Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple Mac Hardware - Photoshop Test

I have examined this thread with pretty heavy interest, as I'm a potential PC to Mac switcher.

Just for fun, I ran this test on my current (old) HP PC

PC: 2.66 GHz
512 MB DDR SDRAM
Photoshop CS2

Apps running: iTunes, Adobe Bridge, MS Excel, Internet Explorer

130 seconds (2 min 10 sec). I guess not too bad.

I was at the Apple store today, pondering a PowerBook as an interim measure as I wait for the Intel PowerMacs (I just don't think the Quad with the current processors is enough yet; bummed about that) but after looking at the times posted here and playing with the PowerBooks at the store...no way. WAAYYYY to slow! The old PC appears just as fast.
 
cabasner said:
I have examined this thread with pretty heavy interest, as I'm a potential PC to Mac switcher.

Just for fun, I ran this test on my current (old) HP PC

PC: 2.66 GHz
512 MB DDR SDRAM
Photoshop CS2

Apps running: iTunes, Adobe Bridge, MS Excel, Internet Explorer

130 seconds (2 min 10 sec). I guess not too bad.

I was at the Apple store today, pondering a PowerBook as an interim measure as I wait for the Intel PowerMacs (I just don't think the Quad with the current processors is enough yet; bummed about that) but after looking at the times posted here and playing with the PowerBooks at the store...no way. WAAYYYY to slow! The old PC appears just as fast.
Click to expand...

A move from a relatively new PC to a PowerBook G4 is a big step back in speed. PCs are zippier when it comes to the operating system. You get elegance and beauty and reliability with the Mac, not speed per se.

If you are switching to Mac for speed increases, I think you will be disappointed.
 
no one got a 'new' powermac yet?

also 'new' powerbook and imac users welcome :D

thanks,
 
I've had 4 HDD's fail in the last 2 months among other things, I'm down to my last 2GB number and it's not large enough to have Photoshop CS2 installed (or much else for that matter, except windows 98:cool: )

Will post results with the mighty PIII600, with Voodoo 5 once a new HDD is located. by the sounds of things it might be runnign for some time.

If insurance pays up for the power surges that destroyed the gear, I'll bench on an Athlon X2

Jordan
 
1 min 46 seconds

RevB. 20" iMac G5 2.0
512MB Ram
Photoshop CS

I will be bringing my iMac back the end of this week when the apple store opens up again and getting my NEW iMac since i got mine 9 days before they updated them. I will run this test again on that when i get it to see the performance difference between the new iMac and the od one.
 
Xephian said:
Someone benchmark their Quad Power Mac w/ 4TB RAM and Quadro FX 4500.
Click to expand...

where did u see that?... (i thought the Quad hasn't hit the Apple stores yet)

anyway, it will cool to have a look at Quad 2.5's figures in this Photoshop test
 
An interesting Thread, I noticed the results here weren't just limited to Macs so Heres my results for comparison from a:

- 6yr old Pentium III 733Mhz
- 256MB SDRAM
- GeForce DDR 256 with 32MB RAM
- Seagate Barracuda 20GB 7200rpm / Western Digital 7200rpm 40Gb
- WindowsXP SP2 (P.o.S.!) with all the antiviral candy.
- Modded XP to run custom Visual Styles.
- Running Opera 8.5, Outlook 2003 and Konfabulator x2 widgets in
background.

Photoshop CS with "test.jpg"
= 5:49

I don't question the hardware I have since I custom built it, I know its old but Windows XP just outright sucks. So hence I'm switching to OSX to a sexy new Powerbook and iMac setup soon. I must admit I am jealous at all you G5 Dualies out there.
 
jtt said:
All right. iRe-did the test with just Safari and iTunes running and got 43 sec.
But how can this Sempron that cost less than my GPU be only 27 sec. slower?
Click to expand...
It's actually not all that strange. The Sempron on Socket 754 is exactly the same CPU as Opteron/Athlon64, except for having a smaller cache (in this case 256kB). Since this test isn't particularly sensitive to cache amount, the Sempron is going to perform very close to (as in "within a few seconds of") a regular Athlon64 or Opteron.

Now, the reason that any of these CPUs perform so fast in this test is likely to be a combination of:

1) AMD's K8 architecture is very fast
2) Photoshop CS2 may be better optimised for x86 (strange as it might sound...)
 
pb 15" new vs old

I just run the test on both the old and the new 15" pbs. Nothing spectacular to report, but thought I would post the results for those interested. Anyway... powerbooks were similarly equipped (1670MHz G4, 1G ram, etc). Both systems completed the test in 2min 7sec. I also unplugged the power from the new pb and tinkered around for 30 minutes or so. The battery applet confirmed a runtime-until-empty of 3 hours and 30 minutes.
 
Dual 1 GHz PowerMac G4
1.75 GB RAM
Sys 10.2.8
Photoshop CS2
QuarkXPress 6 running
Radial Blur = 1 minute 27 seconds (tested twice)
 
Can someone test something on their CS2 for me (preferrably on a PC but if not, then mac is ok). Run this test again but use a stopwatch in conjunction to the timing feature in photoshop. The numbers are WAY off!! If anyone has been posting using the timing, try again with a stopwatch, you may be getting an inaccurate time.

I just ran the test and got two results - 29.5 seconds with a stopwatch and 36.2 seconds with the timing function. I redid the test again using a stopwatch built into an old wrist watch (as opposed to an actual dedicated stopwatch) and again got 29.43 vs 38 seconds. Seems the internal photoshop timing is way off. At least on my PC it is.

So I'll stick to my stopwatch results of 29.5 seconds....

Dual 3Ghz Nocona xeons on Asus NCCH-DL mainboard
4x 512mb DDR400
ATI X800XT-PE video (AGP)
3x 36gig Fujitsu 15k SCSI

...I'll go on google and see if this is a real prob of just on my box...
 
Still kinda weird. If you do the test a second time, again using the stopwatch and timing function at the same time, it will end up being much closer. Still slower than the stopwatch but quite close. If you close photoshop and open it again and redo the test, the stopwatch will read the same number but timing will show way higher (like 20% higher).

Anyway stopwatch got 29.37 (from the moment I clicked to start the test until I saw the final image displayed onscreen). Timing function got 30.3. If anything the timing should be faster than a person using a stopwatch because there would be a slight delay for reaction time when it finishes...

test.jpg
 
Oh sweet jesus. As an experiment, I disabled HyperThreading thinking ok intel's touting HT as the next best thing since sliced bread but its probably going to barely show any change. WRONG! Holy!!! Ok so WITH hyperthreading, my best score was 29.5. When I disabled HT, I got a best of 46.4 !! I'm just rebooting and enabling HT. Thats all I had to see :)
 
I was sure I'd have the slowest time with this last entry but didnt look like it :) Tested out my server running win2k :)


Dual PPRO 200Mhz (1meg cache), 4x 256mb EDO DIMMS
Matrox 2mb PCI video
1x 10K SCSI boot drive
2x 120gig IDE via ATA 100 controller as data drives

630.7 seconds !! LOL

http://powerthings.com/pics/testdualppro.jpg
 
G4 500DP Gigabit 3m 25s

G4 DP 500 Mhz 768MB OSx 10.3.9
CS1 Blur: 3m 25s

I think I can justify a big upgrade given how long I've kept this old workhorse productive. Still, I am turning a few $$$ with it right up to last weekend producing weddings in FCP 4.1 & DVD3...just got to time my encoding session as over-nighters!!

Mark
 
zen.state said:
my G4 1250 is less than half the mhz of your athlon and my mini did it in 2:55. this is why I don't get apple dropping the ppc.
Click to expand...

Its not just the platform its also how the OS handles resources and I think its safe to say that OS X is optimized for professional tasks like photoshop where as Windows is optimized for cross compatibility.

If anyone here has tried OS X 86 they know how much faster it is on intel hardware than on PPC hardware.
 
jer2eydevil88 said:
If anyone here has tried OS X 86 they know how much faster it is on intel hardware than on PPC hardware.
Click to expand...


How can you make this claim? The only macintel test machines are single processor P4 boxes. How can that compare? What are you comparing the dev box to a G4 500?
 
Well.... I can make the claim because i'm very sleepy... and because of the xbench reports I have seen in the forums of the project os x 86 website...

Although come tomorrow morning after I actually get some sleep I may disagree with my original post... In any case I got to use OS X 86 on a Dothan core Centrino laptop and it flew much faster than the 1.5ghz powerbook's I have used....
 
Alright, well I changed my processor performance to achieve maximum, and I got quite a big increase in time.

PowerMac G5 1.6GHz
1GB DDR PC2700 Crucial
200GB Maxtor 7200RPM HDD
nVidia 5200 Ultra
OS X 10.4.2
Adobe Photoshop CS
Processor Performance: Highest

Time: 2 minutes 13 seconds.:)
 
10 min 33sec
I am waiting on my new Imac so I am using my girlfriends laptop. Dell Inspiron 1100 2.0 Celeron 512mb of RAM.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back