Just checked out this thread (forums.macrumors.com/sho...593&pag e=1&pp=25
) over at the MacRumors forum and Id just like to see how the Intel PC's compare.
Id really appreciate if someone could test this with a Sonoma laptop so i can see how they compares with the Powerbook G4 1.67GHZ that im considering buying. Could be the deciding factor.
The G4 PB's do it in approx just over 2 mins and the Dual G5 Powermacs do it in around 50secs.
If you dont have Photoshop CS2 - Download the trial from Adobe.com if you can be bothered!
TEST INSTRUSTIONS -
1.) Download Image from www.quicklance.com/test.jpg
2.) Save it to computer and then open it up in Photoshop
3.) From there please apply a 'radial blur' with the settings at:
Amount = 100
Blur Method = Spin
Quality = Best
Using a stop watch / ps timer see how long it takes to apply this filter
Please post the following info:
CPU (Speed/Model)
RAM (Amount/Speed)
GFX CARD (shouldnt really matter as its CPU intensive)
Best to run this with no other programs running!
Will post my results once CS2 trial has finished downloading..
Yeah, it took 35mins on 1.5mbps to get the CS2 Demo..
Ok, well my results are:
P4 3.06Ghz (Prescott)
1Gb Ram (2x512Mb DDR 400 - Dual Channel)
GF6600GT AGP
Did test twice and it took 59 seconds on both runs...
Pretty suprised actually.. not that much slower that the dual G5 systems.. unless im doing something wrong!?
Anyone else wanna try?? Would like to see a couple of Pentium M laptop results...
Cheers
Bm7at81 writes...
Did test twice and it took 59 seconds on both runs...
Pretty suprised actually.. not that much slower that the dual G5 systems.. unless im doing something wrong!?
Sh!t neally the same as a g5
68.91 seconds
3500+ venice
1GB DDR400
x800xl
EDIT: i too would like to see some pentium M results. they should be very impressive
Slyda writes...
i too would like to see some pentium M results. they should be very impressive
Yeah, thats what i figured... but one of the guys on the mac forums tested his Thinkpad T42 with a 2ghz Dothan CPU and 1gb RAM and his test took 1min 34secs!?
So thats why id like to see some more tests... as i figured a Pentium M would be much quicker than the desktop CPUs for this sort of thing.
Im suprised my P4 3ghz beat your AMD 3500+ venice, but then again, its prob the only thing it would beat yours at! This definitely doesnt reflect gaming performance i guess!
Come on laptop owners... spare some time and take the test! Love to see if the 533mhz Dothans perform any better than the 400mhz Dothans..
Cheers
I have an Dell i9300 notebooks and will post results after I d/l the demo :-) ...
For the time being, here are my system specs:
2.0ghz P-M 533mhz bus
2x512mb dual channel 533mhz ram
256mb 6800go
On my:
Athlon 64 3000+ 754pin
1gig DDR 400 ram (at cas 2)
Geforce 6600GT
It took 1 minute, 21 seconds to complete.
Edit: closing all my programs made little difference, but looking at the actual result and the memory size of the image, I guess it is a very memory bandwidth heavy benchmark, and will probably perform poorly on most if not all laptops
For the sake of comparison I averaged 50.07 seconds for the test. Best was just under 50 seconds.
Pentium D 820 (2.8GHz)
GA-8I955X Pro
2 X 512MB DDR2 (533MHz)
GV-NX66T128VP (6600GT)
Laptop 1:
Pentium M 1.6ghz on a Dell Inspiron 6000:
1536meg DDR2-RAM at 400mhz
Onboard intel 915 video RAM.
Time taken is 2 minutes 30 seconds, probably because it uses low speed DDR2 ram and has onboard video. Confirms my suspicion that this particular test is VERY memory bandwidth limited. Blurs on small areas are likely to perform better on the Pentium M due to its massive cache.
Edit: will post results with Celeron M 1.4ghz later ... gotta go shopping
rugger writes...
I guess it is a very memory bandwidth heavy benchmark, and will probably perform poorly on most if not all laptops
Well, that would prob explain poor speeds on laptops... however i figured 1gb of 533mhz ram would out perform 1gb at 400mhz... im not very technical so i dont know how memory works or the differences with desktops vs laptops..
Anyway, as my original post points out, id really like to see the results from various intel laptops as compared to the Apple powerbook that im thinking of buying..
You can also try changing the memory usage settings in photoshop... but i doubt this will help much as most of us have 1gb on our systems anyway..
rugger writes...
Laptop 1:
Pentium M 1.6ghz on a Dell Inspiron 6000:
1536meg DDR2-RAM at 400mhz
Onboard intel 915 video RAM.
Time taken is 2 minutes 30 seconds
Cool, thats about the same as a stock 15" Powerbook (1.5ghz with 512mb RAM)
Cheers for the result
rugger writes...
DDR2 at 533mhz is roughly as fast as DDR at 400mhz, or maybe just a tad slower.
Heh, i guess they are appealing to the majority of the market like me with no idea... i see DDR2 and assume its the next best thing and will be obviously faster than its predecessor at 400mhz :)
60 Seconds
1GB RAM
P4 3.2GHz
6600GT AGP
That was with lots of programs running, and the pc has been on for a few hours. Couldnt be bothered closing everything.
=P
lol on my 2.4 cely took like 5 mins
havnt tried on my 64 3200 yet, got to install full version, ( if you know what i mean)
1 minute 13 second's.
CPU: AMD 64 3500+
RAM:1GB DDR400
GFX: GeForce 6600 128MB
mmm, 1 minute 13 seconds...that seems too long, I did have lots of stuff running then closed them, maybe some didnt close completely..I dont know.
Pentium 4 1.5ghz
512MB SDram
9700 Pro 256mb
LoL 3mins 46s... MY widgets showed 100% CPU Usage the WHOLE time.. and only 43% Memory usage... Time for an upgrade :D
Bm7at81 writes...
Cheers for the result
If the laptop is chosen carefully .... high end Pentium M with fast DDR2/DDR ram and non-onboard video ... it could be a fair bit faster.
Mobo: Asus P4C800 Deluxe
CPU: 2.8Gig Prescott 800Mhz FSB 1Mb Cache
1 Gig DDR 3200
ATI 9550xt
1 min 13 sec
LG LW60-BJZA
Pentium M 1.73
768MB DDR2 Running at 266MHz (according to CPUz)
On Board Intel 915 Graphics
2min 20sec
My Compaq Presario M2045AP laptop:
1.4ghz Celeron M
768meg ram DDR 266mhz
Onboard intel 865 video
Time taken: 2minutes 53seconds.
Not bad for a new VERY low end laptop. ($1300 new price)
1 min 11 sec's.
Intel Prescott 3.0 @ 3.2 GHz
2 x 512 meg PQI PC-3200 ram (running dual channel @414 MHz 2.5-3-3-6)
ATI 9800 AGP.
fusionfx writes...
I have an Dell i9300 notebooks and will post results after I d/l the demo :-) ...
For the time being, here are my system specs:
2.0ghz P-M 533mhz bus
2x512mb dual channel 533mhz ram
256mb 6800go
Have you run it on the Dell yet?? Would like to know how it compares.. Id guess about the 1-2 min range...
2 mins 27 secs
HP-nx7010
Pentium M 1.6 GHz Banias
512 MB RAM DDR333
80 GB HDD 4200 rpm
Ati Mobility 9200
Photoshop CS2
Laptop: Toshiba P30
CPU: Intel Pentium 4 3.2Ghz
RAM: 512MB PC2700 DDR
GFX Card: ATi Radeon 9700 64mb
Photoshop CS2
TIME: 56 Seconds!
Laptop: Dell i9300
CPU: P-M 2.0ghz
RAM: 2x512mb Dual Channel 533mhz DDR2
HDD: 60GB 7.2K RPM
GFX Card: Nvidia GeForce 6800go 256mb
Photoshop CS
Time: 1min 32sec
NOTE: Will try with CS2 when I can get a hold of it ...
Athlon64 3000+ Socket 939
1 gig pc3200 ram
Radeon 9550
I used PhotoshopCS for this as I don't have CS2
Time was 1min 50 seconds
I was surprised that this seems slow. Is it slow for this system? Maybe CS2 renders faster than CS?
After a minor upgrade.
Mobo gigabyte Ga8i775 Pro
CPU: Intel 541J 3.2Gig
Graphic ATI 9550 xt
Ram 1 Gig DDR 400
Windows x32 bit
Time 59 sec
Mobo gigabyte Ga8i775 Pro
CPU: Intel 541J 3.2Gig
Graphic ATI 9550 xt
Ram 1 Gig DDR 400
Windows x64 bit
Time 56 sec 4 runs at it same time
Can't wait to test CS2 in full 64 bit mode
wow I'm surprised my system is the slowest here...
although I spend much bucks on it :D
Time: 1mins 12 secs
SOFTWARE: ADOBE PHOTOSHOP CS2 (From Premium Pack/Retail)
CPU: AMD64 3500+ Clawhammer
RAM: 2GB OCZ EL PLATINUM
GFX: Leadtek 7800GTX
MOBO: DFI SLI-DR
BACKGROUND PROGRAMS:
- MBM 5
- LOGITECH SETPOINT
- MSN
- NVIDIA DISPLAY MANAGER
- CREATIVE VOLUME CONTROL
- WINAMP (PASSIVE)
- LAN STATUS
CPU: Intel P4 2.80GHz Prescott
RAM: 1024MB DDR 3200 400MHZ
GFX Card: Radeon 9600SE 128MB
Total time 1m 40s
Quicksilver PowerMac (January 2002)
Dual 1GHz G4 CPU's
1.5GB PC133 SDRAM
128MB nVidia 5200 video card
OS X 10.4.2
Time: 1m 31s
AMD athlon 64 3200+ @ 2.5ghz
1gb Geil value
6800GT 256mb
1min 17s
Dothan 1.8ghz
512mb Corsair value
Mobility 9700 64mb
2min 18s
iMac G5 17" 1.8ghz
1gb Corsair Value
FX5200 64mb
2min 52s
Non-laptop
Dell Dimension 8300
Pentium 4 Prescott 3.2 w H/T
1 gig RAM (2x512 400mhz DDR)
80 gig IDE hard Drive
128Mb nvidia Geforce FX5200
Test 2x each
CS2 Full = 55/55secs
Photoshop Elements 3 = 73/74 secs
(My test image of the horse was a 1.28Mb JPEG)
Bm7at81 writes...
CPU (Speed/Model)
RAM (Amount/Speed)
GFX CARD (shouldnt really matter as its CPU intensive)
P4 3.2 Northwood core
1Gig ram - 4 x 256 ddr ram
Matrox G550
If you think the GFX Card is not important, read this:
The first time I did this test I ran at almost 90 secs. I closed my ie. then did it again and I ran at about 85 secs. I thought that was a little weird as some people got better results with slower cpu, less ram, etc.
I went into my device manager and noticed that my graphics device (old G550) was not seen. I uninstalled it, restarted windows and reinstalled it from cd.
I did the benchmark test again and Voila! a whopping 39 secs!
I guess Graphics do matter!
Dell m20 Mobile Precision Workstation (laptop)
Pentium M 2.13 GHz
2 GB DDR2 533 mhz
ATi FireGL 3100
Photoshop CS2
Total time = 56 sec
39sec
AMD64 X2 3800 (manchester core)
2Gb DDR400 Ram Dual Channel 128bit
Nvidia 6600GT
(plus several progs running as well) i'll kill everything off and see what it does.
Harry
EDIT: kill of all progs rans 37secs
Apple Power Mac G5 Dual 2.7GHz
4gb DDR400 RAM
ATI Radeon 9650
42 seconds (also with several apps running).
Desktop: 95 seconds
CPU: AMD64 3500 Venice
RAM: 2x1 Gb Corsair Value Select
GFX: GeForce 6600
Notebook: 146 seconds
CPU: Intel 1.6 Centrino
RAM: 2x512 Mb Kingston Value
GFX: GeForce 5200
I have been looking for the same benchmarks. I just puchased a 15" powerbook. It only has a 133ghz G4 but it comes with another 2 Yrs of apple care. If you are deciding if you want a pc or mac I would have to ask you what you plan to do with it. I assume you are going to be using phtoshop quite a bit. If you are a designer or in the creative field I would recommend the mac hands down just for the fonts. There is a huge difference. This is the reason why I have sold my opteron workstation. I am sure there are PC laptops that are faster than the powerbook but a few seconds really shouldn't sway your decission. One more thing is that I have been reading everywhere they will be releasing the intel powerbooks in 2006 sometime so keep that in mind as well.
My 2 cents...
Pentium 4 3.2Ghz LGA775 CPU (Prescott)
Intel 915P Chipset
2 GB Kingston Dual DDR400 RAM (4x512)
Maxtor 160Gb SATA.
ATI Radeon X600HDTV PCIE (256mb)
Display: Samsung SyncMaster 930BF 19" 4MS LCD
Time: 52.8 :(
If i get a new graphics card will the times be faster?
(i also had 2 things downloding, and my windows update wants me to restart but i cbf)
pffft who uses radial blurr x 100 :/
isoceles writes...
just puchased a 15" powerbook. It only has a 133ghz G4 but
mmmmmm i want it......133GHz hey? ill post my result when i find a stopwatch lol.
I got about 52 - 53 seconds with my analouge watch, so maybe not accurate.
P4 3.0Ghz @ 3.75Ghz
1GB PC4000 Geil Ultra Platinum
9800pro @ 420/720
CS2 Full Version
63sec
AMD 3200+ @ 2.42 1:1
2x 1Gb OCz performance
9800Pro
same speed with BATTLEFIELD 2 antivirus on.. plus or minus 0.02 of a sec
42seconds (tested twice)
AMD X2 3800+
2G DDR400
GF6600GT
Windows XP x64
Photoshop CS2
All components running at stock clock, both core running at 97~100% usage when applying filter.
you want to decide between a PC or Mac based on performance with one file, one filter in Photoshop? At least do an action file that uses the following: file open, image resize, rotate, duplicate layer, gaussian blur, set layer mode, autocolor, unsharp mask, mode change to cmyk, save to 2 different directories, mode change back to rgb and save to a third location, close. Do that on both machines, with files of 5MB, 25MB and 75MB and time it. And just for fun, run through all those steps manually just to see which machine you work faster on.
Honestly, the performance inhibitor for Photoshop is the operator - most machines will waste a lot of clock cycles waiting for you to do something...
Bm7at81 writes...
Im suprised my P4 3ghz beat your AMD 3500+ venice, but then again, its prob the only thing it would beat yours at! This definitely doesnt reflect gaming performance i guess!
More MHz.
2.2 vs 3, also id assume it takes advantage of hyperthreading for the P4s.
higher calcs per clock doesn't take advantage with fotoshop.
ATHLON64 3200+ (WinChester)
1gb DDR400 RAM
GeForce FX5200 128mb Video Card
CS2: 1min 15s
Had a fair lot of programs open though.
The AMD 64 X2 seems to be the ultimate... 31-39 seconds only with the 3800+X2 ...imagine the 4800+ !!!
(what are your thoughts on that?? what do you think could possibly challenge this??)
jal writes...
(what are your thoughts on that?? what do you think could beat it??)
Not sure, but maybe the faster Pentium D's...
Benly2 writes...
Not sure, but maybe the faster Pentium D's...
i've looked at benchmarks and the x2 have been beating the d's in every catagory even video/audio encoding
Davodude writes...
x2 have been beating the d's in every catagory even video/audio encoding
wow, even the extreme version?
the extreme version a separate chip and yet is beaten by the 4800+
as seen here:
www.overclockers.com.au/...le.php?id=384519
www.techreport.com/revie...800/index.x?pg=1
www.anandtech.com/cpuchi...wdoc.aspx?i=2484
AMD64 3000+ (939) Venice
2GB DDR400 RAM (4x512MB)
256MB GeForce 6800GT
1min 38sec
Will try it on the P4 3GHz w/ HT soon.
i found this link when surfing the net www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030422 haven't finshing read it yet
I think the 4800 x2 would get a similar score mine only has 512k of cache but 100mhz more. Generally they run faster with the extra mhz then the cache. I can overclock mine to 2.70ghz and see the difference.
3:10
AMD Athlon XP 1800+ Palomino 1.53ghz
1024MB (2x512MB Dual channel) ram at 2.5.3.3.6
ATI 9600Pro 128mb
System is 3 years old and I'm going to upgrade it in april. Glad those x2 systems are right up there, almost 5 times faster than mine! Can't wait.
x2 owns the rotten apples!
this thread puts a smile on my face
too bad , i cant be bothered installing cs2 to try this on my 3800+ x2
bahahahahahahaha
danamania writes...
30 Seconds
Dual 2.7GHz G5,
shat. We have a record. C'mon. Theres gotta be someone with a Dual core faster than a X2 3800+. be it oced, or stock fast ( Includes Intel too.)
Benly2 writes...
shat. We have a record. C'mon. Theres gotta be someone with a Dual core faster than a X2 3800+. be it oced, or stock fast ( Includes Intel too.)
LOL come on he's got 5gb RAM
on a 2.7gig dual G5 down to 30sec
im sure a 4800+ with 2 gb ram may beat that........
POSTED EARLIER
31 Seconds
3800 x2 @ 2.5
2gb ram
well see 2.5gig only......... less ram more efficient
Yusuke writes...
im sure a 4800+ with 2 gb ram may beat that........
Never know untill someone actually benches with it.
Stupid apples. wonder how much that rig would have costed though. 5GB of ram. and i thought 2Gb was kinda overkill.
Benly2 writes...
Those 2 letters play a big part in the actual performance of the cpu...
but the chips really exist, they just cost more,
i think you would be lucky to be able to OC a mac.....
i think its possible but not alot, from what i hear about the architecture
danamania writes...
30 Seconds
Dual 2.7GHz G5, 5GB RAM, 6800 Ultra graphics.
That result is not consistant with the ones on the orignal mac forum :)
here is what I found and he has 8G ram too:
Originally Posted by iGary
Dual 2.7 G5
Photochop CS2
36.8 Seconds.
and
40 seconds
PM Dual 2.7 G5
4 GB RAM
Photoshop CS
Tiger OSX
Hey Benly2 is that the same G5 Apple Mac that posted scores of 42 secs the other week ?
And if so, how did he improve his scores from 42secs to 31secs ?
37 secs
AMD Athlon 4400X2
1 gig OCZ 3200 dual channel mem
With about 8 apps open, downloading and playing mp3z :)
M3Zephyer writes...
And if so, how did he improve his scores from 42secs to 31secs ?
he slipped he's finger while typing ,
wait i know,
he used virtual pc, running x86 version of cs2
AzzX writes...
With about 8 apps open, downloading and playing mp3z :)
try without anything open and no music. Bound to shave a few sec.
nice.
got around 3mins 20 seconds on a
Athlon XP 2600+ barton
512mb pc2100 ddram
With azureus, winamp and firefox running.
PIII 733; 512 SD RAM; 9800 pro - 5 minutes & 34 seconds.
I think that gives me the record for the longest?
Bin writes...
I think that gives me the record for the longest?
Yep. Closest is 3 min something, Somewhere near the front of the thread.
PÿRÓ writes...
X2 3800 @285mhz
Nice under clock. I assume thats the FSB? =P
28.15 sec
Holy crap. Almost half my time. I get 49 Sec.
Yusuke writes...
... whats your stepping?
CPU-Z says BH-E4
Edit :umm everest says its BH-E6 so which one to believe ?
PÿRÓ writes...
CPU-Z says BH-E4
Edit :umm everest says its BH-E6 so which one to believe ?
LOL, i meant which stepping code on the cpu itself
nevermind
Yusuke writes...
nevermind
i thought you meant the rev ..anyways im not about to pull my water block off :)
PÿRÓ writes...
i thought you meant the rev ..anyways im not about to pull my water block off :)
my lol was for the e4 and e6 detection hehehe very funny,
Yusuke writes...
my lol was for the e4 and e6 detection hehehe very funny,
yea but want to know what one it is lol
MOBO: Asus A8N-SLI Deluxe
CPU : AMD x2 4800
GPU : BFG GeForce 6600 GT OC
RAM : OCZ 4 Gig DDR 400 (OCZ4002048ELDCPE-K)
OS : Win XPRO SP2
PhotoShop CS2 Only: 35 Secs
PhotoShop CS2 w/ Sorenson Squeeze and Windows Media Encoder encoding: 44 Secs
39 seconds
x2 3800 @ 2.2GHz
2GB PQi DDR400
Quadro FX540
43 seconds
x2 3800 @ 2.0GHz
2GB PQi DDR400
Quadro FX540
Simon K writes... 
X2 4400+ @ 2420
Simon K writes...
45 Secs
Vesh writes...
x2 3800 @ 2.2GHz
Vesh writes...
39 seconds
Not sure how that works
Simon K writes...
Not sure how that works
workstation card? i dunno
well mine was
66secs
amd venice 3000+ at 2478
1gig giel value ram @ 354mhz
6600gt
PÿRÓ writes...
thats a nice Oc ;)
BAHAHA its underclocked :P stupid dividers :P
well i meant 177mhz then :P
edit:
i changed a few settings in bios now.
its running at
300 x 8.5 = 2550
and ram at 196 now. i just hope the mobo holds out
Simon K writes...
Not sure how that works
I am running Windows x64 as well, which I forgot to mention. Maybe that helps?
Vesh writes...
I am running Windows x64 as well, which I forgot to mention. Maybe that helps?
Ah ok, probably does :) Is your photoshop the 64bit version?
Simon K writes...
Ah ok, probably does :) Is your photoshop the 64bit version?
No just the trial version I downloaded
Simon K writes...
X2 4400+ @ 2420
45 Secs
hmmm, try run the computer at the stock clock, cuz thats even slower than my x2 3800_no_OC
Holymooly writes...
hmmm, try run the computer at the stock clock, cuz thats even slower than my x2 3800_no_OC
Interesting :) Ok, I'll try later when I get home.
54 seconds both times, both cores maxed to 100% entire time
CPU (Speed/Model)
AMD 3800 X2 overclocked to 2.4ghz
RAM (Amount/Speed)
2GB DDR 400
GFX CARD (shouldnt really matter as its CPU intensive)
2 X 7800GTX in SLI
mr biggles writes...
54 seconds both times, both cores maxed to 100% entire time
CPU (Speed/Model)
AMD 3800 X2 overclocked to 2.4ghz
Ok, so that would make more sense when compared to my results (actually, my 4400+ is at 2.4 as well so theoretically should our times be the same?) Is this test not as accurate as assumed?
EDIT: It's possible I'm just an idiot though (very possible). The version I have is Adobe Photoshop 8 CS, I'm assuming that's not the latest after reading on the front page Photoshop CS2 :) Oops :D
I'll download the trial tonight and try again ;)
Simon K writes...
I'll download the trial tonight and try again ;)
Ok, with CS2 it took 33 seconds :D That's more like it :D
Simon K writes...
Ok, with CS2 it took 33 seconds :D That's more like it :D
Shot dude, thats awesome. Go the x2!
Van Guard writes...
P4 Prescott 3.2Ghz
2GB 400Mhz DDR
ATI 9800Pro
71 seconds
Seems a tad slow for the system.
Just tested my desktop twice :
P4 540 (3.2Ghz)
1 GB DDR2 667 RAM
6600GT
Got 54 seconds and 55 seconds on each run. Difference is most likely my reaction time. Using Windows XP SP2 with about 51 processes running.
ghulp writes...
1 GB DDR2 667 RAM
Im not sure but wouldn't that make the difference when compared to 400MHz ram?
Bm7at81 writes...
Dual G5 Powermacs do it in around 50secs
Personally I think thats very shit. Why do these guys do so bad?
I thought Macs were designed for Photoshop/Graphic Design tasks.
Vesh writes...
I thought Macs were designed for Photoshop/Graphic Design tasks.
Bear in mind that the 50secs i originally quoted was for the last generation of G5 Dual PowerMacs.
The newer gen is now around 40secs for dual 2.5Ghz and a pretty damn impressive 17-19secs for the QUAD G5 Powermac!
Id love to see an intel system beat 17 secs on this test!
Bm7at81 writes...
Id love to see an intel system beat 17 secs on this test!
Shame no one has a Intel Dual Core Extreme 3.2GHz. aka, furnace. =P
Probably won't beat it though. Since the G5 is true Quad core afaik, and the Intel is a fake Quad core.
PÿRÓ writes...
28.15 sec
Most probably yes.
Unless some freak with Dual OCed Opteron's/ OCed X2 4800+ comes along.
Benly writes...
Unless some freak with Dual OCed Opteron's/ OCed X2 4800+ comes along.
lol ill herring hes post if he does
Bm7at81 writes...
Bear in mind that the 50secs i originally quoted was for the last generation of G5 Dual PowerMacs.
The newer gen is now around 40secs for dual 2.5Ghz and a pretty damn impressive 17-19secs for the QUAD G5 Powermac!
Id love to see an intel system beat 17 secs on this test!
I'm sure if you spent the same amount of money on a PC as you do on a Quad G5 Powermac, you'd get about the same level of performance in photoshop ;)
the 17->19seconds...is that with more than the stock 512mb ram which comes with the top of the line g5's?
Nah, I can't overclock it anymore since I've only got the stock cooler in place. Once I go watercooling, I'm going to try and go further!
mangrovejack writes...
I can't overclock it anymore since I've only got the stock cooler in place
500MHz on stock cooling is pretty good.
Once I go watercooling, I'm going to try and go further!
Getting competitive.
Watch out for Pyro's herring if you manage to get past 28.15sec =P
Paul Jenkins writes...
the 17->19seconds...is that with more than the stock 512mb ram which comes with the top of the line g5's?
Lol, yeah, that guys has 5gb Ram - So prob a crazy $8000 machine there... im sure the differences in PC and MAc at that price are gonna be negligible as far as photoshop performance is concerned...
If only we can find someone with a stupidly overpriced super PC to compete with the Quad G5.. would a 17sec Intel even be poss??
Bm7at81 writes...
would a 17sec Intel even be poss??
I doubt it. The flagship model isn't a true Quad core.
Dual core Intel 2.8GHz is same as my Intel 650 3.4Ghz @ 49/50 sec.
Bm7at81 writes...
Lol, yeah, that guys has 5gb Ram - So prob a crazy $8000 machine there... im sure the differences in PC and MAc at that price are gonna be negligible as far as photoshop performance is concerned...
If only we can find someone with a stupidly overpriced super PC to compete with the Quad G5.. would a 17sec Intel even be poss??
AUD$ 6,354.00, thats by changing the 512 to just 4gig.
I'm sure his other components would put it much higher (like the graphics card, etc)
Thats a fair slab of money, $1055 for 3.5gig of ram, so around about $300 per gig of ram.
If only somebody had a dual cpu motherboard, to put two X2's, or Opteron's in :(
Benly writes...
I doubt it. The flagship model isn't a true Quad core.
Dual core Intel 2.8GHz is same as my Intel 650 3.4Ghz @ 49/50 sec.
Heh, for $8000, you could have Quad Pentium D ExtremeEd, thats a massive 16 logical core :D
mr biggles writes...
54 seconds both times, both cores maxed to 100% entire time
CPU (Speed/Model)
AMD 3800 X2 overclocked to 2.4ghz
RAM (Amount/Speed)
2GB DDR 400
GFX CARD (shouldnt really matter as its CPU intensive)
2 X 7800GTX in SLI
Found out because of this post that I had the clock multiplier in the bios set to auto. Even though I was overclocking to 2.4GHz the multiplier was reducing itself, so the resulting CPU speed was 1.4Ghz.
Of course I remedied this immediately and now get 34 seconds in this test.
CPU = XP2700+ @ 2338 mhz
RAM = 512 DDR 400
GFX = GForce Ti 4200
1 min 59 sec
Not that shabby for an old system
CPU= A64 3000+ @2.45Ghz
RAM= 1G corser value ram @220mhz
GFX= X800GT
Time to compleat= 1 minute 9 seconds
PÿRÓ writes...
what out for benly ..is he a spell master/checker ;)
What? I notice one mistake "has:his" and now i've been dubbed spell master? =P
i make mistakes too.
Benly writes...
What? I notice one mistake "has:his" and now i've been dubbed spell master? =P
hehe :P
M3Zephyer writes...
Benly: aka, furnace. =P
:D he he he
Hehe
But i must say, my cpu is probably warmer than all of yours.
Benly writes...
But i must say, my cpu is probably warmer than all of yours.
I don't know about that, I'm now on a 1800+ AMD, lets just say I wouldn't want to take the HSF off the processor :P
M3Zephyer writes...
just say I wouldn't want to take the HSF off the processor :P
And i doubt any of us would, even if it was a Venice core.
Benly writes...
And i doubt any of us would, even if it was a Venice core.
Yeah, still I would be worse off with the "Palomino" core compared to the Venice core, the "Palomino" would possibly catch fire, without a HSF !
CPU: AMD X2 4200 (stock)
RAM: 1024MB CORSAIR TWINX-XL PRO 2-2-2-5 - I actually have no idea what the numbers are for either :D
GFX Card: 6800 Ultra (stock)
TIME: 36s
Copernicus writes...
P4 1.8Ghz
512Mb RAM
NVIDIA GeForce2 MX/MX 400
Some oen on the first page did better with a crapper cpu. lol
Pentium 4 1.5ghz
512MB SDram
9700 Pro 256mb
LoL 3mins 46s...
by Icebreaka
Hi,
one question for PC users only:
can you test it and compare with the virtual memory turned off (no swap), or with it on separate HDD (must be fast and with nothing on it) ?
Thanks.
athlon x2 3800 @ 2.46ghz
generic hynix 2gb @ 164mhz
msi k8n neo4-fi
leadtek 6600gt
34.4s
2.4ghz - single core process
fsb 240
ddr@160mhz
60.3s
2ghz
fsb 200
ddr@200mhz
40.9sec
well done pyro,
our machines have similar specs, except I dont overclock, what would your time be if you did not overclock?
Copernicus writes...
what would your time be if you did not overclock?
i dont know ..might give that a go :)
And the winner is...........................!
AMD!! :)
G5 quad ??
So it's gunna cost an extra $5-6K to save around 10 seconds!
Geez............... that's great value for money
;-)
arthurking83 writes...
So it's gunna cost an extra $5-6K to save around 10 seconds!
i thought the G5's were slower ? @50sec
Cinders writes...
and now for my 486 DX66 .....
.
.
.
waiting
.
.
.
waiting
.
.
.
waiting
has it finished yet???
AMD Sempron 3300+ @ 2500Mhz w/Stock Cooling
2 x 512Mb PC2700 Generic Ram, Running at 208mhz
Sparkle AGP 6600GT, 570/1060, w/Zalman VF700-AlCu
Result = 64 seconds
Cheap but still good ;)
I just tried it on my Dell Inspiron 9300
Pentium M 2GHZ
1 GB RAM
ATI Radeon X300 (128MB RAM)
~2 min 8 secs
forgot to mention: the laptop was runing on battery at the time of test. IT might improve slightly if run on full power.
Copernicus writes...
amd 3800+ 2x
2GbRam
6600GT
2m50s
:-(
Why is my new pc so slow comparing to others?
Something definately lagging on your machine. Mine was almost 3x fater than that using only 1 core.
well i found the reason, it was old version of photoshop v5.0 LE
i since downloaded and installed adobe photoshop elements v3.0
AND whoooa now I am down to 50s
Copernicus writes...
AND whoooa now I am down to 50s
No way.. On a 1.8GHz P4?
Are you sure you're rendering the right image with the right settings?
Wait, are you talking about your X2?
PÿRÓ writes...
lol ..yea he's X2
ok, cause this threw me off..
forum-replies.cfm?t=373568&p=9#r161
I was thinking... no way a 1.8GHz CPU can rival mine.
btw, You should be getting lower than 50sec on a X2 3800+.
Benly writes...
btw, You should be getting lower than 50sec on a X2 3800+.
i do ;)
forum-replies.cfm?t=373568&p=9#r171 stock
forum-replies.cfm?t=373568&p=5#r91 Oc
p4 630 @ 3.6ghz
1gb ddr2-667 @ ddr2-600
x700
57secs.
Edit: just got 54 on my second run... its been running for 48+ hours so its probably full of crap too.
Benly writes...
They're closing in Pyro.. =P
:P ..nah 5secs is an eternity is this test
ill have to pull something spesh out of the bag if someone does beat me
I am bored..
My last result was with a base/clean install of windows XPSP1.. I am just going to do a fresh clean install of XPSP2 to see if there is any difference.
This will be interesting. I might even do a clean install of 2003 after that to see.
The best I could do in SP1 was 33.2seconds after another RAM tweak and overclocking the video card (which didnt make much difference)
AMD Athlon 64 3500+ ClawHammer @ stock
1GB Corsair TWINX DDR400
XFX 6800GT PCI-E @ stock
67 seconds.
I wonder what'll happen when it's overclocked...
Finally my first post - after reading for so long! Had this dilemma at the start of the year - that Mac vs. PC laptop decision. Wanted a 17" widescreen.
I ended up with a Toshiba Satellite P35-S609 and put another stick of 1gb RAM in it.
Mobile Intel Pentium 4 3.2Ghz
1.37 Gb RAM PC-2700 DDR333 - 128 Mb for the Video card
ATI Mobility 9000 IGP 128 Mb RAM
Average time = 65 sec.
I'm happy with the laptop, but want to upgrade the slow 4200 spin HDD to a 7200RPM.
hey could someone please post up the picture to a site or email it to me at iknowcarz@hotmail.com
thanks!
The site owner hasn't renewed his domain hehe
Thanks in advance!
jason
musicpirate writes...
hey could someone please post up the picture to a site or email it to me at iknowcarz@hotmail.com thanks!
...Or better yet someone could just post the link here instead of emailing it to you.
·Avenger· writes...
...Or better yet someone could just post the link here instead of emailing it to you.
Either way aslong as I get the image, if someone redirected the original site it would be good, shame no one has....
Jason (eigerly waiting)
CPU: AMD X2 @ Stock
RAM: OCZ 1gb Gamers eXtreme
GFX: ATi X800GTO
Both cores were at 100%, and it took a time of 41.441 seconds to complete.
Not bad:)
Thanks for hosting the image!
Hmmm it took 65 seconds!
I have a 3700+ San Deigo at 2.42ghz, 1gb of Ram and a 6600gt, doesn't this seem slow :S
musicpirate writes...
Hmmm it took 65 seconds!
I have a 3700+ San Deigo at 2.42ghz, 1gb of Ram and a 6600gt, doesn't this seem slow :S
65sec is a little slow, but keep in mind Single core AMD's wern't built for this type of work. :)
Apple 20" Intel iMac running WinXP ( bootcamp )
Intel CoreDuo T2500 @ 2.00Ghz
1.5Gb DDR2 PC-5300 667Mhz SO-DIMM RAM
256Mb ATI Mobility Radeon X1600
44 seconds
81 seconds
Pentium 4 Northwood 478 3GHz@3.8GHz
2GB NPC 400 RAM
Quadro FX1000
I guess this figure is to be expected isn't it?
CPU: P4 3.2 Prescott @ 3.5 GHz (Asus board using AiBooster +10% preset)
RAM: 2 x 512mb DDR400 Dual Channel (Corsair Valueselect)
GFX Card: Geforce FX 5200 128mb
CS2
Best run was 48secs, came as a bit of a surprise to be honest....pretty good for a cheap machine with nothing fancy.
Lolzor P4 2.53
750 ram
9600xt 128
Took 2:14 to complete :D just checked my hd and its 65% fragmented :d, my pc is so old, cant wait for conroe,, ill do that same test when i get my new system.
CHeers
62 seconds
AMD 3000+ Venice @ 2628 MHz
1 gig kingston value (x2 512mb)
Leadtek 6600GT 588MHz / 1.05 GHz
Adobe Photosop CS2 (Version 9)
First Attempt: 45.84seconds
Intel Pentium D 940 3.2Ghz Dual Core
2048MB PC4200 533Mhz Green Heatspreader G.Skill
Intel 950 Media Accelerator
On my Dell 6400 running CS2
Intel Core Duo T2400 / 1.83Ghz
1GB DDR2 533Mhz
256MB ATI Mobility Radeon x1400
TIME: 45.95 secs
lol i thought id have another crack at this with the new core duos
e6300 @3045mhz (435x7)
asus p5b
mushkin 5300 5-6-6-15 at 870mhz
took 27.6seconds
edit1:wow only 4secs quicker than my old x2
how lame :S
edit2: can someone with a x6800 do this at stock so we get a benchmark of what is good :P
Old thread, I know, but I wonder what the times are on some of these new beastys? Q6600 anyone?
I've managed to get my aging X2 3800 down to 31s, and now wondering if it is worth an upgrade?
Here's the pic: members.iinet.net.au/~akittl/test.jpg
Download the photoshop cs2 trial.
Then, apply a 'radial blur' to the above picture with the settings at:
Amount = 100
Blur Method = Spin
Quality = Best
Using a stop watch / ps timer see how long it takes to apply this filter
Please post the following info:
CPU (Speed/Model)
RAM (Amount/Speed)
GFX CARD (shouldnt really matter as its CPU intensive)
CPU - Intel Core 2 Quad @ 2.66 GHz
RAM - 3G
GFX - GeForce 8800 GTX
Ran the test twice - 17 seconds both times
just a fyi - can't you make an action to automate this, to reduce human delays?
Would be happy to give that a whirl on my mac pro here :)
CPU - Intel Q6600 (stock)
RAM - 2GB OCZ DDR2 1066 (PC2 8500) OCZ2N1066SR2GK (1066)
GFX - EVGA 8800 GTS 640MB
CS3 Extended: 11 secs
So, I'm confused here, Should i buy E6850 or Q6600 for graphic design? I was goin to buy E6850 3.0 Ghz but Quad? How many Ghz? Help T_T... need to buy comp soon..
CPU : Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 3Ghz (Stock)
RAM : 2x1Gig Ram Trancend 800Mhz
GFX CARD: Leadtek 6600GT
Version: Adobe Photoshop Extended CS3
Did the test 2 times and both were 17 seconds.
62 seconds
AMD 3000+ Venice @ 2628 MHz
1 gig kingston value (x2 512mb)
Leadtek 6600GT 588MHz / 1.05 GHz
Adobe Photosop CS2 (Version 9)
HAHAHA, that was my rig a while ago, my new rig
Intel E8400 @ 3.6GHz
4GB DDR2 800
EVGA 8800GT 512MB
24 seconds in Photoshop CS2
Seems fairly slow comparing to some others, is CS3 really much faster?
Still almost 40 seconds faster than my old machine :)
Seems fairly slow comparing to some others, is CS3 really much faster?
You have the same CPU as me just 2gig more RAM, you would expect you would be getting better times. Mine is also not overclocked at all yet.
All you can do is try photoshop CS3, and see if you get under 17sec.
you would expect you would be getting better times.
Thats what I'm thinking.
I'm using Vista Ultimate 64bit, how about you?
If I can get my hands on CS3 I'm keen to see the results, CS3 seems a fair bit quicker :)
Dell Inspiron 1520 (laptop)
CS3
CPU: Intel Core2 Duo T8300, 2.39 GHz, 3072 KB
RAM: 3gig dunno about speed
GFX CARD: NVIDIA GeForce 8600M GT
24.18 seconds
Bump..
Intel E8400 @ 3.6GHz
4GB DDR2 800
EVGA 8800GT 512MB
24 seconds in Photoshop CS2
Ok, so I have CS3 now.
Same test same settings same hardware I get 15 seconds.
So CS3 for me, is almost 10 seconds faster than the older CS2.
This is blistering speeds compared to my older rig
62 seconds
AMD 3000+ Venice @ 2628 MHz
1 gig kingston value (x2 512mb)
Leadtek 6600GT 588MHz / 1.05 GHz
Adobe Photosop CS2
and almost 50 seconds faster than your old rig! :)
Thanks for the effort, it's interesting seeing how this all stacks up.
CPU: Q9450 (2.66GHz)
RAM: 4GB DDR3 PC10600 (1333MHz)
GPU: 8800GT (650/950MHz)
O/S: Windows Vista x64
Time: ~12.00 seconds.
Nice results from the quad cores, from both AMD and Intel.
My E8400 at 3.6GHz is getting its pants kicked by a 2.66GHz quady. Photoshop is one of those programs that really utilises quad cores nicely :D
Photoshop CS3
Vista Home Premium
27 seconds
Asus G1s
2.2Ghz T7500
2GB Ram, not sure of speed.
8600m GT graphics card
Not bad IMO
Edit:
With a whole bunch of programs open, Firefox, Outlook, MSN, torrents etc...
WinXp SP2
PS CS3
Q6600 @ 3.0ghz
4GB RAM
8800GT
9.5 Sec
(I assume you started timing from when you pushed Ok, not from when the progress bar popped up)
i got ~ 7.5 seconds on the first try and then 7 seconds on the 2nd try on this machine:
Mac Pro | 2x 2.8GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon “Harpertown” processors
16GB RAM 800MHz DDR2
1600MHz dual independent front-side buses
8880gt video
very sad as I'm using this Mac atm just for browsing websites. LOL! Not for long though.
Same test on PC:
PC – Vista 32
Quadcore 2.8ghz
4gb ram 1000mhz?
8800GTX
~ 10 seconds
7-8 seconds with Q6600 @ 3.6, 4GB ram, Windows 2008 x64, CS3. Loaded all four cores to around 93~97% during action.
Maybe we need to find a larger image, or a more complex function or something? The times are starting to get a little trivial :)
t
http://lonelymelody.com/test.jpg
Another mirror
Win Vista 64
PS CS3
CPU: E8400 @ (3.60Ghz)
RAM: 4Gb DDR2
GPU: 9800GTX
19.3 Seconds
Well why dont we use this image taken by the hubble telescope?
http://drewtol.blo
The resolution of this jpeg is 22,620 x 15,200 and the jpeg file on its own is 74MB.
There was a thread around ages ago about this image its really spectacular, the resolution of it is astronomical ;)
Disclaimer, if anyone try's this image for the test and your pc locks up for the rest of the day don't blame me :)
Edit: more links about this image:
http://cosmiclog.msnbc
http:
Edit X2: Though the galaxy is 11.6 million light-years away, NASA Hubble Space Telescope's view is so sharp that it can resolve individual stars, along with open star clusters, globular star clusters, and even glowing regions of fluorescent gas.
Where can I get my hands on one of these 'Hubble space telescopes' ;)
I think a 74Mb image is too big to expect people with slower intawebz to download.
Okay here is an image for youse to test out....
**WARNING** 6.90Mb http://www.spacetelescope.org
righto this bugger image pegged all 4 cores of my QX9650 at 99% this is intensive people.
QX9650 @ 4Ghz
2Gb DDR3 @ 1336Mhz
9800GX2
Amount = 100
Blur Method = Spin
Quality = Best
Start Timing from when ok button is pushed until image is displayed.
Time taken 49.03 seconds
P.S Hubble shots: 31mb http://imgsrc.hubblesite.org/
74Mb http://imgsrc.hubblesite.org/
AND the whopper weighing in at 689.53Mb http://imgsrc.hubblesite.org/
I suggest not touching that one unless you have a few hours to spin it...
**WARNING** 6.90Mb http://www.spacetelescope.org
righto this bugger image pegged all 4 cores of my QX9650 at 99% this is intensive people.
Amount = 100
Blur Method = Spin
Quality = Best
Ok, just ran this test with CS3, from when I hit 'OK' to when the image was displayed, it took 43.76 seconds. I ran it 3 times as well, and they were always around the same time.
Run on a Q6600 at 3.3GHz, 4GB DDR2 @ 826MHz, 9600GT.
**WARNING** 6.90Mb http://www.spacetelescope.org
righto this bugger image pegged all 4 cores of my QX9650 at 99% this is intensive people.
QX9650 @ 4Ghz
2Gb DDR3 @ 1336Mhz
9800GX2
I ran this and obtained
I got ~41s both times I ran it. I find my results being better then others with higher clocks odd :/. Maybe we should run a checksum on the final image (say saved to BMP (i.e. compression wont change results) -> md5, too see whether it is rendering the same for everyone?
Anyway CS3 (10.0.1)
Q6600 @ 3.0 GHz
2 GB DDR2 @ 667 MHz effective (5-5-5-15)
8800GTS (G92) @ Stock
~41 s (see above)
Also the md5 file for the bmp (I left it at default settings), was db65d6b7064178188a662ca7a9bea2b8
Okay here is an image for youse to test out....
**WARNING** 6.90Mb
1 minute and 10 seconds.
You quad core guys are owning me!
E8400 @3.6GHz
4GB DDR2 @ 800MHz 5-5-5-15
512MB 8800GT
Vista Ultimate 64bit / Photoshop CS3 Extended.
Ill overclock to 3.8GHz, then maybe 4GHz and post results.
Edit: Same settings but overclocked to 3.8GHz I get 1min 6 seconds.
Only 4 seconds faster, I'm not going to bother overclocking to 4GHz now.
Just increased my FSB to 1452Mhz and kept the cpu at 4Ghz
got my time down to 48.28 Seconds.
Hmmmm need more tweekin