2Gb vs 3Gb Phtoshop benchmark on T60p

[zern]

A quick test before and after upgrading my RAM from 2 to 3Gb.

Tests from a freshly booted thinkpad with only Photoshop loaded (and my usual misc services).

I waited till the processor and RAM usage were fairly constant, and no disk activity, before starting the tests.

------------------------------------------------------------

Total 2.1Gb
Available 1.2G
System cache 0.9Gb

Rasterised 9Mb Illustrator file in Photoshop (16028x10877 px)
Elapsed time is 3:29
Processor usage around 75%
Not using the scratch disk.

Resized the same image 125%
Elapsed time is 6:07
Processor usage around 25%
Fully using the scratch disk.

------------------------------------------------------------

Total 3.1Gb
Available 2.2G
System cache 0.9Gb

Rasterised 9Mb Illustrator file in Photoshop (16028x10877 px)
Elapsed time is 3:27
Processor usage around 75%
Not using the scratch disk.

Resized the same image 125%
Elapsed time is 5:05
Processor usage around 25%
Fully using the scratch disk after the progress bar reached 30% of the way across.

------------------------------------------------------------

Performance increase was 120%. Or one-fifth faster with 3Gb over the 2Gb. This gain was only obvious in the Image Resize tests as that is when the RAM limit was exceeded. Prior to exceeding the available RAM, the processor was the bottleneck.

Obviously as soon as RAM ran out the performance bottleneck became the scratch disk. I have a secondary HD in the Ultrabay designated as the scratch disk.

Obviously this was a quick and dirty test without doing multiple samples etc. I hope it is useful/illuminating.




Edited -- T60p, T7600 CPU 2.33GHz, XP Pro SP2, Adobe CS2, 100Gb SATA HD (primary), 40Gb PATA HD (in Ultrabay).

[erik]

thanks for posting your results.   it would be good to add which OS you used for testing.

[Marie-Anne]

Yes, please tell us
- which Thinkpad model(T60, T61, with /without P)
- which OS
- which version of Photoshop (CS2, CS3?)

[zern]

Oops:

T60p
XP Pro
CS2

[Dodge DeBoulet]

Performance increase was 120%.

Ahhh, no. Try 20%. I know it doesn't sound as impressive, but it's a lot more accurate.

[zern]

OK, if you wish to be pedantic, there was a 20% increase.
The performance with 3Gb was 120% of the performance at 2Gb.
The machine was 1.2 times faster with 3Gb.

[DAH]

OK, if you wish to be pedantic, there was a 20% increase.
The performance with 3Gb was 120% of the performance at 2Gb.
The machine was 1.2 times faster with 3Gb.

No that would be stating it is actually only 16.9%