How fast is your Photoshop ?

  • Thread starter Thread starter mrk
  • Start date Start date
mrk said:
No probs mate, I know it's not easy to say "OMG WALLHAX!" :p so I have recorded a video for you! please excuse the few ms difference - my reaction times are slightly reduced handling a dv camera in one hand and making sure the lens is pointed at the right part of the screen!

http://robbiekhan.co.uk/root/videos/howfastismyphotoshop.wmv

I get 10seconds in CS2 btw and that was with my CPU at 2.5ghz!
Click to expand...

Ok lol

I believe you but this is definately intersting as mofei needs 11.34 secs with a 3,7ghz quad.

Hmm.....
 
Perhaps he's on XP? also he's on a nforce chipset too so there is going to be some difference hehe!
 
mrk said:
Perhaps he's on XP? also he's on a nforce chipset too so there is going to be some difference hehe!
Click to expand...

Some difference but not 50% surely?

Hes got 4gb ram and 2 gts's so its a fair bet to say hes probably using 64bit vista as well

so its probably just CS2 or another version
 
Yup, it seems there is some breakdown of spec here going on that is affecting performance in apps that are processor heavy?

I'm hedging a bet that a combination of drivers and hardware config has something to do with it as well as neighbouring connected hardware ?
 
I think the timing is fine.
I'm also running apps that I generally use. And I've got 2GB RAM PC5300 which is probably letting CS3 down a bit.
 
Just upped the CPU to 3.7, 463/1852 FSB, 926 RAM.
Doont know how much more she can take Captain...
Gigabyte DQ6 P35, pity it wont run 4 sticks of RAM >1000Mhz
Still same time around 7sec, how do you time to the tenth of a second?
 
Personnally i use the Chronograph on my watch and hope my reaction time isnt too slow... But i suppose it will be a similar delay when pressing the button both times.

Now ive seen mrk's video im tempted to setup my video camera to record it so i can use the frame/timestamp to get a more accurate time... What with it being the current thread record holder. :)
 
Darryn said:
Personnally i use the Chronograph on my watch and hope my reaction time isnt too slow... But i suppose it will be a similar delay when pressing the button both times.

Now ive seen mrk's video im tempted to setup my video camera to record it so i can use the frame/timestamp to get a more accurate time... What with it being the current thread record holder. :)
Click to expand...

I think thats a champion thing to do. You can't claim top spot without proof (but I know you have a MacPro, I also know what MacPro's can do.

Therefore you owe me no proof!

Infact I think your not telling us its as fast as it really is!
 
Woow, I just Googled the spec on a Macpro: 2x quadcore OUCH!
Nice, how I've only got a mingy 4 cores & it's only 1 second slower than the Macpro or the Macpro is 17% quicker, if my math is right?
 
Aye im really impressed with the times that folk with quad core machines are hitting out... it is also highlighting that a well planned system doesnt have to have the fastest GHZ, and that a lot can rely on have a good system bus or FSB speed and stuff, mrk's machine must be pretty well balanced with no major bottlenecks and a very good motherboard/chipset to beat many faster CPUed machines.

I believe the ram in my Macpro is probably its bottleneck, not the amount but the speed as its only PC2-6400/DDR2-800 which is pretty slow by modern standards.

Ill try and get a video knocked together this weekend, 50/50 as to whether it will be recorded with my old MiniDV camcorder or my n95... it could even the webcam on my MBP... Not sure where my firewire leads are for the camcorder :(
 
Hmm, if a quad at 3.65 gives 7sec & a quad at 3.2 gives 8sec then I recon a limit has been reached somewhere, as 3650/7=521mhz per second, 3200/8=400mhz per second, so the faster you go the harder it is get a faster time.
Am I making any sense here?
 
Yus, something im thinking is maybe CS3 is only threaded for 4 cores... perhaps, i can monitor this next time i run the benchmark...

Nope...700% cpu usage shown in iStatpro, so CS3 is using all available CPU horsepower.
 
CS3 is the danglies I have to admit, it just whooshes through images as if they didn't even exist :D

I wonder what other Photoshop benchmarks exist out there, I once read about a set of benchmark actions that people made - perhaps it was on here even ?
 
Darryn said:
Aye im really impressed with the times that folk with quad core machines are hitting out... it is also highlighting that a well planned system doesnt have to have the fastest GHZ, and that a lot can rely on have a good system bus or FSB speed and stuff, mrk's machine must be pretty well balanced with no major bottlenecks and a very good motherboard/chipset to beat many faster CPUed machines.

I believe the ram in my Macpro is probably its bottleneck, not the amount but the speed as its only PC2-6400/DDR2-800 which is pretty slow by modern standards.

Ill try and get a video knocked together this weekend, 50/50 as to whether it will be recorded with my old MiniDV camcorder or my n95... it could even the webcam on my MBP... Not sure where my firewire leads are for the camcorder :(
Click to expand...

well newer mac pros use 1600fsb xeons with dual channel ddr at 800mhz

thats equivalent to a q6600 at 400*8 with ddr800 (i.e. what i'm running)

Obviously mac pro has double the power on paper but isn't even 15% faster in practice it appears.

sid
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom