You can read about it in this page: http://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/kb/optimize-performance-photoshop-cs4-cs5.html
The more cores you use, the less you get from each additional core. Therefore, Photoshop doesn’t run four times as fast on a computer with 16 processor cores as on a computer with four cores. For
As far as Memory goes, 64-bit version of Photoshop CS6 can use as much RAM as you have installed on your computer.
Photoshop version OS version Maximum amount of RAM that Photoshop can use CS4, CS5, CS6 32 bit Windows 32 bit 1.7 GB CS4, CS5, CS6 32 bit Windows 64 bit 3.2 GB CS4, CS5, CS6 64 bit* Windows 64 bit As much RAM as you can fit in your computer CS4, 32 bit Mac OS 3 GB CS5, 32 bit Mac OS 2.1 GB CS5, CS6 64 bit Mac OS As much RAM as you can fit in your computer
What will really make a difference apart from RAM and processor is your Hard Drive itself. Faster drive equals lower processing latency, resulting in faster saves and so on. Your scratch disk highly depends on the hard drive that you use.
The answer is not simple.
For some operations it will multi-thread and use all the cores.
For other operations it will use 1 core or even a subset of the cores
Things change even between update releases!
I have a 12 core PC with Hyperthreading. With Camera Raw 7.0 I found that a block conversion of 50 raw files would use all 24 logical processors, and get the job done quite quickly (at 2.18 seconds per conversion). By contrast 7.2 seems to use 1/3 to 1/2 the logical processors unused, and takes 2.88 seconds per conversion.
Some older filters will probably never be updated to use multiple cores.
Newer filters that use GPU acceleration don't necessarily use multiple cores for the parts they do in the CPU.
Does a 12 core system run better than an 8 core system? Mine does, but then the core speed is greater than that of my prior machine.
Noel, what is the CPU utilization of CS6 when 3D rendering on your 12-core machine?
Modern renderers can normally be set to fully utilize all cores (when the licence allows).
3D rendering does seem to multi-thread well, but it pushes some logical processors to higher usage than others..
Note that this isn't necessarily wrong; in my own software development I've found that generally speaking using all the available actual cores and only half the additional logical processors made available by Hyperthreading actually seems to net better performance on intensive graphics operations than just jamming up the system with a separate thread for each logical processor. And each individual type of operation matters - one that needs to randomly access data all across the image might multi-thread less well than one that just works on localized pixels. You have to consider caching.
Gone are the days when it's simple to say "this is faster and this is slower".
In fact, even settings on the very same system can matter. I see different things get better or worse depending on whether I choose "Adjacent Cache Line Pre-Fetch" in my BIOS settings.
Thanks. 69% seems a bit low, but not terrible, I guess.
Edit: And thanks for the further info added while I was typing the original of this post.
Doing the more complex version of the project shown, I was able to see the rendering max out all 24 cores in the mid 90s (e.g., 95%) at first. Apparently some of the threads are given less intensive work to do than others, leading to some of them finishing before others I guess.
A question. Can I build a faster windows operating system then Mac right now. If so what is the fastest system I can build and what brand would you go with ?
Thanks, Dirk D
As per my comment above, there is just no simple answer.
As I am a Windows expert, I would of course opt for a new PC (matter of fact, I just acquired a new one). A person familiar with OSX would likely opt for a new Mac. The two systems are not interchangeable, though ultimately you can do most of the same things with either.
What are you looking to have be "fastest"? General computing tasks? Specific computing tasks such as running Photoshop? What parts of running Photoshop?
And budget of course matters. You can have one of the fastest systems on the planet with an unlimited budget. Most of use have limited budgets, though, and that has to figure in. My new (to me) 12 core machine isn't as fast as the fastest cutting-edge 16 core machines today.
Keep in mind that today's fastest will be tomorrow's "I'm itching to upgrade from".
Plus there are technologies (such as SSD) that when applied properly can make a machine that has less than the fastest available processors into a workhorse that will outpace other systems. Again, it all depends on what you want to do with a machine.
P.S., I suggest that if you're looking for a new Photoshop engine that you avoid even thinking about laptops and concentrate on desktop machines.