Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Hardware - Troubleshooting and Discussion > Mac Desktops > Photoshop benchmark

Photoshop benchmark (Page 4)
Thread Tools
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Iowa State Univesity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 25, 2005, 05:08 PM
 
iMac G3 400, 544 MB RAM
8:11

Once I get both my beige G3's (one G3 400, one G4 400) up and running, along with my sister's roommate's PII 400, I can do a straight across the board test.
( Last edited by lothar56; Nov 26, 2005 at 12:10 AM. )
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 25, 2005, 08:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by lothar56
iMac G3 400, 544 MB RAM
8:11

Once I get both my beige G3's (one G3 400, one G4 400) up and running, along with my sister's roommate's PII 400, I can do a straight across board test.
I'll be very interested to see the results of the 400 G3 vs 400 G4. That will give us a strong indication of how useful altivec is for this test (I expect the answer to be "very useful", but we'll see).
     
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Iowa State Univesity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 26, 2005, 12:13 AM
 
I go back to school tomorrow, and I finally got 10.2 running on both, so I can update to 10.2.8 (no way i'm doing that at 1.2 KB/sec, I prefer the ~2.4 MB/sec I've gotten there). Their hard drives are even and i'll make sure they've got the same amount of RAM to make it more fair. Either way it's going to be ridiculously slow compared to the good machines here, but like you said, it will be neat to see the difference. I don't expect either to be as fast as the iMac though, because they're just upgraded 266MHz machines, they still have all of the limitations of the slower motherboards.
     
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jul 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 27, 2005, 02:50 AM
 
I have all you beat. I will submit the slowest time. I'm going to submit times of a Pentium 233Mhz MMX (pentium 1). Infact if I wanted to be really sure that I have the slowest, I can pop out the CPU and put an old Pentum 75 in that board and give it a try LOL... System has 192mb RAM so I hope thats enough for the test.
     
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Iowa State Univesity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 28, 2005, 07:37 PM
 
Yeah...
Beige G3 with G4 400 zif, 384MB:
14:59
     
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Nov 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 29, 2005, 08:15 AM
 
Dual 2 Ghz G5, CS, 10.4:
512mb stock RAM - 52 seconds
after adding 1Gb RAM (total 1.5 Gb) - 47 seconds.

Dell P4 2.8Ghz, 1 GB RAM, XP, PS 7 - 1:28
I have no lid upon my head. But if I did, you
could look iniside and see what's on my
mind.
     
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 2, 2005, 05:29 AM
 
39.9s

Dual Core G5 2.3Ghz
CS (V8.0) OSX 10.4.3

Method: several stop-watched times all between 39.90 - 39.98s, energy processor set-to automatic, no other Apps running, machine as in sig.
MacPro 2.66Ghz X1900XT 3Gb/800Gb/ 24" LCD/ OSX 10.4.8
     
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Feb 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 8, 2005, 06:49 PM
 
emac g4 1ghz over clocked to 1.4ghz ,maxtor 200gb hd, 640mb ram.

osx 10.3.9 ps cs2

2:30

imac dv se 500ghz 384mb ram

0sx 10.3.9 ps 7

9:40
( Last edited by oswaldkelso; Dec 8, 2005 at 07:10 PM. )
     
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Iowa State Univesity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 8, 2005, 10:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by oswaldkelso

iMac DV SE 500ghz 384mb ram

0S 10.3.9, PS 7

9:40
That's interesting, considering my iMac:
iMac G3 400, 544 MB RAM
OS 10.2.8, PS CS2
8:11

You're 100MHz faster and have Panther, which PS claims helps, but I've got more RAM.
     
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Feb 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 9, 2005, 10:32 AM
 
It is interesting maybe PS cs2 helps I may try it to see. I'll post later I 'm about to change the HD in it so its a nice and easy test.
     
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Nov 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 9, 2005, 03:42 PM
 
Just tried on my brand new Quad:

Quad G5
5GB RAM
7800 video card

19.3 seconds (stopwatch but I did it carefully)

Muche better than my sawtooth
     
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Nov 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 9, 2005, 06:16 PM
 
On my new quad, 7800 card = 19 sec

On my original 500 Ti Powerbook with 512 meg ram = 6 min 50 sec.

This is 18.4 times faster!!!
     
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jul 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 10, 2005, 01:18 AM
 
I wanted to see if video card makes ANY difference at all so I pulled out the X800XT in my dual 3gig Xeon box and popped in a 16mb Matrox G400 (still not a bad card for 2D speed I think). It made no difference at all. Nothing. Still ended up with 29 seconds. I mean not even a tenth of a second difference. The resolution I was using was 1280x960.
     
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: San Jose, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 10, 2005, 02:01 AM
 
G4 Dual 500MHz
3 minutes 33 seconds

I'm just about to retire this guy next week with a new G5 Quad. Can't believe it can do the same in less than 20 seconds!
     
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Feb 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 10, 2005, 06:11 AM
 
Originally Posted by oswaldkelso
It is interesting maybe PS cs2 helps I may try it to see. I'll post later I 'm about to change the HD in it so its a nice and easy test.
After changing from ps 7 to ps cs 8 and changing the HD for a 7200 rpm from 4400 rpm the time came down from 9 : 40 to 7: 54
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 11, 2005, 08:31 PM
 
Mmmm... 18-19 seconds with the Quad G5, 4 GB RAM, 7800 Ultra.

Yummy :-)
     
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2006, 09:19 PM
 
i was very dissapointed ...

2.0ghz imac g5
2gb ram
260gb hd
128mb vram

2:14.2
photography is beautiful
     
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Dec 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2006, 10:07 PM
 
Loaded Dual Processor 1.25 Powermac. 1minute 5 seconds. Very happy!
     
Baninated
Join Date: Jan 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 10, 2006, 08:00 AM
 
39 seconds on a amd64 X2 3800(2x2ghz for you mac only people), 2 gig of pc3200.
WinXP pro, Photoshop CS2
( Last edited by meelk; Jan 10, 2006 at 08:19 AM. )
     
Junior Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 12, 2006, 03:45 PM
 
1:47

AMD Athlon 64 3400
512 RAM
Photoshop 7
Firefox Open (13 tabs)
Windows XP Pro

I'll home and try it on my DC G5, hopefuly the g5 is faster.
( Last edited by krisneph; Jan 12, 2006 at 04:23 PM. )
     
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 13, 2006, 11:04 AM
 
Anybody at MacWorld have the time to try this test on the new imac and new mac book pro? I'd like to see how fast CS2 does in Rosetta with the new machines.
     
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Dallas, TX, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 14, 2006, 10:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by paulmac
Anybody at MacWorld have the time to try this test on the new imac and new mac book pro? I'd like to see how fast CS2 does in Rosetta with the new machines.
See:

http://forums.macnn.com/65/mac-desktops/281987/imac-intel-has-arrived/

1:05 (65 seconds) with Photoshop CS2 (v9) running through Rosetta on the new iMac Intel 1.83 GHz Intel Core Duo with 512 MB DDR2 SDRAM.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Tempe, AZ
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 14, 2006, 11:46 PM
 
The Intel iMac PS test looks very promising. Especially since it was running in Rosetta.
Here are the numbers with my computer (PowerBook G4, 800MHz, 1GB RAM): 4:23
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: London
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 15, 2006, 07:43 AM
 
PB 17" 1.33Ghz (2003) :: 1GB :: 10.4.4 :: PS 7

3.03

running mail, safari, cocoaMySQL and textedit as well.
     
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 16, 2006, 02:02 AM
 
Originally Posted by ravenz
See:

http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.php?t=281987

1:05 (65 seconds) with Photoshop CS2 (v9) running through Rosetta on the new iMac Intel 1.83 GHz Intel Core Duo with 512 MB DDR2 SDRAM.
That's very fast and not even with 1gb of RAM or an external scratch disk. Very impressive.
     
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Here
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 16, 2006, 03:47 AM
 
Originally Posted by Xidius
New Powerbook 1.67 2 gigs of ram 7200rpm 100 gig
CS2 - 2 mins 7 seconds.

Wow. What a massive increase in speed.

- Xidius
PB-17, 1.33GHZ, 2GB ram, 60 GB 7,200 RPM, CS2, 2 minutes, 10 seconds.

On order, 1.83 ghz, 2GB ram, 100 GB 7,200 RPM HD.
"I'll take a extra layer of ram on that
gigaflop sandwich mister"
     
Forum Regular
Join Date: Aug 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 16, 2006, 10:53 AM
 
Exactlly 40 seconds on my new iMac 2.0Ghz Core Duo. This is faster then my 2.1Ghz G5 iMac, much faster.... Imagine what this will be like native...
YummySoup! - Recipe management and sharing at its best!
     
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jan 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 17, 2006, 03:57 PM
 
G4 MDD
Dual 1.25Ghz
1.5 Gig Ram

1.17

Way better than my 400mhz sawtooth.

I'm happy! Yay!
     
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 17, 2006, 06:07 PM
 
PB 17" 1Ghz 1GB RAm
10.4.4

3:40
     
Junior Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 17, 2006, 06:36 PM
 
Exactlly 40 seconds on my new iMac 2.0Ghz Core Duo. This is faster then my 2.1Ghz G5 iMac, much faster.... Imagine what this will be like native...

Geez thats faster than my DC G5 2.0 Ghz which cloked in at 49 seconds with 512 RAM
and Adobe PS CS2 on Tiger 10.4.4

I'm getting anohter 2 gigs hopefuly i'll gain a couple seconds in speed or maybe not.
     
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 17, 2006, 07:36 PM
 
Dual 2.3GHz , 2.5 GB Ram

41.9 seconds
     
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 17, 2006, 07:49 PM
 
The tasks done in this benchmark test do not seem to be a good indicator of Intel Photoshop performance.
I like chicken
I like liver
Meow Mix, Meow Mix
Please de-liv-er
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 17, 2006, 08:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by Lateralus
The tasks done in this benchmark test do not seem to be a good indicator of Intel Photoshop performance.
Isn't it "task" singular?

Hardly surprising, really. A blur filter is going to be a tight computational loop, it'll get run a few times and then Rosetta will optimize the crap out of it and cache it.
     
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Apr 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 17, 2006, 09:47 PM
 
DP 2.7 5GB RAM 6800GT 23"HD ACD 10.4.4 Photoshop CS1
39 seconds
     
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jan 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 17, 2006, 10:02 PM
 
These are the results I got:

Imac 17" with Intel/1GB/49 seconds
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 17, 2006, 10:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by Lateralus
The tasks done in this benchmark test do not seem to be a good indicator of Intel Photoshop performance.
Note the RAM disparity in those systems... the Intel iMac (and the G5 iMac) may very well be swapping.
     
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 17, 2006, 10:42 PM
 
Please...

RAM disparity or not, the Intel iMac has four times the L2 cache and twice the number of processor cores. More than enough to make up for the RAM disadvantage.
( Last edited by Lateralus; Jan 17, 2006 at 11:10 PM. )
I like chicken
I like liver
Meow Mix, Meow Mix
Please de-liv-er
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 17, 2006, 11:20 PM
 
No amount of cache or cores can make up for having to swap to disk.

Still, Adobe needs to hurry it up with a Universal Binary.
     
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 18, 2006, 03:05 PM
 
It takes me 59 seconds to obliterate poor little horsie. Dual 2G, 10.4.2, 2.5GB
     
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jul 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 20, 2006, 01:23 AM
 
29.58 s - dual xeon 3Ghz with 2gig ram. I had to assign 60% of my ram to ssigned to photoshop. If I set it to 50%, it occasionally uses the photoshop swap for some reason even though its way more memory than it needs. Weird. Anyway the times are pretty decent but I'm impressed with that core duo cpu. Such a low power cpu running so fast. Not like the 330W I was using during this test It did settle down to a more managable 227 watts afterwards. LOL
     
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jan 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 23, 2006, 09:05 PM
 
1.8Ghz Centrino 1GB Ram Laptop
Xp SP2 CS2
2:32, with a few apps running(itunes,emule....)
im quite happy, but not as happy as when my imac 20'' intel
shows up in a few days...!
     
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Vancouver, B.C
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 26, 2006, 01:47 AM
 
Just tried on my Mac MINI Server, finished in 163.9secs (2min43secs). It's a 1.25Ghz Mac MINI loaded 1GB RAM.

Edit: 154secs@2nd run, my PM 1.6Ghz G5 (2gig DDR) only got around 134secs!!!
( Last edited by ug.mac; Jan 26, 2006 at 02:05 AM. )
     
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Feb 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2006, 09:08 PM
 
Dual AMD opterons 246, 2.0 GHz, CS2, 2G RAM, 1TB hard drives SATA 2, 1394B, 1394A -- XP 64 Pro -- benchmark results 41 seconds average 5 runs. system cost under $1850 how do you G5 folks like those apples??? My system is designed for sustained thru-put data rates exceeding NTSC digital 1.4 Gbits and not processor intensive applications such as this one but I thought I'd give it a go against your G5's. Looks like I'm closer to the 2.7 dual processors and maybe 15-20% better than the 2.0 G5's and I suspect at a lot less $$$.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Minneapolis, MN USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2006, 10:10 PM
 
ibmtq - not bad - how fast can that bad boy render a seti work unit?
     
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jul 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2006, 10:39 PM
 
Thats almost the setup I ended up with instead of my dual xeons - but the xeons worked out somewhat cheaper because I could use regular DDR memory instead of registered. Looks like the Xeon is a good bit faster in PS (I got 29.58 s for this test) but I know for things like Cinebench and 3D rendering, the Opteron would have been definitly stronger.

Wow I have not heard about Seti for a while. It was big a while back. Is it still going strong?
     
Junior Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2006, 11:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by ibmtg
Dual AMD opterons 246, 2.0 GHz, CS2, 2G RAM, 1TB hard drives SATA 2, 1394B, 1394A -- XP 64 Pro -- benchmark results 41 seconds average 5 runs. system cost under $1850 how do you G5 folks like those apples??? My system is designed for sustained thru-put data rates exceeding NTSC digital 1.4 Gbits and not processor intensive applications such as this one but I thought I'd give it a go against your G5's. Looks like I'm closer to the 2.7 dual processors and maybe 15-20% better than the 2.0 G5's and I suspect at a lot less $$$.
Great did you build it yourself?

Too bad you can only run Windows.
     
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 2, 2006, 12:30 AM
 
Dual 2.5GHz 970FXs, 2.5GBs of RAM, MaXLine III 16MB drives; 37 seconds.
I like chicken
I like liver
Meow Mix, Meow Mix
Please de-liv-er
     
Baninated
Join Date: Jan 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2006, 01:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by ibmtg
Dual AMD opterons 246, 2.0 GHz, CS2, 2G RAM, 1TB hard drives SATA 2, 1394B, 1394A -- XP 64 Pro -- benchmark results 41 seconds average 5 runs. system cost under $1850 how do you G5 folks like those apples??? My system is designed for sustained thru-put data rates exceeding NTSC digital 1.4 Gbits and not processor intensive applications such as this one but I thought I'd give it a go against your G5's. Looks like I'm closer to the 2.7 dual processors and maybe 15-20% better than the 2.0 G5's and I suspect at a lot less $$$.
my little X2 3800 is slightly faster. I'm thinking its because my cores are communicating thru the crossbar on die, instead of having to leave the processor to determine load.
     
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Feb 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2006, 06:22 PM
 
533Mhz DA G4 / 896MB RAM / CS2
5:45

Yawn

Will be running it with my Giga Designs Dual 1.8 when I get it back.
     
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Feb 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 7, 2006, 03:23 AM
 
"Silent Upgrade" Mac Mini @ 1.5 GHz/512mb/64mb: 2:08
Athlon 2500+ PC @ 1.87 GHz/1GB/256MB 6800GT: 2:31

Can't believe it beats the PC - very capable little machine. Performance is on par with a friend's P4 2.4 GHz. Getting a dual-core G5 2.3 ASAP, however. Drunk on Mac and loving it.
     
 
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:29 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2015 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2