Photoshop CS3 Performance vs. CS2

Joined
Apr 29, 2006
Messages
4,576
Reaction score
378
Points
83
Location
St. Somewhere
Your Mac's Specs
Mac Studio, M1 Max, 32 GB RAM, 2 TB SSD
I downloaded the CS3 beta a few days ago and promised to report on its relative performance vs. CS2, when run on a PowerMac G5. As you can see from my signature block, I have a fairly recent PowerMac G5 with 2.3 GHz dual core, with 2.5 GB of RAM.

Subjectively, CS3 feels a LOT snappier. My favorite improvement is a little one. Brush resizing on the fly is now fast on crisp. On CS2, even on my machine, there is a noticable lag between the keypress and the result on screen. On CS3, it is instantaneous.

For those who don't know what I am referring to, you can dynamically resize the brush for most tools by using the "[" key to decrease the brush size and the "]" key to increase it. I use this ALL the time. On CS2, you press the key and wait for a second or so before the brush size changes. On CS3, it is instantaneous. This is a small thing, but for a base operation like this which gets used all the time, it is a great improvement.

The objective numbers don't backup my subjective feel, but here they go. I have measured only the truly obvious, since I don't have test suites and test equipment. I measured the cold and warm startup times for Photoshop CS2 and Photoshop CS3, and the same thing for their respective versions of Bridge. Cold startup time is the number of seconds it takes from click on the dock until you have the full application up and running, the first time you run it after a restart. Warm restart time is the same thing, but after you have already run it at least once before (and it is thus cached at least to some extent in memory).

Here are the results:

Photoshop CS2:
- Cold start: 11 seconds
- Warm start: 4 seconds

Bridge CS2:
- Cold start: 12 seconds
- Warm start: 5 seconds

Photoshop CS3:
- Cold start: 13 seconds (worse)
- Warm start: 4 seconds (same)

Bridge CS3:
- Cold start: 11 seconds (better)
- Warm start: 3 seconds (better)

So, a mixed bag. Some start times are better, some are worse. This notwithstanding, overall, the application just FEELS snappier. I am going to have to use it a lot more to decide why this is. I have to admit to being heavily influenced by the snappiness of the brush resizing.

By the way, the new interface for CS3 has some nice refinements, like the ability to make your tool bar a single column vs. two columns. Like the cursor resizing time, it is a small thing, but nice.

As I work with CS3 more, I may post more results, or perhaps evaluation of some of the new tools - the new selection tools look VERY interesting.
 
Joined
Aug 6, 2004
Messages
1,713
Reaction score
71
Points
48
Location
Tejas
Your Mac's Specs
2GHz Mac Mini 2GB RAM 160GB 10.6.2 | MDD DP 1.25GHz G4 1.5GB RAM 10.4.11 | 233MHz iMac G3 10.3.9
it's supposed to fly :)
 
Joined
Feb 2, 2004
Messages
12,455
Reaction score
604
Points
113
Location
PA
Your Mac's Specs
MacBook
You can do the same thing in CS2 with the memory as well.
 
Joined
Apr 21, 2005
Messages
765
Reaction score
81
Points
28
I didn't know that either.
redface.gif
 
Joined
Feb 2, 2004
Messages
12,455
Reaction score
604
Points
113
Location
PA
Your Mac's Specs
MacBook
Yep, its nothing new. :black:

Picture 1.png
 
Joined
Apr 20, 2006
Messages
2,255
Reaction score
47
Points
48
Your Mac's Specs
Al iMac 20" 2.4Ghz Intel Core 2 Duo
Here are the times on my 20" Intel Core2Duo 2.1Ghz iMac:

PS CS2 cold 24 secs
PS CS3 cold 12 secs

PS CS2 warm 11 secs
PS CS3 warm 3 secs
 
Joined
Sep 9, 2006
Messages
690
Reaction score
51
Points
28
Your Mac's Specs
macbook
I downloaded the CS3 beta a few days ago and promised to report on its relative performance vs. CS2, when run on a PowerMac G5. As you can see from my signature block, I have a fairly recent PowerMac G5 with 2.3 GHz dual core, with 2.5 GB of RAM.

Subjectively, CS3 feels a LOT snappier. My favorite improvement is a little one. Brush resizing on the fly is now fast on crisp. On CS2, even on my machine, there is a noticable lag between the keypress and the result on screen. On CS3, it is instantaneous.

For those who don't know what I am referring to, you can dynamically resize the brush for most tools by using the "[" key to decrease the brush size and the "]" key to increase it. I use this ALL the time. On CS2, you press the key and wait for a second or so before the brush size changes. On CS3, it is instantaneous. This is a small thing, but for a base operation like this which gets used all the time, it is a great improvement.

The objective numbers don't backup my subjective feel, but here they go. I have measured only the truly obvious, since I don't have test suites and test equipment. I measured the cold and warm startup times for Photoshop CS2 and Photoshop CS3, and the same thing for their respective versions of Bridge. Cold startup time is the number of seconds it takes from click on the dock until you have the full application up and running, the first time you run it after a restart. Warm restart time is the same thing, but after you have already run it at least once before (and it is thus cached at least to some extent in memory).

Here are the results:

Photoshop CS2:
- Cold start: 11 seconds
- Warm start: 4 seconds

Bridge CS2:
- Cold start: 12 seconds
- Warm start: 5 seconds

Photoshop CS3:
- Cold start: 13 seconds (worse)
- Warm start: 4 seconds (same)

Bridge CS3:
- Cold start: 11 seconds (better)
- Warm start: 3 seconds (better)

So, a mixed bag. Some start times are better, some are worse. This notwithstanding, overall, the application just FEELS snappier. I am going to have to use it a lot more to decide why this is. I have to admit to being heavily influenced by the snappiness of the brush resizing.

By the way, the new interface for CS3 has some nice refinements, like the ability to make your tool bar a single column vs. two columns. Like the cursor resizing time, it is a small thing, but nice.

As I work with CS3 more, I may post more results, or perhaps evaluation of some of the new tools - the new selection tools look VERY interesting.
some interesting results there :)

have you had a chance to compare certain heavy duty tasks?
Some ideas that come to mind;
•transforming/scaling large docs or layers
•certain filters - blur/liquify etc.

I'm wondering if there's much or any difference when it comes to something like this.
 
Joined
Nov 10, 2006
Messages
324
Reaction score
6
Points
18
Location
Leeds, England
Your Mac's Specs
17" Core Duo Macbook Pro
Here are the times on my 20" Intel Core2Duo 2.1Ghz iMac:

PS CS2 cold 24 secs
PS CS3 cold 12 secs

PS CS2 warm 11 secs
PS CS3 warm 3 secs

Looking good! Are you able to do a benchmark on say applying a filter?
 
OP
mac57
Joined
Apr 29, 2006
Messages
4,576
Reaction score
378
Points
83
Location
St. Somewhere
Your Mac's Specs
Mac Studio, M1 Max, 32 GB RAM, 2 TB SSD
Is there anyone out there with a 2.66 GHz or even better, a 3.0 GHz Mac Pro who could report similar timings for it?
 
Joined
Apr 20, 2006
Messages
2,255
Reaction score
47
Points
48
Your Mac's Specs
Al iMac 20" 2.4Ghz Intel Core 2 Duo
Some benchmarks with a 300dpi 34 x 26cm image. First figure is CS2, second is CS3

Smart blur, high quality
30s / 19s

Extrude 30x30
20s / 11s

Plastic wrap full detail
18s / 3s

Enlarge to 500%
61s / 36s
 
OP
mac57
Joined
Apr 29, 2006
Messages
4,576
Reaction score
378
Points
83
Location
St. Somewhere
Your Mac's Specs
Mac Studio, M1 Max, 32 GB RAM, 2 TB SSD
Alexis, what type of Mac were these figures taken from?
 
Joined
Nov 30, 2006
Messages
250
Reaction score
13
Points
18
Location
Camp Douglas WI, for now
Your Mac's Specs
MacBook Pro 15, 1Gb RAM, 100GBHD, 2 Perfoma636CD, Apple, Apple IIe, + 2 PC, XP Pro 64bit, & ThinkPad
What really rubs me the wrong way about that, is that if they can make a universal Binary that works that much better on PPC, what was their problem that they could make the PPC code just as snappy.

Discrimination, that's what it is. They purposely made crap code on PPC, to make the performance suck. Now that it's associated with Intel, they're singing the praises now. It's not like they couldn't have done it. They were just either lazy, or discriminating.

Added
Here are the times on my 20" Intel Core2Duo 2.1Ghz iMac:
 
M

MacHeadCase

Guest
I downloaded the CS3 beta a few days ago and promised to report on its relative performance vs. CS2, when run on a PowerMac G5. As you can see from my signature block, I have a fairly recent PowerMac G5 with 2.3 GHz dual core, with 2.5 GB of RAM.

Subjectively, CS3 feels a LOT snappier. My favorite improvement is a little one. Brush resizing on the fly is now fast on crisp. On CS2, even on my machine, there is a noticable lag between the keypress and the result on screen. On CS3, it is instantaneous.

For those who don't know what I am referring to, you can dynamically resize the brush for most tools by using the "[" key to decrease the brush size and the "]" key to increase it. I use this ALL the time. On CS2, you press the key and wait for a second or so before the brush size changes. On CS3, it is instantaneous. This is a small thing, but for a base operation like this which gets used all the time, it is a great improvement.

The objective numbers don't backup my subjective feel, but here they go. I have measured only the truly obvious, since I don't have test suites and test equipment. I measured the cold and warm startup times for Photoshop CS2 and Photoshop CS3, and the same thing for their respective versions of Bridge. Cold startup time is the number of seconds it takes from click on the dock until you have the full application up and running, the first time you run it after a restart. Warm restart time is the same thing, but after you have already run it at least once before (and it is thus cached at least to some extent in memory).

Here are the results:

Photoshop CS2:
- Cold start: 11 seconds
- Warm start: 4 seconds

Bridge CS2:
- Cold start: 12 seconds
- Warm start: 5 seconds

Photoshop CS3:
- Cold start: 13 seconds (worse)
- Warm start: 4 seconds (same)

Bridge CS3:
- Cold start: 11 seconds (better)
- Warm start: 3 seconds (better)

So, a mixed bag. Some start times are better, some are worse. This notwithstanding, overall, the application just FEELS snappier. I am going to have to use it a lot more to decide why this is. I have to admit to being heavily influenced by the snappiness of the brush resizing.

By the way, the new interface for CS3 has some nice refinements, like the ability to make your tool bar a single column vs. two columns. Like the cursor resizing time, it is a small thing, but nice.

As I work with CS3 more, I may post more results, or perhaps evaluation of some of the new tools - the new selection tools look VERY interesting.

I truly appreciate you taking the time to post your findings, mac57! You and I both have a PowerPC Mac and most reviews are only looking at CS3 from the Intel-based Mac user base perspective.

Thanks again!
icon14.gif
 
OP
mac57
Joined
Apr 29, 2006
Messages
4,576
Reaction score
378
Points
83
Location
St. Somewhere
Your Mac's Specs
Mac Studio, M1 Max, 32 GB RAM, 2 TB SSD
Ice Cream Man, the numbers would tend to suggest that the PowerPC code is actually very good indeed. The numbers I posted are for a PowerMac G5 at 2.3 GHz. The other numbers that have been posted were for a 2.1 GHz iMac. As you can see, they are pretty close, implying that the Intel Native stuff and the PPC Native stuff perform at about the same rate.

The really bad numbers that were posted for CS2 vs. CS3 compared CS2 on an Intel Mac (hence PPC code via Rosetta) and CS3 on the same Mac (Universal binary, hence running native). So, the CS2 PPC code didn't stink there - it was just being interpreted. On its native platform, you get the numbers I posted, which are quite respectable.
 
OP
mac57
Joined
Apr 29, 2006
Messages
4,576
Reaction score
378
Points
83
Location
St. Somewhere
Your Mac's Specs
Mac Studio, M1 Max, 32 GB RAM, 2 TB SSD
MacHeadCase, you're welcome! Now, I am REALLY looking forward to the released product, and seeing what CS3 on a 3 GHz Mac Pro performs like vs. my 2.3 GHz PowerMac G5. I am hoping for really good results (approximately 50% better?). We shall see.
 

Shop Amazon


Shop for your Apple, Mac, iPhone and other computer products on Amazon.
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon and affiliated sites.
Top