Test Your Super Computer With This File

<p>I have been using my new PC build for about a week now. For the MOST part, I'm thrilled to death with the new speed but there is one Photoshop job that still seems slower than it should be and that is the Liquefy Filter.</p>

<p>In the following Dropbox link, I have placed a client's file. For privacy reasons I have distorted the image with Liquefy so that the people are not recognizable.</p>

<p>Just so we're on the same playing field, use this image in your speed test. When "I" have this image up in PS and I click on Filter/Liquefy, about two thirds of the image comes up in the Liquefy window pretty fast but for the last third, it slows down. It takes a total of 7-8 seconds for the entire image to load. That seems like a lot of time to me for this brand new super computer. I can edit in Liquefy in real time with no problem and after the edit, it renders reasonably fast but for some reason opening it up takes some time.</p>

<p>If you feel like it, take the following image and tell me how many seconds it takes for YOUR fast new machine to open this image in Liquefy.</p>

<p>https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/53017924/Liquify%20Test%20Image.jpg</p>

<p>THANKS !</p>

<p>Sorry if I didn't notice your update on your build thread, but what hardware did you go with in the end, Randy?</p>

<p>Well, I ain't no expert but if I understand what you're asking, it opened virtually immediately in CS-6. <br>

My home build has 24GB DDR3 memory, an I7-950 processor and 128GB SSD C drive (which is getting crowded and needs to be replaced soon).<br>

I have never used the liquify filter so I'm not sure what it's supposed to do, but it opens in the liquify panel.</p>

<p>Thanks Adrian. That's NOT what I wanted to hear but I appreciate you doing the experiment.</p>

<p>Eric,<br>

Here's what we ended up with.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>Does the version of Photoshop have anything to do with speed? I'm still on CS5.</p>

<p>The 21MB jpeg took 3 seconds right after drag/drop onto CS5 Photoshop desktop alias until I got Color Management warning box and then appeared immediately after clicking OK.</p>

<p>It took 9 seconds to finish drawing the entire image opening in Liquify.</p>

<p>Mac OS 10.6.8 on a 2010 MacMini 8GB memory.</p>

<p>Dual Xeon, 36GB RAM, CS6..... The image loads almost instantly for me. It is a small file so that is what I would of expected.</p>

<p>Cheers</p>

<p>Thanks guys. Keep 'em coming.</p>

<p>So, IS CS6 faster than CS5 in general or wouldn't that really play a part in this></p>

<p>Randy,<br /> I don't know if CS6 is faster than CS5, but it would seem likely. CS6 makes better use of your GPU, and the liguify tool uses the GPU for increased speed.</p>

<p>"The Mercury Graphics Engine (MGE) represents features that use video card, or GPU, acceleration. In Photoshop CS6, this new engine delivers near-instant results when editing with key tools such as Liquify, Warp, Lighting Effects and the Oil Paint filter. The new MGE delivers unprecedented responsiveness for a fluid feel as you work."</p>

<p>Cheers</p>

<p>Thanks Anthony. Since I will most likely be going to CC soon, that's inspiring.<br /><br />I don't pretend to understand all of this PC stuff but I just did another test whereby I minimized the Photoshop window so that I could put the task manager right beside it. Here is a screen grab of the GPU and Ram usage in the middle of the image being loaded into Liquefy. As you can see, nothing is even BEGINNING to break a sweat so I don't get why the image isn't popping right up. Hmmmm.</p>

<p>I AM starting to see a pattern here though. Nobody as of yet has said that the image just pops up in liquefy who is ALSO still using CS5. Hopefully nobody will change that pattern and that will be the answer as to why my new PC isn't quite as fast as I had hoped in certain situations.</p><div></div>

<p>In FireFox 35.01 on my Mac Pro (late 2013) it opens fully in about 6 sec. That software doesn't make the most efficient use of the graphics (AMD FirePro D500 3072 MB) on the machine.</p>

<p>JDM,<br>

Thanks. Just to make sure we're still talking about the same thing. You are talking about the speed at which that file opens in Liquefy, correct?</p>

<p>I think your screen grab may help explain the issue, CS5 is not using your GPU effectively.</p>

<p>Your GPU is faster than your RAM, ideally you would want to see it "sweat" more. In CS6 it most likely would.</p>

<p>I think it takes software like MSI Afterburner to see GPU (not CPU) sweating?<br>

I don't have photoshop so I can't do the test with my vidcard heavy machine.</p>

<p>Dell XPS 8500 upgraded to Win 8.1 64 bit, i7-3770 3.4GHz , 16GB ram, 1gb 7200rpm hd, CS5.1<br>

Saved the file to my HD, opened CS5, from clicking on the Open button after selecting the file until it was loaded ready for editing 3 seconds, from clicking on the liquify filter until it was fully loaded 7 seconds all while logged in to this post.</p>

<p>Thanks Anthony.<br /><br />Jochen, I don't know anything about MSI Afterburner so I'll take your word for it.</p>

<p>Had I kept CS5 after having installed CS6 on my computer, I would have a real good comparison for you, Randy. Sorry!</p>

<p>When I start getting interruptions as you describe in your first post I open Network and Sharing Center and disable the lan connection until I'm finished then reactivate it. This stops background processes from doing on line checks and updates which hang up the program I'm running. It happens infrequently.</p>

<p>3 seconds, very old Core2Duo machine, home built, 4GB slow RAM, onboard video, running Ubuntu 14.10 and opening the file in Chromium browser.</p>

<p>Stephen,<br>

Are you talking about just opening the file in Photoshop or opening it in Liquefy, which is the test that I've been talking about?<br>

Thanks !<br /><br /><br>

Adrian,<br>

I just found out that using CS5 would not be the reason for a slower picture in Liquefy. As long as you're using a 64 bit version of CS5 and a 64 bit OS, CS5 is capable of using as much ram as you can throw at it.<br /><br />Thanks Charles<br /><br /></p>

<p>I downloaded your image, opened in CCPS, then went Filter/Liquefy and it opens instantly for me, no lag. I'm on an old i7-2600K over clocked to 4.3ghz with 32gb of 1600 ram</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Hopefully nobody will change that pattern and that will be the answer as to why my new PC isn't quite as fast as I had hoped in certain situations.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Bluntly, you didn't take anyone's advice in your build thread and still chose the slow 3.3ghz 6 core cpu with only 16gb ram. I'm certain you'd have the results you are expecting if you went with a faster 4 ghz i7-4970 quad core and 32 gb of ram. Cheaper, too. </p>

<p>The Photoshop version matters. Here my results with an i7-2600, Windows 7 64 bits, 16 GB RAM and 256GB HDD (image stored in a standard HDD)</p>

<p>Time for the image to show completely in the liquify filter:<br /> Photoshop CC 2014 - Immediate<br /> Photoshop CC (32 bits) - Immediate<br /> Photoshop CS3 (32 bits) - about 9 seconds</p>

<p>Regards</p>

<p>+1 for PS CC 2014. Virtually instant opening of the entire image in Liquify. Core i7 3770 @ 3.50 GHz, 32 GB RAM, PS sitting on a fast Samsung 840 Pro SSD</p>

<p>PC Core2Duo @ 2.53GHz, 4GB RAM, integrated HD3000 graphics, SSD drive. Photoshop Elements 13. Image opens to program in 1.83seconds and image opens in liquify tool in 8.57seconds.</p>

<p>Thanks everyone.<br /> Eric, <br /> I had my PC builder come over and we looked at all of the replies. He made some changes that saved me about $500.00 and it was his opinion that none of the changes were at the cost of performance. I really can't imagine that having the extra ram would have anything to do with this particular test, beings that Photoshop never used anymore than 20% of it. Do you really think that the 4 ghz i7-4970 would be that big of a difference over my 3.3ghz 6 core?</p>

<p>Man, I sure HOPE not. It kind of makes me sick that I spent this much time trying to learn this stuff and spent this much money for a PC that I hope I use for the next 7 years and it's just not quite living up to my expectations. If I could have saved even more money and got better speed that sure would have been the way to go. As you can probably tell, I REALLY don't grasp this stuff so I was kind of at the mercy of what you guys were suggesting and what my PC guy thought was right. ARGHHHH !</p>