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

I ordered a stock hex-core nMP from Amazon, who proceeded to send me a quad-core instead. Didn't notice until I ran the speed test and got a disappointing result of 12.8s

Once I got the new machine in two days later, I re-ran the test and got a much more satisfying time of 8.1s

Both times were with fresh installs of Photoshop CC with the default settings. Used a stopwatch and video camera to get the times. Each time is the average of 5 runs that were all within 0.3 seconds of each other.
 
preflexopress said:
i just got everything loaded and set up on my nmp. As quoted above it's the 3.5ghz 6 core 32gb 1tb flash d500s.

7.7 seconds :eek:

I thought something might be a miss so i trashed the speed test folder and downloaded it again. Reinstalled the speedtest action. Set all the ps prefs. Restarted and ran it again.

7.6 seconds

i'm one of the nmp owners that is loving it's performance since i'm coming off a 1,1.

excuse while i go clean out my shorts.
Click to expand...

lol!!
 
i love my mac g5!!! mine is 2mins and 4seconds for the speedtest XD

mac g5 with 2.5ghz and 2.5gb of ram.

will it make a little difference once i got my 8gb ram? :))
 
PreFlexoPress said:
I just got everything loaded and set up on my nMP. As quoted above it's the 3.5GHz 6 Core 32GB 1TB Flash D500s.

7.7 seconds :eek:

I thought something might be a miss so I trashed the speed test folder and downloaded it again. Reinstalled the SpeedTest Action. Set all the PS prefs. Restarted and ran it again.

7.6 seconds

I'm one of the nMP owners that is loving it's performance since I'm coming off a 1,1.

Excuse while I go clean out my shorts.
Click to expand...

How about to time the script run at 2nd time?

My 2009 Mac Pro takes about 10.5 second to run the script. But if I run that again (use the product of the script as the test image), it took 6m55s to finish the computation. Since the nMP are so fast now, I think this is a better benchmark to effectively remove the human respond time error.

Also, it's a real test to the machine by running the script again. My Mac Pro have 32G of RAM, it never fully utilise on the 1st run. However, on the 2nd run, it really push the resource to limit.

This is what I have during the test.
Screen Shot 2014-05-13 at 15.53.39.png

I intentionally allow Photoshop to use 100% of RAM. It end up compress the RAM to squeezes out another 8G resource. Mavericks really do a great job on RAM handling.

By running the script at the 2nd time. May be we can see more differences between machines with different RAM size, CPU, etc.
 
Last edited:
Mac Pro 09 / Quad 2.66 / 24GB RAM / 256GB Samsung SSD (boot) / 128GB Samsung SSD (Scratch)

Photoshop CC set to 100% RAM useage: 19s / 18.9s (second run)

Looks like the late 2013 rMBP / i7 iMac / 4c nMP all get about 11-12 seconds which around 65% faster than my system. and the 6c nMP (7 seconds!) is closer to 1.7x faster. Me thinks I finally need a new system.
 
Last edited:
AppleDroid said:
Mac Pro 09 / Quad 2.66 / 24GB RAM / 256GB Samsung SSD (boot) / 128GB Samsung SSD (Scratch)

Photoshop CC set to 100% RAM useage: 19s / 18.9s (second run)

Looks like the late 2013 rMBP / i7 iMac / 4c nMP all get about 11-12 seconds which around 65% faster than my system. and the 6c nMP (7 seconds!) is closer to 1.7x faster. Me thinks I finally need a new system.
Click to expand...

I was on the same boat with you, the W3520. And I was able to finish the script at about 15s. I forgot the setup already. But I am quite sure I only allow the system use 70% of RAM at that moment. And I did try different performance setting.

And the good news is that all you need is just a W3690. For that $300, my system now can finish the script in just less than 11s.
 
h9826790 said:
I was on the same boat with you, the W3520. And I was able to finish the script at about 15s. I forgot the setup already. But I am quite sure I only allow the system use 70% of RAM at that moment. And I did try different performance setting.

And the good news is that all you need is just a W3690. For that $300, my system now can finish the script in just less than 11s.
Click to expand...

That's great to hear. I thought about this route but the lack of faster SATA, overpriced 3yr old GPU upgrades and no fast external support (USB3 is spotty at best with pcie cards) has me saving up for the 6c nMP or just wait for the refresh late 2014/early 2015.
 
rMBP tested with HD400 and GT650

rMBP 10,1
Core i7 ivy bridge
16gb ram
512SSD
HD4000
GT650m
CS 6
Mavericks


HD4000 12.1"

GT650m 11.2"

To say I'm somewhat surprised would be an understatement. However I'm pretty happy about it because I just bought a quad core i7 mac mini for the gf yesterday which only has the HD4000. I was fretting about the performance difference.

Edit: changed iMac to Mac Mini.
 
Last edited:
inscrewtable said:
rMBP 10,1
Core i7 ivy bridge
16gb ram
512SSD
HD4000
GT650m
CS 6
Mavericks


HD4000 12.1"

GT650m 11.2"

To say I'm somewhat surprised would be an understatement. However I'm pretty happy about it because I just bought a quad core i7 iMac for the gf yesterday which only has the HD4000. I was fretting about the performance difference.
Click to expand...

Given that Photoshop is pretty bad at using the GPU (OpenGL only accelerates certain effects, and in general can actually slow performance down) that's not too surprising.

My 2008 MP did a respectable 17.5 seconds. :)
 
2.3GHz Core i7 Retina MacBook Pro, 15-inch, Late 2013
16GB DDR3
Iris Pro graphics
Photoshop CC (2014)

13.7s
 
Got my nMP running exactly like I want it, with bells and whistles.

3.5 GHz 6-Core, 64GB, D700s, 1TB, Scratch on Tempo Pro (2xSamsung Pro 840 512GB)

9.40 seconds on PS CC 2014
 
2012 rMBP - 2.3 i7, 16 GB RAM, 256 GB SSD
(didn't change my history states, etc. - just restarted and ran the test)

14.1 seconds
 
Retina MBP 2.6, 1TB (June 2014 MBP)

Processor 2.6 GHz Intel Core i7
Memory 16 GB 1600 MHz DDR3
Graphics NVIDIA GeForce GT 750M 2048 MB

Photoshop CC (2014)

Does it matter I had a 24 inch Apple screen attached.

12:22
 
I haven't seen many results in this thread for the 13" rMBP so I decided to run mine:

Late 2013 13" Macbook Pro Retina
2.4GHz i5
8gb RAM
Intel Iris 1024mb
256gb SSD
Adobe CS6

Optimized settings: 1 history state, 100% RAM, "Use Graphics Processor" disabled 22.0 seconds

Real world settings: 25 history states, 70% RAM, "Use Graphics Processor" enabled, "Use OpenCL" and "Use Graphics Processor to Accelerate Computation" also enabled for giggles 23.73 seconds

Seems to hover around 24 seconds with any kind of optimization while any of the GPU settings are enabled. Same real world settings with all GPU settings disabled netted 23.0 seconds
 
Mac Pro 2011, 12core 2.66, 5,1 , 24gb RAM. SSD. Photoshop CS6.

Time: 10.14

Then, I changed my scratch disk to the SSD drive.

Time: 8.78

Impressive!!!!

Looks very good in comparison to some of the nMP.
My next move is to upgrade RAM to 48GB and get an OWC Accelsior SSD. I wonder how much I can improve this time.
Good to know I can hold to this machine couple more years.

Update.
8.53 with Apricorn velocity duo and two Samsung EVO 250gb on RAiD 0.
 
Last edited:
Mid 2011 27"iMac
Processor 3.4 GHz Intel Core i7
Memory 8 GB 1333 MHz DDR3
Graphics AMD Radeon HD 6970M 1024 MB
Software OS X 10.9.5 (13F34)
Adobe Photoshop CC 2014.0.0

Consistently runs at around 12seconds mark.

Which I really can't complain about considering i've done nothing to optimise it since buying it.
 
Late 2013 15" rMBP
2.3 Ghz i7 Quad
16Gb RAM
Photoshop CC 2014.2
OS X 10.10 Yosemite
GT750M 2048Gb


11.2 Seconds


2006 Mac Pro 1,1
Twin Dual Core 3.0 Ghz
12Gb RAM
Photoshop CC 2014.2
Crucial 512Gb SSD
OS X 10.10 Yosemite
ATI Radeon 5770


26.5 Seconds
 
Late 2014 retina iMac
3.5 GHz i5
Radeon M290X
16 GB RAM
512 GB Flash Storage

10.9s
 
Mac Pro 3,1
2x 3.2GHz X5482
16GB RAM
480GB SSD
Gigabyte R9 280x

18s

I had three games running at the time of the test. I will close those, and post results later...

Not bad for a 3,1
 
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