[whiskerdisker]

Hi there,

I know that Photoshop is not performing too well under Rosetta, but all the comparisons I've seen are between the Intel and the G5.

I am a designer, using Photoshop CS2 a fair bit each day, but my machine is a 1Ghz Rev1 17" G4 Powerbook with 1Gb of RAM.

I just want to know, if I were to compare my speed in Photoshop to a 20" Intel iMac with 2Gb of RAM, would it be slower, on par, or slightly faster than my machine?

If possible, I'd love to be able to send someone a file so that they can do a set of actions to it and I will compare the time it takes on my own machine. Is anyone able to help me?

Thanks in advance.

WD (Australia).

[iREZ]

i used the 20" intel iMac at my buddies house today, and photoshop seemed faster than my current powerbook which has just about the same horsepower as your computer, and he only had 512mb of ram. im impressed with this new computer and am growing impatient waiting to see what the mac mini update has in store. i own a 20" display already so i'd rather get a dual core mini than iMac but at this rate...i think i might just have to go with the iMac.

[whiskerdisker]

If you've got a new Intel iMac, and photoshop, please download this image, and let us know how fast Photoshop is running on your machine with this test...

Okay, Click here for the test photo. I've saved the action set if you want to download it from here. Otherwise, you can do it all manually as follows.

Once you've downloaded the photo, pop it on the desktop, open Photoshop and create the following 'action' (once the image is open and set view to 'actual pixels'):

***START THE NEW ACTION RECORDING***

1 - Change mode to CMYK
2 - Open Colour Balance, and change colour levels to -10 for ALL THREE, on shadows, midtones AND highlights
3 - Open Curves, put a point in the middle of the line, and then type INPUT=50, OUTPUT=75
4 - Go to Canvas Size, and change dimensions to: w=264.67mm, h=179.32mm
5 - Open Brightness/Contrast, and make B=+20, C=+10
6 - Open Image Size, and change width to 6000 pixels, height to 3989 pixels (height will be right automatically if you've got 'constrain proportions' checked)
7 - Open Filter > Sharpen > select 'Sharpen'
8 - Double click on the layer 'Background' (in layers palette) and then click OK, (so it's now call 'layer 0')
9 - Duplicate the layer, (by dragging 'layer 0' onto the new layer icon down the bottom of the palette)
10 - Flatten the image
11 - Then go File > Save As = 'DSC_0045.tif' (NOTE: saved as TIF file with no compression)
12 - Close the window

*** STOP THE ACTION RECORDING ***

Now that the action is set up, restart the computer, open ONLY Photoshop, open the image, and time the action from start to finish (when the file closes). Also give the specs of your computer including amount of RAM and clock speed, as well as the version of Photoshop you're using.

THANKS! I'm looking forward to seeing some results.

WD

[whiskerdisker]

Well I just did it, and my time was 1 minute and 4 seconds, using Photoshop CS2, on a 1Ghz 17" G4 Powerbook, with 1Gb of RAM.

Looking forward to seeing what Photoshop under Rosetta is like on the same task.

WD

[chrisutley]

One thing is for sure, PS CS is plenty fast for my hobby photography purposes. I can't tell a difference from my PowerBook G4 1.67 GHz.

[whiskerdisker]

Which Intel iMac have you got Chris? Can you do the test?

WD

[jjlannoo]

Well I rebooted and got a totally different time LOL 16 seconds till the save dialogs then after the second dialog is clicked till the window vanishes was under 5 seconds. so around 20 seconds flat

iMac G5 20" 2.1 GHz 512 ram

[jpcullen70]

I ran it under Photoshop CS using a 17" Imac (Intel) & 1GB ram. My time was 19 seconds.

[whiskerdisker]

Here is another test, which is a bit beefier and should highlight the differences a bit better.

Click here for the test photo (same one as before)
Click here for the new Action

This one took me 6min 33sec! from hitting play, to the photo disappearing.
(on my 1Ghz 17" Powerbook with 1Gb RAM)

WD

[jjlannoo]

Originally Posted by whiskerdisker

Here is another test, which is a bit beefier and should highlight the differences a bit better.

Click here for the test photo (same one as before)
Click here for the new Action

This one took me 6min 33sec! from hitting play, to the photo disappearing.
(on my 1Ghz 17" Powerbook with 1Gb RAM)

WD

I got right around 3:34

iMac "20 2.1GHz 512 ram

[whiskerdisker]

Originally Posted by jjlannoo

I got right around 3:34

iMac "20 2.1GHz 512 ram

That's almost half my time - with half the RAM. Not bad.

jpcullen70, what do you get with your Intel iMac?

WD

[jjlannoo]

Originally Posted by whiskerdisker

That's almost half my time - with half the RAM. Not bad.


WD

Just ran it again to be sure got 3:35 this time

[jpcullen70]

The second (beefier) test ran in 5:16 on my Imac 17 with 1 GB. I ran this one under Photoshop CS after a fresh reboot.

[whiskerdisker]

Wow, thanks JP!

That pretty much answers my question - Photoshop under Rosetta is still faster than my current machine, and I am looking at the Core Duo 2Ghz with 2Gb RAM so it should be even a little faster than 5:16.

Woohoo! New mac for me.

Now... Has anyone got a 20" Intel Mac they'd like to test?

[jpcullen70]

actually, I ran the test on the wrong picture. When I used the correct picture, my time came in at 3:55 using an Imac 17 with 1GB.

[jjlannoo]

Originally Posted by jpcullen70

actually, I ran the test on the wrong picture. When I used the correct picture, my time came in at 3:55 using an Imac 17 with 1GB.

Ok that makes more sense and is in line with the first test

[surfratt]

Wow! looking at these results is VERY encouraging I am on a Powerbook Ti 867 with 512mb ram and will be moving to (on order) a MacBook Pro 1.83 2GB ram, 100GB 7200rpm Hd 256mb x1600. I can't wait! I don't do much photoshop, but use all the iapps, do some video editing and art via Studio Artist and play a lot of World of Warcraft. Imagine the difference between my ti 867 and MacBook Pro on Universal Binary apps. Especially considering that your tests are through Rosetta. I can't Wait!

[badnewsblair]

Wow! This thread is exactly what I was looking for. I too have a Rev. 1 17" Powerbook 1.0 GHz and 1GB RAM. I also have a 20" Intel iMac with the 256MB ATI XT1600 and 1GB RAM upgrades on its way as we speak (FedEx tracking # 701094639690)! Should be here by Wednesday. These performance tests would be great for me as well. Keep them coming. Also, is there a desire for "opening ceremony" picture gallery like in the past, or are we over that now? Give me the word and I'll recharge the Nikon.

[jpcullen70]

Just for grins I ran both of the photoshop actions on my Windows XP machine. It uses an AMD64 3700 and 1GB of ram. The times were:

Test 1: :16
Test 2: 3:55

My new Imac holds its own against the AMD64. When Photoshop comes out compiled for the Intel processor, I look for the Imac to win. Wow.

[zenatek]

These results are very impressive! I can't wait for my intel iMac to irrive. Good work guys.

[Keda]

I saw the link from the other thread...

I didn't do test 1 (results seems pretty good for others).

Test2: 4:05 (both before and after restart)

Specs:
PhotoShop7 (memory set to 50% avail RAM or 443MB), 1 external FW scrath (as secondary sd)

iMac CD 20"
1GB RAM
256MB ATI X1600


The machine is very usable during day-to-day operations. The results of these test may imply that the new iMac's performance is equivalent to a 1.5G4, for example, but the interface is smooth. I think the graphics card really helps things here.

[bernt]

PhotoShop 7 should be a bit slower than cs and cs2, which might be the reason for why the dual core 2.0 is slower than the 1.83 version.

[Keda]

Thats what I was thinking. At this point, I'm going to live with the slight speed hit, and wait for universal binaries to be released. I have also increased PSD's RAM allocation. Another 1GB stick will help too.

[HattoriHanzo]

20inch dual 2ghz - 2gb ram - 256mb vram - CS2

2m.36sec

[boombashi]

I read a few CS vs. CS2 reviews a while back, and in several instances CS2 was as much as 20%-50% faster than CS1 on the same hardware. I can also personally concur of the speed boosts from CS to the CS2 upgrade. I didn't notice as much from PS 7 to CS2 when I upgraded. And if you are wondering about upgrading to CS2 it is so much better, BUT CS3 may be out by summer so you may want to wait at this point.

[bernt]

I wouldn't bet on a CS3 release by this summer judging by Adobe's earlier track record when Apple has changed platforms. According to earlier info I remeber having read a while ago, the planned release date of CS3 has been scheduled for late 06, early 07. Lets hope that Apple's early release of the Intel Macs has put some pressure on Adobe. Quark has already released a beta, and seems to be pushing forward again on the mac platform after many disappointing years.

[HattoriHanzo]

I cant wait until CS3 is out - native baby yeah

[whiskerdisker]

Yeah it's like the tables are turned this time. With OSX, Quark was soooo slooooow doing a native version, but now it's Adobe dragging the chain. I have to admit though, I'm no programmer but recoding the CS2 applications must be a mammoth task.

[bernt]

It seems like Quark has gotten some inside information since they "happened" to have a native beta version ready for the Intel Mac relase...

This could be Quarks chance to get back at Adobe again, which has steadily developed InDesign into a serious competitor to QuarkXPress. And yes, Adobe has some lines of code that has to be made Universal Binary.

[boombashi]

Originally Posted by bernt

I wouldn't bet on a CS3 release by this summer judging by Adobe's earlier track record when Apple has changed platforms. According to earlier info I remeber having read a while ago, the planned release date of CS3 has been scheduled for late 06, early 07. Lets hope that Apple's early release of the Intel Macs has put some pressure on Adobe. Quark has already released a beta, and seems to be pushing forward again on the mac platform after many disappointing years.

Yeah - my anticipation for a summer CS3 release is probably a little far fetched. They useually float around about a year and a half for updates. CS1 came out October 2003, CS2 came out Spring 2005, so one would expect sometime this fall. HOWEVER - they are a new company now, and things could change, since they are no doubt working on their whole structure with the Macromedia Products and rebranding and everything.

[Cadaver]

Test 2: 1min 42sec
Machine: 2.5GHz G5, 3.5GB RAM, Raptor 10K RPM scratch disk, Photoshop CS1.

[Horsepoo!!!]

Originally Posted by Cadaver

Test 2: 1min 42sec
Machine: 2.5GHz G5, 3.5GB RAM, Raptor 10K RPM scratch disk, Photoshop CS1.

Sweet machine.

[jimbosyn]

This is exactly what I was wondering. G4 Powerbook vs Core duo. For current iMac G5 owners, the core duo processor is not nearly as drastic as it is for current gen PowerBook G4 owners. For Powerbook owners, I will make the generalization that rosetta emulated applications will probably run at equal to greater speeds when compared to G4 powerbooks. This is of course just me and my crystal ball with little or no empirical evidence, but the intel iMacs should perform _VERY_ closely to the macbook pros.

Is it February 15th yet?

[JKT]

What happens when you run the tests repeatedly on the intel Macs - do the results get better on subsequent runs?

[HattoriHanzo]

Originally Posted by JKT

What happens when you run the tests repeatedly on the intel Macs - do the results get better on subsequent runs?

about the same every time - although the amount of apps open varies it GREATLY

[JKT]

OK, thanks.

[ViktorCode]

I want to offer one tech site test for Photoshop CS and CS2.

Follow the link http://www.driverheaven.net/photoshop/ to download the test's picture and action files (mac friendly version link is http://www.driverheaven.net/photoshop/dhpsbench2.zip though I used original files). Instruction on how to run the benchmark is there too.

Basically you run series of filters on the same picture and write down the time each filter took to complete its work. To compare your result to the others use online database: http://www.driverheavendownloads.net...shop/index.php

It took about 400 seconds for my PowerBook 17'' 1.67 512 MB RAM to complete all 13 steps. Need. More. RAM.

[thefunkymunky]

Can anyone test QuarkXpress 6.5 performance under Rosetta.

[Alfredo1]

Originally Posted by Horsepoo!!!

Sweet machine.

Dual2GHz G5 3.5GB RAM but CS2 - 1' 16" for test #2, no other apps running...

[papworth]

CS2
Test 1: 13
Test 2: 2:12

CS
test 1: 17
test 2: 3:15

1ghz dual mirror door, 2 GB ram, 10.4.4, 80Gb 7200 hd. suitecase and launch bar running.

This machine is one of the main workstations at my bosses print company, (printers don't like equipment changes...), this makes me think he would be happy with an imac and would probably cry if he used a quad or a dual 2.7. The future looks bright.

[bloodline]

Sorry to barge in on a Photoshop thread, but has anyone tried to benchmark Logic Exress 7.0 under Rosetta? (and compared it with a G4 1.5Ghz... see where I'm going with this? ;-) )

[playby]

the results in this thread look extremely promising. i also found out that the latest wacom drivers are already universal!

but then i came across this link http://www.macintouch.com/readerrepo...topic2074.html

scroll down to the january 23 post

The Photoshop [CS2] Action creates a roughly 30MB doc, creates a pastoral scene, sharpens, performs a complicated "Lens Blur", a "Lens Distortion", color corrects, colorizes, masks and quite a few other time consuming things.
Here are some almost scientific results:
iMac 2.1 GHz G5, 1.5 GB RAM: 1 min. 55 sec
Powerbook 17" 1 GHz G4, 1 GB RAM: 4 min. 45 sec
iMac 2 GHz Core Duo, 1 GB RAM: 7 min. 45 sec

almost the opposite of what's being posted in this thread i'm hoping that it's only certain filters that cause rosetta to slow down like that

[aquilles10]

Just as a reference, I got a time of 2:45 on test 2 using a dual G4 1.25Ghz Powermac with 2.0gb of RAM, and a 200GB 8MB cache Maxtor hard drive. using Photoshop CS2.

[Cannonball Studios]

Hello!

Thank you all for this thread. I read it yesterday, and it made me decide to buy a memory upgrade. Well, it arrived today, so I have some before and after results.
Please note that I run CS1

As a measuring stick, I ran the test on my last-generation Powerbook G4. It's specs are as follows:

G4 1.5 GHz, 512 MB RAM, 12 inch screen... after reboot.

The photoshop test #2 took 7 minutes and 21 seconds. (Probably due to low RAM)


Now, on to the iMac.

I bought it this weekend from tha Apple Store, 20" 2 GHz Intel Chip, 512 MB RAM, yada yada...
I ran the test on it after a reboot and clocked 5 minutes and 15 seconds. Not bad.

Then I got my RAM. After upgrading to 2GB RAM, i just booted up and ran the test in 3 minutes and 26 seconds.

This is quite an impressive processor. With the same RAM, and through Rosetta, it clocked faster than a 1.5 G4. I don't have a G5 to test against, but think, without rosetta this would scream... and with a significant drop in heat.

I can only imagine these results are similar on a MacBook Pro, thus proving that this was a smart move for Apple... we are all more productive for it.

I Can't wait to run this test after Adobe releases a UB.

[DoGoodDrugs]

Originally Posted by whiskerdisker

Here is another test, which is a bit beefier and should highlight the differences a bit better.

Click here for the test photo (same one as before)
Click here for the new Action

This one took me 6min 33sec! from hitting play, to the photo disappearing.
(on my 1Ghz 17" Powerbook with 1Gb RAM)

WD

this took me 6min 20sec

imac
1.83GHz Intel Core Duo
512 MB ram


photoshop 7.0 running under rosetta, is this good or bad? does it matter?

[loh]

just ran the #2 test using adobe photoshop cs2.

1st time: 3:25
2nd time: 3:40


The computer I used is in my signature.

[handras]

Originally Posted by whiskerdisker

Here is another test, which is a bit beefier and should highlight the differences a bit better.

Click here for the test photo (same one as before)
Click here for the new Action

This one took me 6min 33sec! from hitting play, to the photo disappearing.
(on my 1Ghz 17" Powerbook with 1Gb RAM)

WD

Intel core duo 20" iMac
Intel core duo 17" iMac
Quad
Dual core 2.3 PM
iMac G5 1.9
Powerbook 17 1.67

Click here for the results:
http://web.mac.com/handras/iWeb/Site/intelimac3.html

[Cannonball Studios]

Hello.

I belive someone asked about Logic Pro performance.

I am using 20" iMac Intel 2.0 GHz with 2 GB Memory. I had attempted to run the Logic Demo Song for G5 Only when I had Logioc 7.1 installed. It would not even produce audio. I got a message before one sample of audio was played that the system could not keep up.

Well, I just got my 7.2 crossgrade CD, and WOW! This imac handles the G5 23" Full Track demo song beautifully. My powerbook will not run it. To be a little more specific, first I tried it without a fresh reboot. (not even after installing it)... it got about 61 seconds in and stopped. After the upgrade it made it through without a hiccup. Wonderful. It will be rare that I will need a session that big, and it is good to know that this machine can handle it.

Thanks for your input, everyone!

[whiskerdisker]

Originally Posted by handras

Intel core duo 20" iMac
Intel core duo 17" iMac
Quad
Dual core 2.3 PM
iMac G5 1.9
Powerbook 17 1.67

Click here for the results:
http://web.mac.com/handras/iWeb/Site/intelimac3.html

Thanks Handras! That was an amazing effort. Great to see a diverse test range all together.

WD.