The benchmark generates a 56GB scratch file so the more ram you have availible the better. In theory it won't have to use scratch disks if you have enough Ram
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.
Is it any good for High end Photoshop use (commercial retouching)
- Thread starter pierre1610
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I have both a 48GPU/64GB Ultra and a 64GPU/128GB Ultra. I'll download and run the tests and post here.
@pierre1610 I just ran the Huge test on my 48GPU/64GB Ultra and it scored 17.25. FWIW, the tasks in that test don't seem to every really stress the processor cores. Only about 50% utilization, and often lower. Same with the speed test, hardly used most of the CPU cores. GPU was similar on both tests too, not using much of the available power. Speed test score was 4.4.
Can you post the results please.
The tests are indicitive of how Photoshop stresses the system. Unfortunately Photoshop is never able to utilise availible resources due to the way it is written. Although it is multicore enabled most tasks can't use more than 1 core. It does however love a lot of Ram.
How much Ram are you letting Photoshop use? It would be great if you could set it to use 90%
It sounds like your results are:
48GPU/64GB Ultra
Speed1 = 4.4
Huge = 17.25
64GPU/128GB Ultra
Speed1 = ?
Huge = ?
The "batch" test would be a useful one to run as well as it uses a lot of commonly used filters.
Last edited:
I can run the batch but since you have to use your own photo won't it vary widely by the input photo?
The Ultra 64/128 is at work and I'm sick today so I'll update with those results on Monday.
@pierre1610 Back at the office today and here's the new results:
64GPU/128GB Ultra
Speed1 = 4.37
Huge = 16.11
Thanks for doing that, the Ultra's seem to get a way better "Huge" score.
I'm quite surprissed by both your "huge" scores though as someone else with a 64GPU/64GB ultra got 30
What version of photoshop are you using?
Hmm, well they should run it a few times. I think there's some sort of bug as when I ran 10 iterations the first time 7 of the ten averaged 16.1, and the last three were all like 25. So I ran it again and it all of them averaged 16.11. I saw that on my other machine too.
It might be good to know if they followed the instructions correctly as well, and used the sudo purge function to clear the RAM and made sure they weren't running any other applications. The test was using about 58GB of RAM, so on a 64GB machine that would be stressing the memory if you had any other apps open. They also may not have set PS to use 90% of the RAM like I did.
In terms of versions, I am using version 23.2.2, the latest release.
@Adult80HD I'm not sure if they followed the instructions correctly or not.
When i was running tests i was doing 10 iterations.
Try this image for batch.
Edit: some of the filters have a size limit so scale the image down to 11500px wide on auto sampling method and save over the file
Thanks again
When i was running tests i was doing 10 iterations.
Try this image for batch.
Edit: some of the filters have a size limit so scale the image down to 11500px wide on auto sampling method and save over the file
Thanks again
Last edited:
Adult80HD - Please tell me about the Photoshop Mixer Brush? Is it awesome on the Ultra?
Truth is my 2016 27" iMac 32Gb ram 4Gb GPU, still does a good job at retouching but I move to my 3D PC for skin work with photoshop mixer brush (PC is £6k AMD 5950x, 64 ram with RTX 3090 GPU (most powerful GPU). Windows is just slow though so it doesnt matter much what tech you have, like the photoshop drop-down menus take 1 second to open, it only uses 2 of the 16 cpu's and my SSD is 6000mb/s but rarely gets over 1k. But the RTX 3090 GPU lets me use a huge mixer brush. my old iMac cant really keep up with the mixer brush.
Im eager to swap for the base Mac Studio Ultra with 2Tb SSD as its just for photoshop. Any advice would be greatly appreciated? Im just hoping everything is running well and I wont have lots of bugs.
Truth is my 2016 27" iMac 32Gb ram 4Gb GPU, still does a good job at retouching but I move to my 3D PC for skin work with photoshop mixer brush (PC is £6k AMD 5950x, 64 ram with RTX 3090 GPU (most powerful GPU). Windows is just slow though so it doesnt matter much what tech you have, like the photoshop drop-down menus take 1 second to open, it only uses 2 of the 16 cpu's and my SSD is 6000mb/s but rarely gets over 1k. But the RTX 3090 GPU lets me use a huge mixer brush. my old iMac cant really keep up with the mixer brush.
Im eager to swap for the base Mac Studio Ultra with 2Tb SSD as its just for photoshop. Any advice would be greatly appreciated? Im just hoping everything is running well and I wont have lots of bugs.
Hi, I’ve just been using Photoshop for about 3 days solid, editing, comping and retouching 16 bit 45 Mpx Nikon files, which because of them being 16 bit and all the layers were about 6-900 Mb in size, and the performance was awesome! No slow down, no lag: brushes, clone stamp, healing brush, zoom in/out, filters etc all working instantly. Now I know they’re not the most arduous tasks in the world, but I totally forgot that I was working in 16 bit as there usually is a slow down or choppiness in viewing the files on my old system (nMP & last intel MacMini). Current system: Ultra base with 4tb NVMe drive for files. I imagine you’d love the Mac Studio for PS work!
Hope that helps
This update actually should help performance on even older Intel Macs that had dGPUs especially iMacs. I will get to do some test next week at work on some 16-bit illustrations for vinyl cover, which has always been dog slow on an iMac 2017 to render real time.
I just opened a 10k pixel wide 16-bit .PSB illustration, dozens of layers and quite a few linked smart layers of gigantic raster resolutions.
My iMac 2017 (7700k, RX580, 64GB RAM) went from really choppy to within usable state. Toggling layer visibility now takes 1 second at most where before it was sometimes 5 times that. Zooming in and out is almost instant (if I go into preferences to toggle GPU compositing off, zooming is slower and will introduce 1 second beachball at times).
Can imagine the M1 Macs benefiting even more due to GPU core counts. FYI My RX580 never exceeded 25% GPU processing used according to iStat Menus.
I have similar experience with Leica files from cameras that range from 47 to 60mp, with retouching, resizing, sharpening working very fast, including Topaz sharpen that uses AI and was sloooow on a nMP. But I'm on a Studio Max base, not Ultra, with 64G memory. I don't do video, and so far the Studio Max is all I need. It is also noticeably faster than a Mini M1/16G I have in a different location so I have another Studio Max coming in June.Hi, I’ve just been using Photoshop for about 3 days solid, editing, comping and retouching 16 bit 45 Mpx Nikon files, which because of them being 16 bit and all the layers were about 6-900 Mb in size, and the performance was awesome! No slow down, no lag: brushes, clone stamp, healing brush, zoom in/out, filters etc all working instantly. Now I know they’re not the most arduous tasks in the world, but I totally forgot that I was working in 16 bit as there usually is a slow down or choppiness in viewing the files on my old system (nMP & last intel MacMini). Current system: Ultra base with 4tb NVMe drive for files. I imagine you’d love the Mac Studio for PS work!
Hope that helps
Commercial photographer/retoucher here.
I'd respectfully disagree that retouching doesn't use much of the gpu. I monitor my GPU usage with the iStat menus app and my eGPU gets maxed out on many occasions during my workflow, starting with RAW editing, all the way to functions like liquify, healing tool, brushes and exports. I think the Mac Studio would be an excellent machine for retouching, but I would likely be able to get by with one of the rumored M2 Mac Minis that may be announced in the next six months.
Incidentally, I currently have 40GB of RAM but would likely move down to 32GB due to the way Apple silicon relies on its SSD instead of utilizing RAM.
I think it will hugely depend on your workflow, i know photoshop is using GPU more and more, the older tools and methods certainly haven't made a transition yet.
Can anyone with a Mac Studio let me know if you can run scripts in photoshop that have a UI to them. As i understand it Apple silicon dropped support for CEP panels but can it still run old scripts that have a scriptUI interface.
This could be a deal breaker for me and the £7000 machine
Thanks
Can't wait for Lloyd Chambers to take delivery of one and do his review/tests which focus on Photoshop/Lightroom. On a sidenote, he's had a terrible experience with the Studio Display.
Short Answer: Yes
Long Answer: Yes, its good enough for high end photoshop retouching
Long Answer: Yes, its good enough for high end photoshop retouching
can anyone answer the photoshop script question? Can you open a jsx script that has an interface? This will tell us if it supports scriptUI or not on apple silicon.
