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.
'Real World' Photoshop Benchmark - Speed Test
- Thread starter BakedBeans
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
slabbius said:
It's almost enough reason for me to get the Mac Pro and run bootcamp for serious work, and OSX for everything else, until CS3 and Studio 9 are UB....
slabbius said:
Isn't the best part of having a Mac for OSX? No Virus' Unix stability, who cares about running it in windows. Get my opteron if you want to do that
Fyi reset settings to a more realistic workflow. Flock(firefox with java scripts for blogging and flickr) running with this window and 2 other tabs open and 120 images in cache on the browser.
90% ram = 1582MB
Cache 6
History 10
2:05
/cheers from the AMD camp
42m 48s - Laptop: Athlon 64 3400 2.2GHz, 1GB PC2700, 100GB 4200RPM, 64MB GeForce Go 440, Photoshop CS2
9m 17s - Desktop: Athlon XP 2600 2.13GHz, 768MB PC2100, 40GB 7200RPM, 256MB Radeon x700Pro, Photoshop CS2
9m 38s - Mac Mini: G4 1.42GHz, 1GB PC2700, 80GB 4200RPM, 32MB Radeon 9200, Photoshop CS2
hmmm... something else is wrong with my laptop apparently. I always thought that photoshopping was agonizingly slow but just assumed it was my imagination. Regret buying it over the PB12 more every day. Five batteries in 18 months. Defective Cardbus slots, flaky USB, lots of blue screens and lockups since last HP repair. Hmm I wonder if tying it to my bumper would make me feel better....
9m 17s - Desktop: Athlon XP 2600 2.13GHz, 768MB PC2100, 40GB 7200RPM, 256MB Radeon x700Pro, Photoshop CS2
9m 38s - Mac Mini: G4 1.42GHz, 1GB PC2700, 80GB 4200RPM, 32MB Radeon 9200, Photoshop CS2
hmmm... something else is wrong with my laptop apparently. I always thought that photoshopping was agonizingly slow but just assumed it was my imagination. Regret buying it over the PB12 more every day. Five batteries in 18 months. Defective Cardbus slots, flaky USB, lots of blue screens and lockups since last HP repair. Hmm I wonder if tying it to my bumper would make me feel better....
Macbook
WHITE MACBOOK- 2GHZ - 2GB RAM (1BG MATCHED PAIR)
CS2
Latest Tiger updates as of today's date (August 9, 06)
6 MINS 23 SEC
Other apps running:
Firefox, with 4 tabs open.
WHITE MACBOOK- 2GHZ - 2GB RAM (1BG MATCHED PAIR)
CS2
Latest Tiger updates as of today's date (August 9, 06)
6 MINS 23 SEC
Other apps running:
Firefox, with 4 tabs open.
Dual 2 GHz g5
1m 57s
(PowerMac G5 Dual Core 2.0 Ghz | 2.5 GB RAM | 256MB GeForce 6600 | 300GB WD SATA)
1m 57s
(PowerMac G5 Dual Core 2.0 Ghz | 2.5 GB RAM | 256MB GeForce 6600 | 300GB WD SATA)
NJuul said:
Should a G4/1.33 really take twice as long as a Core Duo/1.83 with Rosetta?Dafke said:
I had been lead to think that they should be equal, or maybe even that the G4 would be faster.
2:20 on PowerMac G4 Dual 1.25 with 1.75 Gigs of Ram
Ran two tests on my PowerMac G4 Dual 1.25 with 1.75 Gigs of Ram. Seperate 9.75 Gig scratch disk dedicated to photoshop. both tests performed in CS2.
First:
Fresh system reboot, just photoshop running.
100 history states and 70% memory dedicated to photoshop.
4m 26s
Second:
Fresh system reboot, jsut photoshop running.
1 history state and 100% memory dedicated to photoshop.
2m 20s
Seems to be pretty decent times considering the machine is almost 3 years old. Anyone else run the test on a G4 dual 1.25?
Ran two tests on my PowerMac G4 Dual 1.25 with 1.75 Gigs of Ram. Seperate 9.75 Gig scratch disk dedicated to photoshop. both tests performed in CS2.
First:
Fresh system reboot, just photoshop running.
100 history states and 70% memory dedicated to photoshop.
4m 26s
Second:
Fresh system reboot, jsut photoshop running.
1 history state and 100% memory dedicated to photoshop.
2m 20s
Seems to be pretty decent times considering the machine is almost 3 years old. Anyone else run the test on a G4 dual 1.25?
1st Gen G5 1.8 Single
I preformed this test 3 times and got different results...
> G5 1.8 Single,
> 2.5gb RAM,
> ATI X800,
> 320 Segate 16MB cache HD/144gb Free
1st,.. had iChat and safari running....
5:26
2nd,.. after a restart (and screensaver kicking in midway)...
6:08
3rd,.. complete overhaul... stopped screen saver and no apps running and it was considerably faster than the other 2 times but on the 2nd last step, Gaussian Blur, took 2:40 mins to do... final time
6:03
4th,.. without a restart, changed the processor to 100% CS2, and changed Cache to 4 (down from 6).
5.27
I don't understand the mixed results but what I do understand is that I need a new machine. This 3 y/o POS is showing its age against some of the quads and duals. Yet I'll wait for blue ray and CS3.
I preformed this test 3 times and got different results...
> G5 1.8 Single,
> 2.5gb RAM,
> ATI X800,
> 320 Segate 16MB cache HD/144gb Free
1st,.. had iChat and safari running....
5:26
2nd,.. after a restart (and screensaver kicking in midway)...
6:08
3rd,.. complete overhaul... stopped screen saver and no apps running and it was considerably faster than the other 2 times but on the 2nd last step, Gaussian Blur, took 2:40 mins to do... final time
6:03
4th,.. without a restart, changed the processor to 100% CS2, and changed Cache to 4 (down from 6).
5.27
I don't understand the mixed results but what I do understand is that I need a new machine. This 3 y/o POS is showing its age against some of the quads and duals. Yet I'll wait for blue ray and CS3.
for real?
I find it hard to believe, is that for real? your time is over 200% faster than the 1.8ghz iMac posted above.???
Carson said:
I find it hard to believe, is that for real? your time is over 200% faster than the 1.8ghz iMac posted above.???
1:50
PowerMac G5 dual 2.7GHZ, 4.5GB RAM
SATA 250GB drive
CS2
99 history states
I was also screwing around in other apps (Entourage, Safari, timer program) and running 2 huge Finder copies between attached USB2 and Firewire drives....in other words, typical everyday usage for me while I'm doing Photoshop. Wow...I sure hope Rosetta is slowing those Xeons waaaaaay down because I'd expect a machine so much newer than mine to stomp the crap out of mine.....I mean like 20-30 seconds at most. Can't wait to see if that's the case with the Universal Binary of Photoshop.... c'mon Adobe, you can do it!
-------------
Heh, ran it again with 1 history state (so the scratch disk wouldn't get used and indeed it ran at 100% efficiency this time, meaning it wasn't having to rely on the hard disk), still with Safari, Entourage, the timer and the 2 big Finder copies going in the background....this time 1:09
PowerMac G5 dual 2.7GHZ, 4.5GB RAM
SATA 250GB drive
CS2
99 history states
I was also screwing around in other apps (Entourage, Safari, timer program) and running 2 huge Finder copies between attached USB2 and Firewire drives....in other words, typical everyday usage for me while I'm doing Photoshop. Wow...I sure hope Rosetta is slowing those Xeons waaaaaay down because I'd expect a machine so much newer than mine to stomp the crap out of mine.....I mean like 20-30 seconds at most. Can't wait to see if that's the case with the Universal Binary of Photoshop.... c'mon Adobe, you can do it!
-------------
Heh, ran it again with 1 history state (so the scratch disk wouldn't get used and indeed it ran at 100% efficiency this time, meaning it wasn't having to rely on the hard disk), still with Safari, Entourage, the timer and the 2 big Finder copies going in the background....this time 1:09
Sean Dempsey said:
Well I'm glad someone noticed. Although I hate going back to Windows and giving up 25% of my precious hard drive space, it really pays of if someone makes a living with PS or AE. For me though Half Life 2, Doom 3 and Chaos Theory are good enough reasons.
My testresults:
G5 Quad 2,5 GB RAM (no scratch disk)
1:30 optimized
2:14 unoptimized
My colleagues testresults:
AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 4400+ 2.21Ghz with 4GB RAM (fast scratch disk)
1:38 optimized
G5 Quad 2,5 GB RAM (no scratch disk)
1:30 optimized
2:14 unoptimized
My colleagues testresults:
AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 4400+ 2.21Ghz with 4GB RAM (fast scratch disk)
1:38 optimized
Could not install Boot Camp for the test
(Mac Pro, 1GB)
Installed Bootcamp, installed Windows XP.
Boots into 640x480 in 4 bit mode only.
I tried to install drivers disk and got this error:
"This software does not support your hardware"
Diplay preferences does not recognize the display adaptor.
Also the networt is not seen.
I'll try again when they release an updated drivers disk.
(Mac Pro, 1GB)
Installed Bootcamp, installed Windows XP.
Boots into 640x480 in 4 bit mode only.
I tried to install drivers disk and got this error:
"This software does not support your hardware"
Diplay preferences does not recognize the display adaptor.
Also the networt is not seen.
I'll try again when they release an updated drivers disk.
Ouch!
I have a grand time of 13m26secs.
My mac is a PPC G4 PB 15" 1.67Ghz 512mb ram.
Damn that's slow - I feel like sitting in the back of the room in the corner and hugging my pbook and reassuring her that it's OK and that she will get the latest RAM when daddy can afford it. And to not to let the bigger kids bully her...
I have a grand time of 13m26secs.
My mac is a PPC G4 PB 15" 1.67Ghz 512mb ram.
Damn that's slow - I feel like sitting in the back of the room in the corner and hugging my pbook and reassuring her that it's OK and that she will get the latest RAM when daddy can afford it. And to not to let the bigger kids bully her...
2m:15s
PowerMac G5 x2 2GHz, 4gRAM (2gRAM available to PS CS2), ATI Radeon 9800 Pro (256 mRAM) with lotsa GB on primary scratch disk (second internal HD).
PowerMac G5 x2 2GHz, 4gRAM (2gRAM available to PS CS2), ATI Radeon 9800 Pro (256 mRAM) with lotsa GB on primary scratch disk (second internal HD).
I wish this test was a bit more consistent, people with very similar systems have quite a variety of time differences. Namely, the MacPro guys, who have identical, new systems that should be performing very closely to each other.
That being said, this test really gives the system a good workout, and relates now important data speed (scratch disks, HD, memory) is in real workflows.
That being said, this test really gives the system a good workout, and relates now important data speed (scratch disks, HD, memory) is in real workflows.
macam said:
I think the main thing about manipulating large images in photoshop is you need to have a huge amount of RAM to get the faster speeds we've seen, its probably nearly as important as processor speed. My old 1Ghz iMac with just 512Mb of RAM got just over 10m12secs. If you're computer can get away without having to use the scratch disk, you're machine will be loads quicker