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

Nice test- thank you

It helped make my decision

New Quad with 4.5 gig ram & 30" monitor

18.2 seconds

My old VIAO PC P4 bench 1 minute 14 seconds.

It nice to be mac:)
 
Test ran in Adobe Photoshop CS.

Intel iMac (2Ghz Core Duo) w/ 2GB Ram & 256mb VRAM = 51 seconds
Power Mac G5 (Dual 2Ghz) w/ 4GB Ram & ATI 9600 128mb VRAM = 53 seconds

All I can say is... wow.
 
joshuawaire said:
Test ran in Adobe Photoshop CS.

Intel iMac (2Ghz Core Duo) w/ 2GB Ram & 256mb VRAM = 51 seconds
Power Mac G5 (Dual 2Ghz) w/ 4GB Ram & ATI 9600 128mb VRAM = 53 seconds

All I can say is... wow.
Click to expand...

Which test Joshua?

Chuck.
 
joshuawaire said:
Test ran in Adobe Photoshop CS.

Intel iMac (2Ghz Core Duo) w/ 2GB Ram & 256mb VRAM = 51 seconds
Power Mac G5 (Dual 2Ghz) w/ 4GB Ram & ATI 9600 128mb VRAM = 53 seconds

All I can say is... wow.
Click to expand...

Mmmm. Photoshop CS2

Intel iMac 2GHz w/ 2GB Ram & 256 VRAM = 56 secs
Powermac G5 Dual 1.8Ghz w/ 2.5 Gb Ram & ATI X800XT 256 = 55 secs


OMG Does Cs2 add those extra 5 sec's... That's 5 sec's of my life I'm never going to get back... Added to the 15 that is takes me to write that I'm never going to get the 5... Added to the .... Aghhh stuck in a time loop :D
 
MacRumorUser said:
OMG Does Cs2 add those extra 5 sec's... That's 5 sec's of my life I'm never going to get back... Added to the 15 that is takes me to write that I'm never going to get the 5... Added to the .... Aghhh stuck in a time loop :D
Click to expand...


LOL, after todays "OMFG DUD MAC HAS GOT ITZ 1ST VIRUS" that made me smile :)
 
46 seconds

On a:
PowerMac 2.0 DP with 1.5gb ram, ATI Radeon X800 XT and OS 10.4.4, using Photoshop CS.

Why are my times 3-4 seconds quicker others with the same machine and same setup? I always thought my machine wasn't that fast because of it's long start ups and it's even lengthier application quits.
 
Kyle Nerder said:
46 seconds

On a:
PowerMac 2.0 DP with 1.5gb ram, ATI Radeon X800 XT and OS 10.4.4, using Photoshop CS.

Why are my times 3-4 seconds quicker others with the same machine and same setup? I always thought my machine wasn't that fast because of it's long start ups and it's even lengthier application quits.
Click to expand...

CS compared to CS2
 
johnnybluejeans said:
CS2

Interestingly enough though, I only saw modest gains (8%) with the RAM upgrade when running the DriverHeaven set of photoshop tests. http://www.driverheaven.net/photoshop/

My Core Duo ran the 12 tests in a pathetic 484 seconds. I noticed that during the DriverHeaven tests only one core was used, the other core sat idle.
Click to expand...


My iBook G3 800MHz does it in 1320 seconds...sadly, my future purchase (MacBook Pro 2.0Ghz) will be nearly 3 times faster at Photoshop, even though it's running in Rosetta...
 
MacRumorUser:

If you have the time you should format your PowerMac G5 2.0GHz harddrive - set all up again (latest OS X | adobe patches | etc). I bet you will find some extra seconds.
 
Power Mac G5 DC 2.0Ghz
5GB RAM
GF6600 256MB
Adobe CS

38.56 seconds (better than I assumed)

PowerBook G4 1.5Ghz
1.25GB RAM
GF FX Go5200 64MB
Adobe CS

2 minutes, 36 seconds (sad)
 
MBP 2.0ghz, 120GB 5400RPM drive. It was plugged in and running at max performance for all tests.

Started machine, installed CS2, rebooted.
1st. CS2 start, open image and test - 61 seconds
2nd. Close image, reopen and test - 61 seconds
3nd. Restart CS2 - 61 seconds
4rd. Restart MBP, CS2 - 61 seconds
5th. Install 2nd gig of RAM, restart, restart CS2 - 60 seconds
6th. Close Image, reopen, test - 60 seconds.
 
RichP said:
MBP 2.0ghz, 120GB 5400RPM drive. It was plugged in and running at max performance for all tests.

Started machine, installed CS2, rebooted.
1st. CS2 start, open image and test - 61 seconds
2nd. Close image, reopen and test - 61 seconds
3nd. Restart CS2 - 61 seconds
4rd. Restart MBP, CS2 - 61 seconds
5th. Install 2nd gig of RAM, restart, restart CS2 - 60 seconds
6th. Close Image, reopen, test - 60 seconds.
Click to expand...

Hey, you know 60 seconds... that's 2.5 times faster than the G4, and running under an emulator... I think that's pretty damned impressive.
 
bigfib said:
Hey, you know 60 seconds... that's 2.5 times faster than the G4, and running under an emulator... I think that's pretty damned impressive.
Click to expand...

I know, its VERY impressive! Hell, if it was as good as the G4 in emulation it would be impressive; think about how VPC runs on a mac! Nevermind the fac this little machine is outdoing my G5 tower.
 
Can I just ask a question to you guys who have Intel iMacs and are using Photoshop... How do respond to the review that Apple Insider did - here.

Among other things, they said:

"When running just two Rosetta programs in the background -- Photoshop and NetNewsWire -- the whole system slows down significantly. There are even times when the whole computer system will choke, and remain unresponsive for several seconds.

Switching from Safari to Photoshop via the Dock results in about 20 seconds of the dreaded "spinning beach ball" in my experiences. That's with a single 300x125 image loaded in the program. NetNewsWire is also horrifically slow for such a simple application. In fact, it takes about a minute to switch from TextEdit to NetNewsWire and reload my subscriptions.

If I had to compare the performance of this machine -- while running applications under Rosetta -- to a another Mac that I've owned, I'd say it's comparable to the single-processor 800Mhz Power Mac G4 it replaced on my desk -- and that machine hadn't been reformatted or seen maintenance in years. My 1.33GHz iBook G4 is noticeably snappier than the new iMac, and that's a real disappointment.

I cannot emphasize enough how much Rosetta slows the entire machine. With PowerPC apps running, the whole system is useless. I cannot imagine running any processor-intensive tasks inside Rosetta -- the experience would be nothing short maddening. In fact, I think you'd be hard pressed to get anything accomplished.
Click to expand...

Is all this true? Esp. the bit about switching applications and having a few Rosetta apps open etc.

Or is all this Rosetta-bashing simply because they had the stock 512Mb Ram in their review machine?

Chuck.
 
Or is all this Rosetta-bashing simply because they had the stock 512Mb Ram in their review machine?

Chuck.
Click to expand...

FFS, they should already know that rosseta needs a lot of RAM to cope with pro apps, i have no system slow down AT ALL and PS is still as fast/faster than my old 1.5 powerbook.

It's plain annoying when idits try to make the intel imac look rubbish simply because it hasnt got enough ram for photoshop.
 
I've made a short screen movie, The screen capture application is PPC and I open 8 images in photoshop (admittedly quite slowly under rosetta) I also have word open and open stuff in that. i then open safari, itunes and mail.app then switch between apps.

at the end i show you the activity monitor window so that you can see what is running - link to follow when uploaded

EDIT 1 - its considerably faster without the screen capture app running. i am now exporting hte movie to h.264 and still have all the apps open and have 0 slow down (from what i can tell)
 
Just to give you guys a comparison for core duo, I did the blur test on an acer 8204 notebook that runs at 2ghz (core duo obviously) with 2gb ram and a 5400rpm drive.
I got 43 seconds.
So expect that or most likely better once photoshop is in universal binaries.
btw, I found this, and yes. . . pc people are doing the test too, probably someone who saw this thread.
http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=926660&radial+blur
 
Chuck said:
Can I just ask a question to you guys who have Intel iMacs and are using Photoshop... How do respond to the review that Apple Insider did - here.

Among other things, they said:



Is all this true? Esp. the bit about switching applications and having a few Rosetta apps open etc.

Or is all this Rosetta-bashing simply because they had the stock 512Mb Ram in their review machine?

Chuck.
Click to expand...

Sounds like he has 512 MB to me. My 17 inch intellimac was exact as he describes until I upgraded the ram to 1.5 Gigs... Now everything flies just fine...
 
neib said:
Just to give you guys a comparison for core duo, I did the blur test on an acer 8204 notebook that runs at 2ghz (core duo obviously) with 2gb ram and a 5400rpm drive.
I got 43 seconds.
So expect that or most likely better once photoshop is in universal binaries.
btw, I found this, and yes. . . pc people are doing the test too, probably someone who saw this thread.
http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=926660&radial+blur
Click to expand...

and thats native.
 
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