Upgrade Core 2 duo to Core 2 Quad?

I have a 2,66 Core 2 Duo with 6GB of 800mhz 4CL Ram. Running Vista 64bit.
Photoshop CS4 and Lightroom 2 run okay on it for 'normal' stuff.
I dont know if a quad core 2,66 Ghz would make it run faster. I do know that when I use the Adjustmentbrush in lightroom or the surface blur filter in Photoshop my CPU goes to 100%. Surface blur filter really takes a long time for it to render when you change settings and finalize it. Adjustment brush isnt as smooth as using brushes in Photoshop sometimes it lags and you end up with a streak you didnt want to make. So if you go with Core 2 Duo get the fastest; 3,0 GHZ or higher. My Ram usually goes to 60% when I check the taskmanager. So 4GB is a minimum.

doesn't sound like your 3D acceleration is kicking in for Photoshop

What size files are you working on, and how many do you have open at once?

Other than photoshop and LR, what other applications to you have running?

Is it possible there some things running the background that might be using resources? (e.g. anti virus, remote connections etc).

3D acceleration is on, I work on 10mp files. One photo at once. I work from lightroom to Photoshop so I have both on. Turning off lightroom doesnt give me a cpu boost. Turning off anti virus programs is negligible in cpu performance, this is 2009 not 2001.
Im curious what hardware you guys have and when using these tools what kind of performnce you get. My performance is fine, Its only when using some heavy filters that it takes time. I wonder which cpu you dont see that slowdown?
I think im gonna try too install XP 64, maybe that will run 10% to 20% faster. I know that XP 32 vs Vista 32 with 2gb RAM, XP was faster in Photoshop CS3.

LR2 currently has a memory leak and adjust brush crashing.

IMO the quadcore will help when you are running both programs at the same time, but if your just running one at a time, I dont think that the upgrade will do what your hoping it will. Try upgrading your ram. Faster is better.

roger767 wrote in post #7301311
I think im gonna try too install XP 64, maybe that will run 10% to 20% faster. I know that XP 32 vs Vista 32 with 2gb RAM, XP was faster in Photoshop CS3.

Changing the OS won't make any difference.

I was working on mulitple 30D raw files and resulting 16bit TIFFs on a 2.6ghz Core 2 with 2GB of ram yesterday, and had no issues with performance.

Batch proccessing took longer than on my quad core, but I could do it, and use bridge or explorer at the same time.


Either your problems are imagined, or there could be something wrong with your hardware, or something running that shouldn't be.

The CPU hitting 100% is not an issue, even my quad core does that when working on something that are CPU intensive. All it means is the CPU's capacity is being fully utilised by what ever applications are running, and so things are happening as fast as possible.

Most of the filters in PS are RAM rather than proccessor intensive. If for some reason not all of the RAM is being used, or not being used properly by PS then you could get issues.
And some filters are so large and complex, that when working on larger files (and 10mp is getting up there, espeically if they are 16bit TIFF) then it doesn't matter how fast your computer is, there will be a time delay while they are processed.

Useing my quadcore with 4GB of ram, I just applied the surface blur to a 16bit TIFF from my 30D. It took about 20secs to finalise. But it is a VERY ram intensive process. However I was able to get using other applications at the same time with out any issues.
Had I tried it on my spare P4, or my old 2600 athalon, it would have slowed the systems right now, might have locked them up, or would have taken several minutes to complete.

Note, when I converted the image to 8bit, the filter was applied instantly.

Now note, running a Quadcore instead of the dual core, would make a noticable improvement.
I've worked on several dual core systems and quad core systems now, and there is deffinitly a noticable performance advantage to the quad cores.

BUT, for a simple, single task process, the dual cores are quite suitable for running photoshop and lightroom. It is only when you start running other applications at the same time, and doing lots of batch processing that the performance difference of the quad cores starts to become important.

If you could provide some real details, what file types, actual time it takes, etc, we might be able to help more.

I moved from a 3 year old dual core to a Q6600, the difference was massive. From Core2duo there will be a difference, it might be more throughput than responsiveness.

not sure how technical you are, but have you thought of overclocking your current CPU?

Perhaps you can provide some info on your motherboard model, Ram Make and Model, PSU. From that I can tell you if you have the right stuff to moderately overclock your CPU and/or your memory.

+1 for overclocking your CPU.

I have an intel 6750 (I'm willing to bet we have the same CPU) running at 3.2 ghz and it chews through most pics I throw at it. I have 6 gigs of RAM running Vista 64 bit as well.

One thing to note that people have already touched on here is to limit the amount of background applications that are already running. Turn off services you don't need (for example, if you have a wired desktop, there's abosolutely no reason to run the windows wireless service).

Be sure to get a good defragger (perfectdisk is great) as well. Every little bit helps.

Depending on the board you should be able to get about 3.4 to 3.6 out of the E6750. Just have to up the voltage requirements and the FSB as well as a few other things.

Also, use a good cpu cooler.

I overclocked my dual core E8400 to 4.1GHz on really good air cooling. 8GB of RAM overclocked to 1100Mhz, and two 260GTX's in SLI. This thing cranks through raw file conversions.

thanx for all the suggestions. My PC runs fine tho for the specs it has. I was just curious if a 2,66 quad core would give a lot more performance versus a 2,66 C2D.

for the overclockers my specs are:
CPU = E6750 with stock cooler
motherboard = Gigabyte P35C-DS3R
RAM = GEIL 800mhz 4-4-4-12
PSU = corsair 550 watt
GPU = nvidia 8800GT

For an easy overclock, do this:

1. Go into BIOS.
2. Go to M.I.B. Intelligent Tweaker.
3. Enable CPU Host Clock Control.
4. Set PCI Express Frequency to 100
5. Set System Memory Multiplier to 2 (this allows your RAM to stay at 800mhz after the overlock. You can and may want to OC your ram too but then you will need to mess with voltages and such and worry about more heat issues). Your mem frequency will be 667 after this.
6. Set your CPU Host Frequency to 400. You should see your mem frequency back at 800 after this change.

Leave everything at default. Leave performance enhance at standard. Let your system auto manage the voltages.

Save settings and restart.

Your machine should now be running at 3.2 ghz. This is a fairly small bump but you will notice a difference. I would still recommend getting an aftermarket CPU cooler. The intel stock ones are just crap. Also recommend measuring your CPU temps before and after the OC. I use CoreTemp: http://www.alcpu.com/C​oreTemp/

Disclaimer: while the chances are slim with a modest overclock, there is always possibility you will overheat your computer. I would recommend researching overclocking before doing any of this.

I have had my settings exactly as Rich prescribed for a few weeks now and the CPU (Q6600) is staying cool enough with the stock Intel cooler. System is stable. I think I'm only able to use the stock CPU cooler because the PSU in my Antec case is located at the bottom and I have tremendous air flow with huge fans blowing air out of the top and upper rear of the case.

Anyway, it's a very simple and modest OC with noticeable performance gains.