Photoshop CS5 supports multicore... So 6 Cores at 3.3 or 8 cores at 2.4?

[iClique.com]

I talked directly to Adobe and they said Photoshop CS5 supports multicore. So 6 Cores at 3.3GHz for $4,274 or 8 cores at 2.4GHz for $3,849? Both with 8gb of RAM and the 5870 ATI graphics card. I'm doing a lot of layers and using filters such as Nik's Viveza, OnOne Filters, and Topaz Filters.

3.3 x 6 cores = 19.8 and 2.4 x 8 cores = 19.2 so it would seem the 6 cores would be overall faster but is there an advantage to having two processors running four cores simultaneously as opposed to one processor running 6 cores? And if I'm running Adobe Lightroom and/or Adobe Bridge at the same time will I get more benefit from a multi-processor or the single processor running faster?

Too many options to think about! Too bad the 12 core at 2.93GHz for $6,549 is just way too much! That's clearly faster than all at 2.93 x 12 cores = 35.16

[Hellhammer]

Multicore does not mean that it will support unlimited amount of cores. The amount could be fixed, e.g. 4 cores. I haven't heard that Photoshop supports more than four cores. Photoshop isn't that CPU intensive and the clock speed is still important as multicore support is still pretty weak so I would get the 6-core

[netkas]

I talked directly to Adobe and they said Photoshop CS5 supports multicore. So 6 Cores at 3.3GHz for $4,274 or 8 cores at 2.4GHz for $3,849? Both with 8gb of RAM and the 5870 ATI graphics card. I'm doing a lot of layers and using filters such as Nik's Viveza, OnOne Filters, and Topaz Filters.

3.3 x 6 cores = 19.8 and 2.4 x 8 cores = 19.2 so it would seem the 6 cores would be overall faster but is there an advantage to having two processors running four cores simultaneously as opposed to one processor running 6 cores? And if I'm running Adobe Lightroom and/or Adobe Bridge at the same time will I get more benefit from a multi-processor or the single processor running faster?

Too many options to think about! Too bad the 12 core at 2.93GHz for $6,549 is just way too much! That's clearly faster than all at 2.93 x 12 cores = 35.16

6-six core is better except price.

[sboerup]

I use the same applications you listed . . . went with the 6-core because with Photoshop, the higher clock speed will yield a more noticeable performance . . . at least for the next 18 months.

[poot1234]

3.3 x 6 cores = 19.8 and 2.4 x 8 cores = 19.2
2.93 x 12 cores = 35.16

The calculation of speed doesn't work that way, but more cores would be better for you. Get the 8 or 12 core.

[strausd]

With Photoshop right now, higher clock speed is better. The way Photoshop was coded, only some effects can actually take advantage of all cores. Some can only use one, where as others can use 4. I don't remember where, but I heard somewhere that they are redoing CS6 so that it will be consistant and 100% of it will be able to support all available cores.

[alphaod]

Get the 6-core; although Photoshop CS5 supports multi-core processing, a lot of functions are still single threaded (which don't benefit from the 8-cores).

[300D]

6x3.3 is faster than 8x2.4. Less overhead and more raw processing power.

[eponym]

A single CPU will also be a bit faster at accessing memory.

[VirtualRain]

A 3.2 GHz Quad core plus SSD with sufficient storage for OS, Apps, and scratch with 6 or 12 GB of RAM (depending on image size and layer count) is optimal for CS5.

[jabbott]

Photoshop isn't that CPU intensive
Clearly you haven't used the lens blur filter. :) With CS3 it brings my quad-core i7 iMac to a standstill when processing 18 megapixel images. I'd be curious to know if newer versions of the lens blur filter are multi-core.

[iClique.com]

A 3.2 GHz Quad core plus SSD with sufficient storage for OS, Apps, and scratch with 6 or 12 GB of RAM (depending on image size and layer count) is optimal for CS5.

Why would I want to go with the older Nehalem processor? The NEW Westmere processor with faster memory at 1333MHz and more cache at 12MB seems to be a better investment than going with an SSD.

[skiffx]

Why would I want to go with the older Nehalem processor? The NEW Westmere processor with faster memory at 1333MHz and more cache at 12MB seems to be a better investment than going with an SSD.

Why not both ;)

[mattbatt]

I found early issues in ACR 6 and was one reason the 6.1 download came out. I was talking with a key programmer from CS5.

Unless you do radial blur, nothing else taps full core usage and good efficient core workload streaming. Even if you see all your cores pegged in activity monitor, they would be waiting for RAM (they peg 100% when waiting).

She said it is around 2 core compliant now.

Your best bets are: high gigahertz clock, lots of RAM, fast scratch (ssd definitely will provide you with more punchy performance than going from a quad to 6 core in my opinion).

The 6 core is going to match the 8 core in all processes now and forever, and kill it in processes that don't utilize true multithreading capability. No way around that.

Check out Digillyd's work on the subject.

Oh, and the i7 980x have been beating the 12 core xeon's in video rendering in CS5. Chech out this:

http://ppbm5.com/index.html

[Terminal.app]

Call me crazy, but I thought with the GPU acceleration of CS5, your Radeon 5870 would be more important than the CPU. :confused:

[VirtualRain]

Why would I want to go with the older Nehalem processor? The NEW Westmere processor with faster memory at 1333MHz and more cache at 12MB seems to be a better investment than going with an SSD.

Neither the faster ram or the added cache is going to improve real world performance more than a couple percent.



Your best bets are: high gigahertz clock, lots of RAM, fast scratch (ssd definitely will provide you with more punchy performance than going from a quad to 6 core in my opinion).

The 6 core is going to match the 8 core in all processes now and forever, and kill it in processes that don't utilize true multithreading capability. No way around that.


Agreed.

[mattbatt]

Call me crazy, but I thought with the GPU acceleration of CS5, your Radeon 5870 would be more important than the CPU. :confused:

Digillyd tested openGL performance on Mac and CS5 and found disabling it completely not only made his benchmark faster but also helped Photoshop run smoother.

I hope you understand that this guy I keep mentioning made the official Photoshop speed test in our forum sticky and is also a pro photographer plus works with OWC at custom modifying your macs for pro photo performance.

The guy is like barefeats.com but for Photoshop.

[allupons]

did he have an ati card or an nvidia card in his machine?

[sboerup]

Ya, when I put in a 4870 in my 2008 MP, I tested out CS4 and now CS5 and the OpenGL settings slow it down. I turn it off, it offers nothing for me.

[mattbatt]

did he have an ati card or an nvidia card in his machine?

he had a GT 120

[bzollinger]

Has anyone been able to find any other reviews, tests, or benchmarks of the benefits of open GL in photoshop? It would be great to know how much faster if any at all, the 5870 is than the 5770.

$180 isn't chump change but if the benefit was measurable, it could be worth it. BTW- I don't game at all, and really only need the speed for LR3 and PS5.

[mattbatt]

I'm going to try and be straight forward and logical with my limited experience:
the 5850 is going to:
1. game much better
2. play back video better - probably helping FCP. Probably. The new FCP - most definitely.
3. Definitly help in Motion. Barefeats (http://www.barefeats.com) will surely do tests here in the coming weeks, so let's wait and see.
4. NOT help photoshop CS5. Sorry.
5. Not sure about LR, but I doubt it. Adobe is favoring nVidia while Apple is favoring ATI. Let the wars begin.

[iClique.com]

$180 isn't chump change but if the benefit was measurable, it could be worth it. BTW- I don't game at all, and really only need the speed for LR3 and PS5.

Considering you're spending a few thousand dollars on a Mac Pro then I would think yes $180 is just chump change for the upgrade.

[Wild.Hare]

Here's a screen shot of all eight cores running on Photoshop CS5 64bit for Mac.

PS was only processing 4 images at a time while I was doing this, but using 2 cores for each image...the usage was as high as 777% at several points, but I missed the capture.

If you're buying a Pro for serious work, 8 cores is the way to go. Balance the remaining budget between RAM and SSD's. At 4GB or higher, fill the machine with as many SSD's as you can afford, running RAID0. I use 4 60GB OCZ Vertex's and PS CS5 starts up in just a scratch over 2 seconds for me. (No need to buy the more expensive MAC versions, the standard ones work great.)

[goMac]

Photoshop CS5 is pretty poorly coded... You're going to max out at around 4 CPU's, and for some reason, GPU acceleration is slower than CPU. I'd just go with a few really fast cores, and a good amount of RAM.

Not sure why Photoshop would still be limited by RAM speeds. On Nehalem, that issue should have been made much better.