Dual CPUs and workflow speed (PC)

[KenE]

I've been doing a lot of batch work for different offroad clubs since the 20D came along. Most of this stuff isn't up to the quality that I'd post, but it beats 95% of what the other P&S shooters are getting, and I like that if someone really wanted, I could get a RAW file over to the local printer for a large print.

So to my point, as I'm converting anywhere from 50-250 shots into albums for folks, I realize my Athlon XP 2600 Barton CPU with non-dual channel memory is starting to lag and will probably get replaced somewhere around when summer winds down.

Came across this article that had some tests specifically to do with digital processing. Have any of you had experience with dual CPUs and workflow specifically? Did you see vast improvements in conversion and Photoshop workflow? I mention Photoshop because it's a multi-threaded application. It's a pretty good writeup compared to the usual assortmant of writeups I see amongst the over-clocking hardware geek sites. I do like these sites because they tend to push their hardware farther than the average person, and you can gleen what the more stable equipment is from their forum posts.

I've built a dual CPU AMD box for work (Athlon MP), tons of single CPU boxes, and have found that in terms of features and stability, the dual cpu chipsets and boards lag quite a ways behind the single CPU motherboards and chipset offerings, yet they often have a couple server-like features you don't see in consumer motherboards.

Here's the article:

http://firingsquad.com/hardware/colfax_dual_opteron/

The Bibble numbers look interesting to say the least!

Comments?

(note: no affiliation, etc. blah blah)

[KevC]

SMP is a very expensive route. However, many who gave gone down that road (except gamers) have absolutely loved it.

Sure there's a tad "overhead" and a little delay in everything, not as *twichy fast* as a single CPU machine, but it's so buttery smooth.

Your AXP 2600+ is a decent processor. Going SMP is very expensive. I don't think it's worth it.

First of all, make sure you have at least 1GB of memory.

Dual Channel doesn't make much difference for an AXP box, believe me. They aren't anywhere near as bandwidth hungry as a P4. Make sure you have quality RAM and your timings are tight. You are running sync, right? (Aka your FSB and Memory is running at the same frequency). If not, there will be a *HUGE* latency delay.

Secondly, the *biggest* bottleneck of todays systems is the hard drive. SCSI is nice, but with the introduction of the 10,000RPM SATA drives, you can't go wrong with the speed and value of these buggers.

If you're running a 5400RPM HDD, this boost will be out of this world. If you're running a 7200RPM HDD, you'll feel the jump just like moving from a 5400->7200rpm.

So this is what I'm thinking for you... boost your memory up. And add a 36 or 74GB Raptor and you'll be really happy with your findings.

(Yes. I'm a hardcore computer geek. It was my passion before photography....)

[Avalonthas]

If ur going with a dual CPU computer u better have some good $$$. The latest gaming PC, without the gaming graphics/sound cards will save u alot and the speed is well sufficient. Get a 2D graphic card for editing, and ur set. Save even more by buying the parts and paying a techy 20 bucks to assemble it. Save even more money by building it urself.

[KenE]

I think you guys are missing the point. Have you experienced multi-threading in a Unix or Linux environment, ie (closer to) true multitasking work? What I'm asking is are there people on the forums here doing a lot of processing with an SMP environment, with multi-threaded OSs and applications, and are they experiencing a noticeable difference. I'm not worried about whether my rig is up to snuff, was just including data for a reference.

The bottleneck is in the calculations required to process RAW images while simultaneously performing another cpu-intensive task, which is what I'm finding myself doing more and more. This is, in part, what the article is addressing.

If you watch drive usage it's not a problem, because the data transfered is in relatively tiny chunks and not continuously- it's not like I'm streaming a DVD-sized file or doing huge backups with sustained transfers while I'm doing photo work. The type of disk activity is a perfect example of why disk caching was invented.

What kills you is if you're converting RAW files to TIFFs or another format, while browsing and selecting images for batch work at the same time, or editing shots at the same time. It's purely a CPU function- and memory if you don't have enough- and easily verified if you pop open Task Manager while you're doing these things.

SMP is not very expensive, quad and above is. The cost of a board is about double than for a single CPU, and the CPUs are roughly 1/3 more. Let's say you build a box for around $1200 normally, using quality components. The SMP box will add maybe (edit: 1/2) more to the total cost and provide some subjective quantity of improved time savings. This subjective time factor is what I'm after for feedback.

[CyberDyneSystems]

It's been a while since I had a dually.. but the advantages are plenty... and very appropriate for the type pof work we do when post processing.

The new Dual Opteron boards even have dedicated memory banks for specific CPUs..
Thus if your XP installation and back ground apps are running on one CPU with your RAW converter,. all the ram and CPU cycles that they would be grabbing is there's alone while you have a second CPU and another boatload of RAM to dedicate entirely to Photoshop editing.

When I fianlly upgrade,. now that I am dealing in files in excess of 100MB each,. I will be back to a dually for sure.

[CyberDyneSystems]

P.S.,. if your not interested in building your own dual.. one source I found for a semi custom built Dual Opteron or Dual Xeon system that seems very reasonable is

www.boldata.com

[chris.bailey]

I have a Dell Precision workstation with Dual Zeon 2.8 procs and 4 gb of RAM and it rocks for Photoshop, Extensis Portfolio and Rawshooter. It replaced an Athlon similar to yours and though I have never done any timings it is chalk and cheese.

[neil_r]

I could get a RAW file over to the local printer for a large print.

Print from RAW :confused: are you sure?

N

[tim]

I just got an socket 939 Athlon 3500+, it's pretty quick, but i've heard Intel are faster for PS work right now. I got the relatively slow 3500 (instead of a 4000+ sort) because I plan to upgrade to a dual core chip in 6 months or so. That'd be the way to go IMO - hold off and get a dual core. They'll be comparable to dual processors.

PS work seems to be CPU bound to me, definitely not HDD, maybe memory though.

Neil - he probably meant using RAW you can convert to a higher quality TIFF, or something.

[KenE]

I meant to turn the file over to the local printing service in town. They do great work with originals- much better than me! :D

[griff2]

I'm running a dual Athlon MP 2000 system at work; for PS work wouldn't say it's much faster than my single Athlon XP 2000 at home, and because one of my hard disks is SCSI, and the other two are UDMA I sometimes get weird delays, that I don't get at home. For transcoding video files the dual system is significantly faster than my home system, but for PS workthrough, probably not.

I'd say PS work is more memory intensive than CPU intensive, and would be inclined to get as much of the fastest memory I could afford, making sure that the FSB (front side bus) was clocked at the same frequency.

KenE wrote:
What kills you is if you're converting RAW files to TIFFs or another format, while browsing and selecting images for batch work at the same time, or editing shots at the same time. It's purely a CPU function- and memory if you don't have enough- and easily verified if you pop open Task Manager while you're doing these things.

The problem here is that programs such as a RAW converter will take as much CPU time that's available - the faster the CPU, the more it will take; if the converter is not multi-thread, this could work in your favour, because only one CPU will be swamped by the converter, leaving the other to get on with other tasks. With multi-thread, both your CPUs will be swamped by the converter. I run very CPU intensive software at work, which tries to steal all the CPU time, and which slows everything else down to a crawl if left unchecked, the way to get around this problem is go to the task manager and lower the program's priority; this also works with a single CPU.

[Pelao]

Although you question is particular to a Windows environment, many of the same points apply to Macs.

There is no doubt dual processors make a big difference to certain operations, such as batch converting in PS. But I suggest you look at your overall workflow. If you have a lot of regular batching to do, and you need to run other tasks at the same time, a dual setup can really help.

But if you run batches or other processor hungry work just occasionally, and you can do other light tasks or make a coffee while you wait, then it may not be worth the investment. And wait is a relative term - it's not that the current setup will keep you waiting for great stretches of time. We have 2 dual setups at work for the guys who need them - continuous work on large files and batches. For the rest of us, a single is fine. The extra speed is only really helpful if it helps your overall experience.

Of course, it's nice to have anyway, but for a lot of people, not necessary.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Of course, it's nice to have anyway, but for a lot of people, not necessary.

That pretty much some up every single peice of photography related gear I own... ;)

[pcasciola]

I only use dual CPU machines anymore, for nearly the past 10 years now. Not real expensive ones. I just stay one step behind the latest and greatest. Originally it was dual P-Pro 200s, then some overclocked dual Celery's, and now a dual Athlon MP 1600 which I've been using for over 2 years and is due for an upgrade.

GHz for GHz duals may be slower, but to be able to run a batch PS process, video encoding or DVD burn in the background, and still work at full speed in the foreground more than makes up for it.

Dual Opteron is definitely a great way to go, but they are still big bucks. I haven't even really been keeping up with it, but I wonder what is considered one step behind those. Maybe Intel Xeons or MP 2800s?

[Nabil-A]

A quick one,

I realise the benefits of hyper threading for video editing etc, but does it really aid in graphic post processing PS or the like?

[drisley]

AMD is now releasing the Athlon 64 X2.
It's one CPU with two 64 bit processors.
It will run on current S939 boards like the Nforce4 A8N-SLI Deluxe (which I have now), and it uses less power than current A64 processors.
In multi-tasking, this processor kicks some serious butt of any current processors.
HARDOP (http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NzY2)

[tim]

Fantastic, i've been waiting for those, I got a fancy Gigabyte nForce 4 socket 939 motherboard and a "cheap" 3500+, i'll upgrade to the dual core later this year when the prices come down and the 2nd generation of them come out :)

4800+ - wow, that should speed up my PS batch jobs! :)

[drisley]

Tim, you have the same setup as me, except my mobo is the Asus one.
How do you like it?
BTw, CHEAP 3500+, hehe.
I too am drooling over that X2 4800+.

[tim]

I quite like the PC, though i'm not sure it's fully optimised, and I can't be bothered spending much time on it. Also, the fans always seem to spin at the same speed even though it doesn't get too hot, even though it's meant to have variable speed fans. Overall it's a good PC, and I can expand it to 2GB RAM and dual processors reasonably cheaply :)

I guess 3500+ is close to the top of the range, price/performance is pretty good too :)