Content Creation Performance

Adobe Photoshop CS4

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

Our Photoshop test is well threaded but it doesn't peg all cores constantly. Instead you get burstier behavior. With the core count advantage out of the way, SNB-E steps aside and allows the 3770K to step up as the fastest CPU we've tested here. The performance advantage over the 2600K is around 9%.

3dsmax 9

Today's desktop processors are more than fast enough to do professional level 3D rendering at home. To look at performance under 3dsmax we ran the SPECapc 3dsmax 8 benchmark (only the CPU rendering tests) under 3dsmax 9 SP1. The results reported are the rendering composite scores.

3dsmax r9 - SPECapc 3dsmax 8 CPU Test

In another FP heavy workload we see a pretty reasonable gain for Ivy Bridge: 8.5% over a 2600K. This isn't enough to make you want to abandon your Sandy Bridge, but it's a good step forward for a tick.

Cinebench 11.5

Created by the Cinema 4D folks we have Cinebench, a popular 3D rendering benchmark that gives us both single and multi-threaded 3D rendering results.

Cinebench 11.5 - Single Threaded

The single threaded Cinebench test shows a 9% performance advantage for the 3770K over the 2600K. The gap increases slightly to 11% as we look at the multithreaded results:

Cinebench 11.5 - Multi-Threaded

If you're running a workload that can really stress multiple cores, the 6-core Sandy Bridge E parts will remain unstoppable but in the quad-core world, Ivy Bridge leads the pack.

General Performance Video Transcoding & Software Development Performance
POST A COMMENT

195 Comments

View All Comments

  • retrospooty - Wednesday, March 07, 2012 - link

    "Nice to see AMD winning where it actually matters for most consumer applications."

    I dont see how you can look at these (or any) benchmark and call it a win for AMD. Intel is smoking them. A few useless integrated graphics benchmarks and you call it a win? Hey, I hear RIM is looking for a new PR rep, they could really use a guy like you. ;)
    Reply
  • juampavalverde - Tuesday, March 06, 2012 - link

    IGP performance is nice, but no comments about the subjective quality, i have seen side to side HD Graphics 2000 vs Radeon IGP and the graphics quality was night and day, with the radeon being the day...
    I dont know whats needed to do properly integrated graphics, but seems intel still lacks...
    Reply
  • nuha_te10 - Tuesday, March 06, 2012 - link

    Yes,people standard are different. For gamer intel IGP might suck, but it's more than enough for me.If I buy Llano, the graphic core might be just a wasted silicon because I don't really do gaming.Buy 1 if you only need 1 Reply
  • lowenz - Tuesday, March 06, 2012 - link

    OK, DirectCompute is supported by the GPU: we see the fluid benchmark in review.

    But GPU is OpenCL 1.1/1.2 compliant?
    Reply
  • ltcommanderdata - Tuesday, March 06, 2012 - link

    You mentioned in your intro about the Intel-Apple exclusivity agreement being up and Apple constantly pushing Intel for better GPU performance. Do you think Ivy Bridge has made sufficient gains in GPU performance to keep Apple on board? Have you had a chance to test Ivy Bridge's IGP OpenCL performance since that seems like a particular area of interest for Apple? Reply
  • tipoo - Tuesday, March 06, 2012 - link

    I think its sure that they will. They chose a weaker CPU in favour of a stronger IGP (9400 and Core 2 Duo) before, but now we're at a point where the HD4000 would be more than adequate for Mountain Lion and probably onwards, plus Intel is way ahead with 22nm and the resulting power draw as well as CPU performance, and I think Apple uses Quicksync for Airplay which is Intel-only. Reply
  • Exodite - Wednesday, March 07, 2012 - link

    It really depends on your workload.

    Personally I need CPU grunt far more than GPU grunt, which I suppose means I wouldn't even strictly need the 4K class GPU.

    But it's 'free' so I'll take it. :)
    Reply
  • tipoo - Tuesday, March 06, 2012 - link

    The top end models which would probably be paired with a discreet card get decent integrated graphics, while the low end ones which will probably be standalone get cut down IGPs. Odd. If anything I think on the top end people would want models with less space used on integrated graphics with that headroom used for higher clocks or lower prices, even the cut down IGPs can do Quicksync.

    Also a suggestion for the full review, we know pretty much to expect from the HD4000 performance wise, but what about image quality? AMD and Nvidia improved things generation after generation, and I doubt Intel got it right with their first or second serious foray into lower-midrange graphics.
    Reply
  • lowenz - Tuesday, March 06, 2012 - link

    Apple?
    If IGP supports OpenCL as well as DirectCompute there's no more reason for a AMD APU for pro users not gamers.
    Reply
  • tipoo - Tuesday, March 06, 2012 - link

    Seriously, this is too much, its fine that you have an opinion and I might not have a problem with it if you posted it once, but you post the same damn thing on every article whether its related or not and usually multiple times, someone just please do us all a favour and ban this guy and delete his comments? Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now