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

Yeah that's totally fair enough. But i guess thats where we'll have to disagree. I would consider my PC as stable as any. The overclocked in windows thing is a bit of a moot point.. Who buys a mac pro to run photoshop in windows? :confused:

However even if comparing non-overclocked to overclocked, my PC non overclocked still does that test in 26 seconds. Thats quite a price hike for 2 seconds. Furthermore, my intruige mainly lay at the comment that macs hold their value, and because PC's dont, they should be disregarded (That was my general feeling from the "Thought so.." part of the comment) which i'de like to think i've proved isn't the case.

Especially if you're a student on a tight budget planning to work only with Photoshop! Which i believe was also the point the first bloke made which started this :)

Like i say, not out for a Pc = 1 Mac = 0 thing as it certainly isn't the case. Infact i plan on getting a Macbook in the near future. Just hoping more people don't jump blindly into getting a 20" iMac or similar because they've been told Macs are always hands down better for editing photos. And moreso that the resale value always justifies the high initial outlay.

Nisei said:
Anyone spending thousands of dollars on a Mac Pro primarily using it for Photoshop is wasting money :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
 
Slightly faster than fastest on the Retouch Artists Site...

...although I went to decimal points, and they may have been rounded up:

Mac Pro 8-core 3.0 GHz (Jan 2008)
16 GB 800 MHz RAM
Default 320 GB SATA HD
Photoshop CS3
History States 1, Cache 4
One Internal SATA Scratch Drive

Time: 22.61 seconds

I'm installing a Raptor 150 as the system drive this weekend, so it should be interesting to see if that changes anything. I'll post the results.
 
After adding 4 gigs of RAM, (to bring my total to 6) the test ran in 27.17s

Still on the stock ATi card. Hopefully the 8800GT will make additional improvements, if it ever ships.
 
Mike Teezie said:
Hopefully the 8800GT will make additional improvements, if it ever ships.
Click to expand...

Agreed - I don't believe the 8800GT will help this test at all. It's for Graphics apps - I've seen an incredible boost in After Effects work, and I got a Cinebench openGL score of 6481. I understand it's great for playing games as well... ;)
 
eXan said:
It won't -_-
Click to expand...

C'mon guys, lie to me....it was $350!

Actually, I knew it wouldn't make much of a difference at all. I bought it just so it could help wherever it may. I'm glad I did, because after playing with the Aperture 2 trial, I really like it. I'm going to be working Aperture into my workflow a little here and there.
 
Just tried this again in Vista x64 (with a slower disk than before.)

22 seconds.
 
Interesting. With everyone bashing vista64 (or vista in general) for being a slow OS, it did really well. I think it shaved 2 seconds off your previous time which I assume was OSX.

rds said:
Just tried this again in Vista x64 (with a slower disk than before.)

22 seconds.
Click to expand...
 
openGL

eXan said:
Huh? :confused:
Click to expand...

I'm talking about the actual working experience in After Effects. Not the RAM preview times, but how easily it is to work in a high-demand 3D comp.

If I have, say, 40 large 3D layers in a 720p comp and I want to move the camera around in Custom view mode, or if i want to use position sliders to move the active camera around, or if i even just want to move one of the layers, the 8800GT so far has provided instant feedback and full quality rendering of all the layers as I work.

On my ol' G5, which had a 64MB Radeon 9600, this would have resulted in massive choking up and blue wait bars as it tried to give me an openGL preview, and when it finally gave the preview, it would be at 1/8th or 1/4th quality, which often would not provide me the visual feedback I needed.
 
smirkingboy said:
I'm talking about the actual working experience in After Effects. Not the RAM preview times, but how easily it is to work in a high-demand 3D comp.

If I have, say, 40 large 3D layers in a 720p comp and I want to move the camera around in Custom view mode, or if i want to use position sliders to move the active camera around, or if i even just want to move one of the layers, the 8800GT so far has provided instant feedback and full quality rendering of all the layers as I work.

On my ol' G5, which had a 64MB Radeon 9600, this would have resulted in massive choking up and blue wait bars as it tried to give me an openGL preview, and when it finally gave the preview, it would be at 1/8th or 1/4th quality, which often would not provide me the visual feedback I needed.
Click to expand...

So you are comparing a MP/8800 with G5/9600, or MP/2600 with MP/8800?
 
25 Seconds

Windows XP Professional 32bit (with /3GB switch in boot.ini)
Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 2.4Ghz
4 x 1GB 1066Mhz DDR2 RAM

I built this one myself and it screams along nicely, thanks.
 
VERY strange results. More RAM, less speed!

Ok, here are mine:

Early 2008 Mac Pro, 4 x 2.8 GHz Quad-core, 8800 GT.
1 history, 4 cache.

1st Run:

2GB Ram, No restart, photo on same HD as OS and Aps: 36 seconds

The remaining tests all were conducted straight after a shutdown and restart.

2nd Run:

2GB Ram, photo on same HD as OS and Aps: 28 seconds


3rd Run:

2GB Ram, photo on separate HD to OS and Aps: 28 seconds


4th Run:

6GB Ram (2x2GB, 2x1GB), photo on separate HD to OS and Aps: 29.3 seconds


5th Run:

6GB Ram, photo on same HD as OS and Ap: 28.9 seconds

I guess barefeats was right about mixing capacities of RAM modules, I might have to try and sell my factory modules and buy some 2GB modules from OWC instead.

Has anyone else experienced similar results?
 
Using Photoshop CS2:

Run 1 (right after rebooting) = 1 min 47 sec

Run 2 (no reboot. after a few minutes of Safari browsing) = 1 min 39 sec

Macbook 2.2 C2D 4GB Ram 320GB HD
 
I have recently tested the following machines using the Retouchartists speedtest.

1. Powermac G5 Dual 2.0Ghz, 2.5Gb RAM and ATI Radeon with 256 Mb
2. MacBook Pro 2.14 Intel Core 2 Duo with 2.0Gb RAM and standard 256 mb graphics.
3. 2008 MacPro 3.2 Ghz 8 Core with 10Gb RAM and Nvidea 8800GT 512Mb graphics.

Times were:
1. 1m 15.4s
2. 57.3 sec
3. 27.3 sec.

For the test I used CS2 on my Powermac as I dont have a licensed version on there. I used CS3 on the MBP and the MP.

Times for the 3.2 seem a little un impressive as I note that some 2.8s are reporting slightly faster times. Anyway its a lot faster than my old Dual 2.0 so I am happy.

I recorded the results and if you fancy watching the tests in action you should find them on YouTube - search for Speedtest or click the link below:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mv79hHroaoM

Enjoy ;)

The speed quoted above for the MBP should be 2.4 not 2.14.

Sorry...

(Also wrong on youtube - never mind)
 
macpants said:
Times for the 3.2 seem a little un impressive as I note that some 2.8s are reporting slightly faster times.
Click to expand...

It seems that very few people realize that 3.2 GHz upgrade is not worth it for the price over the 3.0 GHz, or even the standard 2.8

From BareFeats:

barefeats said:
The 3.2GHz "Harpertown" was from 7% to 11% faster than the 2.8HGz model. Comparing that to the 14% faster core frequencies and the 40% higher price (comparably equipped) of the 3.2GHz model, I can see why many of you are opting for the 2.8 model.
Click to expand...
 
ya, much better to invest in more RAM and faster drives or even a dedicated swap. 8cores at 2.8 vs 3.2 is not something you can ever feel and even if you can measure the difference, its really not big.
 
Just tried CS3 trial version vs my CS2 and it shaved 2 seconds off the time in this test. Thats not bad. 28.5 to 26.5. Now uninstalling it.
 
contoursvt said:
Just tried CS3 trial version vs my CS2 and it shaved 2 seconds off the time in this test. Thats not bad. 28.5 to 26.5. Now uninstalling it.
Click to expand...

I've noticed a general speed up with other aspects of CS3. Somethings have also slowed down, oddly enough. Seems to have a nicer user experience though, few more tweaks and tools. Worth the upgrade if you can get it cheap.
 
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