What computer to easily process D800 files?

Started Jul 30, 2013 | Discussions thread
AlephNull Senior Member • Posts: 1,613
Re: What computer to easily process D800 files?

moogle73 wrote:

almost all of this is false information lol,

First of all, i7's DO NOT HAVE SLOWER CLOCK SPEEDS, if anything they have faster, some of the top of the line i7 cpu's on the market now base clock speed is 3.5-4ghz or higher depnding on "turbo mode usage", there is NO i3 on the market even close to that clock speed (highest is 3.3ghz i believe). Not to mention the higher end i7's have much more l2 and l3 cache (like 5 times more lol), meaning more programs in the "staging area" to be send to the processors to be processed, meaning faster potential throughputs as its less back and forth to the ram. And current intel cpu's all now are basically based off the same 32mn architecture so thats a mute point now too (as in between new chip upgrades the architecture plays a role in speed and heat as well)


YES - adobe photoshop supports multicore cpu's, and has done so since photoshop 3.0 (forever ago) and with each new photoshop release it gets better and better in supporting multicores / thread. So having more cores WILL increase your photoshop performance, its not all about clock speed (even though clock speed is important) but like I said earlier, you take a 4 core cpu at same clock speed as an 8-10core cpu the 8-10 wil out perform the 4 in photoshop every time... simple as that. But with that being said, there are some 3rd party applications, and or filters, and or add ins that people use in photoshop that are not written to take full advantage of multicore support (because its expensive and time consuming to re-write their software to do so) so with those specific add ins (if you have any, and if they don't support multi cores because some do, just some do not also) then with those specific ones, you wont see an improvement with having more cores... but with everything else in photoshop or lightroom etc you will.

Secondly there is a misconception about multicores and how they work, people seem to think 1 core does the operating system, 1 core does your music in the background you have going, 1 core does your firefox you left open and minimized, and the last few cores work on your current work and that is just not how CPU's works and completely false. Computer cpu's process "1 thing" at a time always have, and always will until we get into quantum computing (which is coming and why its such a big deal and you always hear people talking about it but I am getting off track lol). Now current processors are doing billions of cycles / calculations per second (ghz) so it seems like its doing "multiple things at 1 time" but really its doing them 1 by 1 in sequential order so fast it seems like multiple things at a time.

Now what is dependant on the cores being used is the software being used to run what your doing. So for instance you click on firefox icon, it goes to your bus and system cache which then reads how to run the program, if the program is written to support multi cores it will then delegate what core will process what specific process needed to complete the task at hand, once done it moves onto the next task (such as back ground music) etc etc billions of times per second. Same goes for photoshop, and all other applications on the computer including the OS. The cores are dependant on how the software is written, if its written to support multi cores then multi cores will be used, if not, then only 1 core will be used process the information. Either way, all information is processed in a linear fashion and not "all at once" . So you could have 10 cores, but if your running 5 applications at once that only support 1 core at a time, they will all need to be processed liner 1 at a time through just 1 core (and your performance will suffer) and you will see no benefit from all those additional cores (and all 5 will NOT be processed at 1 time across the 10 cores). Now thankfully, most major programs and software write and or have already been written to support multi cores especially with how long they have been in the market place. And the longer and longer we go on the more and more they will be written for and supported.

There isn't really a polite way to put this. You are very very wrong.

We are talking about Windows (technically, the Windows NT line of Windows operating systems). Windows NT has had multi-processor support from the very beginning (which was Windows NT 3.1 - I was involved in the beta of that version, and several others). Originally, each processor was a chip, and I have assembled multi-processor machines with multiple CPU chips on them. Things have changed, and now we have single chips with two, four, six, or more, processing cores on them. I won't go into hyper-threading - it complicates matters.

Windows does not operate on one process at a time, which appears to be the way you think it works.

The unit of execution in Windows is the thread, and Windows will run threads from different processes simultaneously if it has the hardware to do so (enough cores and enough RAM).

At any time, there may be multiple threads which are ready for execution. There are likely to be many more threads which are waiting for something (waiting for I/O, for example). When an active thread decides to wait for something (for example, it starts an I/O and waits for the result), then the Windows scheduler selects a ready thread and begins executing it. That thread may be from the same process as the one which just started waiting, or it may be from a different process. The scheduler works on the priority of the thread, which depends partly upon the process priority, but not entirely.

Every core in the machine could be working on threads from one process, or every one could be working on threads from different processes.

Surprisingly often, there may not be a ready thread to execute. It may be that the only ready threads are already being executed on other cores. If that's the case, then the core has nothing to do, and it's assigned to the System Idle process. Have a look at Task Manager some time, and switch on cumulative CPU time - it can be astonishing how much CPU time the System Idle process will accumulate over the day  If a core is idle for long enough it may get slowed down, or even powered down (part of the magic that allows Intel Core CPUs to run some cores faster than others, and to save energy by not running all the cores at full speed).

If you have five single thread processes, and five free processing cores, and enough RAM, then they will definitely execute simultaneously except when contending for resources (like disk I/O).

Please don't spread misinformation like this.

 AlephNull's gear list:AlephNull's gear list
Canon EOS 5DS Sony a7R II Sony a7R III Sigma 85mm F1.4 Art Sony FE 100mm F2.8 GM +1 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow