Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Apple Hardware > Desktops > Mac Pro

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old May 16, 2006, 02:31 AM   #51
BakedBeans
Thread Starter
Banned
 
BakedBeans's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: What's Your Favorite Posish
Quote:
Originally Posted by Azurael
A real world test would invole making modifications to the image which a real photographer might make
Like the shadow highlight tool? like the levels adjustment? like colour space changes? like enlargements to print?

In the "real world" pro's often work with huge images. to do anything lighter is an insult to pros that actually want to test how their machine performs under work like conditions.


I can name exactly what a photographer would use every single part of that test but you seem to have a bee in your bonnet thinking you know better than half of the industry so there is no point.
BakedBeans is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 16, 2006, 05:43 AM   #52
Azurael
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by BakedBeans
lol, your point about not enlarging photos 300% is crazy.

Very very funny and makes your "argument" even more weak.

People do print photos more than 6x8 you know. That part of the action was recommended by a fine art photographer and is often used when printing large images.

this test is not misleading.
No, I never said you wouldn't do that, only that the sequence of actions you have chosen is ridiculous. Of course it's necesary to enlarge images, but if it's the first thing you do, I'm worried. I'll tell you what, you go through your workflow one item at a time and justify it. Why would I want to change colour formats three times? Actually, you clearly don't actually read other peoples arguments before spewing this interminable garbage, and as such, I can no longer be bothered to argue with you. Have a nice day.
Azurael is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 16, 2006, 06:12 AM   #53
Blue Velvet
Moderator emeritus
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Azurael
Have a nice day.
And with that said, regardless of the merits of each other's arguments, it was BakedBeans who took the time to put this together where others — including myself — failed, and as such it is a benchmark that others are finding interesting and have already started using for comparative purposes. To quibble about the methodology is closing the stable door after the horse has bolted.


4 minutes, 7 seconds with many many apps running.

OK, trying again with only Finder, Dashboard, Suitcase, Safari and Photoshop running... 3 minutes, 33 seconds

That could be a problem, determining what other processes are running on people's machines at the time because it seems to affect the results on my Mac.

G4 Dual 1.42, 2gb RAM, OS10.4.5, 40gb WD 7200 dedicated scratch disk

Last edited by Blue Velvet; May 16, 2006 at 06:35 AM.
Blue Velvet is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 16, 2006, 06:29 AM   #54
BakedBeans
Thread Starter
Banned
 
BakedBeans's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: What's Your Favorite Posish
Quote:
Originally Posted by Azurael
No, I never said you wouldn't do that, only that the sequence of actions you have chosen is ridiculous. Of course it's necesary to enlarge images, but if it's the first thing you do, I'm worried. I'll tell you what, you go through your workflow one item at a time and justify it. Why would I want to change colour formats three times? Actually, you clearly don't actually read other peoples arguments before spewing this interminable garbage, and as such, I can no longer be bothered to argue with you. Have a nice day.
This isnt a workflow action. It is a speed test action.

This action needs to recognize the benefits of a scratch disk. It does that. It needs to show the benefits of large amounts of ram. It does that too. It also shows the benefit of a multi processor - or did want it all single processor so that your powerbook would score higher?


8 forums - 100s of photographers, 100s of photoshop pros

1 complaint.
BakedBeans is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 16, 2006, 06:31 AM   #55
BakedBeans
Thread Starter
Banned
 
BakedBeans's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: What's Your Favorite Posish
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blue Velvet
And with that said, regardless of the merits of each other's arguments, it was BakedBeans who took the time to put this together where others — included myself — failed, and as such it is a benchmark that others are finding interesting and have already started using for comparative purposes. To quibble about the methodology is closing the stable door after the horse has bolted.


4 minutes, 7 seconds with many many apps running.

OK, trying again with only Finder, Dashboard, Suitcase, Safari and Photoshop running... 3 minutes, 33 seconds

That could be a problem, determining what other processes are running on people's machines at the time because it seems to affect the results on my Mac.

G4 Dual 1.42, 2gb RAM, OS10.4.5, 40gb WD 7200 dedicated scratch disk
Thanks for doing the test.

Mine was with nothing running (not even little snitch). I suppose i should have told people to quit open apps really.

EDIT

3.33 - that is completely respectable and shows just how long a Mac can last and still be a workhorse.s

great value
BakedBeans is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 16, 2006, 11:28 PM   #56
EricNau
Moderator
 
EricNau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: San Francisco, CA
I am curious to see how well a MacBook does with this test.

Anybody out there with a MacBook wanna give it a go?
EricNau is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 17, 2006, 07:58 PM   #57
p0intblank
macrumors 68030
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: New Jersey
Wow... mine came in at 8 minutes and 27 seconds! Can we get an official list of everyone's results together? If not, all I want is some scores for the Mac mini Core Duo @ 1.66 GHz. Please tell me it's faster than my PowerBook... if so, then I'll be very happy with the purchase next week.
__________________
The #1 source for accessories compatible with Apple's new Mac Pro
Have a suggestion? Contact me here!
p0intblank is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 17, 2006, 11:51 PM   #58
LastZion
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricNau
I am curious to see how well a MacBook does with this test.

Anybody out there with a MacBook wanna give it a go?
I got 7m56s
Don't know how I am supposed to feel about that... getting another gig stick (to have 2 total this week, I will run again and see if it makes a difference)
__________________
15" 2.6GHZ rMBP, 8 Gigs of Ram, 500gig SSD, 64Gig Silver Iphone 5s, Ipad 3 and 2, Ipad Mini
LastZion is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 18, 2006, 02:13 AM   #59
EricNau
Moderator
 
EricNau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: San Francisco, CA
Quote:
Originally Posted by LastZion
I got 7m56s
Don't know how I am supposed to feel about that... getting another gig stick (to have 2 total this week, I will run again and see if it makes a difference)
What are the specs of your MacBook? You really shouldn't feel bad about that score. Keep in mind, Adobe Photoshop still isn't Universal Binary yet, so it is running under rosetta.
If you compare it to results from other intel Macs in this thread, it ranked pretty close to the others...

Quote:
Originally Posted by NJuul
7 minutes 12 sec on my 1.83 MBP 1.5 G
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigfib
5 Mins 4 seconds.

Intel Cored Duo 17" 1.83 Mhz - 1.5 GB - Photoshop CS1 (running under rosetta)
And that is still better than the G4 Powerbook which is running natively...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dafke
... 14 min 32 sec

12" powerbook - 1.33 Ghz - 1.25 Gb - Photoshop CS
Quote:
Originally Posted by p0intblank
(Edited)
mine came in at 8 minutes and 27 seconds!
PowerBook G4 17-inch, 1.5 GHz, 80 GB, 1.5 GB, 64 MB, 160GB External WD Disk
EricNau is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 18, 2006, 09:22 AM   #60
LastZion
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricNau
What are the specs of your MacBook? You really shouldn't feel bad about that score.
Specs in my Sig: 1.83 MBP, 1.5g, 100G 5400.
I will run again when I get the extra 512 ram in there. I am very interested in this whole debate about having the same ram modules equaling greater utilization of the cores (2 x 512's almost as good as 1 x gig + 1 x 512). I will know soon, hopefully today
__________________
15" 2.6GHZ rMBP, 8 Gigs of Ram, 500gig SSD, 64Gig Silver Iphone 5s, Ipad 3 and 2, Ipad Mini
LastZion is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 18, 2006, 01:42 PM   #61
LastZion
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
So I just got my 2nd ram stick, so I went from 1.5 to 2.0gigs and I ran the test again...

I got 6:22

Thats 1:34 shorter than my last run with 1.5.

Once again:

1.5g = 7:56
2.0g = 6:22

So it ran it in 80% of the time
__________________
15" 2.6GHZ rMBP, 8 Gigs of Ram, 500gig SSD, 64Gig Silver Iphone 5s, Ipad 3 and 2, Ipad Mini
LastZion is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 18, 2006, 02:44 PM   #62
mduser63
macrumors 68040
 
mduser63's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Send a message via AIM to mduser63
3 minutes, 59 seconds on my Dual 1.8 GHz G5 with 2 GB of RAM. I'm running Photoshop CS2 (9.0.1) under 10.4.6. That's a little slower than I was expecting, but oh well.

EDIT: Restarted the machine, cleared the cache and made sure only Photoshop and Activity Monitor were running, and I got 3:00. Photoshop's RAM usage went up to 1.12 GB.
__________________
27" 2.93 GHz Core i7 iMac, 12 GB RAM
2.3 GHz Retina MacBook Pro
12" 1.33 GHz Superdrive PowerBook G4, 1.25 GB RAM
iPhone 5, iPad 3, etc.

Last edited by mduser63; May 18, 2006 at 02:59 PM.
mduser63 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 18, 2006, 03:09 PM   #63
iGary
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Randy's House
1:15

Quad G5
6GB RAM
Blank Scratch Disc
iGary is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 18, 2006, 03:23 PM   #64
Dafke
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by iGary
1:15

Quad G5
6GB RAM
Blank Scratch Disc
not bad

Quote:
Originally Posted by mduser63
3 minutes, 59 seconds on my Dual 1.8 GHz G5 with 2 GB of RAM. I'm running Photoshop CS2 (9.0.1) under 10.4.6. That's a little slower than I was expecting, but oh well.

EDIT: Restarted the machine, cleared the cache and made sure only Photoshop and Activity Monitor were running, and I got 3:00. Photoshop's RAM usage went up to 1.12 GB
mduser, could you perhaps do the test on your Powerbook as well? i'm wandering if mine is really slow or if it is all 12 inchers.
and one more question, how do you clear the cache?
Dafke is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 18, 2006, 03:27 PM   #65
BakedBeans
Thread Starter
Banned
 
BakedBeans's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: What's Your Favorite Posish
Quote:
Originally Posted by iGary
1:15

Quad G5
6GB RAM
Blank Scratch Disc
Shweet set-up!

Makes me feel slightly better about missing out on a quad - love machine.
BakedBeans is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 18, 2006, 04:06 PM   #66
p0intblank
macrumors 68030
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: New Jersey
Quote:
Originally Posted by LastZion
I got 7m56s
Don't know how I am supposed to feel about that... getting another gig stick (to have 2 total this week, I will run again and see if it makes a difference)
That's better than my PowerBook G4. Okay, that settles it. I'm getting myself a Mac mini very very soon.
__________________
The #1 source for accessories compatible with Apple's new Mac Pro
Have a suggestion? Contact me here!
p0intblank is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 18, 2006, 04:20 PM   #67
iHotu
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: at large
iMac G5 2.0, 1GB and CS2
4:58

Powerbook G4 667, 1GB and CS2
9:00
__________________
Try restarting first. It might help, and it's easy to do.

Last edited by iHotu; Jun 8, 2006 at 10:59 PM.
iHotu is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 18, 2006, 06:09 PM   #68
indigoflowAS
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Columbus, OH
Incredible improvements in performance w/ additional 1GB RAM in MBP.
3x the RAM = 3x performance increase...in my experience.

10:10
TiBook 867mhz - 768MB RAM
Startup as scratch disk

18:40
MacBook Pro 1.83 - 512MB RAM
Blank FW scratch disk

6:28
MacBook Pro 1.83 - 1.5GB RAM (just added)
Blank FW scratch disk

6:00
PC - AMD 64 @ 2.7GHz OC - 1GB RAM
__________________
MacBook Pro 2.33GHz + Gateway 24"
PC: AMD Opteron 144 @ 2.72GHz - A8N-SLi - Nvidia 6600GT 128MB - 2GB XMS RAM - 550W NeoHE
indigoflowAS is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 18, 2006, 09:09 PM   #69
p0intblank
macrumors 68030
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: New Jersey
Quote:
Originally Posted by indigoflowAS
18:40
MacBook Pro 1.83 - 512MB RAM
Blank FW scratch disk

6:28
MacBook Pro 1.83 - 1.5GB RAM (just added)
Blank FW scratch disk

6:00
PC - AMD 64 @ 2.7GHz OC - 1GB RAM
Very nice! And it's even running under Rosetta, while the Windows version is not. I never expected it to come that close to an AMD processor like the one you're using.
__________________
The #1 source for accessories compatible with Apple's new Mac Pro
Have a suggestion? Contact me here!
p0intblank is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 18, 2006, 10:17 PM   #70
mduser63
macrumors 68040
 
mduser63's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Send a message via AIM to mduser63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dafke
mduser, could you perhaps do the test on your Powerbook as well? i'm wandering if mine is really slow or if it is all 12 inchers.
and one more question, how do you clear the cache?
Just did the test on my 12" 1.33 GHz PowerBook G4 with 768 MB of RAM, also running Photoshop CS2 9.0.1 and OS X 10.4.6. Result was 11:27 . I have a (upgraded by me) 5400 RPM 100 GB Seagate HD in here with plenty of free space. I'm somewhat interested in seeing if it performs better if I hook up a FireWire drive and use that as the primary scratch disk. I have a feeling that that and another gig or so of RAM might make a big difference.

EDIT: Just redid the test with a nearly empty 140 GB 7200 RPM FireWire external for the scratch disk. Result this time: 7:41, quite a bit better than before.

As for clearing the cache, AFAIK Photoshop clears the cache when you quit it (If I'm wrong, someone please let me know).
__________________
27" 2.93 GHz Core i7 iMac, 12 GB RAM
2.3 GHz Retina MacBook Pro
12" 1.33 GHz Superdrive PowerBook G4, 1.25 GB RAM
iPhone 5, iPad 3, etc.

Last edited by mduser63; May 18, 2006 at 10:31 PM.
mduser63 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 20, 2006, 05:16 AM   #71
Monyx
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Australia
2m 4s CS2
Hmm, not sure that a 10k HD and addition 1Gb RAM makes the same Mac 1/3 faster again exception: a scratch-disc intensive PS test...

Quote:
Originally Posted by BakedBeans
1m 25s

specs below (PowerMac G5 Dual Core 2.3 Ghz | 3.5 GB RAM | 256MB GeForce 6600 | 74GB WD RAPTOR 10k RPM )
__________________
Mac Pro 2.66 Ghz 3GB ATI x1900xt Seagate 160GB, 2x WD3200KS
Monyx is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 20, 2006, 07:17 AM   #72
BakedBeans
Thread Starter
Banned
 
BakedBeans's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: What's Your Favorite Posish
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monyx
2m 4s CS2
Hmm, not sure that a 10k HD and addition 1Gb RAM makes the same Mac 1/3 faster again exception: a scratch-disc intensive PS test...
Having your os and scratch on the same drive is going to significantly sow the machine down - it cant be all reading and writting - it explains this on hte adobe website
BakedBeans is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 20, 2006, 07:35 AM   #73
YS2003
macrumors 68020
 
YS2003's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Finally I have arrived.....
iBook g4 (6 min 44 secs)

My iBook took 6 min 44 secs. I think my PBs should run this faster than iBook. I have CS2.
__________________
YS2003
Mac, High tech, Cars, Diving, Digital Cameras, Fountain Pens... every year, my toys are ever more expensive... well, time to get on with the rat race!
YS2003 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 20, 2006, 08:35 AM   #74
spinne1
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Hermitage, TN USA (near Nashville)
8 minutes, 27 seconds using CS2 on a Powermac G4/533 with 1.25 GB ram.
__________________
Mac Mini 1.83GHz Core 2 Duo, & Mac Mini 1.83Ghz Core Duo, 2GB ram each, IBM P 260 21" CRT for each
spinne1 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 20, 2006, 09:12 AM   #75
XIII
macrumors 68040
 
XIII's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: England
Send a message via AIM to XIII Send a message via MSN to XIII Send a message via Skype™ to XIII
iMac Intel Core Duo 2.0ghz
1.5GB RAM
60GB free HD space at the time
256mb VRAM
Running under Rosetta
Photoshop CS2

5 minutes 48 seconds.
__________________
"I want to win the championship, win the UEFA Champions League and be consistent. It's that simple."
-------Arsene Wenger
XIII is offline   0 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > Apple Hardware > Desktops > Mac Pro

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
After Effects CS6 CUDA Benchmark Test skippyfx Mac Pro 89 Oct 8, 2014 07:22 PM
How fast is the i7 - real life benchmark Elho Mac mini 26 Dec 5, 2013 03:11 PM
Benchmark only read speed without write speed? caspersoong Mac Applications and Mac App Store 1 Oct 24, 2013 08:47 AM
Any real world speed improvement using 802.11ac new Air from Airport Extreme? southpaw23 Mac Peripherals 1 Jun 13, 2013 02:08 PM
SSD options, Real world speed differences dnadrifter MacBook Pro 0 Dec 21, 2012 01:02 PM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:35 PM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC