Benchmark Results: Photoshop CS4
For this test, we ran Driverheaven.net's Photoshop benchmark script, using the default test image. The script runs several filters in sequence: Texturizer, CMYK Color Conversion, RGB Color Conversion, Ink Outlines, Dust & Scratches, Watercolor, Texturizer, Stained Glass, Lighting Effects, Mosaic Tiles, Extrude, Smart Blur, Underpainting, Palette Knife, and Sponge.
The red line says it all: Adobe Photoshop CS4, or more precisely, the filters used in the benchmark script, do not fully utilize both cores (Ed.: our own in-house Photoshop CS4 benchmark, on the other hand, is made up of threaded filters, so your mileage may vary).
The performance graph looks familiar, doesn't it? First, let’s talk results. If these numbers are to be believed, Photoshop (or at least the filters used in the benchmark) are more sensitive to clock rate than cache size. We already know they're not multi-threaded, so that’s not a factor. If the filters were, in fact, threaded, we wouldn’t see the Athlon II X2 250 offering more performance than the Phenom II X3 710. Remember, the 6MB L3 cache should have (using the term loosely here) compensated for the 400 MHz difference in clock.
Since the difference in power consumption is lower than the difference in time spent running the benchmark, total power consumption numbers favor the quad-core processors again.
Latest Tweaking & Tuning News
Latest Tweaking & Tuning reviews
- 11/05 – Do-It-Yourself: Upgrading Apple's 27" iMac With An SSD
- 17/04 – Overclocking: Asus Rampage IV Extreme Versus EVGA X79 FTW
- 30/03 – System Builder Marathon Bonus: Newegg Customer Choice PC
- 29/03 – System Builder Marathon, March 2012: System Value Compared
- 28/03 – System Builder Marathon, March 2012: $2600 Performance PC
I would have liked to see how the quad 810 processor would have gone, considering it is just one peg above the triple core 720, and a few pegs below the 945 and 955 - perhaps it yields a nice balance/performance/voltage ratio? Certainly interesting given that it is a 95w processor, but possessing four cores, I guess that it would have trumped the 720. Maybe AMD sponsors these articles, and have to sell a few more 720s first.
AMD 810 FTW
I doubt AMD sponsors these. Have you seen how poorly the 710 does at DivX? I doubt that DivX will change their code for triple core CPUs, so the 720 will behave similarly to the 710. In addition, this guide is an AMD-only guide.