First I ran the default PASeq, which involves nine autopaint steps, Geodesic Recursive Growth and Image Compressor.
Result: Dual G4 1 GHz: 38 seconds; G4 933: 50 seconds. [an error occurred while processing this directive] For the second test, I ran the Autopaint1 PASeq from the Default/AutoRotoscope Examples folder. It involves three different autopaint steps, Image Compressor and Geodesic Recursive Growth.
Result: Dual G4 1 GHz: 26 seconds; G4 933: 32 seconds.

The third test consisted of the Basketball1 PASeq from the same directory. It includes Source Edges to Path; Paint Bezier Layer; and six steps of Freestyle Autodraw.
Result: Dual G4 1 GHz: six seconds; G4 933: seven seconds.

I then ran Chalk-Edge, from the Paint directory. It includes 10 autopaint steps and Image Compressor.
Result: Dual G4 1 GHz: 67 seconds; G4 933: 84 seconds.

For the fifth test, I ran the Chalk-Paint PASeq, which includes 11 steps of Geodesic Recursive Growth; six autopaint steps; and Image Compressor.
Result: Dual G4 1 GHz: 29 seconds; G4 933: 34 seconds.

The final test for Studio Artist involved the Chalk-Watercolor PASeq, which comprises simply 12 autopaint steps.
Result: Dual G4 1 GHz: 89 seconds; G4 933: 108 seconds.

Studio Artist test summary: I have no explanation for the performance of Studio Artist on the dual G4. Overall, the application completed its rendering in 80.9 percent of the time it took the G4 933. And, at its peak, it achieved 76 percent.

Adobe Illustrator 10
Turning it back over to Adobe, I decided to conduct tests on Illustrator 10 for two reasons: first, I never see benchmarks on Illustrator. And, second, it's a good tool for taxing a processor with edits and transforms on vector graphics. Unfortunately, Illustrator's recordable actions are not nearly as comprehensive as Photoshop's, so I was only able to get three meaning ful tests out of it. All tests were performed on a letter-sized document.

For the first test, I created a rectangle and applied a style to it. It then repeatedly copied, pasted and grouped the rectangles, for a total of 120 polygons. I then applied a drop shadow to half of the rectangles, selected all and cleared the document.
Result: Dual G4 1 GHz: 42 seconds; G4 933: 43 seconds.

For the second test, I created a star and then cycled through five styles, rotated the star, reflected it, roughened its edges, applied Pen & Ink, twisted 45 degrees and cleared the document.
Result: Dual G4 1 GHz: 17 seconds; G4 933: 17 seconds.

Finally, the last test pushed the CPU even harder with rasterization at 300 DPI with antialiasing. I began with text; changed its color; scaled it; created outlines; applied a zig zag, drop shadow and shear; copied and pasted it in back of the original, changed the color, rasterized both, pasted again and then cleared the document.
Result: Dual G4 1 GHz: 58 seconds; G4 933: 61 seconds.

Illustrator test summary: Not too impressive here. Obviously Illustrator takes no advantage of dual processors at all, at least in the various tests I conducted. Overall, the dual G4 completed its actions in 96.7 percent the time it took the 933 (117 seconds versus 121 seconds).

Apple Final Cut Pro 3
As you might have imagined, I've saved the best for last: Apple Final Cut Pro 3. While we were all off whining about the big delay in Apple's release of Final Cut Pro 3, the developers themselves were obviously making good use of their time optimizing this editing suite not only for the G4, but for multiple G4s as well. If ever there were a reason to get a dual-processor Mac, Final Cut Pro 3 is it.



Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Related sites: • AV Video • Creative Mac • Digital Animators • Digital Media Designer • Digital Post Production • Digital Producer • Digital Video Editing • DV Format • Film and Video Magazine • Film Imaging • Hollywood Industry • The WWUG
Related forums: •

[an error occurred while processing this directive]