Photoshop 7.0 speed test

[crassusad44]

I originally posted this on another thread, but thougth I should start a new one...

I have been doing some speed tests with Photoshop the last couple of days, and Photoshop 7.0 for OS X, is FASTER than Photoshop 6.0 for OS 9 on the same systems! And Photoshop 7.0 is still BETA software!!!! (one of my tests, 1 min 20 secs, compared to 52 secs) How about that!

One other note. As I browed though the general options in PS 7 is OS X, I found that one can allocate how much real memory PS will use (default 50%). I will be doing some more tests and give you the numbers! :D

[Ensign Paris]

Great news, let beat OS9 cause it can beat Windows!

DEATH TO WINDOWS!!!!

[GigaWire]

We are the winner!!!!!!

[mac15]

I got the beta to and boy does it run sweet
I only use to touch up images but the love is there

[crassusad44]

Yes, we are the winners! :D

Have anyone seen the final release of binuscan PhotoRetouch Pro??? This is THE killer app for color management. Much better than Photoshop to be honest. One of the most interesting aspects of this app. You can create your own ICC profiles. So you take a couple of shots with your digital camera under different light conditions, then you pull the images up in PhotoRetouch, and make ICC profiles form the images. Next time you import photos from your digital camera, you assign the profiles you made in PhotoRetouch, and when you open the photos in Photoshop (or PhotoRetouch Pro) you can convert the profiles to Adobe RGB (1998), and all your photos will have perfect colors. Picture perfect all the time! Now try that on a Winblows box! No can do!!!!!

OK, a bit of topic (and I STARTED this thread....), but anyways. Going to do some speed test tomorrow. Will check back with the numbers!

[RazorMouse]

That's just plain untrue! The Photoshop 7 beta is nowhere near as fast as Photoshop 6. All due to the horrible graphics handling of Aqua (no proper hardware acceleration - try scrolling through an image, and you'll instantly know what I mean). I'm sure some of the filters will be nearly as fast as the OS 9 version, but in my experience it is buggy and slow. I didn't make the upgrade to version 6, and it looks like I won't upgrade to 7, either.

Not until they sit down and program a proper native app in Cocoa. OR Apple releases a chip that is truly faster than Pentiums and Athlons.

And no, I'm NOT an Apple basher. Just a true pro.

[Ensign Paris]

whats your machine

at work on my Dual800 it works fine, i havent noticed any differences..

[RazorMouse]

I use a G4/400 for work, with a Radeon card. The Radeon really means the world for smooth graphics performance (also in OS X). Not in Photoshop 7, though...

How you can afford a Dual 800 is beyond my imagination. And I'm a pro with my own company. Apple's G4 prices are simply ridiculous at the moment.

[kishba]

what beta are you guys running that is so fast?

[eyelikeart]

I wish I could get my hands on PhotoShop 7.....I still am running the beta version of Illustrator (even though I specifically prefer Freehand). After reading these few posts, I'm wondering if it runs smoother on a DP? Ensign Paris is running a DP 800 G4 and claims it's faster than in OS 9....while RazorMouse is running it on a 400 G4....just don't get started on the "pro" crap.... ;)

[crassusad44]

I have tested Photoshop 7.0 beta 43 on a G4 400, G4 867 and G4 DP 800. I will also try it on a PowerBook 550 (combo) and a PM G3/350. Photoshop 7.0 IS faster than PS 6 when its doing REAL work, not just browsing around. Scrolling, menus and zoom do feel a bit slow, but if you use filters or color management, IT IS FASTER. And to RazorMouse, it's not Aqua that draws the screen, it's Quartz, and Quartz is pretty damn fast (as of 10.1.2). I will do some more speed tests tomorrow, and give you the numbers. I will also check out beta 51.

[eyelikeart]

I got hold of build 43.....so it's safe I hope?

[RazorMouse]

The version I've been using is also beta 43. It's interesting to hear that you got hold of beta 51; at least development has progressed somewhat then, since the version I'm using. (Does anyone know which version was demonstrated at MWSF?)

I wonder if the slowness of the interface was the reason they just ran an action in the demo? :)

crassus, I'm a little offended that you refer to scrolling around in the work document and layers as not 'REAL work'. This is what I do much of the time when working with PS; and I do really use it a lot. Sure, it's great that filters are faster, but that to me is not 'REAL work', it's just a math operation. But perhaps our uses differ; I use PS primarily as a design tool, working on interfaces for interactive applications such as Flash, Shockwave or Java. While my documents are often less than 800x600, I regularly use upwards of 300 layers - and while, frankly, that will slow any version of Photoshop down, it's excruciating under OS X.

You're right - it's Quartz that is slowing everything down, not 'Aqua' as I erroneously stated. I'm sorry, but I'll just have to completely disagree with you that Quartz is 'pretty damn fast'. I suppose then, that Flash is also 'pretty damn fast'? It may be fast at what it is trying to do (drawing everything as vector graphics), but sometimes what it is trying to do just doesn't make sense. Consider this: you want to code a Galaga or Space Invaders-type game. Do you use Flash, or Shockwave? In this case, using Flash would be stupid, because you'd get around 1/10 the performance of Shockwave, or less, because Flash handles all graphics, even bitmaps, as vectors. It just simply doesn't make sense for the task at hand. Same with Quartz; you want to scroll smoothly through list view in your file window - no can do, because Quartz is taking years and years drawing supersmooth vector graphics in software for every update (and then, on top of that, you're being further slowed down by OS X's filesystem which is cranking away on your HD at your request - AFTER you clicked the scroll button. Why the hell doesn't it load the file list into RAM instead???). What I'm trying to say is; it's not the right tool for the task. You don't want it. You don't need it. You want the SPEED, in stead.

If OS X is the OS of the future, then that's because it will take a future Mac to run it well.

BTW, I'm looking forward to seeing your test results.

[RazorMouse]

To eyelikeart:

If you mean, is it safe to run, then yes - although expect it to bomb on you outright. But then you should always assume all apps to do so, and therefore save again, save again, all the time. That is, if you want to use it for serious work.

Some filters just don't work - and they crash the app, too. Tread carefully.

[eyelikeart]

I know that much....just wanted to make sure there were others out there running it with some degree of success...

I know it's beta, but I'd much prefer not to install a bug-ridden app on my system.....

thanks ;)

[Kid Red]

PS7 is incredibly stable so don't be worried. It hasn't crashed on me yet so don't let the others worry you too much. It is as fast as 6 in some areas ans in others it slower. It's still beta maybe it will get better. I'm on a G4 450, but I use it in 9, as X is still a 1 legged dog.

[crassusad44]

Sorry RazorMouse, didn't mean to offend you. But to really test an app like Photoshop, filters is one of the best ways. I also scroll and zoom in and out a lot in Photoshop, but number crunching is when you put both the app and the prosessor to a test.
So Quartz. Quartz is fast, at screen redrawing that is. Quartz is engenius, but of course, at some tasks Quartz is not the best solution. I know...

Don't know why you seem to have so much trouble with the beta though. Beta 43 has NEVER crashed on me (used it alot lately). First time I noticed PS 7 being faster than PS 6 was also on a G4 400... Strange...

[eyelikeart]

does anyone know what "Liquid Sky" refers to?

[crassusad44]

Originally posted by eyelikeart
does anyone know what "Liquid Sky" refers to?

Beta name, just like "Electric Cat" (4.0) and "Strange Cargo" (5/5.5)...
The big electric cat was called Udo, if I'm not mistaken. One coool thing. If you use PS 4 or 5/5.5, you can hear Udo burp! (don't ask me why I know this...)

[eyelikeart]

ok....

in the past few months, I've become quite new and naive with betas and different builds....so I've learned a bunch with new versions of software for OS X....

thanks for the tips! :p

[RazorMouse]

crassusad:
It may be that my PS7 crashes on me regularly in OS X for the same reason that my G4/400 tends to crash the OS (OS 9 that is) regularly in what seems like a hardware crash of some sort. Could be related to the Radeon driver mess.

I know I complain a lot about speed, OS X etc. - but I just tried PS7 in OS 9 and I found it to run beautifully on my home G3/350. No reason to complain there - also I haven't had any crashes on the G3. I have pretty good faith that the final PS7 release will be OK, too - I'm certain the Adobe people are trying their best - after all, a lot (A LOT) of people will be judging their (Adobe's) OS X prowess on their performance with Photoshop.

Now if I could only stomach the price of the DP800... ugh. I know it would make my life so much more tolerable, I just know it...

[ogun7]

How can I get the beta?

[evildead]

Im running beta 58 and it seems to work pretty good. I have not had the time to fully test it but it looks good. Can't wait for it to fully ship. Any one have a beta that is newer than mine??

[erova]

evil...did you use 43 prior to 58? any differences? i definitely thought the 43 beta was a little slower on my Powerbook g4 500 with 768 of ram...i randomly tell myself to hope that the hesitation is a beta issue and not my machine...

razor...i emailed you a question about your font on your website...i once went about three weeks before i realized someone emailed me on here so if you get a chance check it..thanks...

[Choppaface]

it'll work in 9 right?

and what new features does it have?

also, exactly what are the advantages of flash over director other than actionscript is easier?

[AlphaTech]

Originally posted by ogun7
How can I get the beta?

I second that question... I know we will have the final release at some point, but I would like to try out the 'beta' version.

I did the same with QXP 5 and liked it. I am actually getting ready to pick up a full copy of that, just need to call and talk with them first. Need to see how good a deal the offer really is (reduced since I tried the beta out :) ).

[Choppaface]

if you tried the beta illegally, then they probably won't give you a discount

you can find copies on like carracho and stuff, but I'm pretty sure that if they don't release it publicly like how apple released os x, then they only give it out to private parties and they DONT want anybody else using it (so if you have it and you're not supposed to...be quiet about it he he)

[AlphaTech]

I tried the beta of Quark 5 legally, hence the discount offer email I have received. I just need to find out how much if you never purchased a copy before. In the past, it has always been provided by the company I work at. Granted, I only had it on my work computer. I would like to get a copy for home, since I do occasionally need it. I refuse to go out and get Adobe's product (ineptdesign)..

I also need to get the Illustrator 10 update (going from version 8 that I picked up a couple of years ago).

[Choppaface]

remember you lose all your 3rd party filters when you go to 10
i had to keep my copies of both in order to use this 3d filter....
AI 10 is a bit faster though I must say...it certainly doesnt feel like it but when you put a stopwatch to it there's a 10 sec or so diff doing some heavy blends and gaussian blurs

[miller250]

It's just a tad slower on my powerbook 500... im sure that the release will be just as fast

[evildead]

Originally posted by erova
evil...did you use 43 prior to 58? any differences? i definitely thought the 43 beta was a little slower on my Powerbook g4 500 with 768 of ram...i randomly tell myself to hope that the hesitation is a beta issue and not my machine...

razor...i emailed you a question about your font on your website...i once went about three weeks before i realized someone emailed me on here so if you get a chance check it..thanks...


No sorry.. I hadnt used any older versions of the beta. Version 58 is the only one I have. I was told that some of the older Betas were not even worth looking at. I havent heard anything about v.43 that I havent read here.

[evildead]

Just installed PS b62. It works great. I didnt see much diffence between 58 and 62 but I guess there was some progress some place. Loads fast and opens and saves files fast.


This is probably a mute point... rumors of the full version as early as monday, Feb 25 knid of kill the exitement of some beta verison.

[beatle888]

i remember a movie titled liquid sky but it was about
alians sucking some chemical out of humans that
we supposedly produce during orgasm.

fun stuff

old movie

[crassusad44]

Originally posted by evildead
Just installed PS b62. It works great. I didnt see much diffence between 58 and 62 but I guess there was some progress some place. Loads fast and opens and saves files fast.

Have installed b58, will try out b62 in a short while. b58 is a great improvement over b43, and many of the new functions (http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop) are there and working (they were not in b43).

[Onyxx]

Originally posted by RazorMouse
I use a G4/400 for work, with a Radeon card. The Radeon really means the world for smooth graphics performance (also in OS X). Not in Photoshop 7, though...

How you can afford a Dual 800 is beyond my imagination. And I'm a pro with my own company. Apple's G4 prices are simply ridiculous at the moment.

what are you talking about? apples's g4 tower prices are the lowest they have ever been! I was more than a little happy about the new prices, so please can it.

[Ensign Paris]

Just out of interest here are my PShop speed tests:

http://www.macrumors.com/forums/showthread.php3?threadid=2473

[keithcobbett]

Originally posted by RazorMouse
That's just plain untrue! The Photoshop 7 beta is nowhere near as fast as Photoshop 6. All due to the horrible graphics handling of Aqua (no proper hardware acceleration - try scrolling through an image, and you'll instantly know what I mean). I'm sure some of the filters will be nearly as fast as the OS 9 version, but in my experience it is buggy and slow. I didn't make the upgrade to version 6, and it looks like I won't upgrade to 7, either.

Not until they sit down and program a proper native app in Cocoa. OR Apple releases a chip that is truly faster than Pentiums and Athlons.

And no, I'm NOT an Apple basher. Just a true pro.

True Pro? You are a True Idiot!!! If you are currently using Photoshop 5.5, which I can only assume that you are since you stated that you never upgraded to 6, how does it run on your Pentium. Nice??? Now try it on a G4 Mac. Don't care which one, it still will run a lot cleaner. Version 6 was neither buggy or slow. They were a lot of decent modifications to the code and great overall performance increases. Version 7, from what I hear from my sources at Adobe, smokes Version 6. Hands down.

And as far as the "chip" comment, get a clue. The G4 is a ton better than the P4, P3 or Athlon chips out there. Plain and simple.

[evildead]

Im now using beta 69. Works great! Cant wait for the full thing. Interesting note: I had problems installing b65. After a failed install i could not revert to b62.. that install faild too. b69 worked fine. and on install, you have to give an admin password. that was not asked for in the previous versions. I guess they are putting things in admined owned folders. I wonder if my old problems were related to permissions.

[eyelikeart]

I've been running b43 aka "Liquid Sky" for a couple months now....runs well....a little slow in my opinion....and not so impressed with the redraw when zooming in and out...

so evildead....how well does b69 run? he he he...:p

[Catfish_Man]

Originally posted by keithcobbett

And as far as the "chip" comment, get a clue. The G4 is a ton better than the P4, P3 or Athlon chips out there. Plain and simple.

I'm afraid not. It's better (much better) at a few things:

1) anything that uses a lot of SIMD math (Photoshop, for example)
2) anything that needs a good performance to power usage ratio

However, for tasks that don't use a lot of Altivec, the G4 loses against either the P4 or AthlonXP and that gap is going to keep getting bigger until they release either a major update to the G4 (7470) or the G5 (7500?). An analogy would be to compare the engine of a Mazda RX7 to a big Ferrari. The Ferrari is more powerful, but its engine is about 4 times the size of the RX7's. The P4 and AthlonXP are both huge, and both draw ridiculous amounts of power (an AthlonXP 2100 draws about 70 watts). The G4 is tiny, and draws only about 18 watts (last time I checked), but it doesn't have quite the performance.

take a look at http://arstechnica.com/cpu/index.html for more information

[Choppaface]

well I'm getting a dual athlon 1900XP soon, theoretically it should be about 4 times faster than my dual 500 g4 but we shall see :D :D

[eyelikeart]

Originally posted by Choppaface
well I'm getting a dual athlon 1900XP soon, theoretically it should be about 4 times faster than my dual 500 g4 but we shall see :D :D

and soon we'll see why a theory is called just so... ;)

[AlphaTech]

Originally posted by Choppaface
well I'm getting a dual athlon 1900XP soon, theoretically it should be about 4 times faster than my dual 500 g4 but we shall see :D :D

Actually, if you go by just the MHz of the system (I know, I know.. MHz myth)... the AMD would be 3x faster at most (1900xp is really about 1.6GHz, not 1.9) and that depends on what you will be running. I suspect that in Photoshop tasks the speed diferential will be much closer.

[evildead]

I just got my hands on b74 last night. From my limmited testing, it looks good. I dont see much diffrence from b69 but... hey more builds the better. I just hope that Adobe get all the bugs out before they ship it. I mean... InDesine 2.0 wouldnt even install before they shipped that installer fix. They are under a lot of pressure to get it out the Door. Now they are even selling it pre-order.... they better be done with it. I would rather waite for a polished product than a rushed one.

[Choppaface]

Originally posted by AlphaTech


Actually, if you go by just the MHz of the system (I know, I know.. MHz myth)... the AMD would be 3x faster at most (1900xp is really about 1.6GHz, not 1.9) and that depends on what you will be running. I suspect that in Photoshop tasks the speed diferential will be much closer.

true....i was thinking though the faster bus, ram, and caviar HD might make up for sloppy math. but ya I'd expect stuff like photoshop, illustrator, and the like to be closer, but other to stuff to be a lot faster

especially SETI units. I've seen 6 hour SETI units cranked out on a single 1900XP poking around their site :D :D

[evildead]

I installed b74 the other night and it is working great. One thing I tought I should post is that if your upgrading PS bxx from any other beta, you need to go and trash the PS folder in you applications folder. Or at least move it some place else before you install. If you dont, you wont have a new version. The installer does not replace existing files like it should. When I do a getinfo on them, I see that they were modified but, when I start it up... its still the old beta I was running before.

[Choppaface]

well I ordered it. i should have the full version in april :D

[tallscot]

Quartz is PDF display and OpenGL and is not even used by any of the major applications like Illustrator, Photoshop, Freehand, Flash MX, Painter 7, AfterEffects, Lightwave...

The only application that I have that uses Quartz is OmniWeb and MS Office, and Office's use of it is limited. Quartz is slow, though. OmniWeb is slower than IE because it uses Quartz and IE doesn't. But that's why OmniWeb looks beautiful compared to IE. But both of them are slow.

Photoshop uses its own graphic engine.

The reason Razor thinks Photoshop for OS X is slow is because OS X's GUI is slow - period. It isn't hooked into the GPUs of our graphics cards like OS 9 or Windows is. Turn off your ATI or nVidia extensions in OS 9 and see how slow the Finder gets. That's how OS X is all the time. As soon as Apple hooks OS X up to the GPUs of the graphics cards, the Aqua UI will be much faster. But I've noticed that all of the functions in Photoshop, like filters, mode changes, etc., are all very fast.

Also consider that a lot of these developers are just learning OS X development. Some are better than others. For example, Flash MX is down right snappy in OS X, but Freehand is not at all.

Razor, Flash doesn't display everything as a vector. How do you convert a bitmap into a vector?

Where can you buy a dual Athlon? I priced the parts for a dual Athlon and it came out to $2,500 with Win XP Pro. I priced a dual Pentium 4 Xeon and it came out to over $4,000. I don't think the $2,799 price of the dual G4 1 Ghz is too high at all.

[AmbitiousLemon]

Originally posted by evildead
I installed b74 the other night and it is working great. One thing I tought I should post is that if your upgrading PS bxx from any other beta, you need to go and trash the PS folder in you applications folder. Or at least move it some place else before you install. If you dont, you wont have a new version. The installer does not replace existing files like it should. When I do a getinfo on them, I see that they were modified but, when I start it up... its still the old beta I was running before.

i hadnt installed anything since b51 and b74 is much better. much faster. is this your experience as well? anyway, i see this as a good sign that adobe is focussing on speed

[sparkleytone]

has anyone attemped to use The GIMP under XDarwin?? I hear this is a pretty amazing program for an open source imaging program.

[Choppaface]

Originally posted by tallscot

Where can you buy a dual Athlon?

www.alienware.com

I dont like having their name all over the machine, but I knew the location and I could get what I wanted there.

specs were:
dual athlon 1900+
1 gig PC 2100 DDR RAM
100 GB western digital jumbo buffer
nVidia GeForce 4 ti 4400
16x DVD-ROM
sounblaster...dunno exactly which model but the basic one with a firewire port
no mouse, no keyboard, no monitor
w/ win xp pro

final price $2650 free shipping
right now a similar system is about 2700

[tallscot]

I priced the Alienware dual Athlon with a DVDRW, mouse, keyboard, 80 gig drive, 1 gig RAM, modem, no monitor...it comes out to about $3,400. Now I have to add a gigbit ethernet card, since they don't offer it.

That price isn't any better than a dual 1 Ghz G4.

I'll admit that the Athlon is going to be faster in most applications, if not all. But the idea that you can get a much faster PC for less money isn't accurate.

Thanks for the URL! I might order one later this year. I use both platforms.

[Choppaface]

ya I have a friend who's a big time PC user and he got a G4 just for the 22" cinema display and the superdrive

I'll post later to report how well mine runs. they seem like a good company, but we shall see :D :D

[firewire2001]

i know this was reall based on a debate from a while ago... but i noticed drastic differences in speed from b42 to b6x

maybe you are running different betas?

hope this helps...

[Falleron]

Has the final version actually been released??? Has anyone actually used it yet?

[kristin2323]

Hmm... When I am trying to compare I use a speed test site. yes, it will have limited information but it's something to go off of.

Example: http://www.tools.mywikiinfo.com/test_your_website_speed.php