Jump to content

Mac Pro preliminary test results.

peter_lawrence
 Share

Recommended Posts

peter_lawrence

peter_lawrence

Posted
Posted

<br>

MacInTouch, a Macintosh information site, has just published preliminary benchmark test results of a

new 2.66 GHz 1GB RAM Mac Pro that they just bought.<br>

<br>

Of particular interest to photographers are the Photoshop CS2 tests that they conducted on the Mac

Pro, and also on a Power Mac G5 Dual and a Dell 9150 Pentium D PC's. These results are near the

bottom of the test results web page: <b><a href="http://www.macintouch.com/reviews/macpro/

prelim.html">www.macintouch.com/reviews/macpro/prelim.html</a></b><br>

<br>

The overall Photoshop test results are not surprising. The older Power Mac G5 Dual completed the

Photoshop CS2 tasks about twice as fast as the new Mac Pro. This is to be expected because Adobe has

yet to recompile Photoshop to run natively on Intel-based Macs running OS X.<br>

<br>

What MacInTouch didn't test is how fast the new Mac Pro runs Photoshop CS2 under Windows XP.<br>

<br>

Link to comment
Share on other sites
scott_eaton

scott_eaton

Posted
Posted

<I>What MacInTouch didn't test is how fast the new Mac Pro runs Photoshop CS2 under Windows XP.

 

</i><P>I'm betting they did, but it doesn't prove anything. The new Mac Pro is losing Altivec and being hit with a Rosetta penalty,so it' no wonder the dualie G5 is pounding it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
._._z

._._z

Posted
Posted

Once again Scott's key fingers are faster than his brain. Too bad he missed -- AND QUOTED -- Peter talking about running PSC2 under *Windows*.

 

But by now does anyone expect anything less than absurd, spittle-flecked anti-Apple rants from Scott?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
kelly_flanigan1

kelly_flanigan1

Posted
Posted
The article is interesting. It contains an error where the author confuses volt amperes with watts ( ie power ). This is a glaring error. Volt amperes can be measured and there is zero power, like with a pure capicitor on a ac circuit. Typically a computer appears as an inductive load, with volt amperes a good bit above the actual watts, sometimes even by two. The lay public and non techicnical writers often get these electrical matters confused, and create bogus graphs. Volt amperes does matter to sizing the branch circuit for a zoo of computers, sizing a UPS, or if you have a demand meter on your business that dings/boosts your rate. This might be important to a server farm or web provider.<BR><BR>With a dumb 60 watt edison bulb at 60hz the volt amperes is still about 60 VA and the watts are 60, for a unity power factor. With a computer and monitor the volt amperes might be 100 to 200, and the watts about 60. <BR><BR>Re <i>Next, we took a look at the power usage of the Mac Pro vs. a Power Mac G5/2.0GHz dual-core (PCI Express) system with a 20" iMac Core Duo for perspective (we didn't measure monitor power for the tower Macs, but each had one extra SATA hard drive installed). For testing, we used a Kill-a-Watt monitor we bought from Amazon to measure volt-amperes (VA).</i><BR><BR>
Link to comment
Share on other sites
scott_eaton

scott_eaton

Posted
Posted

<I>But by now does anyone expect anything less than absurd, spittle-flecked anti-Apple rants from Scott?</i><P>

 

Given your only purpose here is to talk about Apple and use a stupid upper ANSI alias, we should conclude you're an Apple Salesman. However, if you want to be a jerk about it, then please explain with all the ease at which you use your Mac why you don't have a single frikken photo upload on photo.net? <P>

 

 

<P>I also failed to see where my statment included any rants:<P>(1) You can't run (legally) OSX on the Dell for comparison, so there woulnd't be much point in running XP on the Mac Pro.<P>(2) Altivec is not available on the Intel architecture, and this significantly hurts the Mac Pro's Performance<P>(3) Rosetta also slaps the Mac Pro in the face, so Strike 2.<P>(4) Windows users and not going to run out and buy Mac Pros and load Vista on them when E-machine will be selling the same box for $899 a year from now.<P>Conclusion: Apple users have a good gripe, and I'm agreeing with Peter. Not sure what you're brain damage is. Somebody hack your Xbox live account or something?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
scott_eaton

scott_eaton

Posted
Posted
<I>Joking aside, I have a MacBook capable of running XP. Not bad, and its way better than my Dell laptop</i><P>According to the benchmarks Peter posted, the Mac Pro had a hard time with the dual core P4 Dell in a lot of tests (the Altivec / Rosetta issue again). However, that same Pentium D is getting destroyed by Conroe in non Apple benchmarks. So, I'm betting if you bought a Mac Pro you'd claim it ran better than a Dell running the same processor as well.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Karim Ghantous

Karim Ghantous

Posted
Posted

Seems that the G5 is still the preferred CPU for photographers for the moment if you want maximum performance with OS X. Another good point is that they are priced very well - in fact cheaper than they probably need to be. Oh well, whatever - all the better if you're buying one!

 

.[. Z wrote: "But by now does anyone expect anything less than absurd, spittle-flecked anti-Apple rants from Scott?"

 

What *rant*?? Seems you are the one not reading posts properly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
godfrey

godfrey

Posted
Posted

<i>

.."Seems that the G5 is still the preferred CPU for photographers for the moment if you

want maximum performance with OS X. Another good point is that they are priced very

well.." ..

</i>

<br><br>

Yes, that was my analysis in March and why I bought the PowerMac G5 I needed. I figure it

will be Q1 of 2007 at least before my principal image processing tools (Photoshop of

course) is ready and that will be at least one year of use out of a three-four year

depreciation for my new hardware.

<br><br>

For my needs, the G5 and CS2 is probably quite good enough on performance for the next

couple of years to come. One doesn't always have to be at the bleeding edge to have

adequate performance for productivity.

<br><br>

Godfrey

Link to comment
Share on other sites
._._z

._._z

Posted
Posted

Scott's reading comprehension, not to mention, logical analysis, is lacking. Peter specifically asked about the speed of Photoshop under Windows on the new Macs -- something they indeed can do. This sent Scott off in another dizzying tirade.

 

Try decaf, Scott.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
digitaldog

digitaldog

Posted
Posted

--> This sent Scott off in another dizzying tirade.

 

He's getting way too predictable!

 

And then there's the URL I posted in a similar Scott rant about the price (premium) he

loves to think Mac people have to pay which is way, way off:

 

http://www.macworld.com/2006/08/features/macproprice/index.php

Author “Color Management for Photographers" & "Photoshop CC Color Management" (pluralsight.com)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...