Adobe Photoshop CS4 Performance

To measure performance under Photoshop CS4 we turn to the Retouch Artists’ Speed Test. The test does basic photo editing; there are a couple of color space conversions, many layer creations, color curve adjustment, image and canvas size adjustment, unsharp mask, and finally a gaussian blur performed on the entire image.

The whole process is timed and thanks to the use of Intel's X25-M SSD as our test bed hard drive, performance is far more predictable than back when we used to test on mechanical disks.

Time is reported in seconds and the lower numbers mean better performance. The test is multithreaded and can hit all four cores in a quad-core machine.

Adobe Photoshop CS4 - Retouch Artists Speed Test

Photoshop performance is actually very good on these chips, the extra cores help make them faster than even a Phenom II X3 720. For $99 you're getting better Photoshop performance than even more expensive dual core processors.

The Pentium E6300 isn't competitive here, despite being Intel's closest priced processor. The Q8200 is faster than both of these options, but it's also more expensive. Again, AMD priced the 620 on point.

SYSMark 2007 Performance Video Encoding Performance
POST A COMMENT

149 Comments

View All Comments

  • the zorro - Thursday, September 17, 2009 - link

    the turbo overclocking is plain overclocking of all lynnfield cores at least 600 mhz and you are comparing lynfield overcloded results versus phenom 2 955 stock speeds.

    phenom 2 is much better than lynnfied 750 and when overclocked to 4ghz remains at 55 C while lynnfield temps are almost 100C. which sucks.

    all the 'advantage' of lynnfied in these results comes from benchmarking an overclocked processor and present it as if it were stock speed, which is illegal
    Reply
  • silverblue - Thursday, September 17, 2009 - link

    Wrong. I'll help you here...

    i5 750
    Default: 2.66GHz
    4 cores: 2.93GHz 3 cores: 2.93GHz 2 cores: 3.06GHz 1 core: 3.20GHz (gains: 266MHz/266MHz/400MHz/533MHz)

    i7 860
    Default: 2.80GHz
    4 cores: 3.06GHz 3 cores: 3.06GHz 2 cores: 3.33GHz 1 core: 3.46GHz (gains: 266MHz/266MHz/533MHz/667MHz)

    (all data reassembled from the second table at http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?...">http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?...

    The turbo mode gives a minimum boost of 266MHz and a maximum of either 533MHz for the i5 or 667MHz for the i7. NOT 600MHz for all cores. Quite where you got that from is beyond me. Additionally, Turbo is a 100% legitimate technology. Would you be happier if the default clock was throttled?

    As for illegal... we have a word in the UK for this sort of comments, and it's "bollocks".
    Reply
  • Eeqmcsq - Thursday, September 17, 2009 - link

    Good chart, though you linked to the wrong page. It was on the Turbo Mode page. I have no idea how I missed that chart the first time I read the article.

    But for the i5 750, if the lowest GHz Turbo mode will operate at is 2.93 GHz, why doesn't Intel just call it an i5 750 at 2.93 GHz, instead of 2.66 GHz?
    Reply
  • silverblue - Thursday, September 17, 2009 - link

    My bad - the link has a ) after it which sends you to the intro page. I should've put a space after the link.

    At least you checked through to find it... I doubt "the zorro" has bothered as of yet.

    You make a very good point about Turbo but it's not as if Intel is pretending it doesn't exist or it's disabled; it should be relatively easy for people to make comparisons using the benchmarks in this article as well as others. I suppose it may have helped if there was data suggesting the clock speed at the time of a specific test, but I can't imagine that'd be a very easy thing to do especially if threads are being bounced across cores and as a result, the clock speed is constantly fluctuating. The alternative would've been to disable Turbo and that would've prevented people like "the zorro" from his pointless tirade on here, but they would've been disabling a feature of the processor to test it against rivals that lack that feature.
    Reply
  • Eeqmcsq - Thursday, September 17, 2009 - link

    > I suppose it may have helped if there was data suggesting the clock speed at the time of a specific test, but I can't imagine that'd be a very easy thing to do especially if threads are being bounced across cores and as a result, the clock speed is constantly fluctuating.
    - No, but the troll does make one point that I agree with. When an i5 is run with Turbo mode, Anand's charts should NOT list that it is at 2.66 GHz. He should list it as 2.93-3.20 GHz, especially if it is 100% certain that Turbo mode NEVER reaches the baseline Turbo off clock of 2.66 GHz.

    > The alternative would've been to disable Turbo and that would've prevented people like "the zorro" from his pointless tirade on here, but they would've been disabling a feature of the processor to test it against rivals that lack that feature.
    - Well, I've asked for the same thing, but for different reasons that I don't want to repeat in this comment or I'll sound like a troll. :)
    Reply
  • the zorro - Thursday, September 17, 2009 - link

    if you are an accountant and do the same thing and try to present false results as real then you would go to jail.
    you can call a bank robbery an 'auto loan' but still is robbery and you still go to jail.
    people is not stupid.
    Reply
  • silverblue - Thursday, September 17, 2009 - link

    AMD, please just incorporate a turbo mode into your next CPUs so we can get rid of trolls like this one. Do it for me.

    Please.
    Reply
  • the zorro - Thursday, September 17, 2009 - link

    no amd wont do that.
    why?
    because a platform at stock speed is more stable than other that is auto overclocking, also intel created the turbo crap story to charge for the overclocking.
    yes intel is charging their users for the overclocking,now overclocking is a feature and intel charges for it.
    amd phenom 2 overclocking is free.
    try to auto overclock a server, that is not good and creates instability in the platform.
    Reply
  • silverblue - Thursday, September 17, 2009 - link

    And if they do, oh what will you do then?

    Additionally, try to explain to me what the 965 BE is other than an overclocked variant of the 955, which in turn was an overclocked variant of the 945. Isn't it interesting how none of these overclocks better than the others, and why the 965 BE has a higher TDP than the 955?

    You act as if AMD and Intel have never produced an overclocked variant of any of their CPUs until Nehalem turned up.
    Reply
  • the zorro - Thursday, September 17, 2009 - link

    i can see that you have no clue, when a new processor is introduced that is 200 mhz faster than another model, is not an overclocked processor, is a more refined silicon, with better electrical properties and more stable at highers speeds. and also with higher overclocking headroom.
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now