Dear Mac Photoshop users....

[Free Range Lobster]

You got served.


Comparison results 1 (High End Overclocked Intel PC):
Intel Extreme Edition processor 3.73 ghz @ 4.1ghz (64 bit processor), Asus P5AD2-E Motherboard 1002 bios, 2 gig of OCZ ram running at 800mhz 8-2-3-4. OCZ 520 Powerstream supply. Maxtor 300gig 16 meg Cache HD, Windows XP 64 bit Professional. Photoshop CS.
Other test results will be added shortly on other systems, for more results and to compare with our members, please visit this thread on our forums.

1: Texturiser Test (1)
2.5 seconds
2: CYMK Colour Conversion
3.1 seconds
3: RGB Colour Conversion
5.5 seconds
4: Dust and Scratches
6.1 seconds
5: Watercolour
21.3 seconds
6: Texturiser Test (2)
2.6 seconds
7: Stained Glass
9.5 seconds
8: Lighting Effects
5.2 seconds
9: Mosiac Tiles
12.1 seconds
10: Extrude
38 seconds
11: Smart Blur
22 seconds
12. Underpainting
18 seconds
Total time: 145.9 seconds.

Comparison results 2 (Laptop):
1.6 Dothan, 512MB PC2700 (2x256), XP Home, Pshop 7.0, 60GB 4200rpm HDD

1: Texturiser Test (1)
4.0 seconds
2: CYMK Colour Conversion
11.4 seconds
3: RGB Colour Conversion
13.1 seconds
4: Dust and Scratches
51.3 seconds
5: Watercolour
42.5 seconds
6: Texturiser Test (2)
14.8 seconds
7: Stained Glass
339.6 seconds
8: Lighting Effects
14.0 seconds
9: Mosiac Tiles
24.3 seconds
10: Extrude
81.9 seconds
11: Smart Blur
43.2 seconds
12. Underpainting
38.3 seconds
Total time: 678.4 seconds.

Comparison Results 3 (High End Macintosh System):
http://homepage.mac.com/znowdog/ - thanks : Lars Broberg
PowerMac G5, dual 2.5, 2GB ram, WD Raptor, Photoshop CS

1: Texturiser Test (1)
10.1 seconds
2: CYMK Colour Conversion
2.2 seconds
3: RGB Colour Conversion
2.4 seconds
4: Dust and Scratches
3.5 seconds
5: Watercolour
29.9 seconds
6: Texturiser Test (2)
8.5 seconds
7: Stained Glass
10.8 seconds
8: Lighting Effects
4.4 seconds
9: Mosiac Tiles
40.4 seconds
10: Extrude
65.8 seconds
11: Smart Blur
60.3 seconds
12. Underpainting
38.4 seconds
Total time: 276.7 seconds.

[Arty50]

I can do 12 other benchmarks that prove you wrong. All of the photoshop comparisons have pretty much proven to be shit. PCs are faster in some of the tests, and Macs are faster in other. It all depends on which tests you add up for the "overall" results. And ultimately it only matters which you use on a regular basis.

For instance, in 4 of those 12 tests the Mac was faster. Perhaps some end users run those ops more frequently, and thus a Mac would save them time. Also, that PC has a really nice HD in it (16M cache, rpm?). Those longer tasks (which happen to be the tasks the PC won out in) could be more disk intensive. We really don't know. I'm not trying to say the Mac is really faster. I'm just saying these comparisons almost always fall apart upon further review. It's the reason I don't post threads like this.

I will say one thing though. Have fun with color correction on that pc.

It's one of the main reasons for the numbers below:

"Not surprisingly, according to research from New York-based TrendWatch, 83% of graphic designers, 77% of corporate design departments and 65% of advertising agencies rely on Macintosh computers. And publishers also continue to depend on Apple's machines."

[Free Range Lobster]

I'm pretty sure thats only a 7200rpm drive.

That machine would be interesting with some monster ultra320 15k rpm drives.

MaXLine III


* 250GB and 300GB capacities
* SATA or PATA interface
* 9.3ms average seek time
* 7200 RPM
* S.M.A.R.T. features
* 16MB cache buffer

[focus]

stock mac vs. overclocked pc...... fukker's got a turbo on it, dood...

the benchmarking tests really are pretty meaningless, as arty said. the usage statistics speak volumes more... you think a design professional's gonna be able to get a project done more quickly using a pc than a mac? what's really important here? they're both pretty damn competitive.

different strokes for different folks... i'm still riding high on the fact that my mac always WORKS.... they should factor that shit into the benchmarks.

[Free Range Lobster]

i'm still riding high on the fact that my mac always WORKS.... they should factor that shit into the benchmarks.

Yeah?

This machine I'm on right now hasn't been shut down since I installed the latest motherboard and processor.

That was 4mo's ago.
No spyware
No virii
No BSOD's (well one... caused when i was programming and blew up shit... but im sure its easy to core an os x system doing the same)

Hi, my PC works just as well as your mac, thanks.

Didn't really mean to start a debate, just an amusing test that was run for shits and giggles by an independant site that has no ties to any side of the infamous "OS Wars".

And honestly, if you wanna talk OS Wars, there's 2 great articles written by Brad Wardell of Stardock that totally trashes on the endless battle. I'll link em if you want.

[Benny Profane]

Ahem, move aside, excuse me,...... I am a Photoshop Pro.

Apple stock is at $42 after a recent split. Which, in reality, puts it at $84, when it was in the teens just a few years ago. Why? I Tunes and the I Pod, and bored investors chasing a dream. I think they still have a 4-5 percent market share in computer hardware worldwide. Bizarre. They should be out of the game. They had both publishing and education locked up until Dell massacred them in the schools. Now it's pretty much music and publishing/graphics only. So maybe what I'm saying is that the creative types are so loyal they'll have to pry the G5's from their our dead hands. And we don't have to use anything else - Adobe is taking over the desktop world (fuck off, Quark), and walk lockstep with the Apple developers.

Not sure what I'm getting at, but I've been saying recently, especially after I bought a shuffle, that the death of Steve Jobs will be a great loss to the industry and our country's prestige in the buisiness of technology until the Chinese finally get their act together and really start making cool computers.
Bill Gates just sucks a long one. Paranoid monopolist, can't create a thing if he really tried, even with all the money in the world.

PC's are empty boxes. They just seem to repel artists.

[Schralper]

AMEN Brutha!

[nealric]

PC's are empty boxes. They just seem to repel artists.

My pc is a work of art

The case is handbult and includes a homebrew water cooling system.

While PC has that follow the masses aura to it, the pc is actually in many ways a much more flexible platform. Mac users have basically 2 operating system choices: OSX or The one linux distro made for the max. PC users have literally hundreds of choices (nevermind that 99% just use microsoft because they arent aware anything else exists). If you get a mac, you have no choice in case design. While I agree that the mac cases are quite svelte, you can now get a PC case that looks EXACTLY like a g5 case. Hell, you can get one that says 'g5' on the side if you are into that kinda thing.

Another problem, you can't overclock macs (at least not easily). I get a 30+ % performance increase just by changing a few bios settings.

I do think mac is the way to go for 90% of the people who buy Dells. If you arent computer literate enough to deal with spyware and viruses, you should be using a computer that is not succeptable (macs)

I think what I am getting at is that the people who should be using macs arent the people that do. The graphic design folks should be using overclocked homebuilt computers (if they are smart enough to be doing all that designing, they are smart enough to learn how to do that). Its joe shmo that should be using a mac.

P.S.
What on earth does mac vs. pc have to do with color correction? The video cards are 100% identical except the ones in macs have mac bioses on them. If the monitor is the issure, its perfectly possible to use a mac monitor on a pc.

[meatdrink9]

The only two functions listed that are really used by designers on a regular basis are the color conversion from RGB to CMYK and back (and the mac won out). The rest are just cheesy filter effects. I've done graphic design work on both macs and PCs (at the same time even, had a monitor that switched back and forth). Macs own for print and video, but PCs are solid for web design (smaller files, lower dpi, and most of those who surf the web use PCs so building files that display more accurately for the larger audience is key).

[Arty50]

They had both publishing and education locked up until Dell massacred them in the schools.

They still have a healthy percentage of institutional sales (aka. computers sold directly to schools). I think they're a relatively close number 2. But Dell did come in with a vengeance. Here's a nice FYI though that covers Mac and Linux use among students:

http://www.yaledailynews.com/article.asp?aid=28553

"According to Yale Information Technology Services' registration records, nearly 20 percent of University students and 33 percent of faculty choose Macs over Windows PCs. With a reinvented, cutting-edge operating system and a cool, sleek design, Apple is clawing its way to technological equality on campus. Products like iPod and iTunes have transformed the Apple brand into a status symbol as much as a technological tool, and alternative platforms such as Linux have moved out of the shady realm of hackers and into the public eye."

What on earth does mac vs. pc have to do with color correction? The video cards are 100% identical except the ones in macs have mac bioses on them. If the monitor is the issure, its perfectly possible to use a mac monitor on a pc.

The answer lies with ColorSync. I'm no expert on these matters, so I can just repeat what others have said on this. Whenever this debate comes up, this issue always gets mentioned. Sure Macs and PCs essentially use the same vid cards, monitors, and printers. Naturally, photoshop is available for both platforms also. However, the big sticking point is getting what's on the screen accurately transferred to the final product, which is often printed material. On a PC, the software used to accomplish this is extremely expensive and stlll doesn't always work. Apple has made it a priority and built this capability into the OS for a long time. So every printer, scanner, and vid card driver is written to take advantage of ColorSync. ColorSync profiles exist for most monitors. And all of the graphics programs have hooks into it. The end result is that it's very easy to ensure that the exact color you chose in Photoshop is the exact same color that comes out on paper. For the average user, this isn't a big issue. But if design work is your profession, it's huge. From what I've read in the past, this becomes very time consuming and frustrating when you do the same work on a PC.

[Free Range Lobster]

PC's are empty boxes. They just seem to repel artists.

My PC is in this modified case:




And before that it was in a blue O2 cube.

[optics]

My PC is in this modified case:




And before that it was in a blue O2 cube.

And if you think that case is an example of good design, you should not be a designer.

[PeachesN'Cream]

The only two functions listed that are really used by designers on a regular basis are the color conversion from RGB to CMYK.

oh common... watercolour, stained glass, mosiac tiles? those are some kick ass filters man! there is no way i could design if i didn't those in my back pocket.

[The Jackamo]

i don't really have anything to add to the conversation, but i've worked with photoshop with both my PC and my mac and each has its pros and its cons (it runs a lot smoother on my mac, whereas on my pc if some other program is working, it'll freeze everything up), and each has its use. i could care less about benchmarks - like arty said, it's really dependent on system specs. for instance, my PC has a 7200 drive as the scratch disk, whereas my mac uses a 4200 (i have a mini), so anything disk intensive is a lot slower on my mac.

i will say that i have found OSX to be a lot more stable than XP, though.

[Ski Monkey]

...PCs are solid for web design (smaller files, lower dpi, and most of those who surf the web use PCs so building files that display more accurately for the larger audience is key).

This is tangently related to web design, but what's seriously sick about developing for the web on the mac is the ability to run so many unix packages so easily like php, mysql, netpbm, zope, etc on your local computer. Download, compile if needed and bam. My web dev skills took a huge leap when I moved to os x.

[Free Range Lobster]

This is tangently related to web design, but what's seriously sick about developing for the web on the mac is the ability to run so many unix packages so easily like php, mysql, netpbm, zope, etc on your local computer. Download, compile if needed and bam. My web dev skills took a huge leap when I moved to os x.

Just as easy to run a headless Linux or BSD box running as a development server with everything turned on for testing.

Atleast then you can run postgres or mysql and blow it up w/o trashing your workstation.

And if you think that case is an example of good design, you should not be a designer.

Nobody said they were an example of good design, they just look way better than the tissue dispenser mac or the box with handles.

especially after I bought a shuffle

Go to www.hackaday.com
They have a mod tutorial for the shuffle so you don't get assreamed for $99 when your battery eats shit.

[Ski Monkey]

Just as easy to run a headless Linux or BSD box running as a development server with everything turned on for testing.

Atleast then you can run postgres or mysql and blow it up w/o trashing your workstation.

That's my point though, you don't need another box to do it on. Which means doing dev stuff on an airplane or without internet/intranet access is possible.

[Free Range Lobster]

That's my point though, you don't need another box to do it on. Which means doing dev stuff on an airplane or without internet/intranet access is possible.

Uhm, but you can run apache/php/mysql/zope/all that shit on Windows just as well as OS X.

Fear the server start/kill batch files.

[Arty50]

Go to www.hackaday.com
They have a mod tutorial for the shuffle so you don't get assreamed for $99 when your battery eats shit.

The battery on the shuffle is totally different from the battery on the iPod (which has changed also BTW). And since no one has had one for longer than a month, how would they know the battery will crap out in a year or two? I can understand their skepticism, but the Shuffle is essentially a totally different product.

[optics]

Nobody said they were an example of good design, they just look way better than the tissue dispenser mac or the box with handles.

Allow me to rephrase.

If you think that looks way better than any current mac, you should not be a designer.

[Free Range Lobster]

Allow me to rephrase.

If you think that looks way better than any current mac, you should not be a designer.

Uh, right Mr. I use a tissue dispenser.

or should I say....

Fish tank...

[optics]

So the design is ugly because it can hold water if you take the guts out?

I'm confused.

I'd think wanting to use the form in a way other than its original intended application would be a complient to the design.

If not, I could sure as hell take that 1985-looking red box and use it as a vending machine, but what would that prove?

Needless to say, this discussion has no point nor merit, and I think I'll stop playing now.

Apologies for the hijack, back to the overclocking argument.

[meatdrink9]

oh common... watercolour, stained glass, mosiac tiles? those are some kick ass filters man! there is no way i could design if i didn't those in my back pocket.

LOL

......

[schuss]

while macs are a bigger part of institutional sales, it is not for any good reason. It is mainly because people want to be "different" and cause the IT department tons of problems due to the machine not liking anything. Oh, and mac's reseller policies suck donkey dick. The computers are ok, but at least one gen behind what pc's are doing.