Photoshop Speed test for both Macs and PC.

[Octane69]

Wonder how the MAC PRO Quad will be like????:sweat:

mac book duo core1.83ghz. 1min 23 secs

imac 2.3 core duo. 48secs... the power mac.. less than 20 secs? :bsmilie:

 

[Jer]

Let me join in the fun.....

Dell XPS 1210 with 2GB Ram 667 Mhz DDR2 SDRAM with Intel Core 2 Duo 2Ghz processor with a 120GB HDD.

CS2 60 seconds

 

[BigMacJ]

OK results here done with Photoshop CS3 beta built 20061208.

(Laptop) MacBook 1.83Ghz core duo, 1.25 GB RAM ..... 53.1 sec

(Desktop) Pentium 4, 3 Ghz 1 GB RAM ................. 1 min 25 sec

Both system running Mac OS 10.4.8.

 

[Octane69]

forget to ass.. itunes and messanger was running concurrently ;p

 

[pierceteo]

Wow...how u manage to get OSX running on Pentium 4?

Thanx
Pierce

 

[dshooter]

For those who may be interested, I tested on MacPro QuadCore 3Ghz RAM 4GB using Photoshop CS3 and the following applications running at the same time:
- Aperture
- iPhoto
- iTunes
- Firefox (2 tabs)
- Skype
- Yahoo Messenger
- Thunderbird

21.3 sec

 

[Stereobox]

Apple iMac 2.16 GHz Intel C2D, 1 GB memory - 39s

(background applications - firefox, transmission, msn)

*updated*

same results with 2 GB memory

 

[Stereobox]

upz!

 

[chouk]

10 windows of firefox open.
adobe lightroom
macromedia flash
itunes..

using c2d 6600 2gb
48 seconds.

either all those applications were opened or closed...same results were obtained..

 

[SLee]

Just for the sake of understanding..

Some mentioned that there might be bottleneck in the system, is there any way we can roughly point the bottleneck "location" from such test or any other means of testing...:think:

 

[Ashleyy]

Just for the sake of understanding..

Some mentioned that there might be bottleneck in the system, is there any way we can roughly point the bottleneck "location" from such test or any other means of testing...:think:

There might be some diagnostics to test the individual components and how fast they operate but I do not think there is any clear way to define how much they affect unless you can do manual calculations yourself :bsmilie:

Bottleneck speed can be affected by almost every hardware in the PC. Aside from the CPU which most pple take it as the overall speed. There are speed for motherboard (usually FSB), RAM (in mhz), HDD (Data rate, cache and RPM), Graphic Card (GPU) as well as the PCI, AGP & PCI-e slots (mhz). If I remember correctly, PCI on 66mhz, AGP 2X is 133mhz, 4X 266mhz, etc..

Simple ways to slow your PC is to like run a Core2Duo 1.6ghz with OS installed in a 20GB 5400rpm ATA 133 HDD... :bsmilie: Your CPU will be forever waiting for data from your HDD... ;p

One of the reasons why some people prefer DIY systems vs Pre-Assembled sets (including branded and those SLS sets selling at $688 or $888, etc) is that they can get to choose their own individual hardware base on the specs of each hardware.

 

[cjl]

For those who may be interested, I tested on MacPro QuadCore 3Ghz RAM 4GB using Photoshop CS3 and the following applications running at the same time:
- Aperture
- iPhoto
- iTunes
- Firefox (2 tabs)
- Skype
- Yahoo Messenger
- Thunderbird

21.3 sec

OMGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG

 

[Ashleyy]

OMGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG

actually opening those few programs which do not use much cpu when not directing accessing do not make much difference.. the only difference will be when you run video conferencing while running PS or doing rendering, etc.. :bsmilie:

 

[lynch]

DIY PC
- Intel Core2Duo E6300
- MSI P965P-DS3
- ATI Radeon 1950X
- 2Gb RAM
- Windows XP

37secs

 

[Ashleyy]

DIY PC
- Intel Core2Duo E6300
- MSI P965P-DS3
- ATI Radeon 1950X
- 2Gb RAM
- Windows XP

37secs

MSI have a P965P-DS3 board?? :think:
or izzit a Gigabyte one? :bsmilie:

 

[Clown]

tested on my new machine

C2D6600 oced to 380x9
DDR2 800mhz x 4gb
dual raptor scratchdisks on raid0

18sec

with antivirus running... O_O""

 

[andyq]

Duo core 1.66Ghz with 2 GB Ram.
Photoshop CS2
Total timing is 21 Secs!
hehehhehe:think:

 

[Ashleyy]

Duo core 1.66Ghz with 2 GB Ram.
Photoshop CS2
Total timing is 21 Secs!
hehehhehe:think:

Hmm.. wad is your hdd set up? did you run the test correctly? :think:
so far all the test quite consistent but yours is running faster than the timing for C2D 2.16GHz ;p

so far all the C2D from 1.6 to 2.16 are running around 40-70 secs

only the quad core took less than 30secs as well as Clown's since his was oced and running on raid.

The only other difference I can think of is Windows... is everyone who's PC using XP or some running on Vista..
Yet to find out if Vista performs better in terms of memory and CPU processing.. hehheee

 

[andyq]

Hmm.. wad is your hdd set up? did you run the test correctly? :think:
so far all the test quite consistent but yours is running faster than the timing for C2D 2.16GHz ;p

so far all the C2D from 1.6 to 2.16 are running around 40-70 secs

only the quad core took less than 30secs as well as Clown's since his was oced and running on raid.

The only other difference I can think of is Windows... is everyone who's PC using XP or some running on Vista..
Yet to find out if Vista performs better in terms of memory and CPU processing.. hehheee

just to confirm that 8x10 is in inches rite? i am running on window vista enterprise

 

[Ashleyy]

just to confirm that 8x10 is in inches rite? i am running on window vista enterprise

Sounds more like cm to me.. lolx.. usually we refer to the standard PC HDD as 3.5inch and notebook as 2.5inch.. CDROM/DVD are 5.25inch

Perhaps Vista got better control in dual core CPUs.. hmm.. what is your hdd capacity? ie 320GB, etc.. are you running on sata or raid?