CS5 Slower than CS4 w/32gb RAM

I have an 8 core, 2.26ghz, 32gb of ram, scratch disk on RAID 0. I thought the only thing slowing me down now was the fact that CS4 wasn't 64 Bit. I eagerly upgrade to CS5, and what do I discover? It's Slower!! I work on 10 GB files. I disabled GL. My ram is set to 80%. I tried 100, but it seems faster at 80 when I use bridge simultaneously. Any ideas? All this talk about 64 bit, and it doesn't do anything?

Best thing to do if you want to see how your machine is performing is to start the Activity monitor, and look
at the CPU and the memory tabs at the bottom.
If your 4 cores of the CPU are all at 100%, you need to get a 8 (or now 12) core Mac Pro to solve you problem ;-)
If in the memory tab, you see that there is a number in the Gb's in the "used swap and page-ins and outs ... you can help your system with adding more memory (possibly replacing the current 2 GB ones with 4 GB ones, but these are expensive).
One more thought, honestly, if you are regumarlmy working with files of this size, it means you're doing some serious stuff, you should be the kind of person that qualifies to be doing his/her job on a Mac Pro.
The iMac is a fine machine, but I run an i5/8GB one and I have a 8 core Mac [email protected] GHz. Eventhough the iMac is the newer, faster machine, the architecture and the second CPU beats it.
The overall feeling of responsiveness and true multitasking feeling of the Mac Pro is much better.
(Just as an FYI, I have a company that supports professional photographers with thier IT infrastructure and their workflow, so I am in the middle of this business everyday. Plus I have a background in datacenters, servers, performance tuning, driver development etc.)
All in all, CS5 should not be slower then CS4, if your machine has enough room to do al what it needs to do.
The issue typically is that new software has new features and new features need more resources ...
I have typically found that after an upgrade to CS5 and LR3, most of my customers need 2-4 GB of RAM extra to get a good performance.
Hope this helps a little.

Similar Messages

InDesign CS5 Slow Screen Redraw

I've upgraded from the CS4 Suite to CS5. InDesign is almost impossible to use, the screen redraw is painfully slow. Much slower than CS4, which was instantaneous. Anyone at Adobe want to clue us in to what's going on? And yes, Live Update is off. This is an awful step backwards.
Running 20 gigs of ram.
Hardware Overview:
Model Name: Mac Pro
Model Identifier: MacPro3,1
Processor Name: Quad-Core Intel Xeon
Processor Speed: 3.2 GHz
Number Of Processors: 2
Total Number Of Cores: 8
L2 Cache (per processor): 12 MB
Memory: 20 GB
Bus Speed: 1.6 GHz
Boot ROM Version: MP31.006C.B05
SMC Version (system): 1.25f4
Serial Number (system): G88353AXXYL
Hardware UUID: C3C1BADF-FE59-5880-B735-A2FB4549BDDC

Just got of the phone to Adobe Support after 1 hour of messing around and was left with the advice " put a message on the forum to let Adobe know there is a problem" Thats what I thought I had just done!! HOUSTON WE HAVE A PROBLEM!!!
I have a Mac Pro - Quad-Core Intel Xeon etc etc etc.... The screen re draw is woeful and the bigger the file the worse it gets. As far as fixes to prefs is concerned, been there done that. Jump though hoops with the Adobe tech and still no fix. Looks like I'm heading back to good old reliable CS3.
ADOBE SORT IT OUT.
Model Name: Mac Pro
Model Identifier: MacPro4,1
Processor Name: Quad-Core Intel Xeon
Processor Speed: 2.26 GHz
Number Of Processors: 2
Total Number Of Cores: 8
L2 Cache (per core): 256 KB
L3 Cache (per processor): 8 MB
Memory: 6 GB
Processor Interconnect Speed: 5.86 GT/s
Boot ROM Version: MP41.0081.B07
SMC Version (system): 1.39f5
SMC Version (processor tray): 1.39f5
Serial Number (system): YM9121BH20G
Serial Number (processor tray): J591100L41LUC
Hardware UUID: 3F8619AD-9DAE-5BC2-9567-A1210DCB1DB1
Message was edited by: Merlin Man

CS3 script runs slow with CS4 and CS5

I have written a table transformation script for InDesign CS3, which formats an imported Excel table.
With InDesign CS3 the script runs well. Now I tried the same script with InDesign CS4 and CS5 and it runs very slow. It's about 10 times slower than with CS3.
I tried to turn off redrawing, but this didn't help. It even got slower again!
Does someone has made similar experiences? Could you solve the performance issue?
Do scripts in CS4/CS5 generally run slower than in CS3?
Does CS4 differ so much to CS3 that the script runs 10 times slower?
What can I do to improve the execution performance?
Thanks for any tips / advices etc.

I now have made some tests with profile / timing. Here are the results.
you find the code snipped below. It iterates first over all rows and then over all cells inside of the row. In the cell iteration, the function hasGapInLineBelow(...) does more iterations.
The example is with a table of 42 rows and 9 cells.
I have compared CS3 and CS5
there are 3 test cases:
for 1/1 means: first for-loop is in iteration 1 and second for loop is in iteration 1 (statements for first row and first cell done)
for 1/9 means: first for-loop is in iteration 1 and second for loop is in iteration 9 (statements for first row and all 9 cells of the row done)
for 2/9 means: first for-loop is in iteration 2 and second for loop is in iteration 2 (statements for second row and all 9 cells of the row done)
it's strange that normal variable assignments take lot of time (like the statement startPos = indexLeftNeightbourOfCurrentCell;) -> I don't understand why this can be so time consuming!?!
it's also strange why in "for 1/9" and "for 2/9" variable assignments take much longer than in "for 1/1"...
could I use another data type than array for the variable isMergedRow? Which one?
do you know any performance optimizations?
in which time unit ExtendScript Toolkit shows the measured periods?
how are the times calculated in loops? Are these the times sumed up over all iterations or is it just the time for a single statement?

AME render time 2x SLOWER in CS6 than CS4

I just upgrade to CS6. A good portion of my projects are very long continuing professional education videos for streaming on the web. AME4 could render an 8-hour video into baseline, H264 700x290 in about 12 hours. (I know, strange, custom frame size. It's for side-by-side speaker and overhead presentation.) I opened the same CS4 project in CS6. It was resaved for the new version. I also created a new sequence and copied the files over, just to be sure. With EXACTLY the same export settings, render time is about 27 hours!
AME4 was not a 64 bit app, whereas AME6 is. So, my 16 GB of ram should be put to better use, I would think. According to Premiere, ram available for other apps is around 13GB. In task manager performace, processor is at the ceiling but memory use is only 6GB:
System specs are:
Media drive is Western Digital Caviar Black 2 TB SATA III 7200 RPM 64 MB Cache
GPU= AMD RADEON HD 6570 DP 1GB PCI EXPRESS 2.0 X16
How can I get AME6 to access more memory? Why in the world would the render speed more than DOUBLE with a newer version?!? Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated!

Yes. A CUDA card is on my wishlist, but my company may be tapped out for a while after new ram and an upgrade to CS6.
I did queue this one. I wasn't aware that this would make a difference. I'll try the direct export method next time.
RE: "encoding times have increased with the newer more feature rich versions" Really? So was I just mislead/misinformed that a 64 bit version of this encoder would be faster? Wow, that sucks. But is there no way for AME to access more than 6GB of my ram? I guess the slowness may be the price you pay for stability. My 8-hr project failed two times in AME4. I have 5 hours left of encoding on AME6. It's my last, best hope for being able to deliver this project on time.

Why performance of Illustrator CS6 slower than Illustrator CS5.5?

Ex: Process get text of TextFrame has 657 characters:
Dim t1 As String
Dim t2 As String
t1 = DateTime.Now.Minute & " " & DateTime.Now.Second & " " & DateTime.Now.Millisecond
Dim text As String
For iChar = 1 To iCharNum
      oChar = oContents.Characters(iChar)
      Dim str As String
      str = oChar.contents.ToString
      text = text & str
Next
t2 = DateTime.Now.Minute & " " & DateTime.Now.Second & " " & DateTime.Now.Millisecond
Result:
Time of CS5.5: 0s 487
                         t1= 38 43 71
                         t2= 38 43 558
Time of CS6: 3s 871
                         t1=42 54 738
                         t2=42 58 609
Why performance of Illustrator CS6 slower than Illustrator CS5.5?
Can i set attribute increase performance of Illustrator CS6 ?

Hi, yes
CS5 - I run it several times, consistently getting 1 second
9/23/2014 22:00:09.000
9/23/2014 22:00:10.000
CS4 - the script finished immediately, super fast, in a fraction of a second
9/23/2014 22:07:20.000
9/23/2014 22:07:20.000

I have found that my Mac Book Pro 15 inch late 2011 is slower than my PC Windows 7 for certain downloads, and working with iPhoto. Would adding RAM be helpful in speeding up this process. Currently I have the stock 4GB RAM, and storage 500GB HD drive.

I have found that my Mac Book Pro late 2011 15 inch is slower than I expected with certain downloads, or working with iPhoto than expected compared to my previous Windows 7 PC. Would adding RAM be of any value in speeding up the process?

how to tell if your mac needs more ram

Is it possible to have cs5 Bridge open cs4 ai files actually in cs4 rather than opening them in cs5

I recently upgraded from mac cs4 to cs5.5. Due to a bug? with cs5 ai illustrator 'Pixel Preview' won't show 1 bit tiff files as it did in cs4 (the workaround is time consuming/wasting). This is a problem for me as most of my files contain them, GGrrrr. Is it possible to have cs5 Bridge open cs4 ai files actually in cs4 rather than opening them in cs5?

Is it possible to have cs5 Bridge open cs4 ai files actually in cs4 rather than opening them in cs5?
Yes, either set the file type association in Bridge prefs for 'ai' at CS4. But it seems somewhat difficult when having newer versions, sometimes whatever pref settings in Bridge or Finder/get info/ open with/you try it keeps opening in the latest version.
In that case either drag and drop the files on the CS4 icon in the dock or with right click mouse menu choose open with and select illustrator CS4.
Although you can only have one version of Bridge open at the time you can have the other suite applications from different version open at the same time.

ACR processing in CS6 much slower than CS5

A big advantage of hosting ACR in 64 bit CS5 vs in bridge was that then ACR would process multiple images at once when saving them to jpg which would reduce processing times by 30% or more. For some reason this doesn't seem to be the case with CS6. I just did a short test and CS6 won't process multiple images at once, and was 33% slower than CS5 at saving a batch of 5dmkii images to jpeg.
Has anyone else noticed this? Hopefully this limitation is due to beta status and the final release of ACR will be fully optimized for 64bit processing.

It seems strange that their is hardly any improvement in 64 bit cs6 speed vs 32 bit cs5.    I agree, gpu support for acr would great!
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 15:25:25 -0600
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: ACR processing in CS6 much slower than CS5
    Re: ACR processing in CS6 much slower than CS5
    created by Noel Carboni in Photoshop CS6 - View the full discussion
Bridge in CS5 was 32 bit only, and I observed the 32 bit converter as run by Bridge (or Photoshop 32 bit) wouldn't exercise all the cores, so the way I interpret your numbers is as follows:
1. ACR7 is 50% slower than its predecessor (34.25 seconds when run in Photoshop 64 bit vs. 22.59).
2. Bridge is now 64 bit, so you're running the same code in both cases, which is why you're seeing essentially the same number in Bridge as Photoshop.
-Noel
     Replies to this message go to everyone subscribed to this thread, not directly to the person who posted the message. To post a reply, either reply to this email or visit the message page: http://forums.adobe.com/message/4328297#4328297
     To unsubscribe from this thread, please visit the message page at http://forums.adobe.com/message/4328297#4328297. In the Actions box on the right, click the Stop Email Notifications link.
     Start a new discussion in Photoshop CS6 by email or at Adobe Forums
For more information about maintaining your forum email notifications please go to http://forums.adobe.com/message/2936746#2936746.

Anyone else? CS4 running much slower than CS3?

I just upgraded to CS4 from CS3. All of the applications are running much, much slower than CS3, particularly InDesign. My computer is literally fresh out of the box; specs below. Software and patches up to date. Thinking of uninstalling CS4 and reverting back to CS3. Any suggestions/feedback?
MacBook Pro 15"
2.66GHz Intel Core 2 Duo processor
4GB memory
320GB 5400-rpm hard drive
NVIDIA GeForce 9600M GT graphics processor with 256MB
1440 by 900 pixels
Snow Leopard OX
Purchased CS4 Master Collection. Other software installed includes iLife, iWork, Office for Mac.

I'm not using In Design yet, but for Photoshop and Acrobat my sense is that they are fast or faster than CS3, and Snow Leopard has reduced the launch time for all my apps compared with Leopard.
Yes there are issues with running Adobe apps with Snow Leopard, but some of them are the same issues when running CS3 apps with Leopard--and in any event, these are, I believe, all crashing bugs, not things that slow down responsiveness. I personally have had only a few problems with Design Std CS4 apps + Snow Leopard.

Vista 64/Premiere CS4/32GB Ram Virtual Memory Recommendation

Vista 64
Premiere CS4
32 GB Ram
Here are my current Virtual Memory Settings...
On C:
It is set to "System Managed Size" which has created a ~34GB pagefile.sys file on C:\
On V: (RAID)
It is set to Custom Size, Initial= 16396, Maximum= 32768 which has created a ~16GB pagefile.sys file on V:
Are these settings adequate or overkill?? Any suggestions would be helpful. I still have some occasional blue screens that are unexplained.

Despite some comments you heard previously in this thread, there are a few things about pagefiles to keep in mind.
1. Create a pagefile with a fixed size, min and max being the same. That avoids resizing and thus defragmentation of the file.
2. Keep the pagefile on a separate disk from where most activity takes place, not on the OS disk, not on the media disk, but on a third disk, that can contain other software or data, like audio, downloads or the like as long as you don't access them very frequently.
3. Create the pagefile on the disk when it is still empty, so it is the first file on the disk.
4. It used to be a good rule of thumbs to make the size of the pagefile around 1.5 times the amount of physical RAM.
In your case with 32 GB of RAM you may never need the pagefile (it depends on the software you use, for 3D you may need it) and it depends on the storage that you have available (storage is cheap), but if you create a fixed pagefile of 16 GB you should never run into trouble, nor will you lose much diskspace.
Just my 0.02

PS CS3 much slower than CS2 on Intel Mac. I don't get it.

Yes, very very strange.
I work with very large files, so I just got a spiffy new Mac Pro. It's my first Intel machine, so I expected that CS2 would drag a little bit, due to Rosetta. In fact, moving from one processor to eight of them seems to have much more than compensated. Nevertheless, I ordered CS4 and while I wait I downloaded the demo of CS3.
I expected that CS3 would fly (no Rosetta) but have found my test tasks taking an inordinate amount of time... much slower than CS2 on the same Xeon workstation, and slower than CS2 on my old iMac (single 2.1GHz G5)
Since I work with extremely large files, I got a hardware RAID5 made up of four 15,000RPM SAS drives. I can't get enough RAM to avoid using scratch disk, so I attacked the biggest performance bottleneck. I did get 8GB of RAM; would have gotten more, but I read that it won't matter until CS goes 64-bit in CS5 at the earliest.
The rest of it: dual quad-core 2.8GHz "Woodcrest" Xeon processors, NVIDIA GeForce 8800GT graphics card, OS X 10.5.5, all updates (Apple and Adobe) applied as of 6pm Wednesday October 8th.
I'm running two tests as my benchmark: open a file (PSD created with CS2, 75" x 75" at 400ppi, two layers, RGB with one additional channel) and resize to 75" x 75" at 800ppi. Once that is done, I rotate the new, massive file counterclockwise 18.5 degrees.
On my old setup, 2.1GHz SP G5 iMac with CS2, these tasks took 38m 30s and 1h 33m 22s respectively.
New machine with CS2: 10m 09s and 29m 14s respectively
New machine with CS3: 42m 38s and 1h 36m 24s
(above tests run repeatedly: these numbers are the fastest numbers for each configuration)
I have nothing else running for these tests, except for Activity Monitor. What I've observed with Activity Monitor: the old G5 was pegged at (or very near) 100% CPU the whole time. Mac Pro with CS2, Photoshop ran most of the time on one CPU at a time, but spiked up as high as 250% CPU usage just for Photoshop.
I haven't seen Photoshop CS3 use more than 80% of one processor the whole time on the Mac Pro. Mostly it sits around 35%.
One more informal test: if I open that same file and downsample from 400ppi to 200ppi, CS2 does it in 1m 40s. CS3: 6m 57s. I don't have the iMac any more so I can't tell you how long it would take there.
In both CS2 and CS3 the scratch disk is my startup volume, but it's a RAID. I can't add any more drives except for external drives. I could have configured it to one dedicated system drive and a second scratch volume made up of the remaining three drives, but I consulted with people who know RAID better than I do who agreed that since everything is going through the SCSI controller and everything gets written to multiple drives in order to make it faster that I'd get a performance hit by splitting the RAID into two volumes, even if multiple processes are trying to get at the same drive array. Even adding a Firewire 800 drive for scratch would be slower than using the RAID. Or so I've been told.
So, this seems absurd. CS3 is not using Rosetta, right? So it should be flying on my machine. What on earth could I have done to a fresh CS3 (demo) install to make it slower than CS2 on my old G5? Is the CS3 demo crippled? Is there a conflict having CS2 and the CS3 demo on the same machine?
I'm stumped.

>Ya see, this is the attitude you really, really should get over. The Photoshop CS3 (10.0.1) code is just fine... it's your system (hardware/software) which, for some reason is not providing an optimal environment.
Jeff, I agree completely. You seem to be assuming that I actually think Adobe wrote bad code. In fact, I believe Adobe did NOT write bad code (and I wrote that) but that the condition that you are suggesting (CS3 being slowed by having having scratch and system on the same volume to a far greater extent than CS2) could only be caused by bad code by Adobe. Since I believe that, as you say, a universal difference of this magnitude between CS2 and CS3 would be noticed by huge numbers of users, I doubt that what I am seeing is the result of having scratch and system on the same volume.
In case I'm being less than clear:
Scratch and system were on the same volume for CS2.
Scratch and system were on the same volume for CS3.
On my system CS2 performs tasks three to four times faster than CS3.
ergo, either there is some problem other than scratch and system being on the same volume (perhaps something that exacerbates the scratch/system/same volume issue, OK, I accept that possibility) or else the change has been between CS2s and CS3s handling of scratch disks.
If for the sake of argument we rule out the possibility that CS3 handles the condition of scratch and system being on the same volume worse than CS2 does, the only possibility left is that there is SOMETHING ELSE WRONG WITH MY SYSTEM.
I am trying to find out what that other thing is. You're the one insisting that scratch and system being on the same volume is the cause of the CS3 slowdown. Accusing me of not believing that there's something wrong with my system misses the mark entirely. I ABSOLUTELY believe there is something wrong with my system.
> Your RAM tests sound pretty thorough, but if I had your large-files workflow I would buy two (or preferably 4) 4-GB sized matched RAM DIMMs, remove all the existing RAM, and install only the new RAM to further test whether or not the old RAM is anomalous.
Thanks Allen,
Actually, this is exactly what I've done, though in a different order. My system shipped with two 1GB chips. I bought two 4GB chips from OWC and installed them, and found my CS2 performance to increase significantly. It was only then that I tried installing the CS3 demo. When I found CS3 running my tests more slowly than expected, I pulled the new RAM out and tried with just the original 2GB and tested both CS2 and CS3 again. Then I took the original 2GB out, put only the new RAM in and tested CS2 and CS3 again, finding the same results. Currently I have all 10GB in the system and for the moment I'm setting aside the possibility of a problem with the RAM (or at least setting aside the possibility that the RAM chips are just plain bad) because that would indicate that both the new and the old RAM are both bad in the same way. That seems unlikely.
So I guess I'll have to drag the system down to the Genius Bar if I don't see an improvement from rearranging my hard drives.
The update there is that last night I backed up my system, and this morning I deleted my RAID5 set, blowing away everything on my system until I can restore from backup. The new configuration is 1 JBOD drive plus three drives attached as RAID0.
Unfortunately, neither of the new volumes is visible when I go to restore from backup. For the moment, this little experiment has cost me my entire system. The upshot is that it may be some more time before I have any more information to share. Even when I do get it working again, I can expect restoring to take the same 12 hours that backing up did.
I will certainly post here when I've got my system back.

Is CS6 generally slower than 5?

I'm having slow issues with photoshop 6. I'm a professional photoshop user since 1993, work on 10-15gb files with 100+ layers. I use a MacPro 2x2.26ghz quad core intel xeon. 32GB Ram. Just did a clean install of lion onto an 500gb SSD hard drive. All my files are SATA connected with a 6TB Raid 0. Nothing except for photoshop, bridge and Capture one is installed on this machine. I experience delays on all fronts. even trying to silhouette a 279mb 2 layer file is painfully slow today.
I've disabled graphics processor
Memory usage is set to 70% (21772mb)
cache levels 4
cache tile size 1024
automatically save recovery information every 10 minutes (how much does this slow the system down?
For ultimate performance, am I better of going back to CS5?

In answer to your subject question, no - it's equal or a bit faster for just about everything I've tested it with.
Have you updated to Photoshop 13.0.1 and Bridge 5.0.1.21 (via Help - Updates)?
Have you tried running it without Bridge (keeping in mind Bridge is set to auto-start under some conditions)?
-Noel

Will the iPhone 3Gs 32 GB slower than the 16 or 8 GB 3Gs models

i just want to know that will the 32 gb iphone 3gs will be slower than the mobels with less storage as i had a n97 32 gb wich was slower than the 16 gb n97 mini

No.
The iPhone 3GS 16GB and 32GB have the same processor, the same amount of RAM, and the same graphics card.
The only difference with the 3GS is the storage capacity.
The same for the iPhone 3G and with the original iPhone.

Premiere CS6 slower than 5.5

We have recently migrate from CS 5.5 to CS6. We install Production premium in many PCs. (same hardware we used for 5.5.) and our editors realized that CS6 moves slower than 5.5.
They used to work very fast and sometimes they have to wait to CS6 to react. Sometimes is no more than 4 or 5 seconds but this is very annoying for someone who needs to keep fast rhythm to finish on time.
We have already:
- update drivers for gpu
- updated premiere to 6.05
Systems:
PCs:
- i7
-24GB RAM
-GPU Nvidia GTX 570
-SSD Operating System
-RAID o for video + 2 more HD(1 tera each), for media cache and previews
This issue happends in all our machines.
We work with same kind of footage (mpeg 2) and same hardware and this issue,never happened in CS5.5.
Is there a way to fix it?
Thank you

I know this is always an option, but the idea is to find out if there is a solution for this in CS6, so we can take advantage of the improvements of this version. (CC is not an option for us right now)

I am having a problem with very slow start up after expanding RAM on my 2009 Mac Pro.

I am having a problem with very slow start up after expanding RAM on my 2009 Mac Pro (8 Core 2.93GHz). When I run the Mac Pro with 2 x 2Gb RAM it takes 4 seconds before the gray screen, chime and spinning wheel appear.However when I expand the RAM to 20GB the grey screen and chimes appear after a long 20+ second black screen.
The RAM modules are paored 2 x 4GB Crucial CT51272BA1339.M18FMR and 6 x 2GB SAMSUNG M391B5673FH0-CH9, all DDR3 ECC.
Reading articles on the internet, I thought it may be damaged RAM modules, but I have completed memtest and all are okay. I have tried changing the pairs around and if I use any paired 2 modules the Mac Pro starts normally, only when I try running more than 2 modules the delayed start up happens. (black screen 20 Seconds)
I also have tried PRAM and SMU resets after changing the RAM setups, and the issues always occurs when I have more than 2 modules. As you can see I have 6 SAMSUNG modules and even with identical modules the issue happens, when increasing the RAM to more than 2 modules.
The Mac Pro runs fine after the start up screen and can see all the modules, but has anyone else come across this issue, or have any ideas as to why my Mac Pro is taking 20 seconds to start up with 20 GB RAM?

Hi there. Thanks for your comments.
I have tried all the different combinations of RAM setup, and as stated in my initial topic, the Mac Pro boot up time only slows when I have more that 2 modules. Where I place these does not seem to make a difference.
I have taken the Mac Pro to an Apple Reseller technician yesterday and they where not able to find any RAM errors. Apparently the boot up time is within Apple's acceptable parameters for this set up.
Could anyone that is running a Mac Pro 2009 with more that 4 modules of RAM, please let me know if the boot up time is normal. ( the time it takes from pressing the power button to seeing the gray screen around 16 - 20 seconds)
Or is anyone else having the same issues?
thanks for your responce

CS5 Slower than CS4 w/32gb RAM

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for