Time in seconds to open raw image in Adobe CS/CS2 — Computer Speed

I would be interested in what kinds of real world times others with faster computers are getting.

I am getting tired of what seems to be the excessive times (in seconds) for a 14MB RAW file to open in CS2, and am considering building a newer faster PC. However, before I do this I would like to know just what kind of real world speed gains I might be able to actually realize. On my current home-built (AMD Athlon 64 3200+) it takes 6 seconds to open a full size 14.7MB RAW image in CS2, and 7.5 seconds to open the same image at the reduced 6MB size. For a 9MB NEF (Nikon RAW) file the times are respectively 5.2 seconds and 4.25 seconds. Times are measured when I hit open to when the image pops up on the screen. In contrast, the same image stored as a 38MB TIF takes only 1.2 seconds to open.

I know these times don’t seem worth worrying about, but when I am trying to process 3,000 images from a trip, the waiting adds up and is tiring. My current workflow is to open 5-6 images at a time via Bridge and CS2. Once I adjust each raw image via Adobe RAW and hit the open button to open them all, I then have to sit back and wait for nearly a minute while they all open. It would be great if I could get this total wait time for opening all 6 images down to 15-20 seconds.
I would be interested in what kinds of real world times others with faster computers are getting. I don’t think it will be worth upgrading unless I can halve the times it is currently taking me.

JOHNCHAP2 wrote:

I am getting tired of what seems to be the excessive times (in seconds) for a 14MB RAW file to open in CS2, and am considering building a newer faster PC. However, before I do this I would like to know just what kind of real world speed gains I might be able to actually realize. On my current home-built (AMD Athlon 64 3200+) it takes 6 seconds to open a full size 14.7MB RAW image in CS2, and 7.5 seconds to open the same image at the reduced 6MB size. For a 9MB NEF (Nikon RAW) file the times are respectively 5.2 seconds and 4.25 seconds. Times are measured when I hit open to when the image pops up on the screen. In contrast, the same image stored as a 38MB TIF takes only 1.2 seconds to open.

I know these times don’t seem worth worrying about, but when I am trying to process 3,000 images from a trip, the waiting adds up and is tiring. My current workflow is to open 5-6 images at a time via Bridge and CS2. Once I adjust each raw image via Adobe RAW and hit the open button to open them all, I then have to sit back and wait for nearly a minute while they all open. It would be great if I could get this total wait time for opening all 6 images down to 15-20 seconds.
I would be interested in what kinds of real world times others with faster computers are getting. I don’t think it will be worth upgrading unless I can halve the times it is currently taking me.

I am using AMD 4800 (0r 4600?) with 3GB of memory, and since you don’t mention one of the most important parts is the amound_of_memory you have. So, I may not be able to provide you all answers, but at least try to give some imprtant information like

– Amount of MEMORY (Photoshop, Windows love memory)

– Amount of FREE disk space as Windows loves free disk space for swapping, and Photoshop uses quite a bit of swapping.

– If the hard drive defragged as cleaner hard drive usually give better performance.

But since computer is so cheap these days I would suggest to go for fast system, and if you can build your own system (I have been building my own since around late 80’s), and AMD 4600 or 4800 was among the fastest when I built mine few years ago.

I am using AMD 4800 (0r 4600?) with 3GB of memory, and since you don’t mention one of the most important parts is the amound_of_memory you have. So, I may not be able to provide you all answers, but at least try to give some imprtant information like

– Amount of MEMORY (Photoshop, Windows love memory)

– Amount of FREE disk space as Windows loves free disk space for swapping, and Photoshop uses quite a bit of swapping.

– If the hard drive defragged as cleaner hard drive usually give better performance.

But since computer is so cheap these days I would suggest to go for fast system, and if you can build your own system (I have been building my own since around late 80’s), and AMD 4600 or 4800 was among the fastest when I built mine few years ago.

Also, you need to consider the speed of the disks which is influenced by both the rpm and the amount of cache memory in the drive. Often times, the limiting facttor of cpu speed is the disk i/o rate.
Jim

I am using (3) 300GB IDE 7200 and (1) 500GB SATA and I have noticed the SATA is lot faster than IDE. I don’t know because the SATA is newer so less fragment or whatever but I have noticed the speed difference. Also, the 500GB SATA is external hard drive connected to USB2 port.

"Jim" wrote:

<snip>

I am using AMD 4800 (0r 4600?) with 3GB of memory, and since you don’t mention one of the most important parts is the amound_of_memory you have. So, I may not be able to provide you all answers, but at least try to give some imprtant information like

– Amount of MEMORY (Photoshop, Windows love memory)

– Amount of FREE disk space as Windows loves free disk space for swapping, and Photoshop uses quite a bit of swapping.

– If the hard drive defragged as cleaner hard drive usually give better performance.

But since computer is so cheap these days I would suggest to go for fast system, and if you can build your own system (I have been building my own since around late 80’s), and AMD 4600 or 4800 was among the fastest when I built mine few years ago.

Also, you need to consider the speed of the disks which is influenced by both the rpm and the amount of cache memory in the drive. Often times, the limiting facttor of cpu speed is the disk i/o rate.
Jim

I am using (3) 300GB IDE 7200 and (1) 500GB SATA and I have noticed the SATA is lot faster than IDE. I don’t know because the SATA is newer so less fragment or whatever but I have noticed the speed difference. Also, the 500GB SATA is external hard drive connected to USB2 port.
And I often work on data (not graphic) 100MB to 9GB size (DVD-5 or DVD-9 size) so they can benefit from faster hard drive (copying, moving, compressing, extracting etc..), else I don’t think Photoshop can see much difference.

Joe wrote:

I am using (3) 300GB IDE 7200 and (1) 500GB SATA and I have noticed the SATA is lot faster than IDE. I don’t know because the SATA is newer so less fragment or whatever but I have noticed the speed difference. Also, the 500GB SATA is external hard drive connected to USB2 port.

There must surely be something misconfigured for a USB2 interface to be faster than PATA.

Are the IDE channels set to use PIO (slow) or DMA?

Is the Photoshop scratch disk set to be a drive other than the one you’re opening the picture from?

Andrew

"Andrew Morton" wrote:

Joe wrote:

I am using (3) 300GB IDE 7200 and (1) 500GB SATA and I have noticed the SATA is lot faster than IDE. I don’t know because the SATA is newer so less fragment or whatever but I have noticed the speed difference. Also, the 500GB SATA is external hard drive connected to USB2 port.

There must surely be something misconfigured for a USB2 interface to be faster than PATA.

Are the IDE channels set to use PIO (slow) or DMA?

Before I used to see "DMA" selection, but few days ago I checked and no longer find the sign of "DMA". I checked the properties of all hard drives
and CD/DVD (I actually checked the DMA for DVD but can’t find the option so
I checked hard drives and found none).

Is the Photoshop scratch disk set to be a drive other than the one you’re opening the picture from?

I don’t remember which drive I use for "Scratch Disk" as I only remember I used either drive D or G. I haven’t done much setting on CS3 so I guess it’s still using default (drive C:?).

Andrew