I'm a graphic designer...and am anxiously waiting for my Mac Pro to arrive...i got everything stock except for a 2gb RAM upgrade. I realize I need to run Adobe CS2 in Rosetta until they come out with a UB version. I was wondering if it really is slower than G5's like I've heard? or is it about the same? I am coming from a Dimension 8400 PC and a quicksilver G4. Will I notice an improvement even with Rosetta? Any ideas on when CS3 will be out, and for that matter, Studio 9?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
CS2 Slow on Mac Pro?
- Thread starter ejewels52
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
From what i remember, even though its under rosetta, its still super fast. I think even on par with a dual or quad g5.
can someone verify?
can someone verify?
yeah you're correct it was neck-n-neck with the quad G5
boy when the universal comes out it will finish quicker than a teenage boy buried under a stack of Hustlers
Linky
http://www.barefeats.com/quad06.html
boy when the universal comes out it will finish quicker than a teenage boy buried under a stack of Hustlers
Linky
http://www.barefeats.com/quad06.html
lol...thanks for the responses...i was reading that a mac book pro was slower than its predeccesor...but i guess its different with the new mac pros...well thats good news...i'll still keep up with a new power mac g5, but when Cs3 comes out...its all over 
swingline said:
I don't know. I have a mac pro with 3 gigs of ram at work and when you have a lot of layers, it's a bit slower than my powerbook g4. Definitely usable, but not even close to as fast as a dual/quad G5. All those photoshop tests seems to be filter tests on a flattened image. Most of the people who run those tests probably don't spend time working with layered files that run a few hundred megs or more when opened. Illustrator, on the other hand, is much more usable on a day to day basis under rosetta.
I havea 1gb Mac Pro and CS2 seems to run really fast. No lags or anything even while listening to iTunes or browsing the net.
Photoshop is ab 20% faster on my new MP 3,0Ghz/3Gb RAM than my old G5 dual 2,0/4Gb RAM. Of course I am going to add 2-4Gb RAM in short and I think it will be even better. And there is an other important matter: I can run many tasks in the same time without to make lower PS performance.
ejewels52 said:
My Pro is faster (albeit not much) than my Dual G5 2.5, so I am sure its going to be an order of magnitude faster than on your G4.. get the Mac Pro now, and when CS3 is out, you'll get yet another speed bump..
ejewels52 said:
I'm A graphic Designer coming from a G4 933 quicksilver using CS2 too. Got me a MP 3ghz + 4gb ram - it's a hellavalot faster - you won't regret it dude!
Did that retouch artist photoshop test - on the G4 I was getting 5:15 mins and on the MP i get 1:18mins - wey hey! A friend on a G5 2ghz dual got about 2:30mins - so it's well fast even under rosetta.
Do you know how come MP is able to run PS so fast?
It is amzaing to hear MP can run PS CS2 (and the rest of the CS suites) as fas as the the top of the line G5 Quad, even though Rosetta is running in the back.
So, the main reason MP is able to pull this off is the power of Xenon chips? Or, is there any other MP component contributing to this high performance in a significant way?
I believe Core 2 Duo notebook chip does not come close to dual Xenon chips in terms of performance.
It is amzaing to hear MP can run PS CS2 (and the rest of the CS suites) as fas as the the top of the line G5 Quad, even though Rosetta is running in the back.
So, the main reason MP is able to pull this off is the power of Xenon chips? Or, is there any other MP component contributing to this high performance in a significant way?
I believe Core 2 Duo notebook chip does not come close to dual Xenon chips in terms of performance.
A variety of responses here..
..I think that you need ALOT of RAM for Rosetta to run well, especially with large file sizes that result from layers in pshop. Previous poster was right, the benchmarks dont fully account for this. That being said, for now, you can either upgrade your RAM from a 3rd party, OR, run pshop in windows for the time being if you find it too slow. Its all relative to the work you are doing in particular, and what you accept as fast. I dont think you will regret the decision you made though, these machines have some serious damn power to them.
???
G5 with core duo doesnt exist in any way, shape, or form. Do you mean you have a MacPro (it has 2 drive doors, not one)
..I think that you need ALOT of RAM for Rosetta to run well, especially with large file sizes that result from layers in pshop. Previous poster was right, the benchmarks dont fully account for this. That being said, for now, you can either upgrade your RAM from a 3rd party, OR, run pshop in windows for the time being if you find it too slow. Its all relative to the work you are doing in particular, and what you accept as fast. I dont think you will regret the decision you made though, these machines have some serious damn power to them.
onawitch said:I have a G5 with intel core duo, 2 gigs ram, and Illustrator sucks on it. (Unfortunately, the last Illustrator I used was version 8 on an old G4 running OS 9. So, I can't compare this to any direct predecessors.) It runs sooooo slow it hurts. And using the 3D filters makes it really painful.
It plods. And crashes.
I can't get any more ram for this model, so I guess I'll have to wait till the upgrade comes out.
???
G5 with core duo doesnt exist in any way, shape, or form. Do you mean you have a MacPro (it has 2 drive doors, not one)
Abulia said:
Must have came from the same store as this guys Mac Pro G5 Xeon
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/232331/
YS2003 said:
Your belief is incorrect.
A Core 2 Duo processor and a Xeon Processor have the same exact core.
What is different is that the Xeon Processor has a different packaging that supports talking with another Xeon processor.
But if you take the exact same clock speed core 2 duo and the exact same clock speed Xeon they'll run the same speed.
CPU Cache being equal that is.
My experience is quite different than that of others...
I had a Dual 2.0GHz G5 w/3GB RAM that I sold to get my current 2.66 Mac Pro w/ 2GB RAM.
My old G5 was much snapier then my current Mac Pro. I actuall uninstalled CS2 from my Mac Pro and installed a copy under Windows XP because I couldn't handle it.
I'm not sure if it comes from only having 2GB ram or what... It seems like Rosetta translates portions of an executable at a time. After I do something once the second time is much faster. But it is waiting for the first time I do it that kills me.
I am waiting for CS3 before I use Photoshop on my Mac Pro again!
I had a Dual 2.0GHz G5 w/3GB RAM that I sold to get my current 2.66 Mac Pro w/ 2GB RAM.
My old G5 was much snapier then my current Mac Pro. I actuall uninstalled CS2 from my Mac Pro and installed a copy under Windows XP because I couldn't handle it.
I'm not sure if it comes from only having 2GB ram or what... It seems like Rosetta translates portions of an executable at a time. After I do something once the second time is much faster. But it is waiting for the first time I do it that kills me.
I am waiting for CS3 before I use Photoshop on my Mac Pro again!
Trekkie said:
Close, but there are a few other differences. The Xeon's bus speed is faster, for example. Doesn't really change your point that they'll be fairly similar in speed though.
So, if that is the case, the upcoming Merom MBP should handle CS2 (PS especially) as good as G5 Quad (or G4 PB for that matter).Trekkie said:
I am hoping that is the case.
I don't know about the macpro but if I compare CS2 on my macbook vs G5 I can say when converting 10,2Mpixel RAW files into tiff... the G5 is 3x faster...
other use is similar or slower on the macbook... really if I need to work its G5 time...
other use is similar or slower on the macbook... really if I need to work its G5 time...
YS2003 said:
Errrrr....no. The Mac Pros are all QUAD core machines, the MBP will only be dual-core and will top out at a lower clock than the standard Mac Pro.
ammon said:
I think the difference is most people probably open up photoshop, run a few filters on a flattened image. Of course it is fast. Most of my work consists of having 100-200 layers and that's when you start seeing some performance hits. It's very usable nonetheless.