[Faust]

Originally Posted by ninahagen 

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

Hello Nina,

I do not use 2GB memory sticks. I use single memory sticks. 4 single 512 and 2 single 1GB memory sticks. I plan on upgrading and getting another 2 memory sticks with 2GB per stick to have a total of 8 GB on my system.

What are raptors?

To your other question, yes, I do a lot of graphic design work on a daily basis.

[ninahagen]

Originally Posted by Faust 

Hello Nina,
I do not use 2GB memory sticks. I use single memory sticks. 4 single 512 and 2 single 1GB memory sticks. I plan on upgrading and getting another 2 memory sticks with 2GB per stick to have a total of 8 GB on my system.

There is an optimum order to placing the sticks in the riser, though I don't know exactly what it is. I will post another thread on this, and ask more experienced members what is best... I am interested to know this too.

[/QUOTE]What are raptors?[/QUOTE]

They are hard drives manufactured by Western Digital.

WD Raptor 150 GB SATA Hard Drives ( WD1500ADFD )

They run at 10k rpm, compatible with Mac Pro and cost about $200 apiece for the biggest model (160GB). Word is that at the moment they are the fastest drives for Mac Pros, not only in terms of rpm, but also interms of access speed.

[/QUOTE]To your other question, yes, I do a lot of graphic design work on a daily basis.[/QUOTE]

So, for graphic design work, you need speed. If you are spending all that money on RAM to max out your system, you might consider a Raptor for your system/software disc, & another for your scratch disc. If you want to go all out for your file storage discs, the Mac Pro will take 4 more HDs, 2 in the remaining bays and 2 external via this harness:

NewerTech� eSATA Extender Cable

You can run those for individually, or in any number of RAID arrays (hardware or software RAID). The most hardcore is RAID 0, but you would have to back that up daily to a Superduper, because there is no redundancy, ie disaster... if any of the storage discs in in the array fail, all of them lose their data. It just seems like you enjoy speed, need it, and have the money, so why not?

nina

[NobleMatt]

Originally Posted by JustinHorne 

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...

well for a starts thats no good cause i already have both (2) ram slots full (1 GB in each) so 2 x 1GB is no advance. plus isnt that for the macbooks? i have an imac and im also from UK so would need a UK retailer (even more exspencive)

Thanks Though

[ninahagen]

Originally Posted by crazyreaper 

well for a starts thats no good cause i already have both (2) ram slots full (1 GB in each) so 2 x 1GB is no advance. plus isnt that for the macbooks? i have an imac and im also from UK so would need a UK retailer (even more exspencive)

Thanks Though

Yes, but I thought some of the imacs could take one 2GB chip + one 1 GB chip, total 3GB. It would make you lots faster. PS works poorly with 1GB, pretty well with 2GB and very well with 3GB. The times for this test on MacBooks and iMacs are very roughly 5~8 minutes with 1GB, 2~5 minutes with 2GB, and 50 sec ~ 1 1/2 minutes or so with 3GB. It makes a huge difference.

[ninahagen]

Originally Posted by JustinHorne 

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...

Great, for $55 bucks you improved your machine by a generation. Good going!

[Faust]

Originally Posted by ninahagen 

There is an optimum order to placing the sticks in the riser, though I don't know exactly what it is. I will post another thread on this, and ask more experienced members what is best... I am interested to know this too.



They are hard drives manufactured by Western Digital.

WD Raptor 150 GB SATA Hard Drives ( WD1500ADFD )

They run at 10k rpm, compatible with Mac Pro and cost about $200 apiece for the biggest model (160GB). Word is that at the moment they are the fastest drives for Mac Pros, not only in terms of rpm, but also interms of access speed.

To your other question, yes, I do a lot of graphic design work on a daily basis.

So, for graphic design work, you need speed. If you are spending all that money on RAM to max out your system, you might consider a Raptor for your system/software disc, & another for your scratch disc. If you want to go all out for your file storage discs, the Mac Pro will take 4 more HDs, 2 in the remaining bays and 2 external via this harness:

NewerTech� eSATA Extender Cable

You can run those for individually, or in any number of RAID arrays (hardware or software RAID). The most hardcore is RAID 0, but you would have to back that up daily to a Superduper, because there is no redundancy, ie disaster... if any of the storage discs in in the array fail, all of them lose their data. It just seems like you enjoy speed, need it, and have the money, so why not?

nina

Hello Nina,

I have never given it much thought so far as my System is pretty new. I replaced my old G5 with it. I am going to be purchasing another Mac Pro (probably 8 core) sometime soon but for the next two or three months, this one will do. A Mac Pro 8 core here in Germany costs around $700 more than an identical system bought in the US, so I will want to make sure that a 4-core maxed out is not a good alternative for a second system as opposed to the 8-core. I have to read up on that.
This is a very informative post, Nina. I would like to maximise my system (more RAM, more HD drives) so the above is very good information for me.

Just to clarify (not sure if it means anything): My system is a BTO so I assume the shop did know what they were doing when configuring the RAM. I do not even know why they did it that way as I simply said I want 4 GIGs of RAM and that is what they came up with for optimum speed. Whether or not it has any relevance I would not know but I do know that it works wonderfully.

[ninahagen]

Originally Posted by Faust 

Hello Nina,

I have never given it much thought so far as my System is pretty new. I replaced my old G5 with it. I am going to be purchasing another Mac Pro (probably 8 core) sometime soon but for the next two or three months, this one will do. A Mac Pro 8 core here in Germany costs around $700 more than an identical system bought in the US, so I will want to make sure that a 4-core maxed out is not a good alternative for a second system as opposed to the 8-core. I have to read up on that.
This is a very informative post, Nina. I would like to maximise my system (more RAM, more HD drives) so the above is very good information for me.

Just to clarify (not sure if it means anything): My system is a BTO so I assume the shop did know what they were doing when configuring the RAM. I do not even know why they did it that way as I simply said I want 4 GIGs of RAM and that is what they came up with for optimum speed. Whether or not it has any relevance I would not know but I do know that it works wonderfully.

You absolutely should not buy an 8-core soon... for several reasons:

The 8-core will not be significantly faster than the 4-core, if at all. (unless you do scientific computation).

Tiger has primitive threading and cannot optimize the speed pontential. (may change with Leopard).

It will be surely replaced by February or so with the new Penryn processors.

I would wait till you can get a Penryn 8-core with Leopard, (and hopefully a 64-bit CS3), max it with the biggest RAM modules you can afford, and run 6 Raptors: 1 Scratch, 1 System, 4 in a RAID 0 array (with the harness I gave you the link to) (also hardware RAID if you can, not software), with a Superduper 1TB backup. That, my friend, will be a screaming system. (and you seem to love speed). Glad if these posts helped.

nina

[Faust]

Originally Posted by ninahagen 

You absolutely should not buy an 8-core soon... for several reasons:

The 8-core will not be significantly faster than the 4-core, if at all. (unless you do scientific computation).

Tiger has primitive threading and cannot optimize the speed pontential. (may change with Leopard).

It will be surely replaced by February or so with the new Penryn processors.

I would wait till you can get a Penryn 8-core with Leopard, (and hopefully a 64-bit CS3), max it with the biggest RAM modules you can afford, and run 6 Raptors: 1 Scratch, 1 System, 4 in a RAID 0 array (with the harness I gave you the link to) (also hardware RAID if you can, not software), with a Superduper 1TB backup. That, my friend, will be a screaming system. (and you seem to love speed). Glad if these posts helped.

nina

That sounds pretty cool. I will go through the links you posted. But there is nothing standing in the way of following your advice as I was about to upgrade anyway.

Thanks,

faust

[NobleMatt]

Originally Posted by ninahagen 

Yes, but I thought some of the imacs could take one 2GB chip + one 1 GB chip, total 3GB. It would make you lots faster. PS works poorly with 1GB, pretty well with 2GB and very well with 3GB. The times for this test on MacBooks and iMacs are very roughly 5~8 minutes with 1GB, 2~5 minutes with 2GB, and 50 sec ~ 1 1/2 minutes or so with 3GB. It makes a huge difference.

well im already in the 50 secs to 1 min mark with 2GB (2 x 1GB)

[ninahagen]

Originally Posted by Faust 

That sounds pretty cool. I will go through the links you posted. But there is nothing standing in the way of following your advice as I was about to upgrade anyway.

Thanks,

faust

The system disc should clearly be separate. I am not sure how to divide the 5 remaining discs (between scratch and storage) for maximum speed. I wonder many of these make up the scratch RAID array, and how many make up the storage disc RAID array? Would someone more experienced can speak to that?

[ninahagen]

Originally Posted by crazyreaper 

well im already in the 50 secs to 1 min mark with 2GB (2 x 1GB)

Yes, I should have been more precise. The newer imacs are in the sub 1 minute range. I looked back and found that you have a recent iMac dual-core that is faster than my G5 Quad 2.5. (I hate you)

I still think the 3rd gig would shave off quite a bit. But hey 50 seconds is rippin...

[NobleMatt]

Originally Posted by ninahagen 

Yes, I should have been more precise. The newer imacs are in the sub 1 minute range. I looked back and found that you have a recent iMac dual-core that is faster than my G5 Quad 2.5. (I hate you)

I still think the 3rd gig would shave off quite a bit. But hey 50 seconds is rippin...

lol thanks

[NKT]

2.4ghz MBP core 2 duo, w/ 2gb stock ram and 160gb 5400rpm hard drive, running CS3:

53 seconds

[NobleMatt]

wow thats a good time, is that the new MPB with Santa-Rosa?

[Scott F]

Here you go Nina, it went REALLY FAST!

17 MBP
2.4ghz MBP core 2 duo, w/ 4gb ram and 160gb 5400rpm hard drive, running CS3:

50 seconds

[ninahagen]

Originally Posted by NKT 

2.4ghz MBP core 2 duo, w/ 2gb stock ram and 160gb 5400rpm hard drive, running CS3:

53 seconds

Originally Posted by Scott F 

Here you go Nina, it went REALLY FAST!

17 MBP
2.4ghz MBP core 2 duo, w/ 4gb ram and 160gb 5400rpm hard drive, running CS3:

50 seconds

Hi NKT & Scott,
Superb! You two must be over the moon with your Santa Rosas. Smokin'. Scott's post shows that by maxing it out on RAM, you get a 5~6% speed bump on the test. In fact, using 3GB would probably yield the same 5~6%, since PS can only use 3 GB. Where the 4GB will make a difference is in heavy multi-tasking.

Would you two be will to try a modified series of tests. We would be able to see when the extra RAM kicks in, and how much performance it gives. It will help people decide which level to get themselves, and NTK will see if it's worth a RAM upgrade.

I suggest 5 levels:

1 - The straight PS test (already complete)
2 - The straight PS test with 30 history states (RAM at 100%, test on restart)
3 - 30 history states+these other apps open: Illustrator, InDesign, Mail, Safari, iTunes, Word
4 - 30 History states+above apps open+PS running a batch with 3 operations (rotate 90% right, crop, reduce height to 1000 pixels (with proportional constraints) applying to 30 1GB tif files. They can be duplicates of the same file.
5 - All of the above while downloading a movie from iTunes.

I suspect the 4 GB will hold much closer to the speeds we see in the straight test.

Thanks again for posting your results...

Nina

[ninahagen]

Is there anybody running a RAID array (either scratch or storage drives) who would take the test and post the results?

[rgkgraphix]

Sweet

35 seconds on my Mac Pro with 6 GB of Ram from a Seagate 500GB drive

(pats mac pro on top of case)

[Richard Richard]

32-33 secs on my 2.66 4/750

[ninahagen]

This thread needs some results from RAID configurations... can anyone help out?

[MacosNerd]

Why I think the majority of the work on this specific test is cpu bound, a faster drive will not effect the results imo

[ninahagen]

Originally Posted by MacosNerd 

Why I think the majority of the work on this specific test is cpu bound, a faster drive will not effect the results imo

That doesn't sound right. Can you back it up?

[toknee]

Mac Pro
2 x 2.66 Dual Core
8GB RAM (4 x 2GB)
X1900XT
RAPTOR 150GB 10K HD SYSTEM DISK
RAPTOR 150GB 10K HD SCRATCH
2 x 500GB WD SE16 DATAVG RAID1
CS3


30 SECONDS

MacBook PRO
SR 2.4GHz 15.4"
4 GB RAM
200GB HITACHI 7200RPM 16MB CACHE

51 seconds

[ninahagen]

Originally Posted by toknee 

Mac Pro
2 x 2.66 Dual Core
8GB RAM (4 x 2GB)
X1900XT
RAPTOR 150GB 10K HD SYSTEM DISK
RAPTOR 150GB 10K HD SCRATCH
2 x 500GB WD SE16 DATAVG RAID1
CS3


30 SECONDS

What a beautiful set up. You cut 2-3 seconds (about 6~10%) off the normal time for a 2.66 Ghz with the Raptors. Now, for a single test like this, that might not seem like much, but if you start loading the work on like we do (with multiple batches and many programs working at once), you will see that your machine will bend only slightly under the load, while less robust setups will flag soon, slowing down significantly.

Several people have been suggesting using a 2~3 disc RAID 0 array as a scratch drive. Would that interest you? You can add two sata drives tethered directly to the motherboard with the Newer Tech wire harness and RAID them with the new Apple RAID card.

Anyway, what a muscular setup! I will be following your example at the next update.

[UnixMac]

MacPro 3.0 Dual Core (4 cores), 8 GB RAM, Raptor System disc, 2x512GB (1TB RAID 0) scratch disc, CS3 , ATI X1900XT 512MB

28.5 seconds

[svtcontour]

Not a mac but it's what I got so I figured I'll try it.

Core2 Quad Q6600 (2.4Ghz)
Asus P5WDG2 WS Pro motherboard with 4Gigs DDR2-533
Nvidia 7950GT 512MB
73GB 15K SCSI boot drive, 36GB 15K SCSI scratch/temp
Adaptec U160 SCSI controller
Vista 64bit
CS2

29 seconds (29.31 to be exact)

[tdiep]

Just signed up just so I could post my results.

Macbook 2.0ghz C2D 2gb ram, rest is stock.

1.17
1.15

[.Neo]

24-inch iMac
2.8 GHz Core 2 Extreme
2 GB 667 MHz DDR2 SDRAM
ATI Radeon HD 2600 Pro 256 MB
500 GB HD

Retouch Artists Speed Test time:
00:00:44 (hh:mm:ss)

[cclaud3]

24-inch iMac
2.8 GHz Core 2 Extreme
4 GB 667 MHz DDR2 SDRAM
ATI Radeon HD 2600 Pro 256 MB
320 GB HD
CS3 EXTENDED

Retouch Artists Speed Test time:
00:00:46 (hh:mm:ss) as instructions stated
00:00:39 (hh:mm:ss) ran test 2nd time without restart (reopened test image and ran immediately)

[ninahagen]

Thanks very much! This confirms my fears ... the new iMac whups my loaded G5 Quad 2.5 (8GB RAM) by 20~30%. Ouch... but the day had to come. Anyway, you two must be thrilled... your machines are blazing fast, beautiful too. I noticed that 4GB gave another 15~20% increase in speed... I am sure that is RAM related. Photoshop needs 3GB dedicated (no other programs running) to be at its best, so 4GB gives a margin for other open apps. Great machines those new iMacs... and I think a lot for the money.

[UnixMac]

nina, are you using CS2 or CS3? CS2 is actually really slow on the Intel Macs..

[xe0]

iMac Alluminium 20"

2.4 GHz
2600 HD
3gb Ram

52 seconds.

[Cadaver]

Just for fun...

Photoshop CS2 via Rosetta
OS X 10.4.10
Mac Pro 2.66GHz
6GB RAM
300GB 7200 RPM boot drive
500GB 7200 RPM scratch drive
X1900XT video card (for what its worth on this test)
Screen res @ 1920x1200
----
1'31"

Not too bad for emulated PPC code for CS2.
Anyway, I haven't bothered to upgrade to CS3 yet. Eventually, perhaps

[UnixMac]

Originally Posted by Cadaver 

Just for fun...

Photoshop CS2 via Rosetta
OS X 10.4.10
Mac Pro 2.66GHz
6GB RAM
300GB 7200 RPM boot drive
500GB 7200 RPM scratch drive
X1900XT video card (for what its worth on this test)
Screen res @ 1920x1200
----
1'31"

Not too bad for emulated PPC code for CS2.
Anyway, I haven't bothered to upgrade to CS3 yet. Eventually, perhaps

the comparison of CS2 and CS3 on the various Mac platforms is a great example of why it's critical that software is written natively for a computer, and why Mac games will always lag in performance to PC games.. which are optimized for windows, DirectX, and such... at least now we've got 1/2 the equation with Intel, but as long as developers make games (or anything else) for a PC then port it to a Mac, you'll never get your full potential out of your hardware.

[Oisín]

Mac Pro Dual 2.66 GHz
250 GB stock HD
5 GB RAM (2 x 2 GB Crucial RAM + 2 x 512 MB stock RAM)
nVidia GeFore 7300, 256 MB
Screen resolution: 1680 x 1050

------

38.4 seconds without restarting, and with Safari, Thunderbird, TextEdit open and iTunes streaming music over AirPort network.
35.1 seconds after restart.

[ninahagen]

Originally Posted by Oisín 

38.4 seconds without restarting, and with Safari, Thunderbird, TextEdit open and iTunes streaming music over AirPort network.
35.1 seconds after restart.

As a point of education, can anyone tell me why there is so often a speed improvement after restart? Thanks...

[Oisín]

Cleared caches/RAM?

I’m guessing most of the difference in mine had more to do with the other apps and music streaming running at the time I did the test first time around.

[Macadvo]

Finally ran this speed test

Getting 31.87 seconds config below

Mac Pro 2.66
5 Gb memory
ATi X1900XT
1Tb RAID for scratch disk

I'm pretty pleased with that

[ninahagen]

Originally Posted by Macadvo 

Finally ran this speed test

Getting 31.87 seconds config below

Mac Pro 2.66
5 Gb memory
ATi X1900XT
1Tb RAID for scratch disk

I'm pretty pleased with that

Yeah, that is a sweet time. Could you clarify your HD situation? From the post it looks as though you are using a 1TB exclusively as a scratch disc. Is that right? If so, what are your other discs?

[Nisei]

I'm kinda disappointed with the Mac Pro results. This machine is great for rendering but not a machine to reach blazing speeds in Photoshop. At least not for the price.

[ninahagen]

Originally Posted by Nisei 

I'm kinda disappointed with the Mac Pro results. This machine is great for rendering but not a machine to reach blazing speeds in Photoshop. At least not for the price.

Can you name a faster machine than a loaded Mac Pro in this test?

[svtcontour]

Well this may not be relevant but I did score about 29 seconds on a Core2 Quad (Q6600) with CS2 in Vista of all things. Definitly wont be near as fast as an 8 core but seems to fall in between the 2.66 and 3Ghz dual dualcore for performance.

While apple does not have a single quad core machine right now, maybe they should for artists that dont have the large budget and dont need the extreme memory capacity of the Mac Pro.

So I think what Nisei was saying, is that compared to the Mac Pro (I'm sure he meant the quad core), some much cheaper machines are posting some really strong numbers.

Wonder how the Q6600 would do running in OSX and PS3. Hmmm I think it would be faster still. Maybe on par or besting the dual dualcore 3Ghz.

Originally Posted by ninahagen 

Can you name a faster machine than a loaded Mac Pro in this test?

[Samanoske]

Mac Pro 2*2.66 GHz
2*250 Raid 0 as scratch (not that i'll be used)
4 GB RAM (4 x 1 GB)
nVidia GeFore 7300, 256 MB
Screen resolution: 1920 x 1200

35 sec

[ninahagen]

Originally Posted by Samanoske 

Mac Pro 2*2.66 GHz
2*250 Raid 0 as scratch (not that i'll be used)
4 GB RAM (4 x 1 GB)
nVidia GeFore 7300, 256 MB
Screen resolution: 1920 x 1200

35 sec

Hi Samonosuke,
You are using 2 x 250GB HDs as a scratch volume, but hardware or software RAID?
What do you mean by "(not that it'll be used)?" Have you not activated the scratch volume yet?
What HD are you using for files, system & applications?
Did you set up the test right in terms of RAM, memory states and test on restart?
The reason I ask, is that you are at least 5 seconds slower than you could be (maybe more with the RAID0 scratch), and I wonder why.
Nina

[Macadvo]

Originally Posted by ninahagen 

Yeah, that is a sweet time. Could you clarify your HD situation? From the post it looks as though you are using a 1TB exclusively as a scratch disc. Is that right? If so, what are your other discs?

The main OS hdd is the stock 250GB that came with the MP, the 1TB array is used to hold some data (Aperture Library, iTunes, Movies etc) and also used as a scratch disk for CS3.

In a few weeks I'm hoping to buy a third 500GB hdd to add to the array (making a three disk 1.5TB array). I also have a Lacie 500GB FW800 drive and a Seagate 750GB external hdd (using FW400 atm but once I get an eSATA card I'll switch it to that).

Seems like I can never have enough HDD space lol.

Alistair

[tadd]

53 sec

CPU: Core 2 Quad CPU @ 2.4Ghz
2GB of RAM 1.6GB available for Photoshop
250GB 7200 rpm SATA HD
nVidia GeForce 8500GT

MSWindows XP Pro SP2

Intrex Pro (locally built) generic PC
Photoshop v10 CS3

[svtcontour]

has anyone gone from OSX into windows and tried the same test to see how much difference the OS itself makes? Just curious.

[ninahagen]

I am really looking fwd to seeing results for the new iMac 2.6 Ghz as soon as anyone gets one... and especially for the new Mac Pro, but I will be able to test that for myself (hopefully within this decade... or next week).

[QuadG5Man]

Quad G5
320GB
4 GB RAM
cs3

38 seconds flat.

[dankar]

MacPro with OSX 10.5

4 cores 3ghz, 8gb ram, XT1900
History State: 1
Cache: 4
Time: 28 secs