Computer Benchmark Tests with Photoshop

124678

Comments

  • wxwaxwxwax Immoderator Posts: 15,471Registered Users Major grins
    edited November 10, 2006
    Andy wrote:
    ?
    The 3mghz Mac Pro costs $800 more than the 2.66.

    So the 2 second edge over Charlie cost $800, or $400 per second.

    Hey, are you eyeing the octopus?
    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:
    The 3mghz Mac Pro costs $800 more than the 2.66.

    So the 2 second edge over Charlie cost $800, or $400 per second.

    Hey, are you eyeing the octopus?
    I'd like to see a 2.66 box vs. mine, running:

    * CS2
    * Bridge
    * Firefox 2
    * Thunderbird
    * Apple Mail
    * Safari
    * Excel
    * Parallels, with IE6 or IE7 going, and i2e

    Octopus ?
  • gusgus Major grins Posts: 16,209Registered Users Major grins
    edited November 10, 2006
    Andy wrote:
    Octopus ?


    Hmmmmm........very nice.
  • AndyAndy Bicameral New YorkPosts: 50,151Registered Users Major grins
    edited November 10, 2006
  • wxwaxwxwax Immoderator Posts: 15,471Registered Users Major grins
    edited November 10, 2006
    Andy wrote:

    Octopus ?
    The quad dual, coming out in January or so.
    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:
    The quad dual, coming out in January or so.
    Oh. Well, probably not, since I only just got this one :D

    :uhoh
  • wxwaxwxwax Immoderator Posts: 15,471Registered Users Major grins
    edited November 10, 2006
    Andy wrote:
    Oh. Well, probably not, since I only just got this one :D

    :uhoh
    Hey, that's two looong months away. naughty.gif
    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
  • thebigskythebigsky Cloudbusting Posts: 1,050Registered Users Major grins
    edited November 10, 2006
    I just tried the 16 bit Retouch Pro test.

    Whilst also running:-

    Lightroom (sharpened an image)
    Eye TV live digital recording
    Thunderbird (receive mail)
    Firefox (just displaying smugmug)
    Safari (did a google search)
    Emptied the trash (10 raw files)

    38 Seconds

    Did it again with none of the above:-

    37 Seconds (whoops. sorry, hadn't quit live TV recording)

    Did it again without TV recording 34 Seconds

    Wow, these MacPro's are some beasts, the fans didn't even speed up.

    Charlie
  • cbmazurcbmazur Just another Soldier.... Posts: 26Registered Users Big grins
    edited November 12, 2006
    My results using my "field computer"

    ACER - Acpire 3620 w/
    XP SP2
    Intel Celeron M 1.6GHz
    40G HD w/60G external
    512MB ram
    Now im not sure if it makes that much time differance but I have my CS2 loaded on my external hd and have it running through the usb 2.0 port. But anyways the time I got on the RetouchPro 8 bit was............

    3 Minutes 52.4 Seconds......

    I guess its not too bad for a $400 laptop thats been to combat.....lol
    :rambo "So we're all dog-faces. We're all very very different. But, there is one thing we all have in common. We were all stupid enough to enlist in the army. W're mutants. There's something wrong with us. Something very very wrong with us. Something seriously wrong with us. We're soldiers. But, we're American soldiers.....":rambo
  • marlinspikemarlinspike Major grins Posts: 2,095Registered Users Major grins
    edited November 13, 2006
    DavidTO wrote:
    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

    My Core 2 Duo Thinkpad (T60 2007-7JU, 2.16ghz Core 2 Duo, 1gb ram, I swapped out the 5400rpm HDD with a 7200rpm one) with same CPU and 1/2 that amount of ram did the retouchpro in 57 seconds. Windows XP Pro > OS X rolleyes1.gif :D
  • DavidTODavidTO Mod Emeritus Thousand Oaks, CAPosts: 19,160Registered Users, Retired Mod Major grins
    edited November 13, 2006
    My Core 2 Duo Thinkpad (T60 2007-7JU, 2.16ghz Core 2 Duo, 1gb ram, I swapped out the 5400rpm HDD with a 7200rpm one) with same CPU and 1/2 that amount of ram did the retouchpro in 57 seconds. Windows XP Pro > OS X rolleyes1.gif :D


    Yeah, CS2 on an Intel processor is taking a performance hit until Adobe comes out with the new version, since CS2 was not written for an Intel processor and runs under emulation.
    Moderator Emeritus
    Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops
  • marlinspikemarlinspike Major grins Posts: 2,095Registered Users Major grins
    edited November 13, 2006
    DavidTO wrote:
    Yeah, CS2 on an Intel processor is taking a performance hit until Adobe comes out with the new version, since CS2 was not written for an Intel processor and runs under emulation.

    Is the same true for Windows CS2 or just Mac CS2? It would seem silly if the same were true for Windows CS2. (also, mine cost several hundred less than the macbook pro...for me anyways - which may be unfair but a custom built unit to the same specs still costs less than the macbook pro - and gets 6 hours of battery life, about 5.5 hours if using wireless, and about 4hr if using wireless with the screen brightness all the way up while doing RAW photo processing).
  • AndyAndy Bicameral New YorkPosts: 50,151Registered Users Major grins
    edited November 13, 2006
    Is the same true for Windows CS2 or just Mac CS2? It would seem silly if the same were true for Windows CS2.
    Only Mac.
  • DavidTODavidTO Mod Emeritus Thousand Oaks, CAPosts: 19,160Registered Users, Retired Mod Major grins
    edited November 13, 2006
    Is the same true for Windows CS2 or just Mac CS2? It would seem silly if the same were true for Windows CS2.


    Sorry, I wasn't clear. Just Mac. Adobe hasn't caught up yet with the migration to Intel.
    Moderator Emeritus
    Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops
  • PoseidonPoseidon Major grins Posts: 504Registered Users Major grins
    edited November 13, 2006
    rolleyes1.gif

    Just ran the retouch pro on my Sharp notebook.... 5:31 seconds!

    AMD 64 2700+
    512MB DDR
    60GB Hard drive.

    I am off to the MacPro and see what happens there.

    MacPro 2.66GHz box stock.... 28 seconds!

    Ran both tests in 8 bit mode.
    Mike LaPorte
    Perfect Pix
  • davemj98davemj98 Fiat Lux Posts: 225Registered Users Major grins
    edited November 14, 2006
    Sony
    While running 109 processes on my VGC RC210G with 3GB ram and an ATI x1600 video card w/512 v/ram at 3GHz, retouch pro on CS2 in 88 seconds.
    davidsdigitalphotography.com
    Alpha 99 & VG, 900x2 & VG; 50mm1.4, CZ135 1.8; CZ16-35 2.8, CZ24-70 2.8, G70-200 2.8, G70-400, Sony TC 1.4, F20, F58, F60.
  • ruttrutt Cave canem! Posts: 6,511Registered Users Major grins
    edited November 22, 2006
    After a two year wait, I finally bought a 17" MacBook Pro with 3GB of memory. It's 2.33GHz and has a Core 2 Duo. Cool!

    Now should I keep it?

    Executive summary: Much faster (about 2x) than fastest PowerBook G4 ever made. Roughly equal to 2 X 2.5GHz G5. Consider an upgrade from your PowerBook. Wait for CS3 if you have a 2xG5.

    Datails: At this point I have 3 macs at hand so I thought I'd do some comparisons:
    1. MBP = MacBook Pro / Core 2 Duo @ 2.33GHz / 3GB
    2. G5 = G5 / 2 X GHz G5 @ 2.5GHz / 4GB
    3. PB = Poerbook G4 / 1.67 G4 @ 1.67 / 2GB

    I the three benchmarks that have become standard here, and a few more of my own which are more representative of the things I actually do which are preformance issues. There are:
    1. SB8/SB16 = Surface blur with radius 7, threshold 13. This is one of the steps of the workflow I use for ballet theater shots, and in 16 bit mode it's dog slow. So this matters to me. It's also a part of the very best noise reduction workflows and a big deal for portraits which sharpen hair and eyes while softening skin imperfections. So it should matter to you, too.
    2. CJPG = Capture 44 jpegs, about 90MB, from Compact Flash card via USB2. I used Unix commands in the terminal which are and very accurate to time.
    3. CRAW = Capture 44 raws, about 548MB, from Compact Flash card via USB2. Similar to 2, but much larger files obviously. The two capture steps are really important to me during ballet shoots because I want to get as much info about how I'm doing during intermissions and other breaks.
    4. Bridge = Open a folder with the results of 2 & 3 in Adobe Bridge. Wait until the pinwheel in the bottom left stops spinning.
    5. PMech = Like Bridge, but with Photo Mechanic.

    Results:

    112173027-O.gif

    Comments: SB8, too fast to measure on mbp, so I took it as a lesson. Consider doing this in 8 bits since it probably doesn't really matter to final quality for what I'm doing. PMech was just too jast to measure on MBP. Cool!

    What's going on with CRAW? I suppose this is really limited by the speed of the CF card and reader. Why slow on the G5? It's going through a USB hub, which might be an issue. Why isn't the MBP faster than the PB or at least as fast? Perhaps there is some tuning issue? In any case, it's not really a big deal.

    System tuning? Charles Richmond used to have a performance tuning hack which were supposed to make the system use big memory more effectively. I wonder if this could possibly still be relevant. I wonder if Charles is still out there. Other tuning hints?
    If not now, when?
  • ruttrutt Cave canem! Posts: 6,511Registered Users Major grins
    edited November 24, 2006
    What's actually pretty amazing is how close Rosetta based CS2 is to native (on XP). For example I ran RTP8 in 48 and RTP16 in 78 seconds on a system very comparable to this:
    My Core 2 Duo Thinkpad (T60 2007-7JU, 2.16ghz Core 2 Duo, 1gb ram, I swapped out the 5400rpm HDD with a 7200rpm one) with same CPU and 1/2 that amount of ram did the retouchpro in 57 seconds. Windows XP Pro > OS X

    I'm not sure whether it's a little faster than his system or a little slower, but in any case it's impressive for emulation.
    If not now, when?
  • marlinspikemarlinspike Major grins Posts: 2,095Registered Users Major grins
    edited November 24, 2006
    rutt wrote:
    What's actually pretty amazing is how close Rosetta based CS2 is to native (on XP). For example I ran RTP8 in 48 and RTP16 in 78 seconds on a system very comparable to this:

    Originally Posted by marlinspike
    My Core 2 Duo Thinkpad (T60 2007-7JU, 2.16ghz Core 2 Duo, 1gb ram, I swapped out the 5400rpm HDD with a 7200rpm one) with same CPU and 1/2 that amount of ram did the retouchpro in 57 seconds. Windows XP Pro > OS X


    I'm not sure whether it's a little faster than his system or a little slower, but in any case it's impressive for emulation.

    Yeah, but you were on the 2.33ghz Rutt. Both I and the system I was referring to when I said Windowx XP > OS X run the 2.16ghz (and that other system had twice the ram mine has...though there is another 1gb on the way to me), and that other system (which mine is worse than spec wise) took 11 seconds longer than mine...so, just imagine what a 2.33ghz PC would do.
  • ruttrutt Cave canem! Posts: 6,511Registered Users Major grins
    edited November 24, 2006
    Yeah, but you were on the 2.33ghz Rutt. Both I and the system I was referring to when I said Windowx XP > OS X run the 2.16ghz (and that other system had twice the ram mine has...though there is another 1gb on the way to me), and that other system (which mine is worse than spec wise) took 11 seconds longer than mine...so, just imagine what a 2.33ghz PC would do.

    Actually, I hope you are right and that your test was memory bound or something. I'd like to think that CS3 will offer more than 20% or so speedup.

    Are there any apples to apples comparisons. I looked a little and didn't find. What about OS X vs bootcamp with XP on the very same machine?

    I'm also interested in Core Duo vs Core 2 Duo. Probably it's back there somewhere, but I didn't find. It would be cool to construct one table for all these numbers.
    If not now, when?
  • marlinspikemarlinspike Major grins Posts: 2,095Registered Users Major grins
    edited December 11, 2006
    rutt wrote:
    Actually, I hope you are right and that your test was memory bound or something. I'd like to think that CS3 will offer more than 20% or so speedup.

    Well, looks like the answer is that it's not memory bound, it's all in the cpu. I added a 2nd gb of ram and got the exact same 57 second result for 8 bit retouch pro
  • patch29patch29 C|34N3R Atlanta, GAPosts: 2,928Registered Users, Retired Mod Major grins
    edited December 15, 2006
    patch29 wrote:
    Now the benchmarks on my Macbook

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

    booted in OSX

    RetouchPRO

    130 sec, 16 bit

    retested today on my Macbook with PS CS3 Beta

    67 sec, 16 bit. clap.gif
  • AndyAndy Bicameral New YorkPosts: 50,151Registered Users Major grins
    edited December 15, 2006
    CS3 Much Faster
    Mac Pro 3Ghz - CS2

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

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

    MY CS3 Results - Mac Pro 3Ghz:

    Retouch Pro Test
    8-bit: 14 seconds
    16-bit: 19 seconds

    Fred Miranda Test
    8-bit: 6 seconds
    16-bit: 8 seconds

    That's a pretty substantial performance boost :D

    Macbook Pro Results (8 bit test only)
    Macbook Pro, 17" 2.16ghz processor, 2gb RAM. Photoshop CS2 under Rosetta:

    Fred Miranda Test: 34 seconds
    Retouch Pro Test: 73 seconds (8bit file)

    CS3:
    Fred Miranda Test: 19 seconds
    Retouch Pro Test: 45 seconds

    Also a significant performance boost thumb.gif
  • AndyAndy Bicameral New YorkPosts: 50,151Registered Users Major grins
    edited December 15, 2006
    patch29 wrote:
    retested today on my Macbook with PS CS3 Beta

    67 sec, 16 bit. clap.gif
    Macbook pro, 17" w/ 2.16ghz processor. 16-bit retouch pro test w/ CS3: 60seconds :D

    2Gb Ram.
  • marlinspikemarlinspike Major grins Posts: 2,095Registered Users Major grins
    edited December 16, 2006
    Andy wrote:
    Macbook Pro Results (8 bit test only)


    CS3:
    Fred Miranda Test: 19 seconds
    Retouch Pro Test: 45 seconds

    Also a significant performance boost thumb.gif

    8-bit retouch pro test on CS3 beta for windows on a 2.16ghz core 2 duo with 2gb ram (so same specs as yours only Windows): 32 seconds. Windows pwn Mac!!!!mwink.gif
  • patch29patch29 C|34N3R Atlanta, GAPosts: 2,928Registered Users, Retired Mod Major grins
    edited December 16, 2006
    patch29 wrote:
    G5 dual proc 2.7ghtz 8 gb ram CS2

    Retouch Pro

    53 sec, 16 bit file


    retest with CS3

    63 sec, 16 bit file headscratch.gif 11doh.gif
  • AndyAndy Bicameral New YorkPosts: 50,151Registered Users Major grins
    edited December 23, 2006
    http://hansv.com/cs3/

    Apple Wins.
    apple-1-front-small.jpg
  • marlinspikemarlinspike Major grins Posts: 2,095Registered Users Major grins
    edited December 23, 2006
    I wish I still had CS3 so I could test it for myself. It seems odd that the retouch pro test would find similar improvements on both Windows and Mac (about 11 seconds) but that this test would find a huge improvement in Mac on the first run, and then the retest would take almost twice as long.
  • cloveclove shutterthug Posts: 20Registered Users Big grins
    edited January 14, 2007
    Fred Miranda: 19 sec
    8 bit: 35 sec

    AMD 4600 X2 Dual Core 2.4
    2 GB RAM
    Photoshop CS3
    Windows Vista Ultimate (32 bit)
    shawn c
    cloverphoto.smugmug.com

    www.cloverphoto.com
  • TristanPTristanP Major grins Posts: 1,107Registered Users Major grins
    edited February 21, 2007
    FM: 27
    RP 8 bit: 65

    WinXP Pro, SP2
    PS CS2 fresh after a reboot
    Intel C2D 1.86 GHz (not overclocked)
    2 GB RAM
    Gigabyte DS3 mobo
    XFX 7600 GT video
    80/250 GB SATA Seagate HDs

    Only cost me $950 w/o my monitor. :D Will try again down the road when I overclock it.
    panekfamily.smugmug.com (personal)
    tristansphotography.com (motorsports)

    Canon 20D | 10-22 | 17-85 IS | 50/1.4 | 70-300 IS | 100/2.8 macro
    Sony F717 | Hoya R72
Sign In or Register to comment.