All Posts by Date or last 15, 30, 90 or 180 days.
also by Lloyd: diglloyd.com photography and WindInMyFace.com

Thank you for buying via links and ads on this site,
which earn me advertising fees or commissions.
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

Other World Computing...
B&H Photo...
Amazon
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
Upgrade the memory of your 2020 iMac up to 128GB
877-865-7002
Today’s Deal Zone Items... Handpicked deals...
$3049 $2399
SAVE $650

$3508 $2998
SAVE $510

$998 $848
SAVE $150

$3999 $2998
SAVE $1001

$2299 $1799
SAVE $500

$1597 $1297
SAVE $300

$80 $33
SAVE $46

$2299 $1799
SAVE $500

$1898 $1498
SAVE $400

$2799 $2299
SAVE $500

$2299 $1799
SAVE $500

$600 $400
SAVE $200

$240 $175
SAVE $65

$699 $499
SAVE $200

$400 $300
SAVE $100

$1599 $1398
SAVE $201

$2027 $1597
SAVE $430

$1699 $999
SAVE $700

$180 $100
SAVE $80

$1199 $1099
SAVE $100

$1199 $1099
SAVE $100

$999 $949
SAVE $50

$400 $300
SAVE $100

$1699 $999
SAVE $700

Adobe Photoshop CC and CPU Cores: Does not Scale For Common Operations

Choose the best number of CPU cores for your actual work: 2013 Mac Pro: How Many CPU Cores for Your Workflow?

Don’t decide on CPU cores based on Photoshop CC alone unless that is your (only) usage. Some programs offer better scalability.

Scalability

It appeared that Adobe Photoshop CC was using my 12-core Mac Pro really well based on CPU usage, which was exciting. I thought that perhaps Adobe had made some progress and/or that OS X Mavericks had improved matters. But I was fooled by CPU usage, which is indicative but not definitive of getting useful work done.

I spent some careful hours measuring the actual performance, and it turns out that the CPU usage is mostly overhead busy-work (thread contention), not useful computation.

What matters is not CPU utilization, but useful work finished: do more cores get the work done faster?

For example, if a task takes 30 seconds with 6 CPU cores, we would like it to finish in ~15 seconds with 12 cores (perfect scalability), or at least something like ~18 seconds which would still be a large improvement. But Photoshop CC falls short of even that reduced goal, as the asymptotic curves make plain.

What is the cause? It could be memory bandwidth, in which case the 2013 Mac Pro will offer better relative performance in 8/10/12 core range versus 6 cores. How much better is unclear until testing can be done. Or it could be synchronization overhead, which is a function of both the problem space and the code design quality (efficiency)—unfixable except by redesign by Adobe if that is the case.

UPDATE: added is a graph with normalized times and theoretical best results.

UPDATE 2: perfect scalability exists with some programs.

2014 Update: Adobe Photoshop CC Scalability

Scalability across CPU cores of Adobe Photoshop CC on 12-core 3.33 GHz 2010 Mac Pro

 

OWC Thunderblade Thunderbolt 3 SSD

Blazing fast, up to 16TB.

YEE HAH!



√ No more slow and noisy hard drives!
OWC Accelsior 4M2 PCIe SSD
6000 MB/sec!
Mac or PC.


Ideal for Lightroom, Photoshop, video.
Capacity up to 16TB!

diglloyd.com | Terms of Use | PRIVACY POLICY
Contact | About Lloyd Chambers | Consulting | Photo Tours
Mailing Lists | RSS Feeds | Twitter
Copyright © 2020 diglloyd Inc, all rights reserved.
Display info: __RETINA_INFO_STATUS__