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

  • steelicon - Thursday, August 13, 2009 - link

    Will this run on an old AsuS Crosshair NV590A-SLI motherboard? I surely do hope so... Reply
  • grimpr - Thursday, August 13, 2009 - link

    A really fast CPU, some minor tweaks to the K10 architecture and AMD stays "current", but the TDP's are ridiculous, 140W!!, for non existing gods sake! at 95W TDP and at the same price they would be excellent purchases to Intels Lynnfields. Clearly they are positioned at gamers,a crowd long lost to AMD. For uses other than happy jerking at intel compiler optimized benchmarks and moronic SuperPi's with analyzing miniscule FPS differences at games, the AMD Phenom II 905E at 65W TDP is an excellent buy. Something about the 45nm SOI manufacturing of this chips from AMD makes us wonder... Reply
  • FireSnake - Thursday, August 13, 2009 - link

    You really need to grow up with this 140W and take a very close look at the power consumption table ;) Reply
  • JimmiG - Thursday, August 13, 2009 - link

    It's not like the 140W TDP happened by accident or took AMD by surprise. 120 - 140W has been the target TDP for high-end CPUs for a long time. At this targeted TDP, AMD found a 3.4 GHz chip could be produced with decent yields. Some thought, research and design goes into the launch of a new CPU even if it's just a 200 MHz clockspeed bump.

    Don't worry, we'll not see a 160W or 180W CPU any time soon since 140W is a sensible target. Modern heatpipe coolers, mobos and PSUs have no trouble with them.

    If you think the difference between a 65W and a 140W CPU is too much, you must live in a very dark house or apartment since each light bulb consumes almost that entire difference.
    Reply
  • PrinceGaz - Friday, August 14, 2009 - link

    My lightbulbs consume between 12 and 20W of power each as I long since left behind inefficient incandescent bulbs. Reply
  • hyc - Thursday, August 13, 2009 - link

    You guys are reading way too much into that 140W TDP spec. Look at the loaded power consumption results, the 965 is 223W vs 220W for the 955. So it's using a whopping 3W more than the 955, BFD.
    Reply
  • Griswold - Thursday, August 13, 2009 - link

    Some people seem to miss the T for Thermal in that figure indeed. Reply
  • hyc - Thursday, August 13, 2009 - link

    Ah, so which part of the Laws of Thermodynamics did you skip in school?

    You can't emit more power out (thermal or otherwise) than you took in.
    Reply
  • Griswold - Saturday, August 15, 2009 - link

    Thats not the point, dummy, its the maximum heat disssipation and that people mistake it for the power it draws from the wall plug. Got it? Reply
  • Eeqmcsq - Thursday, August 13, 2009 - link

    "The 800 series Phenom II X4 is gone, as are the DDR2-only Phenom II X4 940 and 920. Most of the 700 series is also done with."

    I can understand AMD ending the 800 series and the AM2+ only Phenom IIs. But is this statement saying that AMD won't upgrade their X3 720 to a faster triple core, despite better yields? Many people have said that the 720 is AMD's best bang-for-the-buck value. I'd think that AMD would update this segment also.
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now