agorabasta wrote:The Lr responsiveness depends more on the memory subsystem, and not on the speed of the CPU neither on the size of memory above 6-8GB. The CPU speed is more important for the final export rendering, but if a fast CPU takes too long in switching threads, cache flushing, etc, the proggie is simply not responsive to the user control - this is exactly what is meant when people are saying the Lr4 is too slow.
agorabasta wrote:With the Intel CPU's it's necessary to have the internal on-CPU video core to be always switched off, then the system must have more than one memory channel and they have to operate in a dual-channel mode at least.
The AMD CPU/APU's are actually much slower at processing, have lower memory bandwidth, higher memory/cache latencies for the smaller data chunks. But they are are much faster switching the threads and doing cache flush/thrash. And their integrated video doesn't slow the CPU functions as much. That's why a slow cheap AMD system may actually feel much more usable for being quite adequately responsive.
agorabasta wrote:Adobe definitely was optimising for Intel machines, but there's only that much it can be optimised. That's the hardware memory system that has to optimised by Intel.
agorabasta wrote:What 'other programs', Henry? AFAIK, there's none comparable...bakubo wrote:I still find it surprising that most other programs don't have a performance problem running on rather high-end Intel cpus.
agorabasta wrote:The sad fact is that virtually no modern machine is really adequately fast for Lr4, so no diff if that is your machine or mine. Leaving the OS imperfections aside, there are two HW aspects that greatly affect the usability - those are the proc speed and the memory speed/latency...
So far, the 8 appears to be a mere cosmetic/interface upgrade.pakodominguez wrote:Win 8 will bring us a solution?
I'm mostly gathering my info myself.
Here are the scarce facts -
1. Adobe to end support for 32-bit OS's citing validation difficulties;
2. Lr4 is still working with old 2GB process memory limit that is a carry-on from 32-bit OS's.
It means that 2GB is actually not enough, so Lr has to rely heavily on the OS/HW ability to cache data in 'free' memory...
That may be lies, if the 'private working set' is considered, or that may be true if the cached pages are added into consideration. But everybody and their grannies take the former definition; and then even the old 32-bit XP proggies are not limited to that 2GB, if we assume the latter def.pakodominguez wrote:"LR is not limited to 2GB of mem for 64-bit systems plus, we constantly evaluate interactive performance, not the sys specs."
Thanks for admitting that, as you really arebfitzgerald wrote:Missing the point entirely here.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest