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

2 min 14 sec

PowerBook 12" 1.5 GHz - 1.25 Gb Ram
OS 10.4.2
Photoshop CS2 (75% Ram assigned)

________________________________


1 min 58 sec

PowerMac G5 1.8 GHz (SP) - 1.5 Gb Ram
OS 10.3.9
Photoshop CS2 (75% Ram assigned)


Who wanna trade his DP 2.7 with my SP 1.8 ? :)
 
Yikes

10 min., 28 seconds
That was just plain cruel. But I'm seeking info on upgrading to a faster Mac. I guess I'm sold now.

PS 7.0
Apple powermac beige tower G3
768 total ram
195 ram allocated to PS
4 GB scratch disk
5 GB available on main hard drive

Thanks for the test!

Matt
 
eMac

eMac 1.25GHz G4 Combo w/ 512MB RAM and 40GB Maxtor HD (25GB free)
Photoshop CS (8)
Mac OS X 10.3.9 "Panther"

2:35
It actually surprised me that my eMac went so fast while doing that, I'll try it on my Dell Dimension later and see what the difference is.
 
I'm still very impressed with my Dual 3Ghz xeon box. I posted a couple months back when the thread started and when I got a score of 30.0 seconds I wondered how I'd stack up against everyone else but looks like its really held its own. I wonder how much of a difference hyperthreading makes. I should re-run the test with HT off as an experiement.
 
3min 55sec

CS2 Demo
G4/1Ghz (Sonnet upgraded Beige G3/266)
768Mb Ram
Radeon 9200
10.4.2
(scratch on 2nd drive)
(ram set at 100%)

tried it with faster cache speed (287mhz vs 250mhz), made no major difference (3secs faster)
 
3:36

17" PB
1 Ghz
1 Gb
CS 2

And yes - performing this test was slightly more fun than watching paint dry. Particularly with tha added bonus that the picture ended up looking like a nipple.

A
 
Okay, just ran this on my brother's extreme value PC. Yeah, I know it's a PC, but it's always fun to compare! :)

Anyway, here's the system:

AMD Sempron 2800+ @ 2.2GHz (Socket 754 and 256kB L2 cache)
512MB RAM @ 220MHz

Result?

1m 10s

Not too bad for a box that cost less than $300. :D

EDIT: Hmmm... After looking around in this thread it would seem as if AMD's K8 (Athlon64/Opteron/Sempron) performs quite a bit better than the G5. I wonder if this is due to the CPUs simply being faster, or if Adobe didn't care to optimize the program enough for the Mac? Photoshop has always been supposed to be super fast on Macs. :confused:
 
Did some further tests, in both OS9.2.2 and 10.4.2
settings are same as previous test

PS7.01 9.2.2 10.4.2
Blur 265s 253s
Size 40s 58s
Rotate 272s 292s

PSCS2 10.4.2
Blur 244s
Size 45s
Rotate 190s






:)
 
Dell Dimension 4700
2.8GHz Intel Pentium 4 w/HT Technology
512MB DDR2 SDRAM
40GB Serial ATA 7200 RPM HD
Windows XP Home
Photoshop CS

iTunes, AIM, 1 Firefox window running

1 Minute, 37 Seconds
 
Anyone prepared to test the 'new' PowerMac Dual-Core? :D

Thanks,
 
Maybe for spicing up the discussion a little bit... I tried this test on my Windows Laptop:

Fujitsu-Siemens Lifebook S6210 (from September 2004)
1,6GHz Pentium M (Centrino)
1GB RAM
80GB HD
Windows XP SP2
Photoshop CS

1 minute 47 seconds

Pretty good for a Laptop, especially compared to the PowerBooks...

Edit: Holy crap... it is even faster than a single processor PowerMac G5 with 1.8GHz! :eek: Considering that just the PowerMac costed as much as my whole Laptop and they are from the same time... Embarassing for the Mac...
 
dubbz said:
The Athlon XP is yesterdays tech.
Click to expand...

And the processor in the Mac Mini and Powerbooks aren't? :p

wwooden said:
I think that L3 cache really helps with stuff like this. You weren't that far off from the dual G5's.
Click to expand...

And how in the world are so many of the Dual 1.25 or 1.42 GHz G4 PowerMacs keeping up with the Dual G5s? :eek: :eek: :eek:

mcr said:
G4 DUAL 1,25 L3 2MB
RAM 1,5 GB
GforceTi 4600 128MB
HD 7200 rpm

Photoshop 7 in OS 9.2 (recently instaled and clean):
-with 54MB assigned
1.23 secs
-with 500MB assigned
1.22 secs (the same)

Photoshop 7 in OS X 10.3.9
1.22 secs



let me see it in jaguar...
Click to expand...
 
Abstract said:
And how in the world are so many of the Dual 1.25 or 1.42 GHz G4 PowerMacs keeping up with the Dual G5s? :eek: :eek: :eek:
Click to expand...
Because they're not as crap as you're led to believe and large processor caches help a lot if your FSB is lousy.

The last of the 1.42 powermacs with 2MB caches were (and still are) very good machines.
 
Yikes

15" TiBook 1Ghz, 1GB RAM, 80GB HD, power adapter/highest, some other applications open but idle

3:15

Ugh. Think I'm getting a new 17".

Edit: Just got a new 17" PB 1.67 with the new hi-rez screen :) new time with 512mb RAM is 2:03. Not a bad improvement. When my RAM upgrade comes tomorrow I'll do that.
 
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?

Mikael said:
Okay, just ran this on my brother's extreme value PC. Yeah, I know it's a PC, but it's always fun to compare! :)

Anyway, here's the system:

AMD Sempron 2800+ @ 2.2GHz (Socket 754 and 256kB L2 cache)
512MB RAM @ 220MHz

Result?

1m 10s

Not too bad for a box that cost less than $300. :D

EDIT: Hmmm... After looking around in this thread it would seem as if AMD's K8 (Athlon64/Opteron/Sempron) performs quite a bit better than the G5. I wonder if this is due to the CPUs simply being faster, or if Adobe didn't care to optimize the program enough for the Mac? Photoshop has always been supposed to be super fast on Macs. :confused:
Click to expand...
 
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