SYSMark 2007 Performance

Our journey starts with SYSMark 2007, the only all-encompassing performance suite in our review today. The idea here is simple: one benchmark to indicate the overall performance of your machine.

SYSMark 2007 - Overall

SYSMark 2007 is getting very long in the tooth and we're still another couple of quarters away from an updated version for 2011. That being said, it does function as a good representation of lightly threaded application performance. There's little to gain from moving to four cores here and basically nothing to be seen from the move to six cores. The Phenom II X6 1100T is within several percent of the performance of its Core i5/i7 competitors.

The lack of an L3 cache holds the Athlon II back, which is made evident by the solid performance increase seen by the 565 BE. Both of these parts are around 10% off of their competitive performance targets.

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 Benchmark

In our Photoshop CS4 test, AMD has effectively equalled the performance of the Core i5 with the Phenom II X6 1100T. The i7 860 is a bit faster but the i5 comparison is very close. The Athlon II X3 455 is 15% faster than its closest competitor, the Pentium G6950. The Phenom II X2 565 BE doesn't get many points for its large cache, it's the third core that puts the Athlon II X3 ahead here.

Introduction 3D Rendering Performance
Comments Locked


View All Comments

  • vol7ron - Tuesday, December 7, 2010 - link

    "today we're getting speed bumps"

    Usually this term is associated with a slow down, not a push forward - you slow down at the speed bump. It's sort of like how you don't associate a stop sign with accelerating as fast as you can, which many do right after.

    Other Thoughts: Perhaps you meant speed burst?
  • fic2 - Tuesday, December 7, 2010 - link

    Apparently you don't know that words can have multiple meanings.
    See #5 from

    bump (bmp)
    v. bumped, bump·ing, bumps
    1. To strike or collide with.
    2. To cause to knock against an obstacle.
    a. To knock to a new position; shift: bumped the crate out of the way.
    b. To shake up and down; jolt: bumped the child on her knee; was bumped about on a rough flight.
    a. To displace from a position within a group or organization.
    b. To deprive (a passenger) of a reserved seat because of overbooking.
    5. To raise; boost: bump up the price of gasoline.
    6. Sports To pass (a volleyball) by redirecting it with the forearms.
  • jabber - Tuesday, December 7, 2010 - link

    We shall see. If Intel has been 100% successful and reliable in one aspect of computing its dissapointing with its GPU performance.

    Always a lot of bluster and pre-release pomp about how it will be many times better than the previous piece of crap and then it hits the floor like a dead moose dropped from 50 feet.

    I dont see that changing radically.
  • kwantor - Tuesday, December 7, 2010 - link

    How does that work exactly?

    On 2560x yes, you should get 100+fps on 1024x.
  • MrSpadge - Tuesday, December 7, 2010 - link

    They're using "Ultra CPU" settings to stress the CPUs. People are probably not really running the game like this.

  • nitrousoxide - Tuesday, December 7, 2010 - link

    It will be bulldozed by eight-core SNB-E, but surely it will bulldoze quad-core SNBs.
  • flyck - Wednesday, December 8, 2010 - link

    lets wait and see shall we. If each BD core is faster then each K8 core it might be very close to it.
  • MrSpadge - Tuesday, December 7, 2010 - link

    Not sure about the US, but here in Germany the i7 860 has effectively been replaced by the i7 870 since a couple of months. It's 1 - 2 multipliers faster for a small price premium. Currently the 1100T is actually priced a hair above the 870.

    Given the approxiamte tie in threaded apps and wins for the 870 in lightly threaded apps and power consumption at any load level I'd certainly go with that one.

  • dertechie - Tuesday, December 7, 2010 - link

    They're comparing to i7 860 since they already have one on hand to play with, I suspect.
  • mapesdhs - Tuesday, December 7, 2010 - link

    MrSpadge is right; when I went looking for one recently, I noticed many
    stores had the 860 priced higher than the 870, or the gap was so small
    that the 860 made no sense. So I bought an 870 instead.

    Btw, it's a bit misleading IMO to include AMD oc results and yet not at
    least briefly mention how well the Intel chips also oc, especially given earlier
    reviews here of the i3 and other options, eg. I get 6.88 for Cinebench 11 with
    my oc'd 870, 20442 for Cinebench 10 (and this isn't on the high side either).

    I've found the 870 to oc better than my older 860 aswell, and not just because
    of the base clock difference. It just seems to work better. I'm sure I could push
    it to 4.5+, but there's no need for this on a gaming rig with two GTX 460s SLI.
    Indeed, so far I find game fps scores are better with HT turned off and a
    higher CPU clock, so even more headroom is possible (confirmed this effect
    with 3DMark06, Unigine Heaven, Stalker COP and X3TC so far). With the
    same Vcore/VTT, my 870 was ok at 4444 instead of 4270 with HT off, and
    temps were lower. If you want max 3DMark06 overall scores, leave HT on;
    to max out game fps rates though, try turning HT off and increase the raw
    clock (I'd like to know which games benefits from HT - none of my current
    tests show any gain).

    Hmm, the '3dsmax 9 - SPECapc' test looks interesting, might give that a spin.
    Is that a separate download to Viewperf 11?


Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now