Simple Photoshop Test to compare i5/395 verses i7/395X

[jazzer15]

A little off topic (apologies to the OP), but do you think there would be a huge difference for me now going to a new iMac (I do RAW photo editing (as a hobbyist), some basic audio recording and more typical day-to-day stuff, possibly to include some basic video)?

Except for some minor LCD panel issues I am having (which I am debating whether I should get replaced), as you pointed out in another response, there isn't anything that a new machine can do that my old one can't -- it just does it slower . It's a question of when to buy something new and how much to put into the old machine as even if I don't use it myself, I would want to pass it along to a family member.

 

[sluggishadj]

If it's only a speed issue, I think I'll stick with the 'base' i5/m395/2TB model and have a few drinks more later on.

 

[iemcj]

A little off topic (apologies to the OP), but do you think there would be a huge difference for me now going to a new iMac (I do RAW photo editing (as a hobbyist), some basic audio recording and more typical day-to-day stuff, possibly to include some basic video)?

Except for some minor LCD panel issues I am having (which I am debating whether I should get replaced), as you pointed out in another response, there isn't anything that a new machine can do that my old one can't -- it just does it slower . It's a question of when to buy something new and how much to put into the old machine as even if I don't use it myself, I would want to pass it along to a family member.

Er so what system do you have right now? Kinda hard to give you an idea of your speed increase without knowing what you have now haha

 

[jazzer15]

Er so what system do you have right now? Kinda hard to give you an idea of your speed increase without knowing what you have now haha

Sorry -- the information was in my post that you previously replied to, but this is a rather long thread, so I understand why you didn't know where to look. lol

I have a late 2009 i7 iMac, 2.8 ghz quad core with Radeon HD 4850 (512 MB), 12 GB RAM and a 2 TB HDD.

 

[iemcj]

I have a late 2009 i7 iMac, 2.8 ghz quad core with Radeon HD 4850 (512 MB), 12 GB RAM and a 2 TB HDD.

I have an imac from that same year, mine is the step down 2 core and integrated graphics. While there is undoubtedly a speed increase in lightroom, for someone like you I couldn't justify telling you to spend 2-3 grand on a new system. Photography is how I make my living so it was worth it, that few seconds here, few minutes there, that all adds up to hours a week it saves me.

For a regular guy, I can't ever justify buying a new computer if your old one gets the job done. If it like crashed all the time or had some other big problems? Sure. But if still gets everything done then pft, put that money in bank in case your car breaks down.

 

[jazzer15]

I have an imac from that same year, mine is the step down 2 core and integrated graphics. While there is undoubtedly a speed increase in lightroom, for someone like you I couldn't justify telling you to spend 2-3 grand on a new system. Photography is how I make my living so it was worth it, that few seconds here, few minutes there, that all adds up to hours a week it saves me.

For a regular guy, I can't ever justify buying a new computer if your old one gets the job done. If it like crashed all the time or had some other big problems? Sure. But if still gets everything done then pft, put that money in bank in case your car breaks down.

Thanks. I am having a fairly minor, but annoying problem with the LCD panel that I have been just living with for about a year now (I have thin moving, but fairly transparent lines that I only notice on certain backgrounds spaced at certain intervals over about half of the screen -- Apple replaced the video cables, which didn't help and told me the LCD would have to be replaced). For probably about $500-$600 I could get the LCD replaced and add an SSD at the same time, which would increase the speed significantly and probably give me a couple of years or so out of the computer -- but it is still a 6 year old computer.

My wife has a PC that's 9 years old and still gets the job done for her (her use is very basic). Even if I got a new computer, I would rather pass my current one on to her to replace the even older PC. She says the lines wouldn't bother her, if she would notice them at all, but I still feel bad giving her a computer with a problem. So I may wind up having to pay for a repair either way.

 

[twilexia]

I just ran this test on i7/m395/24GB 1600mhz RAM/1TB SSD

31.45

So basically same as user HalfOnWhole. I checked my activity monitors and while the CPU activity was very little the memory was almost full suggesting this to be the bottleneck.

 

[HalfOnWhole]

I just ran this test on i7/m395/24GB 1600mhz RAM/1TB SSD

31.45

So basically same as user HalfOnWhole. I checked my activity monitors and while the CPU activity was very little the memory was almost full suggesting this to be the bottleneck.

Ram or graphics memory? Also, do you use Lightroom? If so I'm curious what your experience is with it. It's sluggish with my 43mp raw files, both with and without graphics assistance on. (A little faster without it though)

 

[twilexia]

Ram or graphics memory? Also, do you use Lightroom? If so I'm curious what your experience is with it. It's sluggish with my 43mp raw files, both with and without graphics assistance on. (A little faster without it though)

Originally I thought RAM but now I realize it's VRAM. The VRAM was constantly hitting the limit when I checked the GPU test. (the first bar in this image):

I don't use Lightroom, sorry - in fact I've never touched Photoshop in my life before running this test! Haha. But it's interesting to hear about your experience. Is there some kind of process to activate the graphics card for gpu acceleration with the Adobe products?

 

[h9826790]

The VRAM was constantly hitting the limit…

This is how OSX manage the VRAM on this card, not really saturated in you picture.

You can simply open facebook on Safari, scroll down few pages and then realise 90% of VRAM are used. Obviously increase the VRAM size won't increase facebook performance, it's not a bottleneck

Also, activity monitor only able to monitor RAM but not VRAM, if that's red in colour, then the system is suffering from performance hit. If just yellow, only minor performance degradations. That's a good sign if it's enough RAM on your Mac.

 

[twilexia]

This is how OSX manage the VRAM on this card, not really saturated in you picture.

You can simply open facebook on Safari, scroll down few pages and then realise 90% of VRAM are used. Obviously increase the VRAM size won't increase facebook performance, it's not a bottleneck

Also, activity monitor only able to monitor RAM but not VRAM, if that's red in colour, then the system is suffering from performance hit. If just yellow, only minor performance degradations. That's a good sign if it's enough RAM on your Mac.

Sorry I didn't mean that the VRAM was hitting the limit right at that instant when I took the screenshot. Here is an example of when it was (when applying a film effect for example in FCPX):

 

[h9826790]

Sorry I didn't mean that the VRAM was hitting the limit right at that instant when I took the screenshot. Here is an example of when it was (when applying a film effect for example in FCPX):

OIC, FCPX is another story, it can fully occupy ALL your VRAM no matter how much you have. It's decsigned to fully utilise all 12G VRAM on the dual D700 Mac Pro.

 

[Hangs]

So where is the performance vs cost 'sweetspot' for LR6 and PS in the i5 vs i7, 395/395x range?

 

[netnothing]

Interesting thread as I too am looking into the new 2015 iMac. My current setup is a 2010 Mac Pro (Quad Xeon) 16GB RAM - OWC SSD. Machine has been awesome for 5 years.....but I definitely feel the slowness of the SATA SDD with speeds only in 200MB/s. I am a web developer and do Photoshop/Illustrator (mostly many layers). I don't play any games. Do very little video editing, just basic stuff.

I tried the two Photoshop tests and got interesting results.

For the first Blur manual test I got: 1:05
For the action test from gavtrain.com I ran it twice and got: 47 seconds and 53 seconds

Surprised by the second test considering this machine is 5 years old. Now really wondering what I should do.

-Kevin

 

[h9826790]

Interesting thread as I too am looking into the new 2015 iMac. My current setup is a 2010 Mac Pro (Quad Xeon) 16GB RAM - OWC SSD. Machine has been awesome for 5 years.....but I definitely feel the slowness of the SATA SDD with speeds only in 200MB/s. I am a web developer and do Photoshop/Illustrator (mostly many layers). I don't play any games. Do very little video editing, just basic stuff.

I tried the two Photoshop tests and got interesting results.

For the first Blur manual test I got: 1:05
For the action test from gavtrain.com I ran it twice and got: 47 seconds and 53 seconds

Surprised by the second test considering this machine is 5 years old. Now really wondering what I should do.

-Kevin

Get a X5690 (or W3680 for a bit lower price).
Get a PCIe card and the SM951 SSD. (~1500 MB/s)

Just few hundred bugs, then your machine will like a new one.

 

[netnothing]

Get a X5690 (or W3680 for a bit lower price).
Get a PCIe card and the SM951 SSD. (~1500 MB/s)

Just few hundred bugs, then your machine will like a new one.

Trust me, I've thought about it......but that retina display is gorgeous (if you can get one without dead pixels, yellowing, etc) I've had such bad luck with displays in my life, especially Apple.

-Kevin

 

[iemcj]

So where is the performance vs cost 'sweetspot' for LR6 and PS in the i5 vs i7, 395/395x range?

For photoshop and lightroom if you can only do 1 upgrade, get the i7. the m395x is going to make a bigger difference in things like video rendering and effects. Both lightroom and PS will take advantage of the higher clock speed as well as multithreading quite well too.

 

[h9826790]

If you want a 5K monitor, then iMac of course is the easiest way to go. With this kind of high resolution display, a single dead pixel should be very hard to spot (bright pixel is another story of course). TBH, no one know will there be any yellowing in this generation's Apple display, and how it perform under humid weather. However, I do worry that the relatively high temperature GPU may yellow the screen in that particular area in few years.

On the other hand, if you only need a 4K monitor, then you will have plenty of choice for your 5,1. All you need is just to pick up a used 7950 for less than $100, then it will give you more or less the same GPU power as the current 5K iMac. And able to drive at least 2 4K monitor at 60Hz.

I think the 5K iMac is a very good deal indeed (mainly because it include a high quality 5K monitor). However, I frequently run both my GPU and CPU to >85% for few days continuously. The iMac's cooling system may not be good enough for this kind of use. So I didn't buy it, but only hope Apple will release a 5K Cinema display. (Yes, I prefer to use Apple monitor, even though there are plenty of choice for cMP).

However, in your case, it seems the 5K iMac very fit your usage, nothing too heavy at all. If you willing to try your luck again. May be it's time to move on and get the new iMac.

I don't have good luck with Apple monitor as well. I bought my 4,1 with the 24" ACD (there was no 27" model at that moment), which suffer from all kind of defects (not just dead pixel). End up after somewhat 5+ repair (within 18 months), they replace it with the 27" ACD (the 24" ACD already discon by that time). It works for around 3 years, and now suffer from yellowing again. But I will still buy the new 5K ACD if there is one.

 

[mixart]

I have a Macbook Pro Retina (late 2013) i7 2.6Ghz Haswell, 16GB memory, 512SSD and it took me 39 seconds. So it is definitely your memory and maybe the i5.