Digital Arts Online review and comparisons 2009 2.26 vs. 2008 2.8 (Mar 18th)

[MCHR]

Just doing the usual obsessive digging, trying to justify a 2009 vs. a 2008 Mac pro, and I arrived at this web link at Digital Arts Online. Posted below are small entries of the article, and an especially eye-opening number for a comparison test with CS4. The difference in finishing the task is a significant 210%.

(ahem).

Digital Arts Online review

"Photoshop is a very RAM hungry application, despite it being a 32-bit application that can access only 4GB of our Mac Pro’s 6GB of RAM -- 3GB for main app and 1GB for plug-ins. The new Mac Pro shot through our core Photoshop CS4 test, which applies 25 actions on a 500MB image -- including smart filters and 3D transformations. The ‘Nehalem’ Mac Pro took 16 minutes 26s to complete the test -- compared to 34mins 32s for the older base dual-chop model. "

 

[amoergosum]

Just doing the usual obsessive digging, trying to justify a 2009 vs. a 2008 Mac pro, and I arrived at this web link at Digital Arts Online. Posted below are small entries of the article, and an especially eye-opening number for a comparison test with CS4. The difference in finishing the task is a significant 210%.

(ahem).

Digital Arts Online review

"Photoshop is a very RAM hungry application, despite it being a 32-bit application that can access only 4GB of our Mac Pro’s 6GB of RAM -- 3GB for main app and 1GB for plug-ins. The new Mac Pro shot through our core Photoshop CS4 test, which applies 25 actions on a 500MB image -- including smart filters and 3D transformations. The ‘Nehalem’ Mac Pro took 16 minutes 26s to complete the test -- compared to 34mins 32s for the older base dual-chop model. "

Thanks!
I was looking for a Photoshop related test.

 

[nemodomi]

Thanks!
I was looking for a Photoshop related test.

http://macperformanceguide.com/Reviews-MacProNehalem-Tests-Photoshop.html

 

[Horst]

(ahem).

This is 12 per cent faster than the previous base dual-chip Mac Pro, which had two 2.8GHz quad-core X5462 chips. At £1,445 plus VAT, that model was a lot less expensive -- but it had only 2GB of much slower RAM, which as you’ll see makes a huge difference in our other tests.

'Nuff said.