Will RAID speed up photoshop?

[grit621]

I'm building a new computer that will be used primarily for Adobe Photoshop. I noticed the other day that on my current computer, it took took several seconds (20-60) to apply any effect to a 9MB jpg photo. I'm running an Intel Core 2 Duo 2.66 MHz cpu w/2 GB RAM on WinXP Pro SP2. The OS and apps are on a WD Raptor 160 GB HDD. The photo is on the WD SATA 160 GB HDD.

I was wondering if a RAID-0 (or any other RAID array) would speed up the disk access times in Photoshop? For that matter, when will a RAID array speed up anything?

 

[imported_Tick]

More important is a seperate and dedicated scratch disk. Get a 36 gig raptor, and use it exclusively for scratch.

 

[corkyg]

RAID will not give you any noticeable increase in processing speed. A quad core CPU would.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: corkyg
RAID will not give you any noticeable increase in processing speed. A quad core CPU would.

Photoshop can only use 2 cores at the moment. It won't be long though before you can use all 4.

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: corkyg
RAID will not give you any noticeable increase in processing speed. A quad core CPU would.

Photoshop can only use 2 cores at the moment. It won't be long though before you can use all 4.

You might also check your memory usage in Task Manager. Although with 2GB of RAM I'd think you would have plenty free; running filters/transforms on a 9MB file might eat up a fair amount of RAM, but not 2GB. However, if you have tons of other stuff open you could be running out.

RAID0 (or a striped RAID like RAID5/6) will improve file load/save times, although for small files like that you're looking at saving something like a tenth of a second. Putting your scratch disk on a drive with lower seek times (like a Raptor SATA drive, or a flash- or RAM-based SSD) will help, although getting more RAM will help more.

 

[mechBgon]

If you had a SCSI card, cable and terminator, then a recent-generation 15k SCSI drive might be good as a scratch disk too. Low seek times, high STR. You can often find SCSI drives in FS/T.

 

[grit621]

I currently have Windows set to use a folder on my D: HDD as my temp, as well as most applications. But I also keep my files (mp3, jpg, avi, etc.) on that drive, so it was accessing the d: for the original file as well as using it for temp stuff.

Ok, so considering the "scratch" drive scenario, what do I allow useage of the scratch drive? Windows temp files? Swap files? Internet Explorer? All applications?

Is there an easy way to designate a global/universal "temp" storage drive, or do I need to configure each program separately?

 

[mechBgon]

Dedicate the quick/fast drive just to Photoshop's scratch disk role.

 

[Rubycon]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Photoshop can only use 2 cores at the moment. It won't be long though before you can use all 4.

This is not completely true. I have CS2 and CS3 running on a QX6700 and a Dual Cloverton (8 cores total) and several filters will use ALL cores when processing.

A faster STORAGE system will NOT speed up the OP's case. Just check disk activity when performing your operation.

But for ANY effect I'd say something else is going on. Speed varies GREATLY between effects used and their respective quality settings.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: Rubycon

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Photoshop can only use 2 cores at the moment. It won't be long though before you can use all 4.

This is not completely true. I have CS2 and CS3 running on a QX6700 and a Dual Cloverton (8 cores total) and several filters will use ALL cores when processing.

A faster STORAGE system will NOT speed up the OP's case. Just check disk activity when performing your operation.

But for ANY effect I'd say something else is going on. Speed varies GREATLY between effects used and their respective quality settings.

so you run 2 instances of PS to fill all cores?

 

[Rubycon]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

so you run 2 instances of PS to fill all cores?

No it's not necessary - it's multithreaded.

Now it doesn't work on EVERY filter/plugin, but it's getting there.

I just wish the media content providers would get on the (SMP) bandwagon.

There was a thread a while ago to demonstrate this. The OP had a picture of a horse and the instructions were to apply a high quality radial blur and time the results. It will use all cores when processing. A QX6700 is roughly twice as fast as an E6700 in the test. (stock speeds on both) Task manager will be at 100% while filter is applied.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: Rubycon

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

so you run 2 instances of PS to fill all cores?

No it's not necessary - it's multithreaded.

Now it doesn't work on EVERY filter/plugin, but it's getting there.

I just wish the media content providers would get on the (SMP) bandwagon.

There was a thread a while ago to demonstrate this. The OP had a picture of a horse and the instructions were to apply a high quality radial blur and time the results. It will use all cores when processing. A QX6700 is roughly twice as fast as an E6700 in the test. (stock speeds on both) Task manager will be at 100% while filter is applied.

ok but my point was...PS can use 2 cores by default. It needs to be updated for 4+.

 

[Rubycon]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

ok but my point was...PS can use 2 cores by default. It needs to be updated for 4+.

Updated how?

I installed it right from the CD with no updates and it worked fine.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: Rubycon

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

ok but my point was...PS can use 2 cores by default. It needs to be updated for 4+.

Updated how?

I installed it right from the CD with no updates and it worked fine.

you said it yourself... ONLY WITH CERTAIN FILTERS!

PS by default only uses 2 cores (certain filters does not mean PS uses them all for everything else).

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: Rubycon

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

ok but my point was...PS can use 2 cores by default. It needs to be updated for 4+.

Updated how?

I installed it right from the CD with no updates and it worked fine.

you said it yourself... ONLY WITH CERTAIN FILTERS!

PS by default only uses 2 cores (certain filters does not mean PS uses them all for everything else).

...I don't think anyone was claiming something else.

Photoshop's core functionality doesn't do much that would lend itself nicely to being split into more than a handful of threads. Plus the only truly computationally intensive things most people do are image transformations/filters. There's a very limited return on making the main part of the program more multithreaded. And you can't just magically make every filter work on 4 (or even 2) cores without rewriting them all, and some of them just might not split up nicely.