'Real World' Photoshop Benchmark - Speed Test

BakedBeans · May 15, 2006

Azurael said:
A real world test would invole making modifications to the image which a real photographer might make

Like the shadow highlight tool? like the levels adjustment? like colour space changes? like enlargements to print?

In the "real world" pro's often work with huge images. to do anything lighter is an insult to pros that actually want to test how their machine performs under work like conditions.

I can name exactly what a photographer would use every single part of that test but you seem to have a bee in your bonnet thinking you know better than half of the industry so there is no point.

Azurael · May 16, 2006

BakedBeans said:
lol, your point about not enlarging photos 300% is crazy.

Very very funny and makes your "argument" even more weak.

People do print photos more than 6x8 you know. That part of the action was recommended by a fine art photographer and is often used when printing large images.

this test is not misleading.

No, I never said you wouldn't do that, only that the sequence of actions you have chosen is ridiculous. Of course it's necesary to enlarge images, but if it's the first thing you do, I'm worried. I'll tell you what, you go through your workflow one item at a time and justify it. Why would I want to change colour formats three times? Actually, you clearly don't actually read other peoples arguments before spewing this interminable garbage, and as such, I can no longer be bothered to argue with you. Have a nice day.

Blue Velvet · May 16, 2006

Azurael said:
Have a nice day.

And with that said, regardless of the merits of each other's arguments, it was BakedBeans who took the time to put this together where others — including myself — failed, and as such it is a benchmark that others are finding interesting and have already started using for comparative purposes. To quibble about the methodology is closing the stable door after the horse has bolted.

4 minutes, 7 seconds with many many apps running.

OK, trying again with only Finder, Dashboard, Suitcase, Safari and Photoshop running... 3 minutes, 33 seconds

That could be a problem, determining what other processes are running on people's machines at the time because it seems to affect the results on my Mac.

G4 Dual 1.42, 2gb RAM, OS10.4.5, 40gb WD 7200 dedicated scratch disk

BakedBeans · May 16, 2006

Azurael said:
No, I never said you wouldn't do that, only that the sequence of actions you have chosen is ridiculous. Of course it's necesary to enlarge images, but if it's the first thing you do, I'm worried. I'll tell you what, you go through your workflow one item at a time and justify it. Why would I want to change colour formats three times? Actually, you clearly don't actually read other peoples arguments before spewing this interminable garbage, and as such, I can no longer be bothered to argue with you. Have a nice day.

This isnt a workflow action. It is a speed test action.

This action needs to recognize the benefits of a scratch disk. It does that. It needs to show the benefits of large amounts of ram. It does that too. It also shows the benefit of a multi processor - or did want it all single processor so that your powerbook would score higher?

8 forums - 100s of photographers, 100s of photoshop pros

1 complaint.

BakedBeans · May 16, 2006

Blue Velvet said:
And with that said, regardless of the merits of each other's arguments, it was BakedBeans who took the time to put this together where others — included myself — failed, and as such it is a benchmark that others are finding interesting and have already started using for comparative purposes. To quibble about the methodology is closing the stable door after the horse has bolted.

4 minutes, 7 seconds with many many apps running.

OK, trying again with only Finder, Dashboard, Suitcase, Safari and Photoshop running... 3 minutes, 33 seconds

That could be a problem, determining what other processes are running on people's machines at the time because it seems to affect the results on my Mac.

G4 Dual 1.42, 2gb RAM, OS10.4.5, 40gb WD 7200 dedicated scratch disk

Thanks for doing the test.

Mine was with nothing running (not even little snitch). I suppose i should have told people to quit open apps really.

EDIT

3.33 - that is completely respectable and shows just how long a Mac can last and still be a workhorse.s

great value

EricNau · May 16, 2006

I am curious to see how well a MacBook does with this test.

Anybody out there with a MacBook wanna give it a go?

p0intblank · May 17, 2006

Wow... mine came in at 8 minutes and 27 seconds! Can we get an official list of everyone's results together? If not, all I want is some scores for the Mac mini Core Duo @ 1.66 GHz. Please tell me it's faster than my PowerBook... if so, then I'll be very happy with the purchase next week.

LastZion · May 17, 2006

EricNau said:
I am curious to see how well a MacBook does with this test.

Anybody out there with a MacBook wanna give it a go?

I got 7m56s
Don't know how I am supposed to feel about that... getting another gig stick (to have 2 total this week, I will run again and see if it makes a difference)

EricNau · May 17, 2006

LastZion said:
I got 7m56s
Don't know how I am supposed to feel about that... getting another gig stick (to have 2 total this week, I will run again and see if it makes a difference)

What are the specs of your MacBook? You really shouldn't feel bad about that score. Keep in mind, Adobe Photoshop still isn't Universal Binary yet, so it is running under rosetta.
If you compare it to results from other intel Macs in this thread, it ranked pretty close to the others...

NJuul said:
7 minutes 12 sec on my 1.83 MBP 1.5 G

bigfib said:
5 Mins 4 seconds.

Intel Cored Duo 17" 1.83 Mhz - 1.5 GB - Photoshop CS1 (running under rosetta)

And that is still better than the G4 Powerbook which is running natively...

Dafke said:
... 14 min 32 sec

12" powerbook - 1.33 Ghz - 1.25 Gb - Photoshop CS

p0intblank said:
(Edited)
mine came in at 8 minutes and 27 seconds!
PowerBook G4 17-inch, 1.5 GHz, 80 GB, 1.5 GB, 64 MB, 160GB External WD Disk

LastZion · May 18, 2006

EricNau said:
What are the specs of your MacBook? You really shouldn't feel bad about that score.

Specs in my Sig: 1.83 MBP, 1.5g, 100G 5400.
I will run again when I get the extra 512 ram in there. I am very interested in this whole debate about having the same ram modules equaling greater utilization of the cores (2 x 512's almost as good as 1 x gig + 1 x 512). I will know soon, hopefully today

LastZion · May 18, 2006

So I just got my 2nd ram stick, so I went from 1.5 to 2.0gigs and I ran the test again...

I got 6:22

Thats 1:34 shorter than my last run with 1.5.

Once again:

1.5g = 7:56
2.0g = 6:22

So it ran it in 80% of the time

mduser63 · May 18, 2006

3 minutes, 59 seconds on my Dual 1.8 GHz G5 with 2 GB of RAM. I'm running Photoshop CS2 (9.0.1) under 10.4.6. That's a little slower than I was expecting, but oh well.

EDIT: Restarted the machine, cleared the cache and made sure only Photoshop and Activity Monitor were running, and I got 3:00. Photoshop's RAM usage went up to 1.12 GB.

iGary · May 18, 2006

1:15

Quad G5
6GB RAM
Blank Scratch Disc

Dafke · May 18, 2006

iGary said:
1:15

Quad G5
6GB RAM
Blank Scratch Disc

not bad

mduser63 said:
3 minutes, 59 seconds on my Dual 1.8 GHz G5 with 2 GB of RAM. I'm running Photoshop CS2 (9.0.1) under 10.4.6. That's a little slower than I was expecting, but oh well.

EDIT: Restarted the machine, cleared the cache and made sure only Photoshop and Activity Monitor were running, and I got 3:00. Photoshop's RAM usage went up to 1.12 GB

mduser, could you perhaps do the test on your Powerbook as well? i'm wandering if mine is really slow or if it is all 12 inchers.
and one more question, how do you clear the cache?

BakedBeans · May 18, 2006

iGary said:
1:15

Quad G5
6GB RAM
Blank Scratch Disc

Shweet set-up!

Makes me feel slightly better about missing out on a quad - love machine.

p0intblank · May 18, 2006

LastZion said:
I got 7m56s
Don't know how I am supposed to feel about that... getting another gig stick (to have 2 total this week, I will run again and see if it makes a difference)

That's better than my PowerBook G4.

Okay, that settles it. I'm getting myself a Mac mini very very soon.

iHotu · May 18, 2006

iMac G5 2.0, 1GB and CS2
4:58

Powerbook G4 667, 1GB and CS2
9:00

indigoflowAS · May 18, 2006

Incredible improvements in performance w/ additional 1GB RAM in MBP.
3x the RAM = 3x performance increase...in my experience.

10:10
TiBook 867mhz - 768MB RAM
Startup as scratch disk

18:40
MacBook Pro 1.83 - 512MB RAM
Blank FW scratch disk

6:28
MacBook Pro 1.83 - 1.5GB RAM (just added)
Blank FW scratch disk

6:00
PC - AMD 64 @ 2.7GHz OC - 1GB RAM

p0intblank · May 18, 2006

indigoflowAS said:
18:40
MacBook Pro 1.83 - 512MB RAM
Blank FW scratch disk

6:28
MacBook Pro 1.83 - 1.5GB RAM (just added)
Blank FW scratch disk

6:00
PC - AMD 64 @ 2.7GHz OC - 1GB RAM

Very nice! And it's even running under Rosetta, while the Windows version is not. I never expected it to come that close to an AMD processor like the one you're using.

mduser63 · May 18, 2006

Dafke said:
mduser, could you perhaps do the test on your Powerbook as well? i'm wandering if mine is really slow or if it is all 12 inchers.
and one more question, how do you clear the cache?

Just did the test on my 12" 1.33 GHz PowerBook G4 with 768 MB of RAM, also running Photoshop CS2 9.0.1 and OS X 10.4.6. Result was 11:27

. I have a (upgraded by me) 5400 RPM 100 GB Seagate HD in here with plenty of free space. I'm somewhat interested in seeing if it performs better if I hook up a FireWire drive and use that as the primary scratch disk. I have a feeling that that and another gig or so of RAM might make a big difference.

EDIT: Just redid the test with a nearly empty 140 GB 7200 RPM FireWire external for the scratch disk. Result this time: 7:41, quite a bit better than before.

As for clearing the cache, AFAIK Photoshop clears the cache when you quit it (If I'm wrong, someone please let me know).

Monyx · May 20, 2006

2m 4s CS2
Hmm, not sure that a 10k HD and addition 1Gb RAM makes the same Mac 1/3 faster again exception: a scratch-disc intensive PS test...

BakedBeans said:
1m 25s

specs below (PowerMac G5 Dual Core 2.3 Ghz | 3.5 GB RAM | 256MB GeForce 6600 | 74GB WD RAPTOR 10k RPM )

BakedBeans · May 20, 2006

Monyx said:
2m 4s CS2
Hmm, not sure that a 10k HD and addition 1Gb RAM makes the same Mac 1/3 faster again exception: a scratch-disc intensive PS test...

Having your os and scratch on the same drive is going to significantly sow the machine down - it cant be all reading and writting - it explains this on hte adobe website

YS2003 · May 20, 2006

iBook g4 (6 min 44 secs)

My iBook took 6 min 44 secs. I think my PBs should run this faster than iBook. I have CS2.

spinne1 · May 20, 2006

8 minutes, 27 seconds using CS2 on a Powermac G4/533 with 1.25 GB ram.

XIII · May 20, 2006

iMac Intel Core Duo 2.0ghz
1.5GB RAM
60GB free HD space at the time
256mb VRAM
Running under Rosetta
Photoshop CS2

5 minutes 48 seconds.

'Real World' Photoshop Benchmark - Speed Test

macrumors 68040

macrumors regular

Moderator emeritus

macrumors 68040

macrumors 68040

Moderator emeritus

macrumors 68030

macrumors 6502a

Moderator emeritus

macrumors 6502a

macrumors 6502a

macrumors 68040

Guest

macrumors 6502

macrumors 68040

macrumors 68030

macrumors regular

macrumors 6502

macrumors 68030

macrumors 68040

macrumors regular

macrumors 68040

macrumors 68020

macrumors 6502a

macrumors 68040

Our Staff