How fast is your machine? *Photoshop required
SloYerRoll (75 points) | Thu, 2007-11-22 07:57Here are two performance tests that let you see how fast your machine is. All those 8core's and specs don't mean anything until your machine steps up to the plate.
The following two test have you d/l a full size image and run a few steps on them in Ps.
Fred Miranda, found here:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic2/145693
Retouch Pro found here. (please indicate with this test if you test an 8 or 16 bit file, or both.)
http://www.retouchpro.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8440&page=1&pp=15
Please list your pertinant computer specs. If your on a Mac, tell if your on an Intel or Non Intel machine.
-Jon
Commenting on this Forum topic is closed.
I'll start out w/ my middle machine since I don't want to scare off any Mac's out there w/ my pc..
Crack!
G5 dual proc 2.7ghtz 8 gb ram CS3
Retouch Pro
43 sec, 8 bit file
53 sec, 16 bit file
Fred Miranda
21 secs
G5 dual proc 2.5ghtz 6.5 gb ram CS3
Retouch Pro
52.44 sec, 8 bit file
Fred Miranda
23.46 secs
iMac G5 1.8ghz 2Gb ram CS3 OS 10.5.1
Retouch Pro
8.32 min, 8 bit
Fred Miranda
1.45 min
iMac 3.06ghz 4Gb ram CS4 OS 10.5.6
Retouch Pro
29 sec, 8 bit
Fred Miranda
13.1 sec
This is unbelievable compared to my old G5 IiMac above
system specs: amd athlon 64 x2 dual core processor 4000+ (what a mouthful!), 2.11 GHz, 896 MB RAM
windows xp, photoshop cs2
I used 16 bit for the Retouch Pro test.
with firefox closed:
-FM: 24.73 s
-RP: 51.34 s
with firefox just opened (memory usage of about 60-70 000 K, though it can go up to 200 000 K when opened for longer)
-FM: 24.98s
-RP: 54.66s
My results seems shorter than most. I wonder if I missed something...Anyways, if my results do stand, then I'd feel somehow validated. Loving my computer already! :D
Like I said in my initial post. This is where the rubber meets the road. Your machine can boast of anything. Until you make those processors scream and see the numbers, you just never know what kind of machine it really is.
-Jon
system specs: Mac Pro 2x2.66Gh Dual-Core Intel Xeon, 2Gb 667Mhz DDR2 FB-DIMM
Retouch Pro (16 bit)
28.04 secs
Fred Miranda
9.01 secs
Did the Fred Miranda one three times because I could't believe it was so fast, this is the longest of the three times I got!
MacBook Pro, 2.33GHz, 3GB Ram, 10.5.1
PS CS3
RetouchPro:
8bit: 37 secs
16bit: 49 Secs
Not got round to Fred's Test yet.
[Update]
Fred Miranda Test:
14 secs
Fred Miranda:
29 secs
RetouchPro:
1m13sec
Fred Miranda:
Photoshop CS3
iMac 1.83Ghz CoreDuo 2GB RAM
Time: 22 seconds
With Adium, Safari, iTunes and some widgets opened...
Gotta try on my 2.33Ghz C2D MacBook Pro :D
2x2.66ghz Dual-Core Intel Xeon w/ 4GB
FredMir: 8.5sec
Retouch: 22sec
In addition to Photoshop, I have the Dashboard, Entourage, Acrobat Pro, Illustrator, Indesign, Suitcase, Word, Itunes and Quicksilver running. All the Adobe apps are CS3.
Boy, am I glad my old Dual G5 broke down last week. ;)
Core 2 Duo e6400 (2.1ghz stock speed)
2gb RAM
RetouchPro: 32.6
FredMiranda: 14.3
Background tasks open: Firefox, Explorer, a software firewall.
MacBook Pro, 2.2 GHz C2D, 2GB DDR2 RAM.
Background tasks include Vienna, Safari and Mail.
Fred Miranda took 17 seconds.
Retouch Pro took 38 seconds, and was an 8 bit image.
It's interesting reading those threads and the times they got.
FM 6.1s/8.0s
RP 10.2s/16.8s
PC
Vista Premium 64bit
Intel Core 2 Extreme X6800 (overclocked to 3.73GHz)
8GB Dual-Channel DDR2
Dual 768MB NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTX
Fiber Bus architecture
WOOT!
I am laughing here as I read your specs. Laughing in total awe that is. Great machine!
------------------
“Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.” - Albert Einstein
“Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.” - Albert Einstein
Macbook Pro 2.16GHz/2GB RAM
Fred Miranda
23.6 seconds
haven't done the other one yet.
andrew harrison
http://andrew.harrison.org
Dell XPS dual 2.0GHz 4 GB ram CS3 Vista
Retouch Pro
35 sec, 8 bit file
45 sec, 16 bit file
Fred Miranda
12 secs
http://counterjumper.com | http://karmadude.com
http://www.counterjumper.com | http://www.karmadude.com
Core 2 Duo @ 2.66GHz 4GB RAM WinXP CS3
Miranda
11.9 sec
Retouch
8bit: 30.3 sec
16bit: 32.2 sec
Hi Guys,
I am new to this forum. Very interesting test.
Machine Specs :
HP Compaq dx2200, Intel Pentium 4(3.40 GHz) , 896MB RAM, WINXP Service Pack2, Adobe Photoshop CS2.
Results :
1. Miranda
8bit: 33.59 sec
16bit: 39.65 sec
2. Retouch
8bit: 1:11:93 sec
16bit: 1:27:74 sec
Can anyone please let me know where can i get help regarding photoshop retouching on this forum to put my request
Thank you all.
I'm pretty sure there's only one forum here. The few times I've needed assistance, I've posted in here as a new thread. Seems to me that it would make sense to have a few seperate forums in here due to the obvious traffic.
I'm still pretty light on Il, but heavy on Ps. I'd be happy to help you out!
Cheers,
-Jon
Interesting, been trying to test Photoshop speed for ages :P
Machine: Macbook 1.83GHz Intel Core Duo, 1GB, Mac OSX 10.4.11
Photoshop: CS1
Miranda
8 bit = 3 min 07 sec
Retouch Pro
8 bit = 53 sec
Intel duel core, 1.86GHz, 2g ram, CS3
Retouch Pro
43 sec, 8 bit file
Fred Miranda
19 secs
---------
StillAd
Fred Miranda using Photoshop CS3 on a non-Intel Mac G5 with 2G ram, also running Firefox, Yahoo Messenger and Mail:
8 bit = 35 secs
16 bit = 47 secs
Mara
I tried it 3 times
It couldn't go that fast i thought to myself. wow.
FM-11 sec
RP-36 sec
PSCS3
Model Name: MacBook Pro
Model Identifier: MacBookPro3,1
Processor Name: Intel Core 2 Duo
Processor Speed: 2.4 GHz
Number Of Processors: 1
Total Number Of Cores: 2
L2 Cache (per processor): 4 MB
Memory: 2 GB
Bus Speed: 800 MHz
Chris Brophy
Iklectek Designs
Chris Brophy
Iklectek Designs
twitter
My rig:
Mac Pro Quad 2.66 Xeon w 6GB RAM
My result:
Retouch Pro
21.1sec
Fred Miranda
7.2sec
Background running geektool, remote desktop, safari, hardware monitor & stuffit.
You guys n gals that had b/g apps running should shut them down and see if you can run it any faster. ;) FF has a memory leak and can slow down your machine considerably if it's running too long. Not to mention other apps that don't look resource friendly.
My machine:
AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+ (dual core)
2GB Patriot PC2-6400 (800MHz) DDR2 (running 4-4-4-12)
80GB SATA HDD
An appropriate Barebone w/ Mobo
running Photoshop CS3 Extended
Without Background Apps:
FM = 20s
RP = 36s 8-bit
RP = 46s 16-bit
WITH Background Apps (itunes, Ff, messenger):
FM = 20s
RP = 38s 8-bit
RP = 48s 16-bit
Granted I already had the peripherals (old CRT monitor, plug'n'play mouse/keyboard, speakers), but still. I spent about $260 for the parts listed above and pieced this machine together myself in about an hour. For the mac users out there - is it worth the price differential? Being a college student I couldn't justify spending more than I did, but for future reference it seems like my pieced together systems are right up there with the systems costing 5-10 times more. Most impressive was that with background apps chewing up ~200MB RAM, the system performed almost exactly the same. Maybe I'm just really excited about this rig after dealing with a 4-YO HP laptop...
Thoughts on the price of performance?
Cost to performance ratio. It's not even funny how much a PC outweighs a Mac. On the other hand, Macs are PC's superiors in regards to quality and reliability.
So why buy a mac?
Lower end users that just want to plug things in and work.
Keeping a consistant workflow from home to work. I sit in front of a Mac & PC and it takes a few minutes to shift gears and a bit longer to really be up to speed. If I worked in an office, it would be a hassle for me to get into the PC mind at night and Mac by day. (This one is crucial to designers that work in an Mac environment)
Life cycle expectancy is much longer.
Why buy a PC?
Cost to performance ratio is fantastic.
Software developers flock in droves to open source and MS platforms.
Multiple hardware and software options keep the market competative so the consumer wins.
In todays consumer market of "everything expendable" and everyone wanting the latest and greatest. I see apple being more of a designer label than true outperformer. I have an old G4 quicksilver that is sitting in my closet and still kicking. Do I use it? No. Sell it? No. I'd only get about 250 out of it and I feel good knowing I have two backup machines in case stuff happens.
So why would I pay for extended life of a machine made up of superior parts? Just doesn't make sense to me. Apple has done a fantastic job creating a cluture that consumers feel like they invest in when they buy apple products. They have also done a fantastic job capitalizing on MS's mistakes (and there are plenty to choose from).
Even apple is shifting over to Intel processors. Why? Because they are cheaper and can keep overhead down. Apple knows to stay competative in this market, they need to lower prices.
I can give an honest objective opinion about this since I work cross platform. And I don't understand why you wouldn't buy a PC unless you didn't understand how to keep your machine out of the crud. If that's the case, Mac is a great choice.
BTW if your talking about performance. Look up at my PC speed in this thread. It burries every mac on here and I spent a tiny bit more than 1500. To get the Mac equivelant of my machine, you'd need to spend almost 10,000. (I know, I went to the Apple store and built one that could keep up.
Cheers,
-Jon
PS: This post is not intended to start rivalry or a pissing match about who's better. Please start up another thread for that. I'm sure there aren't enough PC vs. Mac threads on this planet yet....
Great comment.
I have neighbors who have been longtime mac users. They buy each new system as it comes out, and don't ever mess with software upgrades. Neither one works in the traditional markets I think of macs dominating, namely in graphic design/movie production/etc. but they keep upgrading. I just stopped to think about it a couple days ago after living near them for almost 20 years: they've got several full systems sitting around getting no use and yet they must drop at least a couple thousand each year or two upgrading. Doesn't make sense to me.
I think when I start getting a salary instead of paying for school I'll think about elegant systems :p For now my main focus is going to be getting a flat screen so I can recapture some deskspace...
I don't mean to start a huge debate here, but are there any clear advantages to macs in the realm of photo, graphics, & movie editing - either in performance or workflow?
Dude, you need to hit them up w/ the "starving students get better grades using a Mac" speech or something!
Give me your address and I'll swing by and we can tag team them. We get machines, they get closet space. It's a total win win!
Cheers,
-Jon
Miranda:
31 secs / 8 bit
Retouch Pro:
67 secs / 8 bit
Dell Dimension 9150
Windows XP
Photoshop CS3
2 GB Pentium D
4GB DDR PC2-5300
-------------------
“Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.” - Albert Einstein
“Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.” - Albert Einstein
8 sec
2 X 2.66Ghz Mac Pro 8GB Ram Mac Pro (Leopard)
PSCS3
-Thomas
http://www.trekmediasolutions.com
Very fast!
Good stuff!
AMD Athlon 2.6 GHz, 1 Gb DDR-Ram, 80 GB HD, Windows XP...
Photoshop Elements 3.0 !!!....
Miranda: 90 seconds flat...
RP test: Without RP just using Elements 3.0, 177 seconds ....
(Firefox running)...
butterfly radial blur:
1. 34s (8 bit)
2. 43s (16bit)
noise radial blur:
1. 67s (1min 7s) - (8x10inches at 300dpi 8bit)
2. 99s (1min 39s) - (8x10inches at 300dpi 16bit)
PC system specs:
pentium 4 - 3.19GHz
2.00 GB RAM
Photoshop CS3
2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
2GB Ram
Photoshop CS3
All other apps closed.
Fred Miranda
13 secs
Retouch Pro (8bit file)
29 secs
the results seem to depend on the amount of RAM the most
Mac: Power Mac G5 dual 1.8 ghz,
RAM: 1.25 gb ddr sdram
OS: Tiger 10.4.11
Miranda
31.5 s with safari and various widgets running and anti virus software
30.4 s with just widgets running and anti virus software
FrostByte, your probably right that the amount of ram makes a difference, but also the type too, as i think mine proves, antique ram don't work as well!!!!
Another big thing is bus speed. Doesn't matter how much RAM or how fast your processor is. If the data highway for your computer is only a 2 lane highway. It can only handle so much.
FM 4 sec
Retouch 35 sec
Dual Quad core Xeon 2.13 Ghz, 4Gb FB_DIMM ram Win XP x64
Miranda: 14 sec.
Retouch: 31 sec. w/ 8-bit
39 sec. w/ 16 bit
i wouldn't say an actual monster, but for what i paid for my parts and the performance I'm seeing in comparison to Macs (especially one I almost took out a student loan for) I couldn't be happier right now. I spent just under $700 back in July when I built my PC.
XPsp2 Home Edition
AMD x2 Dual Core 5200+ running stock @ 2.6ghz
Biostar 7025 motherboard (1000mhz front side bus)
Western Digital 7200 rpm 320g HD
2G Corsair Dual Channel 800mhz RAM
there's such a sense of satisfaction when you build your own computer, and i don't mean clicking "add" on a computer website. The good thing is, if something goes awry on it, you usually know why. I've tweaked my settings a lot of different ways with ram timings and overclocking and others so much that it compromised the integrity of the machine. Now I'm simply running all the parts the way they were meant to run and its rock solid.
Mac G4 733mhz, 1gb ram, newish HD (sped things up a lot), running 10.4.11. Have Adobe CS3.
Only did the Fred Miranda test:
11 min 34 sec.
WAHHH!
But that was having the machine on for a while and also running Firefox, Bridge, Acrobat Pro, and several other programs, plus a second user logged in running FF and 2 others.
I rebooted and opened nothing but PS.
2 mins 45 sec.
Still pretty awful but not headbangingly awful like the first test.
I came across this page while searching for information on which used G4 or G5 to buy cheap so the lovely CS3 software I got as a newsletter editor for a nonprofit gets put to good use (wouldn't I love neighbors like matheyrichs has). Your test tells me what I already know: this G4 quicksilver is just not going to get the job done.
Mac DVD to iPhone can convert DVD to iPhone on Mac with various practical features,is a specially designed mac dvd to iPhone converter, by using DVD to iphone Converter for Mac , you can convert DVD to iPhone video and audio, and DVD to iPhone for Mac can Convert DVDs to iPhone and convert videos to iPhone on Mac OS X, iSkysoft DVD Studio Pack for Mac is one of the best DVD Ripper, Video Converter, DVD Copy on Mac OS X,by using iSkysoft DVD Ripper for Mac you can rip your DVDS to various audio and video format, DVD Creator for Mac can burn DVD movie on Mac, Dvd Copy for Mac is a powerful Mac DVD copy software, DVD backup Mac, Mac DVD burner that can copy DVD movies with the entire movie in 1:1 ratio perfectly.