Yes but you'd need over a thousand of them to hold a single image from the D3 in TIFF format. Even my first hard drive (a 33MB Quantum full height 5 1/4") could only store one D3 NEF file at a time.

C64 was too advanced for me, I'm still using my 2MHz Z-80 starter kit from SD Sales with it's whopping 1K of system memory.

http://userwww.sfsu.edu/~hl/c.z80starter.html

Timgangloff >> not bad. I've seen those Q6600 clock to mid 3+ GHz easy with better cooling. You can probably pull off 6 minutes flat. Although, I'm not sure if Dell motherboards allow overclocking

That's still very good bang for the buck. My buddy bought one 2 years ago and it still works fine, and from your specs, it works at decent speeds too.

camey wrote:
C64 was too advanced for me, I'm still using my 2MHz Z-80 starter kit from SD Sales with it's whopping 1K of system memory.
http://userwww.sfsu.edu/~hl/c.z80starter.html


I hear ya - my very first computer was a TS-1000 - I still have it...somewhere
I got the 16Kb expansion kit, and I remember playing Chess (off cassette tape) on Level 3 and it taking about half an hour for the computer to make a move - I never waited long enough to see how long Level 4-6 took!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timex_Sinclair_1000

Hammy wrote:
camey wrote:
C64 was too advanced for me, I'm still using my 2MHz Z-80 starter kit from SD Sales with it's whopping 1K of system memory.
http://userwww.sfsu.edu/~hl/c.z80starter.html


I hear ya - my very first computer was a TS-1000 - I still have it...somewhere
I got the 16Kb expansion kit, and I remember playing Chess (off cassette tape) on Level 3 and it taking about half an hour for the computer to make a move - I never waited long enough to see how long Level 4-6 took!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timex_Sinclair_1000

Wish I would have kept mine! And the tape recorder - always took a few tries to load the program with that thing

Maybe use an existing benchmark, like this one?

http://www.driverheaven.net/photoshop.php

Core i7 920 2.67 GHz, 12 GB DDR 3 RAM, Vista 64 bit, PS 64 bit = 4 minutes, 41 seconds.

No overclocking.

Two data points on older hardware:

23:55

Win 7 RC 64, PS CS4-64, Core 2 Duo T5600@1.83GHz, 3.25GB RAM; Dell XPS M1210 laptop



00:00 (Insufficient RAM error)

Win XP Pro SP3, PS CS4-32, Pentium 4 HT @3.4GHz, 3GB RAM; Dell Dimension 8400

mmurph wrote:
Maybe use an existing benchmark, like this one?

http://www.driverheaven.net/photoshop.php




I agree, or here is another one:
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/default.aspx?b=25

Something that is more realistic to a photoshop user - not just one that is unrealistic and is not a witch hunt and ego boost to tout having a fast system.
This time next year, a 4Ghz i7 will be mainstream.

haijak, did you overclock your phenom?
Nope. I've never had much success with overclocking.

mmurph wrote:
Maybe use an existing benchmark, like this one?

http://www.driverheaven.net/photoshop.php



I did that one too. Low 163s for total time.


The reason I chose the cpu intensive filter was because the only time where I felt my old system was too slow was CPU intensive filters like noise reduction where it takes like 30 seconds to do the process. Since not everyone have noise reduction software, I thought the photoshop filter I suggested is a good way to test out CPU intensive photoshop filter.

Weiyang Liu wrote:The reason I chose the cpu intensive filter was because the only time where I felt my old system was too slow was CPU intensive filters like noise reduction where it takes like 30 seconds to do the process. Since not everyone have noise reduction software, I thought the photoshop filter I suggested is a good way to test out CPU intensive photoshop filter.


It's also an excellent way to test for those of us who don't have a 24MP camera, and don't run filters over 20 layer images. You know, like most of us...

Q9450 2.66@3.2ghz, 8gb ram, gigabyte p35-dsl3 = 4:51

But I do get great frame rates when I play Left 4 Dead.

dan727 wrote:
Q9450 2.66@3.2ghz, 8gb ram, gigabyte p35-dsl3 = 4:51

But I do get great frame rates when I play Left 4 Dead.

, left for dead 4. You definitely have me beat for that. I didn't even buy a new graphics card for this system. Still using a 256mb HD3850 that I bought used a while back for the old system.

Weiyang Liu wrote:

I did that one too. Low 163s for total time.

Thx! About what they got on the i7 965, with 6GB, overclocked to 4.0 (171)

The actual database is a little sucky. People don't always specify all the details - RAM, etc.

Weiyang Liu wrote:
dan727 wrote:
Q9450 2.66@3.2ghz, 8gb ram, gigabyte p35-dsl3 = 4:51

But I do get great frame rates when I play Left 4 Dead.

, left for dead 4. You definitely have me beat for that. I didn't even buy a new graphics card for this system. Still using a 256mb HD3850 that I bought used a while back for the old system.

Ouch... not a bad card for most stuff though. I broke down and spent $85 on an ATI 4830. Mainly because it is nearly dead silent... well until I break out left 4 dead and it heats up.

AMD Athlon 64 x2 4200+, Windows Vista64bit, 4 gB ram CS4 64bit.

32:25!!

I think its time to upgrade!

Bram

Burdie wrote:
AMD Athlon 64 x2 4200+, Windows Vista64bit, 4 gB ram CS4 64bit.

32:25!!

I think its time to upgrade!

Bram

That's the exact same system I have that I upgraded from. I was sick and tired of doing noise reduction on it. Lightroom was also incredibly slow. I haven't done this test on the old computer but 30+ minutes sounds about right comparing what it did against my laptop and my laptop was 15+ minutes.

You can upgrade to a Core2 for pretty cheap. Go for the lowest end quad core and get a good aftermarket heat sink and fan. Then you can overclock it quite a bit. Or you can spend a little more and get an i7 and do what I did.

Steve Perry wrote:

Wish I would have kept mine! And the tape recorder - always took a few tries to load the program with that thing

Same here, I actually had a Realistic (Radio Shack) CTR-41 cassette recorder especially for the job. Turns out there was a bug in the software that was timing the data sample at the clock edge rather than the midpoint between clock edges. Needless to say it was very temperamental.

I was probably one of the first people to ever overclock their systems. The board came with a 4MHz crystal oscillator and a DFF divide by two. By taking the 7474 DFF chip out and bridging clk-q you could soup it up 200% (from 2MHz - 4MHz). Let's see you Core i7 guys do that! Of course the Z-80 took a minimum of 4 clock cycles to do anything at all, so compared to modern superscalar systems it really had an effective clock of 500KHz (overclocked), so my E6600 is 4800x faster based on instruction cycle speed alone.

Wow camey - talk about getting into it! I just used mine at the standard speed - would have no clue at all how to do what you did! They were fun though!

froze on the first run

second run
16'38''
2.4 Ghz Intelcore2duo MBP 10.4.11 with 4 GB 667Mhz RAM

Interesting. I got my friend to do this on his stock Q6600 w/ 4GB 800mhz DDR2 ram and he got 17:58.

Core i7 Extreme 965, 3.2 ghz, no OC, Geforce 280 graphics card, 12 gb Corsair dominator RAM, twin Intel SSD's in Raid 0 array for os, programs, twin WD 1TB drives in Raid 1 for data, water cooled...

Vista Ultimate, PS CS4: 32 bit version, 3:30; 64 bit version, 2:42

Built the system myself this year... interesting project.

Larry

LDBecker wrote:
Core i7 Extreme 965, 3.2 ghz, no OC, Geforce 280 graphics card, 12 gb Corsair dominator RAM, twin Intel SSD's in Raid 0 array for os, programs, twin WD 1TB drives in Raid 1 for data, water cooled...

Vista Ultimate, PS CS4: 32 bit version, 3:30; 64 bit version, 2:42

Built the system myself this year... interesting project.

Larry

Lord Almighty. How much did that set you back??

I don't want to talk about it... it was painful... but when I start up PS CS4 in less than 3 seconds, it still makes me smile... Files from my Canon 5DII are very quickly handled.

I just got tired of having pcs go obsolete every 2 years. Building my own means I can swap out mb or processors or graphics cards when I want to, not when Dell or HP decides it's ok. The SSD Raid 0 was driven not just by speed concerns but by capacity. The Intel SSDs at this point max out at 160 gb. Going to Raid 0 gives me 320gb or so to work with for OS and programs. I may redo it when Win7 comes out.

The case I went with is dead quiet and has water cooling built in... it's the Zalman LQ1000. I had never done water before and wanted a preconfigured solution. This is pretty slick. I use it in my office and my old Dell P4 was so loud that I could barely hear people talk over it. On warm days I'd have to shut it down. But the Zalman is a really heavy duty thing and will be my case for the next couple of builds I'm sure.

Larry

4:56

Home built, Windows 7, 4 gb ram, Q600 core 2 quad @ 2.4, oc to 3.2 ghz, raptor drive, photoshop CS3. Going to get CS4 soon.

First time I ran, I had just reinstalled the CS3 on the Window 7, memory was set at 55%, it ran at 6:06. Plus the scratch disk was on the C drive, which was a raptor drive also. Then I swapped the scratch disk to a physically separate raptor drive, E, and bumped the memory to 70 percent, then it did 4:56.

UPDATE:

Previously I had run the test with CS3-32 bit. I installed CS4-64 bit and here are those results... Still all run under Windows 7 RC.

60% memory:2085 butes = 6:19
71% memory:2458 bytes = 6:04
80% memory:2822 bytes = 5:41

I guess the 64 bit really doesn't come into play here, just the processor?? My Windows 7 CS3 is the fastest. I will have to try it on my XP setup.