[flabasha]

Originally Posted by OogaBooga

G5 DP 2.0
1.5gb RAM
Radeon 9600 128mb

w/ 1 CPU disabled -- 1:39
w/ both CPUs yes! -- 0:49

The second processor really helps.

Woah, I also have a g5 DP 2.0 with 1.5gb RAM, but a GeForce 5200, and it takes me 59 seconds. Is my graphics card the reason for the slowdown (from your 49)?

Running CS2, no other apps open.

[BJNY]

Originally Posted by jasonhh

I've re-done this test using the demo version of CS2.

Ran it 3 times, each time restarting the app and recorded times of 19.3s, 19.2s, and 19.2s.

Again ran using a Quad 2.5GHz G5 2.5GB RAM 10.4.3

jasonhh,
What brand and size hard drive did you get?
Billy

[BJNY]

Just to clarify, I'm interested in knowing what hard drive mechansim came inside your Quad Core.
What brand (Seagate, Hitachi, IBM) and which model as revealed in About This Mac>System Profiler. Thanks in advance, Billy

[CaptainHaddock]

Ran it 3 times, each time restarting the app and recorded times of 19.3s, 19.2s, and 19.2s.

Okay, you just made me want to sell all my worldly possessions and buy a Quad.

[jasonhh]

The drive is a 250GB Western Digital WD2500JS-41MVB1

[havocidal]

all i can say is OMG!!!

[BJNY]

Originally Posted by jasonhh

The drive is a 250GB Western Digital WD2500JS-41MVB1

Thank you, again, jasonhh.

[tpmchugh]

6 min 50 sec with 512 meg ram and original 500 Ti Powerbook. I am waiting for my quad (quoted Nov 18th)

[chatam]

Quicksilver 733 2001, 1,5 GB of RAM, just restared, no other app running:

3 min and 34 sec - 314 seconds

same machine, same conditions, after Gigadesign Dual 1,8 Ghz upgrade set at 2 x 1,6 Ghz:

1 min and 21 sec - 81 seconds

[crooner]

Originally Posted by jasonhh

I've re-done this test using the demo version of CS2.

Ran it 3 times, each time restarting the app and recorded times of 19.3s, 19.2s, and 19.2s.

Again ran using a Quad 2.5GHz G5 2.5GB RAM 10.4.3

Okay... whoever said that a Quad would be twice as fast as my 2.7 DP (against whom I argued, albeit politely), well... okay. You win. I'm depressed now.

[zoetrope]

Originally posted by me:
Dual 2.7 GHz, 2.5GB of memory, PS CS 2, OS 10.4.2

39 seconds

Originally Posted by jasonhh
I've re-done this test using the demo version of CS2.

Ran it 3 times, each time restarting the app and recorded times of 19.3s, 19.2s, and 19.2s.

Again ran using a Quad 2.5GHz G5 2.5GB RAM 10.4.3

Yep, that would be about twice as fast. Now, I believe reality has caught up to Apple marketing, and they could technically and morally claim that the PM Quad is the fastest desktop around. And now that I revisted this thread, I also noticed the miserable times for the Intel machines

Is this what we have to look forward to? Somebody, please tell me I'm wrong

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by zoetrope

Yep, that would be about twice as fast. Now, I believe reality has caught up to Apple marketing, and they could technically and morally claim that the PM Quad is the fastest desktop around. And now that I revisted this thread, I also noticed the miserable times for the Intel machines

Is this what we have to look forward to? Somebody, please tell me I'm wrong

You're exactly right, zoetrope, this is what you have to look forward to: Apple Intel PCs that perform worse than the Macs they replaced. But on the bright side, we'll always have the iPod, right?

[k2director]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

You're exactly right, zoetrope, this is what you have to look forward to: Apple Intel PCs that perform worse than the Macs they replaced. But on the bright side, we'll always have the iPod, right?

You guys might want to wait until those Intel PowerMacs actually hit the market before making such judgements. The Intel chips you'll find in future PowerMacs haven't even hit the market yet, and are by all accounts a leap forward from today's generation. Also remember that this Quad effectively has 4 CPUs, while the PC results posted in this thread are for single-processor machines.

[Voch]

Just for kicks...

PowerBook G4/667/DVI with 1GB of RAM, Adobe Photoshop CS, no other applications running: 4 minutes exactly

Voch

[acadian]

39 seconds on a dual 2.7 with 5 Gb of RAM

[KeyLimePi]

Originally Posted by crooner

Okay... whoever said that a Quad would be twice as fast as my 2.7 DP (against whom I argued, albeit politely), well... okay. You win. I'm depressed now.

Your dual 2.7 is still faster than 95% of the Macs out there.


Meanwhile on my soon-to-be-replaced dual 1Gz G4 with a GeForceTi, 1GB of RAM and PS 7 - 1:47 seconds.

[nayr x]

Originally Posted by tpmchugh

6 min 50 sec with 512 meg ram and original 500 Ti Powerbook. I am waiting for my quad (quoted Nov 18th)

Damn that is depressing. That has been my primary setup for the last 5 or so years... I have a Quad on order too, so you and I are looking at a speed increase of 20x or more! (based on joshh's 19 sec render of the same file)

A good bench mark as far as general system performance I can't wait to try (as far as for my own purposes) will be to open up a 17"x11" 300 Dpi png file. On my PB it can take 3-5 minutes to save or open one, and I am working on them all the time.

:edit: now that I think of it, this new system will actually negatively impact my creative work as far as net financial gains. Maybe I should increase my hourly going rate to compensate for my raised productivity....

[radwerx]

Tried with my peecee notebook. 1.78Ghz, 1GB RAM running photoshop 7.

1.49sec with no other apps running. Will try with my DP 800 and see what's the diff.

[radwerx]

Seems that the G5s run singnificantly slower with just one proc enabled eh?

Please forgive me for saying this but a G5 dual 2.0 Ghz running with 1 proc disabled seems about as fast as my pentium-m 1.78Ghz (2MB cache). So it seems the powerbookintels may be faster than what you guys expect. Perhaps its the 2MB L2 thats keeping the times down.

[svtcontour]

Originally Posted by zoetrope

Yep, that would be about twice as fast. Now, I believe reality has caught up to Apple marketing, and they could technically and morally claim that the PM Quad is the fastest desktop around. And now that I revisted this thread, I also noticed the miserable times for the Intel machines

Is this what we have to look forward to? Somebody, please tell me I'm wrong

I'm not sure what miserable time you're speaking of for the PCs. I feel I ripped off a great time and mine is no longer cutting edge.

30.3 seconds using photoshop timer (29.6 using stopwatch) for a dual 3Ghz xeon with 2 gig DDR400 memory. I did a test to see what a faster xeon would have done so I overclocked mine to 3.33Ghz and got a time of 26.4 seconds. I think those are the fastest times I've seen with a dual cpu box. I think a quad core intel/amd would beat the quad core G5 times. .

[svtcontour]

Just tested a P4 3.0C system with 1gig RAM and got 1:10 seconds on a stopwatch and 1:13 seconds on the photoshop CS2 timing feature. Has anyone found why there is a discrepancy between a stopwatch and the timing?

Anyway looks like a single P4 3Ghz is about the speed of a dual G4 1.25-1.74 (seems the times vary a lot).. lets say its the speed of a high end dual G4 box. I wonder how it would compare to a single G5 1.8 or 2.0 (if there was a single 2.0).

[jamil5454]

Originally Posted by svtcontour

Just tested a P4 3.0C system with 1gig RAM and got 1:10 seconds on a stopwatch and 1:13 seconds on the photoshop CS2 timing feature. Has anyone found why there is a discrepancy between a stopwatch and the timing?

Anyway looks like a single P4 3Ghz is about the speed of a dual G4 1.25-1.74 (seems the times vary a lot).. lets say its the speed of a high end dual G4 box. I wonder how it would compare to a single G5 1.8 or 2.0 (if there was a single 2.0).

Originally Posted by OogaBooga

G5 DP 2.0
1.5gb RAM
Radeon 9600 128mb

w/ 1 CPU disabled -- 1:39
w/ both CPUs yes! -- 0:49

The second processor really helps.

There technically is a single 2.0 box...

[dark3lf]

What PShop timing feature?

[Todd Madson]

That's what I was just going to ask.

I suppose I should do this on my own machine but I'm just asking to be depressed.

Although, a funnier test might be encoding a 20 minute long MP3 to see how long it takes.

[svtcontour]

Originally Posted by dark3lf

What PShop timing feature?

Open the document, and before running the filter, go to the bottom, and change the setting that selects what is shown at the bottom. The default is to show the document size but you can change it to time which times how long it takes tasks to complete. It only measures the last task it did so its only fine for one filter at a time. You cannot create an action and have it add everything together.

The only odd thing is that the timing is not consistent, at least not for me. If I use a stopwatch, it always returns a better time. Also the first time I run the test, the time is way off, the second and 3rd time, its much more consistent. This used to work much better in photoshop 7.0.

For example, take a look at this picture. At the bottom I have it set to use the timing function which had returned a time of 27.2 seconds for this test.

http://powerthings.com/pics/test3330.jpg

edited

[waxcrash]

Originally Posted by svtcontour

<IMAGE CLIP>

Was posting that huge screen capture really necessary?

[zoetrope]

Originally Posted by svtcontour

I'm not sure what miserable time you're speaking of for the PCs. I feel I ripped off a great time and mine is no longer cutting edge.

30.3 seconds using photoshop timer (29.6 using stopwatch) for a dual 3Ghz xeon with 2 gig DDR400 memory. I did a test to see what a faster xeon would have done so I overclocked mine to 3.33Ghz and got a time of 26.4 seconds. I think those are the fastest times I've seen with a dual cpu box. I think a quad core intel/amd would beat the quad core G5 times. .

I'm talking about these miserable times. And I'm doubting the validity of yours

Originally Posted by phazedowt

2:41

Athlon XP 2500+, 1GB RAM. WinXP Pro, PS CS2

Originally Posted by booboo

2:40 (beaten by an entry level Mac Mini!)

AMD Athlon XP 2800 (2083MHz) + ASUS A7v880 1GB RAM

PS CS 8.0

I've ordered a G5 2.0 DC. Can't wait!

Originally Posted by nesleiN

Dell Inspiron Laptop, 1,4 Ghz Pentium-M Banias, 512MB RAM, CS2, no other apps running.

2:53

I sure hope Intel improves before IntelBooks come out

Originally Posted by Cloud

P4 3.0Ghz
1024MB of RAM
Photoshop CS2

1:26


thats like half as slow as you guys. im still happy with my computer. its almost 2 years old but i dont think ive driven this computer to the ground as hard as i wanted to.

[svtcontour]

Originally Posted by zoetrope

I'm talking about these miserable times. And I'm doubting the validity of yours

First off, you said "And now that I revisted this thread, I also noticed the miserable times for the Intel machines " so dont start including AMD machines in your grouping because last time I checked, AMD is not Intel.

Secondly, dont include anything other than CS2 because anything prior to CS2 is slower on newer architecture.

Thirdly just because my machine is going quite fast in these tests (faster than any other mac product other than a quad core), doesnt mean that I'm doctoring up results. I'll make you happy by getting my digital camera and recording the test with a stopwatch in hand so you can lay to rest any doubt you have. There cant get any better than that. I'm so accomodating LOL

[havocidal]

miserable time is only when u r looking at just single processors...
my p4 3.0GHz is as fast as a imac G5 2.0GHz.....
i think we need to have more pentium-d tests before making comments about miserable times...

[svtcontour]

This one is for Zoetrope since he said in an above post "I'm talking about these miserable times. And I'm doubting the validity of yours " I guess implying that I'm making up numbers for my boxes. Well here is my dual 3Ghz xeon box running at 3Ghz (not overclocked) with 2 gig DDR400 ram.

Forgive me for the terrible video quality. It was done with my canon A75 digital camera. Also dont mind the ghetto mouse button sound. Thats a brand new mouse I opened up today which had a button that was nearly falling off. I packaged it up and its going back to bestbuy tomorrow I have two versions of the video. Quicktime and AVI. Oh I had to really crank the brightness so that the stopwatch was visible. I started the stopwatch at the same time as I pressed the mouse button to start the test. I stopped the stopwatch as soon as my eyes could detect that the test was over....

http://powerthings.com/vids/29point58.avi
http://powerthings.com/vids/29point58.mov

Also is it me or quicktime 7 cropping, filtering, editing is identical to virtualdub. Makes me wonder who copied who...

[svtcontour]

I also had a chance to test an Asus 1.6Ghz Centrino laptop with 768mb DDR333 memory and it was not flattering. Lets say the Centrino does not appear to be a photoshop monster

2:27:59 I used a stopwatch so I went ahead and included the hundredths of a second. This is more than double the speed of a P4 3Ghz desktop that I tested.

[Simon H]

Well, another P4 here. P4 3.00ghz, 2gb RAM, PSCS. 78 seconds timed by hand, consistent over 3 runs.
I was looking at a quad but a dual 2.5 might be enough to keep me happy !

cheers

Simon

[bernt]

Originally Posted by svtcontour

I also had a chance to test an Asus 1.6Ghz Centrino laptop with 768mb DDR333 memory and it was not flattering. Lets say the Centrino does not appear to be a photoshop monster

2:27:59 I used a stopwatch so I went ahead and included the hundredths of a second. This is more than double the speed of a P4 3Ghz desktop that I tested.

Must be something strange with those numbers, my brothers Dell M60 with P-M 2GHz used 1:30... A 1.6Ghz centrino should beat the crap out of lower clocked G4's...

Btw, my iMac G5 1.6 with 1.5GB RAM and CS2 used 2:18. Very dissapointing to be beaten by a mac mini with G4 1.25, that was tested earlier.

bernt

[Breno.Brazil]

My powerbook G4 1.5 15" 1gb ram 80gb 5400....made 2min03seg

[booboo]

45 seconds

(run twice, same both times)

G5 2.0GHz Dual Core, 1.5GB RAM, at Login, Photoshop CS 8.0; no other app's running, just the usual background services.

[jamil5454]

~560 seconds

Photoshop CS2 under Virtual PC 7 (XP) on a Dual 2.0 Rev. C with 1.5gb RAM

[KeyLimePi]

My new dual dual (quad) with 2GB of ECC RAM and PS7: 19 seconds.

[QuadG5Man]

That's awesome. The Quad G5 cost is 55% more than the DualCore 2.0, and the Quad performs 230% faster. Wow.

[Xephian]

Originally Posted by jamil5454

~560 seconds

Photoshop CS2 under Virtual PC 7 (XP) on a Dual 2.0 Rev. C with 1.5gb RAM

Wow, 9.5 minutes.

[himself]

Damn, those quads are powerful...




I'm hoping that by the time I order my G5 sometime next year, ATI will have a PCIe graphics card available. Nvidia doesn't sit well with me, for some strange reason.

[zwiebel_]

Quad 2.5 PM5

EDIT: 1st 19.6, 2nd 19.2, 3rd 19.4 (previous: 24.9 seconds) after disabling unnecessary processes. Runnig Safari and Activity Monitor (with CPU display)

2GB RAM
PS CS2
Tiger 10.4.3

[Tenacious Dyl]

Dual 2.5 GHz G5, 2.5 GBs Ram, nVidia 6800 GT, CS 1 (Photoshop 8.0.0)

39.81 seconds

(finder, safari, dashboard, adium, stickies, itunes open)

[sodamnregistered2]

52 seconds

Athlon64 X2 3800+ (2GHz dualcore)
2GB RAM
Photoshop 7
Windows XP Pro

[Jason]

Pentium 4 2.8 gig
512 ddr ram

145 while chatting on msn.

[Jason]

Originally Posted by Scampura

Ooo, that was fun!

For a Dual Core 2.3 Ghz PowerMac with 512 megs of RAM:

42 seconds.

I just got it today, incidentally.

I guess it must make you quite proud to have such an awesome machine at your hands! even with my pc running the image at 1:46 which i thouht was decent really shows how great the powermacs are, and the quads running 23 seconds! breaktaking... enjoy the machine

[Bryson430]

Quad G5 2.5ghz
2.5GB Ram
Safari in background
Photoshop CS2
19 Seconds

[dru]

Originally Posted by svtcontour

dual Xeon 3Ghz desktop

You say a quad PC would be great, fine *BUT* at what cost? How much does that cost vs. the PMac Quad? I see a Dell dual 3Ghz Xeon with a far smaller HD, same RAM for $200 more than the base Quad.

We hear about these unknown, unspecific chips from Intel that might be in Mactel systems but the truth is Apple's not talking about raw performance but per watt advantage for some future Intel line of chips.

Sure, eventually the Intel-based systems will pull away in raw performance because the G5's won't be built and updated. It's inevitable. Doesn't mean if Apple continued with the G5 or a G6 successor, that they wouldn't not perform admirably vs. Intel's chips.

[svtcontour]

Originally Posted by dru

You say a quad PC would be great, fine *BUT* at what cost? How much does that cost vs. the PMac Quad? I see a Dell dual 3Ghz Xeon with a far smaller HD, same RAM for $200 more than the base Quad.

We hear about these unknown, unspecific chips from Intel that might be in Mactel systems but the truth is Apple's not talking about raw performance but per watt advantage for some future Intel line of chips.

Sure, eventually the Intel-based systems will pull away in raw performance because the G5's won't be built and updated. It's inevitable. Doesn't mean if Apple continued with the G5 or a G6 successor, that they wouldn't not perform admirably vs. Intel's chips.

I cannot comment on any of that. All I can tell you is I built my own dual 3Ghz single core xeon box nearly a year ago and it was very economical for what I got for performance. The fact that two cores (not four) hit 29 seconds on stock clock and its a year old means its pretty good. In fact that is faster than any dual cpu G5 so far (not quad core but two cpu or dual core). I'm sure dual 3.4Ghz single core xeons would be hitting 26 or 25 seconds. Gotta admit thats good. I suspect within a year, dual core xeons will be available for a reasonable price

[lothar56]

iBook G4 1.33GHz, 512 MB, PS CS 2 Tryout edition, nothing else but finder running, 2:27

It looks like I'm on par with ~1.7-2.0 GHz PC laptops, depending on the processor. Not bad. MHz myth still lives...haha

[Madrag]

Originally Posted by Bryson430

Quad G5 2.5ghz
2.5GB Ram
Safari in background
Photoshop CS2
19 Seconds

first post and already posing

19 secs, that's awesome!