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 CS3 - Retouch Artists Speed Test

Intel's architectures are definitely favored in our Photoshop test; the 965 BE can't outperform the cheaper Q9550.

DivX 8.5.3 with Xmpeg 5.0.3

Our DivX test is the same DivX / XMpeg 5.03 test we've run for the past few years now, the 1080p source file is encoded using the unconstrained DivX profile, quality/performance is set balanced at 5 and enhanced multithreading is enabled:

DivX 6.8.5 w/ Xmpeg 5.0.3 - MPEG-2 to DivX Transcode

Our lighter encoding test puts the 965 BE above all of the Core 2 Quads and just behind the i7 920.

x264 HD Video Encoding Performance

Graysky's x264 HD test uses the publicly available x264 codec (open source alternative to H.264) to encode a 4Mbps 720p MPEG-2 source. The focus here is on quality rather than speed, thus the benchmark uses a 2-pass encode and reports the average frame rate in each pass.

x264 HD Encode Benchmark - 720p MPEG-2 to x264 Transcode

The 965 BE manages to pull ahead of the i7 920 in the first pass of our test, however the second more strenuous pass clearly goes to the i7. Compared to the Core 2 Quads however, the 965 is without an equal - it's better than the Q9650.

x264 HD Encode Benchmark - 720p MPEG-2 to x264 Transcode

 

Windows Media Encoder 9 x64 Advanced Profile

In order to be codec agnostic we've got a Windows Media Encoder benchmark looking at the same sort of thing we've been doing in the DivX and x264 tests, but using WME instead.

Windows Media Encoder 9 x64 - Advanced Profile Transcode

Slightly faster than the i7 920 again? Hooray for AMD.

SYSMark 2007 Performance 3D Rendering Performance
POST A COMMENT

58 Comments

View All Comments

  • Drazick - Thursday, August 13, 2009 - link

    It seems Intel advantage is more about optimization than much better processor, is this assumption true?

    Why isn't AMD put efforts into that?

    Thanks.
    Reply
  • Drazick - Thursday, August 13, 2009 - link

    It should be easy to create some test scenarios and measure time.

    Many High End users use those kind of software.
    Reply
  • GourdFreeMan - Thursday, August 13, 2009 - link

    The problem with benchmarking such packages is that depending on their target application they will not stress systems in a uniform way. Large matrix computation will likely be bound by memory bandwidth, while numeric computation at machine precision will hinge on FPU/SSE performance, and symbolic calculations will largely be bound by integer and branching performance. There isn't one uniform application that is representative of the needs of all scientists and engineers. Reply
  • XtAzY - Thursday, August 13, 2009 - link

    I got my i7 920 for $200 at MicroCenter, much cheaper than $280 online deals! This AMD definately does not worth $245!! Reply
  • Griswold - Thursday, August 13, 2009 - link

    And how much did you pay for the mobo and triple channel kit, dumbass? Reply
  • Exar3342 - Thursday, August 13, 2009 - link

    LOL, your the dumbass. :)

    6GB triple Channel - (Newegg) $85.00
    8GB dual channel (newegg) $95.00

    X58 MB - $165-175
    AM3 MB $85-120

    So you are talking a difference or $40-60, which if you can get the i7 at Microcenter (I was there last week and they had a ton) erases any price differences.
    Reply
  • Griswold - Saturday, August 15, 2009 - link

    Oh, lets look at the other article anand just put up, dumbass. Your shit doesnt quite add up... Reply
  • rhog - Thursday, August 13, 2009 - link

    Since when can you get a "good" x58 for lest than 200?

    I assume the 200 Bucks is a Mail in rebate price as well. I own 2 i7 920 great processor but hardly any faster at 3.6ghz than a 3.8ghz AMD 955 (at most 20%) which is in line with the "real" 100-125 Buck difference in cost. You can get a really nice Video card upgrade for that money. Don't forget the i7 920 never runs at 2.6ghz but always overclocks itself making it hard to do a good clock for clock comparison. The AMD 965 is better than Core2 and I doubt that the Core i5 will be faster than a Core i7 so they should compete well. Oh, and the Core i5 will overclock itself as well I here as much a 3 mults
    Reply
  • Roland00 - Thursday, August 13, 2009 - link

    The 200 dollar price isn't a mail in rebate, Micro Center a small computer store chain with about 30 stores market itself as a computer builder destination. They lose about 80 dollars on the processor to get you into the store and hoping to sell you enough other stuff (or assembly or warranties) to make up for their loss leader. Reply
  • steelicon - Thursday, August 13, 2009 - link

    ROTFLMAOBBQ! Agreed! They get you in more ways than one, either it's the Processor itself, the Chipset, the DDR3 or all of them combined. Good thing we have another choice of platform! Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now