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 (http://www.retouchpro.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8440&page=1&pp=15). (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 (http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=25006) 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]

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]

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]

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 (http://www.apple.com/powermac/specs.html).

[patch29]

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. :dunno

[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]

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. :dunnoMy 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]

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]

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]

:cry

Love the speed, hate the price.

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

[wxwax]

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. :dunno

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. :evil)

[DavidTO]

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

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. :evil)


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]

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]

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 :lol3 and there's not much difference, a few hundred, we all knew that anyhow :lol3

[wxwax]

So, what you're saying, is, Waxy's full of it :lol3 and there's not much difference, a few hundred, we all knew that anyhow :lol3

:scratch

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. :dunno

As for apples to Apples, if you care to read (http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=34668&page=4) 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]

:scratch

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. :dunno

As for apples to Apples, if you care to read (http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=34668&page=4) 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 (http://dgrin.com/showpost.php?p=314574&postcount=145).

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]

:scratch

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. :dunno

http://www.cvm.uiuc.edu/petcolumns/images/corner_livestock.jpg

got your goat :bad (http://www.cvm.uiuc.edu/petcolumns/showarticle.cfm?id=50)

[wxwax]

I'm thinking you have selective memory (http://dgrin.com/showpost.php?p=314574&postcount=145).


That, my friend, was bait. :lol3

Just like Andy's. :bluduh

[wxwax]

http://www.cvm.uiuc.edu/petcolumns/images/corner_livestock.jpg

got your goat :bad (http://www.cvm.uiuc.edu/petcolumns/showarticle.cfm?id=50)

Guilty. :wxwax

[wxwax]

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]

That, my friend, was bait. :lol3

Just like Andy's. :bluduh


I'm confused. :scratch

[wxwax]

I'm confused. :scratch
Bait is what you put on a hook when you're fishing. :evil Sometimes, fishing is called trolling.

[DavidTO]

Bait is what you put on a hook when you're fishing. :evil 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! :D

[wxwax]

<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! :D

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!

[Andy]

Oh, and---get a Mac! :D

All this hawt Mac talk is getting me SO EXCITED! :lol3

I might have to buy the 15" Macbook Pro now afterall.

[DavidTO]

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

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


fixed it for you, Sid.

[Andy]

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!

Sid, maybe you're backed up a bit:

http://data1.blog.de/blog/w/wulfweard/img/mac_toilet.jpeg

[wxwax]

All this hawt Mac talk is getting me SO EXCITED! :lol3

I might have to buy the 15" Macbook Pro now afterall.

If I go Mac, I'm thinking a 17" Macbook Pro in about 12 months, after they're sorted out the issues and expanded the memory limit.

If you buy now, you're buying a machine that's already obsolete.

[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)

Machine Name: PowerBook G4 15"
Machine Model: PowerBook
CPU Type: PowerPC G4 (1.5)
Number Of CPUs: 1
CPU Speed: 1.67 GHz
L2 Cache (per CPU): 512 KB
Memory: 2 GB
Bus Speed: 167 MHz
Boot ROM Version: 4.9.6f0


Here are the same results on my Powerbook G4:


Fred Miranda Test: 67 seconds
Retouch Pro Test: 119 seconds (8 bit file)

[kini62]

Curious, what does $3600 buy in Winders-land?
Velocity Micro
AMD Athlon X2 4800+ with liquid cooling
550 Watt Antec® TRUE POWER 2.0 Quiet Power Supply with 120mm Smart Fan (SLI Certified by NVIDIA
2GB DDR 400
nVidia 7900GT 256mb dual dvi
Creative Labs SoundBlaster® X-Fi™ XtremeMusic, Enhanced MP3 playback, realistic surround,
Hard Drive 1 400GB Western Digital 4000YR 7200rpm SATA/150, 16MB Cache
Hard Drive 2 750GB Seagate Barracuda 7200rpm SATA/150/300, 16MB Cache - with NCQ
Optical Drive 1 16x Lite On® DVD+/-RW/CD-RW Dual Layer,
Optical Drive 2 16x DVD/48x CD-RW Lite On® Combo Drive,
Floppy Drive & Media Reader 1.44MB Floppy Drive,

and of course some other stuff, 8 usb ports 2 FW (not 800 though) of course the 800 versions from apple are slow anyway:rofl

$3525

From Apple
Quad Core with 512mb (add 100-150 to up it to 2GB)
2x 500GB drives- close as I could match
256mb 7800GT- not 7900- there is a performance difference

$4524 without the extra ram

From apple dual 2.3 a MUCH slower system than the Athlon in EVERY conceivable way:):

$3724 without the extra Ram
2x500gb
7800GT

Yes Apple is more expensive

Yes Apple uses last years PC parts, witness the outdated video card offering.

OSX will soon be easily available for your ordinary windows box.

Apple offers a piddly 90days of tech support.

Proprietary parts mean if it breaks out of warranty you can junk it.

The MB is like $800 or something ridiculous like that.

So you can add the $300 or so for the Apple "protection" plan that they essentially extort out of you because of the expense to repair.

It will soon all be moot once Apple switches the desktops over to Intel and the MBs will be the same, although Apple will still charge 4 times the price for one if it breaks out of warranty. Jeeze 4 times the price for a different CMOS chip.:huh

Gene

[wxwax]

Gene if the top rig is yours, show us the times on the two blur tests. I'm curious.

[DavidTO]

Yes Apple is more expensive

Yes Apple uses last years PC parts, witness the outdated video card offering.

OSX will soon be easily available for your ordinary windows box.

Apple offers a piddly 90days of tech support.

Proprietary parts mean if it breaks out of warranty you can junk it.

The MB is like $800 or something ridiculous like that.

So you can add the $300 or so for the Apple "protection" plan that they essentially extort out of you because of the expense to repair.

It will soon all be moot once Apple switches the desktops over to Intel and the MBs will be the same, although Apple will still charge 4 times the price for one if it breaks out of warranty. Jeeze 4 times the price for a different CMOS chip.:huh

Gene

You get a year warranty. Phone support is limited to 90 days. The G5 is long in the tooth, no doubt, and it's overdue for an update. No doubt that the parts they're using could be newer, the whole unit's waiting for the migration to Intel, a major undertaking for Apple. The hardware will lag a bit during the transition.

You may be able to install OSX on a PC, but it won't be available, as far as I know. At that point you would be stealing.

Aside from the CPU, I don't know of anything that's proprietary. I buy off-the shelf components all the time for Apple products.

AppleCare is $250 for most products, and extends the 1 year warranty to a full 3 years. It's more than paid for itself with my recently sold PowerBook. Good service, the best in the biz.

The MB is actually more ridiculous than you posted, at $1100.

The thing about all of this price comparison, is that I don't believe you can just compare the hardware. Windows will win every time, since the software bundled on the Mac is so far ahead of Windows. Not to mention that Windows has all the cheap, crippled versions of XP that are installed to shave pennies off of the price...then you want the full version, all of a sudden you're paying more.

The packaging and pricing is different, making the PC seem oh-so-much cheaper. It may be a bit, but feature for feature, the Mac is very competitive. I'm talking hardware, software, support, reliability, the whole package.

[wxwax]

The MB is actually more ridiculous than you posted, at $1100.

The thing about all of this price comparison, is that I don't believe you can just compare the hardware. Windows will win every time, since the software bundled on the Mac is so far ahead of Windows. Not to mention that Windows has all the cheap, crippled versions of XP that are installed to shave pennies off of the price...then you want the full version, all of a sudden you're paying more.

The packaging and pricing is different, making the PC seem oh-so-much cheaper. It may be a bit, but feature for feature, the Mac is very competitive. I'm talking hardware, software, support, reliability, the whole package.

Dunno about the XP thing, not what I got at the corner store, I had the full deal for my last $800 computer.

I think you have a good case for support and reliability. Maybe software, if we're only talking about the OS. For other software, the variety for PCs is pretty overwhelming.

Problem is, selling on support and reliability, even ease of use, is tough versus competitors selling on price. Especially when computers are mostly viewed as commodities. That must have something to do with Apple's market share and its recent marketing strategies (Minis, iMacs etc.)

[DavidTO]

Dunno about the XP thing, not what I got at the corner store, I had the full deal for my last $800 computer.



Every time I look in the paper (great research, I know!), the systems come with a dumbed down version of XP. Frankly, I don't get all the versions of an OS. What a pain, seems to me. OS X has one version (excluding the Server version, which is a different animal), and I like that, personally.

As for your comments on software and commodities, I agree.

[kini62]

Gene if the top rig is yours, show us the times on the two blur tests. I'm curious.
I wish:D

I have a Dell XPS Gen IV with a 3.6P4. Pretty fast for what I do, but not up to what the dual core (Mac or Win) will do.

[kini62]

You get a year warranty. Phone support is limited to 90 days. The G5 is long in the tooth, no doubt, and it's overdue for an update. No doubt that the parts they're using could be newer, the whole unit's waiting for the migration to Intel, a major undertaking for Apple. The hardware will lag a bit during the transition.

You may be able to install OSX on a PC, but it won't be available, as far as I know. At that point you would be stealing.

Aside from the CPU, I don't know of anything that's proprietary. I buy off-the shelf components all the time for Apple products.

AppleCare is $250 for most products, and extends the 1 year warranty to a full 3 years. It's more than paid for itself with my recently sold PowerBook. Good service, the best in the biz.

The MB is actually more ridiculous than you posted, at $1100.

The thing about all of this price comparison, is that I don't believe you can just compare the hardware. Windows will win every time, since the software bundled on the Mac is so far ahead of Windows. Not to mention that Windows has all the cheap, crippled versions of XP that are installed to shave pennies off of the price...then you want the full version, all of a sudden you're paying more.

The packaging and pricing is different, making the PC seem oh-so-much cheaper. It may be a bit, but feature for feature, the Mac is very competitive. I'm talking hardware, software, support, reliability, the whole package.

Currently it would sort of be like stealing to use the OS on a Windows box, since OSX IS based on "Free"BSD or something like that. There are hacked versions that run pretty well already.

It's only a matter of time until Stevo lets out the "generic" version you know he has. What do you think Apple was testing the intel version on all this time. Just a plain old intel box.

The "Apple" version differs only in some basic BIO,CMOS, ROM chips/software that allow it to only recognize a certain chipset.

There also is the rumor of Stevo talking with Miko (Dell) about Dell selling OSX boxes.

Stevo only has to look at Billy and M$ to see the real money is in the software and not PC hardware.

Give it 18 months at the longest and we PC types will have OSX available, legally. :clap

$1100!!!:jawdrop

Wow!!!! Nuts.

[kini62]

P4 3.6HT Miranda radial blur

40secs with PSE

I think it would be a little faster in PSCS. I don't think PSE supports multi processors and the HT does make a difference in apps that do.

Gene

retouch 8bit I guess, 80secs

[claudermilk]

OK, just found this thread & have a brand new homebrew PC

AMD X2 4200+, 2GB RAM, MSI K8N Neo4 Ulta mobo

FM test: 29sec (old 1.7GHz/768MG RAM Dell was 7:30 or so) :D
Retouch: 54sec (8-bit)

[tived]

FM test
image size 7.61mb (2000x1330pixels) (169.33x122.61)mm @300dpi

average score 21.91 sec (out of seven runs - 21.5 to 22.2)

Retouch
image size 13.7mb (2400x2000 pixels) (203.2x169.33)mm @300dpi

average score 23 sec out of 3 runs 22.9-23.1 (8bit)

score for 16bit 28sec

looking at peoples result this doesn't quite add up, just looked at Andys Quad Mac and I am getting similar times, but he should a lot faster!??? hmm go wonder!

System
Dual AMD Opteron 250 (single core)
Tyan S2895 mainboard
8x 1gb ECC ram ATP
U320 SCSI 15k and 10k disks
2x nVidia Quadro FX3400

regards

Henrik

[wxwax]

FM test
image size 7.61mb (2000x1330pixels) (169.33x122.61)mm @300dpi

average score 21.91 sec (out of seven runs - 21.5 to 22.2)

Retouch
image size 13.7mb (2400x2000 pixels) (203.2x169.33)mm @300dpi

average score 23 sec out of 3 runs 22.9-23.1 (8bit)

score for 16bit 28sec

looking at peoples result this doesn't quite add up, just looked at Andys Quad Mac and I am getting similar times, but he should a lot faster!??? hmm go wonder!

System
Dual AMD Opteron 250 (single core)
Tyan S2895 mainboard
8x 1gb ECC ram ATP
U320 SCSI 15k and 10k disks
2x nVidia Quadro FX3400

regards

Henrik


:lol3

I'm sure 8 GB of memory has a lot to do with your times.

[luke_church]

the systems come with a dumbed down version of XP.

XP Home isn't really dumbed down, it just doesn't have features that the vast majority of home users don't use. Mainly:

- Domain based network, which needs a domain controller to work anyhow, so unless you have another machine running Windows Server, this is kind of useless (I expect Linux can also do DC Emulation, but I don't know)

- Remote Desktop call in access. Whereas it's a real pain that XP Home doesn't have this, based on many users strong desire to break their own computers, it may actually be a good thing, esp. for people who configure their hardware firewall to pass through everything from the internet and user 5 character passwords ;)

- Kerberos protected authentication. Well it's of limited use without a domain controller anyway

- IIS. Thank heavens MS have stopped supplying end home users with a copy of a professional grade webserver. The amount of pain this caused, through the various, utterly junk versions they used to supply (PWS anyone!), was unbelivable. Your average home user does not understand how to configure a webserver securely, nor do they need to.

Then you get on to more complex things like MSMQ, that only companies with serious development departments use, again your home user should be nowhere near such things.

So there is a fairly strong argument that could be made stating that the XP Home/Pro divide is actually the best thing in terms of security. It aligns well to the principle of only supplying software that is actually going to be used etc.

I appreciate that this isn't the reason why it was done, it's an economics argument of price setting through banding. This also may explain why Apple don't do it, their market share is not significant enough to make it in their interests.

The only people it really inconviences are people like me who buy second hand XP machines from Dell and run them in computation clusters as head-less boxes, and yes, have to buy an XP Pro upgrade for them, or run Linux.

The whole Tablet PC editions are a pain as well. I look forward to Vista murdering this distinction. This was a technical issue, nothing significant or interesting here. I have never used a Media Centre PC and can't offer comments on it. It may well be annoying.

Windows Media N is a joke caused by a dumb piece of legislation, and should be ignored. Just as the world is doing.

The server versions are of course, and should stay, different. Certainly agree on that.

So perhaps it's not so bad as some people make out....

Luke

[gus]

29 seconds again

Intel 2.8 duo core
2 gig ram
128 meg 6600 vid card

[tived]

:lol3

I'm sure 8 GB of memory has a lot to do with your times.

thanks Sid,

but when you look at his and mine, retouch is the same but the FM is very different, and they are very similar operations execpt that one is Zoom and one is Spin in the Radical Blur

anyway, not much we can do about :D apart for getting a pair of Opteron 295's

anyone here look at their RAW conversion times, how fast they convert in different programs (i know in the end of the day it comes down to workflow)

thanks

Henrik

[DavidTO]

$1100!!!:jawdrop

Wow!!!! Nuts.


So, Walt Mossberg (http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB114971877580074190-bhlvtzjso6Z_z_HATZg4M3123_g_20070608.html) doesn't think it's so nuts. I admit right upfront, I don't price computers. I buy Mac. But I am curious, is he totally offbase here?

Perhaps the most surprising thing about the MacBook is its price. Despite Apple's reputation for charging more, the MacBook is actually less expensive than its closest major Windows competitor. That would be the Sony Vaio VGN-SZ240, which also has a 13.3-inch screen with the same resolution, includes a built-in camera, and is available with the same processor and the same memory and hard-disk capacity as the MacBook.

When configured to match the major specs of the base model of the MacBook, the Sony costs $1,629, over 60% more than the MacBook's $1,099 base price. But the MacBook is much heavier than the Sony. It weighs 5.2 pounds, 37% more than the Sony's 3.8 pounds.

[luke_church]

[Editted... It was only going to irritate people, and the world here already knows my view on Apple's security...]

As for the rest of it, blah, it may or may well not be true... My Toshiba has a similar scrolling feature, I don't really care about cameras in laptops, 37% heavier sounds annoying, it really should have better battery life if it's going to be that much heavier. I would try hard to avoid buying a laptop without a PCMCIA slot.

But hey-ho, other that, it looks like it's a reasonably nice piece of kit, few advantages, few disvantages, reasonable price point. Nice.

I think I'll be testing the waters with a Mini first though...

Luke

[colourbox]

AppleCare is $250 for most products, and extends the 1 year warranty to a full 3 years. It's more than paid for itself with my recently sold PowerBook. Good service, the best in the biz.

AppleCare list price ranges from $149 for a Mac mini to $349 for a MacBook Pro. Never pay full price for AppleCare. If you shop around, you will get it for less. SmallDog.com sells MacBook Pro AppleCare for $299 (http://www.smalldog.com/search/do_search.php?restrict=&exclude=&method=and&sort=score&words=applecare) and they are an honest retailer. I heard that Apple might even match other prices.
So far, AppleCare has paid for itself on the two PowerBooks I bought it for.

I think I'll be testing the waters with a Mini first though...

I assume you're just testing and not thinking of using a Mini for Photoshop. I've stayed far away from the mini. Small, slow hard drive, very low RAM ceiling, impossible to use dual monitors...

[Andy]

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 (1/2gb ram allotted)
Fred Miranda Test: 55 seconds
Retouch Pro Test: 2mins 22seconds

UPDATED, ALLOCATED MORE RAM TO Windows on Parallels (1.5Gb)

Macbook Pro, 17" 2.16ghz processor, 2gb RAM. Photoshop CS2 Windows under Parallels (1.5gb ram allotted)
Fred Miranda Test: 52 seconds
Retouch Pro Test: 2mins 05seconds



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

Machine Name: PowerBook G4 15"
Fred Miranda Test: 67 seconds
Retouch Pro Test: 119 seconds (8 bit file)

[DavidTO]

Macbook Pro, 17" 2.16ghz processor, 2gb RAM.

Fred Miranda Test: 34 seconds

Retouch Pro Test: 73 seconds (8bit file)


Sounds like folks shouldn't worry too much about the performance hit with Rosetta.

[Andy]

Sounds like folks shouldn't worry too much about the performance hit with Rosetta.
I should think not...

[rutt]

This is exactly what I've been waiting for before buying one of these. Exactly. I knew it was just a matter of patience. Hope my wife loves her new 17" powerbook.

Macbook Pro, 17" 2.16ghz processor, 2gb RAM.

Fred Miranda Test: 34 seconds

Retouch Pro Test: 73 seconds (8bit file)

[wxwax]

This is exactly what I've been waiting for before buying one of these. Exactly. I knew it was just a matter of patience. Hope my wife loves her new 17" powerbook.
Presumably those times will improve when (a) CS3 comes out and (b) an upgraded Macbook Pro comes out?

[rutt]

Presumably those times will improve when (a) CS3 comes out and (b) an upgraded Macbook Pro comes out?

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.

[gus]

Presumably those times will improve when (a) CS3 comes out and (b) an upgraded Macbook Pro comes out?
No..better yet. Wait til CS4 is out & an upgrade on the upgraded Macbook Pro.

[wxwax]

No..better yet. Wait til CS4 is out & an upgrade on the upgraded Macbook Pro.
:flip

My events have a visible horizon. Yours don't.

[wxwax]

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.

[Andy]

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.

[DavidTO]

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?

[Mongrel]

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

Of course....






At $1440 EACH, only Andy can afford them :rofl

[Andy]

Ran the tests under Parallels XP Windows, updated post here:
http://www.dgrin.com/showpost.php?p=345952&postcount=54

[DavidTO]

Ran the tests under Parallels XP Windows, updated post here:
http://www.dgrin.com/showpost.php?p=345952&postcount=54


Rosetta beats Parallels?

[wxwax]

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.

[rutt]

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.

[Andy]

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.

[rutt]

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.

[rutt]

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 (http://www.vmware.com/products/vi/esx/vsmp.html). 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.

[rutt]

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.

[Andy]

More like the latter than the former.



VMWare has the technology to do this right (http://www.vmware.com/products/vi/esx/vsmp.html). 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!

[rutt]

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?]

[rutt]

I guess an even shorter reply is: fill out this form (http://vmware.rsc02.net/servlet/campaignrespondent?_ID_=vmwi.1756) now and take the thing for a spin when you can. it should cut parallels by a lot.

[Andy]

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)

[DavidTO]

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!

[Andy]

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.

[gus]

but I have to say, fast is fast.
Its only until the next model comes out :1drink











....and the next......and the next.....

[phuong]

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

[DavidTO]

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

[pathfinder]

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

[Andy]

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 (http://www.macworld.com/2006/11/firstlooks/rosetta/index.php) 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

[DavidTO]

I reran the tests, according to this article (http://www.macworld.com/2006/11/firstlooks/rosetta/index.php) 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!

[Andy]

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!

[gus]

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.

[DavidTO]

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

[thebigsky]

I ran the Retouch Pro test at 8bit on a Mac Pro 2.66 with 5 gig Ram:-

20 Secs

Charlie

[wxwax]

That's $400 per second.

[Andy]

That's $400 per second.
?

[wxwax]

?
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?

[Andy]

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 ?

[gus]

Octopus ?


Hmmmmm........very nice. (http://benetlemonde.hautetfort.com/images/medium_bigmac_pieuvre.jpg)

[Andy]

Hmmmmm........very nice. (http://benetlemonde.hautetfort.com/images/medium_bigmac_pieuvre.jpg)
:rofl :eat

[wxwax]

Octopus ?
The quad dual, coming out in January or so.

[Andy]

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

:uhoh

[wxwax]

Oh. Well, probably not, since I only just got this one :D

:uhoh
Hey, that's two looong months away. :evil

[thebigsky]

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

[cbmazur]

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

[marlinspike]

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 :rofl :D

[DavidTO]

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 :rofl :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.

[marlinspike]

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).

[Andy]

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.

[DavidTO]

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.

[Poseidon]

:rofl

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.

[davemj98]

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.

[rutt]

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:


MBP = MacBook Pro / Core 2 Duo @ 2.33GHz / 3GB
G5 = G5 / 2 X GHz G5 @ 2.5GHz / 4GB
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:


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.
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.
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.
Bridge = Open a folder with the results of 2 & 3 in Adobe Bridge. Wait until the pinwheel in the bottom left stops spinning.
PMech = Like Bridge, but with Photo Mechanic.


Results:

http://rutt.smugmug.com/photos/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 (http://www.macosxhints.com/article.php?story=20030712130414339) 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?

[rutt]

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.

[marlinspike]

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.

[rutt]

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.

[marlinspike]

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

[patch29]

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

[Andy]

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

[Andy]

retested today on my Macbook with PS CS3 Beta

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

2Gb Ram.

[marlinspike]

Macbook Pro Results (8 bit test only)


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

Also a significant performance boost :thumb

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!!!!:wink

[patch29]

G5 dual proc 2.7ghtz 8 gb ram CS2

Retouch Pro

53 sec, 16 bit file



retest with CS3

63 sec, 16 bit file :scratch :doh

[Andy]

http://hansv.com/cs3/

Apple Wins.
http://www.vintage.org/special/2003/apple-1/apple-1-front-small.jpg

[marlinspike]

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.

[clove]

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)

[TristanP]

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.

[Andy]

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

[marlinspike]

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"
:wink

[Andy]

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"
:wink
It is okay. I will rerun the numbers, college-boy :lol3

[DavidTO]

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.

[wxwax]

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.

Mac Pro 3Ghz - CS2
MY CS3 Results - Mac Pro 3Ghz:
Retouch Pro Test
8-bit: 14 seconds
16-bit: 19 seconds

[DavidTO]

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.

[colourbox]

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 (http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2006/12/photoshop_and_multicore.html). In this test (http://www.barefeats.com/octopro1.html), 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."

[wxwax]

Sure it can, but full advantage of all cores does not equal dramatic performance increase (http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2006/12/photoshop_and_multicore.html). In this test (http://www.barefeats.com/octopro1.html), 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

[rutt]

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?

http://rutt.smugmug.com/photos/144520243-400x400.jpg
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.

[pathfinder]

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.

[Andy]

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 :clap :clap

[rutt]

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.

[Andy]

so David can stop cheerleading already.

Not sure that's possible :scratch

[DavidTO]

more processors can help some things a lot.


Told ya so.

[rutt]

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.

[wxwax]

I think we're all agreed that David owes me a doughnut.

[DavidTO]

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! :wxwax

[rutt]

Tell me which part of this statement is wrong, and I'll buy you your friggin' doughnut! :wxwax

Sid, now you ask him to define "full advantage".

[wxwax]

Tell me which part of this statement is wrong, and I'll buy you your friggin' doughnut! :wxwax
I ask you to define "full advantage."

:lol3

[DavidTO]

I ask you to define "full advantage."

:lol3


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? :wxwax

[rutt]

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.

[wxwax]

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? :wxwax
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.

[DavidTO]

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.

[wxwax]

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

[DavidTO]

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


Sid, is my humor too dry for you? :D

[wxwax]

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

[ChrisJ]

I thought you mac guys were supposed to be all buddy-buddy!! :dunno :D

Anyway, here are the stats for my new system (http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=59219):

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.

[marlinspike]

It is okay. I will rerun the numbers, college-boy :lol3

I know that when you get older you get slower, but have you gotten around to that yet?:wink

[thebigsky]

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

[Andy]

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

[noeltykay]

FM = 16 Seconds

New iMac Intel C2D 2.4GHZ 4GB's RAM

[jww]

Testing CS3

FM test
7.04 sec 8 bit
8.47 sec 16 bit

Retouch Pro Test
15.06 sec 8 bit
18.88 sec 32 bit

as well as two copies of IE running so I could read the instructions and keep my place in here

self built pc (around $3200 - though most of the cost was the dual gfx cards which I mostly wanted for gaming :) doubt the extra one made a diff on this test)
Intel Q6600 quad core 2.4ghz (big bang for the buck on this entry level quad intel $289 - just a bit slower than the $1000 quads)
Asus P5N32-E SLI Motherboard
4 gig OCZ DDR2 PC6400
2 BFG 8800 GTX OC video cards (SLI enabled)
1 - WD Raptor - 10k SATA 74gig hard drive
1 - WD Cavier - 7.2k SATA 750gig hard drive
Creative Xfi sound card
2 - Plextor PX800A DVD RW DL drives
running XP Pro..

..and boy does Lightroom rock on this thing. :thumb

[SloYerRoll]

testing CS3 on an older Mac and New (homebuilt) PC:

Vitals for machine below benchmarks:
MAC
FM 45s/1:25
RP 1:28/3:01

PC
FM 6.1s/8.0s
RP 10.2s/16.8s

MAC:
G4 Quicksilver 733
1.5GB RAM
OSX 10.4.9

PC
Vista Premium 8bit
Intel Core 2 Extreme X6800 (overclocked to 3.73GHz)
4GB Dual-Channel DDR2
1 (1)TB Single Serial ATA Hard Drive w/ 10 partitions & Data Burst
1 (100)GB Single Serial ATA Hard Drive for the OS
Dual 768MB NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTX
Fiber Bus architecture
A whole bunch of PCI slots and a small chernobyl power supply

[DavidTO]

testing CS3 on an older Mac and New (homebuilt) PC:

Vitals for machine below benchmarks:
MAC
FM 45s/1:25
RP 1:28/3:01

PC
FM 6.1s/8.0s
RP 10.2s/16.8s

MAC:
G4 Quicksilver 733
1.5GB RAM
OSX 10.4.9

PC
Vista Premium 8bit
Intel Core 2 Extreme X6800 (overclocked to 3.73GHz)
4GB Dual-Channel DDR2
1 (1)TB Single Serial ATA Hard Drive w/ 10 partitions & Data Burst
1 (100)GB Single Serial ATA Hard Drive for the OS
Dual 768MB NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTX
Fiber Bus architecture
A whole bunch of PCI slots and a small chernobyl power supply

Wow, a Macintosh model that was introduced in July of 2001. Still running, albeit a little slow. Not bad for a 6 year old machine!

[Gerd Pischl]

Intel Core2 Quad, 2,4Ghz
3071MB
CS3
FM: 7,5s
RP: 14,7s
(8Bit)

[SloYerRoll]

Wow, a Macintosh model that was introduced in July of 2001. Still running, albeit a little slow. Not bad for a 6 year old machine!It's a great machine David. I've had it for years and I've poked it, beat it, did everything but pour water on it. It keeps on humming away....

The only reason I've switched to the PC side is it's more cost effective for me. Plus I know how to keep my machine out of the crud.

I totally understand why ppl love macs from the low end user to the high end. For the low end user, they just work. For the high end user (like yourself) the take a beating and ask for more.

BTW I went to the apple site yesterday to build a fully loaded machine (dreaming). Freakin toal was 19K+:huh


-Jon

[HarlanBear]

I just got a new PC and wanted to join the fray.

CS3

AMD Althlon 64 x2 Dual Core Procesor 5600+ 2.8GHz
Vista 32 (so far, so good)
3GB RAM

Miranda = 16 sec

Retouch Pro, 16 bit = 37 sec

[CatOne]

Okay, decided to try these tests on my 8-core Mac Pro.

FM Test (is it really just that little butterfly test picture?): < 1 second.

Yes, basically by the time I looked at the clock and click the button until I saw it blurred to oblivion was nearly immediate.

Retouch:

8 bit file: 10 seconds
16 bit file: 13 seconds

Surely we need tougher tests; all these test are radial blurs :dunno

[SloYerRoll]

Okay, decided to try these tests on my 8-core Mac Pro.

FM Test (is it really just that little butterfly test picture?): < 1 second.

Yes, basically by the time I looked at the clock and click the button until I saw it blurred to oblivion was nearly immediate.

Retouch:

8 bit file: 10 seconds
16 bit file: 13 seconds

Surely we need tougher tests; all these test are radial blurs :dunnoCan you post your specs?
I have a few friends w/ maxed out 8 cores and none of them are even close to the numbers you boast.
I'm curious to see what makes the difference.

[SloYerRoll]

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.Did your friend ever get a chance to install CS3 yet David?

[DavidTO]

Did your friend ever get a chance to install CS3 yet David?


Not that I know of. He's one of those 80 hour a week guys. I kinda hate to bother him. Anyway, CatOne has the same machine.

[Richard]

Miranda: 15 sec
Retouch 8 bit: 34 sec
Retouch 16 bit: 43 sec

Lenovo ThinkPad T61; Core 2 Duo, 2 Ghz; 3 GB RAM; XP Pro; CS3
Machine cost $1,500 USD (not including CS3)

[Richard]

I think this thread might be more interesting if we posted the cost of each machine along with the benchmark data. It certainly should be no surprise that a $4000 machine outperforms a $400 one, but many people might want to see what, say, $2000 will buy.

I'll kick it off by editing my earlier post on the ThinkPad T61.

Regards,

[CatOne]

Can you post your specs?
I have a few friends w/ maxed out 8 cores and none of them are even close to the numbers you boast.
I'm curious to see what makes the difference.

8 core Mac Pro, 8 GB RAM, ATI X1900XT.

[HarlanBear]

AMD Althlon 64 x2 Dual Core Procesor 5600+ 2.8GHz
Vista 32
3GB RAM

Miranda = 16 sec

Retouch Pro, 16 bit = 37 sec

Since I'm somewhat obsessed with cost to performance ROI, I’ll go with Richard’s idea about posting the cost of the machine.

Specs and results shown above were on an HP 6230, $650 USD w/o monitor.

[WilliamClark77]

Homebuilt Winders XP machine after UPS used it for a jackstand...

Asus M2N-E SLI nForce 500 Socket AM2 Motherboard
AMD Athlon 64 X2 5000+ 2.81 GHz processor
CRUCIAL PC5300 DDR2 667MH. 2 gb
XFX GeForce 8600 GT XXX 256MB PCIe vid card
Two WD Caviar 320GB SATA-3G hard drives in RAID mirror
Running old Photoshop 7.0

Total cost including case, fans, cooling, XP SP2 upgrade, and the little bs stuff inside the tower to get it going like wiring, power supply, etc, minus the monitor, keyboard, mouse, and other peripherals was ~$720.

FM: 24 seconds
RP: 43 seconds

I didn't close everything but ps.

[Harryb]

Tried this test on the new PC I had built by the dudes who recovered the data from my fried HD.

Intel Core2dual E6650 processor @233 Ghz
4GB DDR800 RAM
NVIDIA Gforce 8400 256mb video card
Windows XP Pro
PS CS3
$1,336.00

FM 16 file 11 secs

Retouch 16 bit file 31 secs

[canderson]

35 Seconds
Hewlett-Packard HP Compaq dc7100
3.00 gigahertz Intel Pentium 4
2 GB RAM
PS2

Fred's

[patch29]

A friend of mine recent upgraded to a Mac Pro, here are his results.



Mac Pro, 8 core, 2.8ghz, 10gb ram


FM:
8bit 5 sec
16bit 6 sec


RTpro:
16bit 12 sec

[gluwater]

17" Macbook Pro 2.6Ghz 2GB RAM

CS3 Extended

FM - 14sec
Retouch Pro 8bit - 32sec
Retouch Pro 16bit - 44sec

[Cameron]

My system:
Intel Q6600 (overclocked to 3ghz)
4GB RAM
Vista / CS3

Retouch Pro:
8 bit: 12 sec
16 bit: 15 sec

FM:
6 sec

[vinceman]

A year old AMD TL-52 1.6GHz ($750 last year) defective laptop of mine was replaced by HP with an Intel T5550 1.83Ghz. The new one costs about $750 right now.

model: dv2700t.
2GB Ram
Vista/CS3

Rpro - 8 bit - 37s
Rpro - 16bit - 47s

[sib]

2.53GHz Pentium 4
1GB RAM (max :huh)
XP SP2
CS2
(Soon to be replaced...)

Retouch

8-bit
2:44 (164 sec)

16-bit
3:05 (185 sec)

Fred Miranda

1:13 (73 sec)

Machine cost about $650 when purchased some years ago.

[rutt]

I think we need a new benchmark: Light Room import/exports/rendering.

In theory this is a benchmark which can really use all those cores for a large enough set of photos.

[thefireguy]

20 secs on the first one(radial blur on the butter fly)

HP dv95000
17" monitor
Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU T7100 @ 1.80Ghz 1.80GHz
RAM - 2046MB
32-bit OS Windows Vista
Dual hard drives (103GB and 111GB).

[Andy]

MacBook Air, 1.86Ghz Intel Core 2 Duo processor, 2gb Ram, Photoshop CS4.

FM Test, 8bit, 22 sec
FM Test, 16bit, 32 sec

Retouch Pro Test, 8bit, 53 sec
Retouch Pro Test, 16bit, 75 sec

[Shootin1st]

Dell XPS 710 H2C
Quad Core at 2.93ghz
4GB Ram (yes, I know)
Windows XP
CS4
Price? Less than your camera:rofl

FM 8bit: 6.05s
FM 16bit: 7.10s

Retouch 8bit: 12.00s
Retouch 16bit: 15.15s

[Quantum3]

Can't do Retouch in 16 bit on CS.

Go to Image\mode\16 bits. Make sure you have loaded the image :)

[Quantum3]

Okay,

Photoshop CS3:

Old Pentium V with HT Cache L2 Extreme Edition 3.40 GHz (I bought it in the year 2004).
Motherboard: D925EXCV2.
RAM: Kingston DDR2 533 MHz Dual Channel (4GB).
Photoshop and Hard Drives space optimized (SATA) for paging file.
Windows XP 32-bits SP3.

FM Test: 8bpc = 32 seconds.
FM Test: 16bpc = 40 seconds.

Price of my computer (it's discontinued) JEje...

By the way, I would like to buy a new PC with the Native Quadcore (like the i7). First world people have that kind of tech, someone could submit a test with that processor? Becasue Lightroom 2.0; 2.1 and 2.2 works very slow in my machine.

Tanks :)

[Pook]

By the way, I would like to buy a new PC with the Native Quadcore (like the i7). First world people have that kind of tech, someone could submit a test with that processor? Becasue Lightroom 2.0; 2.1 and 2.2 works very slow in my machine.

Tanks :)

No lightroom figs, as I'm not aware of a standardised benchmark that everyone is using.

However, Retouch Pro test:

Home built
Intel i7-920 @ 2.66GHz (quad core native, with hyperthreading enabled for 8 Logical cores)
Asus P6T Deluxe Mobo
6Gb Corsair Dominator DDR3 @ 1600MHz in triple channel (3x2GB)
All drives are Samsung Spinpoint F1 1Tb


CS3
10x8 Inch 300ppi

8bit - 9.8 secs
16bit - 10.1 secs
32bit - 11.7 secs

Thats the machine at stock speeds. Overclocked to 4GHz however (almost all i7-920s will hit this with a decent motherboard, RAM and cooling)...

8bit - 5.7 secs
16bit - 6.2 secs
32bit - 6.9 secs

The i7 is awesome. Be aware tho, that if you want to run DDR3 @ 1600MHz, you'll need the retail version of the chip, not OEM, as QPI multipliers are locked on the OEM version. It's this extra RAM bandwidth that makes it shine. Triple channel DDR3 rocks! My board can actually use 2000MHz DDR3, but the price of that stuff is still high.

The stock Intel cooler is useless if you plan on overclocking. Go for the Thermalright Ultra 120 Extreme instead... an extra £50 but well worth it.

Don't waste money on the i7-940 or 965 either, as almost all i7-920s will hit 4GHz (make sure it's "D0" stepping to guarantee this).


Oh.. btw.. Hello :) Being my first post :)


[edit]

Forgot to mention my OS... which is Vista 64bit, and cost of machine, which was £1200 (US$1700 approx) as I already had some components. If I was to build the whole thing from scratch inc. the GTX295 dual GPU card, it would be around US$2300.

[jeffreaux2]

The following are results from a pc that I just finished building...


Retouch Artist Pro:( at stock cpu speeds)
19.71 seconds

Fred Miranda Test:
With CPU at stock 2.66Ghz clock speed:
8 bit=10.0 seconds
16bit=12.62 seconds
32bit=11.29 seconds

With CPU at 3.6Ghz clock speed:
8 bit= 7.83 seconds
16 bit= 9.62 seconds
32 bit = 8.43 seconds

I am not sure at all why it is faster with 32bit than 16bit tests.

Other info:
Adobe PSCS3
Intel Core i7 920
DDR3-1600- 12 gigabytes total
Vista Ultimate 64bit

[Easy2Putt]

Dell Inspiron 530
Vista Home Premium
4GB Corsair XMS (2 X 2GB)
Intel Core 2 Duo E7200
3MB L2 CACHE
2.53 Ghz, 1066 FSB

*Fred Miranda link is broken*

Retouch PRO (CS4)
8 bit = 28.22 sec.

16 bit = 34.80 sec.

32 bit = 30.94 sec.

[Quantum3]

8 bits = 8 secs.
16 bits = 12 secs.

MacPro

CPU: 2 x 2.8 GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon.
RAM: 8 GB 800 MHz DDR2.

CS4.

[Sam]

I just tried this..............Retouch Pro

PC Pentium 4 2.66 GHz...........2 min 12 seconds

New Mac Pro 8 core 2.26 GHz..............9 seconds

While not the fastest of the fast..........

Color me very happy..........:D

Sam

[Andy]

Retouch Pro
15 in Macbook Pro, 2.8Ghz Core 2 Duo, 4Gb Ram
8bit - 43seconds
16bit - 48 seconds

Not screaming... but way faster than the Air.

[Andy]

Just upgraded to 8gig of RAM on this machine :evil

8bit retouch pro, 30seconds
16bit retouch pro, 40 seconds
Retouch Pro
15 in Macbook Pro, 2.8Ghz Core 2 Duo, 4Gb Ram
8bit - 43seconds
16bit - 48 seconds

Not screaming... but way faster than the Air.

[Kyle D]

Retouch Pro in Photoshop CS4 Extended 64-bit:

8-bit = 10.5s
16-bit = 11.5s
32-bit = 17.0s

Computer:
- Asus P7P55D motherboard
- Intel i5 750 @2.67 gHz quad core processor
- 4gb (2x2gb) G-Skill Ripjaws DDR3-1600 CL9-9-9-24
- Western Digital Caviar Black 640gb (system drive)
- Seagate 7200.11 640gb (storage drive)
- eVGA Geforce GTX260 55nm 896mb
- Seasonic S12+ 650w power supply
- Antec 300 case
- Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit

[Andy]

I've switched laptops recently, to an Apple Macbook Pro 13"

2.53 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
8Gb Ram

Retouch Pro: 8bit, 33seconds; 16bit, 45 seconds

[Ric Grupe]

i7 Core 950 @ 3.07 Ghz. 4 cores 8 logical processors.

12gb ram

Win 7

CS4 64 bit

Retouch Pro:

16 bit image= 6.7 sec.

8 bit image= 5.2 sec.


FM test link was dead.

[jeffreaux2]

i7 Core 950 @ 3.07 Ghz. 4 cores 8 logical processors.

12gb ram

Win 7

CS4 64 bit

Retouch Pro:

16 bit image= 6.7 sec.

8 bit image= 5.2 sec.


FM test link was dead.


That beats my times even with a 3.6 GHz overclock on my i7. It demonstrates the difference in speed between CS3 and 4 for sure.

Blazin' eh?:thumb

[Ric Grupe]

That beats my times even with a 3.6 GHz overclock on my i7. It demonstrates the difference in speed between CS3 and 4 for sure.

Blazin' eh?:thumb

Makes the test...not a test!:deal:clap

Closing all open programs and setting your preferences in PS to use the maximum amount of memory available helps a bit. Having 12gb of tri-channel memory doesn't hurt either.

[jeffreaux2]

Makes the test...not a test!:deal:clap

Closing all open programs and setting your preferences in PS to use the maximum amount of memory available helps a bit. Having 12gb of tri-channel memory doesn't hurt either.

Im running 12 gigs triple channel DDR3 1600 on a i7 920...but still on CS3...a tad less resourceful at utilizing all that RAM....and doesn't really make use of my dual processor video card like CS4 would. Its still plenty quick though...and Lightroom especially is buttery smooth quick....a plus for me since most of my work is done in Lightroom.

[Ric Grupe]

Im running 12 gigs triple channel DDR3 1600 on a i7 920...but still on CS3...a tad less resourceful at utilizing all that RAM....and doesn't really make use of my dual processor video card like CS4 would. Its still plenty quick though...and Lightroom especially is buttery smooth quick....a plus for me since most of my work is done in Lightroom.
For twice as much money the 950 is a little faster than the 920.

PassMark (http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html)

Intel (http://ark.intel.com/Compare.aspx?ids=37147,37150,)

[ziggy53]

For anyone looking, you can still obtain the Fred Miranda test here:

http://web.archive.org/web/20071226181140/http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic2/145693

[ziggy53]

Retouch Pro, 8 bit, 11.06 sec

16 bit, 12.38 sec

PS CS4, 64 bit

i5 (750), 2.66Ghz, 4GB RAM

NVIDIA GeForce 9500 GT (PCI Express 2.0 x16), 1 GB

Win 7, 64 bit

(Timed with PC Chrono on a separate computer.)

[Andy]

MacBook Air, 1.86Ghz Intel Core 2 Duo processor, 2gb Ram, Photoshop CS4.

Retouch Pro Test, 8bit, 53 sec
Retouch Pro Test, 16bit, 75 sec


I've switched laptops recently, to an Apple Macbook Pro 13"

2.53 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
8Gb Ram

Retouch Pro: 8bit, 33seconds; 16bit, 45 seconds

New Macbook Air, 256Gb Storage on Solid State, 4gb Ram, 2.13Ghz Intel Core 2 Duo processor:

Retouch Pro test, 8bit: 33 seconds
Retouch Pro test, 16bit: 42 seconds

So, with no disk activity, this Macbook Air is actually faster than the 13" Macbook Pro, with faster CPU and more RAM. Makes sense, since the L2 cache is better and the GPU is better, and then add in the SSD to the equation.

I should also add, that Photoshop starts up in about 4seconds flat. Not kidding. RAW files open up at lightning speed, too. Kinda cool.

[Toshido]

Retouch Pro done at 16 bit.

9.5 seconds.

AMD 1090T at 3.5 Ghz
4 Gb G.Skill ram DDR3 1333
2 x WD Cav Black 640GB hard drives RAID 0
2 x Nvidia GTX 470 video cards in SLI
Windows 7 Home 64 bit
PS CS5 64 bit

Same as above but went from 4 Gb G.Skill RAM to 16 Gb Corsair DDR3 1333 memory

Same test same time at 9.5 seconds. Guess the increased RAM did not help there...

[Andy]

OK Fresh Out of The Box!

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

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


Replaced that 4 year old Mac Pro with a new Mac Pro (late 2010) 2.8GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon, 12Gb Ram.

Adobe PS CS5

Retouch Pro Test, 8-bit: 9 sec; 16-bit: 12 sec

Pretty darn fast.

[ziggy53]

Looking good Andy. That must seem awfully fast by comparison, especially the smaller files. :thumb:thumb:clap

[Andy]

I almost bought 512Gb SSDs for this machine. But I really want at least 1Tb in Bay 1 & 2, raided. So I'm hopeful in <12 months to upgrade to that. Right now the SSD prices are crazy. But I love how fast my Macbook Air is at everything.

[eoren1]

Just go the new 2011 Mac Min - 2.5 GHz i5 dual core with stock 4 gigs RAM and 5400rpm drive.
Retouch pro:
8 bit - 19 sec
16 bit - 23 sec

FM photo seems to be missing/broken so can't run that test.
Smoking for a mini!! Going to upgrade RAM to 8 gigs in a few days. Have read that SSD doesn't help LR at all...

[eoren1]

There is a new PS Speed Test posted here:
http://clubofone.com/speedtest/

My Mac Mini was done in 24 seconds. Would love to see some comparisons.

[noeltykay]

Looking forward to posting my results when I receive my new 3.4 Quad Core iMac w/ 16GB of RAM and a 256SSD boot drive :)

[eoren1]

Replaced the mini above with a 2011 iMac 2.7 GHz i5 with 12 gigs RAM
Retouch 8 and 16 - 13.5 seconds
Speedtest from Club of one - 16 seconds

[Ed911]

The OP has a broken link in his post...making it unusable. Time to retire this sticky. It's 5 years old...

Fred's link doesn't work.

Thanks, Ed

[Manfr3d]

:(

[beebibi]

- on an 8 bit file: 0.46 Sec. - on a 16 bit file: 0.48 Sec. - on a 32 bit file: 0.50 Sec.

(Intel Core i7 3969X 3.3 GHZ - 32 GB DDR3 1333 MHZ RAM on Windows 7 Ultimate 64Bit, CS5)

[Shooter84]

Just tried this on my newly built system thought I would share the results.

8bit: 6.3 Sec
16bit: 7.1 Sec
32bit: 9.8 Sec

(Intel Core i7 2600k 3.40 GHZ - 16 gb DDR3 Ram on windowns 7 ultimate)