3 ms·
> 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
by 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 agoAnswering 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 agoWhat 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 agoThese 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.