which computer choice would work better with PhotoShop CS

[gordeaux]

For my new computer I'm down to two choices. I'm wondering which would likely work better for PhotoShop CS photo processing (both will have 2 fast hard drives + Windows XP Pro):

1. Single P4 3.0 GHz processor with hyper-threading + 800MHz FSB, 2GB 400 MHz DDR RAM, or
2. Dual XEON 2.8 GHz processors with hyper-threading + 533MHz FSB, 2GB 266 MHz DDR RAM

Choice 1. is $1,000 less and I'm wondering if it will actually be any slower due to the faster FSB + RAM. :?

[Scottes]

#1 should scream. #2 will be a little bit slower except when you're doing some things which can make use of the 2nd CPU (some filters, I think), OR if you have a tendency to run 2 programs at once. And I mean run them, like processing a bunch of files in Capture1 while editing them in PS CS.

The second system seems more like a server class system.

I'd check Adobe to see how/when PS CS will use a 2nd CPU. The Xeon can kick some butt for certain things - mostly things like server operations, multi-user systems, database and such. Now so much for single-user apps (but check Adobe as I said).

I'd get system #1 and spend the extra $1000 on some serious disk - get the absolute fastest you can get, and make it SCSI. (But that last part is me - I like SCSI - most others would probably say to save the $1000.)

[CyberDyneSystems]

This would be a tough call,..

PSCS does take advantage of dual cpu systems. But how much of a gain will it give.. ?

Here, Start on this page;
http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-6451-6413

...and go from there,. RG has a Dual Dell a single CPU dell (and a dual G5 MAC) duking it out,. you will see the realtive speed differences quite well in these tests.

[mson]

If it were me, I would go with the P4 3.0 GHZ. From what I have seen the HT works well with PS. I don't think the XEON system is worth the extra $1,000.

Since your budget appears to be pretty high, what about the Athlon 64 FX? I'll try to find some benchmarks, but I am pretty sure it is faster than the P4 in PS.

[mson]

Here are some links, the Athlon 64 FX is faster than the P4's.

http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/roundupmobo/pentium4-32ghz-ee.html

http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,112749,pg,8,00.asp

[mson]

Here is a link to Apple's site comparing the G5 to it's "competition" Scroll down and look at the PScs chart. They show a dual 3.2 GHz Xeon is only 11% faster than a 3.2 GHz P4. Of course it doesn't tell you how much or how fast the RAM was in each system. If you dig deeper, I'm sure you can find those stats. There was A LOT of debate when Apple released the numbers. :)

http://www.apple.com/powermac/performance/

[Jesper]

Photoshop uses a LOT of memory, so faster memory (choice #1) would definitely be an advantage. IMO, choice #2 is not worth $1,000 more - I would go for choice #1.

[gordeaux]

Start on this page;
http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-6451-6413
...and go from there. RG has a Dual Dell a single CPU dell (and a dual G5 MAC) duking it out,. you will see the realtive speed differences quite well in these tests.

Great reference, thanks. Looks like the dual processor system is only 10%-20% faster a lot of the time. I'm thinking the faster FSB + RAM in choice #1 would wind up being both faster and cheaper than #2.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Dualies have advantages, but they are not as straight forward as one would assume.

The spped bost is NEVER "double" that of a single CPU for instance...

One of the great benifits of Dualy that goes overlooked however is stability... if a process crashes on a given CPU thread,. the other may very well keep humming along :)

But in this case, I beleive there are single CPU solutions that will be faster, and cheaper.

[iwatkins]

I run a Dell with Twin 2.somethingGhz Xeons and 1.5Gb of RAM. Processors both have HT switched on giving 4 logical processors.

Photoshop CS on its own (i.e. not doing anything else on the machine) never usually uses more than 50% of CPU usage according to my logging. I.e. it uses two logical processors to the limit, but nothing more.

The only real time it uses more than this is when running some filters. I.e. running a USM will peak at around 85% and is certainly quicker than running with a single processor with HT switched on, but only maybe 20% quicker tops.

Where is really comes into its own is when you are running a batch job on PS CS, doing some printing, checking emails, having a compiler or two running etc. I.e. the machine hardly ever becomes unresponsive.

If the machine in question is going to be mainly used as a Photoshop machine, I wouldn't go for a dual proc. system.

However, I would spend the money I saved on a very fast disk system as Photoshop really likes a nice fast scratch disk. I use SCSI (mainly because I always have) but good quality fast IDE systems would be OK.

I reckon 2Gb of RAM would be enough, so spend that saving on disks. Any change left over, spend on a graphics tablet, (if you don't have one already).

Cheers

Ian