[iREZ]

1:11

2.0MBP
2gb RAM
CS3

[ninahagen]

Originally Posted by iREZ 

1:11

2.0MBP
2gb RAM
CS3

Dear iRez, Thanks for the post! We have really been needing a MacBook Pro here, especially one with CS3.

Do you use Photoshop a lot? From what I have seen accross many boards and discussions, if you add the 3rd GB to you MacBook Book Pro, you should get 30% faster.
Right now, you are running at the speed of a maxed G5 Quad... really satifying given the small size. Still, if I had your machine, I would spend a little and max the RAM. Small investment, big return. If you add the 3rd GB, can you let us know the level of speed improvement on this thread?

Once again, thanks for the much needed post.

nina

[iREZ]

i have a first generation mbp and i believe the ceiling for ram is 2gb (and i sorta dont want to be a guinea pig to test if it could actually handle 3gb, which i doubt it can anyway) so im sorta stuck until i upgrade my machine in a few months. as for photoshop, i use it on a daily basis and was DYING with the way cs2 was performing on my intel at times. i'd literally have to shut off every app running along side it just to use it proper...it was bad, but cs3 has been a godsend. its running just as fast as my g5 2.0 duallie (2.5gb RAM) at work if not faster without any hiccups. im really really loving my mbp now.

funny thing is the first few times i ran the test i got times of 1:45+, but i noticed that the second time id run it the results would be faster. i dont know if i ran the test incorrect of if i had to post my first times as oppose to second times but i found it odd that my times got better the second time around whereas others have posted in this thread that there was no change between first and second tests. maybe this has something to do with the 32bit architecture in my CoreDuo vs the 64bit in the Core2Duo mbp? but im certain adobe didnt jump to 64bit just yet...not too sure what to think about this.

let me know if theres anything else you'd like me to run.

[ninahagen]

Originally Posted by iREZ 

i have a first generation mbp and i believe the ceiling for ram is 2gb (and i sorta dont want to be a guinea pig to test if it could actually handle 3gb, which i doubt it can anyway) so im sorta stuck until i upgrade my machine in a few months. as for photoshop, i use it on a daily basis and was DYING with the way cs2 was performing on my intel at times. i'd literally have to shut off every app running along side it just to use it proper...it was bad, but cs3 has been a godsend. its running just as fast as my g5 2.0 duallie (2.5gb RAM) at work if not faster without any hiccups. im really really loving my mbp now.

funny thing is the first few times i ran the test i got times of 1:45+, but i noticed that the second time id run it the results would be faster. i dont know if i ran the test incorrect of if i had to post my first times as oppose to second times but i found it odd that my times got better the second time around whereas others have posted in this thread that there was no change between first and second tests. maybe this has something to do with the 32bit architecture in my CoreDuo vs the 64bit in the Core2Duo mbp? but im certain adobe didnt jump to 64bit just yet...not too sure what to think about this.

let me know if theres anything else you'd like me to run.

— I thought the first MBPs were 3GB RAM ceiling... can anybody else confirm that?

— Anyway, since you are upgrading soon, no matter, but you will be extra happy when you do, since Apple just introduced mbp uses a Core Duo 2.4 and can take 4GB of RAM. No speed bottleneck there (unless you multitask hardcore). You should be down in the 40 second range with that.

— No 64-bit CS version yet, but I am hoping it will come near Leopard. Then, you can use all the RAM you can get and more. Please come back and let us know how your next machine does on this speed test. Thanks again!

nina

[iREZ]

i just redid the test again a few times...right after restart my times were 1:45 1:45 1:44. i then closed and reopened photoshop and reran the test, my time were then 1:11 1:12 1:11...i have no idea whats causing this, oh well.

[jawshoouh]

1 min 17 seconds

MacBook Pro 17" 2.16GHz Core Duo
2GB 667MHz DDR2 RAM
120GB HDD
ATI Radeon X1600 (256MB)
Photoshop CS3


@ ninahagen: the first MBP's (like mine) capped out @ 2GB RAM. The new ones go up to 3GB.

[iREZ]

actually the recent mbp's have a ceiling of 4gb.

it goes:
1st gen 2gb
2nd gen 3gb
3rd gen 4gb

[ninahagen]

Originally Posted by iREZ 

i just redid the test again a few times...right after restart my times were 1:45 1:45 1:44. i then closed and reopened photoshop and reran the test, my time were then 1:11 1:12 1:11...i have no idea whats causing this, oh well.

What an odd thing. Are you setting you history states and RAM according to the instructions? Do you have other programs on at the same time? Maybe one of our capable moderators or seasoned tech folks like Oreo or mduell have some insight on that.

[iREZ]

all instructions are followed to a T and every time i test i make sure to shut off all login items (quicksilver, menu shade, etc..), restart, and only open photoshop :shrug:

[ninahagen]

If anyone has a 2nd or 3rd gen MacBook Pro with 3~4GB of RAM, it would be very nice to compare your results to the 1st gen the iRez so kindly posted.

It will help people who are debating the MacBook Pro vs. the Mac Pro and only plan to buy one or the other. I am guessing that the new 2.4 Ghz with 4 GB RAM is pretty blazing, and that the speed will be enough for many to go mobile.

nina

[ninahagen]

KP* from New York posted these results for his latest gen MBP in the MBP forum:

50 seconds

2.4Ghz
4 GB RAM
5400rpm HD (160GB HD)
CS3

There is a discussion going on over there on the fastest HD for the MBP. Hitachi has the best 7200 rpm at the moment... very fast access time, but Seagate is coming out with a perpendicular 7200 soon.

[MacosNerd]

55 Seconds

Photoshop CS3
MacBook Pro 2.4Ghz
2 GB Ram
Stock 160gig drive

Edit from the posts above, the extra 2gig of ram has a negligent impact on the test - at least with this specific benchmark.

[ninahagen]

Originally Posted by MacosNerd 

55 Seconds

Photoshop CS3
MacBook Pro 2.4Ghz
2 GB Ram
Stock 160gig drive

Edit from the posts above, the extra 2gig of ram has a negligent impact on the test - at least with this specific benchmark.

Well, it's 10% slower than KP* with 4GB when running the test only (or doing any single PS operation), but there are at least two cases in which it would be:

1) if you are batching (applying the same action or sequence of actions) to a lot of very PS heavy files (in which case you would want to have the 3GB maximum usable for PS in its present 32-bit form).

or

2) if you are multitasking with several big RAM-sucking apps open along with PS (in which case you would want the maximum RAM you stuff into the machine.

Also, if PS comes out in 64-bit you will want every ounce of RAM you can get.

Lastly, 10% faster due to RAM plus 10% (or more) speed from using a premium 3rd party 7200 rpm drive would add up if you use it on monster files. Just think, on a 5 minute batch would take 4 instead. For graphics people like us that's worth a samll investment in RAM.

PS I wonder if the DIMM slots would accept those crazy new 4GB ram chips x 2. Anyone know?

[OreoCookie]

@Nina
More RAM is only useful/makes your machine faster, if you use it.

[ninahagen]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

@Nina
More RAM is only useful/makes your machine faster, if you use it.

That's true, AND I am willing to bet that a lot of graphics people would use the full 4GB. For example, we did an English textbook awhile back and had PS, AI and InDesign going all at once. If you have to decode a bunch of video at the same time so you can choose just the right still and also have to batch all the stills with a multi-layer color-correct+resize series, you can definately use the RAM. And when the 64-bit CS comes, that will be even more applicable.

nina

[JustinHorne]

Wow! What's wrong with me?
MB, C2D, 2.0 ghz, 1.0 gb, CS3, 7 minutes, 54 seconds.

Any thoughts?

[ninahagen]

Originally Posted by JustinHorne 

Wow! What's wrong with me?
MB, C2D, 2.0 ghz, 1.0 gb, CS3, 7 minutes, 54 seconds.

Any thoughts?

This is without question a RAM bottleneck. Your machine is fine and plenty fast, but only 1GB of RAM with CS3 will make you pay. You should shave off more than 6 minutes by adding a 2nd GB chip. A very cheap way to get a several hundred percent speed increase. Can your machine take a 3rd GB of RAM? That would be optimal, but if not, you will get most of the benefit from the 2nd GB.

Also, you did follow the directions on the test right? History states, RAM settings, test on restart with no other apps open?

Would you be kind enough to repost here after you put in the extra RAM? It would be a helpful reference.

Best,

nina

[Scott F]

Although I don't have my Mac yet, but it is ordered and should be here soon.

As I patiently wait here, twiddling my thumbs, I decided to do this test on my 4 year old Dell Latitude D600 to see how these speed tests fared up to mine. Let's just say it is in dead last. Clocking in at 20 minutes (3 seconds), it is really slow.

I cannot wait until my MacBook Pro arrives (17 inch, 4GB Ram)!

[Scott F]

I got the 17 inch, 160gb 5400 RPM, 4 GB of RAM. Sound good?

[Scott F]

Hello!
Yes, I thought it might have been a good 10 minute (max) thing, but I started watching TV and realized it was 20 minutes! I cannot wait until the new book comes, so happy

I bought the Macbook Pro, 17 inch, 4 GB and 160 GB 5400 RPM. Sound good?

[ninahagen]

Originally Posted by Scott F 

Although I don't have my Mac yet, but it is ordered and should be here soon.

As I patiently wait here, twiddling my thumbs, I decided to do this test on my 4 year old Dell Latitude D600 to see how these speed tests fared up to mine. Let's just say it is in dead last. Clocking in at 20 minutes (3 seconds), it is really slow.

I cannot wait until my MacBook Pro arrives (17 inch, 4GB Ram)!

Talk about trans-dimensional shock. I hope you have your flack vest ready... (you are going to pull 5Gs on that climb... like a test pilot getting his face all bunched up and jiggly). And some cookies and cocoa to calm you down afterwards! You must be gnawing the furniture! Good pain or just pure torture?

Which Photoshop will you be running (CS, CS2 or CS3), and will you do us the favor of posting your speed test here?

nina

[Scott F]

Hello!
Yes, I thought it might have been a good 10 minute (max) thing, but I started watching TV and realized it was 20 minutes! I cannot wait until the new book comes, so happy

I bought the Macbook Pro, 17 inch, 4 GB and 160 GB 5400 RPM. Sound good?

[ninahagen]

Actually, I am surprised the Dell even made it without freezing.
Dude, you better have a friend there when your Santa Rosa MBP comes arrives... you might pass out from joy.

[Scott F]

Would it hurt to tell you that 2 of those puppies are coming here? My twin brother is getting one too!

[JustinHorne]

Originally Posted by ninahagen 

This is without question a RAM bottleneck. Your machine is fine and plenty fast, but only 1GB of RAM with CS3 will make you pay. You should shave off more than 6 minutes by adding a 2nd GB chip. A very cheap way to get a several hundred percent speed increase. Can your machine take a 3rd GB of RAM? That would be optimal, but if not, you will get most of the benefit from the 2nd GB.

Also, you did follow the directions on the test right? History states, RAM settings, test on restart with no other apps open?

Would you be kind enough to repost here after you put in the extra RAM? It would be a helpful reference.

Best,

nina

Alright, well, I guess I'll certainly have to order some ram then, because as someone who uses PS to process RAW files, I had no idea I could gain that much speed! Awesome news, thanks much.
I'll rerun the test when I get the ram.

[ninahagen]

Originally Posted by JustinHorne 

Alright, well, I guess I'll certainly have to order some ram then, because as someone who uses PS to process RAW files, I had no idea I could gain that much speed! Awesome news, thanks much.
I'll rerun the test when I get the ram.

That is very satisfying, and the purpose of the thread. Justin, thanks for contributing. Look forward to your upcoming post... this will be fun to see.

[Scott F]

I will make sure I test mine when I get it (and my brothers too) hopefully next week :-)

[ninahagen]

In addition to the usual posts here (G5, MP, MBP), it would be nice to have some more results for mac minis, iMacs & even windows machines... it all helps round out the picture.

[crazyreaper]

ill test mine on my iMac next week after ive been away, set up is 2.16 Ghz C2D, 2GB ram, ATI Radeon X1600 256 Mb with CS3

[ninahagen]

Originally Posted by crazyreaper 

ill test mine on my iMac next week after ive been away, set up is 2.16 Ghz C2D, 2GB ram, ATI Radeon X1600 256 Mb with CS3

Which hard drive?

[crazyreaper]

250 Gb

[ninahagen]

Originally Posted by crazyreaper 

250 Gb

How many rpms?

[w2mw]

11 min. 25 secs
PowerMac G4 1.25GHz Dual processor
768MB RAM 74GB HD CS2

Thanks to all who contributed to this discussion thread. It convinces me that an investment in a new Mac (with lots of RAM) will be worth the money. All the same, if my computer is 10 times faster, will I get even 5% more work done? It seems to me the speed of the user, not the machine, is the most important factor in the equation. (And I get distracted so easily.)

[ninahagen]

Originally Posted by w2mw 

11 min. 25 secs
PowerMac G4 1.25GHz Dual processor
768MB RAM 74GB HD CS2

Thanks to all who contributed to this discussion thread. It convinces me that an investment in a new Mac (with lots of RAM) will be worth the money. All the same, if my computer is 10 times faster, will I get even 5% more work done? It seems to me the speed of the user, not the machine, is the most important factor in the equation. (And I get distracted so easily.)

Hi w2mw,

Glad this thread helps. Just to be precise... The best results on this thread have been in around 27 seconds. You are running 685 seconds. That is more than 25 times as fast. Your eyes will bug out when you get your new Mac Pro and experience the difference.

[papworth]

PS cs 3
Mac Pro 4x3Ghz
500Gb hd
8x1Gb RAM
os 10.4.10

33 seconds - the time doesn't get any faster (or slower) no matter how i meddle with the settings in PS prefs. Things only slow when I up the history states and use an external FW drive as the primary scratch.

[crazyreaper]

iMac 20"
2.16 Ghz C2D
2GB ram
ATI Radeon X1600 256 Mb
250 GB HD 7200 RPM (104GB free)
CS3

58 seconds :S was hoping for a little better

Matt

[ninahagen]

Originally Posted by papworth 

PS cs 3
Mac Pro 4x3Ghz
500Gb hd
8x1Gb RAM
os 10.4.10

33 seconds - the time doesn't get any faster (or slower) no matter how i meddle with the settings in PS prefs. Things only slow when I up the history states and use an external FW drive as the primary scratch.

Hi papworth, thanks for posting! Four questions: what rpm HD are you using? What happens when your history states are maxed? What happens when your RAM settings are maxed? Both history and RAM?

Also, have you thought of putting in two of the smallest WD 10k rpm Raptors as seperate system and scratch discs, using your 500 GB for files. I bet you would see a nice uptick in performance for a really small investment. I would also get a 2nd 500 GB drive to mirror the first.

Best,

nina

[Faust]

I think my system did pretty well.

Specs:

Mac Pro Dual-Core Intel Xeon 2x3 GHz (BTO)
Cores = 4
RAM = 4x512MB + 2x1GB (total = 4 GB a 667MHz DDR2 FB-DIMM)
250 GB ESB2 AHCI 3.0 Gigabit HD, 7,200 rpm
ATI Radeon X1900 XT

Time: 28 seconds

[ninahagen]

Originally Posted by Faust 

I think my system did pretty well.

Specs:

Mac Pro Dual-Core Intel Xeon 2x3 GHz (BTO)
Cores = 4
RAM = 4 GB
250 GB HD

Time: 28 seconds

What rpm is your HD? Its access time? Are you using 4 x 1GB RAM modules or 2 x 4GB? Those are the only reasons I can imagine for your system being 5 seconds faster than papworth's system (4 posts ago). Unless he forgot to adjust memory, RAM and test on restart.

[ninahagen]

Originally Posted by crazyreaper 

iMac 20"
2.16 Ghz C2D
2GB ram
ATI Radeon X1600 256 Mb
250 GB HD 7200 RPM (104GB free)
CS3

58 seconds :S was hoping for a little better

Matt

Hey Matt,
The problem is the RAM bottleneck. CS3 photoshop needs and uses 3GB RAM to run optimally with heavy tests like this one. Can you machine take an extra 1G of RAM? Either way, your machine is still faster than my maxed out G5, so your machine is still sweet, fast enough for anything you will do in PS unless you are a graphics pro with heavy workflow and/or big files.
nina

[Faust]

Originally Posted by ninahagen 

What rpm is your HD? Its access time? Are you using 4 x 1GB RAM modules or 2 x 4GB? Those are the only reasons I can imagine for your system being 5 seconds faster than papworth's system (4 posts ago). Unless he forgot to adjust memory, RAM and test on restart.

Hi,

I updated my original post. I use 4x512 MB and 2x1GB memory sticks.
My HD has 7,200 RPM

[JustinHorne]

This still seems slow... 2nd gen blackbook, 2 ghz c2d, now with 2 GB of crucial ram, 4:35... It did take almost 3 minutes off my time, but it still seems slow.

[crazyreaper]

Originally Posted by ninahagen 

Hey Matt,
The problem is the RAM bottleneck. CS3 photoshop needs and uses 3GB RAM to run optimally with heavy tests like this one. Can you machine take an extra 1G of RAM? Either way, your machine is still faster than my maxed out G5, so your machine is still sweet, fast enough for anything you will do in PS unless you are a graphics pro with heavy workflow and/or big files.
nina

LOL i am a graphics designer (but only at uni) i could drop another 1 GB in but it would have to be a 2GB to replace 1GB, at the time didnt think i'd need the 3GB plus didnt know if i could afford it. why do imacs only have 2 ram slots

thanks anyway

Matt

[papworth]

hey nina,

when i ran the test, the machine was nice and clean from a real restart (a shutdown, pause & start-up), 0 (or 1 - can't remember) history state, 4 cache levels, 100% ram and nothing else running. The HD is the stock 300mb/s serial 500gb drive, which is WD, i think. Video card is just the basic 7300 driving two 20" formacs.

yeah, i'd like it to be mirrored and then have some extra drives for data, but my bosses eye's watered when i told them the machine required more than the stock 1g to be properly usefull... I'm currently experimenting with superduper to clone the users directory to an encrypted dmg stored on our file server, just in case the worst happens and the workstation gets stolen or destroyed (a couple of weeks ago we had some *&^%$@*£ come through the roof of our office and carry off some machinery). I'm not too worried about disk failure, work is copied to and from the file servers as it is started and finished and sent to rips, so we should loose only a small of bit of work and time. It's not great, but they don't want to spend.

I work with adobe stuff, qx7, aperture and m$ office with much of it open and chugging all day. I regularly work with large ps files (1gb+) though not everyday, generate big eps', tiffs and pdf's, and ALL the ram gets used. It looks to me that if the machine is stuffed with ram, the system will fill it full of something. Activity Meter tells me that I'm averaging 950000 pageins before something gets paged out.

For a quick comparison my previous workstation was the quad G5 with 4.5gb ram and the stock 250gb hd. Running PS cs3beta we completed the test in 46 seconds.

[ninahagen]

Originally Posted by Faust 

Hi,

I updated my original post. I use 4x512 MB and 2x1GB memory sticks.
My HD has 7,200 RPM

The RAM configuration & placement might explain it. I heard from many sources that 2 x 2GB modules are faster than a 4 x 1GB. I wonder if that holds for the 512s as well. Also, one of the senior techies or moderators could comment about your placement of the modules. Which chip do you have in which positions in the risers? It would be neat to see if optimizing the positioning made any difference.

Also, what did you think about my suggestion you add two small Raptors as system and scratch disks?

Best,

nina

[ninahagen]

Originally Posted by Faust 

I think my system did pretty well.

Specs:

Mac Pro Dual-Core Intel Xeon 2x3 GHz (BTO)
Cores = 4
RAM = 4x512MB + 2x1GB (total = 4 GB a 667MHz DDR2 FB-DIMM)
250 GB ESB2 AHCI 3.0 Gigabit HD, 7,200 rpm
ATI Radeon X1900 XT

Time: 28 seconds

Yes, that is within 2 seconds of the fastest time I have seen. I think there was an 8-core that did 26 seconds. Do you do lots of graphics work?

[ninahagen]

Originally Posted by JustinHorne 

This still seems slow... 2nd gen blackbook, 2 ghz c2d, now with 2 GB of crucial ram, 4:35... It did take almost 3 minutes off my time, but it still seems slow.

Hi Justin,
Can't your machine take 3G total? I thought many could take 2GB+1GB.
Well anyway that is hugely faster, like a 35~40% speed increase. That should be really noticable when you work, so it must be really satisfying to have such an improvement.
nina
PS Anyone else have any ideas for him?
PPS Justin, how much was your extra 1GB of RAM?

[ninahagen]

Originally Posted by crazyreaper 

LOL i am a graphics designer (but only at uni) i could drop another 1 GB in but it would have to be a 2GB to replace 1GB, at the time didnt think i'd need the 3GB plus didnt know if i could afford it. why do imacs only have 2 ram slots

thanks anyway

Matt

Hi Matt, at newegg they have a 2GB RAM chip for $85.

Newegg.com - CORSAIR 2GB (2 x 1GB) DDR2 667 (PC2 5300) Dual Channel Kit Memory for Apple Notebook Model VSA2GSDSKIT667D2 - Retail

The % speed inrease would give you would be like getting the next gen laptop for $85. (and you could probably sell you 1GB chip on campus for $10, which makes $75. You are a designer. You will use the speed. It seems like a no brainer.

Please let us know what you decide to do, and if to get the extra GB, please do the speed test again and let us know how much you got for your money.

Best,

nina

[JustinHorne]

Originally Posted by ninahagen 

Hi Justin,
Can't your machine take 3G total? I thought many could take 2GB+1GB.
Well anyway that is hugely faster, like a 35~40% speed increase. That should be really noticable when you work, so it must be really satisfying to have such an improvement.
nina
PS Anyone else have any ideas for him?
PPS Justin, how much was your extra 1GB of RAM?

Haha, true, it was a nice boost... At first apps didn't seem much faster, now I'm noticing it more.. Absolutely no slowdown while compressing a dvd, etc...

And yeah, 40% is god, I guess I'm just always looking for more... Still, it's pretty impressive for this rather cheap notebook...

I got the ram (2 1 GB cards) for 85 shipped, and have a $30 mail in rebate, so a very good deal overall.
Yes, my machine can take 3gb, it just wasn't quite worth it to me to spring for the extra. Overall, I guess I'm more satisied now that I was earlier...

[ninahagen]

Originally Posted by papworth 

hey nina,

when i ran the test, the machine was nice and clean from a real restart (a shutdown, pause & start-up), 0 (or 1 - can't remember) history state, 4 cache levels, 100% ram and nothing else running. The HD is the stock 300mb/s serial 500gb drive, which is WD, i think. Video card is just the basic 7300 driving two 20" formacs.

yeah, i'd like it to be mirrored and then have some extra drives for data, but my bosses eye's watered when i told them the machine required more than the stock 1g to be properly usefull... I'm currently experimenting with superduper to clone the users directory to an encrypted dmg stored on our file server, just in case the worst happens and the workstation gets stolen or destroyed (a couple of weeks ago we had some *&^%$@*£ come through the roof of our office and carry off some machinery). I'm not too worried about disk failure, work is copied to and from the file servers as it is started and finished and sent to rips, so we should loose only a small of bit of work and time. It's not great, but they don't want to spend.

I work with adobe stuff, qx7, aperture and m$ office with much of it open and chugging all day. I regularly work with large ps files (1gb+) though not everyday, generate big eps', tiffs and pdf's, and ALL the ram gets used. It looks to me that if the machine is stuffed with ram, the system will fill it full of something. Activity Meter tells me that I'm averaging 950000 pageins before something gets paged out.

For a quick comparison my previous workstation was the quad G5 with 4.5gb ram and the stock 250gb hd. Running PS cs3beta we completed the test in 46 seconds.

Hi papworth...
Yeah bosses can be tough on that kind of thing. Since you are using aperture, a faster graphics card is essential, since aperature is much more GPU dependent the Photoshop. we process monster tif files too, and nothing sucks RAM like that. I was psyche to see your G5 results. I am still running a Quad 2.5 w 8GB of RAM, and I am coming in at 65 seconds CS2. You got 46 seconds using CS3 which means I can gain 30% speed by buying CS3 now, and just reinstalling it on the new MacPro. It looks like we are going to wait for Penryn processors and Tiger before we upgrade, so it is great to know I can get a lot of the speed increase now. Thanks!

nina

PS Superduper is really intruiging. Its like 1TB, and you can boot from it too, right? This could become our backup solution when we upgrade.