[Doug Nelson]

I put this in the Hardware forum even though I mentioned Photoshop, because it has more to do with hardware than Photoshop.

In Photoshop, make a new RGB white bg 8x10 300ppi document. Open Add Noise and set to Uniform, Monochromatic, 400% and click OK. Then open Radial Blur, set to Amount 100, Method Zoom, Quality Best but do not hit OK yet.

As you hit OK, start timing. Continue timing until the filter finishes, then stop.

Report the time back here along with your machine specs.

For example, I've a P4 1.4ghz and my time was 5:56

[Noelf]

My machines specs

Dual Pentium 4 cpus running at 2.8, 1 gig of ram.

Windows xp pro

2 mins 15 secs.

- Noel

[W. Rose]

P4 2.0 ghz. 4:10

Wayne

[Gary Richardson]

Hi, Intel Celeron 1.3 G
RAM 256 M

Time 3' 35"

Any particular reason you want this.

[Xaran]

P4 2.8Ghz 2Gb Ram

2 mins 34 secs

Christine

[Pvt.Weed]

P4 3Ghz HT
1Gb DDR ram
Photoshop CS...Physical Memory Usage 90%
Window XP Home

2 mins

[Susan S.]

G3 imac, 600Mhz, (please don't laugh..), 756mb RAM, Photoshop CS, 7 minutes and 15 secs.... (I'm glad I don't do that one very often!!)

[Ed_L]

P4, 1.6 GHz, 512 DDR Ram --5 min. 23 sec.
Hmmmm, compare Gary's apecs and time to mine.

Ed

[Leah]

AMD Athlon XP, 1.29 GHz, 512 MB RAM, 4 mins 33 secs

[Doug Nelson]

I'm working on a project where I had to do this a minimum of 100 times in the past couple of weeks, so it got me wondering if its time for a new machine.

[Mars]

Gary and Leah got me thinking too....

AMD Athlon XP 1.68 MHz (2000+), 768 MB RAM - 5:13
for a 2400x3000 pixels document.... (8x10 at 300ppi).

Martin

[Leah]

I did vaguely think I had more than 1.29 GHz, but that's what the PC claims I have...

[Gary Richardson]

Switch off some of the many superfluous background tasks that run in XP and it will speed things up. It did for me. Try this site for info. www.fixyourwindows.com/optimizewindows.htm

[Gary Richardson]

Hi, after looking at some other peoples specs and times, I wondered if I'd done anything wrong, so I ran the test again and came out with exactly the same time 3' 35".

[Mars]

Thank you Gary for the link, I'll have a look at the steps later on. T'was a tad strange, since the other results seem to show a linear dependance between the MHz and the time (I've corrected the diagram above again).

Martin