MacAddict: 2GB Ram + G5 + Photoshop = Holy S**t!
MacAddict has a pretty cool article up of some G5 tests. Interesting to note that going from 512MB to 2GB Ram in Photoshop made for some pretty dramatic results.
http://www.macaddict.com/news/news_007.html
"My favorite comparison: Rotating a 115MB PSD file on a Quicksilver with 512MB of RAM takes, on average, 41.25 seconds; on the Dual 2GHz G5 with 2GB of DDR SDRAM, the same task takes 2.15 seconds -- that's, oh, about 20 times as fast. "
Hopefully any app that likes ram and bandwidth will benefit.
http://www.macaddict.com/news/news_007.html
"My favorite comparison: Rotating a 115MB PSD file on a Quicksilver with 512MB of RAM takes, on average, 41.25 seconds; on the Dual 2GHz G5 with 2GB of DDR SDRAM, the same task takes 2.15 seconds -- that's, oh, about 20 times as fast. "
Hopefully any app that likes ram and bandwidth will benefit.
Comments
Originally posted by opuscroakus
MacAddict has a pretty cool article up of some G5 tests. Interesting to note that going from 512MB to 2GB Ram in Photoshop made for some pretty dramatic results.
http://www.macaddict.com/news/news_007.html
"My favorite comparison: Rotating a 115MB PSD file on a Quicksilver with 512MB of RAM takes, on average, 41.25 seconds; on the Dual 2GHz G5 with 2GB of DDR SDRAM, the same task takes 2.15 seconds -- that's, oh, about 20 times as fast. "
Hopefully any app that likes ram and bandwidth will benefit.
Originally posted by DVD_Junkie
... But what would the final numbers really be like for the 1.8 G5 and the G4's if they also had 2GB of RAM? That I would really like to know.
Agreed. I wouldn't think that much ram would help the G4's due to the 167Mhz FSB, but I would like to see how the single 1.6/1.8 G5's perform with 2GB of ram in those tests.
<<drools profusely>>
This is a dual 1 GHz QuickSilver with 1.5 GB of PC133.
Another reason why MacAddict and practically every other Mac mag sucks these days.
Originally posted by Eugene
practically every other Mac mag sucks these days.
Couldn't say better.
Originally posted by Eugene
Not to burst your bubble, but I created a 115 MB square PSD file that was completely static ... lots of entropy. Using "rotate canvas," it performed the action in less than 2 seconds. Using the "transform" rotate function, it performs the task in 2.7 seconds.
This is a dual 1 GHz QuickSilver with 1.5 GB of PC133.
Another reason why MacAddict and practically every other Mac mag sucks these days.
Not that I'm doubting your numbers, but how, in any way does this prove that MacAddict's numbers are wrong? You've got 3x the ram and a system that's about 20% faster using a different psd file. The only way this would cast doubt on their findings would be if you used the exact same file and found different results.
sure, they may be overstating the point, but no more than you're understating it...
Originally posted by torifile
Not that I'm doubting your numbers, but how, in any way does this prove that MacAddict's numbers are wrong? You've got 3x the ram and a system that's about 20% faster using a different psd file.
It's a well-known fact that any manipulation on a 115MB PSD takes more than 230MB of RAM. Then it depends on how your system is loaded and how Photoshop is configured (memory allocation and history). If the settings included an open-file snapshot creation and allocated RAM was set to 75%, 512MB was barely enough to rotate any 115MB file without swapping. Even 1GB of RAM would guarantee that all necessary data fits in RAM, which can make a dramatic difference.
Originally posted by torifile
Not that I'm doubting your numbers, but how, in any way does this prove that MacAddict's numbers are wrong? You've got 3x the ram and a system that's about 20% faster using a different psd file. The only way this would cast doubt on their findings would be if you used the exact same file and found different results.
sure, they may be overstating the point, but no more than you're understating it...
Don't be foolish.
I'm saying they completely left out the obvious comparison, with the intention to deceive. Why didn't they bother including a maxed out dual G4 system for comparison, eh?
Fact: Even if the PSD was a completely solid color or a different shape, the timing wouldn't change dramatically. Not for a 90 degree rotate since it doesn't do any aliasing or anything like that. It's basically changing coordinates of each pixel...nothing more.
My computer is so obselete. The 23" Display on the G5 doesn't make it any better either
Barto
Originally posted by Eugene
Not for a 90 degree rotate since it doesn't do any aliasing or anything like that. It's basically changing coordinates of each pixel...nothing more.
Or, more precisely, just moving memory without any calculations.