メインコンテンツへスキップ

⚠️ Please note that this topic or post has been archived. The information contained here may no longer be accurate or up-to-date. ⚠️

Does Quadcore make sense?

Hendrik1
Hi there,

we definitely need some new computers here, and one will be mainly used for processing P25 files with c1 v4 (if the pro version is ever released...)

Does anyone have experience on a quadcore system? Are all 4 cores used?

Thanks, Hendrik
0

コメント

3件のコメント

日付 投票
  • Doug311
    Hi Hendrik:

    I have a dual quad core xeon now and previously had a dual dual core opteron system. I can offer a couple general, random, observations:

    Photoshop is only marginally multi-threaded and will perform better with more memory than processors. Near as I can tell only a few filters and minor functions will use multiple processors.

    C1 is more parallel but it does not appear to be a one core per raw conversion type of relationship. Rather it seems to make some use of the available resources and process each image in turn. I'm sure other's here have much more information on this. I've only started using the newest version.

    Things like panorama stitchers and NR renderers seem to make good use of multi core though faster disk drives and maximum memory can be critical.

    Running multiple tasks at once is smoother with multiple processors except where resources are shared and over taxed. Vista seems much worse at this than XP.

    You will have to buy the right version of OS for the number of processors, with XP for example only the PRO version would work with dual processors and IIRC server was required if more than two packages was used. Vista has it's own rules. Note that VISTA now has limits on the amount of memory it will recognize based on version.

    In most cases with photography type applications memory, system through put, and hard disk(s) have much more of an impact on performance than either the number or speed of processors. An exception would be the number of packages with opteron systems where there may be more throughput with more chips (as opposed to cores) rather than one.

    Multiple processors will have a more limited effectiveness if there is not enough memory to supply multiple task operating concurrently or if the bus bandwidth is an obstacle.

    Vista and XP 32 bit OS's are still limited to around 3GB of memory which becomes more of an issue the more tasks running simultaneously The 64 bit version of either have software and hardware compatibility issues.

    The combination of processor and motherboard may force you to use Vista instead of XP with the extra cost of the "upgrade" for each machine.

    With all of the above noted, though, the cost difference between the equivalent dual and quad core is rather small, at least with intel processors, so why not go for the quad? AMD seems to have stumbled a bit and might have some catching up to do.

    Hope this helps............
    Doug
    0
  • Paul Gardner
    I have one computer running CS3 and DPP on Vista 64 with 8Gb of memory. At present I only have a dual E6850 running on this machine which runs very smoothly and does not seem to have any issues I have found in my usage. Lightroom 2 Beta 64 bit also runs very nicely. I haven't installed my C1 software on the 64 bit machine yet as I am waiting for another Q9550 which are very difficult to locate. Hopefully when C1 releases the new version it will be 64 bit. What ever you decide I would plan on installing 8Gb of memory as it sure helps smooth out the operations.
    0
  • Tobias11
    Hendrik,

    It's not too bad, but could be better. I wrote the following in a support case to PhaseOne:
    When running a batch conversion on a quad core CPU, all CPU:s are 100% utilized when the tiny progress bar in the batch pane goes from 0-100%. That is really impressive, but after 100% is reached and before the next image is started, the CPU utilization is really bad for several seconds. It seems to use only one CPU in total. I'm guessing that this phase is when the image is converted to JPEG and saved, but it's only a guess. It takes about the same time for the progress bar to go from 0-100% as it takes after 100% is reached until the next image is started. The images are read from and written to a local hard disk.

    Their reply was:
    We can not improve the time it takes to write the output file application-side. However, the following actions taken by the customer may increase his writing speed:

    - Use a RAID 0 drive for the output.
    - Defragment the output drive.
    - Remove data from the disk to increase the amount of free space.

    Being a software engineer myself, I understand very well how these things are implemented, and if they really wanted to, they could easily make the writeout use all CPU:s, or at least start processing the next photo while writing the previous one and get perfect CPU utilization.

    I'm hoping that they will realize this and implement it in a later version, after they've fixed the more pressing issues. It would make batch conversion almost twice as fast on a quad core.

    But don't get me wrong. Capture One v4 is a lot faster on a quad core than on a dual core, not to mention a single core.
    0

投稿コメントは受け付けていません。