How slow is your computer? or vise versa?

[ccheever]

Just wanting to compare how fast your computer is at opening a raw image. Really I am just asking this to make it easier on my mind to get a new computer.

Do a test with your RAW files and let me know the outcome.


P4 2.4ghz
1gig of RAM
RAW from 30D

Space: sRGB
Depth: 16 bit
Size: 6144x4096
Resolution: 300

Conclusion: 10 Seconds!!!



Obviously since different cameras have different resolutions our results may vary but lets see them anyways.

[ccheever]

FYI. I was using Photoshop CS2 as my RAW converter.

[cdifoto]

RSP opens RAWs pretty fast...or are you actually talking about a conversion from RAW? Bit of a difference...

[ccheever]

Im saying open the RAW in ACR then click "Open". Thats it.

[cdifoto]

Interesting. RSP doesn't work the same so I guess I can't answer.

[cdifoto]

I just timed a conversion though, for what it's worth, and it took 12 seconds on my 2.17GHz AMD Athlon XP Pro w/1GB RAM. It was a RAW from a 30D.

[ccheever]

well your not helping me cdi. haha. im trying to find people who will say "2 sec". Then that will convince me to finally get a faster computer. :)

Obviously Im just joking, but I am interested if the better/faster computer you have can open the files up alot quicker than what you and I have.

[tim]

1 second to show once I drag it into CS2. 8 seconds once I hit "open" in ACR. I have an Athlon 3500+, single core, 2GB RAM.

[matthewlrigdon]

On my Powerbook G4 1.67 (2 Gig of RAM) it takes about 6 or 7 seconds from the time I hit Open to having the image in Photoshop. That includes me having to click OK to clear the profile mismatch warning (I normally use Adobe RGB)

[daniel_981]

6~7 Seconds, Intel Duo Core T2500 (2x2.0g), 1 GB ram... Not bad for a laptop! ;)

[Tony-S]

My Mac Mini Core Duo with 2 gb RAM opens a RAW file from my XT in 2-3 seconds using Aperture. I upped the RAM from 1 gb last week and it doubled the speed of opening.

[ccheever]

My Mac Mini Core Duo with 2 gb RAM opens a RAW file from my XT in 2-3 seconds using Aperture. I upped the RAM from 1 gb last week and it doubled the speed of opening.

not bad. Does the mac mini run aperature pretty well? I thought you had to have a beast of a video card to run that program.

[matthewlrigdon]

not bad. Does the mac mini run aperature pretty well? I thought you had to have a beast of a video card to run that program.

It helps to have a better video card, but it's still usable without. You may not see instant updates on screen when you make changes, but it's not much worse than waiting for a filter to run in Photoshop.

The main thing with 1.5 is that they now officially support the minis and Macbooks. Before it was something that the Aperture guys said would work, but Apple wouldn't put on the box as a supported platform.

And as to your original inquiry, I think you need more memory. It seems all the 2 gig systems are coming out ahead (with the exception of the Core Duo result).

[pturton]

Less than 2 seconds.

To start CS2 from scratch it takes about 3.5 seconds. Once CS2 is running, for a 20D CR2file to load from Bridge to ACR, count "o" and to open from ACR into CS2 ready to edit count "one thousand one, on thousand t"

My computer is a AMD 4600+ with an ASUS MB, 3G of DDR2 RAM at 667MHz, three WD SATA 250G drives, a 160G USB2 drive and LG Flatron L2012P monitor.

...but my internet access is dialup :-(

[ccheever]

Less than 2 seconds.

To start CS2 from scratch it takes about 3.5 seconds. Once CS2 is running, for a 20D CR2file to load from Bridge to ACR, count "o" and to open from ACR into CS2 ready to edit count "one thousand one, on thousand t"

My computer is a AMD 4600+ with an ASUS MB, 3G of DDR2 RAM at 667MHz, three WD SATA 250G drives, a 160G USB2 drive and LG Flatron L2012P monitor.

...but my internet access is dialup :-(

Wow! everything about your computer sounds wonderful. But how do you ever live with a dial-up connection!! you're crazy!!

[jfrancho]

My PC is blindingly fast (about 2 seconds per raw), but I can be a lttle slow.

[ccheever]

My PC is blindingly fast (about 2 seconds per raw), but I can be a lttle slow.

Well, give us some specs.

[wrecks]

Hmm, a lot of variables are left hanging. Where are you opening the files from (usb flash or hard drive). How are you timing? Kind of hard to accurately time something without a timer. Is the image already cached in some memory somewhere.

For you to get repeatable measurements you need a little more reapeatable process. This might even start by booting the system so that all memory and devices are clear.

Pedantic bordering on anal? Sure but what I've seen so far doesn't even rise to to the level of anecdotal evidence. Some people aren't even using the same program, yeesh.

BTW get more memory

[jfrancho]

Well, give us some specs.It's about a year an half old now, but it's a custom spec Alienware (basically an MJ in a gamer case) 3.4 Ghz Dual Core Intel, 800 MHz FSB, 4 GB RAM, SATA 500GB RAID 0 (mirrored), Matrox Parhelia (also have some highbrow nVidia PCI-E 512 MB card, but don't use it). The real strength is it's the first machine that I can run a batch action on a set of images, and still use other apps while PS is running.

[jfrancho]

Where are you opening the files fromWhy anyone would open the files from the flash card is really beyond me. Just copy them off there, and if something goes wrong, you have a backup.

[pturton]

Wow! everything about your computer sounds wonderful. But how do you ever live with a dial-up connection!! you're crazy!!

DSL, cable and TalkWireless are not avaialble here. TalkWireless says I need a 64 foot tower for about 3k. That leaves me with satellite as the only option and after listening to my neighbour complain about his satellite connection I figure I'm stuck with dialup.

[ccheever]

Why anyone would open the files from the flash card is really beyond me. Just copy them off there, and if something goes wrong, you have a backup.

Im with you on this, why would you base it off opening a file from cd or flash drive?

[ccheever]

DSL, cable and TalkWireless are not avaialble here. TalkWireless says I need a 64 foot tower for about 3k. That leaves me with satellite as the only option and after listening to my neighbour complain about his satellite connection I figure I'm stuck with dialup.

I see. That sucks. But yeah, i have heard bad things about satalite. Oh well, i guess if your used to dial-up its not that big of a deal right?

[matthewlrigdon]

Im with you on this, why would you base it off opening a file from cd or flash drive?

I think it had something to do with making this an actual benchmark test. However, since it's just us in a forum, it's not really worth it in my opinion.

It would seem that memory is a huge factor in RAW file speed, at least in Photoshop. Obviously there's all kinds of other things to consider, like the RAID 0 array in jfranco's machine (he's got 4 gig of memory, too), but the anecdotal results here seem to be that adding a gig of RAM drops your time from 10-12 seconds down to 6-8 seconds.

[wrecks]

Im with you on this, why would you base it off opening a file from cd or flash drive?

Well, no body mentioned it. How can you compare times if you're not all doing the same thing. So you copy to what? Do you copy to a USB hard drive? Then you have the slowdown of USB 1.1 or 2.0. Are you coping to a internal IDE, ultra IDE, ATA, Serial ATA, SCSI. Is the drive 4200, 5400, 7200 or 10K RPM?

Many variables to just say it takes me 10 seconds.

I have a Lenevo Thinkpad, DCRAW under linux takes 12.424 seconds to convert a 350D RAW to PPM. Means nothing to you so whats the point.

[matthewlrigdon]

Well, no body mentioned it. How can you compare times if you're not all doing the same thing. So you copy to what? Do you copy to a USB hard drive? Then you have the slowdown of USB 1.1 or 2.0. Are you coping to a internal IDE, ultra IDE, ATA, Serial ATA, SCSI. Is the drive 4200, 5400, 7200 or 10K RPM? .

Well, I don't know, if you read the original post he asked how long it took to convert a 30D (I used a 20D RAW file, but should be the same) RAW file at 16-bit, sRGB, 25+MB setting using Photoshop ACR. A few posts later he added that he was curious about the time it took to open after hitting the Open button.

I'd assume that most people are opening the files from their hard drive, but opening in Photoshop is going to be stressing the memory and scratch disk anyway, so whether they file originated on a USB drive or a hard drive, probably won't be a big factor.

[In2Photos]

2 seconds to open the file from bridge to ACR, then 7 seconds to open it in CS2.

I have an AMD Atahlon 64 3000+ Venice proc (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?item=N82E16819103537). on a MSI motherboard (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16813130540), with 2GB DDR400 ram (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16820145579).

[ccheever]

Well, no body mentioned it. How can you compare times if you're not all doing the same thing. So you copy to what? Do you copy to a USB hard drive? Then you have the slowdown of USB 1.1 or 2.0. Are you coping to a internal IDE, ultra IDE, ATA, Serial ATA, SCSI. Is the drive 4200, 5400, 7200 or 10K RPM?

Many variables to just say it takes me 10 seconds.

I have a Lenevo Thinkpad, DCRAW under linux takes 12.424 seconds to convert a 350D RAW to PPM. Means nothing to you so whats the point.

Thanks for letting me know anyways.

[Tsmith]

Interesting thread. My specs:

Built by me a few years back now. Intel P4 3.0C overclocked stable to 3.5Ghz + Asus P4800C-E Deluxe Mobo + 1 GB Dual Channel Corsair XMS RAM at 3-3-3-8 timings + 120GB WD 7200 rpm hard drive.

opened a 30D RAW file at 5 seconds and thats by clicking and selecting PSE 4 to open with. It'd probably be quicker if my hard drive was defragmented.

[tsaros]

2.5-3 seconds for a 30d raw on my Centrino Duo laptop.

[sando]

I wouldnt even like to think. :cry:

I dont work with RAW, but as an exaple... an HDR from 7 images can take 20 minutes to convert to 8bit RGB. :(

[Tony-S]

not bad. Does the mac mini run aperature pretty well? I thought you had to have a beast of a video card to run that program.

The Intel-based Mini uses notebook components and has an onboard Intel video chip that takes up 80 mb of the RAM (64 mb for the video, 16 mb for management). What is apparent to me is that RAM is more important than the video card. I described Aperture 1.2's performance with my Mini as "adequate" on this forum. With the 1.5 release, I now think it is "very good". It was noticably snappier, even with 1 gig of RAM. After I installed the 2 gig chips (which arrived the day after 1.5 update) I was able to get the 2-3 second reads off of my RAW images. Photoshop CS also runs faster under Rosetta on my Mini than it does on my iMac G5 natively. Rosetta starts a bit slow, but once it's running, it's not slow by any means.

I had to install the Aperture 1.5 upgrade using Pacifist, a shareware app (voluntary) for forcing installations. It installed with no troubles. I suspect that installation onto a Mini requires the 1.5 DVD - upgraders will need to use Pacifist. The 1.5 upgrade is really something. I don't have much need for Photoshop any more.

I currently have about $1,400 in my Mac Mini system; The computer (1.66 gHz Core Duo) with 2 gb RAM, 100 gb SATA, DVD burner, Airport and Bluetooth wireless, a 19" Samsung WS LCD, and a MiniStack firewire drive with a 250 gb HD. (As a professor, I got about a $100 price break. Aperture was only $99!) It's nice and compact. What I especially like about the Mini is that its processor is socketed, not soldered. Since the new Core 2 Duo chips ("Merom") are pin-compatible with the Core Duo, I can upgrade to a new processore by simply pulling the old one out and plugging the new one in. Judging by Intel's roadmap, it's conceivable that they'll have a quad core processor out soon that will also be compatible (crossed fingers).

BTW: I have a second Mini that I use for my home theater system. It comes with an app called Front Row and an IR remote. I get 5.1 digital sound out of it and high-def video (although my projector is not high-def). It's pretty cool watching videos on a 160" screen :)

[ccheever]

wow, Tony, seems like youre pretty well set up there.

[jameslcross]

Hmm I'll time mine tonight, I'm sure it's only a couple of seconds!

[strikerstu]

Just tried at work on my Apple Mac G5 and 2gig ram. From hitting the open button in ACR it's less than 2 seconds for a Raw file off my 1DMkIIn.

Stu

[René Damkot]

A 1D2 CR2 opens in about 7 seconds on my G4 1GHz...

[rfreschner]

5 seconds to open A 20D CR2 on my Pentium Dual Core 930 3.0GHz with 2MB RAM.

[Jim G]

5 seconds to open A 20D CR2 on my Pentium Dual Core 930 3.0GHz with 2MB RAM.

That's pretty good for 2 meg ;)

For me - 6 seconds for a 20D raw file - I'm running 3.0ghz Pentium, 1gig RAM, 256meg Nvidia graphics card. I'd like more RAM, though, as when I try to do a bunch at once things slow right down.

OP: Are you upsizing your RAW images? My files sure aren't 6144x4096...

[rfreschner]

That's pretty good for 2 meg ;)

I really need to go to 4MB...... especially after seeing the speed of some of these other machines.

[jfrancho]

I misspoke, my HDD's are RAID 1, not 0. Basically 2 500GB drives that have duplicate data on them. There is a small performance hit, but with SATA, it's insignificant. I suppose it's overkill, and I've never had to recover any data, but it's there if I need it.

[markubig]

P4 1.8GHz
2GB RAM
PSE3.0
20D/XT RAW files

Open RAW: ~10s

Here's the problem: Neat Image NR Filter: ~20-30s

Takes me hours to pp an event

[rfreschner]

Here's the problem: Neat Image NR Filter: ~20-30s

?? Do you shoot a lot of events with high ISO?

[jfrancho]

I run a little bit of NR on all pictures that are destined for print, irrespective of ISO. Sometimes the affected area is real small, but I can see the difference, and I feel better about the quality of the image.

[In2Photos]

I run a little bit of NR on all pictures that are destined for print, irrespective of ISO. Sometimes the affected area is real small, but I can see the difference, and I feel better about the quality of the image.
What size prints John? Can you see a big difference on the smaller prints? I usually only run NN if the shots have noticeable noise but if helps all shots I may use it more often.

[jfrancho]

Prints are usually 8x10, 8x12, 10x15, 11x14. I print smaller, too, but since most want larger, I process them as if they will be printed large. Smaller prints will exhibit a lot less noise due to attrition when resampling - less pixels, less noise.

[In2Photos]

Prints are usually 8x10, 8x12, 10x15, 11x14. I print smaller, too, but since most want larger, I process them as if they will be printed large. Smaller prints will exhibit a lot less noise due to attrition when resampling - less pixels, less noise.

Yeah, I keep forgetting that many on here print larger shots than I do. I seldom print at 8x10 or larger. Eventually I will find something worthy of a larger print but until then I keep printing my 4x6 and 5x7 shots.

[jfrancho]

Eventually I will find something worthyI'm a real bad judge of this, based on what people will buy. I'm surprised at the difference between what gets attention here and what actually sells and what I actually like.

[In2Photos]

I'm a real bad judge of this, based on what people will buy. I'm surprised at the difference between what gets attention here and what actually sells and what I actually like.
Yeah, I see that a lot here as well. It is pretty funny when the technically imperfect shot is so well liked. It just goes to show you that it takes more that technical knowledge to make a photograph. However, since I don't shoot for others, but rather for just myself and my family, I don't sell any images so what I print is for me or them only.

[imrtun]

6 seconds on an AMD Barton 2500+ and 768MB of RAM, not bad considering it's over 3 years old now.

[Ronald S. Jr.]

3.0GHz Dual Core
2gigs of RAM
RAW from 5D

Color Space: Adobe RGB
Depth: 16 bit
Size: 6144x4096
Resolution: 300 ppi

Time: Just shy of 3 seconds.

..and that's an 18mb ISO 1600 RAW. I'm pleased. :eek:

[jameslcross]

P4 2.8ghz
1.75 gig of RAM
Conclusion: 5 Seconds!!!



:)

[ccheever]

That's pretty good for 2 meg ;)

For me - 6 seconds for a 20D raw file - I'm running 3.0ghz Pentium, 1gig RAM, 256meg Nvidia graphics card. I'd like more RAM, though, as when I try to do a bunch at once things slow right down.

OP: Are you upsizing your RAW images? My files sure aren't 6144x4096...

no, thats just what it says next to "25+"

[ccheever]

3.0GHz Dual Core
2gigs of RAM
RAW from 5D

Color Space: Adobe RGB
Depth: 16 bit
Size: 6144x4096
Resolution: 300 ppi

Time: Just shy of 3 seconds.

..and that's an 18mb ISO 1600 RAW. I'm pleased. :eek:

I am for sure jealous of that time.

[matthewlrigdon]

no, thats just what it says next to "25+"

You are resizing, but since the RAW converter has access to the original sensor data, it should be able to produce a better resize than resizing an image that's already been run through the Bayer conversion.

[markubig]

?? Do you shoot a lot of events with high ISO?not all the time, but i usually like to run a photo through the NR filter just to smooth it out.

[cgratti]

about 5 seconds on my 1.6GHz iMac G5 (2GB RAM).

[rfreschner]

not all the time, but i usually like to run a photo through the NR filter just to smooth it out.

Hmmm.... never thought of that. Based on your and jfrancho's comments, I'll have to give it a try sometime and see how it works out.

[rklepper]

3.0 P4. 2GB Ram
3504 X 2336
300dpi

4 seconds

[amonline]

LOL 2.5 seconds... opening a 30D file... :D

My system: click here (http://www.onlinedrumstudio.com/overcompensator/)

[Papaw]

Do you guys anticipate the soon-to-be released Vista with 64 bit system to greatly increase the speed of CS2 ( I think CS2 is already 64 bit compatable)?

Jack

[matthewlrigdon]

Do you guys anticipate the soon-to-be released Vista with 64 bit system to greatly increase the speed of CS2 ( I think CS2 is already 64 bit compatable)?

CS2 isn't actually a 64-bit app, although it can run in 64-bit Windows.

64-bit doesn't make things work any faster in most cases, the main benefit is having access to more memory. 32-bit apps are limited to 4 Gig of memory address space although with system overhead and other issues, it's usually less.

If you don't need more than 2 gig of memory for what you do, though, you won't see much of an advantage using a 64-bit OS with a 64-bit app. A RAW file out of a 30D doesn't need more than a gig of memory to be edited (obviously depending on the number of layers).

If you run a lot of memory hungry programs side by side, the 64-bit advantage can kick in (each 32-bit app can get a full 4 gig of memory space). Unfortunately, the issues some systems have with 64-bit Windows (drivers, apps that rely on hacks that don't cause problems in 32 bit Windows but blow up in 64-bit) make it a no-go. This is getting better, but most of the software development for 64-bit is happening in the server space, not the desktop space.

[jameslcross]

Do you guys anticipate the soon-to-be released Vista with 64 bit system to greatly increase the speed of CS2 ( I think CS2 is already 64 bit compatable)?

Jack

I couldn't tell you!

But personally I think vista will be the biggest pile of junk from microsoft in a while!

The fact that there are going to be several levels of vista available, certain things wont work unless you buy the top dog version. Oh and Im not happy about the info on the stuff your store on your pc being colleted by microsoft, they can jump if they think I'm buying it!

[amonline]

I do not run 64... I tried, but so many things are not supported yet... I couldn't sync my phone, use certain software, etc... it was a nightmare... I went back to WinPro and never looked back. I agre... I think Vista will be crap for a few years... frankly, I won't be surprized to see a 32bit version.

[matthewlrigdon]

I do not run 64... I tried, but so many things are not supported yet... I couldn't sync my phone, use certain software, etc... it was a nightmare... I went back to WinPro and never looked back. I agre... I think Vista will be crap for a few years... frankly, I won't be surprized to see a 32bit version.

I don't think there will be a Vista 64-bit version when it first ships. All the consumer versions and the lower end corporate versions will all be 32-bit.

[jevidon]

New system, just bought it this week.

Intel Pentium D 950 Presler 3.4GHz LGA 775 Dual Core Processor
2GB (2 x 1GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 667 (PC2 5300)
Geforce 7600GT 256MB GDDR3 PCI Express x16
Raptor WD740ADFD 74GB 10,000 RPM Serial ATA150
Two SAMSUNG 205BW Black 20" 6ms Widescreen LCD

haven't done a RAW test but I'm guessing it'll be good. Working with dual flat-panels is a joy for photo work, especially going back through 13000+ photos and properly archiving them using the DAM method.

[Papaw]

Thanks for the feedback. It sounds like one shouldn't let Vista sway their decision on buying or building a new computer.
Thanks,

Jack

[DocFrankenstein]

11 seconds

2.8ghz
512 ram
radeon 9200 256 megs - does it help if it's a the second card?

I don't feel the need to upgrade. When I process I just "save as" and go drink a cup of tea.

[jevidon]

my test gives me 7 seconds....that's with bridge and Photoshop open.

[CRE@TE]

Hmmmm...looks like about 1.3 seconds with my Core 2 Duo E6400 with 2 gig of ram. Opened in Elements 3 a 10.1 meg raw file from a Rebel XT.

[jevidon]

are you sure it was a raw file? i can't imagine a processor with slightly larger FSB and L1 Cache is going to outperform my system by almost 6 seconds.

[matthewlrigdon]

are you sure it was a raw file? i can't imagine a processor with slightly larger FSB and L1 Cache is going to outperform my system by almost 6 seconds.

He's using Elements 3. That might have something to do with it.

[amonline]

FWIW, FSB does have a lot to do with it... probably why I'm in the 2 second frame... although, I honestly don't see any computer on the market right now capable of breaking 2 seconds as stated... especially a 10mb RAW... that does seem a little fishy... not impossible though...

Again... my results and system below. (that's a 8mb file) ;)

LOL 2.5 seconds... opening a 30D file... :D

My system: click here (http://www.onlinedrumstudio.com/overcompensator/)
Sorry about the crappy images... it was with a CoolPix. :lol:

Oh, and if anything, I'd think Elements would not make a change in speed. Any RAM over 2gb is pointless for this test, so it's not his ram... again - fishy. :lol:

[matthewlrigdon]

Sorry about the crappy images... it was with a CoolPix. :lol:

Oh, and if anything, I'd think Elements would not make a change in speed. Any RAM over 2gb is pointless for this test, so it's not his ram... again - fishy. :lol:

Well, the original poster asked for results using Photoshop CS2 ACR, so comparing those results with results from Elements isn't real useful. They both come from the same company, but it's different engineering teams, differences in code, and it's very possible that Photoshop does some things to an image before it opens that Elements doesn't (especially 3). One thing that comes to mind is the new currency scanning code. If Elements 3 doesn't run all the images through a routine to detect currency watermarks, Elements is going to already have a speed advantage over CS2.

[Mathiau]

Since when does aperatjure use a video card? it has nothing to do with a vide card since there is no 3d rending going on in any form, the images should update instantly, if not it is likely the program / harddrive still trying to process the info...

opening large raw files would be

1. Harddrive speed
2. CPU speed
3. Ram - When using PS - we all know it LOVESSSSSSSSSS ram!

of course all affected by what is already running on your computer

for me.....

P4 840 (dual 3.2ghz / 1mb cache each) 2g DDR 667 ram / WD Raptor 74g 10k RPM SATA HD (x1900xt @ xtx)

PS CS2 - opened (8 seconds to open with 286 fonts) to start ps cs2

Double click 20D raw file cr2 - 2 seconds to open it in the raw converter - this is running off an external USB 2 enclosure with a 200g IDE, 7200 RPM drive in it with about 170G's full on it.

Aodbe RGB
16 bits
3504 x 2336
240DPI

6 seconds to save the cr2 file as a 40mb tiff file, no compression (saved back to the USB drive, which has a steady speed of about 20-22MB /sec)

I started to count, press my mouse down, hold, release and count.

CPU usage spiked to 56% when opening the cr2 file with CS2 already running

When saving to 40mb TIff file CPU usage spike to %68, then dropped 2 seconds later to 53%, then dropped to %9 and done.

Also, why wouldnt someone open a file from a cd / usb, what if they have backed up all their data to disk and just open it from there, some people dont want to copy the files back over to their computers to work with it, open it from the cd, then save elsewhere.

[MagicallyDelicious]

i think mine is slow slow slow!

i need some new stuff!

[matthewlrigdon]

Since when does aperatjure use a video card? it has nothing to do with a vide card since there is no 3d rending going on in any form, the images should update instantly, if not it is likely the program / harddrive still trying to process the info...

GPUs are being used all the time. OS X uses it for it's interface, to speed up drawing 2D shapes, and it's how Aero gets its speed bump for Windows effects.

Apple just adapted the same technique for image editing.

Here's a good link that explains how to put together a primo Aperture rig (http://aperturetricks.wordpress.com/2006/09/06/aperture-trick-59-build-a-dream-macpro-aperture-computer/).

[Mathiau]

i know gpu's are being used for GUI on OSX and the new Aero (i am happy, beats my video card doing nothing on the desktop)

but in terms of processing an image and speed, it has no conneciton, at no point in the image being loaded into your video card to be processed. The video card then is being used by the programs GUI - using a video card for the GUI and actual processing of data for a file, 2 very different things. And if this program is so reliant on GPU, it is a shame, as not everyone wants to spend $200 on a video card for GUI effects they may not even want.... Just another way for hardware and software vendors to get you to spend more money on something you dont need.

The person on that link says get a better video card, comparing an x1900 XT to a 7300... considering the one is low end budget card and the other is now a mid range gaming card, he does not say specifically WHAT it is the video card improves on....

I would love to see some test of people comparing say integrated graphics vs pci-e / agp cards and see if the slow down is the program's ability to show data - or does it actually assist in processing your images faster when you apply any changes to an image...

[Mathiau]

it seems the application that is using the GPU more is "CoreImage"

here is another site with some actual video's of speed differences:

http://www.tow.com/2006/06/27/aperture-and-geforce-7800gtx/

ouch, apple cant even stick with it's original recommendations....

With the release of Aperture 1.x (including version 1.1.1), Apple changed the list of recommended graphics cards for operation of the photo organization and RAW workflow tool.

Unfortunately, one of the cards removed from the list -- the nVidia 6600 -- is the default graphics card choice for the Power Mac G5 Dual and Quad processor models, meaning that these machines do not sport recommended Aperture specs out-of-the box. Users with the nVidia 6600 cards (who purchased systems in some cases specifically because they were recommended for use with Aperture) are, as such, reporting poor performance from the application.

To make matters worse, Apple does not sell any PCI Express video cards (including the now recommended nVidia GeForce 7800 GT) as an after-market, user-installable option. These cards are, however, available as build-to-order options at the time of system purchase.

As described by MacFixIt reader Alex Rodriguez:

"Like many others when Aperture was released I ordered a new PowerMac to be able to run Aperture. At the time the nVIDIA GeForce 6600 was a recommended system. Sometime after the release of Aperture 1.1 it was moved over the minimum system requirements. While I do not expect Apple to maintain full backwards system compatibility I think this is certainly excessive. As it currently stands Aperture is painfully slow and all indications are the only fix is upgrading my graphics card to the GeForce 7800 GT.

"Unfortunately Apple will not sell this card alone nor do they provide an upgrade path. I along with many other users have discussed this on the Aperture mailing list and we are hoping to group together a sufficient number of users to help encourage Apple to offer an upgrade option to the GeForce 7800 or take my system back and I will order a new one with the GeForce card."

The list of recommended graphics cards for use with nVidia is now as follows:

ATI Radeon X800 XT Mac Edition
ATI Radeon 9800 XT or 9800 Pro
ATI Radeon X1600
NVIDIA GeForce 6800 Ultra DDL or 6800 GT DDL
NVIDIA GeForce 7800 GT
NVIDIA Quadro FX 4500

[matthewlrigdon]

but in terms of processing an image and speed, it has no conneciton, at no point in the image being loaded into your video card to be processed. The video card then is being used by the programs GUI - using a video card for the GUI and actual processing of data for a file, 2 very different things. And if this program is so reliant on GPU, it is a shame, as not everyone wants to spend $200 on a video card for GUI effects they may not even want.... Just another way for hardware and software vendors to get you to spend more money on something you dont need.

GPUs deal with 2D images all the time. What do you think a texture is? So what you do as a programmer is tell the GPU that the desktop is a 3D shape and pass all the icons and text as a texture, then rely on the faster clock speed of the GPU in the card to pull off effects faster than the CPU can do it.

Just extend this to images and you get the same effect. It's more programming work, but it can be worth it. It relies on how the 3D processing in graphics cards are being improved, but the 2D processing is pretty much stagnant. If you're dealing with pure 2D, there's no reason to improve. But since you need more and more detailed textures, need to combine them with lighting effects, etc, you see there's a lof of potential in using the GPU, but you have to program your image app to work like a 3D program. Photoshop doesn't do this, DPP doesn't do this, Lightroom doesn't do this (yet), but Aperture does and After Effects does.

[RgB]

17" Powerbook 1.67GHz, 1GB RAM, 128MB ATI Radeon Mobility 9700, 100GB.

1-2 second to open CR2 in Bridge and 7-8 seconds to open in CS2. All I have done to upgrade since i bought it was add another 512MB RAM. I got it with the ATI Card.

Not bad for my 1 year old baby;)
http://homepage.mac.com/danielsperanza/other/pb17.JPG
http://homepage.mac.com/danielsperanza/other/pb2.JPG

[Ty H]

Asus A8N-SLI Premium Motherboard
AMD 64 X2 4800+ cpu (2.4GHz)
nVidia 7800 GTX Video Card
2 x 1 Gb. Corsair XMS RAM
Antec 480w Power Supply
10k Raptor Hard Drive

CS2 takes like, 2.5 seconds to load, 1 second when I click the RAW file, about 3.5 seconds to "open"

[prime80]

Asus A8N-SLI Deluxe
Opteron 165 (Dual core overclocked to 2.6GHz)
nvidia 7900GT
2GB Ram

3.5 seconds to open from ACR to PSCS2. 16-bit, 6144x4096

If I open the raw file to its original size, it takes less than 2 seconds.

[marklarry28]

12secs Open Photoshop
3secs Open Adobe Bridge
2secs Open RAW file from bridge to ACR


AMD 4200+ X2 64Bit
2GB RAM (400mhz)
74GB Raptor 10K
250GB Serial ATA 7.2K
ATI Radeon 500x 256MB
WIndows Media Centre 2005
Internet DSL 8Mb/s
:)

[amonline]

12secs Open Photoshop
3secs Open Adobe Bridge
2secs Open RAW file from bridge to ACR


AMD 4200+ X2 64Bit
2GB RAM (400mhz)
74GB Raptor 10K
250GB Serial ATA 7.2K
ATI Radeon 500x 256MB
WIndows Media Centre 2005
Internet DSL 8Mb/s
:)
Unfortunately, that's impossible with those specs... my specs: (only what's important)

AMD 4800+ X2 64Bit
4GB RAM (400mhz)
2x 74GB Raptor 10K in RAID 0 (and I'm opening from a Caviar 3rd drive ;))
2x GeForce 7800GTX in SLI
DFI LanParty UT Expert MoBo


...and I'm hitting 2.5 ;)

Oh, and it opens CS2/PS in under 7 seconds... so I know you're full of it. You'd have to be opening a 4mb or less file. :lol:

[Ty H]

Unfortunately, that's impossible with those specs... my specs: (only what's important)

AMD 4800+ X2 64Bit
4GB RAM (400mhz)
2x 74GB Raptor 10K in RAID 0 (and I'm opening from a Caviar 3rd drive ;))
2x GeForce 7800GTX in SLI
DFI LanParty UT Expert MoBo


...and I'm hitting 2.5 ;)

Oh, and it opens CS2/PS in under 7 seconds... so I know you're full of it. You'd have to be opening a 4mb or less file. :lol:

I love my 4800. :cool:

[KevC]

Faster HDD (get a raptor) and more memory (2gb+) helps a lot I bet.

[amonline]

yup... RAID 0 is nice too ;)

[Ty H]

yup... RAID 0 is nice too ;)

I've never messed with RAID before.

[marklarry28]

Unfortunately, that's impossible with those specs... my specs: (only what's important)

AMD 4800+ X2 64Bit
4GB RAM (400mhz)
2x 74GB Raptor 10K in RAID 0 (and I'm opening from a Caviar 3rd drive ;))
2x GeForce 7800GTX in SLI
DFI LanParty UT Expert MoBo


...and I'm hitting 2.5 ;)

Oh, and it opens CS2/PS in under 7 seconds... so I know you're full of it. You'd have to be opening a 4mb or less file. :lol:

I didn't get? What is impossible? where did you get 2.5 secs?
I test open my app many times and this is the time.
I am not lie... this is my specs.

I have Adobe bridge installed in my raptor and the imagens in my second drive

ps: I open my ACR into bridge... not into ps

[jj1987]

Bibble would help your numbers guys :)

[amonline]

I didn't get? What is impossible? where did you get 2.5 secs?
I test open my app many times and this is the time.
I am not lie... this is my specs.

I have Adobe bridge installed in my raptor and the imagens in my second drive

ps: I open my ACR into bridge... not into ps
Ah, that would explain it... we're talking about timing to open in PS. ;)

[matthewlrigdon]

Ah, that would explain it... we're talking about timing to open in PS. ;)

At this point, I don't think anybody's actually reading the original post anymore