OSX vs XP - photoshop CS3...
 

Both OSs running on the same Mac book (2.0GHz Core2Duo and 1GB RAM, 10.4.8)

http://hansv.com/cs3/benchmark_03.png

Photoshop CS3 - Mac vs Windows

So, are apple compilers better optimised ? ;)

To digress slightly - can you run any windows software within Parallel's / VM?

And do you need to install that, then install windows, then install, in this instance photoshop?

I'll send you a PM

IIRC Photosop is written on Mac's for Mac's

the PC version is ported across, so generally will always be slower

Yea try runnin the same benchmark with a well known game title on a Mac. Oh wait you can't can you coz they don't make mainstream games for macs! :lol1: Gaming benchmarks make alot more sense than an application test anyway.

You could do a comparison if the Mac was intel based and you used boot camp :p Ok, ok, so that's cheating as it'd be running under XP/Vista rather than OS X :D

Try searching google, it's been done and you won't like the result.

Doesn't surprise me, the Mac has never really been a true gaming machine. If someone wants to game I'd always recommend a PC, unless you want to splash out on the MacPro, install boot camp and a top spec graphics card. Even then you can't customize it as much as you could a PC system.

Who gives a flying **** anyway, this post was about photoshop , a well known cross platform mainstream application used by millions of people.
Like markus said, gaming is still the preserve of the windows platform. I like CS and would never dream of playing it on a mac running vmware, pointless.

No, this thread is about pc/windows versus mac performance, pshop was just used as a biased way of tryin to show that macs are quicker than pc's. Of course we all know Windows will always have the market share and generally provides a better platform for all your day 2 day needs :)

funny how the OP and the link mention nothing about other applications and it was all centered around photoshop, so yes it is about PS.

and your last comment has one factual statement...market share. The rest is complete tosh

Which part of the performance benchmark did you miss in the picture in the OP's post? The only relevance on using Pshop is to show a biased advantage, which it will always have as the app was designed for Macs. I'll ignore the childish ending remark :)

Lets try and explain something here, that you obviously missed.
The original thread (and the link) was all about measuring the speed of Photoshop on various platforms (via a single hardware vendor). The reason being because the tester obviously works in the design industry and there has always been comparison between the aspplication running on the two main platforms.

I work in and around the design industry and this has always been the case, you have designers who work on windows and ones who work on macs and the productvity is always a talking point.

So suffice to say, if the tester had been a gamer or involved in that industry, then they might have done a test about games running on the two platforms. The end result, as you mentioned, would have been a foregone conclusion when you consider the way windows is the dominant platform for gaming and the hardware is optimised.

It was an objective test and quite an interesting result.

As for my last comment, well you bit so I cant take the blame for that :D

Hehe, I only use photoshop CS3, so this is the only relevant benchmark to me.

It's a bit bizarre that the Mac almost twice as long to do the retest as it did to do the initial - what's going on there?

What I'd like to see is a comparison between a a MAC at £750 and a PC specced towards graphics rather than gaming at £750 running the same actions.

The trouble with that is you can't compromise on the Apple. The PC could have loads of poop components and a few fast chips. Plus you can't buy style.

true :lol1:

Ignoring the style comment as this is a discussion about productivity and it's a computer, not a suit.... :p

Real world, photo management/manipulation/design, you have the PS software and that's 99% of what it will be doing, let's be generous and say 1200 to spend, has to include a decent size monitor and in the PC you can spec as you wish so workstation graphics over gaming graphics, fast disk etc.

I don't know what the outcome would be but I would be genuinely interested in finding out.

How do things like lightwave, 3dmax, lightroom and zbrush etc compare? Photoshop is just a part of the gfx manipulation/creation process.