Photoshop 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

We see similar results in our Photoshop benchmark, Vishera falls behind a bit as this test isn't threaded enough to showcase the platform's advantages.

3D Rendering Performance

Our new POV-Ray benchmark uses the latest beta binary (3.7RC6) and runs through both single and multithreaded versions of the popular raytracing benchmark.

Windows 8 - POV-Ray 3.7RC6 - Single Threaded

The latest POV-Ray test gives us a good look at single threaded performance. Here AMD was able to increase performance over the FX-8150 by 11%, however Intel's Core i5 3570K still manages to hold on to a 20% performance lead over the FX-8350.

Windows 8 - POV-Ray 3.7RC6 - Multi Threaded

Running the same benchmark but multithreaded puts AMD at the top. With the exception of the FX-6300, all of the AMD parts beat out their Intel counterparts.

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

Cinebench 11.5 paints an even more dire picture for AMD's single threaded performance - Intel manages a 40% advantage over the FX-8350.

Cinebench 11.5 - Multi-Threaded

Multithreaded performance however continues to be great.

Video Transcoding & Visual Studio 2012 Performance 3D Gaming Performance
Comments Locked


View All Comments

  • Granttamaid - Tuesday, June 11, 2013 - link

    Remember Price vs performance, AMD always win against intel. Well, intel has the fastest processor in the world,.... but, do you need all the intel's potential power? i don't think so.
    some people only use their computer for internet browsing even they have intel core i7.
  • pantong - Monday, July 8, 2013 - link

    I see most comments talking about how this card is shit.


    This card works great for what I need it to do. I host 7 servers on my computer on v boxes for my gaming community. Mine craft, ts, star made, cube world, ect... I don't get paid for my services and I need it cheap. This card give performance to host a lot of people on each on each core. From a low 4 people on cube world to 45+ on team speak.

    Why would I buy Intel for these purposes other than to spend money for same performance in the scenario and flaunt my epeen.?

    Performance is not based on score or GHz. Its based on money.
    So before saying this card is shit. Why not look at multiple applications that this card can be used it.

    As far as this scenario goes. Any unused CPU is lost money.
  • Ukdude21 - Thursday, August 15, 2013 - link

    You keep complaining about amd fanboys, but your obviously an intel fanboy... You sound completely immature with your constant us of LOL in caps.
    No need to get too excited about cpu's... They are just part of a machine that you use lol.
    Seriously you should not post on this website if you are just going to be a immature intel fanboy.
    You sound too young to be posting on this website anyways.
    "obnoxious insolence" you should re-read your post as it is completely obnoxious.
    Your attitude stinks -.-
  • Gholt - Thursday, August 29, 2013 - link

    All those Intel & AMD Fanboys.. Holy crap -_-
    I have an FX-8350 and had an i7 in the past.
    I went for the FX-8350 since it was so much cheaper compared to the i7 3770K while having almost identical performance, AMD just can't be beaten by their Price-Performance products, however Intel's best CPU's will Always be better than AMD's best, thats a fact to be known.
    BUT, that doesnt make AMD bad, like all these Intel ''Fanboys'' seem te think, Intel and AMD are both bad and good in their own way, get the fuck over it both you AMD AND Intel fanboys.
  • alcomenow - Friday, October 11, 2013 - link

    If you live in a hot and humid climate an FX processors would be a terrible value. Most people that live in central Florida use air-conditioning 80% to 90% of the year. For my uses the equivalent AMD CPU's have been tested and shown to consume about 65 watts more under full load and 11 watts under idle conditions than a comparable Intel CPU. Since I pay 100% of the electrical bill then buying a Intel CPU will become a significant cost saving purchase over 4 or 5 years.
    Well, 10 or 50 watts might not seem like it would cost much. If you factor in daily usage, a/c cost, and 4 years of ownership than the pennies start to add up.

    1w * 12hrs/day = 4.3kw/hrs/yr
    4.3kw * 0.8 a/c cost = 7.7kw * $0.11 kw/hrs = $0.85 yr
    $0.85 * 4 yr = $3.40 per watt
    example $3.40 * 30w = $102

    1w * 24hrs/day = 8.6kw/hrs/yr
    8.6kw * 0.8 a/c cost = 15.4kw * $0.11 kw/hrs = $1.7 yr
    $01.7 * 4 yr = $6.80 per watt
    example $6.80 * 50w = $340

    If I was building someone a budget gaming desktop, I would recommend spending $130 on a Intel Core i3-3225 Ivy Bridge 3.3GHz LGA 1155 55W Dual-Core Desktop Processor Intel HD Graphics 4000 running at stock speeds instead of spend $120 on a AMD FX-6300 Vishera 3.5GHz (4.1GHz Turbo) Socket AM3+ 95W Six-Core Desktop Processor even if overclocked to 4GHz. 
  • ToeringsNthong - Saturday, January 11, 2014 - link

    Quote""Single threaded performance is my biggest concern, and compared to Sandy Bridge there's a good 40-50% advantage the i5 2500K enjoys over the FX-8150"I know this is an old post BUT i just bought its big bother the FX 8350 for $129.99 ,and they are saying the same thing,poor single thread performance.I say WHO CARES? I know most people that have 1/2 a brain don't care!! Most people buy this CPU for gaming !What games can you name are single threaded???unless you go back to the stone age ! and are playing the very 1st battlefield 1942?thats all i do is game and transcode videos and dollar to dollar this thing kicks intels a s s! so case closed!!!! AMD all the way FTW
  • mersastra - Thursday, January 16, 2014 - link

    1st time in ages pondering an upgrade , why I don't know as what I have doe's everything i need to , I don't game by the way. Sitting on Phenom11 Quad 965 Black Edition , gently O/c to 3.7ghz . Asus M4A88TD-evo with 16GB of memory. Not impressed with bench marks in the least , used to laugh at them with lenses when I used to do photography , meaningless in the real world mostly. pondering this chip , currently about £143. Been building machines since 286 days and always use AMD , never let me down , have been with several Intel ones. If AMD went bust leaving Intel with a monopoly, would price out of our reach. My thoughts anyway. Not really bothered which chip as long as it works , each to their own , don't understand the squabbling. lol.
  • LBJ - Saturday, January 18, 2014 - link

    Did you look at the games benchmarks in this review? It's not that games only use a single thread, it's that plenty of games are no optimised well for multi-threaded CPUs. If we're talking about BF4 fine, the FX chips will perform well against Intel, but it's clear from these benchmarks that in plenty of titles from the past few years that the poor per-core performance of the AMD chips does hamper its gaming potential.
  • Chromatose - Sunday, February 2, 2014 - link

    And the fanboyism repeats itself again.... AMD is slowly creeping up to Intel, eventually they would have to be equal. AMD does good at 3D modelling, video editing and gaming, Intel is suited more for video editing, rendering and graphics. AMD is low price and value. If you can OC it properly and with good cooling, it beats Intel in SOME areas. Intel, on the other hand, can deliver a tad more power with lower clock speeds.

    AMD has less framerate from Intel, but only a *slight* difference in performance. AMD is known to have weak cores and make it up by adding 8. Intel has slightly more power in each core, but mainly goes up to 6 cores.

    My conclusion? AMD should stop fighting with Intel and slowly work their way up from there.
  • Melcinitan - Thursday, June 19, 2014 - link

    Ok people,lets just agree that nothing is free of charge.We HAVE TO PAY to get these badboys on our pcs so you can stop bitchin about "price dont matter".
    AMD FX 8320 is around 160$.lets check for the same price to intel right?Intel - Core i3 Dual-core i3-4340 is what i found on the net after a quick search. If you tell me that i3 guy can best FX 8320 than yep Intel is the winner.But if you try to compare i7 and this fx guy,thats wrong.
    I think amd tries to sell cpus to middle-class folks who only wants to have best performance with a weak salary and Intel is trying to do the best of the bests regarding how much it will cost. If you have lots of money buy an intel and have fun of it. If you dont have that much money but still need some performance go for AMD.

    My opinion is giving half the money and have a tick less of performance.I'll live.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now