Retouchartists.com PS Speed Test

[jhom]

After recently completing my building of a new XP box, I ran across the retouchartists.com speed test for PS. I'm wondering what other PS users think about the test. With my new system, I am getting some fantastic scores. How are yours in comparison? Here is the link for the test: http://retouchartists.com/pages/speedtest.html

My new system specs:
Intel Q6600 @ 3.24ghz
Gigabyte GA-EP35-DS3L
Corsair 6400-800 4gb
WD SATA 500gb x2 HD
XP Pro SP3 - pagefile=12gb on secondary driive
CS3 - scratch disk on primary drive

Retouchartists.com PS Speed Test score = 20.34"

[OTRphoto]

Man - my laptop is SLOW!!! lol

Intel Core2 Duo CPU T7100 @ 1.8GHz
3GB RAM
NVIDIA GeForce 8400M GS
160GB & 200GB hd's
Vista Home Premium

Retouchartists.com PS Speed Test score = 1.23.7"

[Joe_Lorenzini]

Very cool test, thanks for putting up the link!

My Intel Core 2 Duo E6850 3GHz w/4GB RAM, WD Raptor drive and GeForce 8600 GTS clocks in at:

48.0 seconds

Joe

[OTRphoto]

I'm going to have to try again with the desktop when I get home and see if I get any better results!

:(

[klynam]

Too bad all but one of the image links are dead on that site...

[jhom]

When running the test, make sure you shut down all background programs and set the PS parameters as required.

Also, after the testing you may want to check your color settings. It changed my prophoto to aRGB.

[davidhood]

I wouldn't put much stock in their benchmark. For instance if you look under the results section you see identical Imac computers giving wildly different results. One benchmarked at 1 min and one benchmarked at 2 minutes! Same config!

http://www.driverheaven.net/

A better more reliable benchmark for photoshop can be found here...

http://www.driverheaven.net/

Run it and report back.

:)

[jhom]

Originally Posted by davidhood

I wouldn't put much stock in their benchmark. For instance if you look under the results section you see identical Imac computers giving wildly different results. One benchmarked at 1 min and one benchmarked at 2 minutes! Same config!

http://www.driverheaven.net/

A better more reliable benchmark for photoshop can be found here...

http://www.driverheaven.net/

Run it and report back.

:)

Ok, I ran the driverheaven.net photoshop benchmark. I turned off all the obvious background programs. But, I'm not sure I got them all. Regardless, here are my results:

Texturiser(1): 0.9s
CMYK Colour Conversion: 0.7s
RGB Colour Conversion: 0.8s
Dust & Scratches: 1.0s
Watercolor: 9.1s
Texturiser (2): 0.9s
Stained Glass: 2.7s
Lighting Effects: 1.6s
Mosiac Tiles: 6.5s
Extrude: 29.7s
Smart Blur: 23.7s
Underpainting: 10.7

I tried checking their database but it has apparently gone on vacation. In comparison to the posted examples in the instructions for the benchmark, it looks like my box is doing well with CS3.

[davidhood]

Try this link to their other results...
http://www.driverheavendownloads.net...op/results.php

You systems is scoring very high.

IMO, with current technlogy a 2.4 ghz dual core or quad core system is really a sweet spot in the technology curve. These systems can be purchased for $400 to $500. While one can invest more money and beat the performance by 25% it's not really enough to notice in day to day operation for most people.

My rule of thumb is to upgrade when performance can be doubled (200%). For me, anything short of that is hard to notice. As far as I know, it's impossible to double the performance of a $400 2.4 ghz machine with current readily available technology.

In a couple of years Photoshop should be able to leverage multicores and change the performance curve but Adobe has said it's going to be a ways off before they do that.

(I'm speaking of a photoshop machine. There are some multicore machines that can do video rendering where the speed improvements would offer a worthwhile payback.)

[Daniel Bates]

My next system is going to be built for After Effects. Photoshop performance will be a nice secondary benefit.

[Davidtxs]

Ok where do you change those settings lol

[jhom]

Originally Posted by davidhood

Try this link to their other results...
http://www.driverheavendownloads.net...op/results.php

You systems is scoring very high.

IMO, with current technlogy a 2.4 ghz dual core or quad core system is really a sweet spot in the technology curve. These systems can be purchased for $400 to $500. While one can invest more money and beat the performance by 25% it's not really enough to notice in day to day operation for most people.

My rule of thumb is to upgrade when performance can be doubled (200%). For me, anything short of that is hard to notice. As far as I know, it's impossible to double the performance of a $400 2.4 ghz machine with current readily available technology.

In a couple of years Photoshop should be able to leverage multicores and change the performance curve but Adobe has said it's going to be a ways off before they do that.

(I'm speaking of a photoshop machine. There are some multicore machines that can do video rendering where the speed improvements would offer a worthwhile payback.)

Thanks for the link. It is nice to see the comparison machines. I think I'll keep my box at it's current settings. There doesn't seem to be much gain with 1-2 more ghz.

[Rson]

I had a thread a while ago....http://www.texasphotoforum.com/forum...ght=speed+test

I think I hit 27 seconds on a system w/o a scratch disk and Raid 1 assembly.

[TimmyTheTag]

Just built a PC:

Intel E8500 E0 @ 8 x 525 FSB = 4.2 GHz
Gigabyte GA-EP45-UD3R
2 x 2GB Corsair Dominator PC2-8500 w/Fan
Seagate 400 GB SATA2
CoolerMaster CM690 Case
CoolerMaster Real Power Pro 550W PS
Zerotherm Zen CPU Cooler

Ran driverheaven.net benchkmark of 66.8 seconds, and I left all background programs up a running including my Avast Anit-Virus.

[davidhood]

timmy,

How much did that setup cost?