[Binke]

Well,
windows 2000 - i am impressed
I think its just great, its alot faster. Every program starts up much faster & I can have more programs up. And Photoshop starts up like 50-70% faster...and no more bluescreens! =)

works great on my celly400@500 192mbram & Matrox Millenium G400 32mb.

[Snakebyte]

Don�t get me wrong or anything I like Win2k as well, it�s just that SMP has made little impact on performance. That and it requires so much ram. When you deal with images that need 500Mb�s ram needing more is a bad thing.

As of yet the biggest performance increase as a result of having a second CPU is compiling a Q3 map. It cuts the compile time by 1/3.

[Snakebyte]

I hope this has not been discussed before, if so ..sorry.

To begin with I need to why Win2k rarely uses more than 50% of my CPU.
I have a Dual Celeron @ 525Mhz with 224Mb ram. In Win98 (single CPU I know) the System monitor indicates that 100% of the cpu is being used when opening and image and editing an image, however, Win2k with 2 CPU�s reports little or not activity at all, and when there is activity it rarely exceeds 50%.

Why?

The overall speed in PS is about the same in win98se & Win2k. There has been little or no performance advantages using SMP and I see greater increases when using a higher FSB (66Mhz to 100Mhz).

Another thing I noticed is that Win2k requires a lot more ram for the same image than win98.
For example: The image I posted earlier http://www.sijun.com/dhabih/ubb/Forum2/HTML/000773.html That image required 480Mb ram but in Win2k it required 560Mb ram WHAT????? Having only 224Mb ram it takes over 6 minuets to open and the harddrive never quits screaming.

So all in all win98 has been faster for me�.that sucks!!

[Sowler]

Get an athlon

Love mine.. and fast .. VERY fast in win2k with only 128megs a ram.

if your using an older version of PS like earlier than 4 it may not be as SMP optimized as it could be in 4 and 5..
just a thought..? my roomie has dual 550's.. they dont always run 100% on one program.. because its theoreticly imposible for both chips to run at peak efficience on the GTL+ bus. since its shared one chip may have to wait for the other to finish before sending its own request to memory and/or the chipset.

Hence the increase by adding a second cpu is usualy yeilding a 40-60% increase in performance.. you lack of extra performance is puzzling... maybe try a fresh reinstall?

Also.. are you using a release canidate? or a beta version? that could also contribute to the problem.

oh well.. time to run later!



------------------
The UPS man has my Drawing pad :(

[Snakebyte]

Well actually I Was using the final release. (I have a friend that works at IBM)
Secondly I am using PS 5.5.
I have found that PS 5.5 actually runs faster in Win98se than in Win2k for me, don�t know why but it does.
The biggest problem I found with win2k is that any given image required 1/3rd MORE ram than in win98 and consumes more ram faster.
With little editing I find that the ram requirements for that image quickly doubled in win2k unlike in win98.

As for an Athlon �I think I�ll stick with Intel. All Athlons are good for in my opinion is in games. When comes to Photoshop the benchmarks speak for them selves, Intel is Photoshop.
Don�t get me wrong or anything, I like Athlons but Intel is still my bitch

[sfr]

When it comes to Photoshop the benchmarks are always absolutely useless. It's the CPU companies' favorite benchmark because it's so easy to twist in their favour - just choose those filters that run happen to run best on your CPU, time them and call it a benchmark. That's why both Intel and AMD show Photoshop benchmarks with their processors on top, and Mot/IBM's G4 in turn wipes the floor with both of them. It's all the more futile considering that filters are only a small part of Photoshop use - or does someone confess to spending most of his time waiting for radial blur and lighting fx to complete?

I'd rather rely on my own impressions than any artificial benchmark, and my experience of the Athlon has been overwhelmingly positive (I had an Intel CPU before). I've had no performance problems with Photoshop, and 3DSMax clearly renders a lot faster than what the MHz difference from my previous Intel would suggest - for 3D work, I think the Athlon is actually more powerful clock-for-clock than Intel's offerings. So it's definitely not just for games.

Saffron / Sunflower

[Snakebyte]

I admit that I have never had first had experiences with later AMD Cpu�s so I don�t know how well the athlon would hold up on PS and I totally agree with you on the benchmarking thing, I never pay any attention to the manufactures claims, instead, I listen to others such as Zdnet, Cnet, PCMagazine, and most of all the little guys like toms hardware, Sharkyextreme, and many others.
Most, if not all the benchmarking they did showed Intel performing better.

I�m not trying to say that Intel dominates over all others or anything I�m just saying I prefer Intel to AMD.
Really and truly once you get past 600Mhz and have 384Mb ram or greater, it no longer matters; anything faster will only shave off a few seconds.

[Sowler]

http://www7.tomshardware.com/cpu/99q3/990823/performance-06.html

go to page 6.. the 3d rendering one

since you read toms i thought i would post this one.. now im not tryint to start a war.. not at all.. you like intel and thats fine. its your opinion. all i am saying is show fair play. when intel banches PS its using SSE most of the time.. so of course its gona win.. but yes.. mostly by seconds.. big deal.

as for 3d rendering.. simply the brute force of the athlon's FPU just takes intel to school. yes i admit the coppermine editions of the pIII are running neck and neck with the athlon.. sometimes beating it.. but look what it takes.. a $1000 stick of RDRAM.. thats INSANE!! on-die L2 *wich once the version of the athlon wiht on-die L2 ships the coppermine will be put to shame* gives it a large advantage.

but again it comes down to personal opinion.. but please dont say the athlon is only good for games because thats just a totaly false statement *i mean it whoops in games.. but not only games*

deal?

-Sowler
(proud owner of a 750MHz Athlon

------------------
The UPS man has my Drawing pad

[This message has been edited by Sowler (edited February 16, 2000).]

[ustorfixx]

What did this topic start out talking about again?? Something about Win2k and then the next thing I know there is almost a frickin' flame war going back and forth. Tell ya what, how about, Sowler, you buy me a new comp. with a Athlon and Snakebyte, you buy me a new comp with whatever you got and I'll test 'em. Though ya know I get to keep them both...Hehe. Ya'll Chill, I say both of your computer's rock....as well as Win2k.

--Ustor

[This message has been edited by ustorfixx (edited February 16, 2000).]

[Sowler]

good call.. i just got thrown into defence mode when my athlon was called "only good for gaming"

yeah .. thanks for the compliment on both systems

truce!??

-Sowler

------------------
The UPS man has my Drawing pad :(

[sfr]

Well actually, no matter how high the MHz go, the architecture still matters. Look at the G4: top speed of a measly 500 MHz for now, but still it can kick x86 butt in many graphics-related operations thanks to its AltiVec (or "Velocity Engine" as Apple calls it) unit. AltiVec is usually compared to MMX/3DNow/SSE but that doesn't do it justice because it's a much more powerful implementation of the same basic concept and also has some important unique features.

Saffron / Sunflower

[B]

once the processor speed rises, you know they'll still create updates to the programs to smash the ego of thep processors,. give it a week or so and they'll have 10GHZ quadruple boot pcs and we'll continue to think they're slow because the will be jacked into our brains, and drawing with thoughtwaves,.. so, untill all the companies form a monopoly and turn us into mind slaves,.. we will be bickering about what is faster, and all that mumbo jumbo,..

just a thought,. ~

b

btw is anyone going to comment on my pictures i put in this forum? i'm not feeling the love :P

[Snakebyte]

Well like I said before, I have no personal experience with athlons so I wouldn�t know.
I�m sure they are great and perform just as good as any PIII if not better.
Hell, just the other day I was looking at what kind of deals Gateway had and the athlon PC�s looked rather tempting.

Once CPU�s reach 2Ghz+ it won�t make any difference who made it, and it�s getting to that point now when it comes to Photoshop.

[Lost]

Well, I have a p3 (Xeon)500 and an athlon 750, the p3 with twice the ram(512 to 256) and the athlon still runs a bit faster... And anyway, does anyone know how mac compares.... Related to ps.