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

seveej said:
I really wish someone with a sandy bridge MBP (15" or 17") would post their results...

RGDS,
Pekka
Click to expand...

Macbook Pro 15"
2.4GHz quad-core
Intel Core i7
4GB 1333MHz
750GB 5400-rpm
Intel HD Graphics 3000
AMD Radeon HD 6770M w/ 1GB GDDR5

15 seconds (15.1, 15.0, 15.0)
 
mbp4me said:
Macbook Pro 15"
2.4GHz quad-core
Intel Core i7
4GB 1333MHz
750GB 5400-rpm
Intel HD Graphics 3000
AMD Radeon HD 6770M w/ 1GB GDDR5

15 seconds (15.1, 15.0, 15.0)
Click to expand...

Damn. Sorry folks, after getting by SNB MBP I forgot to post the results myself.

Anyway, I'm guessing mbp4me's results are with Photoshop CS5...

Because I tested it myself:
2.0Ghz i7 Quad (MBP Early 2011)
8GB 1333 Mhz
OCZ Vertex3 120 GB
Radeon HD6490M
PS CS4: 25 sec
PS CS5 (trial): 12 sec

Pekka
 
Model Name: Mac Pro
Model Identifier: MacPro1,1
Processor Name: Quad-Core Intel Xeon (replaced original dual-core CPUs)
Processor Speed: 2.66 GHz
Number Of Processors: 2
Total Number Of Cores: 8
L2 Cache (per processor): 8 MB
Memory: 12 GB
Graphics: ATI Radeon X1900
Boot: OWC SSD
Data: 2x 1TB Raid 0

CS5.5 - 23.2 sec
 
2011 Mac Mini i7 2.7
8 gigs ram
OWC SSD, 120gb Electra 6g

24 seconds.

Not that fast, but still decent.
 
MP 5,1 hex 3,33 GHz
16 GB RAM
ATI 5770
Vertex 3 240 GB SSD
CS 5.5

14 seconds


I see they are working on a version 2 speed test. Cool !
 
2011 17" MacBook Pro
2.3GHz i7 Quad w/Hyper-threading
16GB OWC 1333Mhz RAM
120GB OWC SATA II SSD boot
480GB OWC SATA II SSD files and cache
Mac OS 10.6.8
Photoshop CS5.5
with 4 cache levels and 1 history states
14.1 sec.

with 1 cache level I got 18 sec.
 
Puzzling result

iMac 27" 3.4GHz quad core i7 8GB ram Radeon 6970 with 2GB of Vram

I remember testing my old G5 iMac some time ago and got about 4 minutes and I thought it would be cool to see how the new iMac went. I looked up what was considered then to be a fast speed 1.25mins for a dual processor G5 and thought the iMac would blast it away. At this stage I had not looked at any recent posts.

I thought I'd test it without resetting the history states or restarting just to make it more difficult.

The result I got was 1min 36 secs. Which was a bit of a shock, so I shut all my apps down (and there was not much running there was also at least a few gigs of ram available) reset the history to 1 and use available ram to 100% that gave me a result of 15 seconds which also surprised me.

So I concluded that it must have been the history states that did it. So I then reset the history states to 30 and still got 14 seconds. So I then set the use available ram to 2.5GB or 33% and I still got 14 secs.

So now I'm wondering why it took 1min and 36 seconds the first time, that seems like a very large discrepancy. It's not like I was running any high level video editing software or anything.

EDIT: OK I reset the use ram to 1GB then I set the history states to 99 cache level 4.

I ran the test 3 times, each time I saved the file with a different name and then closed and reopened the original to run the test. Each time the result was the same <14 seconds. I would have thought that reducing the ram to 1GB and building up the history states would have reduced the performance over three runs, but it did not. So I am even more puzzled about the original 1min 36sec result.
 
Last edited:
inscrewtable said:
iMac 27" 3.4GHz quad core i7 8GB ram Radeon 6970 with 2GB of Vram

I remember testing my old G5 iMac some time ago and got about 4 minutes and I thought it would be cool to see how the new iMac went. I looked up what was considered then to be a fast speed 1.25mins for a dual processor G5 and thought the iMac would blast it away. At this stage I had not looked at any recent posts.

I thought I'd test it without resetting the history states or restarting just to make it more difficult.

The result I got was 1min 36 secs. Which was a bit of a shock, so I shut all my apps down (and there was not much running there was also at least a few gigs of ram available) reset the history to 1 and use available ram to 100% that gave me a result of 15 seconds which also surprised me.

So I concluded that it must have been the history states that did it. So I then reset the history states to 30 and still got 14 seconds. So I then set the use available ram to 2.5GB or 33% and I still got 14 secs.

So now I'm wondering why it took 1min and 36 seconds the first time, that seems like a very large discrepancy. It's not like I was running any high level video editing software or anything.

EDIT: OK I reset the use ram to 1GB then I set the history states to 99 cache level 4.

I ran the test 3 times, each time I saved the file with a different name and then closed and reopened the original to run the test. Each time the result was the same <14 seconds. I would have thought that reducing the ram to 1GB and building up the history states would have reduced the performance over three runs, but it did not. So I am even more puzzled about the original 1min 36sec result.
Click to expand...
If you just run it as directed in the instructions, you shouldn't have to think about all the variables. You said yourself, you just ran it willy-nilly to make it difficult, and you got a poor result. Maybe there were disk writes, page outs and swap file usage when you ran it the first time. Did you check the Activity Monitor to see what state the system was in? If you've rebooted since then, it will be gone, but if not, take a look there.
 
Mac Pro Early 2009
2.66 GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon
8 GB 1066 MHz DDR3 ECC
ATI Radeon HD 5870 1024 MB


Mac OS 10.7.3
Photoshop CS5 Extended X64

Time taken 20.3 secs
 
Mac Pro Early 2008
2 x 2.8 GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon
20 GB 800 MHz DDR2
GTX 580 3GB
4TB RAID 0 Scratch Disc

Mac OS 10.7.3
Photoshop CS5 Extended X64

Time taken 18.8 secs

I do remember taking this test last year on the same machine and the time being in the 50's so adding that new GPU and second CPU has helped.
 
Ive been looking for something like this...

With that said, here are my results: MBP 2.4 SR 15" 256mb 80gb SSD intel with 320gb 7200rpm. I got 46 sec in both CS5 and CS6. It seemed like CS6 was faster because of the animations of what was going on but it really wasn't for me.

The people in the 20's and below are making want a i7 bad. :D "keep waiting" or so I tell myself.

Edit: I ran CS6 again. I forgot to change the history states in there! I was thinking it should run a touch faster. It shaved a couple seconds off for me.
 
Last edited:
MP 6core 3.33 24Gb OWC RAM, PCIe SSD 240Gb

Fresh Boot,No Scratch disk

CS5 12.5s 12.5s 13.8s

CS6 11.5s 11.4s 11.4s
 
Last edited:
Hi all. I've got a 2010 Mac pro 2.8ghz quad, 10 gb ram, 180gb ssd

17.7 seconds

Can anyone please tell me which would be a better upgrade, a second ssd in raid or upgrading to a hex core 3.33 ghz Xeon...? Thanks in advance...
 
mtasquared said:
Hi all. I've got a 2010 Mac pro 2.8ghz quad, 10 gb ram, 180gb ssd

17.7 seconds

Can anyone please tell me which would be a better upgrade, a second ssd in raid or upgrading to a hex core 3.33 ghz Xeon...? Thanks in advance...
Click to expand...
In this particular test, I think a faster processor is what will help, and usually helps most things. A faster boot volume (if that's what you were planning) should make almost zero difference. A faster media RAID is always good, and more RAM is also very good.
 
wonderspark said:
In this particular test, I think a faster processor is what will help, and usually helps most things. A faster boot volume (if that's what you were planning) should make almost zero difference. A faster media RAID is always good, and more RAM is also very good.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the advice! I had thought the ssd wouldn't help much once a program was open. I hope the hex core comes down a little in price... :)
 
mtasquared said:
Thanks for the advice! I had thought the ssd wouldn't help much once a program was open. I hope the hex core comes down a little in price... :)
Click to expand...
I paid $585 for mine (W3680) from Provantage.com a while back. Pretty cheap, really. I sold my old CPU (W3580, quad 3.33 version) for $300 or so, so it was like buying the new one for $285. Makes it worth it.
 
10.5 sec

MacPro5,1
2 x 2.93 GHz 6-core
24 GB 1333 MHz DDR3
ATI 5770
OSX 10.6.8
PS CS5
 
Last edited:
inaka said:
Just for giggles:

PowerMac G5 Dual 2.7 GHz PowerPC
8 GB RAM
10.5.8
Photoshop CS 4
ATI Radeon 9650

Time: 1min 7 sec
Click to expand...

I forgot I posted the above with my old machine. Wow! LOL

Here are the results with my new Mac Pro I've had for over a year:

2010 Mac Pro
MacPro5,1
6-Core Intel Xeon @ 3.33 GHz
12 GB RAM
10.7.4
Photoshop CS 5.1
ATI Radeon HD 5870
Caviar Black HD (no SSD)

Time: 13 seconds.


I have 24GB of RAM coming soon...
 
13 seconds

3.46 Ghz 6 Core Xeon W3690
16 gigs ram
Radeon 5770 1gb

----------
mtasquared said:
Hi all. I've got a 2010 Mac pro 2.8ghz quad, 10 gb ram, 180gb ssd

17.7 seconds

Can anyone please tell me which would be a better upgrade, a second ssd in raid or upgrading to a hex core 3.33 ghz Xeon...? Thanks in advance...
Click to expand...

I just did the upgrade on my August 2010 Mac Pro from quad 2.8 to hex 3.46

Increased my geekbench test speed from 8789 to 15991 - DEF go with the processor upgrade and follow the instructions here
 
1min18
Hackmac CS1 E8400 dual core 3Ghz w 4Gb RAM.

Weird
The Mini 5.2 with 16GB Ram does 1min25... with RAM Disk for Scratch, and 4 minutes on the built in drive!
Is a Core2Duo so much more effective on Rosetta than the i5?

Hey.... Post 1000!
 
Last edited:
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