80% Efficiency in PS CC on new MBP?

[UntitledImage]

I got my new maxed out 2016 Mackbook Pro (15'', 460, 1tb, 2.9ghz) because I am hopping to not be strapped to this desk having to be on the computer 10-12 hours a day. I am currently working on a photography based thesis project that is montage based. I'm using Sony .AWR's at like 80mb a peice, 16 bit, ProPhoto. I Am working generally with 2-3 masked layers, and then 1-2 normal layers, content aware fill, some cloning, and occasionally a Nik filter. While I'm working, PS keeps reporting dropping down to 80% efficiency. I have the recommended 70% RAM dedicated to PS and all the other recommended setting for my work flow. I do have minimized background apps running (safari, mail, messages...).

I really didn't think this would top out so fast, I had a 2015 MacBook I did a lot of PS work on with .NEF files and don't remember it dropping so low.

I came from a maxed out 2015 iMac, have I just topped the limits of this MacBook, and should stay with my iMac? Or am I missing something to get it back to speedy, minimal scratch disk us, order?

 

[maflynn]

I came from a maxed out 2015 iMac, have I just topped the limits of this MacBook, and should stay with my iMac? Or am I missing something to get it back to speedy, no scratch disk order?

With the iMac you'd be able to have more then 16GB of ram, and it sounds like ram is your issue. I'm not sure what you meant about the scratch disk, are you not using a scratch disk with PS?

Use the Activity Monitor (found in Applications->Utilities) to see where your resources are being consumed. Make sure you don't have a lot of programs loading up at boot up

 

[SoyCapitanSoyCapitan]

Camera RAW formats are the starting point. What is the working file format? Performance settings - why not give all the RAM? The amount of layers you have are low but 16-bit mode is quite high to work in and rarely needed.

 

[UntitledImage]

With the iMac you'd be able to have more then 16GB of ram, and it sounds like ram is your issue. I'm not sure what you meant about the scratch disk, are you not using a scratch disk with PS?

Use the Activity Monitor (found in Applications->Utilities) to see where your resources are being consumed. Make sure you don't have a lot of programs loading up at boot up

I thought the scratch disc only comes into play after the ram is used up? I meant using photoshop where it isn't writing to it every single time. Sorry.

I close the non essential apps like drop box and what not, but I do have apps in the background as I'm switching between them. But yeah, it's all photoshop. I have 32gb on the iMac and it seemed like I never used it all, and never thought 16 wouldn't be enough.
[doublepost=1481976606][/doublepost]

Camera RAW formats are the starting point. What is the working file format? Performance settings - why not give all the RAM? The amount of layers you have are low but 16-bit mode is quite high to work in and rarely needed.

I don't give it 100% as that wasn't recommended when I have background apps I'm switching to, like safari and mail. On adobe it said 70%, 100% if you have nothing else running.... ?

Yes, I know 16 is rarely needed. I have needed it in some instances working with really dark images and gradients, maybe it's just a trick but he gradations seem smoother. Plus, They keep beating us over the head with future proofing in case we want to print crazy or some such down the line.

I process the raw then save in .TIFF, was just saying the raw because those of some of the largest before going up in format.

 

[SoyCapitanSoyCapitan]

I thought the scratch disc only comes into play after the ram is used up? I meant using photoshop where it isn't writing to it every single time. Sorry.

I close the non essential apps like drop box and what not, but I do have apps in the background as I'm switching between them. But yeah, it's all photoshop. I have 32gb on the iMac and it seemed like I never used it all, and never thought 16 wouldn't be enough.
[doublepost=1481976606][/doublepost]

I don't give it 100% as that wasn't recommended when I have background apps I'm switching to, like safari and mail. On adobe it said 70%, 100% if you have nothing else running.... ?

Yes, I know 16 is rarely needed. I have needed it in some instances working with really dark images and gradients, maybe it's just a trick but he gradations seem smoother. Plus, They keep beating us over the head with future proofing in case we want to print crazy or some such down the line.

I process the raw then save in .TIFF, was just saying the raw because those of some of the largest before going up in format.

If you're getting gradients then yes you will have to employ ways to making them smoother. Ideally that should be avoided by photography in the first place

The SSD in the new Macs is as fast as RAM was just a few years ago so you shouldn't worry. If you eat up RAM then the scratch disk is very fast. The efficiency meter is a relic from the old days and you can ignore it on the newest computers.

 

[Pardus]

on my maxed late 2014 retina iMac 5K with 32gb ram I run into the issue with large files in photoshop too. I shoot with a Canon 5DS R 50mp images and when in 16bit, prophoto layers etc files spike over 1gb. if I have a number of them open I will start having to use swap files. Its still fairly quick as the ssd is fast but is noticeable. I try to limit the number of files open and other apps. I will also quit photoshop every so often which seems to clear out cache and help a bit. also check your number of history states and with your performance to huge pixel dimensions setting. I have a 15" 2015 mbp which runs into the same issues but have to say my iMac is quite a bit faster. have a 2016 mbp on order so will see how that goes.

 

[Sohappy]

I work with 50 mb RAF files from Fujifilm xt-2 on my 2016 MBP 15" 455 . Several layers and masks. I don't have any issues. I chose Affinity Photos though

 

[runner77]

While I'm working, PS keeps reporting dropping down to 80% efficiency.

Where can we see that number in Photoshop?

I have the same configuration laptop like you and can test.

 

[idunn]

on my maxed late 2014 retina iMac 5K with 32gb ram I run into the issue with large files in photoshop too. I shoot with a Canon 5DS R 50mp images and when in 16bit, prophoto layers etc files spike over 1gb. if I have a number of them open I will start having to use swap files. Its still fairly quick as the ssd is fast but is noticeable. I try to limit the number of files open and other apps. I will also quit photoshop every so often which seems to clear out cache and help a bit. also check your number of history states and with your performance to huge pixel dimensions setting. I have a 15" 2015 mbp which runs into the same issues but have to say my iMac is quite a bit faster. have a 2016 mbp on order so will see how that goes.

If only one had a modern Mac Pro.

 

[UntitledImage]

If you're getting gradients then yes you will have to employ ways to making them smoother. Ideally that should be avoided by photography in the first place

The SSD in the new Macs is as fast as RAM was just a few years ago so you shouldn't worry. If you eat up RAM then the scratch disk is very fast. The efficiency meter is a relic from the old days and you can ignore it on the newest computers.

Heh yeah then I'd have to avoid shooting what I shoot all together. 90% of my work is night urban work, so the worst conditions, especially for digital, you can imagine. Lots of gradients, lots of point sources and specular highlights, lots of color contaimination, additional noise due to long exposures. That's why I started using the Sony, phase detection really doesn't like the temperature of street lamps and switching to live view was really racking up the shutter clicks and camera wear. ... But basically, I get banding at times. I try to add in noise to hide it away, but have also been told to work in 16 bit instead.

I thought that that kind of use was detrimental for the ssd over time? Just being paranoid? It did run common operations at about 60% the speed of the iMac, but relatively I guess still isn't 'slow' even then.

 

[SoyCapitanSoyCapitan]

I thought that that kind of use was detrimental for the ssd over time? Just being paranoid? It did run common operations at about 60% the speed of the iMac, but relatively I guess still isn't 'slow' even then.

It will wear the SSD down over time but the endurance ratings are around 1200-1500TB per cell. It would take a long time for you to make these SSDs feel slow.

 

[Ries]

If you're getting gradients then yes you will have to employ ways to making them smoother. Ideally that should be avoided by photography in the first place

The SSD in the new Macs is as fast as RAM was just a few years ago so you shouldn't worry. If you eat up RAM then the scratch disk is very fast. The efficiency meter is a relic from the old days and you can ignore it on the newest computers.

Lol, it is not even close for the RAM used 16 years ago. While the current SSD's may match the sequential speeds from the RAM in the year 2000, the latency is still a factor 100-1000x off. Doing random writes/reads, you know the part "Random Access Memory" does, the write/read speed doesn't even match FPM DRAM used in the early 1990s.

 

[SoyCapitanSoyCapitan]

Lol, it is not even close for the RAM used 16 years ago. While the current SSD's may match the sequential speeds from the RAM in the year 2000, the latency is still a factor 100-1000x off. Doing random writes/reads, you know the part "Random Access Memory" does, the write/read speed doesn't even match FPM DRAM used in the early 1990s.

Don't know what you're laughing at. On the Mac Pro forums we extensively tested RAMDISK performance on Mac Pros and the typical real world read/were speeds average 2GB/s. That's with 1333mhz DDR3.

We have tested with even faster RAM but it made no difference to real performance because it was pretty difficult enough for Photoshop to take advantage of 2GB/s anyway.

Scratch disks use isn't 'random access'. Photoshop sets aside a temporary part of the disk to cache to.

 

[Ries]

Don't know what you're laughing at. On the Mac Pro forums we extensively tested RAMDISK performance on Mac Pros and the typical real world read/were speeds average 2GB/s. That's with 1333mhz DDR3.

We have tested with even faster RAM but it made no difference to real performance because it was pretty difficult enough for Photoshop to take advantage of 2GB/s anyway.

Scratch disks use isn't 'random access'. Photoshop sets aside a temporary part of the disk to cache to.

Real world:
512K Read: 842 MB/s
512K Write: 945 MB/s
4K Read: 9.8 MB/s
4K Write: 13 MB/s
4K QD32 Read: 630 MB/s
4K QD32 Write: 443 MB/s

Unless you copy dvds around, sequential speed means squat.

 

[UntitledImage]

I was just reading this https://www.slrlounge.com/super-charge-lightroom-photoshop-ram-disk/ about RAM disks and speed comparisons.

I guess my main concern is that I've got myself a machine that doesn't fit my workflow needs after all and RAM amount seems to be creating a bottleneck, which is kind of shame as I'm sick of being stuck at a desk in this one room all day.... hmmm.... it sure which to place more weight on, mobility or efficiency.

 

[SoyCapitanSoyCapitan]

Real world:
512K Read: 842 MB/s
512K Write: 945 MB/s
4K Read: 9.8 MB/s
4K Write: 13 MB/s
4K QD32 Read: 630 MB/s
4K QD32 Write: 443 MB/s

Unless you copy dvds around, sequential speed means squat.

Exactly. It can't come close to theoretical maximums of memory speed, therefore the new MBP SSDs are plenty fast for scratch if you don't have enough memory.

Btw, Photoshop also saves a duplicate temp file while you are working, not just a scratch. If that file is quite large then yes it would be equal to copying a DVD size file.

 

[campyguy]

No offense to the OP, I think your workflow needs help. Yes, I'll write it - you're missing something. One power user of PS (Mac) and AutoCAD (Win) to the OP, but not as an owner of a new rMBP and from my GF who is a power user of PS and an owner of a new rMBP - we have 4 bits of advice, (1) get an external SSD scratch disk, (2) get an external SSD scratch disk, (3) get an external SSD scratch disk, and (4) rethink your workflow.

I honestly don't know why power PS users don't use a fast scratch disk and optimize their workspace - https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/kb/optimize-photoshop-cc-performance.html - I've blathered about it here in these forums before. Get your caches/history states/proxies/scratch or swap files on a different bus.

Don't use Mail while using PS. Don't use Safari while using PS - especially if you're synching cookies/history/caches via iCloud (ugh!). Both of those apps are writing proxy files constantly to your main drive. No offense, I run a small company, around 50 employees, and I dictate workstation setups having learned about how they work effectively over many years. IMHO, you're pretty much choking your machine's ability to work efficiently - you wouldn't have posted here if it was working smoothly, right? BTW, don't bother with a RAM disk - they're fast, but you'll find that your workflow will push your Mac to write scratch files to the SSD just that much sooner as you've put Safari/Mail/all of those CC applications and PS into memory, then removed some of that RAM by creating a RAM disk - a RAM disk that's working on the same bus as the the other applications paging for bandwidth on that SSD.

My advice, for what it's worth, is to get a cheap iPad to surf the web and monitor your email - put it on your desk next to your workstation; this is what we do at my office - and we use Office 365 for email and other related work, and an iPad is a great tool for this. Work in a Standard User Account, and use it only with PS - that's what I do on my Macs and PC, and that's what my employees do (because they're instructed to - and I've never heard one of them complain about their workflow or workstations). Reboot when you're done with a project - Apple has offered that a reboot clears caches and PS is often a buggy beast as are some of the plug-ins (including the Google owned-and-now-abandonware Nik software apps/plug-ins). Get a fast external scratch disk - my GF and I both use a 480GB SanDisk Extreme 900, a bit of a USB 3.1 Gen. 2 beast with an internal RAID 0 setup that flies for the price that they're asking.

Read the Adobe Help article. I've been using PS since version 3, and I use an external scratch disk with my laptops - the external drive is on a different bus, and that makes a big difference. Stop using other apps that write cache files to your main drive - specifically Mail and Safari. Good luck...