Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

PHOTOSHOP Optimized for the P4!!!

Last response: in CPUs
Share
April 26, 2001 9:48:41 PM

It was bound to happen, they saw 144 new instructions! what? you thought Adobe is was blind?

***70% faster than non-optimized***


<A HREF="http://www.adobe.com/aboutadobe/pressroom/pressreleases..." target="_new">P4 Optimized PHOTOSHOP</A>



"AMD...you are the weakest link, good bye!"

More about : photoshop optimized

April 26, 2001 10:05:42 PM

"Photoshop's softwares Pentium 4 processor plug-in is expected to be available in May, with no charge to all Photoshop users. It can be downloaded directly from www.adobe.com and accompanying worldwide sites."

Excellent :) 

-Raystonn

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
April 26, 2001 10:30:26 PM

In all your faces. You MAC users suck.

Northwood P4 + i845(brookdale)+ 200mhz DDR-SDRAM + ATi Radeon 2 = Dream Team :cool:
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
April 26, 2001 11:03:44 PM

It's been a sad day for mac since they have no longer even been able to hold the crown of photoshop king. Back when I started doing the majority of my Photoshop work, it was a big issue, Mac or PC. My dad has always been a Mac user, we had a number of different macs in the house as i was growing up. That's what I knew. When the crunch came, logistics led me to go PC, on the idea that if i buy pc, I have litterally thousands of companies competing for my hard earned dollar. If I go mac, I have a company who's platform has no competetion. I thank my lucky stars now that I went PC. I can only imagine the cost involved in keeping my macs current, along with the incredibly over priced perfs that go along with them.

Mac took a really good idea, and completely ruined it. Imagine the marked share they could have owned had they only made a few smart moves, before the age of microsoft dominance.

raystonn, I'm very dependant on photoshop, so P4 might be in the future for me, but i'm hoping to wait at least until some of the dust settles over some of the previous issues i've mentioned.



If you own a P4, and Photoshop 6.0 or higher, run this little test for me 'cause i've been quite curious about it.

Set the little numerical display in the bottem corner to display "timing"
Take regular tiff image, crop it to 8x12, at a resolution of 300
Open the Edit menu, and "purge all"
Crop the image down to 4x6 @ 300.
The time for that operation is the one i'm looking for.

Thanks to anyone who can do this
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 26, 2001 11:27:45 PM

Intel can always get companies to support there products.. sadly i cant say the same for the AMD platform.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 27, 2001 12:20:30 AM

Wow good show and i thought that p4 optimization was useless??? Hmm amd better come out with something like ... super duper extension instead of copying everything intel does.

SPUDMUFFIN

<font color=blue>Just some advice from your friendly neighborhood blue man </font color=blue> :smile:
April 27, 2001 2:25:10 AM

That would not be good for anyone... It is in everyone's favor that AMD adopts the technologies that are already out rather than making their own. Imagine if coders had to optimize for everyone's new instructions separately... And if you had to keep up with the updates. It is good to have some standards as far as instruction extensions.

--Fltsimbuff
April 27, 2001 3:08:10 AM

I agree that standards are good. I have no problem with AMD recognizing Intel as the leader for setting standards. ;) 

-Raystonn

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
April 27, 2001 3:12:48 AM

if AMD is such a poor platform, why are they gaining market share year after year? Give them a couple more years, and I think they will be serious competetion for Intel.

anyone with a P4 and PS6? ANYONE??
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 27, 2001 3:34:28 AM

AMD gains market share for one reason. Because they sell CHEAP! AMD has always sacrificed profit to gain some market share. That's the main reason AMD is still around today. Its too bad all the AMD motherboard chipsets suck or AMD would have earned my money.
April 27, 2001 3:48:59 AM

I agree with you there, the chipset factor is the weakest link in the AMD world.

regardless of the fact that they sell cheap, Once both socket A platforms came out, the budget side far exceded the performance and affordability of Intel's budget line, and up until the P4, it was the same deal with the mainstream line. Unfortunately my time for upgrade came before P4 had a chance to prove itself, which is why I stuck to AMD, and when the next upgrade session rolls around, I might very well stay with AMD. Then again maybe by then the P4 will be a more logical option for me. My brand bias is only determined when it comes time to buy, and it all comes down to what each company has on the table.
April 27, 2001 4:48:46 AM

that "test" you wanted done 327goat takes 1.4 seconds on an athlon. sure, maybe a p4 does ie-Ma under a second but at that point does it really matter?
April 27, 2001 5:02:50 AM

To quote Depeche Mode, "Everything counts in large amounts." That's probably something he does several thousand times over.

-Raystonn

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
April 27, 2001 5:19:53 AM

actually on my optimized athlon system, it takes 0.3 seconds, and i'm not running anything faster than 875. It's just personal curiosity, and a base that I have been using to compare the different systems. Raystonn was right, it's stuff like that, which I do countless times over, so in the course of a day, it might add up to half an hour, or maybe even more.
I'd like to know what a p4 does, as I have yet to have the oppertunity to test one with photoshop. Mind you, I might be in need of a slightly more processor demanding test these days.
What is strange to me, is that the dual celeron 600 i'm running (win 2k pro) doesn't even hold a candle to the Athlon system. I had much higher hopes for that one.
April 27, 2001 5:40:48 AM

That's going to be because Photoshop is <i>extremely</i> SMP-enabled. I'm not at all surprised the Athlon got wailed on.

Kelledin

bash-2.04$ kill -9 1
init: Just what do you think you're doing, Dave?
April 27, 2001 6:01:45 AM

no, read more careful next time, it's the Celeron system that doesn't hold a candle to the Athlon system. that little test i do has never ran faster than 1.2 seconds on the celeron, where as the athlon averages at 0.3. In general use in photoshop, the dualie celeron is MUCH more slugish. like I said, I had much higher hopes for it.
April 27, 2001 6:05:22 AM

Ooooohhhh...that <i>is</i> unexpected!

Could have something to do with the heavy cache dependency of Photoshop...

Kelledin

bash-2.04$ kill -9 1
init: Just what do you think you're doing, Dave?
April 27, 2001 6:22:48 AM

Possibly, but it's been a complete mystery to me for a while now, since I have heard nothing but good things from the SMP capabilities of Photoshop. I've tested other smp enabled apps, all of which seem to run well. On a long shot, I also thought it might have something to do with the fact that Photoshop is very dependant on the scratch disk, and since the Athlon system is running photoshop on an ATA 100 drive, it might be a limiting factor for the Celeron since it is only running a 7200 rpm ATA 66. With that in mind, i dumped an old Western Digital 5400 rpm ATA66 into the athlon machine, and installed photoshop on that. I even went so far as to install windows, and boot from the WD. No change in results. Both systems are running the same graphics card, but the only other factor I can think of is that the dual board is only agp 2x. I would think though, that this shouldn't make much difference, because photoshop is dependant on the processor, not the graphics card....
Anyone have any ideas?
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 27, 2001 7:20:10 AM

Ahahahaha trying to get away from the fact that with the p4 optimization its eats AMD alive and shits it out then feeds it to you AMD monkeys. And thats funny ;)  im almost crying from how funny it is, no comments on how the chip sucks just some more babble to get away from the fact the p4 is god, and AMD ... well AMD is AMD.

SPUDMUFFIN

<font color=red>Being Evil Is Good. Cause I Can Be A Prick And Get Away With It.</font color=red> :lol: 
April 27, 2001 8:14:02 AM

Like I said before, my bias toward any platform comes at the time of purchas, based upon what is avalible. Spouting a load of nonsensical "I hate AMD" babble, which is not supported by any reasonable statements or claims is certainly not enough to convince someone otherwise. Yes, perhaps a P4 will out perform an Athlon system in photoshop, but because of the fact that I have yet to use a P4 for photoshop, i have yet to see any solid proof. Even with the slashing of the prices, it will be a while before I see any those cuts, in anything other than OEM's, unless I order from the US. Stale prices have a tendancy of lingering a little longer here in canada, so until a P4 is a feasable purchas, i doubt i'll be seeing one.

Fact - The dealings between Intel and Rambus are far from respectable.

Fact - Intel has tried to push both RDRAM and the P4 in the door numerous times before they came up with something that acutally worked.
To me, that made it appear like Intel finally woke up and saw the inroads AMD was manking, and figured "Holy [-peep-], we better reign in our horses, and get something better out quick"
perhaps a little too quick?

Fact - Up until monday, the P4 was FAR too overpriced for even most high end users. Still too overpriced for many.

Fact - An T-Bird 1333 is capable of outperforming a P4 in numerous REAL WORLD benchmarks.

So if we're going to turn this into an who sucks arguement (getting tired of those already) let's at least use some solid evidence, and back up our statements.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 27, 2001 9:24:15 AM

HEy,
the fact remains, that as I have said in all my previous post, and am now starting to get recognition that what I said was true is..

the P4 will always be faster in any benchmark, or application that is optimized for and has P4 code, because it is a ground up new CPU and requires SSE2, a proper OS like windows 2000 or ME, and dd3d 8 ...

those benchmarks showing otherwise like tom's obviously
biased and transparent test, where he uses non P4 apps and games, on win 98 with dd3d 7 is proof enough..

after testing dozens of P4's in hard hammering apps that saturate the CPU and memory bus enough, the P4 clearly
pulls away from the AMD..

it is only now that some apps like PS 6x and others
that are coded for the P4 does this finally show...

running a bunch of lame 1 year old games on win 98
or some old year old benchmarks like mark2000 etc
do not tell the true story..

Mpeg 4 encoding, DVD recodring, playback, 3d rendering,
CAD, memory throughput, servers, multitasking,
and graphics work does....

the P4 shows 3 times the memory bus and CPU bus throughput of athlon, in memtach, SANDRA, Stream, and SPEC, and
PS and other spps that are optimized really perform well on p4 too..

I have said from the day of my first post that P4 will be cheaper, faster and better and have more support than Athlon, and RAMBUS is faster and will become standard and accepted as well..

well, looks like after the 1.7 P4, and rambus tests
and optimized software is showing up, people are starting to see this which is good, as I had..

and with Mondays 50% price reduction AMD is going to be in trouble...

INTEL is starting to make 2 ghz P4 on .13 micron, 300mm wafers,
in 2 months, they have already demo one I have seen it..

and fromw what their engineers tell me, they can put 40%
more p4 dies on a 12" wafer which means a 40% cost advantage over AMD which still is at 200mm .18 process...

Microprocessor Report agree with this as do other engineers...

SO the fun is just starting, as P4 will reach 2 ghz
by Sept, have 512k cache, and other enhancements that make it another 30% faster, while AMD will be trying to
make a 1.4 Palimino which won't be ready till Nov,
at least..

these are the cold facts, and to reccommend someone get a Athlon over a P4 for anything but a entry level low end machine would be simply wrong and ,misleading
once you see the differences in windows 2000 and real
demanding apps..

this is not even counting the DUAL NORTHWOOD called FOSTER
which is also comming out in a few months, with the 870
chipset, and dual channel rambus pipes at 3.2 GOS for EACH CPU , and 1 MEG CACHE for each CPU !!!

that a 2 GHZ P4, with a interger ALU unit running a 4 ghz internally, with a 3,2 GPS memory bus, connected at 400 mhz to dual channel 3.2 GPS 800 mhz RAMBUS

with SERIAL ATA at 200 MPS IDE, Firewire,AGP PRO, and USB 2
all of which the AMD will NOT HAVE
I have seen demo boards with this stuff and its amazing..

and INTEL makes the CHIPSET, which leaves AMD out in the cold...

these are important facts, not the lame biased posts of people defending their machine who have NEVER seen or tested a P4 , much less seen the upcomming chipsets and boards and P4's...

so just keep this in perspective..

best
CAMERON


CYBERIMAGE
<A HREF="http://www.4CyberImage.com " target="_new">http://www.4CyberImage.com </A>
Ultra High Performance Computers-
April 27, 2001 9:50:44 AM

true, amd itself is responsible for getting its systems suck - they dont make any good chipsets as intel does for its own processors. one 760 alone is not sufficient.

how long will it be dependent on third party companies to make chipsets for their platform???

btw it would be interesting to know how will photoshop fare if it is optimised for 3DNow!

and anyway who is going to buy a p4, just as yet, for getting 70% speed advantages in *one* app with *some* operations - that might translate into 15-20% in real world terms?

is pc133 really 33% faster than pc100? does 48X CD-ROM drive perform exactly 2 times as fast as 24X CD-ROM drive? is P3 1 GHz (with PC133) twice faster than P3 500 (with PC100)

gimme a break!



<font color=blue>die-hard fans don't have heat-sinks!</font color=blue>
April 27, 2001 10:37:40 AM

Thank you, it's nice to see some well thought out, well organized, and well written arguements, rather than the neener neener neener mine is better and yours sucks rants. Again, I am very curious to try photoshop on a P4. As for the upandcommings stated, I want to wait take a look at my fish before I hook it. I'm mean no disrespect to your post in what i say, but i certainly hope that these future plans of intel's work, not just in theory. I'm tired of seeing delay after delay in release dates in this industry, then products that don't performe up to promised spec. I thought year ago that i'd be able to pick up a PIII with the "new" rdram, and the magical aura surrounding it. no dice, after waiting for that, then for the P4, only to find it's initial prices to be far too out of reach. I was tired of waiting, i bought an Athlon, which i am more than happy with. This is one case where Intel alienated a possible buyer. Like i said before, it might be different next time around. Also, like i said before, i can't see why some intel guys hate AMD so much, because if nothing else, AMD puts a little competetion into a market place which for years had virtually none. This only helps force Intel to come out with better products.

again, impressive post, i bow down to that one, because i don't have the time or the energy to fight it, with the expetion of one statement.

The vast majority of pc users don't even begin scratch the surface of using apps that are optimized for use with a P4. The majority of software being written for those know little, and buy a computer because it's the thing to have now days. The people who buy systems without knowing or caring what's really inside. This is why OEM's are so big. This means, that the P4 is truely designed for at most... maybe 5% of the users? the rest comes from people who mindlessly stick with a brand regardless of what they need the computer for, or those who have the money to buy the box with the biggest number on it.

Aside from that, i hope Rambus gets laughed out of every court room they enter. More realistic competetion in that market would be nice too.
April 27, 2001 2:10:23 PM

hey goat, what is "optimized" about our system. that time is very low. can you give some specs? i don't know anything about photoshop6 (or any version) so i just did what you said. i want to know why i get such bad times.
April 27, 2001 4:42:28 PM

Photoshop is one of the few applications that i have found runs better in windows ME than windows 98SE
when i'm running photoshop, that is the ONLY application running.
i've MSCONFIG'd every annoying applicatoin out of start up, and when I'm working, that's what i concentrate on, no IE windows open, or office software or anything like that.
Latest drivers for everything
Latest update for photoshop

my relevent preferences go as follows
Color picker: Adobe
Interpolation: Nearest neighbor
History states: 4
Use Pixle doubling: on
Primary Scratch disk: fastest drive on your system
Cache Levels: 6
Availible ram used by Photoshop: 90%

There are also a couple plug-ins i use, i will find and post the file names and download locations of these when i get a chance.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
July 11, 2001 4:28:42 AM

WOW the optimized is better than the unoptimized.....that is great
!