Mac Pro 3,1 > Mac Pro 5,1?

[mjsmke]

Am i correct in thinking Photoshop only utilises 4 physical cores?

 

[DocNo]

At least for silicone based transistors. Optical ones are in development, though. That's just future talk, though. Processors that use optical switches instead of usual semiconductors are probably at least a decade away from consumers.

Personally I think we will skip optical and go quantum

As long as we don't go plaid

 

[DocNo]

Am i correct in thinking Photoshop only utilises 4 physical cores?

No, it will use more, just not well

http://macperformanceguide.com/Reviews-MacProWestmere-Photoshop-diglloydMedium.html

Edit: And I forgot about this winner:

http://macperformanceguide.com/Reviews-MacProWestmere-Photoshop-CoresSlower.html

 

[DeeEss]

CS3 won't be able to to fully utilize 4 or more cores.

Not sure how far CS4 went but I thikn it is 4 cores.

CS5 will handle how ever many cores you throw at it but it's not written to handle two processors.

I have the 6 core it's great.

 

[DeeEss]

Personally I think we will skip optical and go quantum

As long as we don't go plaid

lol

 

[mjsmke]

So for Photoshop the priority would be the CPU speed rather than cores. Obviously 4 cores is better than 1, but i mean the 2.4 8 core wouldn't be better than the 3.33 6 core. Or maybe even my 2.93 would be better in a lot of tasks than the 2.4 8 core for photoshop.

 

[DocNo]

So for Photoshop the priority would be the CPU speed rather than cores. Obviously 4 cores is better than 1, but i mean the 2.4 8 core wouldn't be better than the 3.33 6 core. Or maybe even my 2.93 would be better in a lot of tasks than the 2.4 8 core for photoshop.

Here's what Lloyd had to say:

http://macperformanceguide.com/Reviews-MacProWestmere-Conclusions.html

He didn't like the 2.4 8 core for photoshop at all.

 

[Macshroomer]

Ah, this is the education I was looking for. I am looking at upgrading from my 2006 2.66 and think a 6 core w/32GB of ram might be in order.

Thanks!