Re: Time in seconds to open raw image in Adobe CS/CS2 -- Computer Speed


"Joe" <joe@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ino9i3hia8q7vvrplv7go989bohp8tkes1@xxxxxxxxxx
JOHNCHAP2 <z_q-g.-u@xxxxxxx> wrote:

I am getting tired of what seems to be the excessive times (in
seconds) for a 14MB RAW file to open in CS2, and am considering
building a newer faster PC. However, before I do this I would like to
know just what kind of real world speed gains I might be able to
actually realize. On my current home-built (AMD Athlon 64 3200+) it
takes 6 seconds to open a full size 14.7MB RAW image in CS2, and 7.5
seconds to open the same image at the reduced 6MB size. For a 9MB NEF
(Nikon RAW) file the times are respectively 5.2 seconds and 4.25
seconds. Times are measured when I hit open to when the image pops up
on the screen. In contrast, the same image stored as a 38MB TIF takes
only 1.2 seconds to open.

I know these times don't seem worth worrying about, but when I am
trying to process 3,000 images from a trip, the waiting adds up and is
tiring. My current workflow is to open 5-6 images at a time via
Bridge and CS2. Once I adjust each raw image via Adobe RAW and hit
the open button to open them all, I then have to sit back and wait for
nearly a minute while they all open. It would be great if I could get
this total wait time for opening all 6 images down to 15-20 seconds.

I would be interested in what kinds of real world times others with
faster computers are getting. I don't think it will be worth
upgrading unless I can halve the times it is currently taking me.

I am using AMD 4800 (0r 4600?) with 3GB of memory, and since you don't
mention one of the most important parts is the amound_of_memory you have.
So, I may not be able to provide you all answers, but at least try to give
some imprtant information like

- Amount of MEMORY (Photoshop, Windows love memory)

- Amount of FREE disk space as Windows loves free disk space for swapping,
and Photoshop uses quite a bit of swapping.

- If the hard drive defragged as cleaner hard drive usually give better
performance.

But since computer is so cheap these days I would suggest to go for fast
system, and if you can build your own system (I have been building my own
since around late 80's), and AMD 4600 or 4800 was among the fastest when I
built mine few years ago.
Also, you need to consider the speed of the disks which is influenced by
both the rpm and the amount of cache memory in the drive. Often times, the
limiting facttor of cpu speed is the disk i/o rate.
Jim


.

Quantcast