CPU for photo rendering

[Valley_]

So I am going a college assignment and the task is to describe the role of hardware when photo editing. 

 

I've got to the CPU and I have one quick question,

would I be correct saying that for photo editing, the more cores the better since it will be able to render the photo(s) out much faster. For example a 6950x.

 

Thanks in advance

[Princess Luna]

Make a Ryzen 1600 or 1700 build depending on budget...

 and yes more cores are the best for content creation!

[Valley_]

Just now, Princess Cadence said:

Make a Ryzen 1600 or 1700 build depending on budget.

I'm not making a build. I am just wondering if I would be correct in saying "More cores is better when it comes to photo editing"

[Princess Luna]

Just now, GlynDavies said:

I'm not making a build. I am just wondering if I would be correct in saying "More cores is better when it comes to photo editing"

I said it so up there [:

 

Basically when you are rendering a photo or a video your CPU knows exactly what must be done thereafter it can spread the workload across its cores speeding up the process, unlike gaming where since it is not predictable what the player will do the best would be fastest single core performance so it can react properly and fast enough to the player inputs.

 

Although nowadays every thing is shifting to more multi-threading, including games, you can say that not only for content creation nowadays but everything will see benefit from having more cores/threads.

[Zando_]

Just now, Princess Cadence said:

I said it so up there [:

 

Basically when you are rendering a photo or a video your CPU knows exactly what must be done thereafter it can spread the workload across its cores speeding up the process, unlike gaming where since it is not predictable what the player will do the best would be fastest single core performance so it can react properly and fast enough to the player inputs.

 

Although nowadays every thing is shifting to more multi-threading, including games, you can say that not only for content creation nowadays but everything will see benefit from having more cores/threads.

Run the Cinebench CPU test. It renders an image, and you can see a yellow box for each thread. It looks boring (and is slow) on my PC's dual core Pentium, but looks awesome (and is way faster) on a 27" iMac with an i7 (8 threads). SO yeah, like @Princess Cadence said, more cores = more better. 

[Energycore]

To all the people saying that more cores is better for Photoshop, Photoshop acutally can't use that many cores. According to this pugetsystems test.

https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Adobe-Photoshop-CC-2017-AMD-Ryzen-7-1700X-1800X-Performance-907/

 

So theoretically, for any workload, more cores is better if the program for the workload is coded for multiple threads. But doing so can be very hard depending on workload. Not sure why Photoshop can't do it though. Maybe some other programs can do it.

[pyrojoe34]

Photoshop won't really take advantage of more than 4 cores so you're better off with faster cores than more cores at that point.

[UTnick]

20 minutes ago, GlynDavies said:

So I am going a college assignment and the task is to describe the role of hardware when photo editing. 

 

I've got to the CPU and I have one quick question,

would I be correct saying that for photo editing, the more cores the better since it will be able to render the photo(s) out much faster. For example a 6950x.

 

Thanks in advance

If you're looking for better advice then I would recommend explaining more what your assignment is. Is it merely to explain the role of hardware within certain environments? And I ask because that alone sounds too superficial to be part of a college workload. As people have begun pointing out -- there are many variables to consider and distilling it down to a simple "more cores is better" isn't a completely true statement. Hell, ask Linus how he found out more cores isn't always better.

[The Benjamins]

1 minute ago, UTnick said:

If you're looking for better advice then I would recommend explaining more what your assignment is. Is it merely to explain the role of hardware within certain environments? And I ask because that alone sounds too superficial to be part of a college workload. As people have begun pointing out -- there are many variables to consider and distilling it down to a simple "more cores is better" isn't a completely true statement. Hell, ask Linus how he found out more cores isn't always better.

but linus's situation was 10 fast cores is better then 22 slower cores. but on lower end systems more is usually better.

[Princess Luna]

7 minutes ago, The Benjamins said:

linus's situation was 10 fast cores is better then 22 slower cores.

Again it would heavily depend on the workload, over all the best still is having balance between the two, when Cannon Lake is finally released with mainsteam 10nm 6c/12t i7 that will be so good [:

[Energycore]

Just now, Princess Cadence said:

Again it would heavily depend on the workload, over all the best still is having balance between the two, when Cannon Lake is finally released with mainsteam 10nm 6c/12t i7 that will be so good [:

I don't know why you're excited about the Cannonlake release now that we have 8-cores with 16 threads on AMD's mainstream platform

[Princess Luna]

Just now, Energycore said:

m

I would short it out "team blue" but noo... come on now, don't tell me you're not excited about a mainstream processor on the latest lithography and latest IPC, with very good frequencies and whole 6c/12t?  I do love AMD for forcing Intel to get their offerings up-to-date hell my brother and I even already made a 1800x system, but for my personal rig I really am saving my cents already for this little upcoming beast [:

[Energycore]

Just now, Princess Cadence said:

I would short it out "team blue" but noo... come on now, don't tell me you're not excited about a mainstream processor on the latest lithography and latest IPC, with very good frequencies and whole 6c/12t?  I do love AMD for forcing Intel to get their offerings up-to-date hell my brother and I even already made a 1800x system, but for my personal rig I really am saving my cents already for this little upcoming beast [:

Nah, after Ryzen was really good I'm not terribly excited for the newer generations, they would have to shift paradigms hard in order for me to be excited.

 

I'm excited about flashing my 480 to a 580 though lol

[Princess Luna]

Just now, Energycore said:

Nah, after Ryzen was really good I'm not terribly excited for the newer generations, they would have to shift paradigms hard in order for me to be excited.

 

I'm excited about flashing my 480 to a 580 though lol

You're gonna wait for those non-silicon CPUs coming someday to upgrade I assume?

 

Good luck with the flashing too! I really hope it doesn't hurt your GPU or anything [:

[Energycore]

Just now, Princess Cadence said:

You're gonna wait for those non-silicon CPUs coming someday to upgrade I assume?

 

Good luck with the flashing too! I really hope it doesn't hurt your GPU or anything [:

Already done it like 10 times

 

Anyway yeah. I'm more excited for the possibility that someone on Adobe steps up their game and codes Photoshop for more than 4 threads.

[Princess Luna]

Just now, Energycore said:

.

Ahh maybe Intel's paying Adobe so it keeps the current i5 line up relevant, seriously though; I had no idea of this limitation that was very informative, does other Adobe applications see same issue like the Acrobat Reader?

[Energycore]

Just now, Princess Cadence said:

Ahh maybe Intel's paying Adobe so it keeps the current i5 line up relevant, seriously though; I had no idea of this limitation that was very informative, does other Adobe applications see same issue like the Acrobat Reader?

I'm not sure about Acrobat. Clrealy Premiere and whatever the other thing for video was can use more than 4 threads. Lightroom seems like it can also use more threads if we're to go with this other source.

https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Adobe-Lightroom-CC-6-Multi-Core-Performance-649/