Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

e4300 vs q6700 for photoshop use... noticeable difference?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
January 21, 2007 2:47:40 PM

If I'm running ONLY photoshop and maybe a web browser... will I notice signifcant performance differences between the 2 processors?

I batch process a lot of RAW photos and do a ton of actions & image editing.

I'm really NOT interested in playing games and using photoshop at the same time (maybe asside from running a simple batch output in the background).

Maybe someone knows of some bechmarks?

Thanks!
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
January 21, 2007 3:09:06 PM

You are considering one of the highest end CPu from intel to the lowest (based on Conroe/allendale).

It is a bit weird that you budget is that far appart! I would say that the e4300 will probably give you enough horsepower, it also depends on what you are upgrading from.
January 21, 2007 3:22:28 PM

Quote:
You are considering one of the highest end CPu from intel to the lowest (based on Conroe/allendale).

It is a bit weird that you budget is that far appart! I would say that the e4300 will probably give you enough horsepower, it also depends on what you are upgrading from.


Yeah, I'm either going really high end... or pretty lowend. If there isn't much of difference (noticeable to a human) yet for photoshop, I'd wait on a quad core.

Going middle of the road seems to be an waste.
Related resources
January 21, 2007 3:39:00 PM

Quote:
If I'm running ONLY photoshop and maybe a web browser... will I notice signifcant performance differences between the 2 processors?

I batch process a lot of RAW photos and do a ton of actions & image editing.

I'm really NOT interested in playing games and using photoshop at the same time (maybe asside from running a simple batch output in the background).

Maybe someone knows of some bechmarks?

Thanks!


I've only seen a couple E4300 benches and I don't remember either one using a Photoshop bench. Look at this Anandtech article as a starting point. So you have a ton of details to fill in about your plans and needs. For example, are you an occasional Photoshop user making a few manual tweaks and pushing a few 5-10MB images through or will you be running hours a day with many large images, using CPU-intensive macros? Do you plan to overclock if you go with a 4300? Etc. Etc. Because there's no doubt that if you're a hardcore Photoshop user that you'll see a big difference between a stock 4300 and a stock q6700. Just go search out some Q6700 reviews that compare Photoshop benches vs the 6800 and then use the above Anandtech article to guesstrapolate down to the 4300. Their differences for multithreaded apps are not subtle.
January 21, 2007 3:39:40 PM

go with the 6400 and overclock it to 6600 speeds, saving yourself some money. Get some really good ram. The quad core would be nice, but I don't think that photoshop is optimized for 4 cores. I know it is multithreaded, but i think only 2 threads (someone correct me if I'm wrong).
January 21, 2007 3:55:06 PM

Quote:
If I'm running ONLY photoshop and maybe a web browser... will I notice signifcant performance differences between the 2 processors?

I batch process a lot of RAW photos and do a ton of actions & image editing.

I'm really NOT interested in playing games and using photoshop at the same time (maybe asside from running a simple batch output in the background).

Maybe someone knows of some bechmarks?

Thanks!


I've only seen a couple E4300 benches and I don't remember either one using a Photoshop bench. Look at this Anandtech article as a starting point. So you have a ton of details to fill in about your plans and needs. For example, are you an occasional Photoshop user making a few manual tweaks and pushing a few 5-10MB images through or will you be running hours a day with many large images, using CPU-intensive macros? Do you plan to overclock if you go with a 4300? Etc. Etc. Because there's no doubt that if you're a hardcore Photoshop user that you'll see a big difference between a stock 4300 and a stock q6700. Just go search out some Q6700 reviews that compare Photoshop benches vs the 6800 and then use the above Anandtech article to guesstrapolate down to the 4300. Their differences for multithreaded apps are not subtle.

Thanks.

Basically, I spend about 12 hours a week in photoshop editing about 1000 6mb pictures (per week)... pobably about 300-500 manually edits, the rest are batch. Yes, I do use a lot of actions (a.k.a. macros).

Yes, I will plan on overclocking to stable speeds.

I'd say I spend about 300-500 hours per year in front of the photoshop application editing photos (excluding batch processing).


If the difference in time savings per year is a only 10-30 hours of my time (e.g. waiting for pictures to open and actions to run while I'm in front of the computer... long batch processing doesn't bother me... I can do something else while it runs) - I'd rather save $800 on a CPU.

Thanks for the article.
January 21, 2007 3:56:57 PM

Quote:
go with the 6400 and overclock it to 6600 speeds, saving yourself some money. Get some really good ram. The quad core would be nice, but I don't think that photoshop is optimized for 4 cores. I know it is multithreaded, but i think only 2 threads (someone correct me if I'm wrong).


you think the 4300 vs. 6400 is a good trade-off? Why is that? Thanks!

Does the extra cache of the 6600 help photoshop?
January 21, 2007 4:12:41 PM

well, if you want go with the 6600 for the 4mb of cache, i'm not sure how big of a difference the cache makes performance wise. the 6600 runs at higher speeds at a lower voltage which means less heat compared to getting a 6400 or a 4300 and overclocking. Also with a 6600 it has a higher multiplier allowing you to go easier on the fsb if you wish. maybe someone can put in their 2 cents on the difference between 6400 and 6600.
January 21, 2007 4:15:43 PM

Quote:
well, if you want go with the 6600 for the 4mb of cache, i'm not sure how big of a difference the cache makes performance wise. the 6600 runs at higher speeds at a lower voltage which means less heat compared to getting a 6400 or a 4300 and overclocking. Also with a 6600 it has a higher multiplier allowing you to go easier on the fsb if you wish. maybe someone can put in their 2 cents on the difference between 6400 and 6600.


As I see it now, there are three Core 2 chips worth buying:
LOW END:
If you're going to get a E63/400, you're better off getting the E4300.
Higher multiplier and same cache, plus cheaper.
MID RANGE:
If you need 4M cache, you're better off getting the E6600.
HIGH END:
If you need quad core, you're best off getting the QX6700. The Q6600 isn't worth it.
January 21, 2007 4:33:55 PM

Try this or here for some benchies. It looks like the above statement of photoshop only using two threads is correct in this scenario.
January 21, 2007 4:41:32 PM

how is the Q6600 not worth it? its cheaper and could be easily overclocked to atleast Q6700 levels and beyond with a little tweaking...
January 21, 2007 5:26:04 PM

Quote:
Try this or here for some benchies. It looks like the above statement of photoshop only using two threads is correct in this scenario.


I've seen a task manager screenshot of a quad running Photoshop CS3 running on all four cores and have seen forum discussions such as this that claim CS3 is fully multithreaded for 8 cores. I have not yet loaded the CS3 beta but plan to on one of my non-image processing boxes to check it out. The upgrade from 7 to CS2 was certaqinly worth the $175, but I'd have to see something real to send more bucks Adobe's way.
January 21, 2007 5:41:40 PM

Quote:
Try this or here for some benchies. It looks like the above statement of photoshop only using two threads is correct in this scenario.


I've seen a task manager screenshot of a quad running Photoshop CS3 running on all four cores and have seen forum discussions such as this that claim CS3 is fully multithreaded for 8 cores. I have not yet loaded the CS3 beta but plan to on one of my non-image processing boxes to check it out. The upgrade from 7 to CS2 was certaqinly worth the $175, but I'd have to see something real to send more bucks Adobe's way.

awesome info, so the question is what version will the OP be running? Going from 2 to 4 threads will give you more of a boost than an overclock ever could.
January 21, 2007 5:47:19 PM

Quote:
Try this or here for some benchies. It looks like the above statement of photoshop only using two threads is correct in this scenario.


I've seen a task manager screenshot of a quad running Photoshop CS3 running on all four cores and have seen forum discussions such as this that claim CS3 is fully multithreaded for 8 cores. I have not yet loaded the CS3 beta but plan to on one of my non-image processing boxes to check it out. The upgrade from 7 to CS2 was certaqinly worth the $175, but I'd have to see something real to send more bucks Adobe's way.

awesome info, so the question is what version will the OP be running? Going from 2 to 4 threads will give you more of a boost than an overclock ever could.

Good question. I just read some more Adobe info and it looks like you have to own a valid CS2 license in order to get the free CS3 beta. I also found this which show that not all CS3 components benefit equally from extra cores. Interesting, must read on...
January 21, 2007 5:58:51 PM

The do specifically call out one of the OP's qualifiers in the article, being the smaller RAW data and filter effects. They're saying little to no gains by going to quad.
January 21, 2007 6:03:55 PM

Quote:
how is the Q6600 not worth it? its cheaper and could be easily overclocked to atleast Q6700 levels and beyond with a little tweaking...

Q6600, $851
QX6700, $999
Price difference, <$150

Main difference: Unlocked multipliers.

From the E6700 to the X6800, one has to pay almost 89% more to get unlocked multipliers.
From the Q6600 to the QX6700, one has to pay about 17% more to get unlocked multipliers. IMO, if you're spending $850 on a CPU, you're not going to be prioritizing "cheap" very highly.
January 21, 2007 6:34:55 PM

Quote:
The do specifically call out one of the OP's qualifiers in the article, being the smaller RAW data and filter effects. They're saying little to no gains by going to quad.


Yes indeed. My PShop usage is sporadic but I get occasionally into a project such as a multistep PShop tweak of a hundred 60MB images that needs to be turned around fast. Such a project can require me to use all three of my image processing boxes at once. I see a huge performance difference comparing a 2.6GHz P4 to a 4400+ that is at 2.6 and an Opty 170 at 2.7. Sure, that's completely apples and oranges, but I'm not just talking 2X faster, the AMDs are over 3X faster. And none of my PCs could hold a candle to an OC'ed C2D let alone C2Q. When I do hobby stuff, such as my personal snapshots (8MB) to put in the family photo album, the CPU factor is pretty minimal because I spend much more time pushing the mouse around.
January 21, 2007 7:30:54 PM

I don't remember 850 being the price that the Q6600 was going to eventually settle down at...nevertheless at that point your right $150 isn't much
January 22, 2007 12:21:10 AM

How about this plan, get the E4300 now, and if your not satisfy, just wait until Q2 when the price for the Intel CPUs drop 30-40%. It's like a free CPU no?
January 24, 2007 8:14:06 PM

Quote:
How about this plan, get the E4300 now, and if your not satisfy, just wait until Q2 when the price for the Intel CPUs drop 30-40%. It's like a free CPU no?


Very true - good plan. We know the prices of the Quads are dropping in the 2nd/3rd quarter.

What is better for Photoshop? The Q6700 by far - especially for CPU intensive processing. From a real world Photoshop comparison thread I saw before (possibly linked in this thread - not sure), the Quads come close to being twice as fast as the fastest dual.

BUT - you also said that you don't really care if it takes longer, as you do big batches and walk away. If that's truly the case, then I say go for the E4300.

The E4300 is not slow by any means, and the price point is MUCH better.

FYI - I do a lot of intensive VFX rendering, and I just bought a E6600.
I'd prefer the Q6700 - but I can't afford/justify the price atm. I put my money towards more harddrives and a nicer monitor. In 8-12 months, I may get my Quad when the prices fall.

The E4300 would work too, but I will use the extra 2MB cache as well as the less heat and higher overclock (theoretical). The price between the 6600 and 4300 was not enough for me. But then again, my CPU is going to be pinned for much longer than just Photoshop batches.
The E4300 is very advantageous to many people.

Unless you're running a business where time is money, or you just have too much money to burn, I'd say get a dual core for the moment.
Get the E4300, and with the extra money you can get:
- 4GB or RAM (photoshop is mem hog. Windows XP only recognizes 3MB, but you can run 1GB for the OS, and 3GB for Photoshop. (At least with a patch, I can do this with Fusion). Or just run Vista.
- bigger/faster harddrive. Raptor? Gigabyte I-Drive thingie (DDR400 hard drive)
- bigger/better monitor.
You'll probably notice the difference in any of those over the Quad for your application.
!