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

My Athlon 64 3400+ (2.4ghz newcastle) Got 1 minute 5 seconds on the blur. Ram is 1GB at PC3200 2T cas 2.5.
 
Quad G5 rendering results look great...

Here's a link to some rendering results for a Quad G5 vs. a Dual 2.5:

http://forums.luxology.com/discussion/topic.aspx?id=3717&page=0

"We had the opportunity to try one of the new quad G5s with modo 201 and I must say I was impressed with its speed.

As an example, it rendered the global illumination test image shown above in 17 seconds flat. The scene includes 244,000 polygons with 8 sample antialiasing and 200 indirect rays.

Brad's dual 2.5 G5 takes 38 seconds to render the same scene, so it looks like the new machines can render over twice as fast.
 
CalfCanuck said:
Here's a link to some rendering results for a Quad G5 vs. a Dual 2.5:

http://forums.luxology.com/discussion/topic.aspx?id=3717&page=0

"We had the opportunity to try one of the new quad G5s with modo 201 and I must say I was impressed with its speed.

As an example, it rendered the global illumination test image shown above in 17 seconds flat. The scene includes 244,000 polygons with 8 sample antialiasing and 200 indirect rays.

Brad's dual 2.5 G5 takes 38 seconds to render the same scene, so it looks like the new machines can render over twice as fast.
Click to expand...
Those are pretty nice scores, first Quad benchmark I saw.
 
Just did the test on my spankin new PowerMac.

Took 41.5 seconds flat (And that's only on 'Automatic' for processor setting!:eek: )

Specs:
PowerMac Dual Core 2.3ghz
1.5gb RAM
nVidia 6600- 256vram
 
Now This Really Keeps Me Off Buying A G4 Pb:

I clocked 2 min 12 secs -

WITH A 5 YRS OLD PC (Intel Pentium II, 241 mhz, 512 RAM) ...

CS2

speechless ...

SORRY - WRONG INFO IN HERE:

ACTUALLY ITS A 4 YRS OLD PC - INTEL PENTIUM IV, 2.41 GHZ, 512 RAM
 
cyberone said:
I clocked 2 min 12 secs -

WITH A 5 YRS OLD PC (Intel Pentium II, 241 mhz, 512 RAM) ...

CS2

speechless ...
Click to expand...
You must not have applied the "100" or "Best" in the settings for the blur. No way that machine got that score.
 
It took my PB G4 1.67 with 1.5GB RAM two minutes and two seconds. I am using a trial version of CS2.
 
So did I manage to pull the fastest time so far? with my 29.5 seconds :) Still dont know why the timing feature built into CS2 shows a different time than a stopwatch - usually slower.
 
Decided to play around so I bumped up my dual xeons from 3Ghz to 3.3Ghz and did the test again and it dropped down to 26.6 seconds. Interestingly enough that was using a stopwatch. The built in timing got me 27.5 which is exactly the 0.9 seconds off everytime I do the test regardless. LOL this 0.9 seconds is making me crazy. I have to find out why CS2 and my stopwatch are different. I mean they both finish the same time but I have different numbers. WTF. LOL
 
ibook

4 min 17 sec

ibook 1.33 ghz 12'
512 mb built in
1 gb added ... but limit it to 512 mb
so my total ram = 1 GB
30 mb free ram when running phtshp cs
 
iMac G5 2.0 Ghz with 1.5 GB of RAM installed:

I got 1min 54 seconds running on Automatic. I will change processor to "Highest" and see if there is a difference.

EDIT: This was doing the original Radial Blur test.
 
Ryan T. said:
You must not have applied the "100" or "Best" in the settings for the blur. No way that machine got that score.
Click to expand...

you're right, wrong time: I clocked it again:

2 min 22 secs ...

and sorry, its a 4 years old PC, not 5.

all I can tell you: I keep my registry clean, run norton utilities regularely and the whole system never ever crashed.

maybe a good maintenance gives a better output than a system that is never maintained? I understand that such maintenance is not necessary under OSX?

and why should I lie about my hardware? fact is, its a terribly old machine, but look how it shines beside newer macs ...

now I definitively wait - either for a mactel PB - or vista.
 
cyberone said:
you're right, wrong time: I clocked it again:

2 min 22 secs ...

and sorry, its a 4 years old PC, not 5.

all I can tell you: I keep my registry clean, run norton utilities regularely and the whole system never ever crashed.

maybe a good maintenance gives a better output than a system that is never maintained? I understand that such maintenance is not necessary under OSX?

and why should I lie about my hardware? fact is, its a terribly old machine, but look how it shines beside newer macs ...

now I definitively wait - either for a mactel PB - or vista.
Click to expand...

If it's a four year old PC it doesn't have a PII running at 241 MHz. The Pentium III was released in 1999, two years before 2001, and the Pentium II was never clocked at 241 MHz anyway.

2 min 22 secs ... it's more likely a Pentium IV running at 2.4Ghz

Edit: Yep ... look at this one posted by Platform
Well I don't have a Mac.........but an Intel

1min 58 sec with Bitlord running.

Pentium 4 2.8Ghz
512MB RAM
GeForce FX 5200 128MB
PS 7 Not too bad.....but bad
Click to expand...
 
sorry, you're right:

its a Pentium IV - running at 2.41 ghz

sorry for my unability to read that simple system information.

and my stupidity of not even knowing what my computer runs on.

anyway.

its a old machine, on par with some newer ones.
 
cyberone said:
you're right, wrong time: I clocked it again:

2 min 22 secs ...

and sorry, its a 4 years old PC, not 5.

all I can tell you: I keep my registry clean, run norton utilities regularely and the whole system never ever crashed.

maybe a good maintenance gives a better output than a system that is never maintained? I understand that such maintenance is not necessary under OSX?

and why should I lie about my hardware? fact is, its a terribly old machine, but look how it shines beside newer macs ...

now I definitively wait - either for a mactel PB - or vista.
Click to expand...


Well, my G5 which is 3+ years old still beat your 4 year old PC. I don't think there's really anything here to brag about.
 
So it looks like there is only a few seconds difference between the dual 2.3, 2.5 and 2.7.
 
Ryan T. said:
Well, my G5 which is 3+ years old still beat your 4 year old PC. I don't think there's really anything here to brag about.
Click to expand...
And here I was thinking that the G5 was released like 2.5 years ago... I remember it being released after the Opteron, which makes it impossible for you to have bought it in 2002.
 
I think the G5 came out in the last quarter of 2003 didnt it (like august-sept) ? Well in anycase as it was said, its 2.5 years old at best...

Heck in that case, my machine is 1.5 years old so in that light, its doing very well. I'm waiting to see someone with a dual core P4 submit a score or a Dual core G5. I'd love to see someone with a dual dualcore opteron run too
 
contoursvt said:
I think the G5 came out in the last quarter of 2003 didnt it (like august-sept) ? Well in anycase as it was said, its 2.5 years old at best...

Heck in that case, my machine is 1.5 years old so in that light, its doing very well. I'm waiting to see someone with a dual core P4 submit a score or a Dual core G5. I'd love to see someone with a dual dualcore opteron run too
Click to expand...
My mistake. This is definately one of the first ones made, but you guys are right, it's more like 2.5 years old than 3.
 
stuuke said:
So it looks like there is only a few seconds difference between the dual 2.3, 2.5 and 2.7.
Click to expand...

Yeah the gap is very small. This is why I returned my dual 2.5 and got the dual 2.0. Significant cost savings for equivalent performance.
 
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