Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Does Photoshop run Faster on a Mac than PC?
- Thread starter binky777
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Compiling CS4 as a 64-bit app will allow it to address substantially more memory. It will also allow it to access a color palette with more colors than humans can conceive of, let alone see. However, a 64-bit version of CS4 will not be faster than a 32-bit version.
You don't think that by introducing the ability to address vastly more memory will give the 64bit version the "potential" to make it faster? Really? You don't think that potential will become a real life speed burst when working with big files?
I have both a MacBook Pro and an Acer Travelmate 8204WLMI (running XP), both 2GB RAM and both 2.4Ghz Dual Core processors. I tested opening one of my Presentation sheets for Uni, around about a 350mb file, on both of them simultaneously...........
....and to my horror, they both took exactly the same time to open!!
So I think it depends more on the hardware (RAM, Processor, Graphics..) rather than the operating system.
....and to my horror, they both took exactly the same time to open!!
So I think it depends more on the hardware (RAM, Processor, Graphics..) rather than the operating system.
Now I haven't used the new 64bit cs4 but I can say that a 64bit program will run faster than a 32bit one (windows) in my experience. With 3ds max (which to be honest is a damn site more cpu intensive than photoshop etc) I saw around a 15-25% increase in cpu performance (the time to render reduced) going upto the 64bit version from the 32bit version - iirc when the cpu is running in 64bit it does have more 'paths' so it can work faster or something to that effect
The difference between cs3 32bit apps on windows or os-x is very little usually, theres a few plugins which probably work slightly better on os-x but nothing to write home about in my opinion.
AMD 64 instruction set is more than just more ram support, 64-bit mode has more registers and other architectural differences that effect 64-bit applications for the better.
If Intel has copied the architecture well the same "extras" will switch on.
PCstats review. 32bit-64bit Bit old but still valid at showing some of the applications 32bit and 64 bit diffrences.
For Photoshop performance it is usually not the benchmarks that make the difference but the preserved differences by the user. In my experience Photoshop is smoother on OSX, the brush strokes seem to draw faster and less clunky.
If Intel has copied the architecture well the same "extras" will switch on.
PCstats review. 32bit-64bit Bit old but still valid at showing some of the applications 32bit and 64 bit diffrences.
For Photoshop performance it is usually not the benchmarks that make the difference but the preserved differences by the user. In my experience Photoshop is smoother on OSX, the brush strokes seem to draw faster and less clunky.
The real question...
I think the real question here is...
"Will Photoshop still run after a months of arduous use?"
Loading a file is the most useless measurement of performance! DERRRRRRRR!!!
What counts is how reliably and efficiently each computer can render any given image at any given time... this means for example; 14 other applications running or idle taking up memory.
you will find that Mac OS X handles memory WAAAAY better than Windows(Any version for this matter) can ever achieve.
Reference:
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/2002/07/12/steinberg.htm
I think the real question here is...
"Will Photoshop still run after a months of arduous use?"
Loading a file is the most useless measurement of performance! DERRRRRRRR!!!
What counts is how reliably and efficiently each computer can render any given image at any given time... this means for example; 14 other applications running or idle taking up memory.
you will find that Mac OS X handles memory WAAAAY better than Windows(Any version for this matter) can ever achieve.
Reference:
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/2002/07/12/steinberg.htm
Nice reference - its 6 yes 6 years old!! Things have moved on a little since then
As to a month later, not sure about you but us in the UK are in a economic downturn so most of us turn the pc off when its not being used (most of the night atleast)
And from a personal perspective - extra ram is so much better to have when working on any large file.
Not this again, the amount of people who spout this junk is stupid. Windows is just as stable as os-x, its the users who make it unstable by installing junkware etc. In a business environment with all software and drivers thoroughly checked to work windows is just as stable as os-x.
The only things they could benchmark would be filters (or actions running filters). That doesnt exactly matter and doesnt tell you how fast Photoshop is since nobody uses filters all the time.
In reality any modern computer with a lot of ram will run Photoshop as fast as any other computer with a lot of ram. Photoshop works in realtime, it is not a rendering tool, it can only work as fast as you work. The only real world stuff that might be affected are minor things like opening large files or resizing a large image which doesnt take all that long anyways unless you have a really slow HDD.
In reality any modern computer with a lot of ram will run Photoshop as fast as any other computer with a lot of ram. Photoshop works in realtime, it is not a rendering tool, it can only work as fast as you work. The only real world stuff that might be affected are minor things like opening large files or resizing a large image which doesnt take all that long anyways unless you have a really slow HDD.
right out of the box yes but after you use it in the real world windows gets corrupted and then it slows down and becomes less stable
Do you have a clue about how much memory a 32-bit processor can address? how much memory a 64-bit processor can address? Have you ever edited a graphics file that was limited by the address space of a 32-bit processor? I'll give you a hint--no, you have not.Ah, I see. In your world, RAM doesn't matter when working with big files.
ok I must be doing something wrong with my windows machines then, as I don't seem to have the issues you seem to be referring to.
Now I admit I'm a little more tech savvy than some and have changed a few 'features' (turned off that uac crap for example) but my systems are 100% stable and are actually faster now than when they were first installed due to the updates from ms with vista sp1/xp sp3 etc.
Windows only gets corrupted by people trying to do things they shouldn't do to the os, ie new themes, getting a virus due to warez (its more common on windows in my opinion) or my favourite using a 'reg cleaner' (does more damage than good) etc. If you get a decent av, adware scanner and a defrag program (the built in one is rubbish), you have to say these are a requirement of windows use now adays and then perform them on a regular basis and the system will stay as fresh as a daisy.
OS-X is no more stable than my windows machines in my experience and I use both, with probably the heavier work being done on windows (3ds max rendering etc).
Wrong. There are different classes of motherboards and components. There are $400 motherboards and there are complete windows computer for $400.
The OS makes a huge difference. Windows multi tasks poorly. Try open 100 4mb jpegs in windows and you'll see.
Not photoshop, but some relative measurement between Mac and windows.
http://www.anandtech.com/systems/showdoc.aspx?i=3446&p=4
Attachments
Who said anything about stability?
The interface is better in OS X - Expose saves you minutes every day.
well my interpretation was you meant fixing issues hence my stability. If you meant the os, blimey apart from the few minutes I spend starting a program I hardly see the os. The program menus are really no different to the os-x menu bar except that they're within the program window
And as for expose, I don't actually think I use that very often and theres the alt tab/windows button tab which do pretty much the same, theres also programs available for windows which can do expose if we really want it that much.
And another thing to consider, photoshop (and I assume the others) have changed program to the 'window' approach similar to that of windows now too.
Windows is just as usable as os-x. If you've never used os-x you will get stuck with some aspects (it does work different to windows) it's even more apparent if you've never used os-x. Ask a windows only user (never used os-x) to uninstall a program in os-x and I bet you the first question is where is the uninstaller as to just delete a folder isn't natural in windows. Now the same could be said for most os-x users who have never used windows but considering most programs have an uninstall option in the 'start' menu (yes I agree thats a daft name) it would probably be fairly straight forward for most users to remove an unwanted program.
It is all good and fine to be a Windows fan. However, you should know better than to spout this nonsense on a site where people know better.
Question. I have Adobe CS3, and have had it installed for a LONG time now (basically since the week CS3 came out).
Would it run considerably faster if I uninstalled it, then reinstalled it? Does time, and the addition of plugins/brushes/patterns/etc. affect it or possibly corrupt it?
Jason
Would it run considerably faster if I uninstalled it, then reinstalled it? Does time, and the addition of plugins/brushes/patterns/etc. affect it or possibly corrupt it?
Jason
Yeah, and back in the '80s, 640k was enough memory.
Here's a hint: digital camera image sensors will continue to get bigger. Images will continue to get higher in resolution. Photo editors will continue to combine more and more layers. More and more levels of undo. Image processing geeks will create more and more complex filters. Pretty soon, 4GB will no longer be enough for anybody.
And "pretty soon" is sooner than you think.
24bit/192khz stereo audio files in a multitracker puts image sensors to shame. Even worse is video production. But you're right of course.