Photoshop speed test

[rondon]

I posted this some time ago:

my honest time was 1min 57sec. 2min ..
Intel D915PBLL Socket 775 ATX Motherboard ..
Intel Pentium 4 520 2.8Ghz Processor
Ram ..512mb of DDR2..

I am going to post this then reboot and run that test again... i've got a few things running and it's been awhile since a reboot..
No faster
I think the speed would improve a lot with another RAM module.. the board supports up to 4gb.

I have double the ram now and I was surprised time almost the same 1:55 min..
anyone have any idea why the poor improvement on this test?

I was sure I was going to do much better because of a test I did before and after installing the new RAM.
I used a 508mb photo i just happened to have .. I opened the folder and right clicked the photo and then told it to open with PhotoShop.. so PS had to open also.

Ram time
512mb ................. 1min 33seconds
1024mb ..................... 37seconds

[TomX]

Dual 2.5Ghz G5
4.5GB ram
PS CS2
100% ram allocation
-------
48 Seconds

[TomX]

I've re ran the test 4 times with cache purged on the second test and 80% and 50% respectively on the third and fourth tests.

http://www.usnet1.net/PStest.jpg

[StevieB]

Amd 64bit 3500 cpu with 2 gig of ram


i got 1min 19secs

[nickb]

Bit late to this but...2 tries with a lot of other apps running 1:10, & 1:08.

My new homebuilt PC, built for speed & silence.

P4 Dual 3.0G, 2GB 800Mhz DDR2 Dual Channel Ram, XP Pro

[denschneider]

for any one that needs another reason to up grade to cs2, 3min 45sec with cs2 as compared to 4:30 with cs. there were no other changes to my system

[philbach]

I have a Mac G4 digital audio (4+yrs Old) with a 1.47 G4 processor upgrade. 1.5 gigs of ram. Time+3min and 41 seconds.

[andy99999andy]

Just got my Mac Quad G5 2.5Ghz, 4.5Gigs Ram.

Ran the test in 22 seconds.

[DMCdigitalmedia]

Mac G5 Dual 2.0ghz/2.5gb ram/radeon9600pro


57.06 seconds !

[bart_hickman]

Homemade Athlon 64 3500, Shuttle XPC, I think San Diego core, Nforce4 chipset, 1G dual channel DDR PC3200, PCI express 16x Nvidia geforce 6200 w/256M DDR (I doubt that part matters), SATA 250G HD, windows XP PRO. Ran the same speed over four tests--

1:16

(I wonder how much benefit I'd get from a 64bit OS?)

Bart

[bkpoltis]

P4 2.35 GHz 1GB RAM

2 minutes 45 seconds

Bernie

[tetsuo]

cuz my system is so new, i feel a little unfair doing this test. but here goes

A pair of Opteron 254, 2.8Ghz each.
8x1Gb ECC = 8Gb ram

a couple of SCSI drives.

test 1: 25 secs
test 2: 23 secs
test 3 : 22 secs

the first time i saw my photoshop having to wait for more than 3 secs to get anything done.

PSCS2 can use the whole 3.5Gb of ram. my scratch disk is a 15k 73Gb raid0 drive. which holds my XP's swap file also.

[Frank Lopes]

P4, 3.2Mhz, 2Gb. Ram: 1minute 39 seconds

[NancyJ]

Athlon 3000+ (2.0Ghz) 1Gb Ram
1m 29s

Didnt bother shutting any background stuff down... infact - carried on web browsing. Might have another go tomorrow.

[Soul_Seeker_USA]

1m 30s

ATI 9700 pro
AMD 3200+64 2g
1 gig of ram

[Soul_Seeker_USA]

Originally Posted by bart_hickman

Homemade Athlon 64 3500, Shuttle XPC, I think San Diego core, Nforce4 chipset, 1G dual channel DDR PC3200, PCI express 16x Nvidia geforce 6200 w/256M DDR (I doubt that part matters), SATA 250G HD, windows XP PRO. Ran the same speed over four tests--

1:16

(I wonder how much benefit I'd get from a 64bit OS?)

Bart

A lot, same for me.

[kyle_styles]

All these times seem legit to me. I posted about a year ago on my Dell 8400 P4 3.2gHz 1mb L2 Cache "Prescott". That computer with 768 mb's of ram did the test in 1:54. Not too bad.

Since summer I've been on a Dell 9100 Pentium D 840 Dual Core "Smithfield". I can't believe the difference!!! The Dell 9100 Does the test in 54 Seconds consistently, (IRREGUARDLESS, of how many programs i have running at the same time). This computer has a 74gb raptor HD (a huge benefit for video editing, rendering, looking at tons of thumbnails in bridge) 1.5 GB's of 533mhz pc4200 Ram, 2 dell Widescreen 20" LCD Displays. I don't miss my macs at all really, Photoshop and other Adobe Apps are 150 Times more stable on my Intel WinXP box. NO unexpectedly quits. I have used OS Ten, I'm not just comparing it to os8 and os9 days. when the 'Ish was Really unstable...
What I think is the amazing part about this is that dell sells a slightly newer model than mine, the 9150, fully decked out with a 20" UltraSharp LCD display(2005fpw),160gb hd,1.0GB or ram, win xp, home etc.... for $1399 and you get free shipping. Compare to the $3300 the quad 2.5 costs. And 'The Quad' comes pretty stripped down for $3300. You really need to spend 4200 for a well equipped system.

Just wait till Apple releases its "High End Multi Core" x86 Intel based machine. If my 840 can do the test in 54. 2 840 dual core chips should be able to beat 4 2.5 G5's. By the time apple is ready for these chips im am sure that they will be 3.8ghz or 3.6 and cache sizes keep increasing.




DON'T get me wrong, the quad is the fastest computer I have ever used.

I've ran this test in the Apple Store in CS2 and It always finishes in 23 seconds, no more, no less ever. Thats unreal. You can run the test on a new 2.1ghz Imac and it takes more than 3 minutes. I would love to try rendering some video in after effects on that thing.

ONE very important thing to remember is that the performance increase Dual Core users are seeing is most noticable in photoshop filters. For atleast the past 8 years Photoshop has been multiprocessor aware. The filters take the most advantage of this. Once our OS and Programs are all multi-threaded our multi-core machines will be working even better.



I got my own apple when I was 5 years old, a IIgs special woz edition. So i've seen them all, Even those "Mac Clone" days of power computing,umax,daystar,motorola Circa 1997. I remember in 1997 the Power Computer Power Tower Pro 225mhz 604e was BY FAR the fastest photoshop machine available. It could even take 1 gig of ram back then, now we have an effective 10 ghz (10,000 ghz on our desk, while back in 1997 the bleeding edge of technology,just like the quad, was only 225mhz) Thats 44.44 TIMES more clock cycle power. And those 10,000 clock cycles are better clock cycles than the old ones.

[tetsuo]

i wonder if the quad macs or quad opterons are faster. if the quad macs are 23 secs. then my opterons are on par.
considering quad are 4x 2.5Ghz. and mine is 2x2.8Ghz.

[kyle_styles]

Originally Posted by tetsuo

i wonder if the quad macs or quad opterons are faster. if the quad macs are 23 secs. then my opterons are on par.
considering quad are 4x 2.5Ghz. and mine is 2x2.8Ghz.

How many seconds does your system take? The 2.8 in the AMD's is a really quality 2.8. I'm waiting for all the 'dothan' based Pentium M chips to make it to the desktop. They are a really nice processor. My laptop has about the slowest pentium M you can get right now at 1.6ghz and Its equal to about a 2.6 or 2.8 p4 desktop. Its a great chip considering how watered down laptop hardware is compared to what I run in my desktop. The chip only has a 11 or 13 stage pipeline where as the p4 desktop has over 30 stages. When one quation has a error many others get fouled up when you have that many stages.

let your nerdy flurry,
kyle

[tetsuo]

Originally Posted by kyle_styles

How many seconds does your system take? The 2.8 in the AMD's is a really quality 2.8. I'm waiting for all the 'dothan' based Pentium M chips to make it to the desktop. They are a really nice processor. My laptop has about the slowest pentium M you can get right now at 1.6ghz and Its equal to about a 2.6 or 2.8 p4 desktop. Its a great chip considering how watered down laptop hardware is compared to what I run in my desktop. The chip only has a 11 or 13 stage pipeline where as the p4 desktop has over 30 stages. When one quation has a error many others get fouled up when you have that many stages.

let your nerdy flurry,
kyle

nay, my 1.73 centrino is slower than P2.6 that i have compared againsted with. dothans is about x1.3-1.4 of the desktop equilvalent.

my best was 22 secs. 2x single opteron cores. i havent got the cash to get 2x dual opteron cores yet.

[EOS_JD]

Well my first post here and I thought I'd compare my time as I had PS CS2 open when I read this.

AMD64 3200+, 1Gb RAM - 1:14secs

I thought this seemed reasonable for the spec.

[a1video]

2.8Ghz, 2GB Ram, XP Pro, 10,000rpm SATA main HD (one of six HD's)
1st 1:32 2nd 1:28

But that was while playing a audio cd and this window open, without a fresh restart.

[ptnyc]

Just curious about how well a $1200 consumer machine fares, I ran the test on my imac G5 2.0ghz 17" with 2gb RAM:

1st 2:08 (processor performance at automatic)
2nd 1:57 (processor performance at highest)

So a $3K, quad 2.5 G5 desktop performs about 6X faster.

[tdevery]

AMD 64 3000+ 1 Gig mem
Win XP
Photoshop CS2

1:19

Looks like AMD chips are cheaper and faster for the buck

[TomasW]

Dual Xeon 2.8, 2GB RAM (for Photoshop 50%), CS2. Time 1 min 07s

[TomasW]

Same test HW as before (Dual Xeon 2.8, 2GB RAM (for Photoshop 50%), CS2) but with hyperthreading support turned on is time 54s. Interesting improvement...

[mistermonday]

P4 2.8 Ghz single processor Win XP Pro 1GB Ram SATA7200 Drive, physically separate and not containing the OS:

PSCS2 time = 1 min 40 sec
PS7 time = 2 min 15 sec
Rgds, MM

[DanUK]

P4 3ghz HT, 2GB RAM & 7200rpm HD (EIDE) on XP:

1' 24"

I'm adding a secondary HD soon for sole use as the scratch disk so it will be interesting to see the difference it makes.

[mcdmusic]

Apple G5 Dual 2.7ghz
2.5 Gb ram
OS 10.4.4
Photoshop CS2

Processor performance set Automatic
Time : 56.9 seconds
Processor performance set Highest
Time: 44.8 seconds

[Pocoroba]

Macintosh OS 10.4.4 - Dual 2 GHz - 2 GB RAM
Photoshop CS2

58 Seconds.

Machine running for days and has gone through the usual intense paces in the interim.