Does CS2 need more PC power/resource than CS?

BC
Posted By
Barry_Clive_Pearson
Apr 26, 2005
Views
779
Replies
26
Status
Closed
I use CS, and it struggles on my 4 year old laptop, especially with high resolution multi-layered files. (850 MZ, 512 MB Ram, W2000). Not surprising, really!

I will "soon" get a more suitable PC, pretty well dedicated to Photoshop. I am wondering what order to do things in. New PC first, or upgrade to CS2 first? Instinct says new PC first, but I just wonder ….

All of my new photographs start as Raw, then become DNG. All of my old photographs start as slides and get scanned at the highest resolution I can manage. I prefer 16-bit working, but typically soon have to reduce to 8-bit to get things done before Christmas!

My normal experience is that every application upgrade (from any manufacturer!) needs more PC resource. I am not complaining – I just need to know for sure, because I would hate to upgrade and grind to a halt.

Views?

Please – I don’t need a sales pitch for CS2. I’m convinced! I just don’t want this to be like Arnheim: "A Bridge too far".

How to Master Sharpening in Photoshop

Give your photos a professional finish with sharpening in Photoshop. Learn to enhance details, create contrast, and prepare your images for print, web, and social media.

J
johnkissane3
Apr 26, 2005
Barry, I read you post 3 times and I am convinced you have already answered you own question. Get a new PC.
GM
Gary McMillan
Apr 26, 2005
I have in the past used CS in a laptop, 1Ghz Pentium 4, 512 MB, XP, and it struggled when being used simarlily to how you work (RAW, 16 bit on occasion, highest camera resolution). Dreadfully slow would be more accurate.

My experience would tell "me" there is no doubt you need to upgrade if Photoshop is going to be a day-to-day task.

I currently use CS (3GHz Pentium 4, 1GB, XP, and lots of fast drives) and on 16 bit files it still bogs down somewhat. Of course "bogs down" is a subjective term.

If speed is a primary desire I’m thinking a MAC might be more suited for Photoshop… but I don’t know that for a fact.

I’ve been meaning to get to an Apple store, take a file with me, and see how it responds. Besides, it has been many, many years since I’ve used a MAC for anything.

Most Windows users, myself included, have such a heavy investment in Windows based programs that such an option is not considered. I suppose that has been my delay.

I suppose if my work load gets heavy enough, it might be worth the investigation.

My opinion is, whatever that might be worth, is if you know a hardware upgrade is in your near future anyway… definately do it before buying CS2. See how well CS performs on your new hardware and make your decisions from there.
PM
Pete_Marshall
Apr 26, 2005
I am using a 3.4GHz P4 with 1GB RAM and XP. CS2 runs fine but could do with more RAM when working with lots of large files open. It also needs shutting down and opening up again to clear the temp.
I also have a laptop with a 2.8GHz Celeron and 256MB RAM. I have switched off just about every service that XP clogs the system up with and CS still craws…I won’t even bother sticking CS2 on it.
My brain would explode if I had to edit large files on the laptop with CS (I really only use it to download from my CF card, and to run slide shows and Powerpoint stuff for clients.
Get a new computer. I would reccomend 2GB RAM to future proof it. By the way i also use CS on a Apple G5, I would still rather use my PC as I can’t cope with the lack of a right click, and some of the other strangeness of Apples, but this is only because of what i am used to. I always reccomend to anyone who hasn’t yet invested in (legal!) software to get an Apple, they do seem to be much more relable.
TM
Trevor_Morris
Apr 26, 2005
I’ve got a 5- (or 6?) year-old PC (with a few minor upgrades), P3-750MHz, 0.75GB RAM, 32MB GeForce MX, Windows XP/Home, and CS2 run surprisingly well on it – about the same speed as CS1. Also note that CS1 and CS2 have the same system requirements (which are detailed on Adobe’s site).
T
troyhark
Apr 26, 2005
Every now and again I test PCs Vs Macs for speed. Apple lost the speed race several years ago. They had to withdraw their [G5] world’s fastest computer ads in UK as they were anything but truthful, my 10month old [desktop]PC was faster than Apple’s supposed Intel killer. I used a Dual Athlon BTW. Funny how Apple never test against AMD chips!

I’m buying a new [small] laptop very soon [prob the Sony S3XP]and that was one area Macs tended to be better, but the G4 chips laptops have been around a verrry long time now, the G5 runs too hot for Laptops. Their screens seem better than most PC laptops, which may be more important than speed if one is working away from home. I’ve been using a Sony Vaio GRT recently and the large 16" XBlack screen never really convinced me of it’s accuracy, too much brightness variation when tilting screen even a fraction. I would have considered a look at the 12" Powerbook if it wasn’t for the huge Software expense when using changing OSs. Hard to justify buying PS, Dreamweaver etc twice, once for desktop and then again for laptop.
Vaio GRT has a 3.2GHz Pentium 4 with 512M. It isn’t quite as fast as my desktop but with half the memory and no separate drive for swap file that’s not surprising – but CS works well enough for processing my 6meg RAW files and running my actions on them. Not tried any 300M+ files on it!
GM
Gary McMillan
Apr 26, 2005
Great info troyhark.
Thanks – you answered several questions I had.
DP
Daryl_Pritchard
Apr 26, 2005
Maybe the majority of software manufacturers do this, I’m not sure…I noticed that Adobe continues to exclusively cite Intel CPUs in their system requirements, making no mention of AMD CPUs. I wonder if this is some quiet allegiance to Intel? At the very least I think they should’ve said "Pentium 3 or 4-class processor" since that is a more accurate statement. The marketing folk seem to need a few lessons in how to appeal to all parties, particularly as some people seem anti-Intel at times. Me, I’m happy with AMD or Intel either one…it’s more a question of overall performance and price, rather than brand loyalty.

Daryl
MD
Michael_D_Sullivan
Apr 27, 2005
Troy, Apple does include AMD in its benchmark comparisons, at least for the Powermac. Look here <http://www.apple.com/powermac/performance/>.
DM
dave_milbut
Apr 27, 2005
Does CS2 need more PC power/resource than CS?

I don’t know if it needs more power, but it certainly seems faster than cs on my system.
T
troyhark
Apr 27, 2005
Michael, that’s a first seeing an AMD chip on an Apple comparison. Still comparing Apples and Oranges though, a dual chip G5 machine beats the single chip Athlon machine now there’s a surprise.
A UK design mag tested my motherboard and dual Athlon chip combo Vs the dual G5 and it didn’t fare so well then.
Athlons are faster than Pentiums in almost every test I’ve seen for several years now [especially at same price point], so it’s curious that the Athlon fared less well against a Pentium chip in this test. Though Alienware machines tend to be aimed at gamers so it may a gaming machine. Just did some research and it is indeed a machine specifically aimed at gamers, they have different machine for content creation.
May do my own tests soon on a G5 if I have the time.
I’d also be interested to see the relative prices of machines tested, all excluding monitor, keyboard etc.
Be intrigued to see if the new Cell chip makes it into desktop machines, could put all these other chips into the shade. In theory!
Sony are using it in next Playstation I believe
BC
Barry_Clive_Pearson
Apr 27, 2005
johnkissane3 & Gary McMillan: you are right, of course, and I will buy the new system first. I just wondered ….

Everyone: I had in mind 3 GB not 2 GB. Will I see much difference? (Probably Windows XP). A full resolution slide scan from a Minolta 5400 Elite is 233.5 MB. (Raw files from a 6 MP camera are much smaller).

(I intend to sell my relatives into slavery if necessary to afford this system, so don’t hold back).

Thanks for your help.
PC
Pierre_Courtejoie
Apr 27, 2005
Unless you go for XP64, 3gigs won’t change anything in Photoshop (well, you may try the /3gigs switch, but I don’t know about the stability of windows in this case…)
J
johnkissane3
Apr 27, 2005
But, (exclude photoshop) 3G is better than 2G…time flies/flys(?). Especially since it would only cost a small relative.
SB
simon_bridge
Apr 28, 2005
Pete Marshall,

re: no right click on mac, just plug in a normal 2 button mouse, easy :)… mac support 2 button mice fresh outta the box, they just don’t make 2 button mice (yet).
cheers
s
S
Sepen
Apr 28, 2005
"support 2 button mice fresh outta the box, they just don’t make 2 button mice (yet)."

I heard they were coming out with a wireless one that will probably cost around $70

<http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=951>

Seems like the only thing revolutionary about it is the price. Anyone for a tea party? :rolleyes:
R
Rbanks
Apr 28, 2005
if you think that CS and CS2 have the same system requirements, you nead to relearn how to read. CS requires 256mb to install. CS2 will not even install if you do not have at least 384mb ram.
Then, if you want to launch more than one program at one time, you need a min of 512mb ram, and they suggest 1Gig.
T
troyhark
Apr 28, 2005
Barry I’ve not tried dealing with 35mm scans on Laptop [I know the 512M on board is simply not enough]. At the moment, laptop is [my Girlfriends] and something I use when away from home. I just spent two weeks working in Germany, it was great to download and work on images from my S60 every day. Great camera BTW, smallest I could find with full manual features, WA lens and RAW files.
I would love to buy a 1DSMKII [I can buy a new car for less!!!], but I am wondering how fast laptops are going to be when dealing with multilayered files in PS. Anybody have any experienced with 1DSII files in PS, esp. with laptops?
For comparison a single layer of a film scan from Canon FS4000 can weigh in at 70/134M depending on bit depth etc. Not the world’s greatest scanner it has to be said. What’s the Minolta like Barry?

My thoughts after using a 16" laptop when travelling is to take a much smaller laptop. And the 13" Sony S3XP is the same 1280×800 res as the ‘larger’ Sony FS’s 15.4" screen. Bearing in mind it also has to fit in the same bag as 2 camera bodies with extra battery grips, 3 F2.8 zooms, a flash gun, a lastolite, a monopod, power supplies/chargers, film….. and still be able to fit cabin luggage size criteria. Had to fly back with Ryan Air the other day and there’s a strict one bag limit for cabin! Laptops have to go in that one bag. They didn’t weigh mine though, very odd. Plus the Sony S3XP has the fastest chip (still only a centrino though :-[ ) and the most memory [of Sony Laptops].

Anybody used a Centrino for PS work [it’s basically a Pentium crippled for longer battery life]? The 16" 3.2GHz P4 laptop I’ve been using lasts an hour and a half. So if I can get 3hours battery with Centrino, but say only 3/4 the speed, I can still get more work done without a mains lead.
How long do Macs last these days, not what they claim, but in reality?
BC
Barry_Clive_Pearson
Apr 28, 2005
troyhark:

"I am wondering how fast laptops are going to be when dealing with multilayered files in PS".

Slow! (Sony VAIO FX109K, 512 MB, 850 MH, bought 2001). All of my files are multi-layered. I try to stay at 16-bit for as long as possible, but typically drop to 8-bit after sorting out layers and/or curves.

"What’s the Minolta like Barry?"

Vastly superior to my previous ArtixScan 4000T. But I have a problem – the coverage is not even. I don’t know if it is a fundamental fault, or a cleaning problem. Have a look at the following (not a great shot). Can you see a slight lightening in a broad vertical strip approximately 1/4 of the way across? (It shows in the sky).

< http://www.barry.pearson.name/photography/pictures/usa4/usa4 _01_27_3.htm>

Handling 233.5 MB files makes your eyes water! (5400 ppi, 16-bit).

(I am looking forward to 3+ GH, 3 GB, CS2. Unfortunately, it will probably just enable me to be a so-so photographer much faster!)
PH
Photo_Help
Apr 29, 2005
Barry,

I like your "physiogram" photos. I can’t imagine the time that must have gone into them.
P
Pipkin
Apr 29, 2005
CS2 have absolutely same performance as CS. Not faster. I did a test (Applied Radial Blur Filter to 120 Mb image) with CS and CS2. Same result. Right up to hundredth of a second.
CC
Chris_Cox
Apr 29, 2005
That’s funny, I rewrote Radial Blur (processing, not the UI) to make it work on larger images. 😉

CS2 will overall be about the same performance, unless you have lots of memory (> 2 Gig). If you have lots of memory and work with big images, CS2 can be a LOT faster.
P
Pipkin
Apr 29, 2005
I hope… Maybe it would be faster under WinXP-64 jet?
BC
Barry_Clive_Pearson
May 4, 2005
To "Photo Help":

Thanks, and yes, a lot of time went into the physiograms! Both 40 years ago when I did the B&W versions, and recently, when I gave them the Photoshop treatment. I recently did some more, using Layer Styles separately on the foreground & background layers. The results can be quite subtle. I’ll put them on the web sometime.

(I keep thinking there must be a commercial opportunity somewhere!)
PH
Photo_Help
May 4, 2005
(I keep thinking there must be a commercial opportunity somewhere!)

Hard work isn’t always rewarded as much as it should be. Some people spend 10 minutes finger painting and sell it for thousands of dollars while people with real talent are often unappreciated.
T
troyhark
May 4, 2005
Yup, definite stripe on image. Looks like there’s a bit of a magenter cast too on the foam. Scans from my Canon FS4000US look awful until PSed. Underexposed and a very magenter cast, the weird thing is that the crappyness of images varied depending on computer scanning them in.
When I asked about multilayered files I specifically meant from a Canon 1Ds II. Should have been clearer.
Bought a 20D a few days ago, seems OK, not had chance to work on weekend’s images yet, but I am seriously missing the coverage of my wide angle lenses. My 16-35mm is now only a 25mm in widest coverage. No where near wide enough for me.
Need some big jobs to pay for a 1DsII.

How long it takes to produce an image/work of art… has nothing to do with how good it is. Some people simply work faster than others. And one’s person’s favourite painting is purely their own personal taste, which people then post rationalise to justify their choice. Elton John writes his tunes in mere minutes [15-20 he claims], not a fan myself, but people like them enough to fund his somewhat lavish lifestyle.
CK
Christine_Krof_Shock
May 4, 2005
Also look at the new Alienware Area 51 Mobile laptops! They can have up to 4 gigs of ram and dual hard drives with raid array!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!(And they are about the same as a Powerbook for a lot more speed and storage!!!!!!!!!!!)

Master Retouching Hair

Learn how to rescue details, remove flyaways, add volume, and enhance the definition of hair in any photo. We break down every tool and technique in Photoshop to get picture-perfect hair, every time.

Related Discussion Topics

Nice and short text about related topics in discussion sections