Dedicated scratch not faster than scratch on boot volume

My Mac Pro boot OS is on a 150 Gb striped raid made from outer partitions on two 1Tb drives in bays 1 and 2. There is 95 Gb free on the boot. 8 Gb RAM.
My normal scratch is on a dedicated 150 Gb striped raid made from the outer partitions of the 1Tb drives in bays 3 and 4.
I ran the Retouche artists Photoshop speed test with the scratch on the dedicated separate scratch, and on the boot volume.
The results were:
Average time of several runs with dedicated scratch was 45.5 seconds.
Average time with scratch on boot was 43.9 seconds.
Since I was expecting the dedicated scratch to be faster I was a bit surprised so I repeated the exercise on my MacBook Pro (1.83 MHz, 2 Gb RAM). Normal scratch is the boot volume which a 5400 rpm 500 Gb Samsung with 150 Gb free, no partitions. For this exercise, I connected an eSATA via an express card to provide a dedicated scratch alternative.
Average time with dedicated separate scratch was 152 seconds.
Average time with scratch on boot was also 152 seconds.
All Retouche Tests were done with 40 history states and 4 cache levels, which results in about 7Gb of scratch being used. On both machines Quickbench shows the scratch as just a few percent faster than the boot.
I repeated the Mac Pro tests with the test file located on different drives, including the boot and the scratch, but there were no significant differences.
What has happened to the standard advice about dedicated scratch for Photoshop?
Any thoughts ? (other than that I have too much time on my hands!)
Mike

Important to note the buffer on those drives are the all 32MB or are some 16MB.
A drive with a 32 MB buffer is going to record data faster.
However if you are on a MacPro (Intel) which it sounds like you are,
I can confirm that using your start up disk as opposed to a dedicated
separate scratch will not be of any speed advantage with photoshop.
At least it does not seem that way from my own test.
I also found partitioning the drive does not seem to be necessary on the intel box?
I have a test that is fairly consistent regardless as long as you have sufficient RAM 8 GB or more a Raid O scratch and an the same amount of memory allowed.
I still find with CS 4 that using bigger tiles is helpful as wel as the Forced VM Buffer plug in.
They still seem to speed things up a bit.
My test work on my dual xeon core duo that way in 16-18 seconds ona 8 core MacPro with 2GB of RAM and with out the Raid 0 and using the startup as the scratch with no Raid configured and without the plug ins it takes about 3 minutes.
The Ram and the raid are the important things the other two help.

Similar Messages

Local Interfaces in WebLogic 7.0 Not Faster Than Remote Interfaces?

I was curious how much faster calling business methods in
a stateless session EJB in WebLogic 7.0 would be through
a local interface than calling the same business methods
through a remote interface. I timed both ways of calling
the same methods and much to my surprise the times were
nearly identical. I double-checked that in one case I really
used the local interface (using ejb-local-ref, local-jndi-name,
local interfaces in source code). Does anybody (perhaps from
BEA) have an explanation for this? By the way, I ran the
same experiment with other J2EE application servers such
as IBM's WebSphere 5 (Beta) and there was a tremendous
performance difference between local and remote interface
usage.
Thanks,
Reinhard

"Reinhard Klemm" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
I appreciate your response and, at the same time, I am somewhat
surprised about it. Here are the reasons for my surprise:
1. Your response indicates that WebLogic uses RMI for
EJB local method calls, i.e., even if the client is on the same VM.
I would have assumed that WebLogic would bypass RMI in such
a situation.That is not what I said. Local interfaces wont use rmi.
But remote interfaces do better if the call is from the same VM. This is
weblogic rmi optimization. Please see Rob's posting also.
2. Other J2EE application servers fare a lot better. In one
experiment, I timed WebLogic against WebSphere 5.0 Technology
for Developers (i.e., WebSphere 5.0 Beta, which is expressly
NOT for performance testing) and against the Sun Reference
Implementation. Here are the numbers for calling business
methods in a stateless session EJB through its local interface:
WebLogic: 5.15 ms on the average
WebSphere: 0.41 ms on the average
Sun Reference Implementation: 0.11 ms on the average
This indicates to me that both WebSphere and the Sun Reference
Implementation are better optimized than WebLogic by excluding
RMI when making local EJB calls.
Reinhard
"Maruthi Nuthikattu" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
Can you post some numbers so that we can visualize the difference.
Please add the numbers with other J2EE appserver also.
Otherwise top of my head, the reason is:
Weblogic rmi is well optimized for the calls with in the same JVM andsame
J2EE application.
This could be the reason you are not seeing much difference.
..maruthi
"Reinhard Klemm" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
I was curious how much faster calling business methods in
a stateless session EJB in WebLogic 7.0 would be through
a local interface than calling the same business methods
through a remote interface. I timed both ways of calling
the same methods and much to my surprise the times were
nearly identical. I double-checked that in one case I really
used the local interface (using ejb-local-ref, local-jndi-name,
local interfaces in source code). Does anybody (perhaps from
BEA) have an explanation for this? By the way, I ran the
same experiment with other J2EE application servers such
as IBM's WebSphere 5 (Beta) and there was a tremendous
performance difference between local and remote interface
usage.
Thanks,
Reinhard

Loop rate on my RT system not faster than 1kHz

Hi,
I have a PXI5404 frequency generator card without memory. So I tried to
program the memory list on my own with while-loop. The value for
the frequency card is updated with an extern digital signal. But it
sems that my loop doesn't run faster thn 1ms. Is there any solution?
I have a PXI system with an PXI 8176 Controller, an 6259 M-series card, a PXI 6723 analog out card and the frequency card.
Thanks for your help
Tim
Attachments:
Loop.vi ‏90 KB

Thanks for the answer.
In deed, I was able to change my frequency faster, down to 200 microseconds. First I gave out a frequency of 20kHz, switched to 3 MHz for 200 µs and back to 20 kHz. So, the card can read the frequency faster, but after I switched back to 20 kHz, the frequency isn't updated any more. The card is missing one trigger. Could it be faster to communicate directly with the analog devices chip un the card via some hardware addresses?
Thanks
Tim

IPhone 4 Wireless N Problem - Not Faster than Old 3GS

What speed are you getting on the new iPhone 4 on your wireless N network? I'm only getting the same speed as I got on my old 3GS phone on a a/b wireless network. Shouldn't it be faster?

Phil Crosno wrote:
Hi,
I have an Airport Extreme, when I select Radio Mode 802.11n (802.11b/g compatible) my rate as shown on the Airport Extreme Wireless Clients is 39, while my iPhone 3gs is 54 and my MacBook is 130.
When I select Radio Mode 802.11n only (2.4 GHz) the iPhone 4 is 39 and MacBook is 130.
When I select Radio Mode (using the option key) 802.11g only the iPhone 4 is 54, iPhone 3gs is 54 and the MacBook is 54.........
You can't really compare different hardware and their connections to a wireless AP and say they should be the same. Different radio hardware will perform differently even when connected to the same physical access point.
Also, the numbers you posted are the speed of the link from your devices to the AP itself and have little to nothing to do with the speeds you'll get when you go out to the Internet where all connection go through the same pipe.
So at 802.11n even though you might connect at 130Mbps to the AP, if you are only getting 12Mbps to the Internet through your router/modem then that's all you'll get on the device connected at 130Mbps.
Dave

Problems running basic text in aftereffects faster than 19fps... what exactly do I need?

OK, so I finaly upgraded my computer into the mild 21st century, and to my disapointment, I cannot seem to run anything as smoothly as I had thought.
These are the specs for my computer...
ASUS m5a99x EVO motherboard
8 gigs ddr3 1600 ram
NVIDIA 9800gt 1 gig ddr3 gpu
AMD Phenom II x4 B50 Processor at 3.2ghz (IE its an AMD athlon II 450 X3 3.2ghz with its fourth core unlocked (of which i have had no problems with thus far, as it seems to be very stable)
150 gig 7200 sata 2 harddrive (OLD)
200 gig 5400 sata 2 hard drive (OLD AS SH*T)
300ghz portable usb2 hd (7200) (2 years old)
Basicly, I cant seem to run even basic text in after effects faster than 19 FPS.
I've tried to change the resolution to half, and even a fourth, and that didnt work at all, infact it made it run about 1 frame worse.
I tried changing the Open gl texture memory, raising and lowering, but to no avail, Ive changed the ram usage in after effects to use 2 gigs per core, then one gig, then turned off multiframe rendering alltogether, and nothing.
I feel like ive tried everything in my power.
Now the Imacs at my school, they run the program smooth as hell... and they arent that much better, spec wise than my computer.
Even my friends Imac can run it smooth, and he only has an I5 cpu at 2.4ghz, which is fine and my understanding of cpus is that those are better proccessors, but its not that much better, and even still, why would that be neccesary just to run text scrolling accross the screen?
Even more so, why would changing the resolution not have any effect?
What exactly do I need to run after effects smoothly for a basic text scroll at say, 720P?
I need to know what to upgrade, soon I plan to get cs6 and I would like to have a computer that can edit basic HD properly.
What I realy dont get is that I know people with laptops that are running AE smoothly and these are much worse than the specs on my machine, some even with only 4 gigs of ram...
Is there something wrong, do I have some sort of frame limiter thats capping at 19 fps? is there some sort of memory leak?
Any help would be much apreciated.
Now the only thing I can think of thats holding me back is the crappy hard drives, every thing else seems like it should at least run text on after effects at 30 fps.

thanks, that at least is enough to get me started, lol I have a deadline tomorrow and have been burning a lot of time on just trying to get this to run smooth.
BTW, I am running the project off of the portable, I switched from the old, but faster harddrive that was sata2 to the portable given I thought that might increase the speed, which it didnt.
what I might do is crack the case and just plug it straight into the computer, though I am hesitant to do so as if I were going to do that, I might as well just purchase a usb 3.0 one and do that so i can get sata 3 out of it, since those cases dont exactly just snap back together.
When I say basic text, I mean layered text, just word after word in order. I honestly dont have any plugins that I know of, (if I had the money for them I would have spent it on a better computer probably) so what I have is what came with the master collection.
And when I say 19 FPS I mean spacebar...
NOW I KNOW, that Im not garunteed 30 fps when running the preview, but when I use the mac, it previews fine... and i just looked up my CPU in comparison to the I5 in the IMAC that I was refering to, and mine is actualy faster according to some benchmarks, granted its not faster than the vast majority of I5s and I7s, but the particular ones in the computers I was refering to, mine is actualy faster over all, so I figure its not a CPU thing (unless its a -our software only works right on INTEL- thing).
Now as far as the 3d camera, yes I am using it, but even when I run the text without a camera function (ie the thing that you have in your comp) or any sort of 3d layering it runs just as slow.
The Audio might be a problem, I used to have a soundcard, but that died about a year ago so I have been using onboard sound (realtek HD something) which truly sucks in comparison to a proper sound card, but I cant imagine the IMACs have anything better, I mean the sound from the Imac kinda sucks alltogether, dosent even have any sort of virtual surround... But a driver issue it could be, realtek is kind of ghetto in that regard.
I will try some of the tips above (the open gl and the preview output and such), and thank you very much.
*EDIT*
OK, so with the preview output, I have computer monitor only? is that what you ment?
*EDIT*
OK, so I did the OpenGL thing, removed it, and for a brief few secconds, it started to run at a mix of 25 to 30 fps, then, when I went to play it again, it was back at 19.

If you have an SSD system drive, is a second dedicated scratch disk recommended?

Looking to buy a new MacBook Pro which has one PCIe-based 512gb SSD system drive. Unlike earlier MacBook Pro models, there is no internal DVD drive to replace w. a second disk drive.
I know that with HDD's a dedicated scratch disk that run's at least as fast as your application drive enhances performance of Photoshop. Is this also true with SSD's? Thanks.

Here's a suggestion (not aimed at anyone in particular, and I realize it may not be possible in all systems)...
If you're going to set up a system to access a certain amount of storage interactively - and what I mean is storage that's used all the time in the normal operation of the computer - consider making one big system partition out of a RAID array of SSDs.
With I/O operations averaging larger than the bare minimum (e.g., 4K bytes), RAID 0 effectively adds together the performance of the drives. This is because there's effectively no seek time with an SSD. It essentially randomly accesses stored data by address (it's quite complicated internally, but externally it works out that latency is almost negligible - literally measured as a few millionths of a second on a modern drive).
So...
Consider building your next system with multiple SSDs on task, making up an array of, say, a few terabytes. This yields the following:
Everything done by the system is done at the speed that's the sum of the drive speeds. With a modern system using SATA III, that's essentially about half a gigabyte per second per drive. Imagine throughput of more than a gigabyte a second - that's real. Forget about dedicating drives to tasks - EVERYTHING gets the benefit of the entire RAID array speed.
Since latency is virtually nonexistent, a great deal of multitasking can be done on the same volume without introducing any thrashing. Photoshop can be writing to scratch, the system swapping like crazy, and you just keep working without notice.
Everything's consolidated on one volume, which simplifies a lot of things (e.g., backup is simpler, applications install where they like on the C: volume).
All the free space pools together, so what's available as transient storage for whatever you're doing at the time is maximized. This tends to offset the extra cost of SSDs some.
SSDs themselves are fairly new tech, and it's not been widely known that they RAID together EXTREMELY well. They really do.
People sometimes worry that using multiple drives to make up a single volume increases the chances for failure, but consider that SSDs are solid state, and so by nature have a good bit higher reliability (higher MTBF; often 2 million hours), and they don't generate nearly as much heat (they consume just a few watts). Having SSDs in your system can actually increase the reliability of everything somewhat, because when everything is cooler it lasts longer. Plus they don't make any vibration.
This is not fantasy, I've done it.
My current Dell workstation has a nearly 2 TB C: volume made up of four 480 GB SSDs. My sustainable disk throughput is literally around 1.7 gigabytes per second (that's 15 times faster than a typical single hard drive). I do also have some HDDs in the system, but they normally spend all day spun down. They're for backup and very low access storage (e.g., downloads I've accumulated over time).
I wait for NOTHING on this system.
Oh, and it's been 100.0% reliable with this setup for 2-1/2 years now. ZERO glitches.
-Noel

New Mac Pro 8-core / D700 not much faster than an iMac... in PPro CC.

So.... my very preliminary testing with our new Mac Pro using the plugin I use most (filmconvert -FC) anyway, shows that Premiere CC needs more optimization for the dual GPUs. In fact, I'd say the CPU utilization is not up to snuff either.
I know FC only uses one GPU presently from the developer. That will change. In the meantime, using a couple of typical projects with that plugin as an example, I'm only seeing 25-45% speed up in renders over our maxed out iMac (late 2012, 27") exporting the same project. That's significant of course but not the 100%+ one would think we would be seeing at the least given the MacPro config of 8 cores and dual D700s. Premiere Pro CC seems in fact to never maximize CPU (never mind GPUs). I have yet, in my very limited testing, see it "pin the meters" like I did on the iMac.
Of course that's just testing now two short (under 5 min) projects, and it depends on what one is doing. Some stuff is much, much faster like Red Giant's Denoiser II or Warp Stabilizer VFX. The improvement there can be 3-4x faster anecdotally. I used to avoid them for speed reasons unless absolutely needed a lot of the time but now they are fast enough to rely on quickly. Other stuff unrelated top PPro CC like DxO PRIME noise removal on RAW stills is much faster too, as is Photoshop CC. Some effects like blur, sharpening, resize there are nearly instant now even on giga pixel files in Photoshop CC.
And of course FCPX is much faster on it but I hate the whole editing paradigm. The timeline is just horrid on it; simple things like replacing a word in someone's dialogue is a multi click, multistep process that is nearly instant in Premiere and most every other NLE. Just to try to see your whole timeline is a chore, to see what your edits and sound are in detail are problematic, trying to keep things in sync is a chore, and you can't even zoom your timeline window to full screen! If anybody has edited for any amount of time, I do not understand how they use FCP X. If they start with that program, for example if they are young, then that is a different beast.
I'm sure Adobe will improve over time. They have to to stay competitive. In the meantime I'll take my 45%... but I wish I saw much more improvement given the cost and hardware differential. Unfortiunately, for now, the mainstream reviews I have seen regarding PPro performance on this machine were right.

That statement about 4k/5k in Premiere CC with the nMP is false, insofar as performance goes.
I just tested 5K Red raw files just dragged into Premiere Pro CC (latest version). I expected this to be slow, given my HD experience. However, on my 8 core/D700, I can play 1/2 just fine, full speed. And I even can also do that with a very streneous plugin/filter attached - FilmConvert (in OpenCL mode), also at 1/2 which is quite impressive. I can even add a bunch of other Premiere filters and SG looks and it still stays at full speed at 1/2.
Ironically, this is quite faster than FCPX which can't seem to play back 5K at all with that filter attached (it doesn't stutter, but it's not smooth... low resolution at "best performace" and reduced frame rate). Even if I remove all filters FCPX plays back Red 4k (again not transcoded) about the same as CC at 1/2, but with a seemingly lower resolution to keep it smooth. It's a head scratcher. It's like Adobe's Red handling is much better coded than Apple's in this case.
Or... it has to be attrituable to that particular plugin (other FCPX motion-based plugins don't suffer the same fate and are fast). But either way, filter or no, Premiere Pro CC is definitely and sharper looking at 1/2 when cutting Red 4k/5k with no transcode, playback in real time, than FCPX which needs to bump it down to what looks like a 1/4 or less rez to keep it smooth. So I have no idea what is going on.
This experience is the opposite with HD, where FCPX is significantly faster (using the same filters/plugin, using C300 Canon XF for HD and 4 and 5K RedRaw alternatively). Premiere seems slower in HD than FCPX by a good amount in HD and signficantly faster with Redraw 4k. Go figure.

Benefits of a Dedicated Scratch drive

I have been having very good luck running Premeire Pro CS5.5 on my Dell XPS Studio (8 gig of ram) with one 2TB drive in it but running most of the jobs off of my 8TB Netgear RAID box. I am thinking about putting another 2TB drive inside the computer and use it as a scratch drive only. Will that improve anything in the performance? The only issue I have now is some slowing when I drop 30 minutes or more of video on a timeline. That is not a big deal but I'd like to have a better idea about if a dedicated scratch drive will step performance or reliability up in any way.

I can confirm a nice, fast drive (I used a 2TB WD Cavier Black 7200 RPM drive as my scratch and media cache drive) yields noticeable improvement over those files residing on the system drive or the project drive.
When I RAIDED my project drive, however, the improvement was not so noticeable. I can say that there was more fluctuation in performance putting all on the one RAIDed drive, though. (ie, Renders showed more consistent high CPU utilization, but utilization tended to dip up and down more).

MBP 13" not really faster than MB 13"

Hi
I want to upgrade my 4 year old MB 13". I really like the size... I waited a long time for the new processors to come. Now I discovered that the 13" model does not feature the i5 and i7 processors and I heard that the 13" MBP cannot be compared to the 15" model in terms of performance.
I will do more photo editing (photoshop) and video editing (final cut express) and my old MB is getting really slow...
Any advice on choice of Macbook - Pro or normal...
Thanks!

Hi niefl,
First of all (and I know this isn't quite what your are asking) although the new MBP isn't as fast as the new 15" model, it is a LOT quicker than a four year old MB. We have an early 2 GHz black CD MacBook (about the same generation as yours), a later , Core 2 Duo, MB, a SantaRosa 15" MBP from 2007, and a June 2009 13" MBP . Even the June 2009 13" model is much, much faster in any situation that requires processor power for things like photo editing or video editing than the early 2 GHz MB .
As far as comparison with the late 2009 polycarbonate MB goes, the benchmarks published by MacWorld (see http://www.macworld.com/article/147071/2010/04/13inchmacbookprobenchmarks.html) indicate that the new MBP 13 is a bit faster than the MB but not by a huge margin - maybe about 10% on most tasks.
But there are other very good reason to get the MBP if you can afford the extra couple of hundred dollars. For video work the huge difference is firewire. USB is better on recent Macs than it was in the days when your old MB was released, but it is still slower than FW400 and much, much slower than the Firewire 800 available on the MBP but not the MB.
Secondly the "standard" base configuration of the MBP comes with 4 gig of RAM, while the MB comes with just 2Gig. To do what you want to do efficiently you will need at least 4 gig of RAM. You will really notice the benefit of this with both photo editing and video work. Simply upgrading the RAM on the MB to 4 gig will cost you around half the difference in price between the two machines anyway!
Thirdly, the MBP comes with an illuminated keyboard. I never realised how useful this would be until I obtained my first MBP. Once you have been using one for a while it is hard to go back to the non-iluminated one.
Fourthly the MBP is a little lighter and slimmer than the MB.
Fifthly, our own experience has been that the aluminium MBPs are substantially tougher than the polycarbonate ones. Not only are they much more scratch resistant, but they are also less prone to case fractures through minor knocks.
Sixth, they have batteries / power management systems that give you longer battery charge life.
Seventh, they provide full sound output through the minidisplay port if you wish to hook up to an HDMI TV (unlike the MB)
Finally, they look better!
If you assume that you will have to upgrade the MB to 4 Gig of RAM anyway, then you get all the rest for just $100!
Pretty hard to beat when it comes to value IMHO!
Having said all of that, there is no doubt that the base model i5 MBP 15" is a very sweet computer, and ideal for the purposes you speak of, but if your budget, or demands for portability, means that you are choosing between the 13" MBP and the MB, I think the current model of the MBP13 wins hands down when it comes to overall value, and is a bit faster too.
Cheers
Rod

Encore cs6 not any faster than 5.1

Encore cs6 not any faster than 5.1
I opened up a cs5.1 project in cs6 and did a "Preview from here" of a motion background with 8 motion thumbnails...running 40 secounds. Each version of Encore took 2 minutes to render the motion menu so i could preview it.
A little dissappointing. 32 bit vs 64. Same speed:-(
I have 32 gigs of ram. i7-980

heres a test. try importing a single 42gb timeline of 1080p into encore cs5, and now do the same thing for cs6. rendering may or may not be faster for menus, but you can get right to work on your project in cs6, while it processes in the background, vs cs5 having to stare at the yellow status bar for 90 minutes (it seemed, lol)

Ubuntu is booting up faster than Arch on my computer why would that be

So after about a year with ubuntu and just trying out different distros i went towards a challenge, Arch. Well it was for me at the time but after installing arch and learning how it all got built i am very content with this new distro for me. My primary objective was to have a really fast distro, thus Arch but since i am a noob for now I dont know all of the ins and outs of it yet. Right now Ubuntu boots up WAY faster than Arch does on my desktop and I would like to know why and how i can change that.

Arch doesn't do anything to increase boot time other than the ability to background some daemons on startup. There are initscript replacements like quick-init or finit-arc but in my experience they are a little flaky.
Ubuntu, IIRC, uses upstart which does some things (I don't know) to help increase boot time. You can try installing upstart on Arch if you want http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=24506

HT4060 I'm having some problems with my ipad and charging it. I am having to leave it in charge for a lot longer, but when I take it out and want to use it the battery is still not completely full and goes down a lot faster than usual

I'm having some problems with my ipad and charging it. I am having to leave it in charge for a lot longer, but when I take it out and want to use it the battery is still not completely full and goes down a lot faster than usual. The other day, I had charged my iPad overnight so that I could take it to university with me for the day, and when I had switched it on the next day the battery was on 5% and I had not used it since charge.

Your battery may be dying. THey are only good for so many charges/discharges. If you have an apple store near by make an appointment and have them check itout

Is raid 0 faster than a 10k rpm drive?

Hi everyone
Are two 7200 rpm drives in raid 0 faster than a 10k rpm drive?
/p

Most people assume or think in terms of only two drives for a RAID, but that isn't a given. RAID adds latency and some overhead having to assemble and write to multiple drives.
WD still sells the 150 and 74GB Raptor but it is harder to justify today with fast 7.2K drives, or against the 300GB unit (won't slide into the stock drive bays as is).
http://www.barefeats.com/harper13.html
- SAS vs SATA (raid and non-RAID) has some surprising results.
http://www.barefeats.com/harper9.html - best boot drive?
http://barefeats.com/hard103.html - VelociRaptor
(break the bank, AND break any speed records, looks like $700 "must have" for the very discerning customer).
http://www.barefeats.com/harper14.html WD 640GB Caviar ($104 @ OWC)
http://www.barefeats.com/hard94.html - Terabyte drives
For boot drive? for scratch? using 1TB drive perhaps? Would you partition your RAID drives so you are using the outer half?
I've got 3 MaxLine Pro drives in stripped RAID (they do much better in RAID than as single drives). I still use 10K Raptor for boot drive and stripping a pair of Raptors did not make any appreciable difference.
A dedicated boot drive (OS and applications only) helps. My system is really really small and doesn't need anything larger than 135GB, if even that.
Having /Users/account on a 2nd drive (or stripped RAID) is what I have always used.
And obviously scratch for CS3 can be on stripped RAID.
Same, too, for data if you need fast saves while working.

Are the brushes in Photoshop CC faster than CS6 - still need to use CS5 for large files

Hey,
Are the brushes in Photoshop CC any faster than Photoshop CS6.
Here's my standard large file, which makes the CS6 brushes crawl:
iPad 3 size - 2048 x 1536
About 20-100 layers
A combination of vector and bitmap layers
Many of the layers use layer styles
On a file like this there is a hesitation to every brush stroke in CS6. Even a basic round brush has the same hesitation, it doesn't have to be a brush as elaborate as a mixer brush.
This hesitation happens on both the mac and pc, on systems with 16 gb of ram. Many of my coworkers have the same issue.
So, for a complicated file, such as a map with many parts, I ask my coworkers to please work in CS5. If they work in CS6 I ask them to not use any CS6 only features, such as group layer styles. The only reason why one of them might want to use CS6 is because they're working on only a small portion of the map, such as a building. The rest of the layers are flattened in their file.
Just wondering if there has ever been a resolution to this problem...or this is just the way it is.
Thanks for your help!

BOILERPLATE TEXT:
Note that this is boilerplate text.
If you give complete and detailed information about your setup and the issue at hand,
such as your platform (Mac or Win),
exact versions of your OS, of Photoshop (not just "CS6", but something like CS6v.13.0.6) and of Bridge,
your settings in Photoshop > Preference > Performance
the type of file you were working on,
machine specs, such as total installed RAM, scratch file HDs, total available HD space, video card specs, including total VRAM installed,
what troubleshooting steps you have taken so far,
what error message(s) you receive,
if having issues opening raw files also the exact camera make and model that generated them,
if you're having printing issues, indicate the exact make and model of your printer, paper size, image dimensions in pixels (so many pixels wide by so many pixels high). if going through a RIP, specify that too.
etc.,
someone may be able to help you (not necessarily this poster, who is not a Windows user).
a screen shot of your settings or of the image could be very helpful too.
Please read this FAQ for advice on how to ask your questions correctly for quicker and better answers:
http://forums.adobe.com/thread/419981?tstart=0
Thanks!

New iMac faster than my MacPro?

I've recently purchased a new 24" iMac for a 2nd home I have out west. After a few days tinkering with it I'm pretty positive that this new machine is quicker than my 2 year old MacPro that I have at home. I was hoping after looking at the specs below if people could confirm that this should be the case.
The reason I'm wondering is that I even though the iMac is brand new, the Mac Pro was and still is far more expensive than the iMac. The main reason I would like to know for sure is that since I work from home and have fairly advanced needs (two VMWare Fusion vms running on top of OSX 60+ hours a week working with important financial software), if the iMac is indeed faster I may be looking for an upgrade. Before I essentially toss my $2700 MacPro to the side though I want to make sure the lag that I notice that I don't yet see on the iMac couldn't be simply cured with an OS reinstall, which hasn't been done in over 2 years.
I'm also a little unsure of how to compare the Xeon vs the current Pentium processors, as well as how important the 1067mhz vs the 667mhz ram is to my needs. I basically run two Fusion VMs with 1gb dedicated to each one in Unity, Safari, iTunes, Mail, Adium, and Skype occasionally.
Specs for each machine..
24" iMac - 2.93ghz Intel Core 2 Duo, 4GB Ram 1067mhz, 600gb ATA HD, NVIDIA GeForce GT 120 256MB
MacPro w 30" Cinema - 2 x 2.66Ghz Dual Core Intel Xeon, 5GB Ram 667mhz, 250GB ATA HD, NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT
All advice greatly appreciated.

I'm also a little unsure of how to compare the Xeon vs the current Pentium processors
No Intel Mac has ever had a "Pentium" inside.
The Mac Pro would be faster for applications that are designed to use multiple processors. It has 4 cores versus 2 in the iMac.
VMware Fusion has a option (in the virtual machine's settings) to use more than one +virtual processor+, but it is not as efficient booting the OS directly. Also, it probable that things like the financial software you are running on the virtual machine is itself not designed to take advantage of multiple cores. Therefore, CPU clock speed becomes the overriding factor for performance in your case. Since the new iMac runs at 2.93 GHz versus 2.66 GHz for the Mac Pro, it is certainly possible that your iMac is faster than the Mac Pro, in your situation. If you were running Final Cut Studio or Logic Studio (or other app that takes advantage of all the cores), the Mac Pro would be faster.
Also, Snow Leopard has a new technology called Grand Central Dispatch
http://www.apple.com/macosx/technology/#grandcentral
which is supposed to make use of multiple cores more efficient under Mac OS X. I don't think it will have too much impact on existing third-party software, but it will be interesting to see what the developers at VMware and other third-parties software firms can do with it. So your Mac Pro with four cores may become more efficient (faster) under Snow Leopard.

Dedicated scratch not faster than scratch on boot volume

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for