randy_myers3

<p>Mary,<br> Thank you VERY much for taking the time to graphically spell it out like this. </p> <p> </p>

<p>Thanks folks !<br> Wow Richard, you have me pretty freaked now. Although everything you mentioned is way above my head, it sure sounds as though a lot of things were not done properly.<br> "If its not in the correct slots, no quad channel memory access"<br> Could that be what's causing the delay that I talked about?<br> Hey, you wouldn't happen to live anywhere near Reading Pa. would you?</p>

<p>Alan,<br> Thanks for filling in the details.<br> "Just guessing your performance issue is with CS5s"</p> <p>At this point, I'm thinking and hoping the same thing. In the mean time, Ray's suggestion to select just the portion of the image that needs liquefied before opening the filter, is a really quick and extremely effective work around.<br /><br />Thanks again everyone.</p>

<p>`<img src="/photo/17967409&size=lg" alt="" /></p>

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

<p>`<br /><br /></p><div></div>

<p>OK, just to put a stamp on this thread, let me show you what I went with in regards to the build.<br> For the most part, this thing is WAY faster than my old system. There are a few things in Photoshop CS5 that are still not happening as fast as I would have expected but I'm hoping those few things will iron themselves out once I move from CS5 to CC. I have a separate thread about this here.<br />http://www.photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00d7ig<br /><br />Everything else I do on this is way fast though.<br /><br />I did not go with a liquid cooled system but much to my surprise, this thing runs cool as a cucumber and is dead quite and I DO mean DEAD quite. Since it has fans, I don't know how they do it but I LITERALLY have to almost lay my head right on the case to hear ANYTHING WHATSOEVER. You can't even tell it's running. The guy that built it says it's because the much larger fans that they use now are much quieter than the older, smaller, more whiny fans.<br /><br />Thanks for all of your help !<br /><br /><br /></p><div></div>

<p>Thanks everyone.</p>

<p>Christopher,<br> It opened instantly in CC or it opened instantly in "LIQUEFY" while using CC?<br /><br />Thanks Gianni</p> <p>Alan,<br> I temporarily bumped the memory allocation up quite a bit and it had little to no effect on opening the image in Liquefy. : -)<br /><br />Ray,<br> Not only does your select first, open second trick make sense but it WORKS GREAT ! This little trick MIGHT just keep me from having to kill myself. : -)</p>

<p>Alan,<br> Is this old and wimpy?<br> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814121913</p>

<p>Eric,<br> " I'm just kind of baffled that you started a post asking for advice and then had half a dozen experienced PS users offer their time and knowledge and explain why a slow 3.3 ghz 6 core computer with 16gb of ram wont satisfy you as much as a fast 4 ghz quad with 32gb of ram."<br /><br />Me too Eric. Me too. When I and my PC builder made the final decisions, we actually sat here looking at that thread and there seemed to be an excellent reason for each decision that he made but again, what the hell do I know. I didn't go against the grain because I thought I was smarter than every body else. To be honest, at the time we made that parts list I didn't even realize that we WERE going against the grain. We discussed the number of cores and I guess that I just completely forgot to keep the actual speed in mind.<br /><br />Tell me this, would this just be a matter of sending the CPU back and getting other one or would there me a whole bunch of other stuff that would have to change because of the CPU change?</p> <p>Louis,<br> Please refer to the parts list. My scratch disc is my SS C drive. I know, yet another thing that I was told not to do but I read right on the Adobe website that if you had enough memory, "something well below what I have" that a separate scratch disc was not necessary. Since I only used a small percentage of the scratch disc on my test, it would appear that is correct and that a scratch disc was never even used in this case,...........right?<br> http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00d/00d7jf-554885584.jpg</p> <p>Thanks Mary.<br /><br />Ray,<br />THANKS ! What an EXCELLENT idea ! I will most certainly make use of that little trick. It's a nice work around that I will take advantage of but still the idea that my dream machine sits here and twiddles it's thumbs on such a small file makes me a bit ill. : -( <br /><br />Alan,<br> Please look at my screen grab of how much memory I have allocated. Is this not enough. If not, what would you recommend. I know you're not supposed to go TOO high because it can end up having a negative impact of the speed for some reason.<br /><br />Also:<br> "If the GPU's are involved, then your graphics card (old wimpy vs new high end with gobs of cores) could make a big difference."<br /><br />Are you thinking that mine is old and wimpy? I know it has over 1000 Cuda Cores. You don't think that's enough?<br /><br />Thanks Barry.</p><div></div>

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

<p>`</p>

<p>Thanks Tuomas.</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>

<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>Thanks Anthony.<br /><br />Jochen, I don't know anything about MSI Afterburner so I'll take your word for it.</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>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>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>Does the version of Photoshop have anything to do with speed? I'm still on CS5.</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>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>AWESOME ! Thanks my friends. This place ROCKS !</p>

<p>OK, I have my new PC set up but for the next day or two, I still have an extremely cheap monitor that needs calibration, at the VERY least and I also have some editing work that I would like to get done before waiting for the new monitor.</p> <p>I know my new Nec monitor makes changes to the actual MONITOR when calibrating.</p> <p>I know that if I calibrate this loaner monitor with my Eye One Display 2 that the changes will be made in the GRAPHICS CARD.</p> <p>Will these changes to the graphics card, screw up the eventual calibration of the Nec monitor?</p> <p>In other words, in my very non-tech head, I'm picturing the best calibration for the Nec monitor will take place if I have not make ANY changes to the graphics card.</p> <p>Am I being a bit to much of a Nervous Nelly? Might it be necessary and is it possible to do a factory reset on the new graphics card right before and do the eventual calibration of the Nec monitor, (with it's proprietary software and puck).</p>