3 ms·

I know you're trying to make the point that most software is bloated/slow/etc. but this is not the example to use for that point. Things don't just get faster b

I know you're trying to make the point that most software is bloated/slow/etc. but this is not the example to use for that point. Things don't just get faster because it's current year. The size of photos has increased by orders of magnitude since Photoshop debuted, the size of screens has increased, and the capabilities of the program have increased. In Photoshop, it is not only plausible but commonplace to have multiple 50MB files visible simultaneously, some raster, some vector, some text or shape. It's also worth considering that Photoshop only really uses 2 cores at maximum anyway.

olyjohn 8y ago
> It's also worth considering that Photoshop only really uses 2 cores at maximum anyway. Seriously? I think this is more confirming that the person you replied to is right. Unless there is some reason that I can think of that only using 2 cores is a good thing?
- Invictus0 8y ago
  Answering this question means you have to understand a bit about how computers work. More cores doesn't automatically translate to faster performance. Photoshop is lightly threaded for most operations. A cursory search brought up this link, but you should read up on threads and the difference between CPUs and GPUs: https://macperformanceguide.com/blog/2017/20171223_2311-why-more-cores-often-dont-help.html https://macperformanceguide.com/blog/2017/20171223_2311-why-...
- derefr 8y ago
  What would you do with more CPU cores? One for the UI; one for CPU-only filters (if there are such a thing) and various other background workers like network downloads. Everything else—the rendering, scaling, compositing, etc.—runs on the GPU, not the CPU, where it uses hundreds of cores. Y’know, like a 3D game. And, like a 3D game, it’s still slow, because it’s doing something genuinely hard and your powerful GPU still isn’t powerful enough.
- stupidbird 8y ago
  These are things that are processed better by a smaller number of more powerful cores than a larger quantity of cores. Multiple cores are really good at handling a lot of smaller processes. Photoshop just has a couple really heavy individual processes.
Terretta 8y ago
Not “orders of magnitude”, no. Demo was 12,000 x 12,000 pixels, 2 orders of magnitude would be pictures of 120 x 120 pixels. We did more with Photoshop in the past than 128px icons.
- Invictus0 8y ago
  12000 x 12000 = 1.44 * 10^8 pixels. 120 x 120 = 1.44 * 10^4 pixels. 4 orders of magnitude. And in addition to that, the RAW sensor information from the camera has given each pixel more 'depth'. Often times, each color is 12bit (36bit per pixel). There's more to each pixel than what's displayed on the screen: its not just a JPG you're viewing.
enitihas 8y ago
Why does Photoshop use only 2 cores at maximum?

olyjohn 8y ago

> It's also worth considering that Photoshop only really uses 2 cores at maximum anyway. Seriously? I think this is more confirming that the person you replied to is right. Unless there is some reason that I can think of that only using 2 cores is a good thing?

Invictus0 8y ago
Answering this question means you have to understand a bit about how computers work. More cores doesn't automatically translate to faster performance. Photoshop is lightly threaded for most operations. A cursory search brought up this link, but you should read up on threads and the difference between CPUs and GPUs: https://macperformanceguide.com/blog/2017/20171223_2311-why-more-cores-often-dont-help.html https://macperformanceguide.com/blog/2017/20171223_2311-why-...
derefr 8y ago
What would you do with more CPU cores? One for the UI; one for CPU-only filters (if there are such a thing) and various other background workers like network downloads. Everything else—the rendering, scaling, compositing, etc.—runs on the GPU, not the CPU, where it uses hundreds of cores. Y’know, like a 3D game. And, like a 3D game, it’s still slow, because it’s doing something genuinely hard and your powerful GPU still isn’t powerful enough.
stupidbird 8y ago
These are things that are processed better by a smaller number of more powerful cores than a larger quantity of cores. Multiple cores are really good at handling a lot of smaller processes. Photoshop just has a couple really heavy individual processes.

Terretta 8y ago

Not “orders of magnitude”, no. Demo was 12,000 x 12,000 pixels, 2 orders of magnitude would be pictures of 120 x 120 pixels. We did more with Photoshop in the past than 128px icons.

Invictus0 8y ago
12000 x 12000 = 1.44 * 10^8 pixels. 120 x 120 = 1.44 * 10^4 pixels. 4 orders of magnitude. And in addition to that, the RAW sensor information from the camera has given each pixel more 'depth'. Often times, each color is 12bit (36bit per pixel). There's more to each pixel than what's displayed on the screen: its not just a JPG you're viewing.

enitihas 8y ago

Why does Photoshop use only 2 cores at maximum?