Do you guys feel that the test correlates well with YOUR typical PS use? I don't do any PS use where it's spending that much time doing anything to a single image. My "heavy" usage is more along the line of maybe 4sec of processing, but doing it to hundreds of images through action.
If anyone is interested in doing some comparative testing along those lines I'd be interested.
wsmeyer wrote:
Do you guys feel that the test correlates well with YOUR typical PS use? I don't do any PS use where it's spending that much time doing anything to a single image. My "heavy" usage is more along the line of maybe 4sec of processing, but doing it to hundreds of images through action.
If anyone is interested in doing some comparative testing along those lines I'd be interested.
William.
The test does not appear to measure your system in a typical use case. It is purely a measure of how fast PS works on your system. If your longest processing task takes only a 3-4 seconds, then speed differences would be far less obvious and probably less important to you. This is mainly an esoteric exercise in computational speed.
nathanlake wrote:
I am not sure I understand what the advantage would be of using a larger image. You could easily create a test that took longer, but not sure how it would better measure the speed of the system.
Because the test uses, in my opinion, too few of the resources available to the computer. It can pretty much carry out the entire operation within 4gb of ram without hitting the scratch disk in any major way, and mostly tests the speed of the CPU (and Ram). This is fine if you do small things to small images, but in that case I would argue you may be better off with Lightroom or Aperture. Real world speed in Photoshop however, is a mixture of CPU speed, Ram speed/capacity and scratchdisk speed.
For example, an Sandybridge system with 4GB of ram may carry out this test blindingly quickly, but a Core2Quad system with 16GB of ram and a fast scratchdisk would be far more suitable as a Photoshop machine for a far wider variety of tasks (and image sizes, especially an 8bit TIFF from a common camera like the 5D2), because as soon as you run out of 4GB of ram the system will hit the deck.
Basically I think the result of this test just shows how fast your CPU and Ram are, not how suitable your system is as a general Photoshop machine. Something a larger source image would address.
AdrianRogers wrote:
For example, an Sandybridge system with 4GB of ram may carry out this test blindingly quickly, but a Core2Quad system with 16GB of ram and a fast scratchdisk would be far more suitable as a Photoshop machine for a far wider variety of tasks (and image sizes, especially an 8bit TIFF from a common camera like the 5D2), because as soon as you run out of 4GB of ram the system will hit the deck.
Could you flesh out the Core 2 vs Sandybridge statement? The charts at Tom's Hardware, which show benchmark results using a 69MB image and CS5, have the Intel Core 2 quad lagging quite a bit behind the i7 and i5 processors.
Ho1972 wrote:
Could you flesh out the Core 2 vs Sandybridge statement? The charts at Tom's Hardware, which show benchmark results using a 69MB image and CS5, have the Intel Core 2 quad lagging quite a bit behind the i7 and i5 processors.
I think you've missed my point. It's not about just having a super fast CPU (And I'm well aware the Sandybridge CPUs are much faster than the Core2Quads), it's about having a balanced system. And as this test pretty much only tests CPU/Ram speed, I don't think it provides a very good indication as to the machines suitability for general Photoshop use (So it's purpose as a 'Photoshop speed test' is pretty useless, IMO). Look at my example again, not just the CPU types, which would you rather have for editing? Because the former will give you the better time in this test.
OK, I thought you were implying that, all things being equal (RAM, scratch, etc.), that the Core 2 quad would be the better choice under a heavy work load. As someone who will be building new this year I didn't want to overlook any options.
Ho1972 wrote:
OK, I thought you were implying that, all things being equal (RAM, scratch, etc.), that the Core 2 quad would be the better choice under a heavy work load. As someone who will be building new this year I didn't want to overlook any options.
Oh heck no. If I were building a custom system right now it would have a 2600K, 16GB of Ram, SSD for OS + Photoshop and a few 500GB RAID0 scratch. Depending on your intended workflow all the above is far from a necessity, just nice to have if you can afford it You could of course go for a Mac Pro but if you're already looking at the custom route I presume it's with good reason.
2600k with 16GB of ram and a single 500GB F3 as a dedicated scratch will be able to take just about anything you can think to throw at it. And with current ram prices it's a no brainer as far as I'm concerned! Like I say, it's about system balance. Photoshop isn't all about the CPU, you should have lots of ram and a large disk to dump temp files too that ISN'T the OS drive.
If the 2600K looks a bit rich then go for the 2500K instead, but don't go for the 2600K and 8GB of ram over the 2500K and 16GB. The hyperthreading isn't worth loosing double the ram capacity (Not sure what pricing is like in the US but it's not far off that in the UK last time I checked). A computer with that at it's core could easily last the next 3-5 years pending camera developments. One of my systems is as old as the P45 chipset (mid 2008) and I can see another 1/2 years in it easily. And that's using it as a retoucher, not a photographer, on fairly large files.
You could of course go for a Mac Pro but if you're already looking at the custom route I presume it's with good reason.