PDA

View Full Version : Quad vs. Dual 2.7...


iGary
Nov 29, 2005, 08:34 AM
Found this interesting:

http://homepage.mac.com/garybooberry/.Pictures/Photo%20Album%20Pictures/2005-11-29%2006.33.05%20-0800/Image-F449ED3C60E411DA.jpg

So basically, if you want to render, or encode music, get this machine.

Ain't worth it for us PhotoChoppers, it appears.

The Photoshop Suite test is a set of 14 scripted tasks using a 50MB file. Photoshop’s memory was set to 70 percent and History was set to Minimum.

http://www.macworld.com/2005/11/reviews/quadreview/index.php

Bear
Nov 29, 2005, 09:22 AM
So basically, if you want to render, or encode music, get this machine.

Ain't worth it for us PhotoChoppers, it appears.Get which machine?
The QUad is definitely worth it. And I bet the next iMovie will show better performance on the Quad. Although if you really want performance, go for Final Cut Express.

Xephian
Nov 29, 2005, 09:45 AM
Get which machine?
The QUad is definitely worth it. And I bet the next iMovie will show better performance on the Quad. Although if you really want performance, go for Final Cut Express.
He probably means the Quad.

MacTruck
Nov 29, 2005, 10:06 AM
Well the dual 2.7 renders faster in imovie and is about the same in itunes so maybe he means the 2.7?

840quadra
Nov 29, 2005, 10:17 AM
But what is it doing in each of those tests?

Photoshop.

Opening a huge image,resize, apply a Gaussian blur?
Changing the size of an image, rotate, unsharp mask ?

Benchmarks are ok, but it would be nice to know what guidelines the tests used for the benchmark.

iGary
Nov 29, 2005, 10:18 AM
Edited.

Just saying - I was considering getting the Quad, but for what I do, it isn't worth it. A dual core 2.3 would be a better buy for a Photoshopper.

I'd like to know if Aperture is optimized for the Quad at all.

MacTruck
Nov 29, 2005, 10:50 AM
Edited.

Just saying - I was considering getting the Quad, but for what I do, it isn't worth it. A dual core 2.3 would be a better buy for a Photoshopper.

I'd like to know if Aperture is optimized for the Quad at all.


Yeah I am starting to think the quad is not that great. Sure its the best but for price vs speed the dual 2ghz is the best buy and I am talking refurb or used. All the G5s are pretty much the same as price goes up the speed increases only slightly. The quad is only for people making movies in expensive programs. I want the quad but only because I am a speed whore. :eek:

iGary
Nov 29, 2005, 10:52 AM
Yeah I am starting to think the quad is not that great. Sure its the best but for price vs speed the dual 2ghz is the best buy and I am talking refurb or used. All the G5s are pretty much the same as price goes up the speed increases only slightly. The quad is only for people making movies in expensive programs. I want the quad but only because I am a speed whore. :eek:

I'm a speed whore, too, but my significant other would most likely throw me out if I bought one. :)

jaduffy108
Nov 29, 2005, 10:53 AM
Edited.

Just saying - I was considering getting the Quad, but for what I do, it isn't worth it. A dual core 2.3 would be a better buy for a Photoshopper.

I'd like to know if Aperture is optimized for the Quad at all.

>>>exactly. The quad will only *truly* benefit those needing top notch "rendering" performance...FCP, After Effects(!), Maya(!). It's sad when people here write they bought a quad to play games, etc...which are single thread apps.

Honestly, despite my love for AMD these days...for Photoshop, Intel is the way to go. Intel's optimization for PS is incredible.

Good luck!

Bear
Nov 29, 2005, 11:29 AM
Edited.

Just saying - I was considering getting the Quad, but for what I do, it isn't worth it. A dual core 2.3 would be a better buy for a Photoshopper.

I'd like to know if Aperture is optimized for the Quad at all.Actually, photoshop has several threads, so it will use most of the resources of a Quad. I haven't had much time to test, but watching The Activity Monitor, during some things in Photoshop, all 4 cores are running at near 100% utilization. For reference, I'm using Photoshop CS - CS2 would be just as good if not better at using multiple processors.

Of course it depends on what you are doing in Photoshop.

Aperture will make full use of the Quad.

AlBDamned
Nov 29, 2005, 12:46 PM
This guy doesn't seem too happy with the Quad's performance in CS2 and Adobe could do nothing to help it seems...

Here (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=164036&highlight=cs2+quad)

bousozoku
Nov 29, 2005, 12:54 PM
I'm a speed whore, too, but my significant other would most likely throw me out if I bought one. :)

I suspect that the quad is much better at managing lots of running applications concurrently (even simultaneously!) than it is at running any certain application much faster. When the dual G4s arrived, they weren't incredibly fast at anything, but you could get through so much more at the same time, that it made for a very efficient machine. My dual 800 is still that way compared to my 1.33 GHz PowerBook. Yes, the PB processor is faster but I get a whole lot more done on the dual 800, still.

Bear
Nov 29, 2005, 01:19 PM
This guy doesn't seem too happy with the Quad's performance in CS2 and Adobe could do nothing to help it seems...

Here (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=164036&highlight=cs2+quad)That's Illustrator CS2 that the person is talking about. We're talking about Photoshop here, and so you need to find out about Photoshop CS2 on multiple processors. Although I bet the Photoshop team was way more careful on multiprocessor support since they are the visible application for benchmarks.

DaftUnion
Nov 29, 2005, 01:20 PM
From how it sounds, I know iGary probably won't get the Quad...but it's got to be a little bit tempting right?...probably the last best PowerPC revision to the PowerMac before Intel.

Edit: And double the memory possibilities 16gb

iGary
Nov 29, 2005, 01:26 PM
That's Illustrator CS2 that the person is talking about. We're talking about Photoshop here, and so you need to find out about Photoshop CS2 on multiple processors. Although I bet the Photoshop team was way more careful on multiprocessor support since they are the visible application for benchmarks.

I bought Photoshop (well the whole suite, really) CS2 specifically for two reasons:

1. "Supposed" multi-processor awareness enhancements.

2. Ability to allocate more RAM.

I have never gotten 200% out of the processors while doing large 12MP batches. Ever. I barely get 150% out of both, and it's always proc "A" doing all the work. I found no speed difference in CS1 and CS2 for what I do, which, again, is large batch actions.

Bruce Chizen himself say they optimize for Wiindows - why wouldn't they?

Just saying anyone considering a Quad just for Photoshop might be better off value-wise with a dual-core 2.3.

AlBDamned
Nov 29, 2005, 02:33 PM
That's Illustrator CS2 that the person is talking about. We're talking about Photoshop here, and so you need to find out about Photoshop CS2 on multiple processors. Although I bet the Photoshop team was way more careful on multiprocessor support since they are the visible application for benchmarks.


There's no need to get aggressive Bear, I'm not criticizing your machine. These two threads both highlight the same thing though: That in two instances, on two different programs within CS2, the speed gain with a quad has not been as great as [over]hyped.

Bousozoku makes a very good point though: While the Quad may not have 3rd party software available yet that is fully optimized for four cores, I'm sure if you put a Dual 2.7 and a Quad together and ran multiple tasks in multiple programs, the Quad would be done first.

Also, why should CS2 programs – which have been launched well before the Quad was even announced – be optimized for four cores? Until post-quad launch generation software, CS3 for example, comes out, I doubt we'll see programs that can use the power effectively.