Computer Benchmark Tests with Photoshop

123578

Comments

  • AndyAndy Bicameral New YorkPosts: 50,151Registered Users Major grins
    edited April 13, 2007
    Andy wrote:
    Macbook pro, 17" w/ 2.16ghz processor. 16-bit retouch pro test w/ CS3: 60seconds :D

    2Gb Ram.

    2.33Ghz 17" Macbook Pro, Intel Core 2 Duo w/ 2Gb RAM:

    CS3
    Retouch Pro Test
    8bit- 34 seconds
    16bit- 48 seconds

    FM Test
    8bit - 16 seconds
    16bit - 21 seconds
  • marlinspikemarlinspike Major grins Posts: 2,095Registered Users Major grins
    edited April 13, 2007
    Andy wrote:
    2.33Ghz 17" Macbook Pro, Intel Core 2 Duo w/ 2Gb RAM:

    CS3
    Retouch Pro Test
    8bit- 34 seconds
    16bit- 48 seconds

    Congratulations. Your new mac laptop is almost as fast as my old ibm laptop with a slower processor. "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"
    mwink.gif
  • AndyAndy Bicameral New YorkPosts: 50,151Registered Users Major grins
    edited April 13, 2007
    Congratulations. Your new mac laptop is almost as fast as my old ibm laptop with a slower processor. "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"
    mwink.gif
    It is okay. I will rerun the numbers, college-boy lol3.gif
  • DavidTODavidTO Mod Emeritus Thousand Oaks, CAPosts: 19,160Registered Users, Retired Mod Major grins
    edited April 16, 2007
    A friend of mine has the new 8 core MacPro, with 8GB RAM. He ran the retouch pro tests with CS2, and here are the results:

    8 bit: 9 seconds
    16 bit: 16 seconds

    EDIT: He will re-run when he gets the full version of CS3, and I will post the results here.
    Moderator Emeritus
    Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops
  • wxwaxwxwax Immoderator Posts: 15,471Registered Users Major grins
    edited April 16, 2007
    DavidTO wrote:
    A friend of mine has the new 8 core MacPro, with 8GB RAM. He ran the retouch pro tests with CS2, and here are the results:

    8 bit: 9 seconds
    16 bit: 16 seconds

    EDIT: He will re-run when he gets the full version of CS3, and I will post the results here.

    Hmmm... more confirmation that the 8 cores don't really help PS that much.
    Andy wrote:
    Mac Pro 3Ghz - CS2
    MY CS3 Results - Mac Pro 3Ghz:
    Retouch Pro Test
    8-bit: 14 seconds
    16-bit: 19 seconds
    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
  • DavidTODavidTO Mod Emeritus Thousand Oaks, CAPosts: 19,160Registered Users, Retired Mod Major grins
    edited April 16, 2007
    wxwax wrote:
    Hmmm... more confirmation that the 8 cores don't really help PS that much.


    Dollars to doughnuts CS3 takes full advantage of the 8 cores.
    Moderator Emeritus
    Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops
  • colourboxcolourbox Major grins Posts: 2,088Registered Users Major grins
    edited April 16, 2007
    DavidTO wrote:
    Dollars to doughnuts CS3 takes full advantage of the 8 cores.

    Sure it can, but full advantage of all cores does not equal dramatic performance increase. In this test, the cores are maxed yet the rest of the system, outside Photoshop control, prevents more than a few % improvement.
    "A bit depressing when the Activity Monitor registers 796% CPU usage on the 8 core versus 395% usage on the 4 core, yet the total time to complete the task is only 3% faster in the case of Photoshop CS3 and 7% faster in the case of Aperture."
  • wxwaxwxwax Immoderator Posts: 15,471Registered Users Major grins
    edited April 16, 2007
    colourbox wrote:
    Sure it can, but full advantage of all cores does not equal dramatic performance increase. In this test, the cores are maxed yet the rest of the system, outside Photoshop control, prevents more than a few % improvement.
    That's right, I forgot their test used CS3.

    OK, David, 1 donut for one dollar. lol3.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
  • ruttrutt Cave canem! Posts: 6,511Registered Users Major grins
    edited April 17, 2007
    DavidTO wrote:
    Dollars to doughnuts CS3 takes full advantage of the 8 cores.
    OK, David, you pushed my buttons and just to punish you, I'm going to explain Amdahl's Law. Because I like you, I'm going to try to make it very simple. But there will be a pop quiz.

    Let's suppose that I have a computer benchmark and that the program which processes it consists of 2 phases, A and B and that A takes 90% of the runtime when the benchmark is run on a single processor. So far so good?

    [imgl]http://rutt.smugmug.com/photos/144520243-400x400.jpg[/imgl]
    Now suppose that Apple and Adobe do some work and now adding more processors makes A go faster. In fact, let's even say that A gets faster in direct proportion to the number of processors we have. So with 4 processors A goes 4x faster than with a single processor. How fast is our benchmark now?
    .25 X 90 + 10 = 32.5
    Cool! Now what used to take 100 seconds takes only 32.5! We love it so much we shell out for an 8 processor system. How fast is it on our benchmark?
    .125 X 90 + 10 = 21.25
    But wait a minute? We doubled the number of processors, but the benchmark only got 35% faster. What happened? Remember that pesky B part of the problem is which took 10% of the initial run. It didn't get any faster when we went to 4 processors. And it still didn't get any faster when we went to 8 processors. At that point it was 1/2 the time for the benchmark. In fact, suppose we had 100 processors.
    .01 X 90 + 10 = 10.9
    which is only about 2x faster than with 8 processors. After all, even if we made A go away, this benchmark is only going to be 90% faster.

    The plot shows performance improvements as more processors are added given the optimistic assumptions above. As you should expect, the improvement curve converges to .1. Additional processors can't make it go any faster than that.

    So how is this relevant? Almost all computer problems (and certainly the graphical blurs which make up the bulk of these benchmarks) consist of work which can be done in parallel and work which cannot. If we are very very lucky, our task will be like the hypothetical benchmark I just described and 90% will improve proportionally with the addition of new processors. Even so, adding new processors reaches a point of diminishing returns as above. More likely:
    • Less than 90% of the benchmark can't be parallelized.
    • The part that can be parallelized can't be made to scale perfectly with the addition of processors. Perhaps it will only get 80% X Number of Processors faster.
    As problems grow in size, the number change. Consider video. Suppose that the numbers for processing each individual frame are as above but that we have an hour worth of frames at 60 frames per second. About a quarter of a million frames. Further suppose that each frame can be processed independently (not always true in video as it happens.) Then we can make the whole benchmark scale with the number of processors until we get to a quarter of a million processors. At that point, Amdahl's Law will start to bite us and quadrupling the number of processors would only make processing 32% faster, etc.

    Still with me?

    David, this doesn't really reflect badly on either Apple or Adobe. It's more like a law of the universe. Apple and Adobe are doing really well in terms of taking advantage of the hardware Intel makes. If we had some numbers for 1, 2, 4, 8 processor systems of the same speed we could plot the results and figure out exactly how much of the benchmark was parallelized and how much was serial. I'll bet you L glass to donuts that the plot will look roughly like the one here, although probably it will flatten out much faster for any of the benchmarks under consideration.
    If not now, when?
  • pathfinderpathfinder Drive By Digital Shooter western IndianaPosts: 14,434Super Moderators moderator
    edited April 17, 2007
    SO what you're saying John, is that going from 1 to 2 processors makes a big jump in performance, but going from 4 to 8 processors makes quite a bit less improvement.

    Makes the price of the 8 core less inviting, doesn't it?

    Interesting discussion. Thank you for explaining what is going on in multi-processor systems.
    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 April 17, 2007
    rutt wrote:
    OK, David, you pushed my buttons and just to punish you, I'm going to explain Amdahl's Law. Because I like you, I'm going to try to make it very simple.

    Best. Rutt-dig. Ever!

    clap.gif clap.gif clap.gif
  • ruttrutt Cave canem! Posts: 6,511Registered Users Major grins
    edited April 17, 2007
    pathfinder wrote:
    SO what you're saying John, is that going from 1 to 2 processors makes a big jump in performance, but going from 4 to 8 processors makes quite a bit less improvement.

    Yes and this is inherent in the problem itself, and doesn't reflect negatively on Apple so David can stop cheerleading already.

    But really, more processors can help some things a lot. Bridge will finish doing it's thing on a big shoot faster. That problem is more like the video problem, each image in pretty much independent of the others so that if you have more than 8 images, you can use 8 processors. If you get i2e to work in batch mode on separate processors (won't be on parallels as I understand it), then you can make it eat through a big shoot fast. But face it, how often to you actually wait for a particular photoshop command to complete on your current system? I wait for surface blur, and I wait for stuff I think is probably disk access, that sort of thing. Well my surface blurs could be faster (and I do use them), but the other stuff isn't going to be helped by more processors.

    I do have batch things which could scale with the number of processors, but these particular benchmarks won't capture that.
    If not now, when?
  • AndyAndy Bicameral New YorkPosts: 50,151Registered Users Major grins
    edited April 17, 2007
    rutt wrote:
    so David can stop cheerleading already.

    Not sure that's possible headscratch.gif
  • DavidTODavidTO Mod Emeritus Thousand Oaks, CAPosts: 19,160Registered Users, Retired Mod Major grins
    edited April 17, 2007
    rutt wrote:
    more processors can help some things a lot.


    Told ya so.
    Moderator Emeritus
    Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops
  • ruttrutt Cave canem! Posts: 6,511Registered Users Major grins
    edited April 17, 2007
    DavidTO wrote:
    rutt wrote:
    more processors can help some things a lot.
    Told ya so.

    Gotta love it when people are really good at what they are good at!

    But if you have one of those problems which can absorb lots of processors, one of these 8 processor boxes probably isn't the right tool for the job, at least not in terms of, say images processed per hour per dollar. Probably you want more processors without that expensive shared memory bus. I figured this out here before. You can actually get 12 processors on Mac Minis for the same price as one of these Mac Pro 8 things. And that's paying for Apple marketing and software development that you don't really need. Cheaper to build your own PCs and run linux, at least in terms of $/compute. Keep going down that road and the next stop is Pixar and you'll need a warehouse to hold a farm of not quite the latest PCs connected by not quite the fastest network each happily working away on rendering one frame of a movie. At this point, rent, racking, and air conditioning costs figure pretty large in the equation. Next stop, Google, which runs linux on zillions of boxes it builds itself.

    That 8 processor thing is basically about bragging rights and perhaps some sort of video editing. True 4 core chips will be out later this year and the prices will drop and become more competitive.
    If not now, when?
  • wxwaxwxwax Immoderator Posts: 15,471Registered Users Major grins
    edited April 17, 2007
    I think we're all agreed that David owes me a doughnut.
    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
  • DavidTODavidTO Mod Emeritus Thousand Oaks, CAPosts: 19,160Registered Users, Retired Mod Major grins
    edited April 17, 2007
    DavidTO wrote:
    Dollars to doughnuts CS3 takes full advantage of the 8 cores.


    Tell me which part of this statement is wrong, and I'll buy you your friggin' doughnut! umph.gif
    Moderator Emeritus
    Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops
  • ruttrutt Cave canem! Posts: 6,511Registered Users Major grins
    edited April 17, 2007
    DavidTO wrote:
    Tell me which part of this statement is wrong, and I'll buy you your friggin' doughnut! umph.gif

    Sid, now you ask him to define "full advantage".
    If not now, when?
  • wxwaxwxwax Immoderator Posts: 15,471Registered Users Major grins
    edited April 17, 2007
    DavidTO wrote:
    Tell me which part of this statement is wrong, and I'll buy you your friggin' doughnut! umph.gif
    I ask you to define "full advantage."

    lol3.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
  • DavidTODavidTO Mod Emeritus Thousand Oaks, CAPosts: 19,160Registered Users, Retired Mod Major grins
    edited April 17, 2007
    wxwax wrote:
    I ask you to define "full advantage."

    lol3.gif


    Well, of course the use of the phrase "full advantage" implies that the 8 core will comply with Amdahl's Law, but won't be hampered by niggly little details, spurious little beancounters, and nay-sayers, such as yourself.

    Now why don't you go back to being happy with your Mac, and stop asking pesky questions? umph.gif
    Moderator Emeritus
    Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops
  • ruttrutt Cave canem! Posts: 6,511Registered Users Major grins
    edited April 17, 2007
    One important sense in which the phrase "full advantage" is deceptive in this context is that it implies that the benchmark takes full advantage of the extra 4 processors, i.e., keeps them more or less busy working on the benchmark. But that 8 processor system is spending about 50% of its time (under my optimistic hypothesis about how parallel the benchmarks are) doing the nonparallel part of the problem. When that happens, 7 of the processors are not being used to advantage. So let's see. That means that on average they are 43% idle (roughly.) Since it seems reasonable to hold that 57% is less than full, I'd say it's also reasonable to conclude that the 8 processor system doesn't take full advantage of those processors for this problem.

    I'd say you should buy Sid a donut. But then what do I know? Your marketing and legal departments are far better than mine, and that's what really counts here.

    Wait! Late breaking news from my legal department: Sid never accepted David's bet. So, David doesn't owe anyone a donut that I can tell.

    Time to move on.
    If not now, when?
  • wxwaxwxwax Immoderator Posts: 15,471Registered Users Major grins
    edited April 17, 2007
    DavidTO wrote:
    Well, of course the use of the phrase "full advantage" implies that the 8 core will comply with Amdahl's Law, but won't be hampered by niggly little details, spurious little beancounters, and nay-sayers, such as yourself.

    Now why don't you go back to being happy with your Mac, and stop asking pesky questions? umph.gif
    Well, here's the problem, David.

    One important sense in which the phrase "full advantage" is deceptive in this context is that it implies that the benchmark takes full advantage of the extra 4 processors, i.e., keeps them more or less busy working on the benchmark. But that 8 processor system is spending about 50% of its time (under my optimistic hypothesis about how parallel the benchmarks are) doing the nonparallel part of the problem. When that happens, 7 of the processors are not being used to advantage. So let's see. That means that on average they are 43% idle (roughly.) Since it seems reasonable to hold that 57% is less than full, I'd say it's also reasonable to conclude that the 8 processor system doesn't take full advantage of those processors for this problem.

    So I reckon you owe me a doughnut.
    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
  • DavidTODavidTO Mod Emeritus Thousand Oaks, CAPosts: 19,160Registered Users, Retired Mod Major grins
    edited April 17, 2007
    wxwax wrote:
    Well, here's the problem, David.

    One important sense in which the phrase "full advantage" is deceptive in this context is that it implies that the benchmark takes full advantage of the extra 4 processors, i.e., keeps them more or less busy working on the benchmark. But that 8 processor system is spending about 50% of its time (under my optimistic hypothesis about how parallel the benchmarks are) doing the nonparallel part of the problem. When that happens, 7 of the processors are not being used to advantage. So let's see. That means that on average they are 43% idle (roughly.) Since it seems reasonable to hold that 57% is less than full, I'd say it's also reasonable to conclude that the 8 processor system doesn't take full advantage of those processors for this problem.

    So I reckon you owe me a doughnut.


    Ah. Well I see that your comments are completely incompatible with mine. They couldn't be more contradictory. I suppose that we're just going to have to agree to disagree.
    Moderator Emeritus
    Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops
  • wxwaxwxwax Immoderator Posts: 15,471Registered Users Major grins
    edited April 17, 2007
    DavidTO wrote:
    Ah. Well I see that your comments are completely incompatible with mine. They couldn't be more contradictory. I suppose that we're just going to have to agree to disagree.
    Sooo... you can get me that doughnut, or an 8 core so I can try it for myself... or I'll trade both to see you crack a smile. lol3.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
  • DavidTODavidTO Mod Emeritus Thousand Oaks, CAPosts: 19,160Registered Users, Retired Mod Major grins
    edited April 17, 2007
    wxwax wrote:
    Sooo... you can get me that doughnut, or an 8 core so I can try it for myself... or I'll trade both to see you crack a smile. lol3.gif


    Sid, is my humor too dry for you? :D
    Moderator Emeritus
    Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops
  • wxwaxwxwax Immoderator Posts: 15,471Registered Users Major grins
    edited April 17, 2007
    DavidTO wrote:
    Sid, is my humor too dry for you? :D
    If by dry, you mean the bottle of vermouth is open six rooms away from the martini... then yes, it's a tad dry. lol3.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
  • ChrisJChrisJ Major grins Posts: 2,159Registered Users Major grins
    edited April 17, 2007
    I thought you mac guys were supposed to be all buddy-buddy!! ne_nau.gif :D

    Anyway, here are the stats for my new system:

    CS2
    FredMiranda - 21 seconds
    Retouch Pro (8 bit) - 51 seconds

    Even if the extra cores don't do much... 9 seconds is still pretty freakin' fast compared to my piddly 51.
    Chris
  • marlinspikemarlinspike Major grins Posts: 2,095Registered Users Major grins
    edited April 17, 2007
    Andy wrote:
    It is okay. I will rerun the numbers, college-boy lol3.gif

    I know that when you get older you get slower, but have you gotten around to that yet?mwink.gif
  • thebigskythebigsky Cloudbusting Posts: 1,050Registered Users Major grins
    edited April 30, 2007
    I've just got CS3 and tried the retouch pro test again on my Mac Pro 2.66 with 5 gig of memory:-

    16 bit - 22 Seconds
    8 bit - 15 Seconds (That's a 5 second improvement now that PS is a universal binary as opposed to running under Rosetta.)

    Charlie
  • AndyAndy Bicameral New YorkPosts: 50,151Registered Users Major grins
    edited August 5, 2007
    Andy wrote:

    2.33Ghz 17" Macbook Pro, Intel Core 2 Duo w/ 2Gb RAM:

    CS3
    Retouch Pro Test
    8bit- 34 seconds
    16bit- 48 seconds

    FM Test
    8bit - 16 seconds
    16bit - 21 seconds

    Macbook Pro, 2.4 GHz Core 2 Duo
    Teeny bit faster

    Retouch Pro Test
    8bit- 32 seconds
    16bit- 46 seconds

    FM Test
    8bit - 13 seconds
    16bit - 19 seconds
Sign In or Register to comment.