Computer Benchmark Tests with Photoshop

135678

Comments

  • wxwaxwxwax Immoderator Posts: 15,471Registered Users Major grins
    edited August 3, 2006
    rutt wrote:
    Well, actually, I'm still on hold just now. Apple is taking shipment of Intel's Core 2 Duo, which benchmarks almost 40% faster than the chip they use now. It's also supposed to be quite a bit cooler which also implies better battery life. It's pin compatible, so I'm guessing Apple will announce and start shipping in September.

    I know I'm kind of a bore about this. But I do actually buy eventually. There really are sweet spots of timing in these things.
    That's kinda where I am, Rutt.

    I'm currently thinking I'll buy a Macbook Pro to replace my desktop when (a) the Macbook Pro is upgraded (August?) with the newer processor and maybe allows more memory and (b) Adobe releases the Universal Binary upgrade (January?)

    I notice there aren't any rumors about the MBP going to 4GB of RAM, but there's no harm in dreaming.
    Sid.
    Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
    http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
  • AndyAndy Bicameral New YorkPosts: 50,151Registered Users Major grins
    edited August 3, 2006
    wxwax wrote:

    I notice there aren't any rumors about the MBP going to 4GB of RAM, but there's no harm in dreaming.

    David and I were chatting abt this the other night. 4mb and that thing would be SWEEEEEEEEEET.
  • DavidTODavidTO Mod Emeritus Thousand Oaks, CAPosts: 19,160Registered Users, Retired Mod Major grins
    edited August 3, 2006
    wxwax wrote:
    I notice there aren't any rumors about the MBP going to 4GB of RAM, but there's no harm in dreaming.


    I would find it hard to believe that they would release a 64 bit Pro laptop and not allow you to expand beyond 2GB of RAM. Where's the fun in that?
    Moderator Emeritus
    Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops
  • MongrelMongrel First Rate Plumber Posts: 622Registered Users Major grins
    edited August 3, 2006
    Andy wrote:
    David and I were chatting abt this the other night. 4mb and that thing would be SWEEEEEEEEEET.

    Here ya go....

    http://www.crucial.com/store/partspecs.Asp?IMODULE=CT25664AC53E

    Crucial 2GB DDR2 sodimms. Pop two of these in your Mac and you have 4GB thumb.gif

    Of course....






    At $1440 EACH, only Andy can afford them rolleyes1.gif
    If every keystroke was a shutter press I'd be a pro by now...
  • AndyAndy Bicameral New YorkPosts: 50,151Registered Users Major grins
    edited August 10, 2006
    Ran the tests under Parallels XP Windows, updated post here:
    http://www.dgrin.com/showpost.php?p=345952&postcount=54
  • DavidTODavidTO Mod Emeritus Thousand Oaks, CAPosts: 19,160Registered Users, Retired Mod Major grins
    edited August 10, 2006
    Andy wrote:
    Ran the tests under Parallels XP Windows, updated post here:
    http://www.dgrin.com/showpost.php?p=345952&postcount=54


    Rosetta beats Parallels?
    Moderator Emeritus
    Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops
  • wxwaxwxwax Immoderator Posts: 15,471Registered Users Major grins
    edited August 10, 2006
    Andy wrote:
    Macbook Pro, 17" 2.16ghz processor, 2gb RAM. Photoshop CS2 under Rosetta:

    Fred Miranda Test: 34 seconds

    Retouch Pro Test: 73 seconds (8bit file)


    Macbook Pro, 17" 2.16ghz processor, 2gb RAM. Photoshop CS2 Windows under Parallels:

    Fred Miranda Test: 55 seconds
    Retouch Pro Test: 2mins 22seconds
    Very interesting.
    Sid.
    Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
    http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
  • ruttrutt Cave canem! Posts: 6,511Registered Users Major grins
    edited August 12, 2006
    How much memory did you configure parallels to be allowed allowed to access? Is this even an option in parallels (haven't tried it, no mactel yet). It makes a huge difference to vmware.
    If not now, when?
  • AndyAndy Bicameral New YorkPosts: 50,151Registered Users Major grins
    edited August 12, 2006
    rutt wrote:
    How much memory did you configure parallels to be allowed allowed to access? Is this even an option in parallels (haven't tried it, no mactel yet). It makes a huge difference to vmware.
    Good point, Rutt. I rejiggered Parallels, to give it 1.5+ Gb of Ram. Then I told Photoshop to use up to 1GB. Updated results here:

    http://www.dgrin.com/showpost.php?p=345952&postcount=54

    Rosetta still beats Winders.
  • ruttrutt Cave canem! Posts: 6,511Registered Users Major grins
    edited August 12, 2006
    Andy wrote:
    Rosetta still beats Winders.

    This is really quite an accomplishment for Rosetta and the reverse for Parrallels. I've had quite a lot of professional experience with previous generations of binary translation and virtual machine software. Usually, the binary translation loses big time to virtual machines. Wonder what's going on.
    If not now, when?
  • ruttrutt Cave canem! Posts: 6,511Registered Users Major grins
    edited August 14, 2006
    rutt wrote:
    This is really quite an accomplishment for Rosetta and the reverse for Parrallels.
    More like the latter than the former.
    Parallels Workstation runs normally on SMP systems. Each virtual machine currently represents an Uni-processor system; SMP support inside guest virtual machines is in scope for future versions of Parallels Workstation.

    VMWare has the technology to do this right. Right now they charge big bucks for it, but when the OS X product actually ships, if I were them, I'd add this feature to crush Parallels.
    If not now, when?
  • ruttrutt Cave canem! Posts: 6,511Registered Users Major grins
    edited August 14, 2006
    Looks like my guess about VMWare's OS X strategy was right. See:
    http://www.vmware.com/vmtn/blog/console/2006/08/#macintosh

    So I'm still guessing that fastest photoshop for the MacTels will be a virtualized windows version. The windows for this, though, will only be the period between release of OS X VMWare (or parallels with guest SMP) and release of Photoshop CS3.
    If not now, when?
  • AndyAndy Bicameral New YorkPosts: 50,151Registered Users Major grins
    edited August 14, 2006
    rutt wrote:
    More like the latter than the former.



    VMWare has the technology to do this right. Right now they charge big bucks for it, but when the OS X product actually ships, if I were them, I'd add this feature to crush Parallels.
    Eyes bleeding... must... ask... rutt... to.. give me the reader's digest version!
  • ruttrutt Cave canem! Posts: 6,511Registered Users Major grins
    edited August 14, 2006
    Andy wrote:
    Eyes bleeding... must... ask... rutt... to.. give me the reader's digest version!

    Applications running under Parallels use only one processor. VMWare can use all the processors. So for applications which use multiprocessors effectively, expect VMWare to offer the same kind of speedup that multiprocessors do (versus Parallels.) [Did I simplify enough?]
    If not now, when?
  • ruttrutt Cave canem! Posts: 6,511Registered Users Major grins
    edited August 14, 2006
    I guess an even shorter reply is: fill out this form now and take the thing for a spin when you can. it should cut parallels by a lot.
    If not now, when?
  • AndyAndy Bicameral New YorkPosts: 50,151Registered Users Major grins
    edited August 15, 2006
    Andy wrote:

    Power Mac G5 Quad Results

    Originally Posted by Andy
    Machine Name: Power Mac G5 Quad
    Fred Miranda Test: 11 seconds
    Retouch Pro Test: 23 seconds (8 bit file); 28 seconds (16 bit file)

    OK Fresh Out of The Box!

    Mac Pro results. Mac Pro, 3.0ghz, 5gb ram. Photoshop CS2 running under Rosetta.

    Fred Miranda Test: 8bit file: 9 seconds
    Retouch Pro Test: 20 seconds (8 bit file); 33 seconds (16 bit file)
  • DavidTODavidTO Mod Emeritus Thousand Oaks, CAPosts: 19,160Registered Users, Retired Mod Major grins
    edited August 15, 2006
    Andy wrote:
    OK Fresh Out of The Box!

    Mac Pro results. Mac Pro, 3.0ghz, 5gb ram. Photoshop CS2 running under Rosetta.

    Fred Miranda Test: 8bit file: 9 seconds
    Retouch Pro Test: 20 seconds (8 bit file); 33 seconds (16 bit file)


    Nice, and that's running under emulation! Can't wait to see this thing with CS3!
    Moderator Emeritus
    Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops
  • AndyAndy Bicameral New YorkPosts: 50,151Registered Users Major grins
    edited August 15, 2006
    DavidTO wrote:
    Nice, and that's running under emulation! Can't wait to see this thing with CS3!
    So, interesting, on the 16 bit Retouch Pro test, the Mac Pro is like, 18% slower than the G5 running native CS2. But all the other tests, faster. No doubt, it'll be faster, with CS3 but I have to say, fast is fast.
  • gusgus Major grins Posts: 16,209Registered Users Major grins
    edited August 15, 2006
    Andy wrote:
    but I have to say, fast is fast.
    Its only until the next model comes out 1drink.gif











    ....and the next......and the next.....
  • phuongphuong Big grins Posts: 68Registered Users Big grins
    edited September 16, 2006
    ok, i just tried to do the 8 bit Retouch test. dont know what the FM test is, cause i dont have an account there.

    MP dual 2.66GHz, 4GB ram
    under OSX: 23.1 secs
    under XP in Boot Camp: 23.3 secs

    on my 4 year old windows machine, dual Intel xeon 2.8GHz, 2GB ram: 57 secs
  • DavidTODavidTO Mod Emeritus Thousand Oaks, CAPosts: 19,160Registered Users, Retired Mod Major grins
    edited November 2, 2006
    I asked a friend with a new Core 2 Duo MacBook Pro, 2.16ghz, 2GB RAM to run these tests, this is what he got:

    Fred Miranda: 22 seconds

    RetouchPro (8bit file): 68 seconds
    Moderator Emeritus
    Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops
  • pathfinderpathfinder Drive By Digital Shooter western IndianaPosts: 14,434Super Moderators moderator
    edited November 8, 2006
    For comparison, I use a Dual 2.5 PowerPC G5 desktop with 4 Gb RAM - it is about 1 or 2 (?) years old OS X 10.4.8

    FM 23 sec

    Re Touch Pro 8bit 58 sec

    The new MacBooks are getting more interresting.... If only they held more RAM
    Pathfinder - www.pathfinder.smugmug.com

    Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
  • AndyAndy Bicameral New YorkPosts: 50,151Registered Users Major grins
    edited November 10, 2006
    Andy wrote:
    Prior Test:

    Power Mac G5 Quad Results

    Originally Posted by Andy
    Machine Name: Power Mac G5 Quad
    Fred Miranda Test: 11 seconds
    Retouch Pro Test: 23 seconds (8 bit file); 28 seconds (16 bit file)

    Mac Pro results. Mac Pro, 3.0ghz, 5gb ram. Photoshop CS2 running under Rosetta.

    Fred Miranda Test: 8bit file: 9 seconds
    Retouch Pro Test: 20 seconds (8 bit file); 33 seconds (16 bit file)

    I reran the tests, according to this article OS X 10.4.8 should run stuff under Rosetta a bit faster now.

    Indeed, I'm seeing a 10% performance improvement.

    Mac Pro, 3Ghz, 4gigs of Ram.

    Retouch Pro Test
    8-bit: 18 seconds
    16-bit: 30 seconds

    Fred Miranda Test
    8-bit: 8 seconds
    16-bit: 13 seconds
  • DavidTODavidTO Mod Emeritus Thousand Oaks, CAPosts: 19,160Registered Users, Retired Mod Major grins
    edited November 10, 2006
    Andy wrote:
    I reran the tests, according to this article OS X 10.4.8 should run stuff under Rosetta a bit faster now.

    Indeed, I'm seeing a 10% performance improvement.

    Mac Pro, 3Ghz, 4gigs of Ram.

    Retouch Pro Test
    8-bit: 18 seconds
    16-bit: 30 seconds

    Fred Miranda Test
    8-bit: 8 seconds
    16-bit: 13 seconds

    Wow. Either way, that's fast! Nice to see that your computer is getting faster, just sitting there!
    Moderator Emeritus
    Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops
  • AndyAndy Bicameral New YorkPosts: 50,151Registered Users Major grins
    edited November 10, 2006
    DavidTO wrote:
    Wow. Either way, that's fast! Nice to see that your computer is getting faster, just sitting there!
    Yeah, I guess wearing Turtlenecks pays off!
  • gusgus Major grins Posts: 16,209Registered Users Major grins
    edited November 10, 2006
    Andy wrote:
    Yeah, I guess wearing Turtlenecks pays off!
    Only in a room full of other turtlenecks. Your still going to get a wedgie if you walk into any locker room across the world.
  • DavidTODavidTO Mod Emeritus Thousand Oaks, CAPosts: 19,160Registered Users, Retired Mod Major grins
    edited November 10, 2006
    gus wrote:
    Only in a room full of other turtlenecks. Your still going to get a wedgie if you walk into any locker room across the world.


    lol3.gif
    Moderator Emeritus
    Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops
  • thebigskythebigsky Cloudbusting Posts: 1,050Registered Users Major grins
    edited November 10, 2006
    I ran the Retouch Pro test at 8bit on a Mac Pro 2.66 with 5 gig Ram:-

    20 Secs

    Charlie
  • wxwaxwxwax Immoderator Posts: 15,471Registered Users Major grins
    edited November 10, 2006
    That's $400 per second.
    Sid.
    Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
    http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
  • AndyAndy Bicameral New YorkPosts: 50,151Registered Users Major grins
    edited November 10, 2006
    wxwax wrote:
    That's $400 per second.
    ?
Sign In or Register to comment.