10 years ago today, Apple flipped the bird to PowerPC

[dpny]

I admit that pretty much everything I do is for me, with the exceptions being projects taken on for friends.

As my "serious" photography is still primarily on film(mostly 6x6 transparencies and(real) B&W but also some 35mm transparencies, negatives, and B&W), my workflow involves a lot of scanning and scanning also means spot healing/cloning. I stick with the G4 for this since it's the easiest way to run my SCSI film scanner. BTW, I know Nikon Coolscans and the like are cheap now(I may be buying one from a co-worker) but the SCSI Sprintscan I have does "super slides"(3.5x3.5) which allows me to digitize a lot of family stuff.

Nice.

Because of time pressure I'm not doing any real photography right now. I still have my cameras, but I haven't had the time to pull them out. I think my dad still has his medium format stuff.

 

[Hrududu]

For reference on OS X 10.5.8 :
PowerMac G5 2.0GHz DP 7,2
CS4
276 seconds

Mac mini 2.0GHz (early 2009)
CS2 (therefore Rosetta)
139.8 seconds
CS4
105.8 seconds


EDIT :
Just for a laugh...
TiBook 667MHz
CS2
1454 seconds ... nearly 25 minutes.

I'll toss in a couple.
PowerMac G5 Quad 12GB RAM and Radeon X1900
76.4
CS4

PowerMac G5 Dual 2.7 8GB and Radeon 9600Xt
206.9
CS4

PowerMac G4 Dual 1.42 2GB and Radeon 9000
269.3
CS4

Clearly this version of Photoshop did a good job at taking advantage of the extra 2 CPU cores. Interestingly, there was no difference between the Radeon 9650 and 9600 in the dual G5

 

[maxsix]

Beginning in 1991 I bought my first Apple laptop, a PowerBook 170.

Each year thereafter as new models were released I upgraded.

Continuing with MacBook Pro's each year since their introduction, I've had a mind boggling number of new Apple laptops and enjoyed them all

 

[MagicBoy]

Clearly this version of Photoshop did a good job at taking advantage of the extra 2 CPU cores. Interestingly, there was no difference between the Radeon 9650 and 9600 in the dual G5

It's purely a CPU test. RAM amount, storage and the GPU won't factor into it.

GPU can assist with pan, zoom and colour correction for example, but will make near zero difference in one of the speedtests for CS4.

 

[Dronecatcher]

GPU can assist with pan, zoom and colour correction for example, but will make near zero difference in one of the speedtests for CS4.

Any ideas on what would be an ideal real world comparison test for the GPU, apart from gaming and the standard benchmarks that is?

 

[MagicBoy]

Good question. Don't know off the top of my head.
[doublepost=1453982818][/doublepost]Pondering on it for 5 minutes, there's probably lots of benchmarks over at barefeats.com...

 

[dpny]

Any ideas on what would be an ideal real world comparison test for the GPU, apart from gaming and the standard benchmarks that is?

Passmark?

 

[MysticCow]

Passmark?

My gold standard was always Macworld's Speedmark test. Lots of real world standards are met through it. The bad part is they reset the Mac that gets a score of 100 every so often. Crazy math has to get involved if you want to compare new Macs to PowerPC Macs.

 

[dpny]

My gold standard was always Macworld's Speedmark test. Lots of real world standards are met through it. The bad part is they reset the Mac that gets a score of 100 every so often. Crazy math has to get involved if you want to compare new Macs to PowerPC Macs.

I tried to find single-thread scores for a 2GHz G5 the other week and couldn't. All I could do was extrapolate from the dual processor benchmarks.