Adobe Adds GPU Acceleration To Creative Suite 4 246
arcticstoat writes "GPU computing has just taken a major step into the world of mainstream software development, as Adobe has now released a GPU-accelerated version of its Creative Suite, comprising Photoshop, After Effects and Premiere Pro. Both Premiere Pro and After Effects only support GPU features on Nvidia's professional range of Quadro GPUs, but Photoshop CS4 allows GPU acceleration on any mainstream GPU that supports Shader Model 3.0 (such as Nvidia's GeForce 6200 series of GPUs). Built on OpenGL, Photoshop CS4's GPU features allow real-time rotation of images and accelerated zooming and panning. As well as this, Photoshop CS4 also uses the GPU for anti-aliasing on text and objects, and it can tap the GPU for brushstroke previews, HDR tone mapping and colour conversion."
Re:It's too bad that you need a $2300 mac to make (Score:2, Informative)
Re:It's too bad that you need a $2300 mac to make (Score:4, Informative)
The higher end iMacs, the Mac Pros, and the MacBook Pros all have real graphic cards.
In fact, at this point, the low end iMacs may have real graphics cards (not those Intel chips).
That said, it's being used for things like zooming around the image smoothly and color correction. Even the little Intel chips should be able to handle that with pretty big images without problems. The higher end things the GPUs can be used for (I hear some of the new 3D features) would probably need a better GPU.
Re:It's too bad that you need a $2300 mac to make (Score:5, Informative)
The sort of glossy high-saturation screens used for iMacs looks great to a lot of users, but isn't good for professional-level color matching. Some people refuse to use LCDs at all because the black point isn't true enough.
Basic idea here is that the sort of screen you want when choosing colors for print ads isn't the same as the screen you want for general consumer use. It's kind of like how the sort of speakers you want in a professional studio aren't the same as what you want for your home stereo. (whether that analogy makes things clearer or more obscure, I don't know)
Re:It's too bad that you need a $2300 mac to make (Score:3, Informative)
Re:It's too bad that you need a $2300 mac to make (Score:2, Informative)
Re:GPU? *cough* (Score:5, Informative)
Windows 3.1 could use hardware acceleration to move a rectangular section of video memory to another part of video memory.
A modern 3D card can apply a program in parallel to every pixel on screen, resize, rotate, and apply arbitrary filters with minimal CPU load.
Isn't Quadro Just Another Name (Score:3, Informative)
Isn't Quadro just a different identifier in the GPU bios and people have been turning their consumer level cards into Quadros with a bios update? The only "magic" about Quadro cards (aside from their insanely high prices) is that the Quadro driver won't run when it detects a consumer card id. To limit this to "Quadro" cards is Adobe, and most especially Nvidia, ripping off the average consumer.
Re:It's too bad that you need a $2300 macPC'S ONLY (Score:4, Informative)
Actually the 64-bit Photoshop CS4 currently only runs on PC's. The Mac version remains at 32-bit for now.
no point using a mac (Score:1, Informative)
CS4 is 64-bit for WINDOWS VISTA ONLY
http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2008/04/photoshop_lr_64.html
Nice to see them using OpenGL (Score:3, Informative)
From the article:
"even though it's standard OpenGL, we didn't care - we still wanted to do it because we felt like it would bring a better experience to the end user... we believe that you should get a better experience and we're going to devote engineering resources to make that happen, even if it helps the competition."
If this isn't just BS, then kudos to nVidia. Not that I actually use PS. I use the GIMP, and am eagerly awaiting 2.6 with GEGL. I'm told 2.5 builds now have multithreaded support which will be great for those heavy filters. I'd like to see an OpenGL frontend like this one for the GIMP some day.
Re:It's too bad that you need a $2300 mac to make (Score:4, Informative)
It's not the engineer's pay but their project funding. A lot of them would rather save $10k or $20k on new Macs for their department and spend it on other equipment or for time on some of our super computers. Part of their funding comes from gov't programs and customers and other part comes from selling their work to businesses, state gov'ts and NGO's. Sure, some orgs are flush and buy top line gear. Others are told they have a $2K cap on personal computing gear.
As for me paying them, heh, I'm just a contract tech monkey who gets to unpack and set up kit.
Adobe's ramping up the 3D (Score:3, Informative)
At this rate I wouldn't be surprised if the Adobe Reader was leveraging the GPU in its next release.
Re:It's too bad that you need a $2300 mac to make (Score:2, Informative)
Re:It's too bad that you need a $2300 mac to make (Score:4, Informative)
The extremely-high-end Pro
Dell XPS [dell.com]
the tiny Mini
Dell Studio Hybrid [dell.com]
Asus EeeBox [asus.com]
the sleek, integrated iMac.
Dell XPS One [dell.com]
HP Touchsmart [hp.com]
Re:GPU? *cough* (Score:1, Informative)
I think if it was as easy as putting "some hooks in their code to use some maths[sic][sic] functions"...
In most of the world, the correct abbreviation for mathematics is maths.
Re:Adobe's ramping up the 3D (Score:4, Informative)
Surprise! GPU acceleration is already in version 8.x [adobe.com]
Re:One major speedup's done, how about the other? (Score:4, Informative)
Access to memory >4GB isn't the only benefit of going 64-bit on Intel/AMD architecture: Compiling for 'amd64' rather than 'i386' gives your code access to a lot more CPU registers among other things. That alone makes most operations significantly faster. So far the only application I've seen that doesn't significantly benefit from a 64-bit compilation is POV-Ray, and I've tried a lot.
Too Expensive - Especially 'abroad' (Score:5, Informative)
Of course it's too expensive - it's what people will pay for it, and it's what people will pay for it because it's the defacto standard and they have no proper choice.
Yes, yes, I know.. you can use The Gimp! Or Paint Shop Pro! And while many home users most certainly could - no, they do not give a rats' ass about CMYK separation - they also hear that it is -the- choice among professionals.. and will thus go for it anyway. And professionals don't really need Photoshop most of the time either. What CG shop uses CMYK? What web developer uses the Panorama stitching function? Come on, give me a few anecdotal cases, and I'll show you thousands that make drop-shadows for buttons.
Until something or somebody can break through that defacto standard stuff, Photoshop (as buggy, archaic, and overpriced as it is) will remain the #1 choice... and will remain as expensive as it is.
In fact, things got more expensive... Compared to April 2008 for the same CS3 products ('same' in name, not in featureset, I suppose).
CS4 Design Standard: $1399 vs $1199
CS4 Web Premium: $1699 vs $1599
Contribute CS4: $199 vs $169
Photoshop CS4: $699 vs $649
But if you think that's bad, be glad you - at least, if you're in North America/United States - don't have to pay the "You love us so much, we'll let you to pay extra!"-charge. This is for the NL store as of September 22, exchange rate USD / EUR: 0.677620 (xe.net, indicative only), all prices excluding VAT (BTW) sourced from Adobe online store, all prices calculated back to dollars.
PRODUCT / USD US / USD NL
CS4 Design Standard / $1399 / $1873
CS4 Design Premium / $1799 / $2950
CS4 Web Standard / $999 / $1474
CS4 Web Premium / $1699 / $2507
CS4 Production Premium / $1699 / $2802
CS4 Master Collection / $2499 / $4131
After Effects CS4 / $999 / $1622
Contribute CS4 / $199 / $294
DreamWeaver CS4 / $399 / $663
Fireworks CS4 / $299 / $441
Flash CS4 / $699 / $1032
Illustrator CS4 / $599 / $958
InCopy CS4 / $249 / $367
InDesign CS4 / $699 / $1105
Photoshop CS4 / $699 / $1017
Photoshop CS4 Extended / $999 / $1578
Premiere Pro CS4 / $799 / $1253
Soundbooth CS4 / $199 / $294
On average, that's a price increase that seems to have no good reason* of 53.76% on average, with DreamWeaver CS4 taking the crown at 66% and CS4 Design Standard as the least increase at 34%.
* I should qualify the 'no good reason' bit, as otherwise there will be a slew of responses on why there's a price increase.. localization, local support, bla-dee-bla. Thankfully, I don't have to qualify it myself - another person made an excellent set of pages on this matter, and I suggest those who feel like posting such reasons first read them:
http://www.amanwithapencil.com/adobe.html [amanwithapencil.com] - Adobe is ripping off European (and other non-US) customers
It deals with the most common 'reasons' and debunks them. I'll add one - most of the products do not have native Dutch versions and those that do are hardly sold. It's slightly dated (being for the CS3 launch), but the same things still apply. It also gives one very true answer that the author dug up from an interview, and serves as the basis for my earlier "You love us so much" statement:
I don't have anything against Adobe, or their products**, but I most certainly do take issue with their pricing in the various markets. Oh, and I also take
Re:It's too bad that you need a $2300 mac to make (Score:5, Informative)
Apple never said Carbon was the future. Carbon was always a compatibility fudge so that it was easier for OS9 apps to run on OSX, and to make porting apps to the new OS easier. Cocoa was always the way forward, it's just that Adobe never bothered to switch.
I'm not a Mac fanboy, I just use one at work.
Re:It's too bad that you need a $2300 mac to make (Score:2, Informative)
Something tells me you don't do anything involving graphics and these details don't concern you, as you can't spell matte correctly.
"matt" is the UK spelling.
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=49278&dict=CALD [cambridge.org]
Re:One major speedup's done, how about BILLBOARDS (Score:1, Informative)
Sorry, but I call bullshit.
I used to print and sell billboard banners in a previous life, and we printed at either 60 DPI or 110 DPI. Outrageous clients would require 300 DPI, and we'd happy laugh and charge them 4x the cost for being dumb. And they couldn't tell the difference.
Re:they use glossy screens and apple does not let (Score:5, Informative)
they use glossy screens and apple does not let you pick if you want one or not like they do with the mac pro.
Screen finish has nothing to do with the screen panel.