Apple Mac Hardware - Photoshop Test

[Morn]

My Athlon 64 3400+ (2.4ghz newcastle) Got 1 minute 5 seconds on the blur. Ram is 1GB at PC3200 2T cas 2.5.

[Epicurus]

2:36
PowerBook 1.25GHz
512MB DDR/60GB 4200RPM
10.4.2/Photoshop CS2
:D

[next493]

2:14

p4 3.0ghz
1gb ram
800mhz FSB
ps cs2

not really sure about any other specs though

[CalfCanuck]

Here's a link to some rendering results for a Quad G5 vs. a Dual 2.5:

http://forums.luxology.com/discussion/topic.aspx?id=3717&page=0

"We had the opportunity to try one of the new quad G5s with modo 201 and I must say I was impressed with its speed.

As an example, it rendered the global illumination test image shown above in 17 seconds flat. The scene includes 244,000 polygons with 8 sample antialiasing and 200 indirect rays.

Brad's dual 2.5 G5 takes 38 seconds to render the same scene, so it looks like the new machines can render over twice as fast.

[Xephian]

Here's a link to some rendering results for a Quad G5 vs. a Dual 2.5:

http://forums.luxology.com/discussion/topic.aspx?id=3717&page=0

"We had the opportunity to try one of the new quad G5s with modo 201 and I must say I was impressed with its speed.

As an example, it rendered the global illumination test image shown above in 17 seconds flat. The scene includes 244,000 polygons with 8 sample antialiasing and 200 indirect rays.

Brad's dual 2.5 G5 takes 38 seconds to render the same scene, so it looks like the new machines can render over twice as fast.
Those are pretty nice scores, first Quad benchmark I saw.

[cruxed]

Just did the test on my spankin new PowerMac.

Took 41.5 seconds flat (And that's only on 'Automatic' for processor setting!:eek: )

Specs:
PowerMac Dual Core 2.3ghz
1.5gb RAM
nVidia 6600- 256vram

[cyberone]

I clocked 2 min 12 secs -

WITH A 5 YRS OLD PC (Intel Pentium II, 241 mhz, 512 RAM) ...

CS2

speechless ...

SORRY - WRONG INFO IN HERE:

ACTUALLY ITS A 4 YRS OLD PC - INTEL PENTIUM IV, 2.41 GHZ, 512 RAM

[Ryan T.]

I clocked 2 min 12 secs -

WITH A 5 YRS OLD PC (Intel Pentium II, 241 mhz, 512 RAM) ...

CS2

speechless ...
You must not have applied the "100" or "Best" in the settings for the blur. No way that machine got that score.

[dmachine]

It took my PB G4 1.67 with 1.5GB RAM two minutes and two seconds. I am using a trial version of CS2.

[contoursvt]

So did I manage to pull the fastest time so far? with my 29.5 seconds :) Still dont know why the timing feature built into CS2 shows a different time than a stopwatch - usually slower.

[contoursvt]

Decided to play around so I bumped up my dual xeons from 3Ghz to 3.3Ghz and did the test again and it dropped down to 26.6 seconds. Interestingly enough that was using a stopwatch. The built in timing got me 27.5 which is exactly the 0.9 seconds off everytime I do the test regardless. LOL this 0.9 seconds is making me crazy. I have to find out why CS2 and my stopwatch are different. I mean they both finish the same time but I have different numbers. WTF. LOL

[gizmo_pony]

4 min 17 sec

ibook 1.33 ghz 12'
512 mb built in
1 gb added ... but limit it to 512 mb
so my total ram = 1 GB
30 mb free ram when running phtshp cs

[Verto]

iMac G5 2.0 Ghz with 1.5 GB of RAM installed:

I got 1min 54 seconds running on Automatic. I will change processor to "Highest" and see if there is a difference.

EDIT: This was doing the original Radial Blur test.

[Verto]

Switching to Highest shaved off maybe 1 second at most for me.

[cyberone]

You must not have applied the "100" or "Best" in the settings for the blur. No way that machine got that score.

you're right, wrong time: I clocked it again:

2 min 22 secs ...

and sorry, its a 4 years old PC, not 5.

all I can tell you: I keep my registry clean, run norton utilities regularely and the whole system never ever crashed.

maybe a good maintenance gives a better output than a system that is never maintained? I understand that such maintenance is not necessary under OSX?

and why should I lie about my hardware? fact is, its a terribly old machine, but look how it shines beside newer macs ...

now I definitively wait - either for a mactel PB - or vista.

[gekko513]

you're right, wrong time: I clocked it again:

2 min 22 secs ...

and sorry, its a 4 years old PC, not 5.

all I can tell you: I keep my registry clean, run norton utilities regularely and the whole system never ever crashed.

maybe a good maintenance gives a better output than a system that is never maintained? I understand that such maintenance is not necessary under OSX?

and why should I lie about my hardware? fact is, its a terribly old machine, but look how it shines beside newer macs ...

now I definitively wait - either for a mactel PB - or vista.

If it's a four year old PC it doesn't have a PII running at 241 MHz. The Pentium III was released in 1999, two years before 2001, and the Pentium II was never clocked at 241 MHz anyway.

2 min 22 secs ... it's more likely a Pentium IV running at 2.4Ghz

Edit: Yep ... look at this one posted by Platform
Well I don't have a Mac.........but an Intel

1min 58 sec with Bitlord running.

Pentium 4 2.8Ghz
512MB RAM
GeForce FX 5200 128MB
PS 7 Not too bad.....but bad

[Verto]

I ran the second test (Resize, Rotate):

~17 seconds, and 1 min 11s respectively.

[cyberone]

its a Pentium IV - running at 2.41 ghz

sorry for my unability to read that simple system information.

and my stupidity of not even knowing what my computer runs on.

anyway.

its a old machine, on par with some newer ones.

[Ryan T.]

you're right, wrong time: I clocked it again:

2 min 22 secs ...

and sorry, its a 4 years old PC, not 5.

all I can tell you: I keep my registry clean, run norton utilities regularely and the whole system never ever crashed.

maybe a good maintenance gives a better output than a system that is never maintained? I understand that such maintenance is not necessary under OSX?

and why should I lie about my hardware? fact is, its a terribly old machine, but look how it shines beside newer macs ...

now I definitively wait - either for a mactel PB - or vista.


Well, my G5 which is 3+ years old still beat your 4 year old PC. I don't think there's really anything here to brag about.

[stuuke]

So it looks like there is only a few seconds difference between the dual 2.3, 2.5 and 2.7.

[Mikael]

Well, my G5 which is 3+ years old still beat your 4 year old PC. I don't think there's really anything here to brag about.
And here I was thinking that the G5 was released like 2.5 years ago... I remember it being released after the Opteron, which makes it impossible for you to have bought it in 2002.

[contoursvt]

I think the G5 came out in the last quarter of 2003 didnt it (like august-sept) ? Well in anycase as it was said, its 2.5 years old at best...

Heck in that case, my machine is 1.5 years old so in that light, its doing very well. I'm waiting to see someone with a dual core P4 submit a score or a Dual core G5. I'd love to see someone with a dual dualcore opteron run too

[Ryan T.]

I think the G5 came out in the last quarter of 2003 didnt it (like august-sept) ? Well in anycase as it was said, its 2.5 years old at best...

Heck in that case, my machine is 1.5 years old so in that light, its doing very well. I'm waiting to see someone with a dual core P4 submit a score or a Dual core G5. I'd love to see someone with a dual dualcore opteron run too
My mistake. This is definately one of the first ones made, but you guys are right, it's more like 2.5 years old than 3.

[MacTruck]

So it looks like there is only a few seconds difference between the dual 2.3, 2.5 and 2.7.

Yeah the gap is very small. This is why I returned my dual 2.5 and got the dual 2.0. Significant cost savings for equivalent performance.

[Ryan T.]

Just ordered a 9650 256MB to replace my 5200 Ultra 64MB. I'll make sure to post updated times. Hopefully I'll notice a nice gain :)

[generik]

I don't use an Apple workstation..

46 seconds, dual Opteron 246 (2Ghz), 2.5GB of ram, running on Windows XP SP2 :D

[thairs]

15" pb 1.67ghz(rev. e)
512mb ram
Tiger 10.4.2
Photoshop CS
Time: 2:01;2:05

[Mikael]

Just ordered a 9650 256MB to replace my 5200 Ultra 64MB. I'll make sure to post updated times. Hopefully I'll notice a nice gain :)
Sorry, but that will make zero difference. The graphics card isn't used at all when doing the calculations in this test.

For the record, the Sempron time I posted earlier was done with a TNT2 M64 PCI graphics card... Now there's some ancient tech! :D Thing is though, that a 7800GTX wouldn't improve the time even one second.

[Ryan T.]

Sorry, but that will make zero difference. The graphics card isn't used at all when doing the calculations in this test.

For the record, the Sempron time I posted earlier was done with a TNT2 M64 PCI graphics card... Now there's some ancient tech! :D Thing is though, that a 7800GTX wouldn't improve the time even one second.
Heh, I did not know that about this test. Thanks for sharing!

[contoursvt]

How about this one for a nice slow time :)

246.4 seconds or I guess that would be 5:06.4 minutes

Dual PIII Xeon 550Mhz with 1gig PC100 memory. OLD box but still doing its job. Slow but steady.

[primalman]

15" TiBook 1Ghz, 1GB RAM, 80GB HD, power adapter/highest, some other applications open but idle

3:15

Ugh. Think I'm getting a new 17".

Just got a new 17" PB 1.67 with the new hi-rez screen :) new time with 512mb RAM is 2:03. Not a bad improvement. When my RAM upgrade comes tomorrow I'll do that.

[mishi]

2:20

PB 17"
1.33ghz
1gig ram

[edwin.bossier]

1 minute 9 seconds

P4 / 3.4 GHz, 1GB Ram, Windows XP Pro, Photoshop CS

[drbrog]

PowerMac G4 1.42 dual
2 GB Ram
OS X.4.3

PS CS2 72 sec
PS 7.0.1 83 sec

[Ryan T.]

.

[Xephian]

1 minute 9 seconds

P4 / 3.4 GHz, 1GB Ram, Windows XP Pro, Photoshop CS
That was close to my score with 2GB RAM and OC'ed P4 to 3.4Ghz.

[mcmillan]

Mac Mini 1.25 Ghz, 1 Gb RAM

2 min, 26 sec

CS1, no other non-background apps running.

[crazyeyes]

1:40

20" iMac G5 2.1GHz
512 MB DDR2 533MHz
Photoshop CS

Not that much of an improvement over my time of 1:46 with my old iMac.

[RobHague]

44 seconds.

G5 2.3 DC
1.5Gb DDR2
GeForce 6600 256mb
Photoshop CS2 (not upto date yet though)

I don't think the test was totally 'pure' however as i was running iTunes playing a song and using the counter on it to count with lol. Still im happy with 44, seems pretty good in the scale of things. I tried this test out on a P3 1Ghz with 320Mb SDR for a laugh - It crashed it for about 6 mins. Then it came back to life and completed the task lol.

[contoursvt]

Actually the talk of multitasking made me wonder how badly the system would degrade if I do a few things at once and run the test. I was very pleasantly surprised!

With no apps but photoshop running my score was 30.3 seconds (29.6 if I use a stopwatch instead of the photoshop timer)

With doom3 running in a window at 1024x768 on high detail and winamp running playing mp3's while doing the test, I got 37.4 seconds. Not bad at all!

The music did not hiccup, however the scrolling display on the mp3 player did slow down sometimes. Doom3 displayed framerates between 25 and 60 during the filter test. It was actually cycling..going up and down quickly.

Shows that there is a lot left in our machines I guess that we're not really making full use of.

http://powerthings.com/pics/d3photoshop.jpg

[sjpetry]

Actually the talk of multitasking made me wonder how badly the system would degrade if I do a few things at once and run the test. I was very pleasantly surprised!

With no apps but photoshop running my score was 30.3 seconds (29.6 if I use a stopwatch instead of the photoshop timer)

With doom3 running in a window at 1024x768 on high detail and winamp running playing mp3's while doing the test, I got 37.4 seconds. Not bad at all!

The music did not hiccup, however the scrolling display on the mp3 player did slow down sometimes. Doom3 displayed framerates between 25 and 60 during the filter test. It was actually cycling..going up and down quickly.

Shows that there is a lot left in our machines I guess that we're not really making full use of.

http://powerthings.com/pics/d3photoshop.jpg
What system are you on?

[contoursvt]

Sjpetry, i'm using a dual 3Ghz Xeon box with 2 gig RAM. I can give you more details if you want. Its my main box. It was pricy to build but really not much more than a brand name high end single P4 from Dell or other builder - except that I picked out the components and built it myself. My first dual xeon box I've built.

[dannyallen34]

Wow (surprise), I got 1:16 with a P4 3.0Ghz, 1GB RAM, Windows XP Home, CS2.

[ProdigyTroyDR]

for the original test picture i got 2:05

imac g5 2ghz
512 ram
PS elements 2

[RobHague]

Just wanted to add, I tried the test again. This time i had nothing else running.

38 seconds.

Same Config as Posted Before. Having iTunes playing in the background didnt impact it that much at all really. :D

[contoursvt]

LOL looks like iTunes had as much of an impact as running DOOM3 and playing an mp3 with Winamp on my box. I'd have to say iTunes is pretty inefficient. I've never really liked it much - at least not when I tried it on my PC. I have always been a fan of Winamp. Not really the same thing though. Winamp is quite featureless compared to iTunes.

[RobHague]

Well i have to admit it was not just iTunes i had open, i had messenger, web sites and possibly quicktime (not playing though) but its not important - its a pretty good time i think i got there so im happy. :)

[contoursvt]

Yes definitly 38 seconds is not a slow time. I think you have the second fastest Apple product on this post :) The fastest I think was 36 seconds by a dual 2.7 if I remember right.... so ya you have a speedy system there :)

[contoursvt]

Interesting.... I did the stresstest again, but this time I substituted doom3 with encoding a DVD video file and burning a DVD data CD. I think those two things together were more stressful than the heavy duty game! Maybe the encoding was the one that was very intensive. Not sure, but I did end up with a slower time of 38.3.

I guess this would simulate real life more than playing a game and running a photoshop benchmark. I mean burning something, encoding and listening to music while using photoshop...

http://powerthings.com/pics/encodingphotoshop.jpg

[tchorta]

12" PB 1.5 G4 1256 RAM
Photoshop 7
2:27

This is the first thing that has made my PB feel slow:eek: ah well not that I am going to be doing radial blurs everyday or anything:rolleyes:

[cliffrouse11bas]

New Imac G5 with Isight 20in 2.1ghz with 1.5gb Ram

1:39
1:37 after a fresh restart.

Photoshop CS

[dotdotdot]

Just to compare to an older Windows Machine...

Windows XP Professional with Service Pack 2
2.4 GHz Pentium 4 Processor (Single)
1 gig of RAM
running other processes in the background, so thats a factor.
the biggest factor: Photoshop 5 LE

3:31 - 3 minutes, 31 seconds...

BUT I was doing other stuff as well, AND I was running Photoshop 5 LE... not 7, 8, or the new 9 (CS2)

[jaw04005]

48 seconds on PowerMac Dual 2Ghz, 512MB Ram, ATI 9600, with no other applications open but Safari and Photoshop CS. Processor performance set to highest.

[Graeme Pearce]

iMac G5 1.8 GHz. 1 Gb RAM. 10.3.9 = 2 min 32 sec.

HP Pavilion :-( AMD Athlon 64/3000@ 2.0 GHz. 500 Mb RAM. XP Pro SP2 = 1 min 47 sec

Both computers running Photoshop CS (8.0).

Now there's a surprise.

Gp

[jer2eydevil88]

2min 33secs

PB 15" 1.67ghz
1.5gb DDR 4200
100gb 7200rpm HDD

Test run with Photoshop CS 2 (v.9)

I ran the test with iTunes playing in the background.

[Pie]

Quad G5
Photoshop CS

Result...
19.2 seconds

:)

[Xephian]

Quad G5
Photoshop CS

Result...
19.2 seconds

:)
Wow, that's pretty impressive. The fastest I've seen from a PC was ~29 seconds with an overclocked AMD X2.

[contoursvt]

Doesnt have to be a brand new overclocked X2 to necessarily get decent scores.

My nearly one year old dual 3Ghz Xeon gets 30.3 seconds at default speeds (29.6 if I take the faster stopwatch results vs photoshops built in timer.

26.4 seconds when running at 3.33 Ghz.

Still though, 19 seconds is a blistering time for any machine :D

[CalfCanuck]

Quad G5
Photoshop CS

Result...
19.2 seconds

:)
Those results (about 2 x faster) were in line with the rendering link I posted earlier.

Looks like it will be a nice box!

[zugzuglani]

System:
Quad G5 2.5 mhz
2 gb ram

PSCS2 Software

19 seconds

[mongoos150]

How embaressing-

2:57:11 on a new Rev E 15" PB G4, 1.67GHz running 512MB DDR2 ram. Photoshop CS. AC power. I wonder if when I install my new 1GB ram chip the speed will dramatically improve - I hope so :(

[mongoos150]

2:10 - Home machine in sig, Photoshop CS.

2:10 seems awfully slow for a dual 2.7 with 8 freakin' gigs of memory...

[mongoos150]

2 mins 19 seconds on a 12" PowerBook (1.5GHz 512MB RAM) running Photoshop CS

...and now my fan is roaring...
(Sorry, third post) I don't understand how a machine older and underpowered (compared to mine) is scoring about 40 seconds faster than my machine?!:mad:

[nate]

1 min 47 seconds

Hardware: New iSight iMac 17" 1.9Ghz / 1gb RAM
OS: Mac OS 10.4.3
Software: Photoshop CS

--nate :)

[cyberone]

2min17secs

with

PB 17" 1.67
1.5 GB RAM
CS2

[Morn]

You'll find that G5's compare pretty much evenly and the same clock speed with Athlon 64's. But Athlon 64's go up to 2.8ghz at the very high end.

[iGary]

2:10 seems awfully slow for a dual 2.7 with 8 freakin' gigs of memory...

iBook. ;)

[larryb56]

With 1GB Ram, running OS X.3.9.
CS1 Time=1:27
CS2 Time=1:27

So much for versions...
Larry

[Phatpat]

iMac G5 1.8ghz (1st gen)
1 gb ram
CS1

2:11

[Zoowatch]

PowerMac G5 2.5 Quad
4.5 Gb RAM
Photoshop CS2

19.6 seconds

[mongoos150]

iBook. ;)
Hehe my bad :D

Can someone explain how my seemingly pretty decent system is scoring dramatically lower than other lower qualified systems?

[Monyx]

48 seconds on PowerMac Dual 2Ghz, 512MB Ram, ATI 9600, with no other applications open but Safari and Photoshop CS. Processor performance set to highest.
Interesting...all the 'fruit' in my 2Ghz makes no difference:

CS: 47.8 s
Dual 2 Ghz 2.5Gb Ram, ATI 9800 Pro, Maxtor 250 Gb 8mb cache 7200rpm HD
OS X 10.4.3, Proc set to highest. Motion & Aperture...would tell a slightly different tale ;)

[Monyx]

With 1GB Ram, running OS X.3.9.
CS1 Time=1:27
CS2 Time=1:27

WOW! I can't believe how much more efficient OS Tiger is (orig post subj = G5 2Ghz DP)
i.e. 48s on machine in my sig on OSX.4.3

[Oski]

17" iMac G5 1.9GHz (ISight)
1.5 GB DDR2 533MHz
Photoshop CS
(Energy Saver) Highest


1'17''

That is defenetly an improevment to the 4'20'' of my old IBook G3 800 Mhz

[Eithanius]

17" iMac G5 1.9GHz (ISight)
1.5 GB DDR2 533MHz
Photoshop CS
(Energy Saver) Highest


1'17''

That is defenetly an improevment to the 4'20'' of my old IBook G3 800 Mhz

1 minute 17 seconds....?

mine's same spec and setting as yours but 512MB less... my score's 1 min 49 sec....

does that additional 512MB really makes a 30 sec difference.....? :confused:

[Oski]

And It gets even beter! I'd did it once again first thing after fresh start:

1 min 14.5 sec

Those new imacs are really fast, i cant wait untill 2 GB DDR2 get afortable!

[Eithanius]

man...., you've just got me tempted in getting that 1 gig stick...... :D

i'd just wish i had gotten the 20" instead....

[Oski]

Well...look at this:


(cliffrouse11bas)
New Imac G5 with Isight 20in 2.1ghz with 1.5gb Ram

1:39
1:37 after a fresh restart.


The 20" 2.1 seem to be slower than the 17" 1.9?
strange isn't it?

[redeye be]

11 min 30 seconds

iBook 300 Mhz (thé iBook)
544 Mb RAM
CS & 10.3.9

[fyrmedic]

41 sec

Pm G5 2.7ghz dual core 2g ram
PSCS2

[redeye be]

The 20" 2.1 seem to be slower than the 17" 1.9?
strange isn't it?

smaller = less circuit board = less distance to travel = faster
;)

[Platform]

smaller = less circuit board = less distance to travel = faster
;)

Nice catch :p ;)

[Eithanius]

PowerMac G4 SP 400MHz - 704MB
Adobe Photoshop 7

10 min 8 secs.....

[ipacmm]

19 seconds
on the second try I got it down to 17 seconds.

Quad 2.5 G5
5 GB of Ram
Photoshop CS2

[panoz7]

I joined this forum just because of this... cool test!

Anyway here's the results from my lousy PC laptop. I know its not a mac but it might give you an idea how the intel machines will do...

Pentium M 1.86 ghz
512 mb Ram
1:39

I also ran it with the processor set to 780 mhz and got a time of 3:51... quite a difference.

And on an apple:

Quad Core G5
1.5 gb ram
19 sec

Will the intel apples beat that?

[Dafke]

my 12" pbook with 1.25 Gb of RAM (for this test i dedicated 100% to ps):

photoshop 7.0: 168.3 sec
photoshop CS: 136.1 sec

what a difference between 7.0 and CS!

[contoursvt]

And on an apple:

Quad Core G5
1.5 gb ram
19 sec

Will the intel apples beat that?

Well I've shaved my dual 3Ghz xeon box down to 29 seconds at default clock speed and 26 seconds at 3.33Ghz. I'd suspect that a dual 3.6 xeons will do it in about 24 seconds. Now seeing that dual core xeons are out, I'd be very tempted to say that having dual dualcore cpus will bring that down for sure to under 17 seconds.

Again I'm only basing this on my experiences with my dual 3Ghz single core xeons. Also I'm not sure what kind of intel CPU apple will go with but I'd hope in the high end boxes, they will use dual core xeons and hopefully two of them :)

[gekko513]

Well I've shaved my dual 3Ghz xeon box down to 29 seconds at default clock speed and 26 seconds at 3.33Ghz. I'd suspect that a dual 3.6 xeons will do it in about 24 seconds. Now seeing that dual core xeons are out, I'd be very tempted to say that having dual dualcore cpus will bring that down for sure to under 17 seconds.

Again I'm only basing this on my experiences with my dual 3Ghz single core xeons. Also I'm not sure what kind of intel CPU apple will go with but I'd hope in the high end boxes, they will use dual core xeons and hopefully two of them :)
Dual core Xeon MPs are only available in 3.0GHz to my knowledge. :confused:

[Hyernel]

52.5 secs

But wait!!!! Flicking around in this thread, I found references to a processor performance setting...one which I'd never heard of before. So I found it, set it to "Highest" Then I got....

43.2 secs Almost a 10 second improvement! Sweet!

Learn something new every day! Sometimes a couple of things!

[contoursvt]

Dual core Xeon MPs are only available in 3.0GHz to my knowledge. :confused:

Right... but that should be more than enough power. My dual xeons pull off 29 seconds at 3Ghz so I'd hope that quads will easily hit half of that....

If I disable one cpu on my xeon box, my time actually goes up more than double. Its almost like the gain is something like 2.5x.... unless its the combination of the two cpus together AND hyperthreading that work their magic.

[gekko513]

Right... but that should be more than enough power. My dual xeons pull off 29 seconds at 3Ghz so I'd hope that quads will easily hit half of that....

If I disable one cpu on my xeon box, my time actually goes up more than double. Its almost like the gain is something like 2.5x.... unless its the combination of the two cpus together AND hyperthreading that work their magic.
Intel says that dual core xeons give a performace increase of approx 50% compared to single core http://news.zdnet.co.uk/hardware/chips/0,39020354,39235135,00.htm if I understand that correctly. Should be 19 secs with 2 dual core Xeons, then.

[PDE]

120 seconds.

Powerbook G4 15" , 1.67ghz/80gb/512mb previous generation

Photoshop 8 CS

[macrlz9]

2min 3sec

20" 2Ghz iMac G5 1.5Gb ram
i also had mail safari ichat addressbook itunes and preview open with an additional 17" lcd hooked up for spanning if that makes a diff. i am gonna try it on my 266mhz iMac now :D

[macrlz9]

2min 3sec

20" 2Ghz iMac G5 1.5Gb ram
i also had mail safari ichat addressbook itunes and preview open with an additional 17" lcd hooked up for spanning if that makes a diff. i am gonna try it on my 266mhz iMac now :D

15:36

266mhz iMac G3 160Mb ram os 10.1.5 photoshop elements 2

[GreenDice]

41 seconds
CS2
PowerMac G5 dual core 2.3GHz
5GB RAM
600GB RAID0 hard drive

[MrTchMan]

P4 2.8 Ghz
512 Ram
Windows XP SP2 and Adobe PS2
59 seconds

[Eithanius]

P4 2.8 Ghz
512 Ram
Windows XP SP2 and Adobe PS2
59 seconds

supposed that's with HT switched on.....

[Snide]

I tested the following machines after fresh restart, with default 75% for PS.

2 GHZ Revision B iMac G5, 1.5 GB RAM, Tiger, CS2: 2:24

1 GHZ dual-boot eMac, 1 GB RAM, Tiger, CS2: 3:22

400 MHZ iMac DV, 288 MB RAM, 7500 RPM–8 MB cache HD, Tiger, CS: 9:42

233 Mhz Rev A Bondi iMac, 384 MB RAM, 7500 RPM–8 MB cache HD, Panther, CS2: 14:02

One thing that puzzles me is that I'm repeatedly getting 2:24-2:25 on the 2 Ghz iMac,
which is a good bit slower than the other 2 GHZ revision B iMac results posted so far.

Any ideas? :confused: :( :confused:

[Monyx]

39.9s

PShop CS (V8.0) DC 2.3Ghz
2.5Gb RAM
OSX 10.4.3

(hand timed pretty consistent: 40.57, 40.48, 40.52 & processor set to
highest: 40.25, 40.34, 40.23)

EDIT: using the Adobe Multiprocessor Support updated extension gave a small improvement clocking 39.9x over several attempts. Yes I am obsessed with this PS benchmark!

[n2o2]

Mac Mini 1.42 / 1Gb / 100Gb54k
10.4.3 / Photoshop CS2

2:21

[Eithanius]

One thing that puzzles me is that I'm repeatedly getting 2:24-2:25 on the 2 Ghz iMac,
which is a good bit slower than the other 2 GHZ revision B iMac results posted so far.

Any ideas? :confused: :( :confused:

looks like n2o2's mini smoked your iMac...... :p :p

[PBG4]

Powerbook G4 17"(not HD)
1.67 G4
1.5 gig RAM
Photoshop CS
1:59:08
so its about 2 minutes

[antonink2006]

Great thread:
iMac 1.8 (A Rev) - 10.4.2 - 768MB Safari running in the background:

1min 57secs
timed on my nano - I knew the timer feature would come in handy one of these days ;)

PS: Very impressed with the new iMac 1.9 times

[PBG4]

did it again!
but this time w/ 1 512MB ram
powerbook G4 17 (not HD)
1.67 G4
512MB RAM
photoshop CS
2:02:37
so it took 3 second longer in 512MB instead of the 1.5 gig of ram
the difference is minimal

[FFTT]

G5 dual 2.0 GHz Rev B (8DIMM)
2 GB RAM
GeForce FX 5200
Mac OS X 10.4.3
CS2
Processor on Highest
Pushing Dell 24" display

48 Seconds

[Xephian]

Power Mac Quad G5 @ 2.5Ghz
512MB RAM (2x256MB) :(
nVIDIA Geforce 6600 with 256MB vRAM
Mac OS X 10.4.3

Adobe Photoshop CS2, latest version
Test finished at ~20 seconds

[FFTT]

I'm really REALLY happy with my dual 2.0's performance, but you gotta be
all grins on the Quaddy!

[zen.state]

2 min 26 sec on a 1.25GHz mac mini with 1gb kingston memory running ps cs8.

[Xephian]

I'm really REALLY happy with my dual 2.0's performance, but you gotta be
all grins on the Quaddy!
Yeah, I'm also very happy with my Quad. It's actually my first Mac desktop. Can't wait to upgrade my RAM though, right now it's always at ~5MB free RAM and is always using virtual memory.

[FFTT]

I kinda figure a Quad needs at least 2 GB to get off the runway, but then
that bird's gonna fly!

[mongoos150]

I'm so upset - I put in my 1GB Crucial certified chip, so I now have 1.5GB DDR2 ram in my new 15" hd powerbook, the 128mb ATI 9700, 100GB 7200 rpm drive...still 2:26. Why are underpowered machines smoking me!!!!!!!

[madmaxmedia]

1.33GHz eMac with 1GB RAM- 2:19 (Photoshop CS)

Interesting...a couple of observations:

1. The new PowerMacs smoke, obviously PS is taking advantage of the multiple cores/CPU's.
2. The G5 iMacs seem somewhat iffy, not much better than the faster G4's. At best, they are performing faster by about the clockspeed difference. Of course this is just one particular test.

What could be cool is if someone developed an 'action' that would put the Mac through a couple of different commands that push different elements of the CPU, and then we compared total times...

[groovebuster]

I'm so upset - I put in my 1GB Crucial certified chip, so I now have 1.5GB DDR2 ram in my new 15" hd powerbook, the 128mb ATI 9700, 100GB 7200 rpm drive...still 2:26. Why are underpowered machines smoking me!!!!!!!

What do you consider underpowered?

This test is mainly stressing the CPU, the other components are almost irrelevant. Considering that your PowerBook fits just into the picture that the other G4 systems gave...

groovebuster

Edit: And I am pretty sure that some people in here are lying about their results anyway, since they want to have the fastest iMac/Mac mini/PowerBook/iBook/PowerMac...

[Mikael]

This test is mainly stressing the CPU, the other components are almost irrelevant.
Exactly. People need to understand that more than 512MB RAM will have a negligible effect and that the graphics card isn't used for calculations at all in this test. It's, quite simply, a CPU-only test.

[skunk]

3:28 with PS7

1.2GHz Cube
1.25GHz RAM
Radeon card

[alien]

Photoshop 7 (75% memory)
54 seconds

Photoshop Elements 3 (75% memory)
43 seconds

This is a huge jump from my G4 667... YOWZA! :D

[Eithanius]

posting for a friend of mine....

1:23 with Photoshop CS2

AMD Athlon 3000+ Venice (stock speed)
1GB DDR400 @ dual channel


and he just smoked my iMac G5.... :(

[Jason Bourne]

Did this test with my brand new quad (while running a bunch of apps and copying files from my old Sawtooth in the background).

Quad G5
5GB RAM
7800 Video card
Photoshop CS2

Result 19.3 seconds. Not bad and a whole lot quicker than I was getting with the sawtooth. This thing is speedy (probably a whole lot more than I need given what I mostly do is browse the web, do email, play MP3s and such).

[Monyx]

Quad G5
5GB RAM
7800 Video card
Photoshop CS2
I mostly do is browse the web, do email, play MP3s and such).
Lot of hardware for such casual use...pack it up and send it my way then you no longer will feel guilty its being under-utilised ;)

[irontony]

Dual 1.8 G5 Rev A
2 GB RAM (PS 100% = 1963 MB)
10.4.3
CS 2
Processor = Highest

Amount = 100
Blur Method = Spin
Quality = Best

54 Seconds

Did pretty darn well for an original dual 1.8 G5

[ron5oh]

Pmac 2.0 single processor (dual core) G5
PQI turbo 2gb ddr2 (cas3, but registers 4-4-4)
6600 le 128mb
energy saver set to highest performance
photoshop cs set to 100%memory (1963mb)
Hitachi 60" lcd projector (30" acd coming from Santa)

47 sec

Not much difference between the dual processor and single proc dual core, eh?

[fBaran]

AMD Sempron
1.58Ghz.
1Gb PC3200 RAM.
-----
3m 15s

[Snide]

looks like n2o2's mini smoked your iMac...... :p :p


Not so fast...

I was having random problems with my 2 Ghz iMac, and the Apple Hardware Test
determined that the added 1 GB stick was faulty. I just got the replacement,
along with an additional 1 GB stick––for a total of 2 GB matched RAM.
Although this test uses virtually no extra RAM beyond what Photoshop needs to run,
The defective RAM was slowing my results considerably (along with a host of other issues).

Here are my results with PS CS2 (tested twice): 1:50
The same test with PS CS1 (tested twice): 1:49

Processor was set on Highest. Much better than the 2:25 I was getting. :cool:

My sincere condolences go to the guy with the Mini...;)

[benwa02]

1 Minute 3 seconds

G5 Dual 1.8 Rev B
1.25GB RAM
PS CS2
Memory Usage 847
OS 10.4.2
Highest performance

[Moof1904]

Work machine:

1:29

Dell Pentium 4
3.2 GHz (I think)
1 gig RAM

NVIDIA GeForce FX 5700 256 megs

Photoshop CS (8.0)

[Mass Hysteria]

PBG4 1.33 17" RevB 2GB RAM

2m 26s

oh poo :mad:

[benwa02]

Result 19.3 seconds. Not bad and a whole lot quicker than I was getting with the sawtooth. This thing is speedy (probably a whole lot more than I need given what I mostly do is browse the web, do email, play MP3s and such).

LOL. Why would you ever buy the Quad if that is what you mostly do with it. An imac would have been such a better choice I would think and cheaper.

[iGary]

39.4 seconds.

PS CS2
3GB Memory Allocated

Machine in sig.

[50thVert]

44.5sec...Machine in sig

-Zach

[bursty]

2:32

PB in sig with 1.25gb RAM.
PS CS

I want a new PM :cool:

[mishi]

my friend works in a studio and they recently got one of the "quad" (dual, dual-cure) G5s. i had the luck of being able to use it. so i was thinking of somthing i could do to benchmark it. so i rememberd benchmarking my PB 17" on this photoshop test. naturally he already had photoshop installed to i went and downloaded the stuff for the test. anyway i ended up taking 18 seconds on average. i tried it 3 times one was 19 and the others were 17.

soooo fast :eek: :eek:

[Xephian]

my friend works in a studio and they recently got one of the "quad" (dual, dual-cure) G5s. i had the luck of being able to use it. so i was thinking of somthing i could do to benchmark it. so i rememberd benchmarking my PB 17" on this photoshop test. naturally he already had photoshop installed to i went and downloaded the stuff for the test. anyway i ended up taking 18 seconds on average. i tried it 3 times one was 19 and the others were 17.

soooo fast :eek: :eek:
How much RAM did it have?

[revenuee]

I didn't use a stop watch ... just watched the time ... it was under just under 15 minutes on a

G4 400 mhz Sawtooth with 832 MB RAM on a 7200 RPM 8 MB 40 GIG hard drive in Photoshop CS

i was also surfing in safari and chatting on MSN using aMSN

anybody speculate what my machine might be able to do when i upgrade this machine to a DUAL 1.2 Ghz with a powerlogix processor upgrade, have 1.2 GIGS of ram and be running a SATA 250GIG 7200 rpm 16 MB hard drive?

[Jason Bourne]

LOL. Why would you ever buy the Quad if that is what you mostly do with it. An imac would have been such a better choice I would think and cheaper.

Four reasons:
1) Wanted the headroom. I'd like it to still be fast in 1-3 years.
2) Wanted to use a 30" ACD - so no iMac for me
3) There is something about owning the "best" product when possible. Certain things I can't afford the best of (cars, houses) but for smaller expenses (computers, guns, watches, cell phones, ipods, TVs, clothes, etc...) I don't mind spending more. So, for at least 6 months, I'll have the best mac.
4) One of my friends got one and I got jealous :D

[revenuee]

Four reasons:
1) Wanted the headroom. I'd like it to still be fast in 1-3 years.
2) Wanted to use a 30" ACD - so no iMac for me
3) There is something about owning the "best" product when possible. Certain things I can't afford the best of (cars, houses) but for smaller expenses (computers, guns, watches, cell phones, ipods, TVs, clothes, etc...) I don't mind spending more. So, for at least 6 months, I'll have the best mac.
4) One of my friends got one and I got jealous :D

best 4 reasons i've ever heard ;) ... haha

i wish ... i'll probably be able to justify the expense of another top of the line mac around the REV B Intelmac

upgrading my current machine is what is in the cards for me

[minimax]

Four reasons:
1) Wanted the headroom. I'd like it to still be fast in 1-3 years.
2) Wanted to use a 30" ACD - so no iMac for me
3) There is something about owning the "best" product when possible. Certain things I can't afford the best of (cars, houses) but for smaller expenses (computers, guns, watches, cell phones, ipods, TVs, clothes, etc...) I don't mind spending more. So, for at least 6 months, I'll have the best mac.
4) One of my friends got one and I got jealous :D


And in 6 months time you'll buy the newest fastest thing on the planet, no? :rolleyes:

[Xephian]

Four reasons:
1) Wanted the headroom. I'd like it to still be fast in 1-3 years.
2) Wanted to use a 30" ACD - so no iMac for me
3) There is something about owning the "best" product when possible. Certain things I can't afford the best of (cars, houses) but for smaller expenses (computers, guns, watches, cell phones, ipods, TVs, clothes, etc...) I don't mind spending more. So, for at least 6 months, I'll have the best mac.
4) One of my friends got one and I got jealous :D
No. 2 is one of the biggest reasons I got a Power Mac over an iMac.

[gangst]

Just did it on my new Mac.

Quad 2.5GHz
4GB DDR2 RAM
2x500GB Hard drives
nVidea 6600GT

20 seconds spot on. Very impressed.

[Snide]

Went to the Corte Madera, Ca Store yesterday and tested the following:

Dual 2.3 Ghz - CS2: :41 (tested once)

Quad 2.5 Ghz - CS2: :19 (tested 3 times)

Quad 2.5 Ghz - Photoshop Elements 3: :19 (tested once)

Interesting that Elements 3 tied CS2...

[benwa02]

Four reasons:
1) Wanted the headroom. I'd like it to still be fast in 1-3 years.
2) Wanted to use a 30" ACD - so no iMac for me
3) There is something about owning the "best" product when possible. Certain things I can't afford the best of (cars, houses) but for smaller expenses (computers, guns, watches, cell phones, ipods, TVs, clothes, etc...) I don't mind spending more. So, for at least 6 months, I'll have the best mac.
4) One of my friends got one and I got jealous :D



Bling Bling.

[tpjunkie]

Quad G5, 2.5 GB RAM: just under 18 seconds! :eek:

I wish I owned one, but having one at my desk at work ain't bad either.

EDIT: This was with CS1

[jer2eydevil88]

I just ran this on a work rig and it took 54 seconds

Photoshop CS2

specs

Dual 3.4ghz Xeon's (Cranford Cores)
2gb of DDR400 - 2x 1gb dimm's
120gb 7200rpm EIDE Drive (the bottleneck in this test) only 36mbps read speed

[mishi]

How much RAM did it have?
this particular tower had 8 gig of ram
its amazing it cost him nearly 10k aussie

[ivel]

P 4 2.4ghz overclocked to 3ghz
512mhz pc 3200 ram
ati 9600xt video card


2:05 minutes

[amf666]

Dual Core (not dual processor) 2.3 G5
1.5 Gb Ram
6600 Graphics

Safari and iTunes running background.

43 Seconds.

[ryannel2003]

I tested it on my mom's Dell Dimension 4700 again to see what I would get:

Dell Dimension 4700
Intel Pentium 4 w/ HT (2.8GHz, 800FSB)
512MB DDR2 RAM
40GB Serial ATA 7200RPM hard drive
Windows XP Home Edition SP2
Intel Graphics Media Accelerator 900
Adobe Photoshop CS (8)

Wow, the computer got 1:22 with Firefox running in the background! :eek:

This basically means that the Dell is twice as fast as my eMac is. You can't tell it. :D

[ortuno2k]

1:49
iMac G5 2.0GHZ 1.5GB
Photoshop CS2
Edit: Safari window was hidden; everything else closed.

[Jorey3969]

2.21, iBook in sig

(processor set to highest, no widgets running)

[mjstew33]

iMac G5
1.9GHz
512MB
7200RPM
1:58

iBook G4
1.42GHz
1.5GB
4200RPM
2:12

Both running Mac OS X Tiger 10.4.3 - Running Photoshop CS

[SuperGenki]

14 secs

CS2
Quad G5@2.5GHz (Dual Dual Core G5)
12GB DDR ECC Ram < 4GB went to make a Ram Disk
Nvidia Quadro FX 4500
2xWD Raptor 74GB HD (Internal)
4xMaxtor MaxLineIII 300GB (External SATA Enclosure)--RocketRaid 2320 Controller--Wires rerouted through opened PCI Slot Cover--Raid 1

Ran test from Ram Disk

[Platform]

14 secs

CS2
Quad G5@2.5GHz (Dual Dual Core G5)
12GB DDR ECC Ram < 4GB went to make a Ram Disk
Nvidia Quadro FX 4500
2xWD Raptor 74GB HD (Internal)
4xMaxtor MaxLineIII 300GB (External SATA Enclosure)--RocketRaid 2320 Controller--Wires rerouted through opened PCI Slot Cover--Raid 10

Ran test from Ram Disk

Holy ****:eek:

[tribalogical]

Ok on the same G5 D2.7ghz 2.5gb ram 2x250Hd,

PS 7 = 45sec as posted earlier
PS CS2 Demo = 39sec

I was told that CS2 was optimized for G5s, that works out at about 15% thats incredible :)


I get the same result on my dual 2.7 with CS2. 39 secs (ran it 3 times, same result each time).

the rest: 4Gb ram, ati x800xt, proc. perf. set to 'highest'.

peace,
tribalogical

[cwedl]

G4 Powerbook 12" 1GHZ, 768Mb RAM

using Photoshop cs

2min 56sec 99msec

stopwatch = ipod nano!

[Xephian]

14 secs

CS2
Quad G5@2.5GHz (Dual Dual Core G5)
12GB DDR ECC Ram < 4GB went to make a Ram Disk
Nvidia Quadro FX 4500
2xWD Raptor 74GB HD (Internal)
4xMaxtor MaxLineIII 300GB (External SATA Enclosure)--RocketRaid 2320 Controller--Wires rerouted through opened PCI Slot Cover--Raid 10

Ran test from Ram Disk
That's a really nice system and score.

[UKnjb]

Good test!!!
Time taken = 1min 58.09secs

Machine details: PowerBook G4 -------- And from System Profiler
Machine Model: PowerBook5,6
CPU Type: PowerPC G4 (1.2)
Number Of CPUs: 1
CPU Speed: 1.67 GHz
L2 Cache (per CPU): 512 KB
Memory: 1 GB (Speed: PC2700U-25330)
Bus Speed: 167 MHz

Software: System Version: Mac OS X 10.3.9 (7W98)
Kernel Version: Darwin 7.9.0

Nothing running in the background (especially, rkhunter, see this thread - posted earlier today - http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=169705)

Hope the information is useful - will you be posting the results?

Best wishes and a Happy New Year!

[GraphicUmp]

1:58
PowerMac G4 / Dual 450
with a PowerLogix 7455 Dual 1.0 GHz / 256k L2 / 2MB L3 cache per proc upgrade
Bus Speed: 100 MHz
1.5 GB RAM
80 GB 7200 RPM ATA100 WD drive
ATI Radeon 9000 Pro 128 MB
Photoshop CS2
5 things running in the background, plus 4 Widgets

[logicat2001]

2:20

1.25 PBG4
OS 10.4.3
768 MB Ram
80 GB HD (but only 4.8 GB free; I've been swapping like a bandit lately)

I did reboot and kill all background proc's before running this.

Is anyone planning to compile these?

Best,
Anton

[ryannel2003]

Here's what I got with my eMac:

2:23

eMac 1.25GHz Combo (Oct. 2004)
768MB DDR RAM
40GB 5400rpm HD (20.1GB free)
OS X 10.3.9
Adobe Photoshop CS

Seems like my eMac was sped up by just a couple of seconds from when I last tested it (I think it was around 2:35). Not bad; keeping up with most of the PowerBook G4's! :D

[Platform]

That's a really nice system and score.

You have a good system too...but treat it with some RAM....QUAD G5 with 512megs:o

[tomacintosh]

1m 39s on my iMac 2.1Ghz 20 inch with 1GB Ram

Haven't tried after a restart, I closed all my programs before testing but I know I have a lot of Widgets that are loaded up so the restart might help a bit

[Xephian]

You have a good system too...but treat it with some RAM....QUAD G5 with 512megs:o
Yeah, I bought an additional 2GB of RAM about two weeks after I purchased it. Forgot to update my sig. :o

[bericd]

Dell Inspiron 5100
1GB Ram
P4 2.4 GHz (SSE2 only)
OSX 10.4.1

2 mins 45 seconds

[bigboy99]

1 minute 57 seconds

CS
PB G4 1.67 gHz
1.5 MB ram
OS X 10.4.3
ATI Radeon 9700/128 MB

[andrewfee]

1:59 in the CS2 Trial

1.67GHz Powerbook G4, 2GB RAM, 100GB HDD (5400rpm) - this is an "old" 17" Powerbook running at 1440x900.

I got 2:08 running in Elements 3.0

Both times were done with Safari, Mail and iTunes open in the background.

[Platform]

Yeah, I bought an additional 2GB of RAM about two weeks after I purchased it. Forgot to update my sig. :o

Good :p

[Blue Velvet]

1:06

Dual 1.42 PowerMac with 2gb RAM
Photoshop CS1

There's life in the old girl yet. :)

[Eithanius]

1:06

Dual 1.42 PowerMac with 2gb RAM
Photoshop CS1

There's life in the old girl yet. :)

jeezzz.... can this be close to that of a low-end dualie G5s.....? :eek:

[Blue Velvet]

jeezzz.... can this be close to that of a low-end dualie G5s.....? :eek:

Seems so.

Timed it with a digital kitchen timer to the second. Fully justifies my purchasing decision at the time, particularly as I'm a print designer. Nice one, Apple. :)

Also had 10 or so apps open at the same time if that has any bearing on it.

[ahunter3]

PowerBook G3 (WallStreet) with Sonnet G4/500, 512 MB RAM: 7 min 45 sec
(using Photoshop CS v 8.0)

Same Computer: 13 min 15 sec
(using Photoshop 3.0.4 under Classic)

[simie]

Just tested Powerbook G4 1Ghz
256 Meg Ram
40 gig HDD

Photoshop CS

Running on battery

219.1 seconds

Running on PSU

202.7 seconds

[livingfortoday]

The upgraded Cube got it done in - 1:31
Dual 1.5Ghz G4
1GB RAM
GeForce2 32MB

It's a pretty fast computer still, but that dang 100Mhz bus is a really big bottleneck. Oh well, it still rules!

Edit: Photoshop CD v8.0

Edit 2: Turned off folding, and got 1:29. Little better, but it's still no Quad G5!

[livingfortoday]

1:06

Dual 1.42 PowerMac with 2gb RAM

Dang, beat out the Dual 1.5 Cube by 25 seconds! D'ya think it was the RAM dif (2Gb v 1GB) or the bus speeds that did it?

[Mord]

10 mins on the dot on a 600MHz g3 ibook 640MB ram PS7

[JRM PowerPod]

14 secs

CS2
Quad G5@2.5GHz (Dual Dual Core G5)
12GB DDR ECC Ram < 4GB went to make a Ram Disk
Nvidia Quadro FX 4500
2xWD Raptor 74GB HD (Internal)
4xMaxtor MaxLineIII 300GB (External SATA Enclosure)--RocketRaid 2320 Controller--Wires rerouted through opened PCI Slot Cover--Raid 1

Ran test from Ram Disk

I feel inferior now.
My Quad with 4gb, 1TB, 7800GT did the test in 16secs. dammit

[skunk]

The upgraded Cube got it done in - 1:31
Dual 1.5Ghz G4
1GB RAM
GeForce2 32MB

It's a pretty fast computer still, but that dang 100Mhz bus is a really big bottleneck. Oh well, it still rules!Why the hell does my 1.2GHz Cube with 1.25GB RAM take 3:21? I didn't think the Dual Processor would make that much difference. Or is it PS7 that's slowing it down?
:mad:

[livingfortoday]

Why the hell does my 1.2GHz Cube with 1.25GB RAM take 3:21? I didn't think the Dual Processor would make that much difference. Or is it PS7 that's slowing it down?
:mad:

I believe that Photoshop is one of the few programs optimized for dual processor use, but I don't know if that explains it. What upgrade do you have? I'm running a Powerlogix card with dual '47's on it. They don't have a L3 cache. I also had no other open programs.

[Jaffa Cake]

Go on then, I'll play.

My Rev A Dual 2Ghz (with 1.5GB of RAM) dealt with it in 50 seconds. Not too bad, I suppose. For a laugh I might give it a whirl on my old G3 iBook and see how that copes with it... :D

[skunk]

I believe that Photoshop is one of the few programs optimized for dual processor use, but I don't know if that explains it. What upgrade do you have? I'm running a Powerlogix card with dual '47's on it. They don't have a L3 cache. I also had no other open programs.I think it was the Sonnet with 2MB L3 cache. No other progs open. Now the best I can get is 3:40. It's beginning to show its age, I suppose.
:(

[livingfortoday]

I think it was the Sonnet with 2MB L3 cache. No other progs open. Now the best I can get is 3:40. It's beginning to show its age, I suppose.
:(

Well, I just took a peek at the Bare Feats Cube upgrades benchmarks (here: http://www.barefeats.com/cubeup.html), and the dual upgrades do a lot better than the singles in Photoshop. In other programs that aren't dual-optimised, your processor card (probably has a '57 on it) would run neck to neck with mine.

[Jaffa Cake]

Well, my trusty old 500Mhz G3 iBook (with its 384MB of RAM) dawdled in with a tardy 9 minutes and 39 seconds.Bless!

This is why I use the Power Mac for any Photoshop work I need to do...

[SuperGenki]

14 secs

CS2
Quad G5@2.5GHz (Dual Dual Core G5)
12GB DDR ECC Ram < 4GB went to make a Ram Disk
Nvidia Quadro FX 4500
2xWD Raptor 74GB HD (Internal)
4xMaxtor MaxLineIII 300GB (External SATA Enclosure)--RocketRaid 2320 Controller--Wires rerouted through opened PCI Slot Cover--Raid 1

Ran test from Ram Disk

Upgrades to come for our Quad PowerMac "Server" (the one i ran the test on earlier):
*2x2GB of DDR2 ECC Ram (to add to 6x2GB DDR ECC Ram) All CL=5
*2x150GB WD Raptor X HDD (replaces 2x74GB WD Raptor HDD) Boot (Pre-Ordered)
*Another External SATA Enclosure HighPoint X4
*4x500GB MaxLine Pro 500 SATA2 (most likely more in the future)
*Waiting on availability of HighPoint RocketRaid 2322 (really needed currently its a wiring nightmare in the back. I need those mini-SAS connectors.)

Upgrades to my Quad PowerMac "Workstation":
*8x1GB Crucial Ballistix DDR2 PC2-5300 NECC Ram (CAS 3-3-3-12)(to replace stock 4x256MB DDR2 Ram)
*2x WD Raptor 74GB HDD(from above) Boot
*RocketRaid 2320 (from above)
*Internal CPU Bay HDD mounting kit (For the stock 2x250GB HDD's)

*btw the Nvidia Quadro FX 4500 actually belongs to the "Workstation".
I just move it over to run the test on "Server" because at the time it had way more ram. Normally the "Server" runs on a Nvidia GeForce 6600 w/ 256 MB.

I'm gonna run the test again on "Server" twice. Once with the 16GB ECC memory, and then again with the 8GB Ballistix. Swapping ram and a video card is alot easier than swapping SATA Controllers and HDD's especially with the current mess of wires.

My original post was 14 secs, I lied. Hehe. The actual time should be an average of 14.3 sec over 5 runs.

[GraphicUmp]

1:58
PowerMac G4 / Dual 450
with a PowerLogix 7455 Dual 1.0 GHz / 256k L2 / 2MB L3 cache per proc upgrade
Bus Speed: 100 MHz
1.5 GB RAM
80 GB 7200 RPM ATA100 WD drive
ATI Radeon 9000 Pro 128 MB
Photoshop CS2
5 things running in the background, plus 4 Widgets


Okay, tried if from a fresh restart, all specs the same, but nothing else running:

1:47

[Mc Pavel]

Mac Mini

1.25 Ghz

512 mb ram

Photoshop CS2


= 2 min 56 sec

[Snide]

Would anyone care to see the results with a Core Duo 1.83 17" iMac
with 2 GB RAM––running PPC Photoshop CS2 under Rosetta?

(yes, I think you would)

1:05...

Not bad, considering my 2 Ghz Rev B iMac took 1:50 running CS2 natively.

[Eithanius]

Would anyone care to see the results with a Core Duo 1.83 17" iMac
with 2 GB RAM––running PPC Photoshop CS2 under Rosetta?

(yes, I think you would)

1:05...

Not bad, considering my 2 Ghz Rev B iMac took 1:50 running CS2 natively.

that's under rosetta.... if it goes native, it'll be head-on with low-end dual-core towers.....

hmm.... maybe I should get a rev b. intel imac sitting side-by-side a ppc imac.....

[majorp]

Would anyone care to see the results with a Core Duo 1.83 17" iMac
with 2 GB RAM––running PPC Photoshop CS2 under Rosetta?

(yes, I think you would)

1:05...

Not bad, considering my 2 Ghz Rev B iMac took 1:50 running CS2 natively.

can you run xBench for us?:)

[Mord]

so your saying your intel mac is faster than your ppc mac running PS? i find that hard to belive.

[RichP]

Dual 1.8 G5 PM (RevA)
2GB ram
ATI Radeon 9800 Pro

Highest Performance: 56 sec
Reduced: 1.15 sec

(and, I have no idea why, my machine was running on reduced settings!)

Interesting to see it isnt that far off from emulated PPC on the new intelmacs! cant wait for my macbook pro!

[BakedBeans]

so your saying your intel mac is faster than your ppc mac running PS? i find that hard to belive.

So what are you saying? that he is a liar? or that he is some how mistaken?

[MacRumorUser]

Dual 1.8 G5 PM (RevA)
2GB ram
ATI Radeon 9800 Pro

Highest Performance: 56 sec
Reduced: 1.15 sec

(and, I have no idea why, my machine was running on reduced settings!)

Interesting to see it isnt that far off from emulated PPC on the new intelmacs! cant wait for my macbook pro!

Similar scores here too on my

Dual 1.8G5 PM (Rev A)
2.5GB Ram
ATI X800XT: 54 sec Highest Peformance enabled.

That's it my order for a 1.83 duo macbookpro is in :D Beat's the crap out of the G4 powerbook if that's the performance your getting.

[Laser47]

1.42ghz iBook
1.5gb Ram
2:16

[Foxglove9]

G4 / 1 Ghz (Sawtooth Sonnet upgrade)
2 MB L3 cache
1.38 GB RAM
120 GB HD (7200rpm)
OS 10.3.9
ATI 9800Pro 128
Photoshop 7.0

* 4:08 *

Pretty bad... :o

[Snide]

so your saying your intel mac is faster than your ppc mac running PS? i find that hard to belive.

Well then, knock yourself out in disbelief. ;)

Just so you know, this test was run from the demo area at Macworld SF.
I grabbed the image from page 1 of this thread, and dropped it onto
the CS2 icon. It took only a bit longer to launch then normal, but not a lot.
I applied the radial blur at 100%, selecting best quality.
I went into clock preferences and clicked the box to show seconds in menu bar.

I timed it at 1 minute, 5 seconds on the dot.
I then repeated the test with the exact same result.

You should be congratulating me for being able to pull this off
under a swarm of watchful guys wearing black––who were expressly
instructed not to allow this sort of testing. :p

[Laser47]

Well then, knock yourself out in disbelief. ;)

Just so you know, this test was run from the demo area at Macworld SF.
I grabbed the image from page 1 of this thread, and dropped it onto
the CS2 icon. It took only a bit longer to launch then normal, but not a lot.
I applied the radial blur at 100%, selecting best quality.
I went into clock preferences and clicked the box to show seconds in menu bar.

I timed it at 1 minute, 5 seconds on the dot.
I then repeated the test with the exact same result.

You should be congratulating me for being able to pull this off
under a swarm of watchful guys wearing black––who were expressly
instructed not to allow this sort of testing. :p
Congrats, thanks for the input. The new macs sound awesome, even with rosetta emulation they are still pretty fast.

[Flowbee]

You should be congratulating me for being able to pull this off
under a swarm of watchful guys wearing black––who were expressly
instructed not to allow this sort of testing. :p

Good work. I got about as far as typing "m a c r u m" in the Safari address bar before I had one of those guys breathing down my neck.:o

[Mord]

apple employees are very touchy on such things, i got in trouble once for playing WoW on a quad in the london apple store off my ipod, got shouted at by some french bald guy.

[ksgant]

For what it's worth, here's my score on my recently self-built workstation:

37.46 Seconds
AMD X2 4200+ Dual-Core
1Gig of RAM
72 Gig 10,000RPM main drive SATA
200 Gig 7200 second drive SATA
7800GT PCIe graphics card
Windows XP
Photoshop CS2

Again, for what it's worth. BTW, I'm sick of PC's...I'm switching my whole operation over to Macintosh in the VERY near future...because I can.

[Tigger7]

1min 56 seconds..

iBook 12", 1.33, 1 gig ram

Also Photoshop CS2 loads in under 30 seconds on this little low powered mac. i don't have any additional plug ins so maybe thats why?

[branana]

Athlon 64 3500+
1GB Dual Channel DDR400
Gigabyte K8NSXP Ultra 939 (nForce 3 ultra)
nVidia 6800gt

1m16s both runs

[branana]

For what it's worth, here's my score on my recently self-built workstation:

37.46 Seconds
AMD X2 4200+ Dual-Core
1Gig of RAM
72 Gig 10,000RPM main drive SATA
200 Gig 7200 second drive SATA
7800GT PCIe graphics card
Windows XP
Photoshop CS2

Again, for what it's worth. BTW, I'm sick of PC's...I'm switching my whole operation over to Macintosh in the VERY near future...because I can.


Damn you smoked that photo

[RichP]

Athlon 64 3500+
1GB Dual Channel DDR400
Gigabyte K8NSXP Ultra 939 (nForce 3 ultra)
nVidia 6800gt

1m16s both runs

Not bad!

My CAD machine (its not superduper, but fine for ID/school work) ran a slow 1.45 (compared to 0.56 on my DP 1.8 G5)

AMD 64 3200+ (running 3%OC at 2.06ghz)
ASUS A8V-E DELUX
ATI FireGL V500
1.5gb ram

All in a custom G5 case!

[CubeHacker]

apple employees are very touchy on such things, i got in trouble once for playing WoW on a quad in the london apple store off my ipod, got shouted at by some french bald guy.

Really? Thats odd. I once burned WoW to CD and brought it over to the Apple store SOHO and played WoW on a Powerbook for about an hour and no one said a thing. I also once downloaded and played UT2k4 for an hour on an iMac there and again, no one said a thing (except to compliment me on my skills :)

[branana]

Not bad!

My CAD machine (its not superduper, but fine for ID/school work) ran a slow 1.45 (compared to 0.56 on my DP 1.8 G5)

AMD 64 3200+ (running 3%OC at 2.06ghz)
ASUS A8V-E DELUX
ATI FireGL V500
1.5gb ram

All in a custom G5 case!

Do you have pictures? I would like to see your mod :)
the 3500+ is stock 2.2ghz, that's probably where the minor difference is.

[BakedBeans]

This test has been done by a maxed 20inch intelimac at 57second.... under rosetta

that is some quality performance right there - obviously not quite at the 14seconds that madass quad is lol

[MacTruck]

Do you have pictures? I would like to see your mod :)
the 3500+ is stock 2.2ghz, that's probably where the minor difference is.


Yeah, me want to see toooooooo.

[dambro1978]

ibook G3 600mhz
384 Mb Ram
8 Mb Video
5 years old
case distorted from the many hits in my backpack
still running properly for ilife and office and basic photoshop.

7.42 mins


soon to be replaced by a macbook pro.

[BakedBeans]

ibook G3 600mhz
384 Mb Ram
8 Mb Video
5 years old
case distorted from the many hits in my backpack
still running properly for ilife and office and basic photoshop.

7.42 mins


soon to be replaced by a macbook pro.

you are going to knock about 6m30s of that time!

your just going to feel that speed increase like mad

[MacRumorUser]

you are going to knock about 6m30s of that time!

your just going to feel that speed increase like mad

Yeah, but now there's no excuse for going to have a cup of tea and watch 'this morning' while you work :D

Any news on shipping your imac bakedbeans? Still can't decide to go for macbookpro or imac.

[BakedBeans]

Yeah, but now there's no excuse for going to have a cup of tea and watch 'this morning' while you work :D

:p

Any news on shipping your imac bakedbeans? Still can't decide to go for macbookpro or imac.

Still stuck on 'Ships on or before 18th' so no news yet - Im hoping for news today or tomorrow - but if not I'm willing to wait (I got lucky by getting a refund for my iMac g5 with isight on the same day as the imac was released)

Do you need the portability? because the 20inch screen is awesome

[RichP]

Yeah, me want to see toooooooo.

Here, I didnt want to take this thread off-topic:

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=2063273#post2063273

Enjoy!

[RomanXP]

P4(SSE2)_3MHz/1GB RAM.
WinXP SP2
PS CS2
70 sec.

MacOSx86 10.4.3 on this PC
PS CS.
110 sec.

[Dafke]

P4(SSE2)_3MHz/1GB RAM.
WinXP SP2
PS CS2
70 sec.

MacOSx86 10.4.3 on this PC
PS CS.
110 sec.

wow, that's really fast considering it's a 3MHz P4!

[Backtothemac]

iMac G4
800MHZ
768 Ram

4 min 22 secs.

[y0zza]

P4(SSE2)_3MHz/1GB RAM.
WinXP SP2
PS CS2
70 sec.

MacOSx86 10.4.3 on this PC
PS CS.
110 sec.

Was Photoshop running in Rosetta on your (DTK ;) ) Mac? If so, that time is quite impressive.

[BakedBeans]

eMac G4 1ghz
512 RAM
9200 ati

4m30s

[antibob]

1 min 15 seconds

P4 3 ghz
1 gig o' ram

ati x300

Photoshop CS

[johnnybluejeans]

Here is a neat one for you guys. I have a Gateway M250x laptop: 2.0Ghz Pentium-M with 1Gb Ram. I have this laptop set up to dual boot between XP and OSX 10.4.1. I ran the filter in both XP and OSX and was surprised by the results:

In XP, running Photoshop CS2: 1:31

In OSX, running Photoshop 7.0 (under Rosetta): 1:44

Rosetta hardly took a hit in performance! Also, my laptop's chipset only supports up to SSE2, so there are actually two layers of emulation happening on this machine. Rosetta -> SSE3 and SSE3 -> SSE2.

[MacRumorUser]

1 min 15 seconds

P4 3 ghz
1 gig o' ram

ati x300

Photoshop CS

1min 34 secs on P4 3ghz, 2gig, Ati X800XT PE 256.... Seems slow in comparison to others? CS2 running on Media Center Edition 05

[smwatson]

Approx. 47 secs (My watch is a little fast)

See sig...(The iMac not the HP heap of ****)

[Eithanius]

Approx. 47 secs (My watch is a little fast)

See sig...(The iMac not the HP heap of ****)

a little fast...?

you're saying you've smoked the Intel iMacs....? :confused:

[smwatson]

Note the intels are running photoshop on rosetta. Which probably marred their performance. but the G5 is fab i love it. Also if a watch is fast it would increase the time. ie more seconds oon watch than real?? Im now confused

[OSXconvert]

If a stock intel imac at macworld ran the ps test in 1:05 on the core duo 1.83, I imagine that a core duo 2.00 ghz with 2gb RAM and a faster internal hard drive and an external scratch disk would be around 55-60 seconds which puts its performance near a dual 1.8-2.0 G5. Pretty damn good for such a cheap computer running emulation via Rosetta.

Steve Jobs promise of aperture in universal binaries by late March may mean that is when apple intends to release the new intel powermacs. Still, professional photographers will anxiously be waiting for adobe's universal binary release of creative suite.

[Redline13]

I did the radial blur test. It took 2:18. This was on stock 1.5 GHz 12 inch powerbook (running 10.4.4) with a half gig of ram using Photoshop CS. Can you do this same test in Gimpshop? I am not familar enough with it to know but it would be interesting to see the results.

[DVK916]

It seems to me that even on Rossetta the Core Duo run photoshop faster than the Powerbooks G4 do.

[sonofthesun]

6.28 mins

[MacHarne]

I haven't been available to post in months. Here are my results to add to the list.

iMac G4 15" 700MHz 512MB 10.4.3 PS CS2 ......... 5:16
PowerBook G4 12" 1.5GHz 768MB 10.4.4 PS CS2.. 2:20

[generik]

Anybody with an Macintel iMac care to contribute some rosetta test results?

Really keen to see how the superior chip would measure up to the current PowerPC offerings.

[cecirdr]

Radial blur (at least in the ars technica review) works very well in rosetta. It beat out the native imac G5. But that was the only filter that worked that way. The rest were significantly slower than running native. ...usable, but slower. It's kinda freakish that the only filter that seems unaffected by emulation would be radial blur...such is life.

I'd be interested in some real world uses ..say rotate an arbitrary amount (straighten a horizon), do an contrast unsharpmask with low amount and high radius, or a gaussian blur, etc. Maybe an action wth several filters and try machines with more ram than the one in the ars technica review? Perhaps ram could compensate.

[BakedBeans]

Radial blur (at least in the ars technica review) works very well in rosetta. It beat out the native imac G5. But that was the only filter that worked that way. The rest were significantly slower than running native. ...usable, but slower. It's kinda freakish that the only filter that seems unaffected by emulation would be radial blur...such is life.

I'd be interested in some real world uses ..say rotate an arbitrary amount (straighten a horizon), do an contrast unsharpmask with low amount and high radius, or a gaussian blur, etc. Maybe an action wth several filters and try machines with more ram than the one in the ars technica review? Perhaps ram could compensate.


We/I am working on a real world test bench for macs - this includes photoshop.

that ars article is biased - 256mb ram per core in the imac - 1gb per core in the g5 and 2.25 gb per core in the powermac g5..... rubbish.

[cecirdr]

Yeah...the ram should be matched. I agree. It really is freaky to have chosen the only filter though that is showing not only no slow down, but a speed up in emulation. Who'd have thought?

[SakeBalboa]

I ran the test on my windows xp home notebook with photoshop cs2, results were:

2 minutes and 3 seconds

on a 2.0ghz celeron m (overclocked celeron 370) with 1.5gigs of ram, 5400rpm hdd (60gigs), 128mb shared 200m ati gpu.


I also ran the test on my B&W powermac g3 (450mhz with 512mb ram running tiger) with photoshop cs1, results were:

8 minutes, :D

[segdeha]

Dell Precision PWS380
Pentium 4 @ 2.8GHz
1 GB RAM
1 minute, 32 seconds

Apple PowerBook
G4 @ 1GHz
1 GB RAM
2 minutes, 58 seconds

EDIT: I found it interesting that a processor with almost three times the Megahertz completed the test less than twice as fast....

[johnnybluejeans]

On my 20" Core Duo with 512Mb Ram, 128Mb Video, Photoshop 7.0: 58 seconds

[BakedBeans]

On my 20" Core Duo with 512Mb Ram, 128Mb Video, Photoshop 7.0: 58 seconds

i Am lovin that speed - more ram will really boost that.

[IEatApples]

My 20" 2,1GHz iMac G5 with 1,5GB RAM, running Photoshop CS2: 1 minute 40 seconds

[bigfib]

Took 53 seconds on mine.
Overall tho, the older ppc aps do feel considerably slower... be warned.
It may do this blur test three times as fast as my ibook 900mhz G3, but it also takes twice as long as the g3 to open a complex mutli layer file i am working on.
The new universsal binaries do fly though. :-)

[bigfib]

actually, i correct that statement....
its very unequal... some files seem to take longer for photoshop to open, up to twice as long in fact, but many more actually open quicker...
Overall its looking good.

[BakedBeans]

Took 53 seconds on mine.

On your what?

[OSXconvert]

Yeah...the ram should be matched. I agree. It really is freaky to have chosen the only filter though that is showing not only no slow down, but a speed up in emulation. Who'd have thought?

Yes, cecirdr, this is a strange result. The radial blur is one of the few tests that shine. Makes you wonder if somehow that part of rosetta was optimized (not sure if it could be) because RB is often the quick test used to determine hardware speed. We need to see the whole thing run again with at least 1gb RAM, preferably 2gb.

It is hard to know what to do if you need photoshop speed. Certainly the MacBookPro will not be faster than the 2.0ghz intel imac, so this means photoshop will not be viable on intel mac until adobe releases universal binaries and/or apple tweaks rosetta and the os to better utilize the intel chips. I bet the quad G5s will be king of the hill for the rest of the year. For non-professional switchers, the intel mac is truly compelling because of iLife speed.

I think that Apple has often had better chips than the windows crowd, but there never were adequate resources allocated at the graphics card manufacturers, the software developers, and the chipmaker compiler coders to fully optimize for the chips. I hope Apple is serious about incentivizing developers to really rewrite better apps for the new chips. This will be very hard, short of bribing. It is unlikely that programmers will be able to match the level of coding for both PPC and Intel, and one will have to suffer, my guess being the PPC side which will force apple loyalists to buy the new hardware. One can only hope that Adobe and Microsoft feel compelled to allocate the necessary resources to optimize universal binaries. Even if it were possible, I doubt that Microsoft would ever make Office truly run better on a Mac then on a windows machine.

[johnnybluejeans]

i Am lovin that speed - more ram will really boost that.

Yeah, my iMac feels a bit sluggish with 512Mb, much more sluggish than the demo models I played with that had 1Gb.

I bought a 1Gb stick and am awaiting its arrival, but now you all are making me concerned about the mismatched RAM sizes. I thought I'd be OK at 1.5Gb. Maybe I'll call Apple and inquire more.

[Mord]

seeing as the bandwidth of your ram in single channel mode is equal to the bandwidth of the FSB, their will be no difference between dual and single channel memory for your imac, feel free to install non matching pairs.

[bigfib]

On your what?

erm, its an intel imac 17" as stated in the title...

[shadowfax0]

As stated:
Specs are -
Quad G5 @ 2.5 GHz per core
4 GB of memory
A WD Raptor 10K Hard Drive
Running Photoshop CS 2

My Results were as follows:
Time for the pony rotation:
19 seconds

For reference, Generik states:
"46 seconds, dual Opteron 246 (2Ghz), 2.5GB of ram, running on Windows XP SP2..."

[jhero]

1:02 seconds

Amd a64 2.4ghz
1gig ram
sata drive
xp sp2

[dornoforpyros]

2:15
1.8ghz single g5
1.25gb ram
photoshop cs

Meh now I'm kinda wishing I'd spent the extra $600 for a dual 1.8 a year ago, but whatever.

[Chuck]

How about this test that I've set up, which uses a lot more features in Photoshop to give an overall comparison on performance. I would really love to compare my time on this with someone who is using a new 20" Intel iMac with 2Gb of RAM...

Click here (http://homepage.mac.com/chuckandjacks/.Pictures/DSC_0045.jpg) to download the test photo.
Click here (http://homepage.mac.com/chuckandjacks/.Public/photoshop_test.atn.zip) to download the Photoshop action set.

Before you time the test, restart your machine and open Photoshop only.

I've done this test on my 1Ghz G4 Powerbook (17") and it took me 1min 4sec, using Photoshop CS2.

Thanks in advance!
Chuck.

---

If you can't use the action for some reason, you can record it manually by doing the following:

...OPEN THE IMAGE...

***START RECORDING THE NEW ACTION***

1 - Change mode to CMYK
2 - Open Colour Balance, and change colour levels to -10 for ALL THREE, on shadows, midtones AND highlights
3 - Open Curves, put a point in the middle of the line, and then type INPUT=50, OUTPUT=75
4 - Go to Canvas Size, and change dimensions to: w=264.67mm, h=179.32mm
5 - Open Brightness/Contrast, and make B=+20, C=+10
6 - Open Image Size, and change width to 6000 pixels, height to 3989 pixels (height will be right automatically if you've got 'constrain proportions' checked)
7 - Open Filter > Sharpen > select 'Sharpen'
8 - Double click on the layer 'Background' (in layers palette) and then click OK, (so it's now call 'layer 0')
9 - Duplicate the layer, (by dragging 'layer 0' onto the new layer icon down the bottom of the palette)
10 - Flatten the image
11 - Then go File > Save As = 'DSC_0045.tif' (NOTE: saved as TIF file with no compression)
12 - Close the window

*** STOP THE ACTION RECORDING ***

[macanal]

G5 Dual 2.0Ghz 2Gig Ram, 240GB Hdd, 9800Pro
46 Secs

Im really upset though caus my mate has a
Dual Opteron 1.8Ghz 2GB RAM (CL2 Registered ECC low latancy ram).
and dual raid set up 2x 74Gb raptors raid 0 and 4x 36Gb raptors raid 0).

He gets 39 secs?
It must be his fast RAM or raid 0 scratch disc.
He even showed me the CPU usage and its not even using both CPUs to the max.

This really annoys me after all the Jobs propaganda touting the power mac G5the fastest PC in the world.

the worst thing is my mate is getting another 2Gig RAM and two new dual core opterons :eek:

I say its time for the Dual g5s replacement.
I will wait till then i dont think i will upgrade to quad core G5s not if they are going to have a intel replacement, i wish they would use Opterons or lets hope intel can at least find something that matches opterons, caus the Xeons are crap

[bartelby]

1st test (pony one) 2 mins on my PB with CS
2nd test 34 secs

[Ryan T.]

iMac core duo 17" w/ a 24" Dell in tandem, 1.5GB of RAM

51 seconds in Adobe CS.

Amazing time through emulation. Can't wait to see what these puppies can do natively.

[johnnybluejeans]

iMac core duo 17" w/ a 24" Dell in tandem, 1.5GB of RAM

51 seconds in Adobe CS.

Amazing time through emulation. Can't wait to see what these puppies can do natively.

Did you upgrade the RAM yourself? Could you run the test with only 512Mb and see what effect it has?

Also, did you use your machine extensively before moving to 1.5Gb? Did it make a big difference? My 20" Core Duo seems a bit sluggish. Extra 1Gb hasn't arrived yet so I'm still running at 512.