Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Next Version of Photoshop to be GPU-Accelerated

CS4 huh?

I'd love to see Adobe fix the "Could not complete your request because of a program error" bomb or the issues with InDesign simply crashing when trying to access the finder.

As to image size, I work on files for trade show graphics that are 4 Gigs and up... so a little performance boost would be great.

But, I'd really like to see Adobe actually fix some of the lingering issues in CS3 that I never have working in CS2.

mt4design
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU like Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/420.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.0 Mobile/4A102 Safari/419.3)

JBaker122586 said:
antoneoh said:
Hey Adobe, how about first fixing my CS3 on my PowerPC Mac. I'm crashing everyday and I'm still waiting for an update. :(
Click to expand...

Maybe you should have bought a new computer instead of spending hundreds on CS3.
Click to expand...

This has to be one of the most condescending and out of touch comments I've read on this board.

So your proposed solution to Adobe's buggy software is to spend a few thousand on a new Mac AND a few thousand on CS3?

CS3 has an enormous amount of bugs. Acrobat is a joke. They owe it to their customers to fix the expensive software they've already sent to market.
 
shiunn said:
who needs a 442 megapixel picture?
Click to expand...

Large Scans of Fine Art Paintings in the 4' x 6' size easily approach 700MB and Higher. When you add in adjustment layers, need for cropping, one easily has an image in the 1gig to 2 gig range. Scans like these are made on a "light table" scanner which scans one-to-one at 300dpi. Huge resolutions.

We are producing a 9x12" art book right now for a fine artist with these types of large images.

Some folks do use them.

Dante
 
!¡ V ¡! said:
There are two types of graphic designers:

1. Trial and Error; or

2. Visionary and the minimal steps to obtain it. ;):p:)

Which one are you?
Click to expand...

That's a pile of crap. True Graphic Arts / Design involve both.

It is NOT either or, the best designs I've seen, and produced for that matter, start with a vision/plan and evolve through trial and error, often from accidents along the way.
 
BiikeMike said:
Why on earth would Apple make it easier to run professional applications on their cheapest computer?
Click to expand...

Because it makes sense at the price they are selling the MacBook. It's a very cheap card, and competing notebooks (Dell M1330 and Sony SZ) have it.

And a better question, why would people buy a MacBook if they are serious about graphic design and Photoshop use?
Click to expand...

Maybe they don't have the money for a MBP or are just a serious hobbyist. Photoshop is used by an awful lot of people who aren't professionals.
 
stevenz said:
If speed is the primary concern then Pixelmator is already GPU accelerated and damn near a tenth of the price of photoshop.
Click to expand...

Pixelmator is a fantastic tool. Agree.

BUT it lacks any sort of Path based curve creation and saving which is a deal killer for a lot of professional imaging.
 
WinMacLin said:
Sounds like they were showcasing it on Windows. Being a Skulltrail system and all.

I know that NVIDIA cards under Mac OS X can run CUDA code just like on Windows and Linux but I'm curious in which way exactly Adobe are going to implement the power of the graphics processors present in systems.

Are they going to use OpenGL with a custom renderer (Or Core Image on OS X) or utilise the General Processing capability present in the latest NVIDIA and ATi cards. The article specifically mentioned GPGPU so I'm going to guess the latter but I'm still curious.
Click to expand...


mangoarts said:
Is Adobe using Core Image to make these speed jumps or is this GPU acceleration both Mac and PC?
Click to expand...

If you read the first few comments on http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/37611/140/, the editors responded in one of them to say that it'll only be available on nVidia Geforce 8-series GPUs, although he NEVER mentioned that directly in the article as he says he did.

If true, this means that Adobe is indeed using the nVidia's CUDA "GPGPU" technology, which is a c-like programming language that offloads parallel/SIMD processing onto the GPU. This is totally different than OSX's Core Image, which uses OpenGL shader programs written in GLSL for digital image transformations and filters.

Using nVidia's CUDA gives much more flexibility and optimization for all kinds of applications, not just image processing, but the downside is that you'll need an Nvidia Geforce 8-series card or higher to take advantage of this.

One of the really positive effects that will come from more software developers like Adobe using GPUs for application acceleration is that they will become a very important core component of computers, instead of just being used for games and professional 3D modeling/animation. And god forbid, Apple will have to start offering top-of-the-line GPUS like they SHOULD have been for the last few years!
 
inkswamp said:
Because even Apple's "cheapest" computers are much pricier than similar hardware in the PC market. Apple has been doing a shabby job lately of justifying that "Apple premium." I think any machine over $1000 ought to run pro applications at least reasonably well. There's no excuse for that. And if Apple can't provide that, they need to bring their prices down to be more in line with the rest of the computing world.
Click to expand...

CS3 runs perfectly fine on the $1,100 iMac.
 
Eidorian said:
Dear Apple,

I know you use the GPU for Quartz Extreme and those wonderful Core foundations. Maybe you should start using it for Quicktime and other decoding work.

~Eidorian
Click to expand...

They could also do what one programmer did for Einstein@home and optimize it for SSE, 3DNow! and SSE3. That created an 800% improvement for that application.
 
ugh. How wonderful.

Yet another update for me to lavish money I don't have on.

Oh well. At least they might make the icons better. The CS3 ones are rather bland, dull and uninteresting. (I know those words are basically the same thing :p)
 
bmb012 said:
Oh, no, I think Photoshop in general is one of the worst designed programs ever made. I literally cringed when I heard that Adobe was buying Flash (and Flash already sucked to begin with).
Click to expand...

Adobe is quickly heading for problems. The decision to bundle all their applications in suites (like Microsoft Office) is going to bite them in the foot. Some production environments cannot immediately upgrade to each software release because of 1) training, 2) cost or 3) hardware or driver incompatibility.

To those with a PowerMac environment, there was little need to upgrade to CS2. As Intel Macs were added, CS3 made more sense. One big advantage is much better rendering of soft shadows within PDF from InDesign. Photoshop CS3 offers a few productivity enhancements and overall Universal Binary better optimizes RAM on Intel Macs.

Nevertheless, the entire suite is huge and it will literally take years to benefit from enhancements to multiple applications. GPU performance optimization does not sound like a paid upgrade. It should be a point update. Unfortunately, since all graphics applications are bundled, there is pressure to get the next full suite out to generate income. I am not interested in the next biggest annual upgrade. (These apps are too big already.) Refine what we have with better interface cohesion and performance gains. Slow down the upGRADE cycle to 2-2.5 years or stagger more moderately priced unbundled upgrades.
 
Wirelessly posted (iPhone: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU like Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/420.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.0 Mobile/4A102 Safari/419.3)

This works really well with some of the core animation stuff so it is very exciting.
 
Kwill said:
Adobe is quickly heading for problems. The decision to bundle all their applications in suites (like Microsoft Office) is going to bite them in the foot. Some production environments cannot immediately upgrade to each software release because of 1) training, 2) cost or 3) hardware or driver incompatibility.

To those with a PowerMac environment, there was little need to upgrade to CS2. As Intel Macs were added, CS3 made more sense. One big advantage is much better rendering of soft shadows within PDF from InDesign. Photoshop CS3 offers a few productivity enhancements and overall Universal Binary better optimizes RAM on Intel Macs.

Nevertheless, the entire suite is huge and it will literally take years to benefit from enhancements to multiple applications. GPU performance optimization does not sound like a paid upgrade. It should be a point update. Unfortunately, since all graphics applications are bundled, there is pressure to get the next full suite out to generate income. I am not interested in the next biggest annual upgrade. (These apps are too big already.) Refine what we have with better interface cohesion and performance gains. Slow down the upGRADE cycle to 2-2.5 years or stagger more moderately priced unbundled upgrades.
Click to expand...

They still offer all the apps individually though, right? Or do you mean that they are much more expensive individually, and so they are only worth buying in the suites?
 
I bought CS3 in October last year, and I'm really not looking to upgrade.
I'll definitely wait for CS5 although that could take forever. CS5 will be both GPU-Accelerated and have 64-Bit support for Mac, plus I can't just keep dishing out another couple wallets full of cash every year to have the latest and slightly better software.

Unless there's something really big about CS4, I'll be waiting for CS5, and my guess is that other people that just bought CS3 will too.
 
Geez, it's about blooming time! Adobe has been so far behind the times with Photoshop - no 64 bit support and no GPU support. It's really ridiculous how long it's taken them to get the GPU support.
 
I wonder if it's a GPU-mode option instead of the whole program being built for the GPU. The GPU-mode option would be very very nice for those who have Macbooks or something with integrated graphics. As of right now, CS3 works perfectly on my Toshiba with GMA950 integrated. I hope it stays that way.
 
How about some news that affects more than .000001% of us??? These GPGPU's are hellaciously expensive, a pipe dream for most people. Useless news.
 
ckurowic said:
How about some news that affects more than .000001% of us??? These GPGPU's are hellaciously expensive, a pipe dream for most people. Useless news.
Click to expand...

1) Only .000001% of mac users use Adobe Photoshop? This is entirely relevant to a site called "MacRumors.com"

2) There is no such thing as a "GPGPU". GPGPU is just an umbrella term for using graphic card processors to perform calculations outside of their native domain, i.e. 3D graphics processing. Nvidia does sell special graphic cards without DVI ports that are dedicated to GPGPU type calculations, but their GPGPU code library and SDK, called "CUDA" (Compute Unified Device Architecture), is able to run on ANY Geforce 8-series card or it's equivalent professional Quadro card. The lowest 8 series card Apple uses is the Geforce 8400, which retails for $75.


tsd said:
Geez, it's about blooming time! Adobe has been so far behind the times with Photoshop - no 64 bit support and no GPU support. It's really ridiculous how long it's taken them to get the GPU support.
Click to expand...

Um... I'm not sure where you are coming from with this, but most image manipulation apps (and for that matter most apps in general, especially on Windows) don't have any type of GPU support. Most of the apps on the Mac that do have GPU support are using the built-in Core Image library which utilizes OpenGL shaders. This is an entirely different solution using Nvidia's CUDA SDK.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CUDA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPGPU

h4cky0u said:
I wonder if it's a GPU-mode option instead of the whole program being built for the GPU. The GPU-mode option would be very very nice for those who have Macbooks or something with integrated graphics. As of right now, CS3 works perfectly on my Toshiba with GMA950 integrated. I hope it stays that way.
Click to expand...

I'm sure this will be optional, as many/most people will not have an Nvidia 8-series or higher GPU by the time this version of PS ships.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back