Sidebar Sidebar
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

Interesting test:

3 min 40 sec.

PowerMac G4 SlowSilver Dual 1 GHz 1.5 GB ram
Leopard
CS3

The Mac Pro 8-core will be here Monday. Can't wait to try it then and compare for myself.
 
cliffrouse11bas said:
28.6 seconds first run
25.3 seconds second run
Fresh Reboot
28.9 seconds first run
24.7 second run
24.0 third run

Mac Pro Dual 2.8ghz Quad with 2GB RAM and a 500GB Seagate 7200.11 Hard Drive.
Click to expand...

Hey, was the 500GB Seagate 7200.11 what shipped with the Mac Pro when you upgraded to the 500GB option? - Thanks!

Nisei said:
PC ($1250)
CS3
Core2 Quad Q6600 3GHz
4GB PC6400 Ram
2x 320GB 7200rpm Samsung Spinpoint T
GeForce 8800 GTX

24.5 seconds

Anyone spending thousands of dollars on a Mac Pro primarily using it for Photoshop is wasting money :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Wasting money? Not actually. If you keep your Mac for ~3 years you can usually recoup around half of the investment on eBay, so subtract that right off the bat. What's yours worth after 3 years? Thought so.

Then let's discuss all the other niceties that come with Apple hardware like firewire etc., supremely quiet operation, and rock solid "cast in one piece" construction; not to mention the way everything fits together and integrates with OS X and then the price difference tips heavily to the Mac side.

If you are a diehard M$ fanboy or just like tinkering around and/or building your own computers then Macs (not to mention these forums) are probably not for you.
 
MBP 2.4GHz bone stock (2g ram), standard 160gb 5400rpm drive
48 seconds

Dual G5 2.3 GHz, 4.5gb RAM, Maxtor 6L250S0 (250gig SATA) CS2
51 Seconds

Dual G4 1.25 GHz, 1.75gb RAM
2min 12 seconds

Dual 2.8 Mac Pro coming this week, can't wait to test that .
 
Retouch Artist Site Down

The retouch artist site is down for the moment (hopefully not indefinitely).

Can anyone point me to a mirror or explain the test so I can try it with my aging powerbook G4 and my girlfriends Core Duo (no 2) MacBook.

Thanks
-Landon
 
How are most of you measuring the time? Are you measuring with the built in timing function or using a stop watch? I'm only asking because I'm finding it odd that my quad 2.4Ghz running Vista is in the same range for speed as the older quad 3Ghz or the newer quad 2.8Ghz boxes (28.5 seconds).

I should mention that when I tried the built in timing function, I found it to be off (usually displayed a higher value than it should). I tested with a stopwatch and it was off by a couple seconds.

Just mentioning it because maybe the Mac version of photoshop might have issues with the timing as well.
 
speed test

lacohido said:
The retouch artist site is down for the moment (hopefully not indefinitely).

Can anyone point me to a mirror or explain the test so I can try it with my aging powerbook G4 and my girlfriends Core Duo (no 2) MacBook.

Thanks
-Landon
Click to expand...

Hi Landon,
I had downloaded the speed test and tested it on my MacPro. I have uploaded it to my website if you would like to download it the link is http://www.alexleuschner.com/speed_test.zip

All the best,
Alex
 
WOW!

:24 seconds!
Mac Pro 2.8GHz 8-core
10GB ram

This time last week I was on a Dual 1GHz G4 that took 3:40!

WOW, wow, WOW
 
Try changing the size of the test file.

I increased the size of the sample file to 300MB. When I ran the Retouch Artists benchmark on an 8-core 2.8GHz Mac Pro with 16GB of RAM, it took 24 minutes instead of 24 seconds. When I checked Activity Monitor, Photoshop CS3 had not only gobbled up 13GB of RAM but the scratch disk was taking major hits.
 
It's not a Mac, but just for some comparison.

Q6600 @ 3.4ghz
4GB 1066mhz RAM
250GB Western Digital 7200rpm 16mb cache HD
Asus P5K-E Motherboard
Photoshop CS3
Vista 64 Ultimate

20 seconds.

Edit: Sorry, just ran after reboot as i had this window + some other randoms. 18 seconds*
 
Nice time on that Q6600! I got 28.5 on my Q at stock clock, but its nice to see it scale so well. Is it a G0 stepping or the older B3?
 
contoursvt said:
Nice time on that Q6600! I got 28.5 on my Q at stock clock, but its nice to see it scale so well. Is it a G0 stepping or the older B3?
Click to expand...

G0 stepping one :) I could run it at 3.6 but im not sure what difference it would make, 3.4 is a nice balance of performance and temperature. People run some at 4ghz though!

Even if yours is a B3, im betting you could easily get it to at least 3ghz on the stock cooler still well within reccommend temps.
 
Mine is a G0 as well but my RAM is run of the mill Kingston Valueram DDR2 667 but I actually run it at 533 but tighten the timing a little. I find it actually is a tad faster this way. I dont overclock really because 99.99% of the time, the computer is faster than I even need :)

adrianr said:
G0 stepping one :) I could run it at 3.6 but im not sure what difference it would make, 3.4 is a nice balance of performance and temperature. People run some at 4ghz though!

Even if yours is a B3, im betting you could easily get it to at least 3ghz on the stock cooler still well within reccommend temps.
Click to expand...
 
contoursvt said:
Mine is a G0 as well but my RAM is run of the mill Kingston Valueram DDR2 667 but I actually run it at 533 but tighten the timing a little. I find it actually is a tad faster this way. I dont overclock really because 99.99% of the time, the computer is faster than I even need :)
Click to expand...

Indeed :) Pairing Value 667 with that Q6600 though?! Travesty! :p

I'm just interested in my overclocking/tweaking bits as much as using it really. I certainly dont need the performance this thing puts out. It's lovely when editing 400mb Tiff files, but i could do that quite easily on my old Athlon 5000 with 4gb of 667.

Do you own a mac aswell?

Sorry to derail your thread folks! Carry on!
 
OS10.5.2 update makes my photoshop 10s faster

0:39 seconds. Prior to 10.5.2 update

0:29 seconds. After 10.5.2 update

Mac Pro 2.8GHz 8-core
2GB ram, 320HD (stock)
 
hardchemist said:
Wasting money? Not actually. If you keep your Mac for ~3 years you can usually recoup around half of the investment on eBay, so subtract that right off the bat. What's yours worth after 3 years? Thought so.
Click to expand...

Please don't take this as a PC fanboy (I certainly am not) just starting another fuss. But this comment had me intruiged (genuinely!!) and i thought for the 5 minutes of my time it would take me to come up with a little formula, i would be slightly more content for it. As hopefully others would be.

So i worked it out, based on a) Your comment, b) My time in the speedtest, and c) The time rds posted for his 8 core Mac (As it seems to be a general figure for them without fancy raid0 scratchdisks etc)

My PC cost £600 for the base unit. I specced up a Mac Pro 2.8 dual quad with an 8800GT and 4GB of ram (as i know Mac Ram prices are ludicrous, so it would be a closer figure to upgrading yourself than putting 10GB in from the mac store)

PC @ £600 does it in 18 seconds
Mac Pro @ £2199 does it in 24 seconds

PC is currently 25% faster than the Mac (IN THIS TEST - Obviously not in everything!)

3 years on..

Say Pc is now worth nothing. It may be worth £100 but theres no point arguing the toss. As PC depreciation is dependant on hardware release, which could be loads or very little.
Mac is worth approx half. £1100

So in 3 years, you buy another £600 PC, which is obviously going to trounce the £1100 Mac, as it's gonna be using 3 years newer tech.

Or, you put the £1100 back into your next £2199 Mac Pro.

Which if we're going off current results (Only being logical using current data), a £600 Pc in 3 years time will be 25% quicker than a Mac Pro in 3 years time (It may not, but as i say, being logical using current results)

Total PC money spent over 6 years = £1200
Total Mac money spent over 6 years = £3299

I say over 6 years because i assume you will get 3 years of use out of both.

Now we can say that with a fresh install, the Mac Pro will still do 24 seconds in 3 years. Which would have me ask, why on earth would you spend that kind of money on a second hand Mac?!



I would like to see a similar test involving photoshop actions that are multithreaded and can use ALL the cpu processing power. It's obvious these 8 core Macs aren't being fully utilized.

Feel free to ignore the above if you use video editing programs that use all your CPU. I'm just a photography student so needed the best performance for the cost, and certainly couldn't afford a Mac Pro. Likewise if you see any flaw in my logic do let me know.. It's half one and im a bit sleepy. Like i say, i was genuinely intruiged with your comment so i just wanted to see if the figures stacked up.
 
It would be interesting to see how the new Mac Pro's do at the speed test in Windows.
 
To be fair, its not a stock clock PC. Its an overclock right? I think you've got your Q6600 at 3.4Ghz or something. My Q6600 at stock 2.4 speed gets 28.5 which would be a little slower than the 8 core Mac which scored 24 I believe.

adrianr said:
...PC is currently 25% faster than the Mac (IN THIS TEST - Obviously not in everything!)...
Click to expand...
 
contoursvt said:
To be fair, its not a stock clock PC. Its an overclock right? I think you've got your Q6600 at 3.4Ghz or something. My Q6600 at stock 2.4 speed gets 28.5 which would be a little slower than the 8 core Mac which scored 24 I believe.
Click to expand...

Yeah it's overclocked. But as you can't overclock Macs and the overclock i applied to my PC was free, i don't see why it can't be included?
 
Well its 'free' but 99.99% of corporate machines, servers, workstations do not allow for or condone overclocking for stability and reliabiility reasons so I dont think its fair to compare an overclocked machine to one thats within spec.

...side note, the Mac Pro looks to be overclockable at least under windows
http://forum.hardmac.com/index.php?showtopic=1639&pid=4358&st=0&#entry4358

adrianr said:
Yeah it's overclocked. But as you can't overclock Macs and the overclock i applied to my PC was free, i don't see why it can't be included?
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