Computer Benchmark Tests with Photoshop

patch29

A couple of Benchmark Tests have been linked to and they help give an idea of the performance of different computers, operating systems and hardware. This could be useful for users looking to buy a new system.

from Retouch Pro found here. (please indicate with this test if you test an 8 or 16 bit file, or both.)


Please list your computer specs, processor, speed, ram and OS. Feel free to post any other benchmark or similar tests you may have or links to useful benchmarks in other reviews.

Thank you. :thumb

patch29

G5 dual proc 2.7ghtz 8 gb ram CS2

Retouch Pro

43 sec, 8 bit file
53 sec, 16 bit file

Fred Miranda

21 secs

patch29

Now the benchmarks on my Macbook

core duo 2.0ghtz, 2 gb ram, CS 2 (tryout)

booted in OSX

RetouchPRO

81 sec, 8 bit
130 sec, 16 bit

Fred Miranda

36 sec





booted in XP via Bootcamp CS2 (tryout)

RetouchPRO

65 sec, 8 bit
72 sec, 16 bit

Fred Miranda

26 sec

patch29

Benchmarks for my G4 Ti Powerbook 1ghtz 1gb ram CS2

RetouchPRO

200 sec, 8 bit
256 sec, 16 bit

Fred Miranda

98 sec

wxwax

Can't do Retouch in 16 bit on CS.

NHBubba

I posted this in this thread a few months ago. Sadly I didn't record the OS used. All Intel/Athlon PCs are either Win2k or WinXP Pro w/ all the latest patches and service packs (at the time). All Macs were some version of OSX, most were tested at Apple stores. All are results for the RetouchPro radial blur test..

Some results I've culled up by way of informal testing in the last few weeks:

• Dell Inspiron 5000e - Intel PIII 800 MHz laptop w/ 386 MB RAM - Photoshop CS - 7:04
• Homebrew - AMD Athlon 1400+ (1.2 GHz) desktop w/ 1 GB RAM - Photoshop CS - 5:56
• Boxx - Dual processor Intel Xeon 2.8 GHz w/ 2 GB RAM - Photoshop 7 - 1:28
• Intel Pentium 4 3 GHz w/ 2 GB RAM - Photoshop CS2 - 1:52
• Intel Pentium M 2 GHz w/ 2 GB RAM - Photoshop CS2 - 3:00
• Apple PowerMac - Dual 2 GHz G5 w/ 512 MB RAM - Photoshop CS - 1:23
• Apple iMac 20" - Intel 'Duo' dual-core 2 GHz w/ 512 MB RAM - Photoshop CS - 1:24
• Apple PowerMac - Dual 2.5 Ghz w/ 4GB RAM - Photoshop CS2 - 0:40

wxwax

Retouch Pro

174 seconds

8 bits
Pentium 4, 2.67 GHz
1 GB
CS

patch29

NHBubba wrote:

Apple PowerMac - Dual 2.5 Ghz w/ 4GB RAM - Photoshop CS2 - 0:40

The newer dual core or dual processor?

DavidTO

Original Dual Processor 2.0ghz G5 PowerMac, 3.5 GB RAM, fully updated Tiger 10.4.6

I ran the Retouch Pro test in 8 bit and got 55 seconds.

NHBubba

patch29 wrote:

The newer dual core or dual processor?

I thought the dual-core PPC chips were only offered together in the 'quad-core' PowerMac product.. You know, I honestly cannot remember where I got that number from. I only remember the Apple store I went to having machines w/ the base 512MB of RAM.. Maybe I should remove that figure or mark it as suspect.

DavidTO

NHBubba wrote:

I thought the dual-core PPC chips were only offered together in the 'quad-core' PowerMac product.. You know, I honestly cannot remember where I got that number from. I only remember the Apple store I went to having machines w/ the base 512MB of RAM.. Maybe I should remove that figure or mark it as suspect.

Nope.

patch29

NHBubba wrote:

I thought the dual-core PPC chips were only offered together in the 'quad-core' PowerMac product.. You know, I honestly cannot remember where I got that number from. I only remember the Apple store I went to having machines w/ the base 512MB of RAM.. Maybe I should remove that figure or mark it as suspect.

When did you go? The newer G5's have a dual core processor, with the exception of the quad, so it could be faster than the older dual processors.

Andy

Machine Name: Power Mac G5 Quad
Machine Model: PowerMac
CPU Type: PowerPC G5 (1.1)
Number Of CPUs: 4
CPU Speed: 2.5 GHz
L2 Cache (per CPU): 1 MB
Memory: 4.5 GB
Bus Speed: 1.25 GHz

Fred Miranda Test: 11 seconds
Retouch Pro Test: 23 seconds (8 bit file); 28 seconds (16 bit file)

NHBubba

patch29 wrote:

When did you go? The newer G5's have a dual core processor, with the exception of the quad, so it could be faster than the older dual processors.

My other post was dated Feb 22, 2006. That was when I was under the misconception that I had enough money to plunk into a new PC. I made the post when I was just about done my shopping, so the actual test was maybe 1-2 weeks before that. I remember it was right around the time they released the first Intel based mini-macs. Sadly I didn't record dates. At that time I swear the PowerMac line-up had three options: two dual-processor (2x single core procs) w/ different speeds, one at 2.0 GHz and the other at 2.5 GHz. The third option was the dual dual-core processor 'quad' jobbie w/ two 2.5 GHz dual-core G5's. At least that's how I remembered the lineup.

Looks to me like the two dual processor models were changed to a single dual-core. IDK, I wouldn't expect the dual-core processors to be that much different than a pair of similar single-core processors.

patch29

NHBubba wrote:

My other post was dated Feb 22, 2006. Sadly I didn't record dates. At that time I swear the PowerMac line-up had three options: two dual-processor (2x single core procs) w/ different speeds, one at 2.0 GHz and the other at 2.5 GHz. The third option was the dual dual-core processor 'quad' jobbie w/ two 2.5 GHz dual-core G5's. At least that's how I remembered the lineup.

Looks to me like the two dual processor models were changed to a single dual-core. IDK, I wouldn't expect the dual-core processors to be that much different than a pair of similar single-core processors.

Based on what I found. I would bet it was a dual core.

Announced in October 2005, the PowerMac G5 (late 2005) was the first PowerMac to ship with dual-core PowerPC G5 processors.

wxwax

Andy wrote:

Machine Name: Power Mac G5 Quad
Machine Model: PowerMac
CPU Type: PowerPC G5 (1.1)
Number Of CPUs: 4
CPU Speed: 2.5 GHz
L2 Cache (per CPU): 1 MB
Memory: 4.5 GB
Bus Speed: 1.25 GHz

Fred Miranda Test: 11 seconds
Retouch Pro Test: 23 seconds (8 bit file); 28 seconds (16 bit file)

:cry

Love the speed, hate the price.

Andy

wxwax wrote:

:cry

Love the speed, hate the price.

Curious, what does $3600 buy in Winders-land?

wxwax

Andy wrote:

Curious, what does $3600 buy in Winders-land?

Your rig cost more than that, sez the Apple store. I priced it out at around $4500.

Patch priced out an Alienware that matched his dual core G5. It ended up somewhere close to $3600, I think.

Prices like that violate my philosophy, which is that computers get replaced every 2-3 years, so why spend top dollar? (It might help if I were writing some of it off. )

DavidTO

wxwax wrote:

Your rig cost more than that, sez the Apple store. I priced it out at around $4500.

Patch priced out an Alienware that matched his dual core G5. It ended up somewhere close to $3600, I think.

Prices like that violate my philosophy, which is that computers get replaced every 2-3 years, so why spend top dollar? (It might help if I was writing some of it off. )

Andy was smart enough not to get his memory from Apple. And which RAM? Big difference there, even from the Apple Store.

Short story: Andy paid $3600.

ChrisJ

Andy wrote:

Curious, what does $3600 buy in Winders-land?

Dell XPS 600

---

Pentium D 950 (Dual Core) 3.4 GHz
Windows XP Pro
512 MB nVidia GeForce 7900 GTX
2 GB RAM (no option for more)
2 * 250 Gig SATA disks
DVD Burner + DVD-ROM (2 seperate drives)
13-format Media card reader
*no* monitor (+$160 for 20" Widescreen LCD)
Soundblaster Audio (no speakers)
Basic Keyboard
Logitech G5 Laser Gaming Mouse

$3244 ($3404 with monitor). Probably get to 8 Gig RAM and stay around $3600.

I'm not a Dell fanboy... just first place I looked.

Andy

ChrisJ wrote:

Dell XPS 600

---

Pentium D 950 (Dual Core) 3.4 GHz
Windows XP Pro
512 MB nVidia GeForce 7900 GTX
2 GB RAM (no option for more)
2 * 250 Gig SATA disks
DVD Burner + DVD-ROM (2 seperate drives)
13-format Media card reader
*no* monitor (+$160 for 20" Widescreen LCD)
Soundblaster Audio (no speakers)
Basic Keyboard
Logitech G5 Laser Gaming Mouse

$3244 ($3404 with monitor). Probably get to 8 Gig RAM and stay around $3600.

I'm not a Dell fanboy... just first place I looked.

So, what you're saying, is, Waxy's full of it and there's not much difference, a few hundred, we all knew that anyhow

wxwax

Andy wrote:

So, what you're saying, is, Waxy's full of it and there's not much difference, a few hundred, we all knew that anyhow

There's something desperately insecure about you Mac boys. In the recent threads, it's always you lads looking for a fight.

It's a very odd thing.

As for apples to Apples, if you care to read the thread I started, you'll see a couple of rather powerful systems that cost about $900 less than anything comparable from Apple. Systems which conform to my "disposable" philosophy.

Facts are facts. Even if they seem to tweak you guys. :cool And I'm speaking as someone who's completely open-minded and on the cusp of making a purchase. Lord protect me from being infected with whatever it is that you guys have. :hang

DavidTO

wxwax wrote:

There's something desperately insecure about you Mac boys. In the recent threads, it's always you lads looking for a fight.

It's a very odd thing.

As for apples to Apples, if you care to read the thread I started, you'll see a couple of rather powerful systems that cost about $900 less than anything comparable from Apple. Systems which conform to my "disposable" philosophy.

Facts are facts. Even if they seem to tweak you guys. :cool And I'm speaking as someone who's completely open-minded and on the cusp of making a purchase. Lord protect me from being infected with whatever it is that you guys have. :hang

I'm thinking you have selective memory.

Anyway, all that aside, PC hardware is a bit cheaper, no doubt. Better value? Not sure, but I don't think you can just compare the hardware. It's the whole package, and in that measure, to my mind, Apple wins, hands down.

Andy

wxwax wrote:

There's something desperately insecure about you Mac boys. In the recent threads, it's always you lads looking for a fight.

It's a very odd thing.

got your goat

wxwax

DavidTO wrote:

I'm thinking you have selective memory.

That, my friend, was bait.

Just like Andy's. :bluduh

wxwax

Andy wrote:

got your goat

Guilty.

wxwax

DavidTO wrote:

Anyway, all that aside, PC hardware is a bit cheaper, no doubt. Better value? Not sure, but I don't think you can just compare the hardware. It's the whole package, and in that measure, to my mind, Apple wins, hands down.

You may be right. It's definitely an important part of my thinking as I get within 24 hours of laying out some cash.

DavidTO

wxwax wrote:

That, my friend, was bait.

Just like Andy's. :bluduh

I'm confused.

wxwax

DavidTO wrote:

I'm confused.

Bait is what you put on a hook when you're fishing. Sometimes, fishing is called trolling.

DavidTO

wxwax wrote:

Bait is what you put on a hook when you're fishing. <img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/6029383/emoji/naughty.gif&quot; border="0" alt="" > Sometimes, fishing is called trolling.

<sigh>

I understand *that*. What I don't understand is how you could fall for Andy's at the same time bait a trap for me. Something's rotten in Denmark, my friend....


Oh, and---get a Mac!

wxwax

DavidTO wrote:

<sigh>

I understand *that*. What I don't understand is how you could fall for Andy's at the same time bait a trap for me. Something's rotten in Denmark, my friend....


Oh, and---get a Mac!

I didn't lay the bait, Gus did. :cool

As for the rest... well, let's just say if I get a Mac, I'm also getting an innoculation!