 
> <https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Adobe-Photoshop-CC-Multi-Core-Performance-625/>
> 
> Several of the functions that are sped up a lot are ones I use a great deal. 
> I've also been quite impressed at the speed with which my machine can 
> convert/load a dozen Raw files in a stack and align them, then merge them. 
> That's a LOT of calculations. No, it's not instant, but not that slow, 
> either, considering what it is doing. My recollection of stacking and 
> creating panoramas on older PS and a slower, single threaded machine is of a 
> great deal more work on my part and lots and lots more processing time.
> 
> I'm running the (next?) prior version of the processor he recommends; Intel 
> Core i7 4770K 3.5GHz Quad Core (8 threads), (apparently still a current 
> model) with 16 GB of RAM.
> 
> This makes sense if one assumes that Adobe is not entirely brain dead. Just 
> as in the old days developers would identify the parts of an app that had the 
> greatest negative effect on overall performance and code them in assembler, 
> it appears Adobe may have targeted similarly in choosing which functions to 
> expand to multi-threading.
> 
> I gather that converting a process to multi-threading is not a simple thing 
> like changing a compiler option, but requires at the least lots of recoding, 
> and often starting from scratch.
> 
>> So, in selecting a processor, I would try to maximize single thread 
>> performance which means clock speeds of 3GHz or more.  But the only way to 
>> get that clock speed in a Mac Mini it to buy the i7 version at $1300.
>> 
>> That leaves a custom built machine running Linux with Wine or maybe a 
>> virtual Win 7 to run Photoshop.
> 
> I still don't understand the rush to leave Win7. It's current, stable and 
> runs PSCC well.
> 
>> Anyone have experience with this and a recommendation?  Am I wrong about the 
>> degree of multi-threading in Photoshop?
> 
> Mostly, yes, you are wrong, perhaps not on number of m-t processes, but on 
> their significance to practical use.
> 
> Hetero Tasking Moose
> 
> -- 
> What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
> -- 
> _________________________________________________________________
> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
> 

-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz