Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: New Mac Pro or iMac  (Read 7300 times)
Rajan Parrikar
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 837



WWW
« Reply #20 on: January 13, 2014, 06:15:56 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm very very skeptical of the reported 1.8 second time...


So am I.  I am eager to see how CC fares on the 6-core nMP since it is my intended system.
Logged

jerryrock
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 564



WWW
« Reply #21 on: January 13, 2014, 06:21:18 PM »
ReplyReply

I entered that benchmark score.

That benchmark test itself is sketchy as it requires your reaction time to stop and start a stopwatch as well as click to start the test and click the stopwatch as you see the end of test indicator. A better test would use the timing function of Photoshop's drop down menu.

Logged

Gerald J Skrocki
skrockidesign.com
Craig Lamson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 766



WWW
« Reply #22 on: January 13, 2014, 06:44:16 PM »
ReplyReply

I entered that benchmark score.

That benchmark test itself is sketchy as it requires your reaction time to stop and start a stopwatch as well as click to start the test and click the stopwatch as you see the end of test indicator. A better test would use the timing function of Photoshop's drop down menu.



So did you actually time the test with a stopwatch?  Your result looks very much like the time required to complete the final setup in the action as timed by the Photoshop timer function.  I don't doubt your new machine is fast, just not this fast.

A 4 core runs the test in 11 seconds and yours runs 1.8 sec? 

Why not do a quick video so we can time it our self.

Logged

Craig Lamson Photo
www.craiglamson.com
Alan Goldhammer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1663


WWW
« Reply #23 on: January 13, 2014, 06:44:48 PM »
ReplyReply

Don't forget the 3rd part of the equation...fast drives!

Lightroom does a lot of small packet data exchanges to/from/back to the catalog. That pushes the read/write needs of the hard drive even more in some cases than sustained reads/writes. That's why SSD and raid arrays are really good for Lightroom. I keep my catalog on a small super fast stripped SAS drives and my main image storage in a big external (and slower) raid. But that was then...with my new MacPro, I'll use the internal SSD for boot and put in a pair (at least, maybe 4) SSDs for LR catalogs (and Photoshop scratch). Don't exactly know yet what I'll end up with. I'll let you know when I do...
Quite right.  I was amazed when I built my new system earlier in the year and put in an SSD and a faster hard drive.  Look forward to hearing about your final set up when it's configured (though it still won't convince me to go the Mac route!).
Logged

jerryrock
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 564



WWW
« Reply #24 on: January 13, 2014, 06:50:12 PM »
ReplyReply

So did you actually time the test with a stopwatch?  Your result looks very much like the time required to complete the final setup in the action as timed by the Photoshop timer function.  I don't doubt your new machine is fast, just not this fast.

A 4 core runs the test in 11 seconds and yours runs 1.8 sec?  

Why not do a quick video so we can time it our self.


You're exactly right, I did use the Photoshop timer function and as such probably drew a false result. I did that test after completing this one, which produced a more accurate and predictable result.

http://ksimonian.com/Blog/2010/02/24/improved-photoshop-benchmark-cpu-speed-test-for-both-mac-pc-free-radial-blur-filter-test/

14.5 seconds to complete your radial blur test. (Note: Photoshop only makes use of one of the two installed GPUs)
Late 2013 MacPro 3.5 GHz Intel® Xeon Processor E5-1650 v2, OSX 10.9.1 (Mavericks), Photoshop CC ( CS6.1.2 )
Adobe Photoshop Version: 14.1.2 (14.1.2 20130923.r.427 2013/09/23:23:00:00) x64
Operating System: Mac OS 10.9.1
System architecture: Intel CPU Family:6, Model:62, Stepping:4 with MMX, SSE Integer, SSE FP, SSE2, SSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, HyperThreading
Physical processor count: 6
Logical processor count: 12
Processor speed: 3500 MHz
Built-in memory: 65536 MB
Free memory: 43700 MB
Memory available to Photoshop: 62834 MB
Memory used by Photoshop: 70 %

I also did the Blackmagic Disk Speed Tests that are already recorded in this forum. If you have any other specific tests you would like performed please let me know.
« Last Edit: January 13, 2014, 06:54:08 PM by jerryrock » Logged

Gerald J Skrocki
skrockidesign.com
Craig Lamson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 766



WWW
« Reply #25 on: January 13, 2014, 07:50:12 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks for the clarification Jerry
Logged

Craig Lamson Photo
www.craiglamson.com
Steve Weldon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1460



WWW
« Reply #26 on: January 13, 2014, 09:15:18 PM »
ReplyReply

Quite right.  I was amazed when I built my new system earlier in the year and put in an SSD and a faster hard drive.  Look forward to hearing about your final set up when it's configured (though it still won't convince me to go the Mac route!).

Time is a strange thing.. I'm pretty sure it was this forum (the only photography forum I bother with) where I got a load of static and challenges and middle fingers when I dared suggest SSD's could be used to great effect in LR. (especially the catalog).  I suspected then.. and feel the same now.. the disagreement came from those who hadn't yet purchased one of those new fangled digital thingamabobs..  Roll Eyes
Logged

----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com
jerryrock
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 564



WWW
« Reply #27 on: January 13, 2014, 09:25:37 PM »
ReplyReply

... I suspected then.. and feel the same now.. the disagreement came from those who hadn't yet purchased one of those new fangled digital thingamabobs..  Roll Eyes

I totally agree!

Logged

Gerald J Skrocki
skrockidesign.com
Steve Weldon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1460



WWW
« Reply #28 on: January 13, 2014, 10:29:21 PM »
ReplyReply

Okay, we can't have someone posting a benchmark with the nMP claiming a 1.8s.. and not get curious can we?  Well, can we?    Cheesy

With nothing else running, anti virus disabled, etc..  I achieved a best 16.2s   A worst of 39.2s with everything turned on which would for me would include Outlook email client, Firefox with 8 tabs, Utorrent (hard at work), and a handful of gadgets..    This is with a 4770k with 32gb, GTX-770, Win7 x64 Ultimate, and a Vertex 4 SSD for the system disks.  My other 2 SSD's (LR catalog and system/PS Cache disk.  No over clocking or other tricks.

I can't help but think it should be down in the 11-12s range..  Any suggestions?
Logged

----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com
Alan Goldhammer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1663


WWW
« Reply #29 on: January 14, 2014, 06:57:03 AM »
ReplyReply

Time is a strange thing.. I'm pretty sure it was this forum (the only photography forum I bother with) where I got a load of static and challenges and middle fingers when I dared suggest SSD's could be used to great effect in LR. (especially the catalog).  I suspected then.. and feel the same now.. the disagreement came from those who hadn't yet purchased one of those new fangled digital thingamabobs..  Roll Eyes
How big is your LR catalog?  Right now my catalog is sitting on a WD Caviar Black HDD which is one of the fastest around and it's fine for my purposes (it's already much faster than my old system which just had a HDD and no SSD).  I'm pretty ruthless about deleting bad images so my total catalog is probably much smaller than others here.  With the cost of SSDs coming way down, I can add a second one for the catalog.
Logged

Craig Lamson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 766



WWW
« Reply #30 on: January 14, 2014, 08:47:00 AM »
ReplyReply

Okay, we can't have someone posting a benchmark with the nMP claiming a 1.8s.. and not get curious can we?  Well, can we?    Cheesy

With nothing else running, anti virus disabled, etc..  I achieved a best 16.2s   A worst of 39.2s with everything turned on which would for me would include Outlook email client, Firefox with 8 tabs, Utorrent (hard at work), and a handful of gadgets..    This is with a 4770k with 32gb, GTX-770, Win7 x64 Ultimate, and a Vertex 4 SSD for the system disks.  My other 2 SSD's (LR catalog and system/PS Cache disk.  No over clocking or other tricks.

I can't help but think it should be down in the 11-12s range..  Any suggestions?


It should be faster.  Mine is 11.2 ...sandybridge I7, 32gb, gtx670, Vertex 4 system, Agility4 scratch.  The system is a hack running 10.9.1, CS6
Logged

Craig Lamson Photo
www.craiglamson.com
kers
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 754


WWW
« Reply #31 on: January 14, 2014, 09:31:26 AM »
ReplyReply

I am on an almost 6 year old Macpro 3.1  2x 2,8ghz

it takes 18 tot 21s  ;  10.6.8 seems to be about 5-10% faster than 10.9.1 (Photoshop CS6)

So i am a bit disappointed with small difference with the new processors if they cannot even double the speed.
« Last Edit: January 14, 2014, 10:39:44 AM by kers » Logged

Pieter Kers
www.beeld.nu
Steve Weldon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1460



WWW
« Reply #32 on: January 14, 2014, 09:55:50 AM »
ReplyReply


It should be faster.  Mine is 11.2 ...sandybridge I7, 32gb, gtx670, Vertex 4 system, Agility4 scratch.  The system is a hack running 10.9.1, CS6

Yours sounds right.   Would you mind changing your scratch to the same as your system and and disabling your current scratch SSD?   I know this isn't optimum, but it's what I'm running at the moment since I re-designated my scratch SSD to..  well.. nefarious purposes.   Shocked Shocked

This will let me know how much of a priority replacing it will be.
Logged

----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com
Steve Weldon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1460



WWW
« Reply #33 on: January 14, 2014, 10:02:23 AM »
ReplyReply

How big is your LR catalog?  Right now my catalog is sitting on a WD Caviar Black HDD which is one of the fastest around and it's fine for my purposes (it's already much faster than my old system which just had a HDD and no SSD).  I'm pretty ruthless about deleting bad images so my total catalog is probably much smaller than others here.  With the cost of SSDs coming way down, I can add a second one for the catalog.

At the moment nearly 550gb and on a WD Black as well.  I've tested it on a 1tb Evo and it's a new machine.  But I've re-purposed my scratch and catalogue SSD's at least for now. 

Later this morning I'll run the same setup as a hack and see if the operating systems exact a price.
Logged

----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com
Craig Lamson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 766



WWW
« Reply #34 on: January 14, 2014, 10:56:11 AM »
ReplyReply

Yours sounds right.   Would you mind changing your scratch to the same as your system and and disabling your current scratch SSD?   I know this isn't optimum, but it's what I'm running at the moment since I re-designated my scratch SSD to..  well.. nefarious purposes.   Shocked Shocked

This will let me know how much of a priority replacing it will be.

Time is unchanged Steve.
Logged

Craig Lamson Photo
www.craiglamson.com
Steve Weldon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1460



WWW
« Reply #35 on: January 14, 2014, 12:01:40 PM »
ReplyReply

Time is unchanged Steve.

I just spent about the last hour wondering what the heck.. Win7  CS6x64 nets me 14.2 and that's the best.  CCx64 16.2

OsX Mavericks  CS6x64  16.3     CCx64  16.1


Maybe it's something in the BIOS.. I assume you're not over clocking?  What do you have your RAM memory set to and your CPU settings?  Maybe I turned off the turbo boost enable.. will check later when I have some free time.

Logged

----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com
jerryrock
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 564



WWW
« Reply #36 on: January 14, 2014, 12:29:26 PM »
ReplyReply

Okay, we can't have someone posting a benchmark with the nMP claiming a 1.8s.. and not get curious can we?  Well, can we?    Cheesy

With nothing else running, anti virus disabled, etc..  I achieved a best 16.2s   A worst of 39.2s with everything turned on which would for me would include Outlook email client, Firefox with 8 tabs, Utorrent (hard at work), and a handful of gadgets..    This is with a 4770k with 32gb, GTX-770, Win7 x64 Ultimate, and a Vertex 4 SSD for the system disks.  My other 2 SSD's (LR catalog and system/PS Cache disk.  No over clocking or other tricks.

I can't help but think it should be down in the 11-12s range..  Any suggestions?

The instructions for the original test (that I initially screwed up) were to set history states to 1, cache levels to 4 and memory to 100% under the performance tab. Install the Photoshop action, reboot the computer, start Photoshop, load the test image and run the action.

Test can be found here: http://clubofone.com/speedtest/?%3f%3f

After some prodding I ran the test again (twice) using the stopwatch of my iPhone this time. Test results are as follows:

1st run: 9.10 seconds
2nd run: 9.08 seconds


Again, without using the Photoshop auto timing function, your reaction time comes into play.

MacPro 6,1 3.5GHz 6-Core Intel E-5, 64GB 1866MHz DDR3 (OWC) RAM, dual AMD FirePro D500's, Apple 256GB PCI SSD.
Adobe Photoshop Version: 14.1.2 (14.1.2 20130923.r.427 2013/09/23:23:00:00) x64
Operating System: Mac OS 10.9.1

Logged

Gerald J Skrocki
skrockidesign.com
Steve Weldon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1460



WWW
« Reply #37 on: January 14, 2014, 02:35:57 PM »
ReplyReply

Time is unchanged Steve.
Craig -

I"ve been looking at this..  Your time for 11s seems out of this world compared to the listed results.  You're in the company of a six core 3939k at 3.2k over clocked to 4.8ghz (10.8s, another one over clocked to 4.2ghz (11.7s) , and one more over clocked to 4.7ghz (11.8s).  Then a dual core Xeon 2.93ghz Nehalem (13.4s), Now here's the CPU you have a i-2700k  but over clocked to 5.1 (13.4s)..  and waaaay down the list we get to the first non-over clocked 2700k at 19.0s..  

It doesn't appear they've updated the list since the 4770k came out.. but my scores are looking perfectly reasonable in comparison to the list.

Yours.. well.. we're either running the test differently or you've been over clocking for the first time.. and if so doing a damn good job of it.. you'd have to be up there at about 6ghz.

One area we might be different is the file.  When I download it from inside FF on my Windows half I get a 4.8mb jpeg..   From FF on my Mac half it isn't defined.. and is unusable.  I had go to "open with" to get a file I could use.


Before I chase more ghosts could you give things another look again?
« Last Edit: January 14, 2014, 02:38:22 PM by Steve Weldon » Logged

----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com
Steve Weldon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1460



WWW
« Reply #38 on: January 14, 2014, 02:51:11 PM »
ReplyReply


Again, without using the Photoshop auto timing function, your reaction time comes into play.


Thanks Jerry.  I'm using the Auto Timing function.. you only have to use the stopwatch method once (with a phone or something similar) to realize what a folly that is.

Looking more closely at the test results.. your scores are a second or two faster than Ivy Bridge Hex Cores which are over clocked.. so I could see a second  or two difference with your nMP until I'm guessing your not yet over clocked and they're well over clocked.   Makes me wonder what magic they packed in the nMP, the PCIe (if that matters in this test and I don't think it does) might bring a second.. but if you consider we need to compensate for roughly 2 seconds, and considering they're over clocked.. I don't see 'only' a new CPU generation providing that much gain.  RAM doesn't make a difference, apparently SSD's don't..   So when you compare hex core to hex core.. it's not making sense.  And apparently the video card doesn't make a difference, I disabled mine GTX-770 and there was no difference.

What made the differences in mine were CS versions, x32 vs. x64,  RAM usage (this made a difference, yet the amount doesn't make a difference?  hmm..),  history state settings, and how much "other stuff" I managed to turn off.. (biggest effect)..

Logged

----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com
kers
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 754


WWW
« Reply #39 on: January 14, 2014, 02:57:01 PM »
ReplyReply

Test results are as follows:
...
1st run: 9.10 seconds
2nd run: 9.08 seconds

...

hello Jerry, thank you for sharing; everybody wants to know how fast the new Macpro is for Photoshop ...
some interesting articles already appeared - i like the Anandtech review..
http://www.anandtech.com/show/7603/mac-pro-review-late-2013/7
Anand Lal Shimpi does a very good job explaining what to expect from the new machine and what not.


I did the speedtest on my old macpro 3.1 ... 2008 - 2x 2,8 GHZ quadcore - 16gig ram- .. MacOSX10.6.8- Photoshop CS6
ran it two times:  17 second on both occasions.

If somebody has the latest and fastest iMac i would not be surprised it would be fastest on these tests.

cheers Pieter Kers

(Must say the tests do not give a very good insight in the computer as a whole; for instance the GPU works especially well with filters like liquify...and ramspeed is hardly addressed...but it seems a good multicore test...)



Logged

Pieter Kers
www.beeld.nu
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad